Pakistan is getting dry

[Master Chief]

Then get off this "muh war prevention treaty" as if it was some goodwill you gave us. The treaty rests on the fact that both parties agree to uphold it and resolve disputes peacefully. Signing a treaty for water sharing then stabbing in the back trying to usurp territories? The treaty would've never been signed if it wasn't for the Nehru government and its bhaichara mentality. But what's done is done.

First and formemost this treaty is India's largessee. Get that into your head, we didn't have to sign a treaty at all, but we did, we paid over 150 million dollars on top of that so that you can have a new canal system when we stop eastern rivers. The treaty survived wars you started again it shouldn't have.
On top of that close to 1 billion was given to you by various governments (incl our 170 mil) and international agencies to build this new canal system and Mangla-Tarbela dams.

The total absolute control of the eastern rivers happened less than a decade ago btw.

Can you blame them? After decades of deception, wars, terrorism you think we are all planning to be best friends? Always remember, absolutely no Indian ever wish anything good for Pakistan. We don't like you, you don't like us and every action Indian state takes is to undermine you at every turn possible. It shouldn't come as a surprise when you yourself consider India as your enemy. Enemies do what enemies do, there are no righteous enemies.

Back at you, IWT would've been still there if you learnt to live as a civilized neighbour. But no, you want Kashmir, when you couldn't win it in a fair fight, you want to bleed India by thousand cuts. India is not even planning to cut water supply, but exploit your complicacy in not building enough reservoirs and canals. But that's today, the ball is in your court, do you want to dismantle old ways? You can have your treaty, remember the treaty is not dusted yet only in abeyance. Next major militant attack in Kashmir the treaty is done for good.

Where in the IWT is it stipulated that conflict between India and Pakistan renders the terms null and void or that one party may unilaterally declare the treaty null and void?

These terms were agreed to by your democratically elected representatives. The moneys spent by Hindustan at the onset have done nothing charitable for Pakistan. On the contrary, these moneys have facilitated Indian control over the eastern rivers, as per the treaty's terms.

The IWT is also not your "largesse", contrary to whatever mythologies you sing yourself to sleep with. What kind of statement even is this? Have you been learning to speak with your own set of laser eyes borrowed from the Jaishankar school of diplomacy?

In 1948, Hindustan halted water ingress into Pakistani Punjab, as a hostile act. The IWT was deemed necessary as a consequence of this act to limit your species' natural inclination towards genocidal acts against civilians and livestock. The World Bank brokered this treaty as a means to mitigate potential harm applied from Hindustan towards Pakistani civilians and their livelihoods. It was signed and ratified accordingly. You didn't complain at the time. What "suits" India now doesn't matter. What matters is the terms of the treaty.

Alternatively, are you suggesting you were somehow deceived at the point of signing?

Have you taken up this concern via the appropriate channels, as specified in the treaty itself?

I understand that the Permanent Court of Arbitration based at The Hague, Netherlands, can be approached in this regard. Alternatively, the World Bank itself should be considered a viable route for further negotiation, as a co-signatory and the named broker of this agreement. Has either option been availed?

 

[Jaeger]

Bilateral and Multilateral treaties after World War 2 where one or more participant has withdrawn.

The INF Treaty (1987): The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was an arms control agreement between the US and the Soviet Union (later Russia) that banned all nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The United States formally withdrew in 2019, citing ongoing covert testing and deployment of a banned missile (the SSC-8) by Russia.

The Budapest Memorandum (1994): Russia, the US, and the UK provided security assurances to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to facilitate their removal of Soviet-era nuclear weapons. The guarantees included commitments to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent 2022 invasion are widely recognized violations of these commitments.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was a 1972 arms control agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. It limited each nation to one deployment area for anti-ballistic missiles.
The United States officially withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on June 13, 2002

The Paris Agreement (2015): A landmark United Nations framework treaty on climate change adopted by 196 parties to limit global warming. The United States announced its withdrawal from the accord in 2019.

The Iran Nuclear Deal / JCPOA (2015): The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was designed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. The United States unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and re-imposed sanctions.

 

[Master Chief]

Bilateral and Multilateral treaties after World War 2 where one or more participant has withdrawn.

The INF Treaty (1987): The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was an arms control agreement between the US and the Soviet Union (later Russia) that banned all nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The United States formally withdrew in 2019, citing ongoing covert testing and deployment of a banned missile (the SSC-8) by Russia.

The Budapest Memorandum (1994): Russia, the US, and the UK provided security assurances to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to facilitate their removal of Soviet-era nuclear weapons. The guarantees included commitments to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent 2022 invasion are widely recognized violations of these commitments.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was a 1972 arms control agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. It limited each nation to one deployment area for anti-ballistic missiles.
The United States officially withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on June 13, 2002

The Paris Agreement (2015): A landmark United Nations framework treaty on climate change adopted by 196 parties to limit global warming. The United States announced its withdrawal from the accord in 2019.

The Iran Nuclear Deal / JCPOA (2015): The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was designed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. The United States unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and re-imposed sanctions.

And The Secular Republic of India is now on a level with USA or USSR that it may "withdraw" from a treaty?

Why are you so concerned over this issue that you need to keep "justifying" your position?

Just be very clear and proud that India broke this treaty. We are similarly satisfied that we did not break the terms.

Breach of a treaty by your kind is probably to be expected anyway. Indeed, it is regarded as par for the course. Pakistan is fully cognisant that agreements with Hindustan are not worth the paper they are written on. Many warned of this reality of the Hindu majoritarian state, including Churchill, oddly enough.

 

[Jaeger]

And The Secular Republic of India is now on a level with USA or USSR that it may "withdraw" from a treaty?

Why are you so concerned over this issue that you need to keep "justifying" your position?

Just be very clear and proud that India broke this treaty. We are similarly satisfied that we did not break the terms.

Breach of a treaty by your kind is probably to be expected anyway. Indeed, it is regarded as par for the course. Pakistan is fully cognisant that agreements with Hindustan are not worth the paper they are written on. Many warned of this reality of the Hindu majoritarian state, including Churchill, oddly enough.

Firstly Pakistan can not break the Indus Water Treaty. As Pakistan has no contribution to the treaty, as well as Pakistan has no restrictions imposed by this treaty.

IW treaty imposes restrictions on India's in use of Indus waters and not Pakistan.

Secondly could you advise exactly what "level needs to achieved" for a country to be able to legally withdraw from a treaty?