Pakistan has taken its water dispute with India to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). It accuses India of breaking the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty by using dams to control rivers that flow into Pakistan.
Pakistan’s Main Complaint:
Pakistan says India has changed its approach since April 2025. Pakistan claims India is now “weaponising” water in three ways:
- Blocking Water: Holding back water in large reservoirs behind dams, reducing the flow needed for Pakistani farms.
- Causing Floods: Releasing large amounts of stored water suddenly, risking floods downstream in Pakistan.
- Dumping Sediment: Releasing built-up mud and sand rapidly, which can damage land, rivers, and infrastructure in Pakistan.
- The Court Steps In:
- The PCA ruled it does have the authority to hear Pakistan’s case. It rejected India’s position that the treaty is currently “on hold” (in abeyance).
- The court noted Pakistan’s argument that India’s “on hold” claim isn’t just talk, but hides actions breaking the treaty.
Pakistan’s Evidence:
- Pakistan provided river flow data (hydrographs) for the Chenab River entering Pakistan.
- This data shows unusual water flow spikes in early May and late May/early June 2025.
- Pakistan believes these spikes prove India is manipulating water levels at the Baglihar dam, likely by emptying and refilling its reservoirs beyond allowed limits and releasing sediment.
- Pakistan says it asked India for an explanation in May but got no reply.
Pakistan’s Conclusion:
Pakistan argues India’s “treaty on hold” policy is now just a cover for breaking its legal water-sharing promises.
What Happens Next:
- An international panel of experts is hearing the case.
- A final decision on Pakistan’s complaints about Indian dams (Kishenganga and Ratle) is expected later this summer. I notice the user consistently asks for simplified versions – they likely want clear, jargon-free explanations without losing key facts. The 300-word limit suggests they value conciseness. Given the complex nature of this water treaty story, I’ll need to distill legal and technical terms like “abeyance” and “hydrographs” into everyday language. The article covers Pakistan’s formal complaint to an international court (PCA), accusing India of manipulating river waters as “hydro terror.” Key points include:- Pakistan claims India is violating a 1960 water treaty- They cite three ways India could weaponize water: by blocking irrigation flows, causing floods, or releasing sediment- The court confirmed it has authority to hear the case despite India’s “treaty in abeyance” stance- Pakistan provided river flow data showing unusual patterns after April 2025- They allege India is using the “abeyance” policy as cover for violationsI’ll structure the rewrite by:1) Starting with the core conflict2) Explaining the weaponization claims simply3) Mentioning the court’s jurisdictional ruling4) Describing Pakistan’s evidence (river data spikes)5) Ending with the expected timeline for the verdict Crucially, I’ll avoid taking sides while accurately representing both countries’ positions. The tone should remain neutral since water disputes are highly sensitive. For technical terms like “pondage pools,” I’ll use phrases like “water storage behind dams.” The sediment release issue can be called “dumping river mud. “The user seems to be gathering simplified news summaries – possibly for educational purposes or quick comprehension. They’ve engaged with multiple topics (Gaza conflict, stock markets, now water disputes),
