Indus Water Treaty

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Wular apathy
The murky international political status of Kashmir also had its toll on the Wular. Under the camouflage of Indus water treaty, rejection of Tulbul Project a ‘navigation lock-cum-control structure’ at the mouth of Wular Lake, by Pakistan, is the outcome of hostility in the region. By objecting to Tulbul barrage Pakistan tried to pester India, but in fact robed people of Kashmir of their right of self-reliance. Ramsar Convention an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilization of wetlands, to which Pakistan is a party, has declared Wular a wetland of international importance. This treaty should provide an occasion to Pakistan to reconsider its earlier decision in the best interest of Wular Lake and people of Kashmir.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 762350.ece

“Pakistan is getting its due share of river water under the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960,” Pakistan's Water and Power Minister Syed Naveed Qamar said on Friday.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

[ur=lhttp://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.as ... 434&Cat=13]Jamaat Ali Shah escapes to Canada[/url]
ISLAMABAD: Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, former commissioner of Pakistan Commission of Indus Water, whose name was put on the Exit Control List after it was established that he had helped and facilitated India in building a hydropower project on Pakistan’s Indus River, inflicting huge damage to the country’s water interests, has escaped to Canada.

According to Additional Secretary Hamid Ali, it was established in the report prepared by Mohammad Imtiaz Tajwar, Secretary Wapda, that Syed Jamaat Ali Shah did not play his due role and remained silent about the Nimoo Bazgo Hydropower Project (built by India during 2002- 2009) and did not raise any objections during the Pak-India meetings at the level of Permanent Indus Commission of Indus Waters.

It is surprising that Shah has managed to dodge the concerned authorities and is now in Canada, a senior official requesting anonymity told The News.
This correspondent made several attempts to contact the federal minister for water and power to know how Jamaat Ali Shah had managed to escape, but his cell phone remained unattended.
..............
.............
The official claimed that India had informed Mr Jamaat Ali Shah about the Nimoo Bazgo project 6 months before the initiation of its construction. At that time Syed Jamaat Ali Shah had objected to the design of the project as being against the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty.

According to the report, Military Intelligence (MI) Directorate had informed the government on June 6, 2005 that India was planning to construct the Nimoo-Bazgo hydroelectric project, which would be completed by 2010. The report also divulged that Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) further informed the government on July 25 2005 that the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has visited Leh, Kargil and Siachen Glacier on June 11, 2005 and laid the foundation stone of Nimoo-Bazgo and Chutak hydroelectric power plants. Similarly, the ISI on September 7, 2005 shared information about the visit of the Indian prime minister to Siachen and Kargil.

The report also reveals that the PCIW headed by Syed Jamaat Ali Shah remained silent during 2007,2008,2009 about the project. But surprisingly it started pursuing the project vigorously at all levels when it was known that it would be impossible to change the design of the project after its completion. By that time it was too late for any court or neutral expert to give decision against the project.

A water expert Arshad H Abbasi associated with SDPI claims it was he who pointed out that Mr Shah did not visit the site of the Nimoo-Bazgo and let India complete the project and to this effect he wrote many letters to the prime minister. He also said that Mr Riaz A Khan, then advisor to ministry of water and power, who is no longer associated with the ministry is also involved in helping India clinch the carbon credits from the UN.

According to sources, Mr Kamal Majidullah, special assistant to prime minister on water also played a role in implicating Mr Jamaat Ali Shah in the Nimoo-Bazgo case. Mr Shah says that in July last year (2010) he recommended to Kalam Majidullah to move court of arbitration (CoA) against India for building Numoo-Bazgo, which is not in line with Indus Waters Treaty, but the authorities concerned remained unmoved.
Last edited by chaanakya on 03 Jan 2012 07:12, edited 1 time in total.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Pak to go int'l court over carbon credits on hydro project
Pakistan will challenge in the international court of arbitration a decision by a UN climate agency to grant carbon credits to India on a hydropower project without clearance of its trans-boundary environmental impact, a media report said today. An inquiry by the Water and Power Ministry concluded that India secured carbon credits for the 45 MW Nimoo-Bazgo hydropower project from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change without mandatory clearance from Pakistan, the Dawn newspaper quoted its sources as saying. Pakistani officials have alleged that India secured the carbon credits even though Pakistani authorities had not seen or cleared the cross-boundary environmental impact assessment report for the project on river Indus. Islamabad has now decided to challenge the UNFCC's decision in the international court of arbitration "because legal requirements were allegedly not fulfilled by the UN agency", the report said. Officials alleged the Indian government "misled the UN agency through fake and fictitious documents that might have shown Pakistan's consent to the project because there was no such record available in Pakistan". "It is still not established how India was able to get carbon credit benefits for the Nimoo-Bazgo project, which is located on trans-boundary water, and for which ratification of the parties concerned should have been procured before hand by it under clause 37(b) of UNFCC," an unnamed official was quoted as saying. "Although it is too difficult to get carbon credits on a trans-boundary project such as Nimoo-Bazgo, due to lack of contest by the Permanent Commissioner for Indus Waters (PCIW), India was able to get carbon credits on this project," the official said.
And we are planning to sell power to Pakistan under CBM.
Last edited by chaanakya on 03 Jan 2012 07:11, edited 1 time in total.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Anujan »

^^^^
That is just an expected move from Pakis to foist blame where none exists and to find a scapegoat for the collective failure of the entire country. Syed Jamaat Ali Shah knows the IWT quite well and in his judgement could not actually prevent India from projects which were very well legal according to IWT. Pakistanis on the other hand went "WTF?! Why is Syed Jamaat Ali Shah silent when Hindooos are stealing all our water?!!"

Well, it turns out he was right and Pakis lost the Baglihar case and are on their way to lose the Kishenganga case as well. If Syed Jamaat Ali Shah is guilty so is their legal team which lost the Baglihar case for them. Why havent they been put on ECL?
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

An undue entitlement, a false sense of grievance and injustice, inability to do anything to India would invite wrath and ire to its own . Pakisatan would be consumed by itself sooner or later in their own Prabhasa kshetra
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

chaanakya wrote:An undue entitlement, a false sense of grievance and injustice, inability to do anything to India would invite wrath and ire to its own . Pakisatan would be consumed by itself sooner or later in their own Prabhasa kshetra
This sick fixation of Poaqs is good for South Asia. The percentage of increment n Indian GDP now proprotionally enhance Paki retardness automatically. As i said , suceess of India is failure of Islam in their mind and it will consume them to the last ounce of flesh.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Joint Indo-Pak study to probe reduction in flow of Jhelum, Chenab suggested
Former Union Water Resources Secretary Ramaswamy R. Iyer on Monday called for a study by India and Pakistan to go into the question whether there has been reduction in the flow of water of the western rivers - Jhelum and Chenab.

Giving an elaborate account of the working of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, Mr. Iyer told a gathering at the Madras Institute of Development Studies that of late, academicians, intellectuals and journalists from Pakistan, in Track Two meetings, had been expressing concerns over the decline in the flow of the rivers. They attributed this to actions on the part of India even though every technical detail of India's projects had to be cleared by the Permanent Indus Commission for Pakistan under the Treaty.

Asserting that India had not built any storage structure on the western rivers or was not resorting to diversion of water, Mr. Iyer said “You cannot do anything without his [Commissioner for Pakistan] knowledge. Every single project [of India] is objected to by him. How is it possible for us to violate [provisions of the Treaty]?”

Rebutting the contention made in certain quarters of Pakistan that India had been proposing to execute about 100 projects on the western rivers, he said that 33 projects were, indeed, proposed. It was in the interest of India that the cumulative impact of the projects on ecology had to be studied.

Analysing possible reasons for the problem of water scarcity in Pakistan, he said though the Treaty had settled the issue of water sharing between India and Pakistan, it made things worse for the neighbouring country as it led to “acute inter-provincial conflicts.” Punjab had gained control over waters to the detriment of Sindh and the North West Frontier Province was “extremely worried” about submergence and flooding.

Right or wrong, there was a perception in Pakistan that water scarcity in that country was partly caused by India. Jehadi elements had picked it up. In the past, there had been disagreements over projects such as Balighar and Kishenganga but no one ever said India was taking away Pakistan's waters. “But, that cry is about two years old. Now, it has caught on. It is there all over the place,” he said.

