EDITORIAL: Pakistan’s water regulator is heading into a critical Kharif allocation meeting without fulfilling its own legal composition requirements, raising immediate questions about the credibility of decisions that will affect millions of farmers. The Indus River System Authority’s Advisory Committee is scheduled to determine water availability on April 7, yet the absence of a regular Sindh member and a Sindh-domiciled federal member leaves the body incomplete at a moment when precision and trust are essential.
This is not a procedural technicality. Water distribution in Pakistan has long been a politically sensitive issue, and the authority tasked with managing it derives its legitimacy from both representation and adherence to law. In this case, both appear compromised. Sindh’s nominee for its seat remains pending without clear explanation, while the federal government has yet to appoint a Sindh-domiciled federal member despite a long-standing legal requirement. The result is a regulatory body operating in a grey zone, expected to take decisions that will inevitably be contested.
The imbalance is neither recent nor incidental. The position of federal member from Sindh has effectively remained unfilled for 16 years, with officers from other provinces occupying the role in deviation of the mandated framework. This history adds weight to current concerns, suggesting that what should be an exception has become embedded practice. When legal provisions are bypassed over such a long period, institutional credibility erodes, and with it, the willingness of stakeholders to accept outcomes.
The immediate timing makes the situation more precarious. The upcoming meeting will assess river flows and determine water availability for the Kharif season, a period that is crucial for agricultural output. While reservoir levels are expected to be better than last year, early indications suggest that Sindh’s demand for early Kharif water may not be fully met due to lower carryover levels in Tarbela. In such a scenario, even marginal disagreements can escalate quickly, particularly if one province feels underrepresented in the decision-making process.
Compounding the issue is the continued overlap of roles within the authority. The outgoing Sindh member, whose resignation has yet to be formally accepted, is expected to attend the meeting while simultaneously serving in the provincial government. Such arrangements further blur institutional boundaries and weaken the perception of neutrality that is critical in adjudicating resource distribution.
The legal dimension is equally significant. The requirement to appoint a Sindh-domiciled federal member is rooted in an executive order that remains constitutionally protected. Ongoing litigation over previous appointments has already highlighted the fragility of the current structure. Persisting with an incomplete composition, despite these legal and judicial signals, reflects a disregard for procedural integrity at a time when governance standards should be tightening.
This disconnect between policy and execution is becoming a recurring feature of Pakistan’s water management framework. Announcements around infrastructure development, efficiency gains and improved monitoring systems signal intent, yet basic administrative steps remain stalled. Better measurement cannot substitute for credible decision-making, nor can increased storage resolve disputes when the authority itself lacks full and lawful representation.
The broader implications extend beyond a single meeting. Water scarcity, driven by climate pressures and inefficiencies, is already placing strain on the system. Institutional weaknesses amplify that strain by turning technical challenges into political disputes. When decision-making bodies are perceived as incomplete or imbalanced, even data-driven outcomes are viewed through a lens of suspicion.
What is at stake, therefore, is not just the allocation for one season but the integrity of the framework that governs water distribution. Restoring that integrity requires more than temporary fixes. Appointments must be made in accordance with the law, pending summaries must be processed without delay, and institutional roles must be clearly defined and respected.
The cost of inaction is predictable. Disputes will intensify, trust between provinces will weaken further, and the burden of an already stressed water system will grow heavier. Pakistan’s water crisis is often framed in terms of scarcity, but governance failures are proving to be an equally decisive factor. Without addressing them, even favourable hydrological conditions will not translate into stability.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments