A day after the Indian government rejected a ruling by the Hague-based Court of Arbitration that the 1960 Indus Water Treaty remains legally binding, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif raised the issue at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, describing water as the region’s lifeline and asserting that it must not be weaponised for political leverage.
Addressing the SCO Council of Heads of State, he described water as the lifeblood of the region and said it sustains millions of livelihoods, supports agriculture and is crucial to the future of generations to come.
“Water will not be allowed to be weaponised,” Sharif said, arguing that shared water resources must not be turned into an instrument of coercion and political leverage.
“The treaties governing our shared waters are solemn binding international commitments. They are not matters of political convenience to be cast aside at your will. They must be honoured unconditionally in both letter and spirit,” he said.
His remarks came shortly after India rejected the ruling and maintained that the dispute resolution mechanism under the pact cannot continue to examine disagreements between India and Pakistan. New Delhi has maintained that the tribunal is illegally constituted and has no jurisdiction over the matter.
The Pakistani Prime Minister also linked the water dispute to the broader question of regional peace, saying South Asia could not realise its full potential without lasting peace.
The Indus Water Treaty has been in abeyance since India’s decision to suspend its operation following the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack.
The Hague-based Court of Arbitration has ruled that the treaty remains legally binding and that the dispute resolution mechanism established under it can continue to examine disputes between the two countries.
However, India rejected the ruling and said it neither recognises the Court of Arbitration nor participates in its proceedings and does not accept its jurisdiction. The Ministry of External Affairs has also described the tribunal as an illegally constituted body, arguing that it was created in violation of the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty.