Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Friday said that any attempt by India to divert Pakistan’s share of water would be treated as an “act of war”.

“Any attempt to stop, impede or divert Pakistan’s share of the waters will be treated as an act of war. India must make no mistake about it,” he said during a speech at the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, where he called attention to the neighbouring country’s decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance.

He highlighted that the country’s claims and actions regarding the treaty had been rejected by UN experts as well as by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, leaving Pakistan “vindicated beyond any ray of doubt” in its position.

“Water must never be weaponised. Rivers should nourish nations, not divide them,” he stressed, calling the Indus river system the “lifeblood” of the entire region.

PM Shehbaz also addressed last year’s brief military conflict with India, which came after an attack on tourists in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam that killed 26 tourists — an incident New Delhi blamed on Islamabad without evidence. For its part, Pakistan strongly denied the allegations and called for a neutral investigation.

“Our brave and valiant armed forces, under the courageous leadership of Field Marshal Asim Munir, responded with precision and professionalism,” he said.

He once again praised US President Donald Trump’s “resolute and visionary leadership” in brokering a ceasefire between the two countries in May 2025, stressing that it saved “hundreds of millions of lives”.

“Who knows the extent of devastation that could have taken place had President Trump not stepped in at this critical moment with clarity of thought and action?” he questioned.

“We must therefore ensure that South Asia never reaches this precipice ever again,” he said. This, however, the premier added, required a fair resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

“For eight decades, the Kashmiri people have waited for the United Nations to fulfill its solemn commitment of a free and impartial plebiscite,” he pointed out, adding that they had endured “illegal occupation, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, sexual violence and collective punishment” for generations.

He declared that Pakistan would continue to extend its full diplomatic, political and moral support to Kashmiris until they were granted their right to self-determination, terming Kashmir “Pakistan’s jugular vein”.

Pakistan’s peace efforts

During his address, the prime minister also addressed the conflict in the Gulf region and the Middle East, highlighting the loss of lives, economic suffering and pressure faced by critical maritime routes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz.

“At this critical moment, Pakistan chose to act swiftly. Through concerted efforts, Pakistan brought Washington and Tehran under one roof in Islamabad,” PM Shehbaz said, referring to the Islamabad Talks that resulted in the signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding by the US and Iran in June.

In this regard, he appreciated Chief of Defence Forces Field Marshal Munir, whose “relentless efforts helped create space for diplomacy under exceptionally difficult and challenging circumstances”. He also extended his appreciation to Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar for his role in the process.

“Amid the roar of missiles, drones and guns, the voice for diplomacy must echo even louder and stronger,” the premier stated.

“The Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab are arteries of the global economy. They must remain open, connecting nations, not becoming choke points of confrontation,” he said.

He also condemned, “in the strongest possible terms”, the recent attacks by the Houthis against the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, calling them “deplorable” and expressed Islamabad’s complete solidarity with Riyadh.

He also highlighted the tripartite defence agreement recently signed by Pakistan, Turkiye and Saudi Arabia as a reflection of Pakistan’s commitment to peace.

“This alliance is not directed against any country; it is a collective commitment for defence, stability and peace in the region, and nothing more,” he stressed.

Israel’s ‘genocidal agenda’

PM Shehbaz also restated Pakistan’s support for Palestine, expressing his concern for ongoing Israeli violence in Gaza and the West Bank as well as its continued aggression against Lebanon and Syria.

He said that last year he had mentioned the “heart-wrenching story” of Hind Rajab, a 5-year-old Palestinian girl who was shot dead by Israeli forces in Gaza after being trapped for hours in a car with her family members.

“This year, another tragedy weighs heavy on the heart. This time, it is the deafening cries of the sobbing mother of eight-year-old Wafaa Akila, who embraced martyrdom in this senseless aggression. What should have been the first day of her school became the last day of her life,” he said.

“Does not a child born in Gaza deserve the same life, and the same future as a child anywhere else in the world? The tragedies of Hind Rajab, Wafaa Akila, and countless others will echo through history as an indictment of our collective silence and inaction,” he said.

In particular, he noted that the forcible eviction of Palestinians in the West Bank “clearly reflects Israel’s genocidal agenda”.

