Excerpts from an interview for legal opinion with Mr Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar
Advocate Supreme Court & Renowned Constitutional and International Law Expert

Question: What is Pakistan’s legal position in the current scenario?

Answer: Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and a distinguished expert in constitutional and international law, observes that in light of India’s continued hostility towards Pakistan—marked by repeated violations of bilateral and international obligations—it is imperative to examine recent developments concerning the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and the strategic suspension of the Simla Agreement. Both instruments are foundational to the legal and geopolitical relationship between the two countries, and under international law, Pakistan’s position remains principled, well-founded, and defensible.

Article XII of the Treaty explicitly provides that it “shall not be terminated except by agreement of both the Governments,” 

Mr. Khokhar emphasizes that the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 by India and Pakistan with the World Bank as a guarantor, is a binding international agreement. The Treaty allocates control of the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and grants Pakistan rights over the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab), subject to certain limitations. Importantly, Article XII of the Treaty explicitly provides that it “shall not be terminated except by agreement of both the Governments,” rendering any attempt at unilateral withdrawal legally void and internationally untenable.

He further clarifies that the Treaty includes no provision allowing unilateral withdrawal by either party. The only legally permissible options are its continuation, or its amendment or termination through mutual consent. This underscores a critical legal reality: while the Treaty allows for negotiated reform, it unequivocally prohibits unilateralism. Any Indian assertion or action suggesting a unilateral exit from the Treaty stands in direct violation of its express terms and the principles of international law.

Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC) has consistently issued strong, evidence-based rebuttals, characterizing such moves as grave violations of international law and serious threats to regional peace and stability

Question: What is the response of the National Security Committee in this grave situation?

Answer: Notably, Mr. Khokhar points out that this is not the first time India has threatened to disrupt or unilaterally abandon the Indus Waters Treaty. On several occasions, Indian officials have made provocative declarations regarding the diversion of water flows legally allocated to Pakistan—acts that Pakistan has rightfully regarded as hostile and tantamount to a declaration of war. In response, Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC) has consistently issued strong, evidence-based rebuttals, characterizing such moves as grave violations of international law and serious threats to regional peace and stability. The NSC has reiterated Pakistan’s commitment to responding through legal, diplomatic, and strategic channels in a manner consistent with both constitutional and international norms.

Mr. Khokhar asserts that India’s ongoing attempts to bypass or undermine the Treaty’s framework clearly violate international legal obligations. Given the World Bank’s role as a third-party guarantor, the multilateral character of the Treaty is further emphasized. Accordingly, Pakistan has multiple avenues available under international law to challenge India’s conduct, including the Treaty’s built-in dispute resolution mechanisms, recourse to the International Court of Justice, and other international arbitration forums.

In view of India’s repeated infractions, Pakistan is also justified in engaging the United Nations and calling upon the World Bank to ensure adherence to the Treaty’s stipulations

He strongly advocates that Pakistan must adopt a proactive legal strategy to defend its water rights. This includes invoking the dispute resolution provisions in Annexures F and G of the Treaty—whether by appointing a neutral expert or initiating proceedings before a Court of Arbitration. In view of India’s repeated infractions, Pakistan is also justified in engaging the United Nations and calling upon the World Bank to ensure adherence to the Treaty’s stipulations.

Turning to the Simla Agreement of 1972, Mr. Khokhar supports Pakistan’s recent suspension of the Agreement as both legally justified and diplomatically strategic

Turning to the Simla Agreement of 1972, Mr. Khokhar supports Pakistan’s recent suspension of the Agreement as both legally justified and diplomatically strategic. For decades, India has misused the Agreement to block international attention to the Kashmir issue, insisting on exclusive bilateralism. However, India’s unilateral revocation of Article 370 of its Constitution, its demographic engineering in Indian-Occupied Jammu & Kashmir, and its continuing human rights violations has rendered the bilateral mechanism defunct.

Question: What happens after the suspension of the Simla Agreement? Please elaborate.

Answer: The suspension of the Simla Agreement reactivates the jurisdiction and relevance of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Kashmir. These resolutions explicitly call for a plebiscite to allow the Kashmiri people to determine their political future. By suspending the Agreement, Pakistan is no longer legally restricted to bilateral avenues and can re-internationalize the Kashmir dispute, placing it firmly back on the global, diplomatic and legal agenda.

Mr. Khokhar also underscores that the core reason for the deterioration in Indo-Pak relations lies in India’s aggressive and destabilizing behavior

Mr. Khokhar also underscores that the core reason for the deterioration in Indo-Pak relations lies in India’s aggressive and destabilizing behavior—including orchestrated false flag operations, disinformation campaigns, and state-sponsored terrorism targeting Pakistan. Incidents like the Pulwama attack and the Balakot airstrikes, widely viewed as politically motivated provocations, exemplify India’s belligerent approach to regional security.

The international community—particularly the World Bank and the United Nations—must play a more active role in holding India accountable

In conclusion, Mr. Khokhar affirms that Pakistan’s legal position on both the Indus Waters Treaty and the Kashmir issue is firmly rooted in international law. The international community—particularly the World Bank and the United Nations—must play a more active role in holding India accountable. Meanwhile, Pakistan must continue its legal advocacy, strategic diplomacy, and principled resistance to safeguard its sovereignty and ensure regional peace.

He reaffirms that Pakistan is on strong legal footing with respect to the Indus Waters Treaty and that the suspension of the Simla Agreement represents not only a lawful response but also a necessary strategic shift. These steps demonstrate Pakistan’s firm resolve to confront India’s escalating hostilities with constitutional clarity, legal integrity, and international legitimacy.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.