Indus Water Treaty

[RajeshA]

Water is a state subject.

Where inter-state regulation and development of river valleys are concerned , Parliament has to pass an Act to the purpose. Ricer Boards Act 1956 is such enabling act. It is extended to J&K .

For disputes , Inter state water disputes Act 2002 is enacted for setting up tribunals specific to river valleys.

Their role is not exactly binding and taken more as advisory. May a times jurisdiction of Supreme court is also restricted by 262 (2) of COI.

J&K would not get anything more then what other states are already enjoying it.

The whole idea is how to work IWT within its legal framework and test its limit to restrict Pakistan from exercising eventual veto as and when it comes and if possible to make it irrelevant and have a veto on them. Like "behave or we deny DHMO"
I may be wrong in interpreting RajeshA's ideas in this way.

chaanakya ji,
we are indeed following different ideas.

As I understand it, you want to explore IWT's legal weaknesses, giving J&K more control over the waters of the Western Rivers, in the process hurting Pakistan's share of waters.

I am saying we ought to get rid of IWT altogether, and take away Pakistan's whole sense of entitlement and India's thankless commitments. Many have said, the treaty cannot be abrogated or terminated. I was trying to show a means of getting out of IWT in spite of those restrictions - by getting the treaty declared illegal, and null and void, based on the premise that India was not legally authorized to enter into such a treaty by the J&K State.

It is good if there are more than one model of busting the IWT. Both need to be explored.

[chaanakya]

Many have said, the treaty cannot be abrogated or terminated. I was trying to show a means of getting out of IWT in spite of those restrictions - by getting the treaty declared illegal, and null and void, based on the premise that India was not legally authorized to enter into such a treaty by the J&K State.

It is good if there are more than one model of busting the IWT. Both need to be explored.

The first part is correct.

I have quoted Subjects under IOA which includes Foreign treaty and comes within the purview of Central Govt.

On the other hand , water is a state subject and J&K has every right to exploit it as it deems fit. But they have to raise demand for its abrogation and call it illegal. If India has not taken J&K into confidence then it raises interesting possibilities. After all IWT does not confer recognition on J&K as part of either countries but skirts this issue with a disclaimer. J&K does not figure there at all. Hence J&K should be encouraged to take advantage of this lacunae. For India , it would be a win-win situation and for Pakistan it would be lose-lose only.

India being a signatory to it might not like to go back on the treaty unless there is war. And it has not used opportunities presented to it since independence.

I see only slight difference of POV. If the inference that I drew in an earlier post ( which you found interesting) holds good then there may not be any different. It may be a question of modalities.

I wish someone could game a scenario based on war and abrogation of treaty and consequences. That could throw interesting ideas.

[RajeshA]

I have quoted Subjects under IOA which includes Foreign treaty and comes within the purview of Central Govt.

Code: Select all

B. External Affairs

1. External affairs; the [b]implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries[/b]; extradition, including the surrender of criminals and accused persons to parts of His Majesty's Dominions outside India.

chaanakya ji,

I also had looked at it and found that it spoke of "implementing" of treaties, but not about negotiating them or for that matter even signing them, but that may be some diplomatic mumbo jumbo where implementing includes negotiating and signing.

My point is that one can give away only that what one owns or what one controls. J&K IOA did not include J&K natural resources, including water in the schedule, which means J&K owned that water. According to IOA and Article 370 India's sovereignty over J&K is limited, and as I see it Indian sovereignty did not extend to J&K waters.

In any treaty with a foreign country or foreign organization, the GoI can only barter away only that what falls under its sovereignty, and in J&K's case the sovereignty is extended over issues on a case by case base, one act at a time, through the concurrence of the J&K Legislature.

If the sovereignty of Union of India did not extend over the natural resources of the J&K State at the time of signing of IWT, September 19, 1960, then India was not authorized by her Constitution which includes J&K Constitution to sign on this treaty.

I claim, that only India has the right to sign foreign treaties, which impeach on J&K issues, but that right's extent needs to be negotiated with J&K State prior to India signing such a treaty with a foreign country. The J&K State needs to extend Indian Sovereignty over J&K on the issues which the right touches upon, BEFORE India uses that right to sign foreign treaties.

I think, as far as the question of implementing treaties and agreements with foreign countries go, it probably also refers to the fact that J&K citizens are also Indian citizens and if India signs a foreign treaty then it can be considered that all Indian citizens, including J&K citizens, are bound by that treaty. That is, India can speak in the name of J&K citizens as well.

But in the case of IWT, India is not only speaking in the name of J&K citizens but also speaking in the name of J&K State and over issues that fall under its domain - waters of J&K. That I think, was not permissible.

Actually I too find it somewhat funny that I am playing the devil's advocate, "burying India's authority over J&K" in order to preserve India's national interest in this case!

I think there exists a opening in the Constitutionality of IWT, and India should take it, and turn off the tap on Pakistan.

On the other hand , water is a state subject and J&K has every right to exploit it as it deems fit. But they have to raise demand for its abrogation and call it illegal. If India has not taken J&K into confidence then it raises interesting possibilities. After all IWT does not confer recognition on J&K as part of either countries but skirts this issue with a disclaimer. J&K does not figure there at all. Hence J&K should be encouraged to take advantage of this lacunae. For India , it would be a win-win situation and for Pakistan it would be lose-lose only.

