India has adopted a firm stance against the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s decision to fast-track proceedings regarding the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects.
The long-standing water sharing arrangement between India and Pakistan has entered a turbulent new phase as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague continues to push forward with proceedings regarding the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects. Despite New Delhi’s principled decision to boycott these sessions, the international tribunal is moving at an unusual pace to address Pakistan’s grievances.
This acceleration is not merely a legal procedural matter but a direct challenge to the established dispute resolution mechanisms outlined in the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). By bypassing the graded hierarchy of the treaty, the PCA risks undermining a framework that has survived multiple wars and decades of diplomatic frost.
A breach of the treaty hierarchy
The core of India’s objection lies in the blatant disregard for the sequential process mandated by the IWT. The treaty is very specific about how “questions,” “differences,” and “disputes” are handled. Initially, any technical concern should be resolved by the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC). If that fails, it graduates to a Neutral Expert. Only after these avenues are exhausted should a Court of Arbitration be constituted.
However, in a move that New Delhi views as legally untenable, the World Bank simultaneously initiated both a Neutral Expert process and a Court of Arbitration. This dual track approach is contradictory and risks inconsistent legal findings on the same technical projects. By choosing to attend only the Neutral Expert proceedings while boycotting the PCA, India is asserting that the Hague-based tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear the case until the prior stages are completed.
Technical superiority of the Kishanganga and Ratle projects
The projects at the heart of the contention are the 330 MW Kishanganga and the 850 MW Ratle hydroelectric plants in Jammu and Kashmir. India has consistently maintained that these run-of-the-river projects are fully compliant with the technical specifications of the IWT. They are designed to harness the power of the western rivers without significantly altering the flow of water into Pakistan.
New Delhi argues that Pakistan’s objections are more political than technical, aimed at stalling regional development rather than addressing genuine environmental or water security concerns. The fast-tracking of the case at the PCA, without India’s technical input or presence, means the court is operating on a one-sided narrative that ignores the engineering realities and rights of the upper riparian state.
Sovereignty and the refusal to submit to flawed jurisdiction
India’s decision to stay away from the PCA is a calculated move to protect its national sovereignty against what it perceives as an overreach by an international body. Submitting to the authority of the court would, in effect, validate a process that India believes was formed in violation of the treaty’s own rules. By choosing not to participate, New Delhi is sending a clear signal that it will not be coerced into a legal forum that lacks legitimacy.
The Indian government has already issued a notice to Pakistan to modify the treaty, citing the need to adapt to changed circumstances such as climate change and population growth, which were not foreseen in 1960. The insistence of the PCA to proceed regardless of these fundamental objections only deepens the rift between the two nations.
The risks of a one sided verdict
The speed at which the PCA is moving suggests that a verdict might be reached without India’s arguments being officially heard in that specific chamber. International legal protocol thought allows for proceedings to continue in the absence of one party, the practical utility of such a judgment remains questionable. For a water treaty to function, both the upper and lower riparian states must be in agreement on the implementation of awards.
A unilateral ruling from The Hague would likely be unenforceable on the ground and could lead to the permanent breakdown of the IWT. From the Indian viewpoint, a court that fast-tracks a sensitive geopolitical matter while ignoring the procedural safeguards of the treaty itself is doing a disservice to international arbitration.
Future of water diplomacy in the subcontinent
The current impasse signals a significant shift in how India intends to manage its water resources. For decades, India has shown immense restraint, often providing more water than required and adhering to a treaty that many domestic critics feel is overly generous to Pakistan. However, the move to fast-track the case at the PCA may be the final straw. As India continues to build its infrastructure to meet the energy demands of its citizens, it is clear that the old ways of handling water disputes are no longer viable.
New Delhi’s focus remains on the Neutral Expert process as the only legitimate pathway forward. The outcome of this legal tug of war will not only determine the fate of two power projects but will redefine the boundaries of bilateral cooperation and international intervention in South Asia.
End of Article