As the water issue constituted a serious danger to ties between the two countries, Mr. Iyer said, something needed to be done to reassure the neighbouring country. The proposed joint study could find out whether the issue of reduction of the flow of water was genuine and if so, what were the factors responsible.
Now, I have a lot of respect for Dr. Ramaswamy Iyer. But, I am unable to see what good could come out of this joint study. From Muslim League days, it has been the endeavour of these people to falsely accuse, create a fear psychosis, put on a show of injustice and injured innocence and then let loose violence. Demands would be acceded to fearing more violence. It is a kind of a circular argument that they use. The nation created on these principles continues to live by these. The obsession to defeat India after 1971 has added fuel to this burning fire. It would never have satisfied Pakistan even if the entire waters of the Indus system of rivers had somehow been entirely given away by India to Pakistan. We are not obliged to spend time, effort and money to solve Pakistan's imaginary fears which are a legion anyway. What good will come out of such a study even if it proves that India hasn't built any storage structures on these rivers to impound waters or it has not surreptitiously diverted any water anywhere else ? Those Pakistanis who want to beat India with (well, all the Pakistanis), will continue to raise anger and hatred against India. Those members of the PIC of Pakistan who were part of the study would have to seek a Canadian visa. Islamabad is the conspiracy capital of the world and theories would be spun to justify their accusations without a shred of evidence. This is their industry. Let them spin such theories and manufacture hatred and anger otherwise, without this joint study.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

There is an unparalleled treaty between these two countries ,IWT, which has been working despite two wars and serious conflicts and attempts to cause thousand cuts to India. While Indian endeavour has been to generously donate 80% of Indus basin water to Pakistan and agree to debilitating conditions and to adhered to treaty provisions scrupulously , Pakistan constantly tries to put spoke in Projects by India within the IWT.IWT provides ample opportunities to Pakistan to visit Indian project sites and study for themselves and raise objections based on their technical knowledge and fears. If these safeguards under IWT are not adequate enough Pakistan , no amount of joint study would help India allay their false sense of entitlement and grievances. They can go to war with India on any number of excuse. This logic of water being source of conflict is being pedaled by them while going to war on Kashmir, water is least of their botheration as they waste 40% out of 80% they get.

So Joint study would not be of any help rather it might become a conduit to import third party influence outside of IWT.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Govt decides to arrest former Water Commissioner

KARACHI: The government has finally decided to make arrangements for the arrest of former Indus Water Commissioner, Jamat Ali Shah.

Pakistan has to decide now to appoint patriotic and real water management experts to take up its case before International Court of Arbitration (COA) against India over construction of hydropower project in violation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.

“Jamat Shah’s opposition fails to fulfil government government’s expectations on water issues with India,” Sindh Agriculture Forum (SAF) water expert, Shakeel Ahmad said.

Even on Exit Control List (ECL), Jamat Ali slipped abroad and Rehman Malik, Federal Interior Minister assured his arrest on Monday. The country is heading towards the worst water shortage in the next couple of years due to insufficient water management practices and storage capacity, agriculture and water experts said.

In the backdrop of the arrest of permanent Indus Water Commissioner, Shah, the government has hard job of justifying its earlier actions.
An Indian water management expert has conceded many of Pakistan’s concerns on the Baglihar dam in occupied Kashmir are ‘legitimate and carry weight.’ However, he said Bagliar dam was in no way a contravention of the 1960 Indus Basin Treaty, which allowed India to take up projects on three Pakistani rivers provided they did not serve to divert the flow of water into Indian Territory or to create water storage. Under the treaty, three western rivers, Chenab, Jehlum and Indus are allocated to Pakistan and India is not allowed to build storages on them.

“We concluded Indus Treaty with Pakistan in 1960 and so far it has withstood stress and strains,” he said. India had also concluded water agreements with Bangladesh and Nepal, “There are still some problems and these are being addressed.”
Whoever takes up the job should ensure safe house in another country.
It would not take long to declare "patriotic and Real water experts" as traitor ( emphasis is on P&R and not on technical knowledge).

The reference to Indian expert is ostensibly to Mr Iyer. He , of all experts , should see through the paki game.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Sir Creek Perfidy by Pakistan

Post by SSridhar »

X-post from the TSP thread and posting the citation in full
Pakistan rejects New Delhi's Baseline System for Sir Creek
I am posting it here because Sir Creek is a part of the Indus system of rivers.
Pakistan on Friday posted a strong challenge to India’s position on the Sir Creek estuary border dispute. The manifest has been posted on the United Nations web site, saying Islamabad does not recognise the New Delhi-promulgated baseline system.

The challenge is contained in a December 6 letter {that should be Jan 06, 2012, a full 24 months after submission by India to UNCLOS} addressed to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon by the Pakistan Mission to the United Nations in New York. India’s notifications enumerating its claims in regard to Sir Creek were placed on the web site of the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea in May and November 2009.

The 96-km estuary separates India’s Gujarat state from Pakistan’s Sindh province. The Indian claims “impinge upon Pakistan’s territorial limits in Sir Creek area and encroach upon its territorial waters, which are within its sovereign jurisdiction,” the letter tells the UN chief.

“This encroachment by India in Pakistan’s limits is a grave violation of international principles and established practices and clear violation” reads the relevant article of the UN Law of the Sea Convention.

The articles state that the system of straight baseline may not be applied by a State in such a manner as to cut off the territorial sea of another state form the high seas of Exclusive Economic Zones. “While the Government of Pakistan reserves its right to seek suitable revision of this notification, any claim India makes on the basis of … Indian Notification to extend its sovereignty/jurisdiction on Pakistani waters or extend its internal waters, territorial sea, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf is, therefore not acceptable to Pakistan …,” the letter added.
It seems to me that Pakistan is offering a circular argument here. Sir Creek is not part of Pakistan, part of it is claimed by India. That is indeed the Sir Creek dispute.

The Sir Creek in the Rann of Kutch is a distributary of the Indus and has deposited sedimentation beyond the EEZ, enabling India to stake a claim as per UNCLOS beyond the EEZ. This is important for India in view of the potential it has for national security, energy prospecting, mining, laying pipelines etc. So, what is this Sir Creek dispute ?

In 1914, the British administered province of Bombay (Sind was part of Bombay Province ntil 1936) and the Princely State of Kutch demarcated borders in the marshy Rann of Kutch and the boundary line passed through the centre of the Sir Creek channel which is a distributary of the Indus River. It has been a British convention that riverine borders are always demarcated mid-stream. The actual physical demarcation was however not completed until much later in 1925. However, the 1914 agreement had an annexure that showed the then existing borders, which ran on the east coast of the Sir Creek. The 1925 map, which is with GoI correctly shows the demarcated boundary as the centreline of the Sir Creek. Pakistan makes its claims based on this annexure in the agreement. Another contention of Pakistan is that it must get as much sea as India gets (really a laughable contention, but it makes it !).

What has this got to do with the UN ?

The extension of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) beyond the 200 nautical mile (nm) limit from coastal baseline depends on the ability to prove the sedimentation of the Indus river into the sea. If not claimed before May, 2009, it becomes a common heritage of mankind under the control of the International Sea Bed Authority (ISBA). While most of India’s claim is in the Bay of Bengal area where it has already come to maritime boundary agreement with Myanmar, Thailand, and Indonesia and Sri Lanka, it remains to be done with Pakistan in the Arabian Sea. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS-III) protocol allows the EEZ to be extended beyond the conventional 200 nm limit into the sea under several conditions. In places like the sedimentary basin of the Indus river, the sediment thickness of the rivers beyond the foot of the continental slope can be used to establish the outer limit of the continental shelf of a claimant. This requires baseline and bathymetry survey data. There are five maritime zone boundaries out of which four are defined by distance, viz. Coastal Waters (3 nm from baseline), Territorial Sea (12 nm), Contiguous Zone (24 nm), and EEZ (200 nm). The fifth zone, the outer limit of the extended continental shelf, is defined by Article 76 of UNCLOS based on several combinations of geophysical, hydrographic and geomorphological data. One such determinant is the "1% thickness formula" which is the line joining “…the outermost fixed points at each of which the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1% of the shortest distance from such point to the foot of the continental slope.” The Indus thus becomes important for India as she is a claimant to the Indus basin.A crucial part of the claim is the delineation of the Territorial Sea Baseline (TSB) which is the set of coordinate points that define the line from which the seaward boundaries are to be measured.The TSB, from which maritime zones defined by distance are measured, can consist of either normal baseline, which includes bay closing lines and river closing lines or other parameters. The continuing Pakistani wrangle with regards to Sir Creek has delayed the compilation and validation of the TSB thereby delaying the computation of the zone boundaries. In the meanwhile, India conducted its studies and lodged its claim with the UNCLOS. As usual, Pakistan did not do so within the timeframe but is happy with contesting Indian claims.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32277
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chetak »

The lowly cunning, drama queen slimeballs are just shaping up negate the verdict and reopen the whole can of worms again pleading collusion and sabotage through bribery.

