DAWN Editorials 2nd September 2026

Hague decision

THE unanimous decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague is unambiguous: India’s unilateral withdrawal from the Indus Waters Treaty is invalid. This is a moral and legal victory for Pakistan, endorsed by a respected third party.

India has, however, said that it does not recognise the court, and “categorically” rejects the verdict. New Delhi’s response reflects its usual mix of arrogance and disregard for global conventions when matters do not go in its favour. The PCA has said that none of the grounds India has provided for abandoning the IWT “justify suspension or termination” of the treaty. The court has also called for suspending work on the Ratle hydropower project in occupied Kashmir.

With apparent reference to the developments, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif told the SCO summit in Bishkek on Tuesday that water cannot be weaponised, and that “treaties governing our shared waters are solemn”. The Hague award only strengthens Pakistan’s case, and the government must pursue all avenues to protect the country’s water rights. Pakistan has consistently been arguing that India’s suspension of the IWT last year, after the Pahalgam episode, is legally untenable.

Unfortunately, India picks and chooses which international laws it wishes to respect. It has recognised earlier PCA decisions, but in the present instance, it is attempting to engage in legal jugglery to escape its responsibility of restoring the IWT. India’s prime minister often lectures the international community about the need to uphold the ‘rules-based order’. Yet when the global system rules against it, India tramples these same standards underfoot. This is not a new phenomenon. New Delhi has been ignoring the UN resolution on the Kashmir plebiscite for nearly eight decades.

Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has proposed a three-step process to resolve the IWT imbroglio. This includes respecting the treaty in “letter and spirit”; addressing all disputes through its mechanisms, and restoring “technical engagement … and data-sharing” between Pakistan and India. This is a logical roadmap towards restoring the IWT. Yet bellicosity and bluster have replaced rationality and statesmanship in New Delhi.

But Pakistan cannot afford to cede to India’s obduracy and give away its water rights. The IWT is a critical framework for protecting these rights, as the Indus and its tributaries are a lifeline for this country. India should engage constructively with Pakistan, and agree to restore the IWT. If it wants any changes to the treaty, let it discuss these with Pakistan at the negotiating table. The blockade of Pakistan’s rightful waters will not be accepted. If India goes ahead with its malign plans to deprive Pakistan of water, it will be sowing the seeds of renewed conflict.

Published in Dawn, September 2nd, 2026

Sudden overhaul

THE logic of the decision has been questioned, with critics accusing cricket authorities in the country of pressing the panic button following the national team’s successive Test thrashings at the hands of England. The overhaul of the squad before the third and final game of the series was indeed unprecedented: head coach Sarfraz Ahmed and fast-bowling coach Umar Gul were sent home alongside seven other players after England clinched the series with a 194-run rout of the tourists at Lord’s on Sunday. Having witnessed defeat by an innings and 103 runs in the series opener, the Pakistan Cricket Board clearly hopes that cricketing pride can be restored in the third Test that begins on Sept 9. The setbacks in England mean Pakistan have now lost five of their last six Tests, their sole victory coming against the West Indies in August. They are rock bottom in the World Test Championship standings, and are apparently headed towards a repeat of their last-place finish in the previous cycle. Their position shows how far Pakistan have fallen. Although led by batting superstar Babar Azam, Pakistan have failed to post a total of 200 in the series against England so far. Babar, who returned as Test captain during the series against the West Indies, missed the first Test due to injury and failed to inspire his side when he returned. Salman Agha, who stood for him in the opener, was dropped from the second Test; he is one of seven players axed alongside senior wicket-keeper Mohammad Rizwan, opener Imam-ul-Haq, spinner Ali Usman, pacer Khurram Shahzad, all-rounder Aamir Jamal and batter Mohammad Awais Zafar. Sarfraz, who had helmed just five matches, has been replaced by Pakistan’s white-ball coach Mike Hesson, while Ashley Noffke comes in for Umar.

It remains to be seen, though, how PCB’s knee-jerk reaction plays out with selectors having drafted in white-ball players — notably batters Saim Ayub and Abdullah Fazal and spinner Arafat Minhas. Others include wicket-keeper Saad Baig, seamer Mohammed Imran Jr and all-rounders Mohammad Imran and Razaullah, with the quartet being uncapped in any format by Pakistan. Former cricketers and critics have slammed PCB’s actions, calling for more consistency and proper decision-making. The PCB might stand vindicated at the end of it all but it is time it realised that merely changing personnel might not work in the long run.

Published in Dawn, September 2nd, 2026

Terrorism trials

THE Punjab Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2026, rests on a real problem. For decades, we have seen terrorism cases collapse and mass murderers go scot-free because those meant to prosecute them had no protection. Witnesses in terrorism trials withdrew their testimony, went missing, or simply refused to appear — they knew the state could not guarantee their safety. Judges hearing sensitive cases have faced threats that no amount of courage can overcome. Justice Arif Iqbal Bhatti was shot dead in his Lahore chambers in 1997, months after acquitting a blasphemy suspect. The delay in concluding such cases means that the accused are not punished and the innocent remain in jail for years. Anonymous courts and identity-shielded proceedings exist in countries, which concluded that open trials mean little if the people running them are dead or too frightened to speak.

That is the argument for the bill — but it does not answer the argument against it. A representation to the governor identifies a structural flaw that good intent cannot resolve. The bill hands the power to classify a case as a ‘special security case’ to a Grade-20 official. If the official decides that a case qualifies, control over witness coding, sealed records and video proceedings follow. It amounts to creating a parallel procedure in which the executive — and not the court — decides what constitutes a fair trial. Article 175(3) of the Constitution exists precisely to prevent this kind of arrangement. So does Article 10-A. A law that lets an official decide, without judicial oversight, whose trial gets sealed and whose witnesses get coded, can easily be abused by the government of the day. Intent does not travel with legislation once it is passed. Only the text does, and the text as summarised in the representation gives an administrative officer the authority that belongs, constitutionally, to a judge. This does not mean the bill should be shelved. It means the draft passed should not be the version that becomes law.

Published in Dawn, September 2nd, 2026