1) Of course, J&K is free to use as much of the waters it wants, but that would only mean India cannot deliver on its commitments in IWT for the Western Rivers, and the Pakistanis would hold India responsible. So we would be expecting more Jihad!
2) J&K may not be in a position to utilize much of those waters internally, especially as outsiders cannot buy land and property there and as such one cannot put up industry that easily, which could utilize water. Similarly it may not deemed positive to do away with forest cover in J&K and turn it into agricultural land. The real thirst for water in India is outside J&K. So it would not be bad idea, if India (besides J&K) could also make use of those waters through appropriate canals and diversions. But even within an IWT "distorted" by J&K's use of water, India would still not be able to avail of those waters.
3) That would also limit J&K's ability to influence Pakistan, for without the infrastructure and threat to divert the waters in a significant amount, e.g. to rest of India, Pakistan may remain nonchalant about any substantial threat, nonchalant enough not to change its behavior viz-a-viz India, but not enough not to go on a propaganda crusade against India.

I think this would be more at a level of pin-pricks to wake up the Jihadi and not at the level of a bayonet on his throat forcing him to change his ways!

India being a signatory to it might not like to go back on the treaty unless there is war. And it has not used opportunities presented to it since independence.

India is not going back on a treaty, we are not violating it, we are not abrogating it, we are not terminating it. The treaty would simply be declared null and void, because India's Supreme Court would judge that India was not authorized to sign the treaty in the first place! The treaty would simply cease existing because of its birth defects!

There is nothing in the IWT which helps India protect her national interests. We are feeding the snake that bites us! That has to stop!

My claim is that
- if IWT is cancelled, and
- J&K is give possession of its waters, and
- India reaches a different treaty with J&K which protects our current privileges as far as waters and infrastructure is concerned, and
- India builds the infrastructure to divert water from the Western Rivers, and
- J&K opts to sell its waters,

then Kashmir problem will be solved for India, and even Pakistan problem would be solved for India.

chaanakya ji,
I do not wish to sound critical of your proposals. I still have to read them and understand them properly.

[RajeshA]

Posted by Prem ji in Music, Poetry and Shero-Shayari Thread

Hum Hindustani: Chodo Kal Ki Batein



Watch at 2:18

Abhi palatna hai ruk kitne dariyaon ka!

[AKalam]

Will fresh water become more important than oil in the future?

There are 54 rivers that enter Bangladesh from India. I think most major rivers in Pakistan also enter from Indian border. Brahmaputra enters India from Tibet.

Without Historical Continuity of religious and cultural divide, it would be logical and more efficient for Humanity to manage water resources regionally, but the continuity will continue for the foreseeable future, so we have conflicts between groups of people, who do not want to share living space or resources. But is it possible to harness these reasons for divisions to unite a larger group of humanity to fight for a common cause?

If Muslims were a cohesive group, it would be logical for Arabs to conclude that their mostly desert lands will be worthless in a few decades, when oil runs out. The richest Muslims will again be the people of the land where land is fertile and there is plenty of fresh water to grow food, of course if they can create stable political systems and improve the quality of life. Logic would dictate that they would and should try to improve their relationship with Muslims of these lands, because the leadership and wealth will return to that part of the Muslim world, as it was before the discovery of oil and other underground mineral resources.

The biggest Muslim group with this kind of watery fertile land is in the Subcontinent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arabl ... _world.png

But these Muslim groups, both in Pakistan and Bangladesh, are dependent on India for their major rivers and India, itself with a big Muslim population, in turn is dependent on Tibet, a part of PRC.

So again if someone was looking after the future of Islamic civilization and the people in it, logic would dictate that it would improve its relations with India and perhaps work towards a SAARC union as we discussed earlier in this forum. Muslims have negligible leverage over PRC, so the best option for a hypothetical cohesive Islamic civilization would be to join hands with Africa, Subcontinent and Buddhist South East Asia to put pressure on PRC to ensure fair sharing of Tibetan water.

Logically all of todays oil wealth and minerals that is available with any Muslim people should be invested for a future possibility like the above.

Turning Huntington's clash of civilizations in its head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clash ... _mapn2.png

one could envision a cooperation of civilizations, a federation of Islamic(green), African(grey), Hindu(yellow) and Buddhist(orange), to put pressure on Sinic(red) and ensure fair share of Tibetan waters, cultural autonomy for Buddhist Tibetans in Tibet and Mongols in Inner Mongolia and Muslim Turkics in Xinjiang.

Relations with the West, Orthodox, Japan and Latin America could in large part be determined by the above impetus. The federation could say to each one of these three, that you are either with us or against us.

The well fed and well educated Arabs are showing signs of evolution, perhaps from using and sharing of the oil wealth, same thing could happen to poorer populations in the above region in coming decades, if this same oil wealth could be invested there as FDI, instead of putting it in stable investment opportunities in the West. I am hoping that people will choose their fights and struggles based on collective benefits and a collective secure future.

Just a bit of flight of fancy and food for thought.

[RajeshA]

Akalam ji,

you may like to x-post your inspiring post to the Water Issues in the Indian Subcontinent Thread, where it can be discussed more openly without admin protests.

