A language of a leader can destroy not only the leader himself, but the standing of an entire country.
That is the danger in the increasingly aggressive language coming from New Delhi toward Pakistan, particularly when political retaliation is linked to something as fundamental as water. A statement attributed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi-framed in the language of choosing between bread and a bullet-may satisfy a political audience for a moment, but when such rhetoric is directed at a neighbouring population of more than two hundred million people, it raises a far more disturbing question: what happens when political anger is allowed to reach the most basic necessities of human life?
Water is not merely another strategic commodity. It is the condition upon which agriculture, food security, livelihoods and human survival depend. A farmer does not see the Indus as a geopolitical instrument. A mother does not see irrigation water as a bargaining chip. For millions of ordinary people, a river means food on the table, income for the family and a future for their children.
This is precisely why the Indus Waters Treaty has been so important.
For decades, even through wars and some of the most bitter periods in India-Pakistan relations, the Treaty provided a legal framework for sharing the waters of the Indus river system. It represented an important principle: however intense the political conflict between two states may become, the basic arrangements governing a life-sustaining resource should remain protected by law.
India’s decision in April 2025 to place the Treaty “in abeyance” therefore carried consequences far beyond diplomatic language.
Pakistan did not respond by abandoning the international legal framework. It took the matter to the Court of Arbitration.
On 31 August 2026, the Court delivered its Award on the status of the Treaty. The decision was unanimous. After examining India’s position, the Court found that none of the grounds advanced by India could justify suspension or termination of the Treaty. Its conclusion was clear: the Indus Waters Treaty remains fully in force, and India remains bound by its obligations under it.
That finding is enormously significant.
A government may announce that a treaty is in abeyance, but a political declaration does not by itself erase an international legal obligation. The Court’s decision demonstrates that even amid severe political confrontation, treaties cannot simply be discarded when one party finds them inconvenient.
For Pakistan, there is an important lesson in the manner in which this dispute has been pursued. Pakistan has chosen the legal route, placing its case before an international institution rather than allowing the dispute to become another uncontrolled cycle of threats and retaliation. That is the responsible course, and the unanimous decision in The Hague gives considerable weight to Pakistan’s insistence that the Treaty continues to govern the relationship.
But the issue does not end with Pakistan and India.
The geography of South Asia makes the question much larger. Rivers cross borders, and upstream states inevitably possess greater physical control over water flows. The Brahmaputra, for example, originates in China, passes through India and ultimately reaches Bangladesh. If upstream geographical advantage becomes accepted as a legitimate basis for political coercion, every downstream country in the region has reason to worry.
India itself would surely object if another powerful state argued that being upstream gave it unlimited freedom to determine the fate of millions downstream.
That is the principle at stake.
Geography creates responsibility; it should not create a licence for coercion.
This is also why the language of political leaders cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. Words spoken during moments of nationalist anger can shape policy, influence public opinion and signal what a government believes it can legitimately do. When the subject is water, careless rhetoric becomes particularly dangerous because the consequences are ultimately borne not by political leaders but by ordinary people.
A farmer cannot negotiate with a river.
A child cannot vote on a water policy.
A family whose livelihood depends upon irrigation cannot simply move somewhere else when political tensions disrupt the resources on which its existence depends.
This is where national security must be distinguished from collective punishment. Every state has legitimate security concerns, and every government has the right to protect its citizens. But there must also be limits to the instruments used in pursuit of those objectives. Water is one of the clearest places where such limits should exist.
The world has already seen how disruption of vital waterways can send shock waves through economies, food systems and international markets. The strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz has demonstrated how quickly control over essential routes can become a global concern. The Indus represents a different but equally fundamental reality: it is a source of life for millions.
The international community should therefore be extremely cautious about normalizing the idea that essential natural resources can become weapons of political pressure.
And Pakistan’s response should remain what it has been at its strongest: law, evidence and diplomacy.
The Hague decision provides Pakistan with a powerful legal foundation. The Treaty remains in force. India’s attempt to place it in abeyance was not accepted as a lawful basis for suspension or termination. The dispute should therefore continue to be addressed through the mechanisms established by international law.
This is not simply a dispute about engineering designs, dams or diplomatic statements. At its heart lies a question that the entire region must eventually answer: will South Asia allow its rivers to become instruments of political confrontation, or will it protect them as shared foundations of human life?
The answer matters because today’s precedent becomes tomorrow’s justification.
If India can claim that an upstream position permits it to use water as political leverage against Pakistan, what happens when the same principle is invoked elsewhere? What happens when another upstream state uses the argument of national security to justify actions affecting millions downstream? Once that door is opened, no country dependent upon a transboundary river can feel entirely secure.
That is why responsible leadership requires more than military strength and political slogans. It requires restraint, foresight and an understanding that the consequences of state power do not stop at a border.
The Indus Waters Treaty survived wars because both sides understood, at least at certain moments in their history, that some necessities are too important to be surrendered to political rivalry. The world should not allow that hard-earned principle to disappear beneath the rhetoric of retaliation.
The Court of Arbitration has now reaffirmed the legal position: the Treaty remains in force.
The larger humanitarian principle is even simpler. Political disagreements belong in courts, negotiating rooms and diplomatic channels. Water belongs to life.
No government should forget the difference
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or position of this website. The website does not endorse or oppose any opinion presented herein.