In the intricate labyrinth of international diplomacy, consistency and impartiality are paramount. Recent remarks by Chinese scholar Victor Gao, cautioning India against "weaponizing" water resources in its dealings with Pakistan, have sparked a debate on the application of ethical standards in geopolitics. Gao's invocation of the principle, "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you," raises questions about the uniformity of moral expectations in international relations. 

The Context of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, was a landmark agreement between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank, to manage the shared water resources of the Indus River system. Despite enduring multiple conflicts and periods of heightened tension, the treaty has remained a testament to cooperative engagement. However, in April 2025, following a terrorist attack in Pahalgam attributed to Pakistan-based groups, India suspended the treaty, citing persistent cross-border terrorism as a violation of the treaty's spirit. 

Victor Gao's Perspective

Victor Gao's admonition to India emphasizes restraint and adherence to humanitarian principles. He warns against using water as a geopolitical tool, suggesting that such actions could set a dangerous precedent and escalate regional tensions. Gao's stance reflects a broader concern about the potential for resource-based conflicts in South Asia. 

A Hypothetical Reversal: China's Response to Terrorism

To critically assess Gao's position, consider a hypothetical scenario: If Pakistan were to engage in sustained terrorist activities against China, resulting in significant civilian casualties, would Gao advocate for the same level of restraint? Would he counsel China to maintain all bilateral agreements and refrain from punitive measures? History suggests otherwise; nations often recalibrate their diplomatic and economic engagements in response to security threats.

The Principle of Reciprocity in International Conduct

Gao's appeal to moral reciprocity necessitates an examination of its consistent application. While advocating for India's restraint, it is essential to question whether similar expectations are placed on Pakistan regarding its support for cross-border terrorism. The principle of "do unto others" must be uniformly applied to uphold its ethical validity.

Humanitarianism & National Security

Critics argue that India's suspension of the IWT undermines humanitarian considerations. However, the primary responsibility of any state is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. When faced with persistent threats, nations may find it necessary to re-assess agreements that are exploited by adversarial entities. Humanitarian principles should not be manipulated to shield actions that endanger innocent lives. 

Victor Gao's cautionary advice to India underscores the complexities of balancing ethical principles with national security imperatives. While the sanctity of international treaties and humanitarian considerations are vital, they must not be selectively invoked to serve strategic interests. A consistent and impartial application of moral standards is essential to foster genuine peace and cooperation in the international arena. 

A Few Questions to Ponder Upon

• In the face of persistent security threats, how should nations balance humanitarian obligations with the imperative to protect their citizens?
   
• Can moral principles in international relations be upheld if they are applied selectively?
   
• What mechanisms can be established to ensure that international agreements are not exploited by parties engaging in hostile activities?
   
• How can the international community foster accountability and consistency in the application of ethical standards across all nations?
   
• Is it feasible to expect nations to maintain agreements unaltered when the foundational premises of mutual respect and non-aggression are compromised?

Final Thoughts

Humanitarianism, like diplomacy, must be mutual to be meaningful. When applied selectively, it becomes moral grandstanding, not principle. India’s right to safeguard its sovereignty cannot be questioned through the lens of one-sided compassion. China, before preaching humanitarian restraint to India, must look into its own conscience — its actions in Xinjiang, Tibet, and with its own neighbors reveal more than any statement ever could. Morality in geopolitics must begin with self-reflection, not selective sermonizing.