[SSridhar]

A letter to the editor of DT

IWT 1960 is not delivering

Sir: I am writing in reference to Abdul Basit Khan’s article, ‘IWT 1960 is not delivering’ (Daily Times, April 1, 2011). It is disheartening to read such articles, which lack objectivity. The author claims subjectively, by mentioning a list of dams, that these have already “tremendously decreased the flow” in the western rivers allocated to Pakistan by the Indus Water Treaty (IWT). Out of the names of projects he mentions, only Dulhasti has been built. To my knowledge, Pakistan has not objected to that project. The remaining projects are either in the proposal stage or the works are about to start. There can thus be no impounding of water leading to ‘tremendously’ reduced flow into Pakistan. Again, the IWT specifies clearly that there can be no ‘storage dams’ (except as allowed) on the western rivers by India. These are all run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects where, according to IWT, any impounded water must be released downstream within seven days. There are some locations wherein it must even be within one day. One has to realise that irrespective of the number of such hydroelectric projects upstream, it is the amount of water that ultimately reaches Pakistan and measured at its rim stations that matters.

It is also a myth that the IWT did not allow any storage for India on the western rivers. I suggest the author to at least cursorily read the IWT to realise that. Pakistan already gets roughly four times more water on the Indus system of rivers than India. If the author questions the fairness of the IWT, he should realise that it would work both ways. The upper riparian India has not stopped waters even during wars; in fact, it has no means of doing so. The IWT has delivered successfully for the past five decades in spite of wars, skirmishes, terrorism and enduring hostility. Its dispute resolution mechanism has worked as we saw in Baglihar and as we are now seeing in Kishenganga. It would help if facts were discussed, instead of conspiracy theories, especially on such serious matters.

[RajeshA]

chaanakya ji,

I was just looking over your ideas in your earlier posts, to see how much congruence there between our thinking in this direction.

So treaty has to be extended to J&K with concurrence of its Legislature only. In fact J&K is , apparently not bound by the treaty so there is no question of violation by J&K govt.( It is not clear to me if J&K govt was consulted and concurrence obtained )
By implication J&K can do whatever they wish to with the waters of rivers passing through their state.

This may have serious implications for Pakistan as well as India in case of independence or merger with either country or sanctified LOC giving each country held portion of J&K. IWT could be properly operated only in these situations. Till such time J&K is not legally bound by IWT nor can it be enforced by parties to either POK or J&K which are not party to IWT.

This is my loud thinking and subject to further elaboration/clarification etc by esteemed members, esp ssridhar.

1) Of course, J&K is free to use as much of the waters it wants, but that would only mean India cannot deliver on its commitments in IWT for the Western Rivers, and the Pakistanis would hold India responsible. So we would be expecting more Jihad!

While at a legal level J&K has the right to do with its waters whatever it wants, in signing the IWT, India gave a commitment to Pakistan, that India would ensure that the use of Western Rivers would be regulated by the terms of the IWT Treaty. India gave a commitment to Pakistan, that J&K State would not be allowed to use its waters arbitrarily. So for any violation, Pakistan is going to hold India responsible. They will say, "you control Kashmir, so make sure that our waters are not held back. You said you would do that!"

So in a way, IWT and Pakistan are forcing India to "oppress" J&K citizens.

I would rather have the IWT totally thrown out.

[AKalam]

Akalam ji,

you may like to x-post your inspiring post to the Water Issues in the Indian Subcontinent Thread, where it can be discussed more openly without admin protests.

Thanks RajeshA ji, I have x-posted that post to the appropriate thread.

IWT and internationalization of water issues are part of the reason why I support a regional framework like SAARC, where conflicts like these can be resolved within this framework.

These water issues alone should have been enough to convince the short sighted supporters of two nation theory that Partition was a bad idea. As time passes, it is natural that India will make increasing use of the upstream water in the interest of Indian citizens. Downstream nations can complain all they want, but the ultimate responsibility does lie with their past leaders who chose to form separate nations and bring this eventuality which could be avoided. Scrapping of IWT and similar efforts should help convince people at downstream nations that it is indeed in their long term interest to work with India rather than acting like its eternal enemy.

We cannot put the genie back in the bottle, but the best case scenario would be to negate the ill effects of Partition, through a tight regional integration effort like we discussed before.

A population can be deluded to believe that share of water in international rivers belongs to downstream people, but the reality is that ultimately might makes right, if might is not enough to get something, then one must negotiate, be on the good side, listen to the other side and make deals.

[RajeshA]

These water issues alone should have been enough to convince the short sighted supporters of two nation theory that Partition was a bad idea. As time passes, it is natural that India will make increasing use of the upstream water in the interest of Indian citizens. Downstream nations can complain all they want, but the ultimate responsibility does lie with their past leaders who chose to form separate nations and bring this eventuality which could be avoided. Scrapping of IWT and similar efforts should help convince people at downstream nations that it is indeed in their long term interest to work with India rather than acting like its eternal enemy.

We cannot put the genie back in the bottle, but the best case scenario would be to negate the ill effects of Partition, through a tight regional integration effort like we discussed before.

A population can be deluded to believe that share of water in international rivers belongs to downstream people, but the reality is that ultimately might makes right, if might is not enough to get something, then one must negotiate, be on the good side, listen to the other side and make deals.

AKalam ji,
For the last 50 years, India has stuck to IWT meticuluously which gives Pakistan, the lower riparian, the rights to ⅘ of the waters of the Indus Basin, and still we get wars and terrorism from Pakistan. Pakistan sees the waters as their entitlement and the jihadi organizations keep on with their propaganda about India stealing waters.

I can't think of a more thankless bat sucking your blood!

