Salal Dam on the Chenab river, in Reasi district, J&K, Monday, May 5, 2025. Pakistan on Thursday (January 8, 2026) said that it would take up with India at the political and diplomatic level any development activity by New Delhi on the western rivers in violation of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).
| Photo Credit: PTI

The Neutral Expert (NE) appointed under terms of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), 1960, decided that he was “competent” to decide on differences between India and Pakistan on the design of hydroelectric projects built on the Indus Treaty-rivers. India, in a statement, on Tuesday “welcomed” the move.

The decision on January 7 by Michel Lino, the World Bank appointed NE, and made public via a press release on Monday, however, does not help resolve a demand by India in January 2023 to renegotiate the IWT but only keeps alive the differences between the two countries on the dispute resolution mechanism, laid out under the terms of the IWT.

Last September, The Hindu had reported that India decided there would be no more meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), made up of representatives of both countries until the IWT was renegotiated. The last meeting happened in Delhi in May 2022. Since January 2023, India has written four times to Pakistan to initiate talks on revising the treaty but is yet to receive a formal response.

The dispute resolution mechanism laid out under the terms of the IWT — as India interprets it — says that disputes must first attempt to be resolved by the PIC. If they do not succeed, the matter would be weighed by the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert. If this fails too, the matter would be decided by a Court of Arbitration.

However, while India has held that each step must be fully exhausted before both sides agree to moving on to the next step, Pakistan has moved on without waiting for India’s concurrence.

While both countries first seemed to agree on the World Bank appointing a ‘neutral expert’, Pakistan in 2016 asked for a Court of Arbitration. The World Bank first ruled that having a neutral expert and court together could lead to “contradictory outcomes”. However, in 2022, it facilitated the setting up of both an expert as well as a chairman to the Court of Arbitration. India has refused to attend proceedings in the Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Pakistan has maintained that it is working within the terms of the treaty, whereas India says the treaty does not allow such parallel dispute mechanisms.

The press statement, issued on Tuesday, said that while the NE, could under the terms of the treaty, decide on technical disputes it did not invalidate the existing Court of Arbitration. “With respect to Pakistan’s first alternative submission, the Neutral Expert notes that he does not address any issues pertaining to the competence of the 2022 Court of Arbitration. The Neutral Expert concludes that the fact that the 2022 Court of Arbitration is presently considering certain matters that partially overlap with the points of difference does not affect his competence over differences…,” the NE-issued press statement noted.

In the days ahead Mr. Lino is expected to hear both India and Pakistan and decide on whether design parameters of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects conform with the IWT.

“The latest decision is significant to India because the Neutral Expert has decided that all seven issues — and they are all technical — are in his remit. This means that none of those issues can be taken up by a Court of Arbitration. In previous disputes involving the IWT, whenever the NE has decided on a matter, it has been accepted by both parties. The CoA isn’t an appellate body,” a senior official, familiar with IWT proceedings, told The Hindu on condition of anonymity.

India, in a statement, said that it “welcomes the decision…which upholds and vindicates India’s stand that all seven questions that were referred to the Neutral Expert, in relation to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, are differences falling within his competence under the Treaty”. Pakistan so far has not responded to Mr. Lino’s decision.

“Having upheld his own competence, which comports with India’s view, the Neutral Expert will now proceed to the next (merits) phase of his proceeding. This phase will culminate in a final decision on the merits of each of the seven differences… India will continue to participate in the Neutral Expert process so that the differences are resolved in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Treaty… India does not recognise or participate in the illegally constituted Court of Arbitration proceedings…The Governments of India and Pakistan also remain in touch on the matter of modification and review of the Indus Waters Treaty,” the India statement added.

The treaty, that divided up the six Himalayan rivers equally between India and Pakistan, allows India the unrestricted use of all water from the three eastern tributaries of the Indus river (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi) while Pakistan receives use of the western tributaries (Indus or Sindhu, Jhelum and Chenab).

Pakistan had first raised objections to India’s construction of the 330 MW Kishenganga hydroelectric project on the Jhelum river back in 2006, and then objected to plans to construct the 850 MW Ratle Hydroelectric Project on the Chenab river as well. Both India and Pakistan differ on whether the technical details of the hydel projects conform with the treaty, given that the Jhelum and Chenab were part of the “western tributaries”.

(With inputs by Suhasini Haidar)

Omar Abdullah
| Photo Credit: -PTI

J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s remarks on the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) triggered a fresh debate on the power projects and poor electricity scenario in the Union Territory (UT) on Wednesday (November 13m 2024).  

