The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (FO) criticized on Saturday to the Indian Interior Minister, Amit, the “unpleasant contempt” of international agreements after the latter said that New Delhi would never restore the Treaty of the Waters of the Indo (IWT) with Islamabad.
Delhi unilaterally suspended his participation in the IWT of 1960, which governs the use of the Indo River system, on April 23, shortly after 26 civilians were killed in India Cookmira. Delhi, without evidence, blamed Islamabad for the attack. The latter has denied the accusations and requested a neutral investigation. The agreement remains inactive despite a high fire agreed by the two neighbors with nuclear weapons last month after their worst fighting in decades.
“No, it will never be restored,” Shah said The times of India early today. “We will drink water that flows Rajasthan to Pakistan building a channel. Pakistan will be hungry for water that has been unjustifiably returning.”
Shah’s latest comments, the most powerful cabinet minister of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, reveals the intentions of Delhi as Islamabad expects negotiations about the treaty in the short term.
Responding to Shah’s comments, FO spokesman, Shafqat Ali Khan, said they reflected “a shameless contempt for the holiness of international agreements” and pointed out that the IWT is an apolitical agreement without provisions per unilateral action.
“The illegal announcement of India to maintain the treaty in suspense constitutes a clear violation of international law, the provisions of the treaty itself and the fundamental principles that govern interest relationships,” said fo.
“This conduct establishes an imprudent and dangerous precedent, one that undermines the credibility of international agreements and raises serious questions about the reliability and reliability of a State that openly refuses to fulfill its legal obligations.”
The FO added that “water of weapons for political purposes” is irresponsible and contrary to the behavior of a responsible state. He demanded that India immediately restore the complete implementation of the IWT.
“For its part, Pakistan remains firmly committed to the treaty and will take all the necessary measures to protect their legitimate rights and rights under it,” the statement concluded.
Going to a multitude of followers on Friday night, the president of the PPP, Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, had said that New Delhi must accept the IWT, warning that if he refused to honor the treaty, “we will fight against another war and take the six rivers. We know how to defend our rivers.”
At the beginning of the month, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the unilateral suspension of the IWT India, describing it as a “flagrant violation and act of water aggression”, and warned that Pakistan would give an adequate response in line with the decisions taken at the National Security Committee (NSC) held on April 24.
Last month, Reuters He informed that India plans to drastically increase the water that extracts from an important river that feeds the Pakistani downstream farms, as part of the retaliation action.
The FO did not immediately respond to Reuters‘Application for comments, but has said in the past that the treaty has no disposition for one side to withdraw unilaterally, and that any water block that flows to Pakistan will be considered “an act of war.”
Islamabad is also exploring a legal challenge to India’s decision to hold the treaty in suspense according to international law.
Cm cm from Kashmir
On Friday, Cashmiro Prime Minister, in the Indian, Omar Abdullah, opposed to divert the waters of the State to Punjab and other neighboring states now that the IWT with Pakistan is suspended, asking why they should obtain more water when they already have three rivers, while parts of the territory of the union face a shortage of acute, Indian, Indian water. Telegraph reported.
“Nobody will take it. At least I will not allow it from now on. First it allows us to use our water, then we will talk about others. There is a drought situation in Jammu. There is no water in the taps,” Abdullah told journalists.
Abdullah was reacting to the supposed movement of the central government to carry out a feasibility study to build an 113 km long channel to direct the surplus flow of the three Western rivers of the Indo water system, according to the report.
“Why should water to Punjab carry? There are already three rivers with Punjab (and the other two states) under the swing of the Indo’s waters. Did they give us water when we needed it?” He was summoned as having said.
Omar referred to Punjab’s alleged negative to share water during disputes on the UJH multipurpose project and Shahpur Kandi’s flood in Jammu in the past. “We were in a terrible situation then, but they kept us waiting for years … After years, a job was done in the bombing of Shahpur Kandi,” he said.
