The hallowed halls of the UK Parliament, usually echoing with measured tones, resonated with an urgent, unified condemnation on July 17, 2025. It wasn’t a debate about domestic policy or economic forecasts; it was about a river, a treaty, and the fate of millions. It was about the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), and India’s unilateral suspension of it, an act that has sent ripples of alarm across the globe.
A Breach Of International Law: The Indus Waters Treaty Under Threat
Imagine, if you will, the Indus River, flowing steadfastly through centuries, a lifeline for civilizations, a silent witness to history. This 1960 agreement, globally recognized as a model for cooperative water sharing despite longstanding animosity between India and Pakistan, has been severely undermined. This treaty, remarkably, weathered three wars in 1965, 1971, and 1999. But on that fateful day in July, in the wake of the tragic Pahalgam attack, which India attributed to Pakistan without credible evidence, this architecture of trust began to crumble. India announced the suspension of the IWT, violating treaty clauses that explicitly prevent withdrawal or suspension due to political or security concerns. Lord Mohammad described this as a “flagrant violation of international law,” warning that the precedent endangers all international water agreements.
What precedent does this set? Lord Mohammad cautioned that China, already altering upstream flows in the Tibetan Plateau that affect both India and Pakistan, will interpret India’s action as a green light for further hydrological assertiveness, especially in the Tibetan Plateau and Brahmaputra basin. This amplifies fears of a domino effect in regions reliant on fragile water-sharing treaties, from Central Asia to Africa and the Middle East. The UK Parliament debate reinforced that India’s suspension of the IWT is not a bilateral issue, it’s a global one. This endangers river systems in Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East, where fragile water-sharing frameworks are watching this precedent closely. The river, it seems, weeps for more than just its own banks.
Kashmir Conflict and Regional Water Security
Baroness Gohir, in her impassioned address, condemned India’s action as “destabilizing and unethical,” highlighting South Asia’s acute vulnerability to climate change and water stress. She also emphasized the point that weaponizing water is normalized, and the most disturbing example is Israel systematically cutting the water supply in Gaza. Nearly 240 million Pakistanis depend on the Indus system for drinking water, irrigation, and hydroelectric power, with approximately 70% of Pakistani agriculture reliant on these rivers. Weaponizing water access contradicts international human rights norms and threatens millions of livelihoods and food security.
Then came Lord Hussain, pulling back the curtain to reveal the deeper, more painful truth: the Indus dispute is inextricably linked to the broader and deeply contentious Kashmir conflict. He emphasized that Kashmir’s unresolved status and systemic human rights abuses, including mass killings, torture, illegal detentions, and over 3,000 documented mass graves by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, are inseparable from water tensions. India’s militarization of Kashmir with nearly 900,000 troops under draconian laws exacerbates instability, making water resource manipulation part of a larger crisis of sovereignty and survival. He also noted that the UN Commission on Human Rights requested free access to Jammu and Kashmir in 2018 and 2019 to investigate abuses, but India refused and unilaterally abrogated Articles 370 and 35A; a 2019 Genocide Watch report warned Kashmir was on the brink of genocide. These are not separate issues, he insisted, but interconnected crises.
A Call for International Mediation and UK’s Responsibility
Lord Purvis stressed the treaty’s historical resilience through three wars (1965, 1971, and 1999), showing water sharing as a rare bastion of peace. Current developments risk escalating violence, including drone warfare and attacks near nuclear facilities, during the May 2025 clashes. Purvis urged the UK government to back mediation efforts and preserve the IWT’s “architecture of bilateral trust”. Pakistan’s position aligns with global legal and ethical norms by opposing unilateral treaty suspension or hydrological coercion. Its openness to dialogue and treaty modernization, addressing new challenges such as glacial melt and upstream diversions, demonstrates a constructive, peace-oriented posture.
As the debate concluded, a crucial message emerged: India’s suspension of the IWT jeopardizes regional stability, breaches international law, and risks humanitarian and ecological disaster for Pakistan’s millions downstream. The UK Parliament, with its historical ties as a key historical actor in Partition, reiterated Britain’s residual responsibility to foster dialogue and reinforce treaty compliance. The UK Foreign Office’s active role is crucial for defusing tensions and preventing escalation between these two nuclear-armed neighbors. The river weeps, but in its tears, there is a plea for justice, for adherence to law, and for the peace that only dialogue and respect for treaties can bring. The fate of millions, and the stability of a volatile region, depends on it.
Also Read: Indus Water Treaty: UK Parliament, Kashmir, & Water Security
