- India’s [illegal] announcement to hold IWT in abeyance constitutes a clear violation: FO spokesperson
- The IWT is an apolitical agreement without provisions for unilateral action: FO
- Terms ‘weaponising water for political ends’ irresponsible and contrary to behaviour of a responsible state
Statement by the Spokesperson Regarding Indian Home Minister’s Assertion that the Indus Waters Treaty Will Never be Restored.
Responding to media queries regarding the Indian Home Minister’s assertion that the Indus Waters Treaty will never be restored , the Spokesperson of the… pic.twitter.com/ndY9LfAkhk
— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) June 21, 2025
ISLAMABAD: The Foreign Office (FO) on Saturday slammed Indian Home Minister Amit Shah’s “assertion that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) will never be restored” as “brazen disregard” for the sanctity international agreements
“India’s [illegal] announcement to hold the IWT in abeyance “constitutes a clear violation” of international law, the provisions of the treaty itself, and the fundamental principles governing inter-state relations,” Foreign Office spokesperson Shafqat Ali Khan stated while responding to Shah’s comments.
“The IWT is an apolitical agreement without provisions for unilateral action,” the FO declared.
“No, it will never be restored,” Shah told The Times of India earlier on Saturday. “We will take water that was flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan by constructing a canal. Pakistan will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably.”
The latest comments from Shah, the most powerful cabinet minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cabinet, reveal Delhi’s intentions as Islamabad hopes for negotiations on the treaty in the near term.
“Such conduct sets a reckless and dangerous precedent—one that undermines the credibility of international agreements and raises serious questions about the reliability and trustworthiness of a state that openly refuses to fulfill its legal obligations.”
The FO added that “weaponizing water for political ends” is irresponsible and contrary to the behavior of a responsible state. It demanded that India immediately restore the full implementation of the IWT.
“For its part, Pakistan remains firmly committed to the treaty and will take all necessary measures to protect its legitimate rights and entitlements under it,” the statement concluded.
Delhi unilaterally suspended its participation in the 1960 IWT, which governs the usage of the Indus river system, on April 23, shortly after 26 civilians were killed in India-held Kashmir. Delhi, without evidence, blamed Islamabad for the attack. The latter has denied the allegations and called for a neutral probe. The accord remains dormant despite a ceasefire agreed upon by the two nuclear-armed neighbours last month following their worst fighting in decades.
Earlier in the month, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned India’s unilateral suspension of the IWT, describing it as a “blatant violation and act of water aggression”, and warned that Pakistan would give a befitting response in line with decisions made at the National Security Committee (NSC) meeting held on April 24.
Held Kashmir’s CM opposes diverting waters to other states
Earlier on Friday, Indian-held Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah opposed diverting the state’s waters to Punjab and other neighboring states now that the IWT with Pakistan stands suspended, asking why they should get more water when they already have three rivers while parts of the Union Territory are facing an acute water shortage, India’s Telegraph reported.
“Nobody will take it. At least I will not allow it as of now. First allow us to use our water, and then we will talk about others. There is a drought-like situation in Jammu. There is no water in the taps,” Abdullah told reporters.
Abdullah was reacting to the purported central government move to conduct a feasibility study for constructing a 113-km-long canal to direct the surplus flow from the three western rivers of the Indus water system, the report said.
“Why should I take water to Punjab? There are already three rivers in Punjab (and the other two states) under the Indus Waters Treaty. Did they give us water when we needed it?” he was quoted as having said.