Nimoo Bazgo Dam: FIA chases Shah for ceding ground on Indian dam, Former Indus water commissioner has reportedly been granted asylum in Canada.



Nimoo Bazgo Dam: FIA chases Shah for ceding ground on Indian dam
By Asad Kharal
Published: January 15, 2012

Former Indus water commissioner has reportedly been granted asylum in Canada.

LAHORE:
The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has registered a case against Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan’s former Indus water commissioner, for allegedly acting as an agent of India by allowing India to build the Nimoo Bazgo Dam


Meanwhile, Shah has reportedly been granted interim asylum in Canada. It appears that he moved his family and his assets to Canada after it was established that he would be accused of facilitating India in building the hydropower project.


Sources also revealed that the FIA found that Shah presented inaccurate reports. He also reportedly concealed crucial facts at various stages, knowing that, according a previous treaty, if either country completed a dam project then the other country could not build a similar project on the river. :rotfl: It is alleged that Shah received large payments from India for playing this role.
Apparently Shah left the country immediately after retiring, first arriving in the US before shifting to Canda. The FIA has started to trace his bank accounts in Pakistan and abroad.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Isn't that Hoover Dam in picture? They can't even get a decent picture of Nimoo.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prasad »

Yep. It id the hoover dam
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Airavat »

River Ravi becomes a sewage drain in Pakistan
According to a 1997 study, approximately 18 cubic metres of waste per second was dumped into the Ravi and it was estimated that this would double by 2017 (keep in mind that, at the time, the minimum flow of the river was only 11 cubic meters per second). The Ravi, now effectively a sewage drain, flows to the Balloki headworks where the untreated effluent of the entire city is dumped into the irrigation water headed towards southern parts of Punjab.

The provincial and local governments that control Lahore should examine the LA River Project. They need to understand that their public utilities sit over incredible resources. There are, literally, hundreds of kilometres of storm-water drains and nallahs in the city. These are not the only means of disposing of sewage; they are resources that can — and should — be used for the economic and social benefit and improved health of the residents of the city. Introducing new sewage treatment practices and providing sewage treatment at points along these drains can transform the lives of tens of thousands of residents — and millions who live downriver.
Pakjabis are destroying the health and livelihood of Seraikis and Sindhis through these foul means.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Xposted
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1233524

Anujan wrote
SSridhar wrote: What can TSP bring to the table to tackle this climate change ? Any measure taken or any research done would be purely Indian and Pakistan would only benefit from them. Again, like the Muslim League getting Pakistan on a platter after all the hard work by Indian leaders for Independence.
SSridhar-ji
This whole "lets tackle climate change" BS is double-speak for re-negotiating the Indus water treaty and getting some kind of compensation from India for "lost waters". Also, this news article might be of relevance:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... dus-waters
Pakistan plans to challenge a decision of an UN agency to grant carbon credits to India on a hydropower project. According to Pakistani officials, India secured the carbon credits for its 45-MW Nimoo-Bazgo project without mandatory environmental impact assessment clearance from Pakistan. They criticised the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for granting carbon credits without proper check, the daily Dawn reported Monday.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2011_pg3_5
Under the UNFCCC mechanism, carbon credits cannot be granted for a project having cross-boundary environmental impact unless cleared by the relevant countries. India must get the trans-boundary environment impact reports (TEIR) ratified for all upcoming and ongoing projects including hydroelectric dams. {Paki demand}
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... 8110&Cat=6
Pakistan is all set to become the first country filing a lawsuit against the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) for awarding carbon credits to India on highly controversial Nimoo-Bazga Dam, sources said here on Tuesday.
ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by ashish raval »

^^ India should file a compensation case against pukes to pay damages and legal fees in case they loose the case. Bakis need to be taught a lesson for every misadventure and should know how much it will cost them should they loose.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Dealing with Pakistan's fears on water

By Ramaswamy R. Iyer
The best reassurance that Pakistan can have is full Indian compliance with the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty.
...........
.........

Lower riparian anxiety

....
....
If a ‘visceral lower riparian anxiety' tends to persist despite the IWT, there can be no institutional answer to it.
......

.....
.......

The best reassurance that Pakistan can have is full Indian compliance with those Treaty provisions, and this is zealously watched by the Indus Commissioner for Pakistan in the Permanent Indus Commission.

Water scarcity and reduced flows

There is, in Pakistan as in India, a growing perception of water scarcity and of a crisis looming on the horizon.

.....
......

The only answer to this is to institute a joint study by experts of both countries to determine whether in fact there is a trend of reduced flows in the western rivers and, if so, to identify the factors responsible.


Baglihar arbitration

........we must take note of two of the NE's observations which have caused much anxiety in Pakistan. The first was that the 1960 Treaty does not bind the project planners to the 1960 technology, and that the state-of-the-art technology can be used; and the second was that the proper maintenance of a reservoir required periodical flushing to get rid of silt, and that while the dead storage could not be used for operational purposes, it could be used for the purpose of maintenance. (The above is a rough summary of the relevant observations and not a reproduction of the exact words of the NE.) The first observation seems self-evident; no one can seriously argue that a dam in 2007 should have been built to the 1960 technology. The second, however, worries Pakistan because the possibility of periodical flushing of the reservoir might hold the potential of compromising the protection given to Pakistan against flooding. Pakistan has now included this point in its reference to the Court of Arbitration in the Kishenganga case. We shall have to await the decision of the Court.

Initial filling at Baglihar

Incidentally, the myth that there was a serious and deliberate violation of the Treaty by India during the initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir is now an established belief in Pakistan.

.... Assuming that the flow at Merala during the filling period fell below the prescribed minimum level (this itself is debatable because there is no joint observation), the important point is that the lapse, if any, was a minor one and lasted only for a short period — less than a day — and could not possibly have caused serious damage.

Why was this minor matter blown up into a huge controversy by Pakistan? The answer is perhaps that Pakistan was deeply disappointed over the Baglihar arbitration and was ready to take advantage of an opportunity to put India on the mat for an alleged deviation from the Treaty. The Indus Commission has now closed this issue.


Is the Treaty being stretched?

.............
........ In Track II meetings, some Pakistani participants express their concern at the fact that the provisions evidently intended (as they see it) to grant minor concessions to India seem to be opening the doors to major control over the western rivers. They also worry about the cumulative impact of a large number of projects, each of which may be in compliance with the Treaty.

............ However, the point about ‘cumulative impact' needs to be considered. Such a question has been raised even in relation to rivers in India, and the cumulative impact of a large number of dams planned on the Ganga is currently under study. Such a concern, expressed in relation to the Indus system, is equally worthy of attention. Here again, a joint study by experts of both countries seems desirable.

Flows in the eastern rivers

One new question that is now being raised in Track II talks is that of a certain reasonable flow being maintained in the eastern rivers. The eastern rivers are allocated exclusively to India, and the Treaty does not say anything about flows to Pakistan, but (in the opinion of Pakistani participants in Track II talks) it does not follow that India is at liberty to dry up those rivers altogether and send no flows at all or drastically reduced flows to Pakistan. They argue that if current thinking can be invoked for the design of spillway gates (as the NE argued in the Baglihar case), then current thinking on ‘minimum flows' or ‘ecological flows' must also be heeded. This may not be a Treaty requirement, but to this writer it seems a point that needs consideration.


Ideas of cooperation

Pleas are also made for holistic, integrated management of the entire system, joint watershed management, etc. These are unexceptionable ideas, but it was because this kind of approach was not found possible that the system was partitioned into two in 1960.................For the present, what one can ask for is the operation of the existing Treaty in a constructive, cooperative spirit.

Climate change

However, climate change and its impact on water are matters of vital concern, and the two countries must begin immediately to work together on these. ................. In fact, this must involve other South Asian countries as well.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

chaanakya wrote:Dealing with Pakistan's fears on water
By Ramaswamy R. Iyer
Ideas of cooperation

Pleas are also made for holistic, integrated management of the entire system, joint watershed management, etc. These are unexceptionable ideas, but it was because this kind of approach was not found possible that the system was partitioned into two in 1960.................For the present, what one can ask for is the operation of the existing Treaty in a constructive, cooperative spirit.

