Multilateral diplomatic summits are supposed to be about regional stability, trade, and collective security. Yet every few months, the exact same diplomatic script plays out on the international stage.
Pakistan uses a global platform to bring up Kashmir and criticize Indian policy. India immediately counters with a sharp rejection, pointing directly at cross-border terrorism.
That script played out again at the 33rd ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Ministerial Meeting in Manila. Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar attempted to bring bilateral grievances regarding Kashmir and the Indus Waters Treaty into the summit. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal called out Islamabad for "cynically" misusing the summit to spread state-sponsored propaganda.
If you've followed South Asian geopolitics for more than five minutes, none of this sounds new. What has changed is the underlying leverage. India isn't just issuing polite diplomatic notes anymore. It's actively shutting down long-standing agreements like the Indus Waters Treaty, and the diplomatic room for Pakistan's classic talking points is shrinking fast.
What Happened in Manila
During the ARF session in Manila—an event attended by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar alongside top diplomats across the Indo-Pacific—Ishaq Dar brought up bilateral disputes that had no real place on the ASEAN agenda. He pressed for international mediation on Kashmir and voiced complaints over India’s operational pause on the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.
India’s response was fast and unapologetic. Randhir Jaiswal didn't mince words when addressing reporters shortly after:
"It is no surprise that a multilateral forum has once again been cynically exploited by Pakistan to amplify falsehoods, peddle state-sponsored disinformation, and divert attention from its own well-documented record of sponsoring cross-border terrorism."
Jaiswal reiterated a non-negotiable line: the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are integral, inalienable parts of India, and Pakistan has zero legal standing to speak on them.
India also addressed Pakistan's use of inflammatory religious terminology like Fitna al-Hindustan, framing it as a desperate attempt to distract from severe domestic economic crisis and political instability at home.
Why the Indus Waters Treaty Is Actually in Abeyance
To understand why this exchange matters, you have to look beyond the rhetoric at the actual policy shifts happening on the ground. Pakistan's biggest frustration in Manila wasn't just about diplomatic posturing; it was about water.
For over six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), brokered by the World Bank in 1960, survived three wars and decades of hostility. It was long considered one of the most successful transboundary water-sharing agreements in modern history.
That changed fundamentally after the deadly Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu & Kashmir on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives. Following a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting the next day, New Delhi formally notified Islamabad that the treaty was being held in abeyance.
India's position today is simple and direct:
- Blood and water cannot flow together. Technical cooperation requires minimal baseline trust. You can't expect hydro-diplomacy while cross-border terror attacks continue.
- Pakistan violated dispute mechanisms. New Delhi requested formal renegotiations of the treaty back in 2023 to account for demographic shifts, climate change, and clean energy requirements. Pakistan refused to engage and instead tried to bypass agreed processes by jumping straight to the Court of Arbitration.
- The halt stays until terror stops. The treaty won't be reactivated until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably dismantles its terror infrastructure.
While the treaty sits on ice, India is aggressively pursuing scientific basin management, modernizing water storage, and maximizing its legitimate share of water resources along the western rivers. For Pakistan, an agricultural economy heavily dependent on the Indus basin, this isn't just a diplomatic headache—it's an existential vulnerability.
The Strategy Behind Hijacking Multilateral Summits
Why does Pakistan keep bringing up bilateral issues at meetings like the ARF, the UN Security Council, or the OIC, despite knowing India will shut them down every single time?
It boils down to three domestic and strategic calculations.
Domestic Distraction
Pakistan is dealing with runaway inflation, political volatility, and mounting internal security threats along its western border with Afghanistan. Bringing up Kashmir and Indian "aggression" remains the easiest way for the political and military establishment in Islamabad to rally domestic support and shift headlines away from internal economic distress.
Internationalization Strategy
Pakistan's long-term diplomatic goal has always been to internationalize the Kashmir dispute—trying to convince the world that the region is a flashpoint requiring third-party intervention. India’s strategic goal is the exact opposite: keeping all issues strictly bilateral under the Shimla Agreement framework and treating Jammu & Kashmir as an internal constitutional matter.
Playing the Victim on Water Security
By raising the Indus Waters Treaty at international summits, Pakistan tries to frame India as an aggressive upper-riparian state using water as a weapon. But that argument ignores the fact that India honored the treaty for 65 years despite repeated provocations. The ground reality shifted only when terror attacks directly targeted civilians and security forces in Jammu & Kashmir.
Jaishankar's Counter-Play in Manila
While the MEA spokesperson handled the specific response to Pakistan's comments, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar played a much broader game inside the ARF hall.
Instead of getting bogged down in a back-and-forth debate with Islamabad, Jaishankar focused his address on tangible regional security issues:
- Zero tolerance for terror: He stressed that terrorism must carry direct consequences and urged member states to choke the financial pipelines fueling militant groups.
- Maritime security: He called out attacks on commercial shipping and civilian infrastructure, urging free navigation in international waterways.
- South China Sea: He pushed for a legally binding Code of Conduct compliant with UNCLOS 1982.
- Indo-Pacific alignment: He linked the Manila Plan of Action with India's broader vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific.
This contrast in approach highlights why Pakistan’s strategy keeps backfiring. ASEAN nations are deeply focused on trade, maritime supply chains, cybercrime, and economic resilience. When Islamabad turns a security forum into a platform for South Asian regional grievances, most regional delegates simply tune out.
The Changing Diplomatic Equation
The Manila exchange proves that the old playbook isn't working anymore. The international community has largely fatigue-tested Pakistan's complaints about Kashmir, treating it as a settled internal matter for India.
Meanwhile, India's economic weight and central role in Indo-Pacific security frameworks—like the Quad and ASEAN-led initiatives—give New Delhi the confidence to ignore background noise and enforce real penalties when cross-border red lines are crossed.
For Islamabad, continuing to raise these issues at multilateral summits yields diminishing returns. Until Pakistan takes genuine steps to dismantle terror networks on its own soil, speeches in Manila, New York, or Geneva won't change the realities on the ground.
What to Watch Next
If you want to track where this dispute goes from here, keep your eyes on three specific indicators over the coming months:
- India's water infrastructure projects: Track how fast New Delhi moves on run-of-the-river power plants and storage projects along the Chenab, Jhelum, and Indus rivers.
- Pakistan's legal challenges: Watch whether Islamabad attempts to push the Court of Arbitration for rulings on hydro projects despite India declaring those proceedings null and void.
- FATF and terror-finance scrutiny: Look for how aggressively India pushes international bodies to choke funding channels for cross-border militant networks operating out of Pakistan.
