By Sadaf Sundas Riaz — SCN News
UNITED NATIONS — Pakistan called for “concrete and verifiable” action against militant groups it says are operating from Afghanistan and separately challenged India’s attempt to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, as Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar used meetings on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly to put two of Islamabad’s most pressing regional security disputes before Muslim countries.
Addressing the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Contact Group on Afghanistan, Dar said Afghan territory must not be allowed to be used for attacks against neighbouring countries, particularly Pakistan. He expressed concern over the presence of militant groups inside Afghanistan and said Islamabad was no longer seeking assurances alone, but action that could be demonstrated and verified.
Dar pointed to the recent attack in Kohat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where civilians were killed and scores wounded, as evidence of the security threat confronting Pakistan. He urged the Taliban authorities to act against militant groups and their sanctuaries and to honour Afghanistan’s international commitments. Pakistan has repeatedly accused the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and other groups of using Afghan territory for attacks, allegations the Taliban authorities have previously denied or disputed.
The demand for verifiable action is significant because it reflects the increasingly narrow terms Islamabad is placing on any improvement in relations with Kabul. Pakistan’s Foreign Office said last week that mediation involving Qatar, Türkiye and China had failed to produce sufficient progress and that Islamabad wanted terrorism originating from Afghan territory to stop completely before normal trade, transit and visa relations could be restored.
Pakistan has also raised the issue directly at the UN Security Council. During a recent Council meeting on Afghanistan, its representative said Islamabad wanted “verifiable and non-reversible action” against militants and alleged that groups including the TTP, BLA, Islamic State-Khorasan and Al Qaeda maintained a presence in Afghanistan. UN assessments have documented the continued presence of several militant organisations in Afghanistan, though individual claims about operational control, sponsorship and responsibility for specific attacks require separate verification.
Dar nevertheless stopped short of arguing for Afghanistan’s isolation. He reiterated Pakistan’s support for a stable and economically viable neighbour and urged the international community to provide sufficient humanitarian and development assistance. Islamabad’s position, as presented at the OIC meeting, is that engagement with Afghanistan should continue but must be accompanied by measurable Taliban action on security.
He also pressed the Taliban authorities over restrictions on women and girls, saying measures contrary to Islamic principles and the norms of Muslim societies should be removed. Dar called for more politically inclusive governance and urged Kabul to facilitate the resettlement and integration of Afghans returning from neighbouring countries.
The Afghanistan intervention formed only one part of Dar’s diplomatic agenda in New York. At a separate ministerial meeting of the OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir, he turned to India, arguing that New Delhi cannot unilaterally suspend obligations arising from the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.
“The treaty is a binding international agreement and contains no provision permitting its unilateral suspension,” Dar said. “International obligations can’t be set aside when they become inconvenient.”
India placed the treaty in abeyance in April 2025 following the Pahalgam attack, after which relations between the nuclear-armed neighbours deteriorated sharply and a brief military conflict followed in May. New Delhi has linked restoration of normal treaty arrangements to its demands concerning cross-border terrorism. Pakistan rejects Indian accusations that it supports such attacks and argues that India's action against the water-sharing agreement has no legal basis.
The legal landscape changed substantially this month when a Court of Arbitration operating under the Indus Waters Treaty unanimously concluded that the treaty remains in force and binding and that India's decision to place it in abeyance does not remove its treaty obligations. Pakistan welcomed the award as confirmation of its longstanding position. India rejected the proceedings and has disputed the legitimacy of the arbitration process.
The dispute matters well beyond diplomatic language. Signed in 1960 with World Bank involvement, the treaty established a framework governing use of the Indus river system shared by the two countries. Pakistan depends heavily on the Indus basin for agriculture and water supply, making any prolonged disruption to treaty mechanisms — including data exchange, inspections and technical consultations — a major national-security concern for Islamabad.
The arbitration award strengthens Pakistan’s legal argument that the treaty cannot simply be suspended by one party, but it does not automatically resolve the dispute on the ground. India has rejected the tribunal's authority and maintains that its decision to hold the treaty in abeyance remains in effect. That leaves a gap between the legal position advanced by the arbitration court and the practical cooperation required for the treaty to function normally.
Pakistan says that cooperation should include restoring meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission, exchanging river-flow information and permitting inspections required under the treaty. The joint commission has not met since 2022, while Islamabad says other routine mechanisms have also been disrupted.
Dar connected the water dispute to the wider Kashmir issue during the OIC meeting. He thanked OIC members for supporting what Pakistan describes as the Kashmiri right to self-determination and accused India of attempting to change the demographic and political character of Indian-administered Kashmir. India rejects Pakistan’s position, regards Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India and opposes outside intervention in the dispute.
The two OIC meetings therefore allowed Islamabad to present two different regional disputes through a common diplomatic argument: Pakistan says neighbouring governments must comply with international obligations rather than relying on unilateral assurances or decisions.
With Afghanistan, Islamabad is demanding evidence that Taliban authorities are preventing militant groups from using their territory. With India, Pakistan is arguing that treaty obligations remain enforceable regardless of the deterioration in bilateral relations.
The comparison has limits. The Afghanistan dispute centres primarily on counterterrorism, border security and Taliban governance, while the India dispute concerns a decades-old international water treaty and the unresolved Kashmir conflict. But both have become increasingly important elements of Pakistan’s diplomacy as Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif prepares to address the General Assembly later this week.
The Indus Waters Treaty is expected to feature prominently in that address. Reporting ahead of Shehbaz’s UN appearance indicates that Islamabad intends to use the General Assembly to reinforce its position following the arbitration award and seek wider diplomatic support for restoration of the treaty mechanisms.
Afghanistan is also likely to remain high on Pakistan’s agenda. Islamabad has made clear that it remains prepared for dialogue and eventually restoring trade and connectivity, but the Foreign Office says the next move must come from Kabul through action against militant groups. “If they cooperate on terrorism, there is no reason for Pakistan to continue with this process,” the ministry’s spokesperson said last week when discussing restrictions affecting bilateral relations.
Dar’s interventions in New York consequently sharpened two messages Pakistan is carrying into UNGA81: Kabul must demonstrate that Afghan territory will not be used for attacks against Pakistan, while New Delhi cannot, in Islamabad’s view and under the arbitration award, unilaterally escape the obligations of the Indus Waters Treaty.
Neither dispute was resolved by Tuesday’s meetings. The Taliban authorities would need to take security measures Islamabad considers independently verifiable for the Afghanistan relationship to materially improve, while restoring the Indus treaty’s normal operation would require India and Pakistan to resume cooperation despite New Delhi’s rejection of the arbitration proceedings.
For Pakistan, however, UNGA81 provides an opportunity to internationalise both concerns at a moment when its relations with its western and eastern neighbours are under strain. Dar’s message was that Islamabad remains prepared for dialogue with Afghanistan and expects international law to govern its water dispute with India — but that it wants measurable action rather than political assurances in both cases.