It is almost universally acknowledged that the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter the Indian Act) have failed to provide effective and efficient arbitration for the quick resolution of commercial disputes, as promised. After prolonged gloom the recent judgment of the constitution bench in Bharat Aluminum (BALCO) v Kaiser Aluminum 1 renewed hope among the arbitral community about the prospects of the Act. The author however does not share this enthusiasm and contends that the problems of the Act are too engrained to be removed by a single judgment no matter how significant. In this paper therefore the author argues that the only way forward is now to go for a dualist regime (i.e. separate statutes for international and domestic arbitrations. The author has specifically compared the arbitration legislations of Australia and Singapore to establish that such dualism shall solve many of the ills of the Indian Act.