Pakistan rejects India’s UNSC remarks on Indus Waters Treaty as ‘distortion of facts’

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Thursday pushed back against India’s remarks at a United Nations Security Council debate on natural resource governance, accusing New Delhi of misrepresenting the position surrounding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and insisting that India’s move to place the pact in abeyance has no legal basis.

At the debate, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, said natural resources should advance sustainable development and prosperity rather than become tools of coercion, conflict or exploitation. He said weak governance, illicit extraction, outside interference, violations of international law and the UN Charter, and unequal sharing of benefits continued to drive instability, conflict and humanitarian crises in many settings.

Referring to Africa, Ahmad said Pakistan had long supported African countries in their efforts to exercise sovereign control over their natural wealth. He said lasting peace could not be achieved where major natural wealth existed alongside entrenched poverty and underdevelopment, and added that governance of natural resources must remain rooted in the UN Charter and international law.

Ahmad also cited General Assembly Resolution 1803, saying the right of peoples to permanent sovereignty over natural wealth and resources remained fundamental. He said international cooperation should build national capacity while respecting national ownership, priorities and policy space.

Pakistan raises India’s IWT move at UN debate

During his remarks, Ahmad highlighted India’s unilateral decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance and said Pakistan rejected the step as unlawful. He warned that the action threatened the livelihoods and well-being of more than 240 million people in Pakistan and said the treaty remained valid and binding under the August 2025 award of the Court of Arbitration.

He told the council that no state should be allowed to use shared water resources as a means of coercion or political pressure, particularly in violation of treaty obligations. Ahmad added that the matter carried wider security implications because it was unfolding against the backdrop of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, which he described as a longstanding flashpoint in South Asia.

According to Ahmad, the Security Council had an important responsibility when the exploitation or weaponisation of natural resources threatened international peace and security, whether through illicit extraction of minerals that fuelled conflict or unilateral moves involving shared resources in disregard of international law and treaty obligations. He said such situations required continued vigilance and that the council should use available tools, including preventive diplomacy, peaceful dispute resolution, sanctions regimes and monitoring mechanisms.

Pakistan replies to Indian envoy’s allegations

After Ahmad’s intervention, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, accused Pakistan of state-sponsored cross-border terrorism and said this had undermined the basis for bilateral cooperation under the treaty. He also reiterated New Delhi’s position on occupied Kashmir.

In response, Pakistan’s First Secretary Ansar Shah said India’s statement was misleading and represented an attempt to distort facts and mischaracterise the situation.

Attributing Pakistan’s response to Shah, the country’s mission said the treaty did not contain any provision allowing what India described as abeyance. Shah also said the Permanent Court of Arbitration had reaffirmed in August 2025 that the treaty remained valid, binding and fully operational, including its dispute settlement mechanisms.

“The treaty contains no provision whatsoever permitting its so-called abeyance. India’s unilateral action is simply illegal,” he said.

Shah said India’s use of a shared natural resource for political coercion, with what he described as the stated aim of starving Pakistan’s population, amounted to a grave breach of legal instruments and international norms. He said the issue posed a direct threat to regional and international peace and security and was therefore relevant to the council’s debate.

Responding to Indian allegations on terrorism, Shah called the assertion baseless and said it was intended to hide India’s own sponsorship and financing of terrorism against Pakistan. He said India’s alleged proxies, including the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, Balochistan Liberation Army and Majeed Brigade, had killed thousands of civilians and law enforcement personnel, including women and children, in Pakistan.

“India’s terrorist proxies — the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, Balochistan Liberation Army and Majeed Brigade — have killed thousands of civilians and law enforcement personnel, including women and children on our soil,” Shah said.

He further said India’s involvement in extraterritorial executions in North America was well known and rejected the notion that India was a victim of terrorism.

“India is not a victim of terrorism. It is a sponsor of terrorism,” he said.

Shah also accused India of state terrorism in occupied Kashmir and said the people of the territory were being denied their right to self-determination in violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions. He added that India continued to disregard obligations under the UN Charter, including Article 25, which requires member states to carry out Security Council decisions. He said occupied Kashmir was not an integral part of India and that no unilateral or unlawful action by an occupying power could change the disputed territory’s historical or legal status.