Some forms of violence do not leave visible scars. They do not arrive with gunfire, explosions, or soldiers crossing borders. They arrive quietly, through engineering drawings, legal language, and concrete poured into a river high in the mountains. Their impact is not counted in deaths, but in reduced water flow, shrinking access, and growing uncertainty for the people living downstream.
For Pakistan, this quiet struggle over water has lasted for decades. It is deeply political, highly technical, and tied to the survival of millions. This month, that struggle entered an important chapter when the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued its supplemental award on the dispute under the Indus Waters Treaty.
The decision on surface seemed based on a technical question that is known as pondage or how much water a hydroelectric project is able to temporarily hold. Yet it was not merely a matter of storage that was in question. Control was concerned. It concerned the question of whether the upstream infrastructure can covertly re-model the courses of rivers which are life giving in Pakistan.
The dispute was focused on the Jhelum River Kishenganga Hydroelectric Project and the ratle Hydroelectric Project on the Chenab all located in India. They both belong to the Western rivers that are shared by Pakistan and according to the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, signed with the help of the World Bank. The only difference is that of all treaties that have been signed by both Pakistan and India, this one has been able to pass the test of wars, military tensions and even during the silence in relations between the countries.
Its structure is transparent. The western rivers can be used to produce some hydroelectric power in India but it cannot store or manage the waters in a manner that will infringe on the rights of Pakistan as a downstream country. This is a legal issue to Pakistan but not just that. It is directly related to the agriculture, food security, irrigation and the lives of millions of people that rely on the Indus basin daily.
Pakistan has been complaining long enough that other hydropower plants in India are being constructed such that the storage capacity of the power plants is greater than the capacity required by the run-of-river power plants. And these can be technically designed on paper. Practically, they generate the capacity to control the time and flow of water without the treaty being intended in such a manner that they can control the flow against its intended purpose, claim Pakistan.
India insisted that its projects are not going beyond the boundaries of the treaty and that they should be provided with sufficient assurances of operations. Pakistan had prompted that mere assurances would not suffice since the very design would provide gasp to exploit. The court ruled in favor of such a principle.
This was a big legal discovery that was made when the PCA said that compliance with the treaty started at the design stage. Simply put, once a project is constructed and goes past a treaty boundary it cannot subsequently be defended by claiming it will be managed in a responsible manner. Even the construction should be up to the required standard.
This is important since Pakistan has never had concerns involving the Indus on a singular project. It is the trend that is of greater concern. With a project scheduled, arguments are made, technical discussions take place, and reverse action by lawsuits is drawn out. But as all these processes go on, building proceeds. When a decision is received it is too late, the dam is constructed and in operation. The law controversy is still going on, but the geographical facts on the river, are already different.
The trend has influenced the water issues in Pakistan over the years. It makes time an element of strategy. Diplomacy is preceded by concrete. The growth of engineering is usually ahead of dispute resolution.
The other section of the ruling is on transparency. Pakistan on numerous occasions has complained that they never received adequate technical information to adequately evaluate the adherence to treaty obligations. This entails the hydrological, design and operations details pertaining to projects on common rivers.
The court supported that there should be sharing of relevant information. That fact might be rather procedural, though it has grave implications. Transparency is needed of rivers between neighbours. Lacking access to information, one of the parties is kept to evaluate the future of its water security without observing the entire picture up the stream.
To the case of Pakistan, water has never been a mere theoretical concept. The Indus river system comprises of the oldest history in the region and is still the core of the current economy. Whole towns, crops and farms rely on these waters. The river system is vital to livelihood and survival of millions. Whatever change in flow will be experienced, the people will feel that at a long distance beyond the mountains where the projects are being constructed.
It is due to this reason that every upstream development is monitored in Pakistan. A single project might seem to be within your control. Together, the various projects bring bigger issues regarding cumulative effects and control of timing and release of water into the future. This broader view has been historically what has informed the legal stance of Pakistan.
The PCA decision fails to resolve all of the controversies between India and Pakistan as far as water is concerned. It could not. The entire politics of rivers in South Asia can not be resolved by any court. nevertheless it does something significant. It reinstates that the boundaries which were signed in the Treaty of Indus Water are real, binding and enforceable. They are not allegoric speech which can be re-read infinitely. They are implemented prior to the start of the construction and not after it.
It is also important when. India has recently been publicly frustrated with certain provisions of the treaty, and stated its formal demands of changes in 2023. It was noticed by many that as an indicator of a legal structure enveloping the Indus, which is shifting to a more contested stage. Nevertheless, the treaty still continues to be active in spite of political tension and the legal processes have not stopped.
To Pakistan that is important. It demonstrates that despite a tough and unbalanced situation on a regional level, the avenues of the law have their value. Slowly, international law is able to establish a record, limits, and delineate boundaries.
The Indus wars are by no means settled. Additional hydroelectric schemes are likely to occur. New litigations are certain to come forth. Water politics throughout the region will continue to be complicated and a contentious one.
But during this month in The Hague something of significance has occurred. One of the legal principles was re-established. Design argument was put to test. And even the blueprint itself was critiqued and turned into non-transitional concrete.
The Indus was molded by nature and state had no existence before treaties. In modern day South Asia its future is more and more influenced by law, engineering and politics. And sometimes, the first step toward conserving a river is being able to show that what is seemingly technical is never simply technical. In the background of every blue print, the power, in the background of every river the life of those who cannot do without it.
Nazish Mehmood is a Foreign and Strategic Affairs student and research analyst focused on global policy, security studies, and their impact on human well-being. Her work explores how international decisions affect communities through a people-centered lens.