Climate change

However, climate change and its impact on water are matters of vital concern, and the two countries must begin immediately to work together on these. ................. In fact, this must involve other South Asian countries as well.
Ramaswami Iyer is clued into the GoI. What he is saying is that Pakistan cannot have the cake and eat it too. It wanted Partition of land, water, air and all assets. It got them promptly. The artificial construct of Pakistan could not exist without being part of India. It went ahead with its audacity and it has failed miserably in every which way. It cannot now sneak in through the backdoor with its 'ideas of cooperation'. That door is closed shut. Its existence now depends on the 'constructive and cooperative' relationship with the Mother, however much they may dislike the idea. Good to know that GoI is not taken in by the Pakistani perfidy.

As for issues of 'Climate Change', I like what Mr. Iyer said in the article, "This cannot be brought within the ambit of the Treaty but must be a separate exercise." As Mr. Iyer rightly said, it would involve other states in the region as well. That was why I said that Pakistan will not be able to bring much to this exercise with its poor science and technology.

But, I am not for studying the 'cumulative effect' of the various water works by India on Pakistan, unlike what Mr. Iyer feels we should do. If we go by the strict interpretation of the IWT in other aspects, we go with the same in this too. It is not contingent upon India to allay their fears, imaginary or real, at all. There is no need to confuse this bilateral treaty between two sovereign (and inimical) states with inter-state water-sharing disputes within our own country.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

^^ GOI position is that anything pertaining to five rivers and tributaries must be within IWT. No question of any Joint or multilateral management of the Basin. Anything outside the treaty would require full renegotiation of the treaty.

Climate Change is BS. And why restrict the study to South Asian Countries. Major part of Indus basin are in Pakistan, India and Tibet. Why to include other countries. Pakistan wants study , it needs to name China in any such study.Without its inclusion it is meaningless. We also need to define the scope of study. Pakistan needs to study first the water wastage due to its unscientific approach and resulting stress on the resources. It does not have money to address these concerns.

Cumulative Effect is a terminology borrowed from imagined Pakistani fears. As long as India follows treaty why should they fear ROR HEPs? And what is the need to allay such fears? They have already approached available fora within IWT and they would continue to do so in an obstructionist approach.

And there was unnecessary mention of Interstate rivers issues in India. Already Pakistani commentators have picked up his writings as supportive of their views.

edited for minor corrections
Last edited by chaanakya on 28 Jan 2012 22:18, edited 1 time in total.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32277
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chetak »

SSridhar wrote:{quote="chaanakya"}Dealing with Pakistan's fears on water
By Ramaswamy R. Iyer
Ideas of cooperation

Pleas are also made for holistic, integrated management of the entire system, joint watershed management, etc. These are unexceptionable ideas, but it was because this kind of approach was not found possible that the system was partitioned into two in 1960.................For the present, what one can ask for is the operation of the existing Treaty in a constructive, cooperative spirit.

Climate change

However, climate change and its impact on water are matters of vital concern, and the two countries must begin immediately to work together on these. ................. In fact, this must involve other South Asian countries as well.
Ramaswami Iyer is clued into the GoI. What he is saying is that Pakistan cannot have the cake and eat it too. It wanted Partition of land, water, air and all assets. It got them promptly. The artificial construct of Pakistan could not exist without being part of India. It went ahead with its audacity and it has failed miserably in every which way. It cannot now sneak in through the backdoor with its 'ideas of cooperation'. That door is closed shut. Its existence now depends on the 'constructive and cooperative' relationship with the Mother, however much they may dislike the idea. Good to know that GoI is not taken in by the Pakistani perfidy.

As for issues of 'Climate Change', I like what Mr. Iyer said in the article, "This cannot be brought within the ambit of the Treaty but must be a separate exercise." As Mr. Iyer rightly said, it would involve other states in the region as well. That was why I said that Pakistan will not be able to bring much to this exercise with its poor science and technology.

But, I am not for studying the 'cumulative effect' of the various water works by India on Pakistan, unlike what Mr. Iyer feels we should do. If we go by the strict interpretation of the IWT in other aspects, we go with the same in this too. It is not contingent upon India to allay their fears, imaginary or real, at all. There is no need to confuse this bilateral treaty between two sovereign (and inimical) states with inter-state water-sharing disputes within our own country.
SSridhar saar,

They are like drowning rats desperately scrambling to get any foot hold at all.

As long as they are assured support of some turncoat WKK types they are hoping to pull it off. Climate change is the latest new mantra.

Such turncoats are present at the highest levels in India as is well known.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

Ground work being laid down. Quaid E Possum 's Rats scrambling.

http://www.celsias.com/article/when-wat ... e-manmade/
The Pakistani Water Crisis

Quote:
No doubt Pakistan’s water crisis is predominantly a manmade problem. Pakistan’s climate is not particularly dry and nor is it lacking in rivers and groundwater. Extremely poor management, unclear laws, government corruption, and industrial and human waste have caused this water supply crunch and rendered what water is available practically useless due to the huge quantity of pollution.The industrial output and commercial activity of a country is gauged by the per capita consumption of electricity. We are one of the lowest consumers of power in Asia. Per capita energy consumption of Pakistan is only 14 MBTU compared to 80 in China, 110 in Malaysia and 115 in Iran.After much most suffering to the people of Pakistan, the current government is building more dams to store water for making electricity. A number of dams like Bhasha (4,500MW), Munda (740MW), Kurram Tangi (83MW) and Akhori Dam (600MW) have already been announced by the current government while other dams like Bunji (7,100MW), Dasu (4,320MW) and Golen Gol (106MW) have a massive potential of producing hydel generation and it would also come in national grid in the coming years.
According to a World Bank report of 2006 Pakistan was fast moving from being a water-stressed country to a water-scarce country, primarily because of its high population growth, over-exploitation of ground water, pollution, poor repair of its water infrastructure and and unsustainable financial management of the water system. Water is absolutely essential for plant life. It is pertinent to mention here that the major source of drinking water in Pakistan is groundwater, so water availability is the second most serious issue.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Beyond the Indus Water Treaty: A Perspective on Kashmir’s “Power” Woes- by Arpita Anant
At the core of the Kashmiri discourse on the shortage of power is the distribution of water resources that was agreed to between India and Pakistan through the instrumentality of the Indus Water Treaty (1960). The argument made in the documents of the Government of J&K is that of the estimated potential of 20,000 MW (identified potential being 16480 MW) of the Indus River Basin, a large percentage of which cannot be harnessed for the benefit of the state as the Indus Water Treaty only allows for run-of-the-river projects that do not affect the riparian rights of Pakistan. These, it is argued, reduce the power production to a third of the full potential. During 2011, for the first time since 1960, the Government of J&K appointed a consultant to quantify the losses to the state occurring due to the Indus Water Treaty. At the same time, the State Finance Commission is reported to have recommended that Pakistan must also be made to pay for the losses to the J&K exchequer. However, one needs to explore ways of addressing issues of power shortage in the state while being mindful of the needs and sensitivities of lower riparian Pakistan.
<snip>

A second issue of concern for the state and the people of the valley vis-à-vis the Government of India is the continuing ownership of three of the state’s hydel power projects—Salal (Reasi district), Dulhasti (Kishtwar district), and Uri-I (Baramula district) —by the NHPC. In December 2010, the state government set up a cabinet sub-committee (CSC) to look into issues of power sharing and other related issues with the NHPC................... A showdown seems imminent. According to media reports, the CSC has, in its report submitted to the state government on January 3, 2012, recommended that Uri-I and Salal projects be bought back from the NHPC; but the NHPC is categorically refusing to hand over these projects to the state.

