Pakistan spends $6 mn on Hague arbitration, including India’s share, amid austerity drive

What has Pakistan spent money on in connection with the Hague arbitration over the Ratle and Kishenganga hydropower projects?

Pakistan has paid almost $6 million to pursue objections to India’s Ratle and Kishenganga hydropower projects before the Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The spending covers contributions requested by the court, including India’s share. This matters because Pakistan is making the payments during an austerity drive and while domestic flood funding remains comparatively small.

The arbitration began in August 2016 and has involved multiple hearings. Pakistan’s legal team includes London-based barristers, lawyers from Fietta LLP, and technical advisers. The budget papers do not separately show fees for lawyers, experts, pleadings, travel, or accommodation. Pakistan has also paid nearly $1.94 million for proceedings before a neutral expert.

India has not participated in the arbitration and has not advanced the funds requested by the court, according to people familiar with the matter and court records. Pakistan has continued paying to keep the proceedings going. The article highlights the financial burden and the lack of public detail about total legal costs.

How much has Pakistan allocated to its Indus Waters mission, and how does that compare with the funds set aside for flood-related work?

Pakistan’s 2026-27 budget allocates $7.9 million to the Pakistan Mission for Indus Waters. The office of the Chief Engineering Adviser and Chairman of the Federal Flood Commission receives about $1.2 million. The difference matters because the mission handles the international dispute, while the flood commission represents a key part of Pakistan’s domestic water machinery.

The figures come from a Water Resources Division current-expenditure budget of about $15.3 million. Nearly $7.2 million is listed under a broad “general” heading, so the documents do not show exactly how much of that amount might support international litigation. The mission’s allocation is therefore more than six times the flood-related allocation.

The spending pattern comes as Pakistan cuts fuel allocations, restricts travel and official dinners, bans new government vehicles, and reduces non-employee spending by 5%. The article links the imbalance to concerns over poor storage, water management, and conveyance losses. It does not say that the mission’s entire allocation is legal spending.

What is the Indus Waters Treaty, and why does it govern disputes between India and Pakistan over shared rivers and dams?

The Indus Waters Treaty is a 1960 agreement between India and Pakistan that allocates use of the Indus river system. In broad terms, it gives Pakistan primary use of the western rivers and India primary use of the eastern rivers, while allowing specified uses and projects under treaty rules. That framework matters because dams can affect flows across the border.

The treaty also created procedures for handling disagreements. Technical questions can go to a neutral expert, while disputes involving treaty interpretation or application can be referred to a Court of Arbitration. The Ratle and Kishenganga projects reached both tracks because the countries disagreed about how the treaty’s rules applied to their designs and operations.

The article reports that India attended neutral-expert meetings but rejected the Court of Arbitration proceedings. It later suspended the treaty after the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack and stopped attending the neutral expert’s meetings. The article does not provide the treaty’s full text or every legal rule governing these procedures.

Why has India refused to participate in the Court of Arbitration proceedings at The Hague, while Pakistan has continued them?

India has consistently said it does not recognise the Court of Arbitration proceedings at The Hague. It therefore stayed away from them and, according to court records cited in the article, did not advance the funds requested by the court. Pakistan took the opposite position and chose to continue the case.

The two countries used a different dispute track earlier. India attended meetings held by a World Bank-appointed neutral expert on Ratle and Kishenganga. After India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty as a punitive measure following the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, it also stopped attending those meetings. Pakistan continued with its Hague case.

This leaves Pakistan funding proceedings that India does not join. The article says Pakistan has paid almost $6 million, including India’s requested contribution. It also says Pakistan has paid nearly $1.94 million for the neutral expert’s proceedings. The immediate result is a dispute process that continues without India’s participation in the arbitration.

What happens to the arbitration process and its costs when one side does not attend but the other side continues to fund the proceedings?

When one side does not attend but the other continues, the proceedings can still move forward under the tribunal’s process, provided the tribunal decides to proceed. In this case, Pakistan has kept the Court of Arbitration case alive despite India’s non-participation. That creates a major practical imbalance: one country supplies the participation and reported funding while the other rejects the forum.

The article gives a concrete example. Pakistan has paid almost $6 million for the Hague case, including the contribution sought from India. People familiar with the matter said India has neither participated in the arbitration nor advanced the requested funds. Pakistan has also paid nearly $1.94 million toward neutral-expert proceedings.

The financial and legal consequences are significant but not fully quantified. Pakistan’s papers do not separately disclose legal representation, experts, pleadings, travel, or accommodation. The case has continued since August 2016 through multiple hearings. The article therefore shows continuing costs, but does not state when the arbitration will end or what result it will produce.

Why are both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration involved in the dispute over the Ratle and Kishenganga projects?

The neutral expert and the Court of Arbitration serve different functions under the Indus Waters Treaty framework. A neutral expert generally examines technical questions, such as whether a project’s design complies with specified engineering rules. Arbitration addresses disputes requiring a formal decision on treaty interpretation or application. Using both routes reflects disagreement over both technical details and broader legal issues.

The article says India attended neutral-expert meetings about the Ratle and Kishenganga projects. It separately stayed away from the Court of Arbitration, which New Delhi says it does not recognise. Pakistan pursued the arbitration and paid the related costs. The World Bank appointed the neutral expert, adding another institution to the dispute process.

India later stopped attending neutral-expert meetings after suspending the Indus Waters Treaty following the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack. Pakistan nevertheless paid nearly $1.94 million for that track and almost $6 million for arbitration. The article does not explain the exact technical questions or legal claims decided in each proceeding.

How do water storage, irrigation losses, dam construction, and government management affect a country's water security, independently of disputes with neighboring countries?

A country’s water security depends on how much water it can store, move, use, and protect through dry periods and floods. Storage helps balance seasonal flows. Irrigation efficiency determines how much water reaches farms instead of disappearing through damaged canals, seepage, or poor delivery. Dam construction can add storage or hydropower, but it also requires sound design and management.

Government management connects these parts. Authorities must maintain canals, plan reservoirs, monitor supplies, prepare for floods, and direct money toward urgent repairs and projects. The article says Pakistan struggles with poor water storage and management and high conveyance loss. Those weaknesses can reduce usable water even when rivers carry substantial flows.

The budget comparison illustrates the concern. Pakistan allocated $7.9 million to the Indus Waters mission but only about $1.2 million to the flood commission’s office. International disputes may affect water policy, but domestic infrastructure and administration also shape everyday resilience. The article does not measure the precise effect of each weakness or identify a specific reform plan.

Key Facts:

📌 Pakistan has paid almost $6 million for Hague arbitration.

📌 The amount includes a contribution sought from India.

📌 Pakistan also paid nearly $1.94 million for neutral-expert proceedings.

📌 The Indus Waters mission received $7.9 million in the 2026-27 budget.

📌 Flood-related work received about $1.2 million.

📌 The mission’s allocation was more than six times larger.

📌 The treaty governs India-Pakistan use of shared Indus rivers.