Both India and Pakistan had good reasons to claim victory from the binding verdict of a neutral expert on the Baglihar dam. Raymond Lafitte of Switzerland, appointed by the World Bank, has held that the basic design of the dam is in conformity with the 1960 Indo-Pak Indus Waters Treaty (India wins) but called on New Delhi to bring its height down by 1.5 metres (Pakistan scores a point): a win-win solution to a dispute that had acquired plenty of emotional intensity across the border barely two years ago. Having politicised what were essentially technical questions, both sides have now seen sense to abide by a third party judgment.

In fact, India was the more suspicious negotiator. It was Pakistan which had suggested arbitration, an option written into the Indus Waters Treaty. There’s a lesson here for India, not vis-a-vis Kashmir — terrorism complicates all negotiations about the Valley — but the country as a whole. We must learn to value independent, technically sound rulings on contentious issues. This will require mature politics and relatedly will emphasise a principle politicians wrangling over domestic issues forget all too often: India is one country and one market. Which is to say if India and Pakistan can learn to give and take on Indus, why in heaven’s name can’t Tamil Nadu and Karnataka do the same over Cauvery? Or Tamil Nadu and Kerala over Mulyaperiyar? Or Punjab and Haryana/Rajasthan over Sutlej, Ravi and Beas?

Baglihar was a 16-year-old dispute. Cauvery, over which Bangalore was shut down on Monday and which has already disrupted inter-state commerce with Tamil Nadu, is 17 years old and will remain unresolved if politicians behave like adolescents. The 2002 amendment to the 1956 Inter-State Water Disputes Act allows one review of the tribunal’s order. The possibility of the final review being accepted — arguably, it should never have been asked for, neutral experts have called the current verdict fair — is dimmed by what we are witnessing now. Death threats have been issued to those, Girish Karnad, for example, calling for logical responses. This is as appalling as it is illogical. Karnad is thinking as an Indian. So must H.D. Kumaraswamy, M. Karunanidhi, and assorted chief ministers involved in inter-state disputes.