India skips Hague hearings, stands firm against Indus arbitration move

Indus water treaty

• India declines to join Indus Waters Treaty arbitration hearings
• India deems Court of Arbitration "illegally constituted," rejects its orders.
• Pakistan seeks global support as treaty becomes a strategic pressure point

Did our AI summary help?

Even as a Court of Arbitration in The Hague moves ahead with fresh hearings and document orders under the Indus Waters Treaty framework, India has reiterated that it does not recognise the legitimacy of the proceedings and will not participate.

NDTV reported, citing government sources, that New Delhi considers the tribunal “illegally constituted” and therefore sees no obligation to respond to its directions.

The latest flashpoint is an order issued last week by the Court of Arbitration asking India to produce operational “pondage logbooks” from its hydroelectric plants as part of what it termed the “Second Phase on the Merits”.

The court has scheduled hearings for February 2 and 3 at the Peace Palace in The Hague and noted that India has neither filed a counter memorial nor indicated participation. According to the report, officials view the entire exercise as moot because the treaty itself has been placed in abeyance.

NDTV further reported, quoting sources, that the “so-called illegally constituted” court continues to “hold parallel proceedings in addition to the neutral expert”. The report said officials added, “Since we do not recognise the legitimacy of the CoA, we do not respond to any of its communications.”

With the IWT in abeyance, India is not bound to reply and believes Pakistan is attempting to draw it into the process to project continued engagement.

The standoff traces back to April 23, 2025, when India formally put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance a day after 26 civilians were killed in Pahalgam in an attack New Delhi linked to Pakistan-based terrorists.

The move marked a significant shift, explicitly tying water cooperation to what India described as Pakistan’s continued use of terrorism as state policy. The decision came alongside Operation Sindoor and signalled that cooperation could not continue amid hostility.

Pakistan, which depends heavily on the Indus river system for agriculture, has since launched a global diplomatic and legal outreach.

Islamabad has summoned envoys, written to the United Nations, initiated multiple legal actions and held international conferences to spotlight the issue. With limited water storage capacity and key reservoirs such as Tarbela and Mangla reportedly near dead storage, the treaty has moved from a technical water sharing pact to a strategic pressure point.

Despite India’s position, the Hague-based court is proceeding as if the treaty framework remains fully operational. In an order dated January 24, 2026, it laid out a detailed hearing schedule, allowing Pakistan to present arguments even if India stays away.

Days later, acting on Pakistan’s request, it directed India to submit internal operational logbooks from the Baglihar and Kishanganga projects to examine whether pondage calculations had been “inflated”. The report noted that the court warned it could draw “adverse inferences” if India did not comply and stated that India’s decision to place the treaty in abeyance “does not limit the competence of the court” — a position New Delhi rejects.

Under the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism, technical disagreements are meant for a neutral expert, while legal disputes go to a Court of Arbitration.

India maintains that the present issues are technical in nature and has accused Pakistan of “forum shopping” by activating the arbitration route. By continuing to engage only with the neutral expert process, New Delhi is signalling it will not allow the dispute to expand into a wider legal and political arena.

What is unfolding in The Hague goes beyond hydroelectric calculations. It is the first major test of India’s decision to leverage the treaty framework diplomatically after decades of restraint. Without India’s participation and with the treaty officially in abeyance, the proceedings risk becoming a one-sided legal record rather than a binding verdict — a scenario South Block appears prepared to accept.