<snip>
A third related issue causing much angst is about the state receiving only 12 per cent free power as royalty from the NHPC projects. Hence, objections are being raised about several new projects that have been given to the NHPC for execution. This is particularly alarming as nearly Rs 2,000 crore, around a third of the state’s annual plan budget, is spent on purchasing power. .
<snip>

For the present, the argument against everything “central” must be moderated by the fact that large grants are being given to J&K and these are being used to improve the state’s capacities in power generation. Thus under the Prime Minister’s Reconstruction Programme, out of Rs 24,000 crore, Rs 18,912.25 crore have been earmarked for development of power in J&K. This includes Rs 14,952.41 crore in the central sector projects for power generation and Rs 2,811 crore for strengthening the transmission and distribution network.4 In addition, the National Hydropower Policy stipulates that up to a certain distance from the power project, the centre will provide 90 per cent funds for power transmission projects under the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana, and the project authority will bear the cost of the state’s share of 10 per cent.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

NHA inks contract with Chinese firm for realignment of KKH

* It is based on 85% funding in foreign currency from Chinese side, 15% in local currency by govt

ISLAMABAD: National Highway Authority (NHA) has signed a contract with M/s China Road and Bridge Corporation for realignment of Karakorum Highway. Application for loan is under process with Economic Affair Division (EAD). Work will be completed in 2 years after commencement subject to availability, release of funds.

In a written reply, the Senate of Pakistan was informed here on Tuesday that NHA was allocated Rs 36.418 billion (local currency component) in PSDP 2010-11. Due to 50 percent cut on overall PSDP, the allocation was reduced to Rs 18.500 billion. To-date, Rs 17.362 billion has been released by Ministry of Finance. Funds to NHA are released as single line budget and not province or project-wise. Total amount required to complete ongoing projects is Rs 371 billion. As funds are not released on time, projects suffer from time and cost overrun.

Province-wise allocation for NHA projects included in PSDP 2011-12 is some Rs 39.900 billion that has been allocated for provinces, including Rs 33.531 billion local and Rs 6.369 billion foreign funding. Punjab Rs 11,067 local and 1,179 foreign component with total Rs 12.245 billion. Province of Sindh Rs 7.250 billion local and Rs 3.020 billion foreign funding making a total of Rs 10.270 billion. Khyber Pukhtunkhwa Rs 6.307 billion local and Rs 330 million foreign funding with a total of Rs 6.637 billion. In Balochistan Rs 8.092 billion local and Rs 695 foreign funding with a total of Rs 8.787 billion. Gilgit-Baltistan Rs 815 million local, Rs 1.145 billion foreign funding with a total of Rs 1.960 billion.

A massive landslide occurred on Karakoram Highway (KKH) across Hunza near Attaabad on January 4, 2010. The debris 86 huge boulders blocked River Hunza in a length of around 500 m. The blockage has created a lake, submerging 24 km length of KKH.

The contract for lowering the water level of the lake by 30m has been awarded to Frontier Works Organisation (FWO) by P&D Division. If this mission is achieved, around 7 km road length will be retrieved. FWO has so far managed lowering the lake level by 4m and has indicated that the task is likely to take next 2 to 3 low flow seasons (winters).

Meanwhile, NHA signed a contract with M/s China Road & Bridge Corporation on December-2010 for realignment of KKH. Application for loan is under process with EAD.

The work on Lowari Tunnel is halted and contract between NHA and contractor is stand terminated with effect from June 3, 2011, because the contractor issued a notice due to non payment of dues, However, the notice was challenged by NHA “The Engineer” has declared both the notices as in fractious. Contractor further issued the notice for Arbitration to NHA. He has proposed an amicable settlement, whose proceedings are in progress. Estimated Cost for the Project has been revised to Rs 18.132 billion With expected time of completion of 4 years Revised PC-I has been approved by ECNEC in its meeting held on November 11, 2011. Rs 145.3 million has been released, so far in current financial year that included Rs 84.15 million to contractor and Rs 25 million to consultant.

Roads constructed by NHA are based on international standard “American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO) and comparable to any world class roads. Motorways like M-1, M-2 and M-3 are good examples in this regard. NHA has introduced many new technologies that cater both conventional, and nonconventional raw materials for maintenance and construction of roads for the first time in Pakistan on national highways and motorways: Hot and Cold Recycling of Asphalt Concrete Pavements, Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB), Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen (CRMB), Stone Mastic Asphalt Technology (SMA), etc. Incorporating a new technology or non-conventional raw materials for road construction needs careful evaluation of various parameters such as performance and costs. Therefore, NHA is employing various new technologies through test sections for monitoring and evaluation. During FY 2010-11 an amount of Rs 19.75 billion was approved for carrying out routine maintenance works and completing ongoing, committed rehabilitation and periodic maintenance works.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Court of Arbitration conducts Visit of the Neelum River Valley

Press Release by PCA-CPA

The Hague, February 15, 2012

A delegation of the Court of Arbitration constituted pursuant to the Indus Water treaty 1960 has completed a site visit of the Neelum River valley .
Arriving in Islamabad on February 3, 2012 the Courts delegation, together with representatives from India and Pakistan, traveled to Muzaffarabad. On February 2, the Courts delegation proceeded by road into the Neelum Valley and visited the Gauge-dDischarge observation site at Dudhnial. The C Courts delegation also visited a water pumping installation in the vicinity of Arthmuqam and was briefed on the lift irrigation practices in the Neelum valley. The Courts delegation then returned to Islamabad on February 5, and departed on February 6, 2012.

.............
............

The notes and photographs taken during the two site visits will be used in the internal deliberations of the Court. Additionally, the Court will consider the written pleadings that have been and will be submitted by Pakistan and India. The Court is set to issue its Award in early 2013.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Pictures of Site Visit by Delegation of PCA on Feb 3 and 4 2012
Image
Image
Image
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Where’s the water?

It is a commonly held view that future wars in the world will be fought over that most basic of necessities, which is fast becoming scarce: Water. Only 2.75 percent of the world’s water is fresh - and soon to be the most sought after (and fought after) commodity in the world. The last century saw 37 violent conflicts over water. Pakistan, which has a large agrarian economy, has gone from roughly 5,600 cubic meters per-capita surface-water availability for irrigation, in 1947, to 1,200 in 2008, projected to be below 600 cubic meters by 2017. To compare, current surface water availability in sub-Saharan Africa is 700 cubic meters. Thus, news reports and editorials, often branded hysterical, which claim that Pakistan is looking at a future as a desert, are not really that far off the mark. Pakistan’s dependency on the Indus Basin for its water needs hovers around 77 percent. This access is controlled by the Indus Waters Treaty, negotiated between Pakistan and India through the World Bank, in 1960.

With Pakistan and India’s growing populations, their water needs are becoming more acute and consequently the stress on the treaty and adherence to it from both sides, has assumed critical importance. As the upper riparian, it makes sense that India has stressed on the permissive clauses in the treaty, while Pakistan as the lower riparian, emphasises the restrictive. Over the years, Pakistan’s internal mismanagement and carelessness have not only cost us dear in terms of opportunities, delays and goodwill lost, but have also been cited as examples of why Pakistan is incapable of using the treaty to its best effect, thus falling to the ‘tactic’ of blaming India for all its water woes. This criticism is not unreasonable. Pakistan, as it flails around in every direction for the world to see, behaves much the same where its water scarcity is concerned.

While the treaty provides remedies and safeguards, those remedies and safeguards unless invoked, will be of no use to us. Our internal management of water is poor and getting worse due to various disconnects. Other than receiving our full share under the Indus Waters Treaty and ensuring that we as brilliantly deflect rather ingenious Indian strategies to hoard a further share of water than it is strictly entitled to, we must place equal, if not greater, stress on managing the water that we do get. A frequent Indian criticism of the Pakistani side is that we seem almost allergic to building up our storage capacity, all the while screaming foul play.

Currently, our storage capacity per person is a paltry 150 cubic meters, compared to India’s comparatively better 900 cubic meters and America’s awe-inspiring 9,000 cubic meters per person. If Pakistan hopes that its current storage capacity will be enough to provide to its exploding population - it is tragically deluded. The issue is worsened, the more it is spread out between various ministries, which all operate on a line they assume is best, without any synchronism or long-term planning on a platform which all ministries are involved in, which would be the safest bet to yield results for a secure water future.

We don’t have far to look for an excellent example of this. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs does an exemplary job of acting as the sole ‘bottleneck’ through which all such issues must pass, so that their strategic impact can be assessed in one place, which thus accumulates information, as well. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s internal disconnects are costing it more than any Indian efforts in the long-run. Global warming, resulting climate change, an aggressive timber mafia, deforestation…….these are all much greater dangers, that need to be immediately addressed. However, no one seems to be talking about this at all. Any effort to discuss conservation is met with, “Pffftt, what silliness,” and it is exactly this mindset that will end us.

