The Hindu Kush–Himalaya–Karakoram mountain range, which is frequently referred to as the” Third Pole” because of its huge glacier reserves, provides people in South Asia with essential water sources, particularly in India and Pakistan.  ,
These glaciers reserves feed into rivers that run upstream to India and Pakistan, supporting both countries ‘ communities, agriculture, and home water needs. However, this area has become more resilient as a result of the fast accelerating effects of climate change.
Research comparing the years 2000–2009 and 2010–2019 found that the rate of glacier melt has increased by 65 %, leading to an increase in water supply in the near future but posing severe long-term dangers of water scarcity and chaotic movement systems.
The stakes couldn’t get higher for Pakistan. Low foreign direct investment, prolonged political volatility, and deteriorating security problems have severely hampered the country’s economy, which is mostly economic.
In consequence, the agricultural industry, which is heavily dependent on the Indus River system, continues to provide the majority of lives. Both canal water and water recovery are highly reliant on farmers and smallholder agribusinesses.
But, groundwater is being extracted in some places at untenable rates, with aquifers showing disturbing levels of depletion. The government’s agriculture is still in decline, but the extended overextraction threatens both the future availability of water and its long-term viability.
In this context, India’s recent decision to “abey” the Indus Waters Treaty ( IWT ) has sparked alarm in Pakistan, with Islamabad officials calling the suspension an “act of war.” Starting with the provisions of the treaty itself, the viability of such a disqualification and, more important, its effects, must become thoroughly evaluated.
The treaty, which President Ayub and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru signed in 1960, specifically gave India the waters of the western rivers ( Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab ) and the eastern rivers ‘ waters ( Ravi, Sutlej, Beas ) to them. In the end, the treaty resulted in the receiving of 20 % of the water from the Indus River system to India, while 80 % of the water did Pakistan receive.
Although India has the right to use all of its resources, about 2 million acres of ocean still flows into Pakistan from the River Ravi. Two rivers, Indus and Sutlej, originate in Tibet but pass through India before entering Pakistan, while four of the six rivers ( Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab ) are entirely indigenous.
This geographical dominance gives India an upper downstream position, which is one of the reasons Pakistan has expressed concern about India’s downstream dominance. The Sutlej and Ravi river ‘ waters must flow freely before entering Pakistan’s place. Pakistan is required to allow for this to happen.
Before the streams have suddenly crossed into Pakistan, Pakistan may deflect these lakes in the reaches. In other words, Pakistan is unable to remove water for large-scale watering or storage even though these rivers may go through some of Pakistan if they haven’t actually entered the country.
Any river that joins Pakistan’s country becomes Pakistan’s unlimited water supply when these tributaries enter the country, and if Pakistan adds any water from those tributaries downstream before the last crossing, India cannot use that water, and both nations are required to keep records of flows.
For the lakes of Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, Pakistan has full, unrestricted access to the ocean, and India is legally obliged to allow the waters to flow freely to Pakistan without any detour or delay. In terms of Pakistan, India is prohibited from stifling the flow of northern rivers, aside from the portion of the river’s drainage basin on the American side.
Both sides may employ rivers for non-consumptive purposes, but the treaty states that both sides may do so may not change the flow in ways that may impair the other country’s constitutional status.
However, both nations are permitted to perform dredging, degradation control, and gravel, stone, and sand removal in ways that don’t hurt the other country.  ,
What India has made an implication from its expulsion speech is “interference” with the lakes, as of right now. Interference is any natural obstruction of the flow of water that can alter the country’s normal flow of water, as defined by the treaty, but this obstruction may only result in minor and extraneous changes caused by temporary bypasses or bridge piers.
Additionally, a thorough decision process is in place in the event that a problem contradicts the terms of the treaty. Perhaps a rudimentary dispute may indicate a infraction, and the Indus Waters Commission should do so in the first instance.
Each commissioner has the right to send the matter to be handled by a natural expert if there is a disagreement that turns into a difference. If the issue is deemed to be policy-related and is escalated to a full dispute if it doesn’t qualify for the natural professional’s jurisdiction or if the issue doesn’t count for the treaty’s” Negative” expert’s jurisdiction.
If a dispute has been identified, either inspector may request a report from the commission to both administrations, and the report may contain arguments between the commissioners, disagreements, and positions and logic of each director. Following diplomatic negotiations between institutions, where each of the parties is required to name their negotiators and set up a meeting place and time.
In three different ways, a court of arbitration can be established as a last resolution system: through mutual agreement between the two governments, through punitive request by one government after intergovernmental negotiations have begun, but by the party believing the dispute didn’t get settled in this way, and through punitive request if the invited party doesn’t listen or delays negotiations for more than a month.
India’s recent strong statement regarding the Indus Waters Treaty’s suspension and its use of the term “abeyance” could have a significant impact on the nation’s reputation abroad.
Any unilateral suspension would constitute a potential breach of international law, and the treaty does not contain any provision that would allow it to be held in abeyance. Such a move might undermine India’s standing as a trustworthy and accountable partner in international agreements.
A mere verbal declaration is neither sufficient nor legitimate, so it is important to point out that formal procedures must be followed when changing or withdrawing from treaties.
Although the availability of water in Pakistan has been a concern, the practical application of this declaration is much more complicated. Although India has an upper-riparian advantage, it is neither rational nor feasible to reduce or divert river flows during the upcoming monsoon season.
Diversion operations are technically challenging and risky due to the high water volume and flow velocity during this time and the wide riverbeds. Any water that is diverted could inundate Indian territory, causing unintended flooding.
However, if India takes these actions, the effects would be greater in the winter, when river flows are already at their lowest and Pakistan’s reliance on irrigation is at its highest.
Pakistani policymakers should reevaluate their internal water management strategies in light of the doubtful viability of India’s plan.
First, it emphasizes the need for improved water conservation techniques and a stoppage of the overuse of both surface and groundwater resources. Particularly, groundwater extraction has reached unsustainable levels, which is made worse by lack of regulatory oversight.
Surface water is also managed poorly, and large amounts of it are lost to evaporation from open canals in the summer due to inadequate infrastructure and the lack of lining in the irrigation system.
Additionally, floods waste a lot of water, which makes it necessary for better flood management and storage systems. Additionally, Pakistan’s economy is still heavily dependent on agriculture, a highly water-intensive industry.
Greater investment is required to diversify the economy and grow the industrial sectors to relieve pressure on water resources. In contrast to agriculture, where untreated or recycled water raises serious health and safety issues, industries are better equipped to use treated wastewater.
The author worked for the World Wildlife Fund as a researcher.