“Pakistan believes that the only just and lasting solution is the creation of an independent, sovereign, viable and contiguous state of Palestine based on pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital,” he reaffirmed.

Terrorism and Afghanistan

Talking about terrorism, the premier said: “Terrorism remains one of the gravest threats to international peace and security.”

He said that as a frontline state in combating the menace of terrorism, Pakistan had “fought terrorists in our own cities, in our own mountains and along our frontiers”.

“Pakistan has sacrificed, almost 100,000 precious lives and suffered economic losses exceeding $150 billion. The world is safer today thanks to the valuable sacrifices of our valiant armed forces and brave civilians who took on these terrorists. The peace-loving world must never forget this reality,” he said.

He added that Afghan territory continued to be exploited by the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan and the Balochistan Liberation Army.

“These foreign-funded groups operated from sanctuaries in Afghanistan with the aim of destabilising Pakistan,” he said. The premier said that all such attacks from the territory of Afghanistan “must come to a grinding halt”.

He called on Afghan authorities to fulfill their international commitments and take “verifiable, decisive action to ensure that Afghan soil is never again used against Pakistan or any other country”.

“The fundamental rights of the Afghan people, especially women and girls, must be respected,” he said.

On restoring trust

PM Shehbaz also called attention to the theme of this year’s assembly, saying, “The theme of this session calls upon us to restore trust. But trust cannot be restored by words alone. It must be earned through action.

“We will restore trust when rivers become lifelines of cooperation, not faultlines of conflict. We will restore trust when those who fuelled the climate crisis protect those who suffer most from its devastating consequences. And above all, trust will be restored when the guns are silenced and replaced by handshakes, embraces and smiles,” he said.

He called for the UN to become stronger and more effective, stressing that reform must reflect “the interests and aspirations of the overwhelming majority of member states, not the ambitions of a select few”.

“We live at a dangerous moment. But our future is not predetermined. War is a choice. Peace is also a choice. And sometimes, courage lies not in starting a war but in preventing one,” he said.

“Pakistan has made its choice. We have chosen dialogue over confrontation. We have chosen cooperation over coercion. We have chosen peace over war,” the premier said.

“Let this 81st General Assembly make it a unanimous choice … Let us restore trust. Let us preserve peace. And let us prove that even in a divided world, humanity can still choose to stand together,” he concluded.

KHYBER Pakhtunkhwa is on edge again, and not just for the deteriorating security and volatility in the south, which has been bad for quite some time now.

It is the provincial government’s avowed single-point agenda to secure its party’s chairman’s freedom from Adiala jail, or at the very least, get him some relief like shifting him to a private hospital in Islamabad.

But days before ‘D-Day’, i.e. Sept 27, one cannot help but be struck by an overwhelming sense of déjà vu: this is November 2024 all over again, albeit with some changes to the cast.

Ali Amin Gandapur, the chief minister at the time, who led the long march to D-Chowk, lost the job during his second year in office, allowing a young and relatively inexperienced Sohail Afr­idi to take up the mantle.

One year into his term, the 37-year-old CM Afridi is now playing his biggest political gambit since his foray into politics as a student activist of the PTI’s student wing.

There is another change to the cast. Bushra Bibi, the former first lady who led the bloody Nov 24 D-Chowk March, is now serving a jail term in Adiala jail.

And so, the task of securing Imran Khan’s release has passed on to another woman — his sister, Aleema Khan. She too, though, has now been taken into custody.

With the planned political onslaught on the federal capital just two days away, the clock is ticking, and worryingly, no one knows where and how this will end.

No one has a clue. Not even those who have planned for this day for months. And neither do the ones who have scrambled to throw in all possible measures to defend and protect Islamabad from yet another onslaught from KP. The stakes are high and everyone with an insight knows it.

The comparisons between the two guards are natural; Ali Amin was an old hack. He knew what he was getting into and would war-game it. But even he couldn’t forestall a mob that crossed over into the so-called Red Zone, precipitating violence in a way that was not foreseen.

But Afridi is a relatively new campaigner, carrying the relentless pressure of the party’s D-Chowk fiasco. It seems he doesn’t know the full breadth of what he is getting into. These are uncharted waters for him and he doesn’t have the comfort of many wise counsels.