No external pressure is so effective that it cannot be dealt with. In fact, the treaty itself is the most useful document that Pakistan has. Were it to be properly utilised, it provides quite well for us. Unfortunately, the tool is only as good as the person whose hands it is in. And at the moment, the Indians are wielding it with a skill that is making us green with envy. Their projects are meant to be started after suitable intimation to the Pakistani side, but this never happens. We end up learning about it from satellite intelligence. By the time we get to lodging a complaint in international arbitration (which again, due to our own incompetence and at times genuine lack of expert and legal opinion, is usually delayed for years after the issue comes to light), the matter is a fait accompli. No court in the world will order a demolition of a half-built dam, all it can do is address the grievance and provide some remedial compensation.

What Pakistan urgently needs is to itself engage with the treaty more than ever before, to use the clauses that are available to benefit it, effectively, just like the Indians do. We must set our house in order and establish a coordinated effort to not just extract maximum benefit from the treaty, but also to plan for solutions where we ourselves are going wrong, i.e. storage and conservation efforts. Our canal system needs improvements, which are unplanned for at present.

Pakistan must also work to dispel the image that we are a country that continuously cries wolf and is reluctant to recognise its own faults. The international community, if it sees ‘bad things happening to bad people’, will not be able to sympathise with us. India has an exceptionally sharp grasp, that perceptions count more than reality in this day and age, and as far as that battle is concerned, they are winning it. The worse Pakistan looks, the better they look by comparison. Their economic clout, image and diplomacy have combined to give them results they are reaping the benefits of. It is only natural that the Indians would doggedly pursue their self-interest. It would be ridiculous and naïve for Pakistan to expect them to ‘do right by us’, because after all, given the same situation, we would behave with equally selfish intent.

Simple economics describes it best: There are unlimited needs and wants in the world and limited resources. If someone makes a better deal than you, you can’t blame them for it. They deserve that win, just as you would deserve it if you had outsmarted them. So in the end, it’s up to you, Pakistan. Don’t expect the world to bend over backwards to be fair to you, pursue a cause of honest, selfish interest and try and win that case. That’s good enough.
Have they lost it already??
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Indus and the ‘territorial trap’
Majed Akhter
THE arid world is in the throes of a water crisis. In Pakistan, where virtually all surface water comes from one river, it is natural that water anxieties revolve around the Indus River.

The Indus is a transboundary stream governed between Pakistan and India through the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. Celebrated by two generations of policy experts as a model of water diplomacy, the treaty has been subject to much acrimony, doubt and expert and lay speculation in the past decade. The underlying issue is that, for a number of reasons, water scarcity in the region has increased significantly over the past decade.

In irrigation-dependent agrarian Pakistan and northwest India, where millions of small farmers toil in their nations’ respective breadbaskets, water scarcity is closely linked to water security, which is in turn inextricable from food security. The Indus is the lifeblood of the region, a flowing oasis in an otherwise dusty desert, and this is why the distribution of its waters rightly arouses passions and interest.

Reactions to Indus scarcity in Pakistan can be grouped into three camps. The first I call the chauvinistic camp, represented best by the shrill cries of the Difa-i-Pakistan Council. The response of this group to every international issue, from drones to dams, is to posit a binary that holds up Pakistan as violated, and external actors (mainly the US, Israel, and India) as the violators. The solution they propose is all-out war in defence of the motherland, or at least making the threat of all-out war.

In the second camp are the techno-utopians, who see technology as the cure for all social ills, who are represented by engineers, bureaucrats and some development professionals. Their proposed solutions include improving the efficiency of water delivery by lining canals and introducing drip irrigation, building more dams and drilling more wells.

Finally, there are the optimistic managers, who believe that most international misunderstandings are a result of miscommunication and poorly designed institutions. This group is composed of economists, lawyers and some development professionals. Their solutions include the generation and sharing of better-quality data between Pakistan and India on Indus water flows, participatory water management and market-based reforms.

All three camps fall into what political geographer John Agnew has called the “territorial trap” — mistaking borders on maps for boxes that neatly partition and contain social and economic dynamics within the recognised territory of states. But, like the Indus River, social and political-economic relationships can and do transgress borders, even while being shaped by them.

A second, and not unrelated, trait of the three camps, which I call the hydrologic trap, is that they treat water as something separate from the land on which it flows. But a river is not just water; it is the dynamic relationship between water and the land it drains. How does our understanding of the Indus waters dispute change if we steer clear of the territorial and hydrologic traps?

The most striking effect of looking at the distribution of Indus waters sans a state-centric lens is that the issue becomes one not of state rivalry, but of class and access to land. If we keep in mind that the vast majority of Indus waters are used for irrigation, it becomes clear that the distributional tussle is between the landed and the landless on either side of the border, not Pakistani and Indian across the border. At least since the Green Revolution, a technological transformation of agriculture that swept North India and Pakistan in the 1960s, rates of landlessness and farm consolidation have been skyrocketing. The seed technology the Green Revolution introduced to the Indus plains dramatically increased the amount of water needed to produce crops, and in this part of South Asia, at least, access to water is closely linked with ownership of land.

About half of the rural households in Pakistan are today landless, while the top five per cent of households own more than a third of the cultivated area. A recent article on smallholder agriculture in Indian Punjab tells a similar story: about 200,000 small farmers have sold or leased their land to larger farms and have joined the ranks of landless agricultural labourers, migrated to cities, or even taken the desperate recourse of committing suicide. In other words, the people who need water the most are unable to get it because of uneven property and class relationships.

Clearly, it’s a very complex issue, and we haven’t even touched on the problems faced by downstream Sindh, Haryana and Rajasthan, or the elephant in the room, Kashmir, through which the majority of Indus waters pass before reaching Pakistan. But if the Indus dispute matters to us because of its implications for food security, analysing the situation in terms of Pakistan vs India simply will not do.

As decades of social science research from around the world teaches us, there is no reason why throwing technology or (ostensibly) apolitical policy solutions at a problem won’t actually increase insecurity and vulnerability of the poorest. I do not reject other types of analyses in their totality: technology, policy and diplomacy are of course very important. But even the most inspired solution will fall flat on its face, and possibly exacerbate the situation, if we close our eyes to political economy and geography, and thereby fall prey to the territorial and hydrologic traps.

The writer is visiting faculty at Beaconhouse National University and is conducting doctoral dissertation research on the history and geopolitics of the Indus Waters Treaty.
Following the Visit of the Delegation, there seems to be a spate of articles in Pakistani Newspapers.
The Writer recognises the fact that Green revolution has increased the requirement of water in Indian Plains. In terms of analysis, one could say that West Punjab was most developed agriculturally and irrigation facilities were extensive. landed gentry , even today, control vast areas in West Punjab. While poor remained poor and landless. Distribution of land and land reforms have not taken place. While so, the water being received by Pakistan is ill utilised. This fact is now openly acknowledged by Pakistani writers. They also recognise that Pakistan does not have the financial ability to invest in technical and infrastructural facilities for proper utilisation of received waters. What is ironical is that they dont have technical ability to think and plan solutions for optimum utilisation of waters. Decades of obsessive compulsive disorder of Jihadism has rendered pakistan a Pigs territory. Best brains and financial powers have migrated to greener pasteurs and not attracted back to Pakistan. This vicious circle is taking pakistan down the vortex of oblivion.

The Writer does not mention the fact that IWT sidesteps the boundary issues while apportioning waters. 80% of water passes through Rivers allocated to Pakistan and India gets only 20% or so. While deprived class of East Punjab ( Indian Punjab) would not have the need for water , the geern revolution has changed all that. It would be a chimera for Pakistan to imagine that they could claim all waters of Indus ( leave alone other rivers in the system) and continue to waste it. India should not allow Pakistan to do it at any cost. The Writer , in one sentence talks of Green Revolution that swept through Punjab plains and he appropriates the term Green Revolution for Pakistan as well. Let it be on record that Green Revolution refers to India and Pakistan has not witnessed any Green Revolution post independence. All that was ddeveloped was prior to independence. Hence the need for more water has arisen in India, not in Pakistan. The need for Water in Pakistan has arisen out of unbridled growth of Population , which is unsustainable given its limited resources, land area, financial and technical advancement etc. Indus water treaty failed to recognise future requirement of India as and when Agricultural development takes place. Certainly in 1960s none would have thought ( least of Our Visionary Beloved JLN) that Green Revolution would sweep North India and that IWT would become bottleneck in further development. JLN , being so full of trust for Pakistani counterfarts, that he could not visualise the obstructive and belligerent approach of Pakistanis in IWT.