Were it not for Pakistan's animosity against India, Indians would probably have not given it any thought about the justice of this distribution of waters. But with attacks like Mumbai 26/11 we have to rethink our sense of generosity.

As far as I am concerned, I think, Pakistan should be made to beg for water, and after a long period of begging, they may come around to the idea, that they should get rid of enmity against India.

Water is the most potent weapon in India's hand short of using violence! It is the best way to teach Pakistan some lessons without resorting to blood-letting.

Basically I find it surprising that India still sticks to the treaty and has not thrown it into the dustbin of history.

For peace on the Subcontinent, it is vitally important that mentality of Pakistan changes and changes drastically, and we have to look for all possible ways to get the message across. Water is the most non-violent means to that end.

[Vivek_A]

Movement against Indian water theft starts today

LAHORE - Pakistan Muthida Kisan Mahaz (PMKM) will be leading a movement from Sunday (today) to condemn Indian water aggression against Pakistan and to foil the Indian plan of depriving Pakistan from its share of water in the rivers irrigating both the countries by building dams on Chenab, Jehlum and Sindh.
The protest movement will be launched from Mirpur (AJK) where PMKM chief Muhammad Ayub Khan Mayo will apprise the media about impact of construction of Kishan Ganga Dam on Pakistan’s agriculture, Mangla Dam and cities of AJK.
The movement has jointly been arranged by the Pakistan Water and Power Action Committee and Muthida Kisan Mahaz Azad Jammu & Kashmir on Sunday.
According to the plan, Muthida Kisan Mahaz AJK and Pakistan Water and Power Action Committee will also arrange a protest rally in Muzaffarabad on April 05, 2011 to highlight violations of human rights by India in Indian Held Kashmir, construction of dams on Chenab, Jhelum and Sindh rivers by India which would result in less water to Pakistan, making it unable to irrigate its fertile land or generate cheaper power to meet energy shortage.
“India through constructing new dams and water reservoirs wanted to create a food crisis in Pakistan,’ Muhammad Ayub Khan Mayo said in a statement issued here Saturday. He said Indian project of Kishan Ganga Dam would ruin Azad Kashmir’s beauty and environment.
This is a conspiracy to destroy Nelum-Jhelum Power Project and an open economic war against people of Pakistan and Azad Jammu-o-Kashmir, he observed.

[Nihat]

Very ,much in agreement with you Rajesh, there are also legitimate reasons to atleast "re-negotiate" the terms of the treaty. Considering that India has no water sharing agreement with China (where a lot of our rivers originate) , China is damming aggresivly and without consideration for the lower reparian state the India ought to make this right by cutting down on the water supply to Pakistan as a means of compensating for the reduced water flow from China.

A 50-50 water sharing agreement is the least we should get and India has a decent moral stand here as we're not exactly overflowing with fresh water supply, have 7 times the population of TSP to feed and are an resource hungry emerging global player.

However, all of this needs a stright thinking Govt. which has the intrests of INDIA at heart and not "going the extra mile" with TSP.

[Gagan]

To be able to utilize any of the water in the Indus system, we would have to bring it to the plains.

For which we would need a series of tunnels and a canal system that would cut across several mountain ranges, a gargantuan task.

Unless, one uses our relations with China to divert some of the rivers at source into some of the rivers in punjab and use existing canal networks to bring that water to use in the gangetic plains.

[somnath]

^^^Abrogation of IWT, while temptingly attratcive as a retaliatory action, has larger implications that need to be thought through..

India has similar treaties with Bangldesh (Ganga water treaty) and Nepal (Mahakali)..Abrogation of IWT will signal to both these countries that India can abrogate water treaties as a coercive tool - they will court China ever more generously to counter that...

Second, abrogation of IWT will definitely draw in the UN (the treaty was done under UN auspices), and internationlise (rather "UN-ise") the J&K issue again in its wake...With a potent water issue, the internationalising will be much sharper..

Third, we are upper riparian to all our neighbours, but China is an upper riparian to India and B'desh...An abrogation of IWT will mean that playing with water is "fair game" for India's diplomacy - nothing prevents China from reversing the game on India in its discussions on Arunachal...

The best way to keep Pak off balance on this would be to keep executing projects quickly on our side of the border, build up capacity - we have been very very tardy on it...And then spring a "changed circumstances" re-negotiation on them (Vienna convention on treaties)....then tie-up the success of the renegotiation with other externalities...

[Atri]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 53#p864153

All rivers of Indian subcontinent from mouth to source should be under Indian political control in long run.. by long run, I mean 70-80 years.. Indus system including kabul river (mouth to source), ganga system (mouth to source), Brahmaputra system (mouth to source)..

That has to be the long term goal, if India and Dharma has to survive and propagate..

[RajeshA]

^^^Abrogation of IWT, while temptingly attratcive as a retaliatory action, has larger implications that need to be thought through..

Second, abrogation of IWT will definitely draw in the UN (the treaty was done under UN auspices), and internationlise (rather "UN-ise") the J&K issue again in its wake...With a potent water issue, the internationalising will be much sharper..

The question of getting rid of IWT was brought up with a particular termination model in mind. Beyond that, as things stand, IWT does not have a termination clause, so there is no room for "abrogation" of IWT.

The question of "internationalization" of the waters issue and the subsequent fallout was answered a few posts earlier.

India has similar treaties with Bangldesh (Ganga water treaty) and Nepal (Mahakali)..Abrogation of IWT will signal to both these countries that India can abrogate water treaties as a coercive tool - they will court China ever more generously to counter that...

