The decision by the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert (NE), Michel Lino, affirming his competence to address the disputes surrounding India’s Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, marks a significant milestone in the contentious history of the Indus Waters Treaty. This development has important ramifications not only for India and Pakistan but also for broader regional cooperation and adherence to international treaties. Signed in 1960, the Indus Waters Treaty is widely regarded as one of the most successful water-sharing agreements in the world. Brokered by the World Bank after nine years of negotiations, the treaty allocates the waters of the Indus River system between India and Pakistan. The western rivers-Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab-are reserved primarily for Pakistan’s use, while the eastern rivers-Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej-are allocated to India. The treaty also provides mechanisms to resolve disputes, including the appointment of a Neutral Expert for technical issues and a Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) for legal disputes.
The current dispute revolves around Pakistan’s objections to India’s Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, which Islamabad claims violate the treaty’s provisions. The Neutral Expert’s ruling, which validates India’s position that the disputes are technical “differences” under Paragraph 7 of Annexure F of the treaty, is a welcome development for New Delhi. It upholds India’s consistent stance that such differences fall within the competence of the Neutral Expert rather than necessitating recourse to the PCA. This decision reinforces the principle of adhering to the treaty’s graded mechanism for dispute resolution. The Ministry of External Affairs rightly highlighted that the ruling vindicates India’s opposition to parallel proceedings initiated by Pakistan. India’s decision to engage constructively with the Neutral Expert while abstaining from the PCA’s proceedings demonstrates its commitment to upholding the treaty’s sanctity.
Pakistan’s actions, on the other hand, raise questions about its commitment to the treaty’s mechanisms. Islamabad’s initial request for a Neutral Expert in 2015 was followed by its demand in 2016 for the same disputes to be addressed by the PCA. This dual approach contravenes the IWT’s graded dispute resolution mechanism, which prescribes an orderly process to address differences and disputes. Such actions not only undermine the treaty but also set a problematic precedent for future disagreements. Pakistan’s insistence on involving the PCA appears to be driven more by political considerations than genuine concerns about the treaty’s technical provisions. For the IWT to remain effective, both parties must adhere to its mechanisms in good faith and avoid exploiting it for political leverage.
The NE’s decision has significant implications for regional stability and cooperation. Water disputes have the potential to exacerbate tensions between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbours with a history of conflict. By reinforcing the IWT’s dispute resolution framework, the ruling helps to mitigate the risk of such disputes escalating into broader confrontations. In an era of growing water scarcity and climate change, transboundary water-sharing agreements like the IWT are essential for sustainable development and regional stability. The Neutral Expert’s ruling serves as a reminder that such agreements must be upheld and their mechanisms respected to ensure equitable and peaceful management of shared resources.
However, the NE’s ruling is not the end of the dispute but rather a step toward its resolution. The next phase of the process will involve a detailed examination of the merits of the seven technical differences raised by Pakistan. India’s continued participation in this process reflects its commitment to resolving the dispute in accordance with the treaty’s provisions. For Pakistan, the ruling is an opportunity to revisit its approach and engage more constructively with the treaty’s framework. As the two nations move forward, they must recognise that the IWT is not merely a legal document but a cornerstone of regional stability and cooperation. By respecting its provisions and resolving disputes in good faith, India and Pakistan can ensure that the treaty continues to serve as a model for transboundary water management.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
