GENEVA: India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance has stirred concerns about the water security, agriculture and livelihoods of millions of people who rely on the Indus Basin, as the six-decade-old agreement faces one of its gravest tests.
The issue was discussed on Friday, Oct 2, at a side event in Geneva held on the sidelines of the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, which runs from Sept 7 to Oct 7. Titled “Water Justice and Climate Resilience: Advancing Transboundary Cooperation in South Asia and the Middle East,” the event gathered legal experts, researchers, diplomats, practitioners and civil society representatives to examine international water law, human rights, climate resilience, environmental justice and the management of shared rivers.
“Trans-boundary Water Challenges in South Asia” was one of the main themes, with a particular focus on the Indus River system and the legal and institutional framework that governs shared waters.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which administers the IWT proceedings, has held that the treaty remains in force despite India’s move to hold it in abeyance. India has rejected the arbitration process, while Pakistan has pointed to the court’s order as backing its stance that the agreement is still valid.
Rashida Abbas, founder of the Hydro-Justice Student Research & Policy Fellowship and a PhD candidate at the University of Geneva, spoke on the South Asian dimension, concentrating on the Indus system. She said rivers should not be seen only as matters between states, since their effects are felt directly by people and communities. “Rivers are not experienced only by states,” she said. “They are experienced by people.”
Abbas tied water governance to human rights, noting that river-related decisions can affect drinking water, agriculture, livelihoods, communities and health. She argued that the future management of South Asia’s shared waters should rest on law, dialogue, science, working institutions and justice, and stressed that trans-boundary agreements should not become optional when relations between states sour.
The discussion also raised concerns about shared water being used as a tool of political pressure. Abbas underlined the interests of downstream communities and the need for legal frameworks that protect their water security and human rights.
Other speakers set the Indus dispute within the wider picture of trans-boundary water challenges. Majid Hawi Alwan spoke about geopolitical pressures on shared water systems in arid regions, including the Gulf and the broader Middle East, advocating regional approaches that treat water security as a shared necessity rather than a source of unilateral leverage.
Seraina Eldada offered a mediation and diplomacy perspective, looking at how trans-boundary water arrangements are designed and the role of third-party mediation and permanent mechanisms in settling disputes.
Harmayn Mujahid, a legal scholar and fellowship coordination officer, connected water insecurity with human rights. The session examined how shifting river patterns and climate stress can hit vulnerable communities hardest, and why equity must be weighed alongside state sovereignty in international water law.
Tahir Mahmood discussed the link between resource scarcity and security, including the dangers of water-related tensions in regions already burdened by political and territorial disputes. He also spoke about prevention and resilience in the context of what he termed “hydro-terrorism.”
Contributors noted that shared river systems are under mounting pressure from climate change, population growth, environmental degradation and rising demand for freshwater.
For Pakistan, the Indus Basin is especially vital, as its waters sustain agriculture, food production and millions of livelihoods. The river system has supported human settlement in the region for thousands of years.
The Geneva discussion framed the current India-Pakistan dispute within a broader question: can institutions that govern shared rivers keep working through periods of political tension?
The PCA award marks a significant step in the legal proceedings but has not settled the underlying political disagreement between the two countries. The award, along with the separate order on interim measures, remains on the PCA’s official record.
The meeting underscored the need to preserve established mechanisms for dialogue and dispute resolution as countries sharing critical water resources face both political friction and growing environmental strain.