WHILE Indian External Minister S. Jaishankar shook hands with Pakistan’s National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq in Dacca, the government in New Delhi announced it was advancing the timelines of hydropower and storage works on the western rivers, which Islamabad suspects are meant to enhance India’s capability to obstruct water flows to Pakistan. Regardless of India’s political characterisation of it, the Indus Waters Treaty remains legally binding. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party cannot suspend a bilateral treaty in the absence of specific grounds such as material breach, impossibility of performance, etc. In the view of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the president of the World Bank, India’s unilateral suspension of the IWT has no legal basis. However, since India has held the treaty obligations in abeyance on its own, Pakistan, while adhering to procedural steps in the treaty as a ‘legal baseline’, will, at the same time, be free to lean on the general principles of international law. It can, in principle, resort to any countermeasure, including coercive means to safeguard its right of uninterrupted water flow — that, however, would be the measure of last resort. Now Pakistan should develop a legal strategy to protest and object systematically at every step on the ground that India takes towards the construction of these works on the western rivers in order to make out its case for eventual countermeasure — should the need regrettably still remain. Whenever India initiates land acquisition or takes administrative steps indicating a decision to construct a project on the western rivers, Pakistan should immediately invoke general water law jurisprudence as well as Annexure D, paragraph 9, which obligates India to provide design information “as soon as” it has decided to construct a hydroelectric plant. It must be asserted in writing that request for design information under the IWT is not to be implied as Pakistan giving its go-ahead to the hydro work, otherwise its claim that an increase in the number of hydro projects are actually intended for long-term water coercion will be undermined. On the other hand, the very decision to choose a certain site and the administrative or political decision to ‘begin the works’ on the western rivers must be objected to by Pakistan in a separate note based on international water law developed outside the IWT. It should assert as being made simultaneously under the UN Charter as well because the construction on sites constitutes a ‘threat of water coercion’. Timely protest will prevent India from later arguing that Pakistan had acquiesced in the project’s initiation. The act of a well-formulated protest should be communicated to all major world capitals as well. Pakistan must protest at every step India takes towards building works on the western rivers. When India issues tenders, expressions of interest, or consultant advertisements in respect of any work on the western rivers, Pakistan should, notwithstanding its objection on the very need for the hydro work, treat these as substantive steps towards implementation. Under the legal baseline of Annexure D, paragraphs 9-15, India must not proceed to technical finalisation or implementation before Pakistan has examined the design. Pakistan should assert that tendering constitutes advancement of the project without fulfilling mandatory procedural obligations, notify India that any commercial commitments undertaken at this stage are at India’s own risk, and clarify that Pakistan’s rights cannot be prejudiced by India’s contractual arrangements with third parties. This approach aligns with international practice, where states routinely warn contractors that disputed projects may be subject to international adjudication. If India awards a construction contract, Pakistan must treat this as an irreversible step. Under Annexure D, India must not proceed to construction until Pakistan’s objections have been addressed and, if necessary, resolved through the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanisms. Pakistan should state that awarding a construction contract while design objections remain unaddressed or unresolved is a material breach of procedural obligations, notify New Delhi that any construction undertaken during an unresolved dispute is at India’s own risk, and clarify that such actions cannot create legal rights or estoppel against Pakistan. This language aligns with arbitral jurisprudence, emphasising that unilateral advancement during a dispute cannot prejudice the other party’s rights. Once physical works are about to begin — such as the mobilisation of machinery or the initiation of excavation — Pakistan must immediately document and formally object to the commencement of construction. The letters should assert that commencement of the works violates the IWT’s requirement that disputes be resolved before implementation, notify India that Pakistan’s rights remain fully preserved, and record that any irreversible works cannot be used to justify non-compliant design features. This step is essential for building a record for potential recourse to a neutral expert or court of arbitration. At any stage where design information is available, Pakistan should raise substantive technical objections grounded in Annexures D and E. These may include excessive pondage or live storage, gated spillways inconsistent with IWT criteria, intake levels permitting drawdown beyond permissible limits, operational rules enabling flow manipulation, and the cumulative impact of multiple projects. To summarise, each step from the Indian side (site selection, construction or manipulation of the water flow) has to be checkmated by two parallel documented protests or objections — one under the legal baseline of the IWT and its annexures and the other under the principles of international law relating to the use of force and lower riparian rights since the intent of water coercion and its threat coming from Indian officials on formal forums is an outright internationally wrongful act. Pakistan’s preference remains a peaceful and rules-based resolution of the water issue. At present, Pakistan’s most effective response lies in systematic, legally grounded protest at every stage of India’s project development, which is communicated clearly to all major world capitals. That way Pakistan can show a well-defined trail of all the efforts it has undertaken to attempt to resolve the issue peacefully. The writer is a former caretaker federal law minister. Published in Dawn, January 10th, 2026