India has in fact been trying to come to an understanding with Bangladesh, and we have been succeeding. What happens with IWT has absolutely no bearing on India's understanding with Nepal and Bangladesh, especially after keeping in view the termination model for IWT being proposed.

IWT has birth defects, other agreements don't.

Third, we are upper riparian to all our neighbours, but China is an upper riparian to India and B'desh...An abrogation of IWT will mean that playing with water is "fair game" for India's diplomacy - nothing prevents China from reversing the game on India in its discussions on Arunachal...

Tibet and not China is an upper riparian state to India.

Interesting that both Tibet and IWT befell India during JLN's watch.

What makes you think that China is going to give any thought to how India treats her neighbors, and as if international conventions are going to stop China from carrying out whatever they want. Is China going ahead with delivering Chashma 3 and 4 to Pakistan or not, and that too without NSG approval?

Once India has consolidated the Subcontinent behind her, then we can take on the Chinese as well. In order to consolidate, India needs to solve Pakistan first.

The best way to keep Pak off balance on this would be to keep executing projects quickly on our side of the border, build up capacity - we have been very very tardy on it...And then spring a "changed circumstances" re-negotiation on them (Vienna convention on treaties)....then tie-up the success of the renegotiation with other externalities...

Keeping Pakistan off-balance here and there is really an insufficient strategy. India wants to move ahead. Pakistan is in the way, so we need to get rid of Pakistan. That is all there is to it! All other considerations come after that, including what the world and China will think about it.

[RajeshA]

To be able to utilize any of the water in the Indus system, we would have to bring it to the plains.

For which we would need a series of tunnels and a canal system that would cut across several mountain ranges, a gargantuan task.

Unless, one uses our relations with China to divert some of the rivers at source into some of the rivers in punjab and use existing canal networks to bring that water to use in the gangetic plains.

An old article relevant to diversion possibilities:

Originally posted by jrjrao
Published on Jan 30, 2009
By M.S. Menon
Withdraw from Indus treaty: The Tribune Chandigarh

The treaty does not explicitly provide for an exit option or a mechanism to withdraw from the agreements. The only possibility is to modify the provisions by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two countries; but, this would remain a distant dream in view of the prevailing circumstances.

The time has, therefore, come to put an end to the covert wars waged by that country against India and the option available to us is by justifying India’s right to withdraw from the treaty citing Pakistan’s non-compliance with the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1373 on denial of terrorist sanctuaries and support.

Any pronouncement to walk out of the treaty would need to be followed by requisite actions to show that India means business since pious declarations alone would not stop the flow of the river. Hence, we must be ready with our plans to control and divert the river flows.

In this connection, available data indicate that, in the past, India had planned many schemes across the western rivers to tap the hydropower potential as permitted in the treaty. However, not much has been done to study the diversion possibilities of water from the western to the eastern rivers to augment the flows in the Indian side.

For example, there is a possibility of diverting the Indus at a point upstream of the Stakna hydro power project to a tributary of the Sutlej through a tunnel.

Similarly , the Chenab waters could be diverted from the river Chandra, a tributary of the Chenab, to a tributary of the Beas and from the Chenab main at Marlu to a tributary of the Ravi through tunnels.

A possibility also exists for constructing large dams on the Jhelum to facilitate the diversion of waters to the Chenab and to the Ravi.

In view of the large irrigation water demands made by Indian states, field surveys and sub-surface investigations should be taken up urgently and detailed project reports got ready for implementation of various diversion proposals.

It is, therefore, for India to take the lead in its own defence so that Pakistan would be forced to abide by the UN Security Council Resolution for ending terrorism.

[Gerard]

Indus system including kabul river (mouth to source), ganga system (mouth to source), Brahmaputra system (mouth to source)..

By that logic, Egypt should control Uganda since the source of the Nile river lies there.
The plain fact is the drainage basin of these rivers is huge. That the 'source' lies in occupied Tibet or in Afghanistan does not permit either to cut off water to India. Since the drainage basin of the Brahmaputra lies mostly in India, China cannot hold India to ransom by actions in occupied Tibet.

[Prem]

What about Chinese building Megadams in Tibbet thus changing the material circumstances requring necessary change or abrogation of the IWT?

[somnath]

By that logic, Egypt should control Uganda since the source of the Nile river lies there.
The plain fact is the drainage basin of these rivers is huge. That the 'source' lies in occupied Tibet or in Afghanistan does not permit either to cut off water to India. Since the drainage basin of the Brahmaputra lies mostly in India, China cannot hold India to ransom by actions in occupied Tibet.

Precisely, and its not so easy to simply "divert" waters of large rivers..Not large river bodies passing through thousands of kms..."Diversion" will require either storage capacity at the mouth of the river and/or a system of trubutaries taking the natural flow away....Neither is easy to accomplish, more so in mountaineous regions, especially one that is prone to earthquakes..

RajeshA-ji, while IWT does not specifically have a termination clause, under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, Art 62, any treaty can be terminated on change of material circumstances...The issue is more political than legal...

