By Aishma Gul
“Between the snows of Kashmir and the currents of the Indus, a single misstep can set off ripples felt from Islamabad to New Delhi—and beyond.”
Pakistan’s Offer for a Neutral Investigation
“The recent tragedy in Pahalgam is yet another example of this perpetual blame game,” PM Shehbaz Sharif said at the Pakistan Military Academy parade, emphasising Islamabad’s willingness to engage in any “neutral, transparent and credible” investigation into the April 22 attack that killed 26 mostly Indian tourists. India’s claim of Pakistani involvement was rejected as “baseless” and it was made “without credible investigation or verifiable evidence”.
Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi backed this, demanding a “transparent and impartial investigation” led by a neutral body, and rejecting any compromise on Pakistan’s sovereignty. “Pakistan is fully prepared to cooperate with any neutral investigators to ensure that the truth is uncovered and justice is served,” he said, accusing India of using the incident for domestic politics.
Retaliatory Diplomacy and Tit-for-Tat Measures
Within 48 hours, after New Delhi decided to suspend the IWT, Pakistan not only sealed its airspace to all Indian-registered carriers but also forced Air India, IndiGo and others to divert flights over the Arabian Sea, adding up to 2.5 hours of extra travel time. At the same time, Pakistan put all bilateral agreements, including the Simla Agreement 1972, in abeyance until India stopped “fomenting terrorism inside Pakistan”.
Analysts say Pakistan’s bond yields surged and Indian carriers bore fuel surcharges of as much as 12 per cent because of longer travel times and payload limits — reflecting the economic damage of such steps.
Water Security and the Indus Water Treaty
The Indus Waters Treaty, mediated by the World Bank in 1960, is considered one of the most resilient water-sharing agreements in the world, allocating the six rivers between India and Pakistan. India’s one-sided abrogation of the treaty was termed an “act of war” by Islamabad, with PM Sharif vowing to “safeguard [water] availability at all costs”.
Pakistan, meanwhile, accused India of “water terrorism” after a sudden release of around 22,000 cusecs of water in the Jhelum River — flooding riverside villages and taxing the downstream safety infrastructure near Muzaffarabad. Provincial officials assured locals that the flood was under control, but called for international scrutiny of cross-border water management norms.
Aviation Impact of Airspace Closure
Pakistan’s aviation rules affected Indian flights, forcing them to take longer routes over the Arabian Sea. This increased fuel costs and travel time. As a result, airlines might raise ticket prices by 8-12% and face logistical issues, especially for international flights to Europe and the US. This could also lead to delays and compensation claims for passengers.
Regional Mediation Efforts
Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said that his country is prepared to mediate in the dispute through its close cultural and civilisational links with both and offered to make “every possible effort to promote understanding”. Similarly, Saudi FM Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah had telephonic conversations with Pakistan’s Ishaq Dar and India’s S. Jaishankar on de-escalation and also proposed that Riyadh is willing to provide good offices for dialogue. Such outreach reflects Gulf capitals’ concerns over spill-over effects on energy markets and regional security.
Strategic and Legal Response
Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Indus Water Commission established an expert think-tank with representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Water Resources Ministry and Indus Commission, to propose legal countermeasures on an emergency basis. Cabinet deliberations will shape Islamabad’s decision to approach the World Bank or the UN for treaty arbitration, underscoring Pakistan’s robust constitutional and legal position against India.
The China Factor and Precedent Concerns
Rana Ihsaan Afzal, PM Sharif’s commerce coordinator, cautioned India that suspending the IWT might provoke similar retaliation from China, which could block the Brahmaputra, a river that provides unhindered flows for India: 30 per cent of India’s freshwater requirements and 44 per cent of its potential hydropower. It is a stark reminder of the precarious geopolitics of Himalayan river systems and the requirement for multilateral, legally binding water-sharing agreements.
Former Indian Judge’s Warning
In a candid commentary, former Indian Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju cautioned:
“In ten days of war with Pakistan, the fragile Indian economy would be crushed beyond redemption.”
He railed against hawkish talk on Indian television, noting that both countries are nuclear-armed, and complimented Pakistan’s responsible behaviour after the 2019 Pulwama attack that kept the escalation from blowing up further. He also advised the leaders of both countries to prefer diplomacy over militaristic adventure.
An Overview of Important Bilateral Agreements Of India And Pakistan
Since 1947, India and Pakistan have concluded multiple treaties about conflict management, sharing of resources and confidence building. Here’s a brief overview of the main pacts that are (or until recently were) still on the books:
– Nehru–Liaquat Pact (8 Apr 1950): Guaranteed minority protections and property restitution post-Partition; reminds us that even amidst deep distrust, humanitarian guarantees can bridge divides.
– Indus Waters Treaty (19 Sep 1960): Allocated eastern rivers to India and western rivers to Pakistan under World Bank mediation; its suspension by New Delhi in April 2025 directly triggered Pakistan’s water-security counter-moves and legal think-tank review.
– Simla Agreement (2 Jul 1972): Turned the cease-fire line into today’s Line of Control and committed both sides to bilateral dispute resolution; Pakistan’s abeyance of this pact highlights the unravelling of the Kashmir-management framework.
– Protocol on Visits to Religious Shrines (1974): Opened five Indian and 15 Pakistani holy sites to pilgrims; its spirit of confidence-building starkly contrasts with current visa bans and closed crossings.
– Non-Attack Agreement on Nuclear Installations (31 Dec 1988; effective Jan 1991): Bars surprise strikes on each other’s nuclear sites and mandates annual facility-list exchanges; remains a cornerstone of nuclear risk-reduction as both armies stand on high alert.
– Airspace Violation Prevention (6 Apr 1991): Prohibits military overflights within 10 km of the border without clearance; today’s airspace ban shows how even safety accords can be repurposed as instruments of pressure.
– Lahore Declaration (21 Feb 1999): Committed to nuclear de-escalation and conventional peace efforts; its legacy is invoked now as Pakistan seeks neutral mediation to halt the tit-for-tat spiral.
– Missile Test Notification Pact (3 Oct 2005): Requires three-day advance notice of surface-to-surface ballistic tests and trajectory buffer zones; exemplifies confidence-building measures that could reduce miscalculation risks today.
– Nuclear Accident Risk-Reduction (21 Feb 2007): Mandates immediate alerts via hotlines after any nuclear-related accident; vital for preventing inadvertent escalations amid high regional tension.
– 2003 Ceasefire Along the Line of Control: Brought cross-border firing nearly to a halt; its frequent violations in recent years highlight the urgent need to revive robust ceasefire mechanisms.
– Why This Matters: These agreements are the institutional framework of bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. Their suspension or abeyance, whether of the Indus Waters Treaty and Simla Agreement most recently, have serious strategic, economic and humanitarian implications, from irrigation and flood control to minority rights, and even nuclear security.
Pakistan’s reaction to the Pahalgam incident is an example of firmness as well as prudence. Launching a neutral inquiry, using legal and diplomatic instruments of mobilisation, and maintaining credible defensive readiness, Pakistan has demonstrated strategic maturity while under pressure. Moving forward, dialogue—supported by international mediation—and renewed respect for existing treaties offer the clearest path to de-escalation. Only by choosing law over unilateralism and by transforming bilateral protocols into active mechanisms of cooperation can both nations chart a stable, shared future