By Mohsin Leghari
Pakistan’s water crisis is no longer a story of declining flows. It is a story of declining governance. Despite the 2025 monsoon filling the country’s reservoirs nearly to their maximum conservation levels, the Indus River System Authority still forecasted an eight-percent shortage for the coming Rabi season. This contradiction reveals the real fault line: even when nature delivers abundance, we still face scarcity.
Read also:Water scarcity sparks debate over Cholistan Canal Project
Across the world, major river basins have struggled with similar tensions, seasonal unpredictability, political mistrust, weak compliance, and institutions unable to keep pace with climate volatility. The basins that broke out of these cycles did so not by quibbling over allocations, but by strengthening rules, data, enforcement, and cooperation. Their experience offers direct, practical lessons for Pakistan; lessons we have yet to apply.
Let’s look at India’s Cauvery basin as an example. Despite decades of adjudication, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu fall into crisis whenever flows decline. The Cauvery Water Management Authority exists on paper, but it lacks the capacity to enforce its distress-year formula. Over the past two years, Karnataka delivered barely half of the volume mandated by India’s Supreme Court. When institutions cannot implement rules, politics fills the vacuum. Pakistan faces the same structural risk. When flows tighten, IRSA’s decisions depend on provincial alliances, not hydrological need. The Cauvery’s lesson is stark: rules without enforceable authority do not survive drought.
The Ganges Treaty between India and Bangladesh offers the another example: how transparency can create trust even without perfect harmony. The treaty guarantees minimum flows at Farakka, backed by joint monitoring and shared gauges. Both countries verify flows every ten days; neither depends on the other’s unilateral claims.
The system works because the numbers are jointly measured and publicly visible. In Pakistan, where accusations of “manipulated gauges” and “unauthorised diversions” recur every season, such transparency is not a luxury; it is a precondition for peace. Joint Punjab-Sindh measurements at critical nodes with daily, publicly accessible data, would dramatically reduce friction.
Southeast Asia’s Mekong River Commission offers a different kind of insight: the value of technical cooperation even without a final treaty. Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam still disagree on dams and diversions, but they agree on something more fundamental—that basin decisions must be grounded in shared science. Their framework requires prior notification, structured consultation, independent expert reviews and shared modelling. These mechanisms do not eliminate disagreements, but they ensure that disputes are addressed through evidence rather than accusation.
Pakistan lacks this culture. Decisions with basin-wide implications are often taken behind closed doors, supported by parallel datasets and long-standing assumptions. The recent Cholistan Canal controversy illustrated this vividly: instead of a transparent process where hydrology, impacts and operational constraints were jointly analysed, the debate spiralled immediately into political postures and provincial suspicion.
Had a Mekong-style system been in place, mandatory prior notification, joint studies, independent assessments and shared models the issue would have unfolded within a structured, evidence-based process rather than a political eruption.
A shift towards this model real joint modelling, independent reviews and transparent consultation would give the Indus Basin a far more resilient institutional core and prevent future disputes from escalating into crises.
Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin provides the world’s strongest example of enforcing water rules credibly. After years of conflict, Australia established an independent inspector-general for water, separated monitoring from allocation, and legally protected environmental flows. The result is a transparent system where disputes revolve around policy, not suspicion. Pakistan, however, expects IRSA to allocate water and police compliance simultaneously—a design flaw that undermines trust. Without an independent verification mechanism, every shortage will continue to generate grievance rather than acceptance.
The United Kingdom’s Thames Basin demonstrates how to manage unpredictability through forward-looking planning.
Faced with rising drought risk, regulators developed “living drought plans,” updated regularly with scientific data and public engagement. These plans guide the system step-by-step through worsening scarcity without political dramatics. Pakistan, in contrast, reacts to drought only after it arrives. Provincial rotations, rationing, and restrictions emerge late and inconsistently. A shift toward dynamic, pre-agreed drought responses would help farmers plan, reduce provincial mistrust, and align operations with climate realities.
The Nile Basin Initiative teaches that technical cooperation can precede and enable political cooperation. Despite deep tensions, Nile Basin countries still share critical data, conduct joint impact studies, and run regional training. Their strategy is simple: keep the technical channels open even when political channels narrow. Pakistan’s provinces could adopt the same approach. Instead of commissioning separate, contradictory studies, they could build a shared model of the Indus, informed by common assumptions and jointly verified data.
These global experiences converge on the same conclusion: water disputes are not solved by building more storage or renegotiating allocations. They are solved by building institutions that work in both wet and dry years. Pakistan attempted such a structure through the 1991 Accord, but implementation froze after its signing. Clause 2 was celebrated. The operational capacity, machinery, telemetry, shared measurement, real-time data, environmental flows, compliance audits, drought planning did not materialize.
The Accord became a statement of principle rather than a system of governance.
Climate change has already transformed the Indus Basin. Monsoons arrive in violent bursts; snowmelt patterns have become erratic; stretched droughts are becoming frequent. The system swings from abundance to shortage with alarming speed. In such an environment, the question is not whether the provinces receive their allocated share, but whether Pakistan can build institutions capable of turning allocations into reality.
Other countries have shown the path forward: independent monitoring, shared data, real-time transparency, adaptive drought plans, environmental flow protections, and enforcement bodies insulated from political pressure. Pakistan can regain stability not by contesting a finite resource, but by governing it with discipline, modern tools, and a culture of shared responsibility.
The world has already solved the problems Pakistan continues to struggle with. The only question is whether we are willing to learn.
The writer is a veteran public representative and former Punjab minister for irrigation and finance, with over two decade experience as Senator, MNA and MPA.
About the Author