[SSridhar]

Folks, some issues are fundamental. Water is unlike anything else. Trans-border water management is a very sensitive matter, whether it is Mekong or Brahmaputra or the Indus. We can withdraw from the IWT or violate it wilfully but then we should be prepared to face the consequences arising therefrom. It will certainly create an international opprobrium which the GoI will not be willing to face at this stage. We conceded too much initially and put ourselves into an unnecessary situation as we have done in so many other things. J&K, China, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Tibet, UN, ASEAN . . . you name it, we have made huge mistakes. From each one of these, we have to come out using strategies that best fit that particular situation. In the case of IWT, I feel that what the GoI is doing is the best in the current situation. It can be argued that we made certain mistakes such as in the Salal project or the Wullar navigation lock etc. It can also be argued that the velocity of project completion is unsatisfactory. But, the overall approach of doing things within the IWT parameters has exposed the Pakistani mendacity, especially after the Baglihar verdict. In fact, the Baglihar verdict has removed the cobwebs in the minds of the Indian water managers, but we have to hasten projects. Just remember that we are entitled to storage as well as irrigation also on the so-called Western rivers which we have largely not exploited. Even on the Eastern rivers, which is exclusively ours, we are still letting about 8 MAF (Million Acre Feet) of water to go to Pakistan annually. So, we have effectively got only 16 MAF from the IWT (The eastern rivers carry 33 MAF annually and at the time of partition we were already using 9 MAF from these three eastern rivers). At the time the IWT was negotiated, we were interested in protecting the water linkages for the Bhakra-Nangal Project (BNP) and the Rajasthan Canal. Hence, we were satisfied with the allocation of eastern rivers. An India that has not taken strong steps after an armed assault on its Parliament or after the unleashing of urban warfare in the heart of Mumbai or after dozens of bomb attacks on various cities and commuter trains etc will *not* take any unilateral and proactive step on a far more sensitive issue such as water. I do not see anybody in the ruling coalition or the opposition coalition doing anything like that. We know that we are far too beholden to the Americans for taking retaliatory measures even when attacked and given a bloody nose. So, leave alone an issue such as IWT. Let us first exploit completely all our allocations as per the IWT. Let us determine to give an equally, if not more, bloody nose to Pakistan whenever there is a terrorist attack or an economic offence against us. Water can come after that..

[RajeshA]

RajeshA-ji, while IWT does not specifically have a termination clause, under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, Art 62, any treaty can be terminated on change of material circumstances...The issue is more political than legal...

Unless some earthquake or something changes the natural course of the rivers, all changes of material circumstances planned on the Western rivers would be according to IWT. We would only be using the capacity allowed to us, be it in terms of water usage or hydel power generation. Nothing we do would be contrary to IWT, because only what is according to it would be permitted to us. So any talk of termination on that basis just doesn't add up!

[RajeshA]

Folks, some issues are fundamental. Water is unlike anything else.

SSridhar garu,
on this thread, I would just say that living without the fear of a nuclear holocaust and nuclear terrorism is just as fundamental, and these two fundamentals need to be brought into an equation!

[Atri]

Indus system including kabul river (mouth to source), ganga system (mouth to source), Brahmaputra system (mouth to source)..

By that logic, Egypt should control Uganda since the source of the Nile river lies there.
The plain fact is the drainage basin of these rivers is huge. That the 'source' lies in occupied Tibet or in Afghanistan does not permit either to cut off water to India. Since the drainage basin of the Brahmaputra lies mostly in India, China cannot hold India to ransom by actions in occupied Tibet.

Gerard ji, China should not hold India to ransom.. but are you sure it will not.. Prem ji has already pointed towards dams in tibet to divert brahmaputra's waters eastwards.... check the previous maps of egyptian empires and their quest to control as much as Nile's upstream as possible.

What I suggested as furthermore important repercussions. The river linking project makes it essential that all these rivers fall in one political domain.. and necessity to link rivers is going to increase exponentially owing to decreasing forest cover, climate change and increasing population. and I am talking in terms of 70-80 year period. when push comes to shove, you will see egyptian armies diving southwards to control Nile. It is not easy to divert ganga's waters southwards without opposition from BD. If entire ganga is in one political unit, then the international affair becomes internal affair and can potentially be solved easily (not guarantied though).

[vic]

On a side issue, There was this famous lake in Pakistan created by landslide, waiting to burst, what happened to it?

[GuruPrabhu]

On a side issue, There was this famous lake in Pakistan created by landslide, waiting to burst, what happened to it?

I used to follow this blog quite regularly, but then the british prof quit because he lost access to data:

http://hunzalandslide.blogspot.com/

[chaanakya]

Here is the latest picture. Lake was frozen during winter. but outflow at low level is there without any increase or decrease in water level. Boulders and earth seems to have stabilised for the time being. In this area landslides have not survived for longer duration. So time for caution has not yet passed.KKH is still closed. Chinese are trying for another route.

http://pamirtimes.net/2011/04/05/pictor ... nza-river/

[saip]

Two Pakistani ministries in trouble because they 'slept' while India was committing 'water aggression' against Pakistan and getting Carbon Credits from UN

http://www.yawn.com/2011/04/16/ecnelis- ... tries.html

[Theo_Fidel]

These landslip dams have a nasty habit of failing during exceptional floods. IIRC there was mention of floods of 200,000 cusecs happening during glacial outburst events fairly regularly. That's when we should watch out now.

[arun]

Per Capita water availability in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan plummets:

According to the latest official document of Wapda on water challenges in Pakistan, available with The News, drastically plummeted by 80.2 percent from 5,260 cubic metre to 1,038 cubic metre while the threshold value stands at 1,000 cubic metre per capita.

