Pakistan and India recently agreed to cease fire after three days of missile and drone attacks on each other‘s military installations. The US timely intervention brought the fighting to a stop, with President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio conducting a continuous backchannel peace dialogue with the leaders of India and Pakistan.

It is now about two weeks since the ceasefire, but instead of the prospects of peace strengthening, there is tension in the air and foreboding about what next. This is particularly so due to belligerent noises constantly emanating from India and a section of the media there calling the ceasefire merely a pause and talking of a second round in the near future. In this context, it is relevant to note here that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself referred to the ceasefire as a “temporary pause” and Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh saying that “Operation Sindoor is not over yet … Pakistan is on probation.”

The warlike rhetoric is not only aimed at Pakistan but also at India’s domestic audience. Modi’s BJP government’s Hindutva policy thrives on hatred of Pakistan and Muslims generally. No wonder, Narendra Modi, under pressure from RSS and BJP extremists, may opt to escalate tensions on the border sooner than later, particularly to appease its constituency of Hindu majoritarian voters.

No doubt, for the time being the May 10 ceasefire holds and military forces on both sides have initiated a process of drawdown of personnel and equipment. DGMOs on both sides have been constantly in touch to finalise confidence-building measures and a structured mechanism for de-escalation. But, given the history of continued confrontation between the two countries and India’s intransigence over Kashmir and other issues, the tension between the two nuclear-armed nations is not going to die down anytime soon.

In the background of the recent missile war, Pakistan would want a comprehensive peace dialogue not only on India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty but also Kashmir and other long standing issues. But as India has repeatedly made it clear and in recent statements as well, its focus is only on terrorism. In other words, while Pakistan seeks to address the root causes of the unending confrontation between the two countries, New Delhi is for a dialogue only on terrorism and the status of Azad Kashmir.

It is in this context that we have to see the unease shown by India over President Trump’s offer to mediate on the Kashmir dispute. India is a recalcitrant customer and will not come round to see reason without increasing pressure from world powers and countries with which its economic interests are linked. Apart from the US, Russia can also play a facilitating role. And so can Saudi Arabia which has been increasingly active in peace diplomacy in recent years, and is seen as a stabilising force in regional and international conflicts. Saudi Arabia has taken an active part in finding a feasible solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If the countries play a proactive role in the Kashmir dispute, New Delhi can be gradually brought round to cede to the Kashmiris their right of self-determination.

An immediate concern is India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty in the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack. Pakistan has repeatedly denied involvement in the incident, but the accord remains “in abeyance” as declared by India despite the two nuclear-armed neighbours having agreed to a ceasefire following a brief aerial warfare. It is reported that after the April 22 attack, Indian Prime Minister Modi ordered authorities concerned to expedite planning and execution of projects on the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus rivers, three rivers in the Indus system that are designated primarily for Pakistan’s use. Under the treaty, India is permitted to draw a limited amount of water from the Chenab for irrigation, but India is now set to breach this limit. Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told the media last week that India “will keep the treaty in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism”.

Pakistan has taken the matter seriously and rightly declared that any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan will be treated as an“act of war.” About 80 per cent of Pakistan’s agriculture  depends on the Indus system, as well as  all hydropower projects serving the country of some 250 million. Needless to say, any attempt by India to build dams, canals or other infrastructure to withhold or divert the flow of water from the Indus system would adversely affect Pakistan’s agricultural economy.

According to some media reports, water at a key receiving point in Pakistan fell by as much as 90pc in early May after India started maintenance work on some Indus projects. Under the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty, India cannot unilaterally take any action that restricts the flow of water into the Indus and other rivers allocated to Pakistan. Last week, World Bank President Ajay Banga talking to an Indian news channel said, “There is no provision in the treaty to allow it to be suspended, the way it (IWT) was drawn up, it either needs to be gone or it needs to be replaced by another one. That requires the two countries to want to agree. The treaty is not suspended, it’s technically called something in abeyance, is how the Indian government worded it.”

It may be added here that Article XII of the IWT makes it clear that it can only be modified by mutual agreement. By itself India cannot suspend or modify it. It is not only a treaty violation but a violation of international humanitarian law. Article 54 (4) of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of Aug 12, 1949, (AP I) specifically outlaws the stoppage of water for the purpose of reprisals. Without further delay, Islamabad should take up the matter with the US and other friendly nations and initiate necessary steps to start the arbitration process as provided in the IWT for the resolution of such disputes.