Proceedings under the World Bank-facilitated neutral expert mechanism are advancing as India and Pakistan continue their long-running disagreement over two hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir. The dispute centers on the 330-megawatt Kishanganga project on the Kishanganga River, a tributary of the Jhelum, and the 850-megawatt Ratle facility on the Chenab River.
Both countries have traded technical objections and diplomatic notices for over a decade. The current phase of the process, led by independent neutral expert Michel Lino, focuses on whether the engineering designs of the two run-of-the-river installations comply with the strict parameters laid down in the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
The Core of the Engineering Disagreement
Islamabad argues that the structural designs of both Kishanganga and Ratle give New Delhi excessive control over water flows into downstream Pakistani territory. Under the treaty, the waters of the three western rivers—the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—are allocated primarily to Pakistan, while India holds rights to the eastern rivers: the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej.
India retains the right to build run-of-the-river hydroelectric facilities on the western rivers, provided they adhere to specific technical criteria regarding storage, pondage, and spillway design. Pakistani engineers contend that India’s designs for Ratle and Kishanganga feature low-level orifice spillways and pondage volumes that could allow upstream water holding or rapid drawdown, potentially disrupting agricultural cycles in Punjab and Sindh provinces.
New Delhi rejects those claims. Indian officials assert that both plants are fully compliant with Annexure D of the treaty, which governs hydroelectric generation. India maintains that deep orifice spillways are necessary to clear heavy sediment and silt build-up common in Himalayan rivers, ensuring the long-term operational safety and efficiency of the turbines.
A Fractured Dispute Resolution Path
The dispute has placed unprecedented strain on the dispute settlement architecture set out in Article IX of the IWT. The treaty outlines a graded, three-tier framework: first, negotiations through the Permanent Indus Commission; second, reference of technical differences to a Neutral Expert; and third, escalation of broader legal disputes to a seven-member Court of Arbitration.
In 2016, Pakistan asked the World Bank to empanel a Court of Arbitration at The Hague to settle its objections. Around the same time, India requested the appointment of a Neutral Expert, arguing that the matters in question were purely technical rather than legal questions suited for arbitration.
After years of trying to break the deadlock and a temporary pause, the World Bank simultaneously activated both tracks in October 2022. It appointed Michel Lino as the Neutral Expert and Sean Murphy as Chairman of the Court of Arbitration.
- India’s position: New Delhi participates fully in the Neutral Expert proceedings but boycotts the Court of Arbitration, arguing that running two parallel mechanisms risks conflicting interpretations and violates the treaty’s sequential dispute escalation mechanism.
- Pakistan’s position: Islamabad attends both forums, asserting that the Court of Arbitration has the mandate to evaluate systemic legal questions, including whether India’s past project designs establish problematic precedents.
- World Bank’s role: As a signatory to the 1960 pact, the bank maintains it cannot unilaterally block either party’s invocation of treaty provisions, even as it urges both capitals to find common ground.
Calls to Overhaul the 1960 Treaty
The operational tension over the two dams has spilled over into a broader push by India to renegotiate the foundational terms of the treaty itself. In early 2023, New Delhi sent a formal notice to Islamabad under Article XII(3) seeking modifications to the six-decade-old agreement.
Indian authorities argue that the treaty must reflect fundamental changes in the region since 1960. Among the primary drivers are:
- Rapid demographic expansion across both river basins, driving up municipal and industrial water demand.
- India’s clean energy targets, which rely on tapping the estimated 20,000 MW of clean hydropower potential in the upper Indus basin.
- Severe climate instability, including shifting monsoon patterns, glacial melt acceleration, and irregular seasonal river discharge.
- Persistent regional security issues that have complicated on-site inspections and bilateral commission meetings.
Pakistan has approached India’s call for modification with deep caution, voicing concern that reopening the treaty could undermine the guaranteed water shares that sustain over 80 percent of its irrigated farmland. Pakistani officials have repeatedly stated that any modernization of the pact must occur strictly within the existing institutional framework of the Permanent Indus Commission.
The Risk of Contradictory Rulings
Water diplomacy experts warn that the dual-track proceedings could set a precarious international precedent. If the Neutral Expert and the Court of Arbitration issue divergent conclusions on the design limits of run-of-the-river plants, neither capital will have a clear legal standard to follow for future projects.
India is planning multiple additional hydro projects in the Chenab and Jhelum basins to bolster regional power grids and stabilize seasonal electricity shortfalls. How the Neutral Expert assesses the technical nuances of the Kishanganga and Ratle designs will likely shape the blueprint for Indian engineering along the western rivers for decades.
For now, technical submissions and site-specific evaluations continue under the Neutral Expert track. Whether the findings can bridge the trust deficit between New Delhi and Islamabad remains an open question, but the process marks one of the most critical tests the Indus Waters Treaty has faced in its 64-year history.
