Black`s hopes of finding a quick solution to the Indus conflict were premature. While the Bank expected the two sides to agree on the distribution of water, neither India nor Pakistan seemed willing to compromise their positions. While Pakistan had its historical right over the waters of all tributaries of the Indus and the risk of half of western Counjab by Desertification, the Indian side argued that the pre-distribution of water should not set a future allocation. Instead, the Indian side has established a new distribution base, with waters from western tributaries to Pakistan and eastern tributaries to India. The technical discussions on the substance that Mr. Schwarz hoped had been hampered by the political considerations he expected to avoid. Lilienthal`s idea was well received by World Bank officials (then the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), and then by the Indian and Pakistani authorities. Eugene R. Black, then president of the World Bank, told Lilienthal that his proposal made „all its sense.“ Black wrote that the Bank was interested in the economic progress of both countries and was concerned that the dispute over the industrials would be a serious handicap for this development.

India`s previous objections to third-party arbitration were resolved by the bank`s insistence not to resolve the dispute, but to work as a channel for an agreement. [38] Each party must inform the other party of engineering construction projects that would affect the other party and provide data on that work. Annual inspections and data exchange continue, unimpressed by tensions on the subcontinent. The Salal Dam was built by mutual agreement between the two countries. [20] The Tulbul project must be approved for decades, even after lengthy discussions between India and Pakistan. [21] In the event of a dispute or disagreement, a permanent arbitral tribunal (CPA) or a neutral technical expert for arbitration is used. The technical expert`s shutdown was followed for the evacuation of the Baglihar power plant and the PCA stop was followed for the evacuation of the Kishanganga hydroelectric power plant. [22] [23] [24] Pakistan alleges that it has breached Ratle Hydroelectric Plant`s 850 MW contract. [25] India has not yet violated Article II of Pakistan`s inland navigation, although Pakistan uses groundwater for various purposes in the Ravi and Sutlej Basin region before these rivers eventually reached Pakistan. Pakistan has also built river formation work in this way to reduce river flooding in its territory and intensify flooding in the Greater Rann-Kutch region of India, in violation of Article IV, paragraph 3 bis. [26] Pakistan, which addresses disputes and approaches the CPA against Indian projects, could lead to the abolition of the IWT if the CPA rulings result in a detailed interpretation of its provisions. [27] However, negotiations soon came to an end and neither side was willing to compromise.