THE running dispute between Pakistan and India over two hydroelectric power stations on the Jhelum and the Chenab rivers is now at risk of running into a treacherous fork in the road, and potentially endangering the Indus Waters Treaty. The waters of both rivers belong to Pakistan under the treaty, but India has the right to use the stream flow to generate electricity, provided there is no storage and diversion. Based on this scheme, Pakistan objected to the technical designs of two projects India is building, Kishenganga and Ratle, and when India refused to accept the design modifications that were sought, it approached the World Bank to set up a court of arbitration to decide on the matter. At the same time, India approached the bank to ask for the appointment of a `neutral expert`, also provided for under the treaty framework. The bank initially moved to set up both forums, but then in December last year, announced that it would `pause` the process for fear that both forums might yield a different outcome, further complicating an already tangled issue.

On the face of things, Pakistan`s request for a court of arbitration sounds reasonable. The treaty provides for such a court in the event of a `dispute`, and a neutral expert in the event of `differences` between the two parties. The dispute is highly technical in nature, but if successive rounds of efforts to bridge the different views both sides have on the technical parameters of the two projects in question have failed, then it is reasonable to surmise that the matter has graduated to the level of a dispute. The World Bank is continuing to hope for an amicable outcome, even after the latest round of talks held in Washington, D.C. this month collapsed, but it has been over one year since the two parties have been engaged to seek an outcome without any result. A choice may become unavoidable in the near future.

The Pakistani government may well be entitled to ask for a court of arbitration, but its track record in such arbitrations has not been very good. In the case of the Baglihar dam, for example, an ambiguous `victory` was claimed by both parties, but the decision of the neutral expert certainly played a role in opening the way for more hydropower projects on the western rivers. Asking for a court of arbitration runs its own risks today, should Pakistan fail to make its case with the force required to obtain a clear verdict in its favour. It is, therefore, worth both countries` while to heed the words of the World Bank, and work in earnest to reach an amicable settlement under its guidance. Allowing angry energies from other festering disputes between both countries to be channelled into the treaty`s disputeresolution mechanisms hurts the interests of both countries.