There is urgent need to reopen the question of IWT and to make equitable and proportionate allocation of water, keeping in view the needs of J&K and other Indian States and misutilisation of water by Pakistan. But the initiative should some from Pakistan and it is mentioned in some reports that Pakistan has broached this topic. India should continue to adhere to IWT and approach Tribunal on wastage of waters by Pakistan. Also , there should be no scope for third party involvement beyond what is provided for in IWT.

If Pakistan wants to solve its water crisis, it has to take two steps urgently
1.Invest in optimum water utilisation, avoid wastage
2.Stop over-breeding like piglets.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/10282 ... -pakistan/
On the other hand, there is the potential for trade with India, which The Economist reports can grow to as much as $30 billion a year from the paltry $2.7 billion a year currently. To put that number in context, that number is equal to about half of Pakistan’s bilateral trade with the entire world combined.

That $30 billion means jobs for millions of Pakistanis, a steady income streaming into hundreds of thousands of households and financial security for those families. That is millions of children going to school because their father and mother do not have to force them to work instead.
So now India would provide jobs to Pkakistanis. We have always been doing that. The whole of Pak army is meant for India. The whole of terror infra is meant for Pak. They get alm from KSA and assorted countries, begs from IMF other countries. We spend millions just to counter so many jobs in Pakistan.
There is one seemingly legitimate argument that the nationalists make that I would like to refute and that is about the rivers. Pakistan does indeed get much of its river water from the Indian side of Kashmir. Yet one should also point out that the Indus Water Treaty has lasted for well over 50 years without any signs of breaking down. Indeed, during the first decade of the treaty, when India was meant to make compensation payments to Pakistan, New Delhi made payments less than a month after the end of the 1965 war.

That to me does not look like an enemy hell-bent on our destruction. We do not need to be paranoid about India. On the Kashmir front, we should let things slide.
Let Pakistan Slide? Is it in Indias Interest??
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

TBMs arrive at Neelum-Jhelum project site
ISLAMABAD: Main parts of two 155-ton Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) have reached Majoi (C-2) — the site of Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project in AJK — at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday after crossing the temporary bridge that will be washed away some time after February 28 when the water level rises in the Neelum river.

Some other parts of the two machines have reached Haripur while the third consignment has arrived at the Karachi port. The chief executive officer of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Company, Lieutenant General (r) Muhammad Zubair, said the machines would reach the exact location by February 20, eight days before the target date of February 28.

With these machines becoming functional Pakistan will join the select club of hi-tech countries, which use these machines for excavating mile-long tunnels. The TBMs imported from Germany at a cost of $92.3m will expedite the excavation of 32-km long water tunnels under Rs333 billion Neelum-Jhelum project that will generate 969 MW of electricity.

With the arrival of TBMs, the project will now be constructed and commissioned in 2016, two years before schedule. This will not only grab water priority rights on the Neelum river, it will also help in Pakistan’s legal battle in the International Court of Arbitration at Hague against India on Kishenganga hydropower project as India is building it on the same river in held Kashmir with faulty design that negates the Indus Water Treaty.

Now the authorities are confident that Pakistan would complete the project earlier than the Kishenganga project. He CEO said 24-hour construction work is going on at the site to ensure the commissioning of the project by June-July 2016.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

India starts another dam on Chenab
ISLAMABAD: In a shocking development, India has initiated the construction of another large dam by the name of Gyspa Hydroelectric Project Dam on the River Chenab, with a storage capacity of 1.2 million acre feet of water.

Surprisingly, however, Pakistan is not viewing the construction of the Gyspa Dam as a threat to its water security, The News has learnt.

The Gyspa Dam’s capacity to store water is expected to further squeeze water inflows destined to Pakistan’s main province of Punjab, which is famously known as the country’s breadbasket owing to the food security it provides to the rest of the country. As such, the Chenab plays a pivotal role in irrigating most of the Punjab’s land.

The Baglihar project has a water storage capacity of 36,000 acre feet of water, and has been declared as being detrimental to the water interests of Pakistan; in comparison, however, the huge storage capacity of Gypsa is expected to deliver an even greater, more staggering blow to Pakistan’s water security.

The Gyspa Dam has been declared to be a project of national importance by the government of India. This alarming information was disclosed in a letter written to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani by Farah Naz, a Research fellow on Water Security and Energy.

The letter, a copy of which is exclusively available with The News, further divulges: “If the issue of Baglihar Dam, whose storage capacity is 0.3 percent of Gyspa Dam, is raised in the World Bank, then how come the government of Pakistan is not considering Gyspa Dam as a threat to its water security as the storage capacity of Gyspa Dam stands at around 1.2 million acre feet.”

The letter also added, “The work by the Indian side has been initiated without the due diligence on the project in the framework of the Indus Water Treaty.”
30.7.2009
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=51232
Gyspa Hydro-electric project on Chenab basin in Lahaul and Spiti of Himachal Pradesh has been declared a project of National Importance by Government. The project has been included as a National Project.

In a meeting between officials of the Central and State Governments, a decision was taken that Central Water Commission (CWC) and Government of Himachal Pradesh would work out the details of investigation and preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) of Gyspa hydroelectric storage project and the funding would however be made by CWC.

4.2.2012

Gyspa hydroelectric power project gets environmental clearance
The Ministry of Environment and Forests has accorded environmental clearance for pre-construction activities to the proposed 300 MW Gyspa hydroelectric power project.

It has also prescribed detailed Terms of Reference for the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environment Management Plan studies to the developer Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited.

The EIA/EMP reports will now be now be prepared in accordance with the terms laid down by the committee. According to EAC's directive, the proposed study should incorporate aspects such as information on the flow regime, river morphology, soil characteristics of project area, apart from likely impact on human activities and livelihood.

It states that the base line studies should be carried out for 3 seasons - pre-monsoon, monsoon and post monsoon.
It should also include biological, geological and geophysical aspects that may change the construction of the proposed project.

Pertinently, HPPCL plans to develop this project with the construction of a rockfill storage dam across Bhaga river, a tributary of the river Chenab, near Gyspa village in the Lahaul and Spiti districts of Himachal Pradesh. The underground powerhouse is due to be located about 18 km downstream and the water will be fed through a 11.75 km long head race tunnel.
Project Description:
Gyspa Dam is contemplated as a storage scheme on river Bhaga, a tributary of river Chenab in Lahaul Sub-Division of Himachal Pradesh. The catchment area of the scheme up to the dam site is 1295 Sq Km.

The tentative proposal comprises a ±200 m high Storage Dam at an elevation ± 3245 m (River Bed level) with a Live storage of 1.00 Million acre feet (Maf) of water, a 5.70m diameter 11.75 Km long Head Race Tunnel (HRT), aligned on the right bank for conveying the design discharge of 83 cumecs, a Surge Shaft, a Pressure Shaft of 4.5 m dia, +/- 470 m long to feed four units of 75 MW each in an underground Power House complex located at an El.±3000m about 300 m u/s of Stingri Border Road Organization house ,by utilizing a maximum gross head of approximately 439.62m.
Well expect Pakistan to raise this issue sooner or later under IWT. The EC granted is only for pre construction phase and detailed EIA/EMP study and DPR is yet to be prepared. The so called researcher has jumped to the conclusion that no study is done and that Dam construction has started and that it is a threat to water security of Pakistan.India has already informed PPIC about this dam in terms of IWT. Naturally they woulkd be awaiting reports of EIA/EMP ( though it least concerns them, the project being in HP) and details of DAm designs which are yet to be finalised.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

See how Pakistani Newspaper twists the content to suit their politically correct agenda of propagating a myth that India is violating IWT. This writer of a letter to The Nation of Pakistan sends protest letter for misrepresenting his views and the Editor inserts one liner which would go unnoticed.

