Daily Times Editorials 1th September 2026

Justice Prevailed

India’s attempt to place the Indus Waters Treaty in “abeyance” has now met the one test that no political rhetoric (however colourful, however vengeful) could evade: international law. The Court of Arbitration in The Hague has ruled unanimously that the 1960 treaty remains fully in force and that India is bound to honour its obligations. For Pakistan, this is more than a favourable legal outcome. It is a vindication of the position Islamabad has maintained from the beginning–treaties cannot be switched on and off according to the political temper of the day.

The strength of the award lies in the breadth of what it rejects. India’s invocation of sovereignty did not survive scrutiny. Nor did arguments built around alleged Pakistani breaches, “legal roadblocks,” terrorism, demographic change, clean-energy needs, advances in dam technology or climate change. The Court found no legal basis for unilateral suspension or termination. It returned instead to the oldest and most essential rule of treaty law: pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).

That principle matters enormously in South Asia. The Indus Waters Treaty was never a friendship agreement. It was designed precisely because India and Pakistan could not be expected to agree on everything else. It survived wars, military crises, diplomatic freezes and decades of hostility because water was deliberately placed within a rules-based framework. The Court has now underlined that even armed conflict would not, by itself, extinguish the treaty. Indeed, the agreement has remained operative through repeated India-Pakistan conflicts since 1960.Pakistan Travel Guide

The ruling on terrorism is equally important. The Court treated India’s allegations seriously but found that, even if assumed to be true, they would not constitute a material breach of the IWT because the treaty regulates the waters of the Indus system. Nothing else. Nothing more. While categorically rejecting any involvement in the Pehelgam attack and even repeatedly offering a neutral investigation, Pakistan has made its case on the world stage as to how political and security disputes cannot simply be used as an excuse to abandon legal obligations.

Pakistan also secured meaningful interim protection over the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant. India has been barred from concreting parts of the dam wall and power-intake structure beyond specified levels until 90 days after the Neutral Expert’s decision, expected in 2027, and must report changes to the construction schedule.

India may reject the proceedings politically, but it cannot erase the findings through declarations. The treaty lives. Its obligations remain. On the Indus, justice has delivered. *

Age of Exposure

The Islamabad High Court has asked six ministries and regulators to explain how Pakistan intends to protect children below 16 on social media. The question goes beyond an age limit. Pakistan already has cybercrime law, blocking powers and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency. What remains unsettled is who carries responsibility for the environment children enter once they log on.

Digital Rights Foundation recorded 3,012 complaints in 2025, including 2,586 involving cyber harassment. Cases involving minors rose another 28 per cent after a 51 per cent increase the previous year. Pakistan is also receiving nearly one million referrals annually containing digital evidence potentially linked to child sexual exploitation and abuse. NCCIA’s Katalyst system is meant to expand the state’s ability to sift that flood.

That investment deserves credit. Pakistan is not starting from zero. The government has argued for guided protection rather than shutting children out of digital life, while NCCIA, PTA, National CERT and child-protection bodies have built reporting and awareness mechanisms. The IHC proceedings should push that architecture into a more demanding phase.Send Money Overseas

A blanket under-16 ban risks placing most of the burden on the child and parent while leaving the platform’s business model untouched. Australia’s experience is instructive. After 4.7 million accounts were deactivated, removed or restricted, official evaluation found under-16 account ownership had fallen only from 52.4 per cent to 42.1 per cent. Age gates change behaviour, and they do not regulate what an algorithm promotes after a user gets through.

Social-media companies are not passive noticeboards. Recommendation systems decide what comes next, notifications pull users back, and infinite scroll stretches attention because attention is commercially valuable. Meta’s recent US settlement of up to $18 billion over allegations that Facebook and Instagram were designed in ways harmful to children shows where the global argument is moving: towards product design, defaults and corporate responsibility.

Pakistan should follow that logic without importing foreign models wholesale. Age verification may create a privacy problem if minors are pushed into uploading identity documents or biometric data before Pakistan has a comprehensive personal-data protection regime in force. Child safety cannot be built by making children surrender more information than necessary.Hire Grant Writers

The state has built much of the machinery. It now needs a child-specific rulebook that recognises where power actually sits online.

The IHC has opened the right question. Parliament should ensure the answer regulates the system around the child, rather than merely the child inside the system. *