Even the party’s own decision-making system is so diffused that no one is willing to publicly take responsibility for any fallout of the impending march; everyone is looking towards each other.

Mehmood Khan Achakzai and Raja Nasir Abbas, the PTI’s current political mentors, are there to lend their support. But any decision, they have made clear, has to come from the PTI itself.

Up until now, no one person knows what the whole plan is. With a crackdown on its leaders and lawmakers underway and authorities in Islamabad putting up several layers of security around the federal capital amid ominous warnings of nasty things to come, the PTI leadership can be under no illusions; this time around would be a different and dangerous gambit.

There are logistical and financial issues as well. A party which had no dearth of resources finds itself struggling to raise money to mobilise its workers and pay for logistics.

Adding to their woes is the unwillingness of private transporters to ferry party supporters, after having suffered huge losses to their vehicles in the Nov 2024 fiasco.

So, what could be the game plan once party workers and supporters are eventually mobilised despite all the difficulties and misgivings?

Stop at Swabi, just short of KP’s boundary with the Punjab on the M1 Motorway, and block the many entry points into Punjab?

Stage a sit-in; but for how long? Will it be sustainable? Not just logistically but also politically, given the problems that the blockades would cause to the people, and the food and fuel shortages that these would give rise to?

Or, will the PTI surge ahead, removing all the hurdles and battling police and Rangers to find an opening to enter Islamabad and bring the federal government to its knees, forcing it to accept their demands?

If that is the case, then who will lead the charge? Who will take responsibility in the event of something going terribly wrong? It doesn’t take long for a seemingly well-organised ral­ly to turn into a mob; after all, even Ali Amin had not foreseen what would happen when his party workers entered the Red Zone. The risks are too high and everyone knows it — most of all the minders in Islamabad. PTI leaders now say, they are showing signs of panic by barricading their territory, placing containers and digging up roads to make them impassable.

For the federal authorities, the risk of mob violence is too real to ignore. The events of Nov 2024 are still fresh in their memory and they can’t afford ano­ther violent confrontation so close to the Red Zone.

Allowing the PTI to stage a sit-in anywhere near Islamabad is a big no-no for them; it was tried and tested, and it failed.

The choices are limited. The PTI cannot afford a repeat of what happened in November 2024. Such an eventuality, they know, will hurt them gravely and might even cost them their government in KP.

It is a suspense thriller, that’s for sure. No one kno­ws, neither in Peshawar, nor in Islamabad, how eve­nts will unfold in the days to come.

Most worryingly, though, no one is talking to anyone, and no one knows who will initiate negotiations to end this deadlock. For some strange reason, in the words of a senior PTI lawmaker, they are looking to divine intervention to toss up some middle ground, or face-saving.

Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2026

For decades, India has refused to recognise a Pakistan-China boundary in a disputed part of the Himalayas that Delhi claims as its own.

But last week, Pakistan and China formalised a boundary in a remote part of the mountainous region, drawing a sharp response from Delhi.

The two countries signed the Pakistan-China Boundary Joint Commission, an agreement which Pakistan described as a “significant milestone” that would deepen cooperation on border management, trade and connectivity between India’s regional rivals.

Delhi rejected the move as having no legal basis, saying it did not recognise any Pakistan-China boundary located in territory it claims as Indian.

The announcement comes at a particularly sensitive moment.

India and China are seeking to stabilise their relationship after years of military tensions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the disputed line separating their forces along much of their Himalayan frontier. At the same time, Beijing and Islamabad are deepening cooperation along a neighbouring stretch of the frontier that India also claims.

“There is no boundary between Pakistan and China. We reject the so-called Joint Commission, which is without any legal basis,” Indian foreign ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said.

The commission concerns the Pakistan-China frontier, including the Shaksgam Valley, a roughly 5,180 sq km tract that Pakistan ceded to China in 1963 but which India claims as part of its territory in Ladakh.

India says the territory was part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and was illegally occupied by Pakistan before being ceded to China. The Indian government has never recognised the agreement and considers it illegal and invalid.

This history explains the particular sensitivity of Wednesday’s announcement.

