NewzDeputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar on Friday warned India that any attempt to deprive Pakistan of waters allocated under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) could have "profound consequences" for regional peace and security, while calling for the decades-old agreement to be respected and implemented. Addressing a virtual seminar in Washington on "The Indus Waters Treaty: South Asian Security at the Crossroads", Dar said the 1960 treaty remained "valid, binding and fully operative" despite India's unilateral decision in April 2025 to place its obligations under the agreement in abeyance. The foreign minister said the treaty had survived wars, military crises, diplomatic breakdowns and prolonged political tensions for more than six decades because both countries recognised that water on which hundreds of millions depended was too fundamental to be subjected to political fluctuations.
Dar said Pakistan had consistently sought to resolve differences through dialogue, diplomacy and mechanisms provided under the treaty. He pointed to continuing treaty-based proceedings concerning Indian hydroelectric projects, particularly Kishenganga and Ratle, as evidence that the agreed legal framework remained relevant. The deputy prime minister stressed that approaching the Permanent Indus Commission, a neutral expert or the Court of Arbitration was not an act of confrontation but implementation of mechanisms agreed by both countries.
Separately, speaking in London at the conclusion of his August 24-28 visit, Dar said British officials had praised Pakistan's mediation efforts between the United States and Iran during his visit to the UK, particularly the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir. Dar described the trip as "extremely useful" and said that he had held comprehensive talks with British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband on bilateral relations and counter-terrorism cooperation. He added his discussions with Commonwealth Secretary-General Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey focused on reforms and youth initiatives, while he also highlighted Pakistan's vulnerability to climate change.
Dar said he had held detailed meetings over 10 Pakistani nationals held hostage aboard the MT Honour 25 by Somali pirates, stressing that international maritime rules prohibited ransom payments because they could encourage piracy. Addressing virtually a seminar titled “The Indus Waters Treaty: South Asian Security at the Crossroads”, organised by the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, Dar said the treaty remained valid and binding despite India’s unilateral decision to place it in “abeyance”. He described the treaty as more than an agreement governing water, saying it provided a legal framework for managing a vital shared resource and had served as an instrument of regional stability.
Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar @MIshaqDar50 delivered a keynote address via a recorded video message at the seminar on “The Indus Waters Treaty: South Asian Security at the Crossroads,” organized by the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington… pic.twitter.com/kKP8a4NzY9 — Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) August 28, 2026 Its continued relevance, he suggested, had now become a test of the sanctity of international agreements and the principle that treaty obligations could not be set aside through unilateral political decisions. Pakistan and India concluded the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960 after years of negotiations facilitated by the World Bank, establishing a framework for the management of the Indus Basin. “The three Eastern Rivers, the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, were allocated to India for unrestricted use, while the waters of the three Western Rivers, the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, were allocated for Pakistan's unrestricted use, subject to the specific and carefully defined uses permitted to India under the Treaty,” he said.
Dar said the treaty had replaced upstream discretion with mutually agreed rules and established the Permanent Indus Commission, alongside mechanisms for dealing with questions, differences and disputes which also included government-to-government engagement, a Neutral Expert and, where required, a Court of Arbitration.
Summary from source