Hague Court's Ruling On Indus Waters Treaty Puts India’s Diplomacy Under Stress

The government rejected the tribunal’s finding that the 1960 treaty continues to remain in force. But in the wake of the latest ruling, the bureaucracy witnessed structural shifts

Indus Waters Treaty, Water Resources, IAS Officers, VL Kantha Rao, Pahalgam Terror Attack, IWT

Diplomatic rhetoric may help shape political narratives, but it does little to alter the consequences of international arbitration. This is now evident in India’s handling of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in the wake of a series of adverse findings by the Hague-based Court of Arbitration.

Though India has rejected the tribunal’s jurisdiction and has made it clear that it does not recognise the proceedings or their findings, the government has laterally shifted Water Resources Secretary V.L. Kantha Rao, a 1992-batch Madhya Pradesh-cadre IAS officer, from the Department of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation to the Department of Official Language.

Contention Over Arbitration

The Ministry of External Affairs has maintained that the arbitration body was "illegally constituted" and that its pronouncements have no bearing on India’s sovereign decisions. New Delhi has also reiterated that the treaty remains in abeyance following its decision in April 2025, taken after the Pahalgam terror attack and amid allegations of Pakistani support for cross-border terrorism.

However, the legal and diplomatic fallout is harder to dismiss, as in the latest ruling, the Court of Arbitration held that the 1960 treaty continues to remain in force and cannot be unilaterally suspended or placed in “abeyance”. It also directed India to temporarily restrict certain construction activities at the Ratle hydro-electric project in Jammu and Kashmir, pending a determination by a neutral expert on the project’s compliance with the treaty. That assessment is expected to run into 2027.

The ruling is significant because it goes beyond the technicalities of individual hydropower projects. It directly challenges India’s position that its unilateral decision to put the treaty in abeyance effectively takes the dispute outside the treaty framework. The tribunal, however, has taken the opposite view and asserted that the agreement continues to impose obligations on both countries.

Hydropower Projects

For India, therefore, the issue is no longer merely about whether it accepts the tribunal’s authority. The ruling could have implications for how New Delhi approaches ongoing and proposed hydropower projects on the rivers, particularly the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus, where the treaty places specific restrictions and conditions on Indian projects.

Many in the corridors of power view the shifting of Rao as a fallout of the ruling. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet had approved the move on August 10, with Rao scheduled to take over as Secretary of the Department of Official Language after the retirement of incumbent Ansuli Arya on September 30.

The grapevines in bureaucratic circles have been doing the rounds, suggesting that the timing of the move appears to be directly linked to the Indus Waters proceedings in The Hague.

This is a free story, Feel free to share.

facebooktwitterlinkedInwhatsApp