As does water storage capacity due to sedimentation :

The document also discloses that Pakistan has lost its capacity to store water by 4.18 million feet of water (27 percent) from 15.75 to 11.57maf in the wake of sedimentation which is close to one Mangla Dam as 4.54maf is stored in the said dam.

It says that the Tarbela was built in 1976 with storage capacity of 9.69maf that has reduced to 6.77maf by 30 percent (2.92maf). The Mangla Dam was erected in 1968 with water storage capacity of 5.34maf that has gone down to 4.54maf by 15 percent (0.80maf).

The Chashma Barrage was built in 1971 with capacity to store 0.72maf water. Its capacity has now plummeted to 0.26maf by 63 percent (0.46maf) because of the sedimentation.

Meanwhile the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is hopeful that the US will fund the Diamer-Bhasha dam and thereby generate further funding from donor agencies who reportedly are averse to funding the project due to the opposition of India:

The announcement from US will help generate funding for the mega project from the donor agencies, particularly from the World Bank, which has refused to provide financing, pleading that the said dam is being constructed on the controversial territory as New Delhi claims that this part of the world, wherein this project is being made, belongs to India. ………………

Once the US announces the financial assistance for the dam, the World Bank will follow the suit and provide the funding and this will provide the substantial financial solace to Pakistan to complete the project. The Diamer-Bhasha Dam needs $11.8 billion to get completed and Manila based Asian Development Bank has committed to providing funding amounting to $5 billion for the project. …………

Read it all:

$200 million US aid likely for Bhasha Dam

[SSridhar]

$200 million US aid likely for Bhasha Dam

This is an unfriendly act from the US. India must protest strongly. India had successfully protested against similar funding recently.

But, with Mr. Singh at the crease, we may choose not to protest.

BTW, wasn't China supposed to help the construction of the Diamar-Basha dam ?

[Gagan]

The Chinese are already building tunnels for the Neelum Jhelum Project.
They were building tunnels next to the LOC from the Neelum / Kishenganga River, to divert water into the Jhelum

The aim was to construct a hydroelectric plant that would generate 969 MW of electricity.

The project was planned by some scandinavian engineering company 50 odd years ago. Pakistan didn't have the expertise to costruct either the tunnels or the hydroelectric plant or the dams. They woke up when India had already constructed several dams - run of the river dams as per the Indus water treaty.

The Diamar-Basha is a uber major project - clearly way beyond Pakistan's meagre capabilities. The Chinese had to step in.
The problem was always going to be funding. The chinese kanjoos-makkhichoos-uber-baniyas, want pakistan to arrange for the finances, they will I think only fund a very very small portion. Now pakistan is B-R-O-K-E, and can't arrange money for such a major project that might end up costing close to a billion dollahs. After India objected that this was in POK (and also because India is an increasingly important member of the multilateral aid agencies from which pakistan gets loans from) the aid agencies backed out of financing this dam.

So here we are right now, with Pakistan making efforts to secure fianance for the project.

And BTW for the Pak lurks. A little bit of gyan on the Chinese philosophy of executing contracts.
1. Pakistani money, project on Pakistan's soil.
2. Chinese engineers, Chinese cheap labour (often prison labour so that profits can be maximised - prisoners don't have to be paid at the market rate).
3. Local pakistani engineers get a big thenga, local pakistani labourers get a big thenga.
4. Site security by PLA soldiers. After Malik Mumtaz Qadri no one is taking any chances.
Bottom line: Pakistani money, Chinese Knowledge chinese profit, Pakistan gets only the dam - no increase in Pakistan's knowledge.

The pakistanis aren't complaining - they want to be more pure, and the arabs didn't do menial things such as build dams either, they just sat around watching mujras and drinking zam zam cola.

[Manny]

Water Wars: China's New 'Political Weapon'?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... l?ir=World

[Nihat]

Water Wars: China's New 'Political Weapon'?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... l?ir=World

Damming rives from Tibet is a serious challenge for India , especially given the fact that there is no official water sharing agreement between the two countries.

But won't a significantly reduced water flow from China enable India to cite "changed circumstances" under Vienna convention and activly store and divert the water flowing into TSP, thereby ruining them without firing a bullet.

[/Jingo dream]

[RajeshA]

Water Wars: China's New 'Political Weapon'?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... l?ir=World

Sometimes one thinks back to Chacha Nehru! Uhnnnnh!

[anupmisra]

Posted by Prem ji in Music, Poetry and Shero-Shayari Thread

Abhi palatna hai ruk kitne dariyaon ka!

Chahey mooh rutth jayey pakistaniyon ka!

[Prem]

Watch them building dams .
Firte hai Poak, mulko mulko Jholi Pasare
Jub indoo jee raahe thei apne sahare.

Jaagega Insaan Zamaana Dekhega AADMI AUR INSAAN 1969

[Vipul]

Check this.

Massive delays and increase in the scope have swelled the cost of Neelum Jhelum Hydropower project by almost 98 percent to $2.25 billion from $1.5 billion, officials said.

This will help Indian authorities to complete the controversial Kishanganga project on the same Neelum River in Indian Held Kashmir, they said.

“Owing to the delays, the Neelum-Jhelum project will now complete by 2018 whereas the completion of Kishanganga project is due in 2016,” said an official. “In case India manages to complete its project earlier, under the existing Indus Water Treaty (IWT), it will clinch the water priority rights of Neelum River.”

India has done more than 50 percent work on its project.