“The IWT on river-rich Jammu & Kashmir restricts its ability to harness its huge hydel power potential primarily due to storage constraints. J&K pays a heavy price in peak winter months when power generation hits low, creating hardships for its people,” said Mr. Abdullah while speaking at a conference of Power Ministers of States and UTs on Tuesday (November 12, 2024). 

Highlighting the “limiting clauses in the Treaty that restricts J&K from realising its full hydel potential by only permitting run-of-the-river projects”, Mr. Abdullah said J&K was compelled to rely on power imports from other States, “ which adversely impacts its economy”.

“To address this, J&K would require special compensation from the Centre, including viability gap funding and equity assistance, to harness its untapped hydro-energy potential,” he added.

Referring to Mr. Abdullah’s remarks that the IWT hinders J&K’s power capacity, former J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti said there was no doubt that the Treaty has a negative impact on Kashmir “but the BJP narrative, of late, wants to make it an issue. Such issues can spark tension. Any tension between India and Pakistan will have a cost for the people of J&K”.

She asked Mr. Abdullah “to raise real questions”. “Does the power already generated belong to us? J&K generates electricity and is controlled by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC). NC founder Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah handed over the Salal project and Dr. Farooq Abdullah handed over seven power projects to the NHPC. Our focus should be return of power projects,” Ms. Mufti said.

The former J&K CM said the BJP in 2014 had agreed to hand over at least two power projects to J&K. “The Rangarajan Committee also recommended it or the Centre should compensate us. Our electricity goes to the NHPC,” she added.

J&K Peoples Conference president Sajad Lone also criticised Mr. Abdullah’s reference to Treaty and termed it as “right-wing gibberish intended to appease the ruling-party BJP”.

“I propose dividing J&K’s water resources into two categories, with category I including resources available for hydropower generation within treaty limits, and category II comprising those restricted by specific treaty parameters. We have not harnessed even 20% of our potential. And what we have harnessed is mostly owned by the NHPC,” Mr. Lone said.

He said the projects controlled by the NHPC were among its most profitable, “yet J&K remains a net power importer”. “We should have been net exporters of power,” he said.

He asked Mr. Abdullah to advocate for J&K’s water rights and “prioritise the category I resources in discussions with the BJP-led Centre”.

“Once we achieve excellence in category I, we can always move to category II and demand our rights or compensation for adhering to a treaty signed without our consent,” he added.

According to the treaty, signed between India and Pakistan in 1960, India has the right over the run-of-the-river water over the three rivers flowing through J&K and complete rights over the waters flowing through the three rivers in Punjab.

New Delhi:

 A delegation from India attended a meeting of the Neutral Expert proceedings in the Kishenganga and Ratle matter at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Vienna on September 20 and 21, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) announced in a press release.

The meeting was convened by the Neutral Expert appointed on India’s request under the aegis of the Indus Waters Treaty. It was attended by representatives of India and Pakistan.

India’s delegation for the meeting was led by the Department of Water Resources Secretary.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve KC attended the meeting as India’s Lead Counsel in this matter.

The MEA, in a press release, stated, “India’s participation in this meeting is in line with India’s consistent, principled stand that as per the graded mechanism provided for in the Indus Waters Treaty, the Neutral Expert proceedings are the only valid proceedings at this juncture.”

The MEA cited this as the reason for India’s refusal to participate in the parallel proceedings being carried out by an “illegally constituted Court of Arbitration” on the same set of issues related to Kishenganga and Ratle Hydroelectric Projects (HEPs).

“It is for this reason that India has taken the Treaty-consistent decision to not participate in the parallel proceedings being conducted by an illegally constituted Court of Arbitration on the same set of issues pertaining to the Kishenganga and Ratle HEPs,” the MEA release said.

Further, according to the MEA, the Neutral Expert proceedings are ongoing and expected to continue for some time.  It added that India is committed to engaging in a manner that supports the resolution of issues in accordance with the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty.

Earlier, in July, the Ministry of External Affairs said that India cannot be compelled to participate in parallel proceedings not envisaged by the Indus Water Treaty. It stated that New Delhi’s “consistent and principled stand” has been that the constitution of the so-called Court of Arbitration is in contravention of the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty.

“We have seen a press release issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) mentioning that an illegally constituted so-called Court of Arbitration has ruled that it has the ‘competence’ to consider matters concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects,” the MEA said in its release.

It added, “India’s consistent and principled position has been that the constitution of the so-called Court of Arbitration is in contravention of the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty. India cannot be compelled to recognize or participate in illegal and parallel proceedings not envisaged by the Treaty.”

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)