“Pakistan has no locus standi to enter into arrangements concerning Indian territory under its illegal and forcible occupation,” the Indian foreign ministry said.

Pakistan says Jammu and Kashmir remains a disputed territory, and argues that India therefore has no standing to challenge its 1963 boundary agreement with China. It regards the agreement as valid.

Jabin T Jacob, professor at the Department of International Relations and Governance Studies at Delhi’s Shiv Nadar University, said the new development represented the revival of an old mechanism rather than an entirely new arrangement.

“A joint boundary commission is provided for in the 1963 Sino-Pak Agreement, the only issue at hand is the timing of its operationalisation,” he told the BBC.

He said there could be several reasons for the timing, including China’s broader effort to demarcate its boundaries and a desire to institutionalise exchanges and movement along a frontier at a time when Pakistan’s other borders have experienced conflict and instability.

Jacob said India should be “worried” by the development. More importantly, he said, the move appeared to disregard a provision in the 1963 treaty itself.

Article 6 of the agreement provided for its renegotiation once the Kashmir dispute was settled with whichever country ultimately controlled the territory, Jacob said.

For India, Jacob said, the problem is compounded by the international information environment.

“China’s relative dominance of the international media and information landscape – [with] CGTN, CRI, presence on social media – relative to India allows it to put forward its narrative and maps globally while India is limited to fulminations that other world capitals are likely to ignore,” he said.

That concern is distinct from the practical management of the frontier itself. Pakistan and China already have extensive infrastructure and connectivity links across the region, including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Karakoram Highway.

Husain Haqqani, former Pakistani ambassador to the US and now a senior fellow at Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy and Hudson Institute, said the new commission was both practical and political.

“It is a combination of both,” Haqqani told the BBC. “It is a mechanism to enhance border and boundary cooperation, prevent illegal crossings and protect the strategic infrastructure tied to CPEC.”

He said it also served as a signal to India that Beijing continued to view Kashmir through the Pakistani prism.

“China has never accepted India’s position on Kashmir and China views Gilgit-Baltistan from the Pakistani, not Indian prism,” Haqqani said, referring to the region in Pakistan-administered Kashmir that borders China and which India claims as part of its territory.

Haqqani said Islamabad’s position had evolved in response to developments in Indian-administered Kashmir.

“Pakistan still maintains that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is yet to be decided,” he said. “But since India has made internal changes – for example, the abrogation of Article 370 – in its part of Kashmir, Pakistan sees no issue with simply institutionalising what has been de facto with China since 1963.”

For Beijing, the arrangement also fits into a broader pattern of using its relationships with neighbouring states to manage and signal its position towards India.

Haqqani said reassurance to Pakistan on Kashmir was of both strategic and geopolitical value to Beijing.

“On the strategic front it further deepens ties with Pakistan and on the geo-strategic front it reinforces for India its fear of a two-front threat from China and Pakistan, which pleases Pakistan and benefits China.”

The timing of the statement, say experts, is also significant.

“China always plans its decisions months, if not years, in advance so the decision to operationalise a joint boundary commission must have been made some time back,” says Haqqani.

“The release of this information was timed for after President Xi Jinping’s recent Brics summit trip to send Pakistan a message of reassurance in the strategic partnership, and India a reminder that multilateral engagement does not translate into any change in China’s vision for South Asia.”

But Jacob cautioned against interpreting every aspect of the development as a direct military move against India.

“There aren’t any immediate or apparent implications for the LAC as of now,” he said.

That suggests that the significance of last week’s announcement may lie less in an immediate change to the disputed Himalayan frontier than in the gradual institutionalisation of arrangements that India has consistently rejected.

India’s position, Jaiswal said, remained “clear and consistent”: any attempt to legitimise what Delhi considers Pakistan’s illegal occupation of Indian territory is unacceptable and has no bearing on India’s sovereignty.

But Haqqani believes the dispute goes beyond the legalities of borders.

“The key disagreement between India and China about the border and boundary is geo-strategic, not cartographic,” he said. “So there is a limit to what border negotiations and border management mechanisms can achieve.”

Pakistan, he added, remained “China’s secondary deterrent against India” – and Beijing’s engagement with Islamabad would continue to send that message to Delhi.

Taken From BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqe9e4vjx1e5o