NEW DELHI: Taking note of a continuing pattern of “reckless, war-mongering and hateful” comments from Pakistani leadership against India, government said Thursday Pakistan would be well-advised to temper its rhetoric as any misadventure will have painful consequences as demonstrated in the recent military conflict.“It is well-known modus operandi of Pakistani leadership to whip up anti-India rhetoric time and again to hide their own failures,” said MEA spokesman Randhir Jaiswal.Pakistan army chief Asim Munir was recently reported to have threatened to nuke India. Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif too dialled up the rhetoric by declaring that Pakistan will teach India a lesson it won’t forget if the flow of water into Pakistan is impacted.On the “award” by an international court regarding India’s hydropower projects, which Pakistan sees as a vindication of its position on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), government said in an official statement India has never accepted the legality, legitimacy, or competence of the “so-called Court of Arbitration”.“Its pronouncements are therefore without jurisdiction, devoid of legal standing, and have no bearing on India’s rights of utilisation of waters. India also categorically rejects Pakistan’s selective and misleading references to the so-called award,” said Jaiswal. India put the IWT in abeyance after the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack, saying it will remain so until Pakistan takes credible action against terrorism.“As reiterated in our press release of June 27, IWT stands in abeyance by a sovereign decision of Government of India, taken in response to Pakistan’s continued sponsorship of cross-border terrorism, including the barbaric Pahalgam attack,” added the official.India never recognised the Court of Arbitration that was reported to have declared this week that India shall “let flow” waters of western rivers for Pakistan’s unrestricted use. India had instead focused on the neutral expert mechanism, also initiated by World Bank. World Bank in Oct 2022 appointed not just a neutral expert but also a Court of Arbitration despite acknowledging India’s concern that carrying out the two processes concurrently posed practical and legal challenges.