Pakistan has already moved to Court of Arbitration against the faulty design of Kishnaganga hydropower project. Pakistan says that under IWT, India can build its project on the run of the river to ensure the pace of water flows which are destined to reach Pakistan. But New Delhi is constructing a 48-kilometer long tunnel to divert the water of Neelum Tributary for more generation from the proposed project.

This will adversely affect the water flow of Neelum River that originates from Indian Held Kashmir. It will also have catastrophic affects on the environment of Neelum River in Azad Jummu and Kashmir.

“The authorities who have been involved in the project need to be fixed for this huge loss,” said an official.

According to the document available with The News, the Neelum-Jhelum project was first conceived in 1988 when its PC-1 was approved by the Executive Committee of National Economic Council. Then its cost was estimated at $1.5 billion.

Later, its PC-1 was revised with electricity generation capacity of 969 MW.

In 1998, some changes were introduced in its detailed design and accordingly PC-1 was again revised.

In 2003, the contractors developed some dispute with the government owing to which this project once again got delayed.

The 2005 earthquake further delayed the project. A panel of experts revisited the detailed design of the project after the quake and completely changed it besides increasing the project’s scope.

In 2008, a joint venture of Chinese companies mobilised its staff and machinery on the site of the project. With a view to expedite the Neelm-Jhelum project, it was decided that the Chinese companies involved in the project be allowed to purchase tunnel boring machine, which can help Pakistan build the project by 2016.

One of the top officials at WAPDA said that if the TBM purchasing gets delayed, Pakistan will certainly lose the water priority rights as Neelum-Jhelum project will not be completed in 2016.

The official further said that the only recipe to complete the project in 2016 and clinch the water priority rights of Neelum River was to ensure the availability of TBM at the earliest so that the project could be completed before Kishanganga project. With the use of TBM, the country will have an income of Rs90 billion. Pakistan will save Rs70 billion even if Rs20 billion to be spent on TBM are deducted.

“Moreover, WAPDA will be having the strategic asset of TBM that will be used in other projects. In addition, Pakistan’s technical staff will increase its capacity by using TBM.”

To a question, the official said that India has already acquired TBM, but it remains non-functional.

[SSridhar]

IWT-related talks between India & Pakistan, among other things.

The Commerce Secretary-level talks in Islamabad next week will be followed by a meeting between the Water Resources Secretaries on the Wullar Barrage\Tulbul navigation project in May.

Next, the Surveyors General of the two countries will resume discussions on resolving the Sir Creek dispute. Although the Science and Technology Secretary is yet to confirm the dates, the meeting will be held in Islamabad.

[chaanakya]

Starting afresh with Pakistan

Rajiv Dogra
First Published : 13 Apr 2011 10:36:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 14 Apr 2011 01:03:20 AM IST

Once again it is spring; a time for fresh hopes and the ritual of another dialogue with Pakistan. Once more we will put faith in the ‘queerly termed’ back channel. It is time too to declare sentimentally that never have two nations been so alike; joined umbilically but parted by cruel fate. Once again it is time to revive the Sisyphus in India; to try and repair that rupture by applying unilaterally the balm of emotion.

Once more there is a spring in our prime minister’s steps. He is normally stoic; his face expressionless as he watches his political opponents rouse a ferocious rabble. While for the rest of India it seems the end is nigh for the scam slit government, the prime minister’s calm is unsettling. This too shall pass, he seems to convey dismissively as the Opposition exhausts itself to nothingness all over again.

The prime minister’s ultimate faith is in the Indian people who forgive all and forget everything. That must be the reason for his beatific expression; for his supreme indifference to mayhem over scams that have now become a routine in Parliament. ..................... It was a remarkable burst of emotion for an otherwise reticent man; like a hesitant teenager declaring his first love.

But with Pakistan it is an enduring affair. There is no sign of hesitation; there are no furtive glances as was the case while he was reciting that Urdu couplet for BJP leader Sushma Swaraj. A reference to Pakistan brings a ready smile to his lips. It is as if he has made up his mind to forgive them all their trespasses. Such indeed is the power of true love; it is trusting and it is blind even when it is so obviously one-sided.

However, people have an intuitive grasp of politics; they can sense immediately when a policy is floundering. This desire to resume the dialogue with Pakistan is being viewed by the nation apprehensively; a case many say of the triumph of hope over experience.
...........
..........
.............

Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru must have had this schism in mind when he wrote to chief ministers in 1957: “No Government in that country (Pakistan) had any policy except of fear and hatred of India and till that ceases the future is dark.” That unfortunate reality has not changed in the least since then. As a matter of fact Pakistan’s angst has multiplied, and its anger has added the dangerous dimension of terror to its tactics.

Yet, like moths to flame, our leaders have been fatalistically drawn to Pakistan.
........
.........

The only agreements that have been honoured between us relate to commitments made by India. We paid Pakistan’s share of Partition’s finances in full, and continue to honour the Indus Water Treaty by depriving our population of water. But Pakistan feigns long term amnesia when it comes to its commitments. It has not paid even a single paisa of the debt it owes us. By now the value of that debt must have gone up to many thousand crores. It also refuses to extend to us the most-favoured nation (MFN) status in trade. And disregarding humanitarian pleas by the United Nations, it refused to let any Indian food and medical supply reach Afghanistan via its territory.




Rajiv Dogra, a former ambassador, is a novelist, columnist and an artist