Pakistan spends nearly $6 million on Indus waters case against India in Hague

Pakistan spent almost $6 million on proceedings at the Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The case concerns Pakistan’s objections to India’s Ratle and Kishenganga hydropower projects. The spending covers the arbitration process, including contributions requested by the court from both countries.

India has not participated in those proceedings or advanced the funds requested by the court. Pakistan nevertheless continued paying to keep the case moving before a body that India does not recognise. The proceedings have continued since August 2016 and involved several hearings.

The article says the total also includes India’s share, meaning Pakistan has effectively carried the full financial burden. The legal team includes London-based barristers, lawyers and technical advisers. Pakistan’s budget documents do not separately reveal costs for lawyers, experts, pleadings, travel or accommodation, so the full expense remains unclear.

A Court of Arbitration is a formal legal forum where appointed arbitrators examine a dispute and reach a ruling. In this case, Pakistan used the forum to challenge aspects of the Ratle and Kishenganga hydropower projects. The article does not explain the court’s full legal powers, but it distinguishes the court from another process involving a neutral expert.

The World Bank appointed the neutral expert to hear the water dispute. India attended meetings arranged by that expert, while it stayed away from the Court of Arbitration proceedings. These were separate tracks dealing with the same underlying disagreement over the projects.

India has consistently said it does not recognise the arbitration proceedings. Pakistan has continued funding them, including the court’s requested contribution from India. After Pakistan suspended the Indus Waters Treaty in 2025, India also stopped attending the neutral expert’s meetings, ending its participation in both processes described here.

Pakistan’s 2026-27 budget allocated $7.9 million, or ₹2.187 billion, to the Pakistan Mission for Indus Waters. That amount came from the Water Resources Division’s current expenditure budget of about $15.3 million, or ₹4.241 billion. More than half of the division’s current spending therefore went to the mission.

By comparison, only about $1.2 million, or ₹332.478 million, went to the office of the Chief Engineering Adviser and Chairman of the Federal Flood Commission. The article says the Indus mission received more than six times the flood-related allocation. Nearly $7.2 million was listed under general operating expenses, without a detailed breakdown.

The contrast matters because Pakistan faces poor water storage, management problems and high conveyance losses. The budget gives the international water mission much more funding than the office focused on domestic flood concerns. It does not show precisely how much general spending will support international litigation.

Ratle and Kishenganga are Indian hydropower projects at the center of Pakistan’s objections. Pakistan brought those objections before the Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The article does not detail every technical claim, but it identifies the projects as the reason for the long-running proceedings.

The dispute has followed two legal routes. India attended meetings held by a World Bank-appointed neutral expert about both projects. It did not participate in the separate Court of Arbitration proceedings, which New Delhi has repeatedly said it does not recognise.

The projects therefore became a test of how the countries handle disagreements over shared water arrangements. Pakistan has continued financing the arbitration since August 2016, even though India stayed away. After Pakistan suspended the Indus Waters Treaty following the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, India also stopped attending the neutral expert’s meetings.

The Indus Waters Treaty is an agreement India and Pakistan signed in 1960 to govern their use of the rivers in the Indus system. It matters because the countries share those waters, making rules for river use and dispute resolution important to both sides. The article identifies the treaty as the background to the current disagreement.

The Ratle and Kishenganga hydropower projects became the subject of Pakistan’s objections. Pakistan pursued those objections through a Court of Arbitration in The Hague and also engaged with a neutral expert process appointed by the World Bank. These mechanisms represent different ways of addressing treaty-related disagreements.

The treaty’s political status has since become more contentious. India suspended it in 2025 as part of punitive measures after the Pahalgam terror attack. India then stopped attending the neutral expert’s meetings, while Pakistan continued funding the arbitration proceedings, which India says it does not recognise.

India has consistently rejected the Court of Arbitration proceedings, saying it does not recognise that body’s process. It therefore stayed away from the Hague hearings and did not advance the funds requested by the court. India had earlier attended meetings run by a World Bank-appointed neutral expert, showing that it distinguished between the two mechanisms.

Pakistan took the opposite position. It continued pursuing its objections to the Ratle and Kishenganga hydropower projects through arbitration. People familiar with the matter said Pakistan has paid almost $6 million, including the contribution requested from India. This has allowed the proceedings to continue despite India’s absence.

The disagreement leaves Pakistan funding a process that only it recognises, according to the article. India also stopped attending neutral expert meetings after Pakistan suspended the Indus Waters Treaty in 2025. Pakistan’s choice to continue has increased pressure for greater transparency over legal and expert costs.

If Pakistan keeps funding international proceedings while reducing domestic water spending, its water-management priorities could become more unbalanced. The article describes poor water storage and management, high conveyance losses and limited funding for flood-related offices. These weaknesses matter directly to communities facing flood risks and unreliable water systems.

The budget illustrates the trade-off. Pakistan allocated $7.9 million to the Pakistan Mission for Indus Waters but only about $1.2 million to the Chief Engineering Adviser and Federal Flood Commission office. Nearly $6 million has already gone toward the Hague proceedings, including India’s requested contribution.

Public finances could also face added strain. The government has halved fuel allocations, restricted travel and dinners, banned new official vehicles and cut non-employee spending by 5%. Continuing an expensive legal campaign without transparent cost details could limit room for domestic priorities, especially as development plans and new federal projects are being reduced.