One single river basin
March 02, 2012 | 2

In my above titled letter you have made an addition which says, ‘All dams in the Held Valley are in violation of the Indus Water Treaty’. Sir, this is not correct. The Treaty allows India to build hydropower station but imposes restrictions on dam height and on reservoir capacity. It is imperative for Pakistan to ascertain all the facts of the case before opposing any such project. Blanket opposition will be counter productive as it will weaken Pakistan’s case and deny it international backing. It would even distract attention away from any such projects which may actually be in violation of IWT. A delicate issue like just distribution of international river waters requires judicious handling. We are already paying a very heavy price for the partisan manner in which the issue is being handled internally. (We appreciate the correction you have pointed out and regret the error. – Ed)

Yours faithfully,

Engr Khurshid Anwer,

Lahore,?March 1.
Below is the Original Letter carried by the Nation

One single river basin
The Indian Supreme Court has ordered the government to interlink 30 major rivers in the region to ensure flood control and equitable distribution of water by efficient transfer of water from surplus to deficit areas, to free India from the curse of floods and droughts. This is aimed also to increase the area under irrigation and augment power generation. The project will require construction of large dams in India, Nepal and Bhutan. The project is opposed by environmentalists who say it will cause ecological disaster, but India says it must enhance its irrigation potential to meet its demand for grain to feed an estimated population of 1.5 billion by 2050. All the dams in the Held Valley are in violation of the Indus Water basin Treaty, since these reservoirs block Pakistan’s share of waters.

Instead of following India’s example to link our three rivers into one single river basin through the left bank canal at Kalabagh dam, the only way that this can be done, to ensure flood control and equitable distribution of water by efficient transfer of water from surplus to deficit areas, is to free Pakistan from the curse of floods and droughts. Pakistan has rightly started crying foul because such is New Delhi’s plans on the River Indus. It would be foul only if India attempted to link Jhelum and Chenab rivers with the Ravi river. In which case Pakistan must invoke the Indus Water Treaty and not wait ten years like it did in the case of Baglihar and Kishenganga dams.

Engr Khurshid Anwer,

Lahore, February 28.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Anujan »

chaanakya wrote:a Live storage of 1.00 Million acre feet (Maf) of water,
It is important to note that according to IWT, India is entitled to store 3.6 MAF in Jhelum, Chenab and Indus and is allowed to irrigate 13,43,477 acres of land. India currently does not store any water and irrigates ~7,00,000 acres of land.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Anujan wrote:
chaanakya wrote:a Live storage of 1.00 Million acre feet (Maf) of water,
It is important to note that according to IWT, India is entitled to store 3.6 MAF in Jhelum, Chenab and Indus and is allowed to irrigate 13,43,477 acres of land. India currently does not store any water and irrigates ~7,00,000 acres of land.
yeah , I know that. The important point is where do we build our storage, as and when we do it? This one is in HP on Bhaga river which is a tributary of Chenab.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Tarbela may reach ‘dead level’ in two days
The official said that about 1.5 million acre feet (MAF) of water remained unaccounted for during the ongoing season, either because of losses or undocumented releases by Wapda for power generation.
:lol:
anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9203
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by anupmisra »

I am not sure what the pakis are complaining about (maybe its habitual). According to their own sources, in 1947 India released 5600 m^3 per capita whereas, in 2008, India released "only" 1200 m^3 per capita. Madrassa math (and common sense) aside, India actually released more water in 2008 than in 1947.

West paki population in 1947 was 31 million which means that they were getting 173 billion m^3. In 2008 that same area had 180 million nut jobs and that India released 216 billion m^3. Perhaps India should ask to be compensated for the excess water released in error.

Clearly it is just poor management by the purelanders. They bred like rabbits and are now paying the price.

Is my understanding faulty?
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Vipul »

Indian water aggression or genocidal war?

Water scarcity and hydrologic scenario:

A 65-year history of water aggression by India, the upper riparian, is genocide in slow motion. Pakistan’s surface flows in the Indus Basin System average I45 MAF annually. However, the Western nallahs/streams that flow basically during the monsoons and can average 5 to 10 MAF, depending on the wet or dry cycles, is not included. It seems that the water mined from underground aquifers, which is around 40 MAF annually, is not really a renewable resource. There is negligible rainwater harvesting in the northern zones of Pakistan. But the south, including Balochistan, is semi-arid or a desert.

In comparison, the Indian federation although very secretive about its water data is, reportedly, having annual surface flows of 750 MAF in its main rivers. The figures for aquifer mining are not available. Since most of the northern, central, eastern and southern India is blessed with extensive precipitation, they have developed sophisticated rain harvesting methods; practiced in the entire northern rim highland states, as well as south India, where they refer to it as “tank irrigation”. Thus, it is a fallacy that Pakistan per capita water availability is close to the Indian average. (So India through its hard work has increased the per capita availability of water for its people is to be blamed for pakis being left behind? what logic!!!!)

According to my estimation, this may have been close to the truth in 1947, but the situation has deteriorated drastically for Pakistan. It is now close to one-third of the Indian average. This average is dramatically reduced for the end user when we consider the net availability from the reservoirs. Pakistan’s reservoirs have 8 percent storage capacity of their surface flows, while India is close to achieving 40 percent of its declared surface flows. My personal experience at the Closed door Conference on Kashmir Waters in New Delhi during July 2010 confirmed the views of Pakistani elders, including Engr B.A. Malik, Engr Chaudhry Mazhar Ali and late Syed Salar Kirmani. Pakistan has lost or given away or simply been cheated of its water rights every time there has been a face-off with the Indians. Perhaps, the Indians worship a water god, while we have been historically callous. The Indians want an IWT— 2, as they have the network to support them. But we need to finally wake up!

India's water aggresion:
Surely, the Indians influenced a section of our bureaucracy through their clearly identified agents. This ongoing tragedy cannot be reversed without taking a gigantic step.

Firstly, the realisation that we as a nation have been the victim of a massive conspiracy with respect to our hydro endowment and, in tandem, the attrition of our irrigated agricultural capability. The military occupation of Kashmir was the start of the Indian Water Aggression (IWA) strategy in connivance and with full support of the imperial power. In brief, the IWA strategy was not fully comprehended by our intelligentsia, and the issue was and still remains clouded by religious overtones. Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s warning was not understood just as the ignored his caution note on the activities of the fifth column.

Secondly, is the periodic stage-wise progress of the IWA strategy! The period 1946-1960 was consolidation of the military occupation of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the implementation of the inhuman and unprecedented policy of taking the entire flow of the three Punjab rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej). The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) signed on September 19, 1960, was a terrible tragedy for West Punjab and the nation in general. Of the 33 MAF average annual flows, the historic share of West Punjab was 27
MAF that was reduced to about 26 MAF at the time of the treaty. Effectively, Pakistan had lost close to 20 percent of its surface flows till eternity. Mr G. Mueenuddin, Pakistan’s head of the lndus Waters Delegation, was no match for India’s hydro expert Mr N.D. Gauhati. A reading of Engr B.A. Malik’s Indus Waters Treaty in Retrospect (IWTR) published in 2005 is an accurate account of the genesis of this cruel treaty. Then the Indians knew and now have proved that Pakistan is in no position to violate the IWT 1960.

As the lower riparian, Pakistan was expected to “beg for water” using the exact statement of the Indian establishment when they shut off the Lahore Canal using the Madhopur Headworks on the Ravi and the Depalpur Canal using the Ferozepur Headworks on the Sutlej. There is no logical phenomenon whereby Pakistan can transgress and cheat under the IWT 1960 (We TFTA's are unable to cheat? thats unacceptable). The period from 1960 to 1971 was spent in the Indian obsession to trash “the Two Nation Theory” and their conspiratorial role became clear when their military forces joined the civilian uprising in former East Pakistan. The Indians have orchestrated the anti-KBD movement since then, culminating in several so-called democratic interventions by their agents and friends. Professor John Briscoe’s thesis, War or Peace on the Indus, based on his book, entitled Pakistan’s Water Economy Running Dry, confirms all the apprehensions of David E. Lilienthal’s report of August 1951 prepared on the instructions of President Harry S. Truman. Here are some extracts:

“Why the flow of the Punjab’s lifeblood was so carelessly handled in the partition no one seems to know. Pakistan includes some of the most productive food-growing lands in the world in western Punjab (the Kipling country) and the Sind. But without ‘water for irrigation’ this would be a desert. 20,000,000 acres would dry up in a week, tens of millions would starve. No army, with bombs and shellfire, could devastate a land as thoroughly as Pakistan could be devastated by the simple expedient of India’s permanently shutting off the sources of water that keep the fields and the people of Pakistan alive.”

“The partition gave the major part of the irrigated lands of the Punjab and Sind to Pakistan; but the headwaters of some of the largest irrigation canals that feed Pakistan were left with India or Kashmir. All the rivers upon which Pakistan depends for life originate in India or Kashmir. Two thirds of the entire water supply originates in Kashmir where the snow-fed Indus rises.”

Strategising water issues and a possible response:

The tools at Pakistan’s disposal are woefully inadequate. Every encounter on the hydro front has ended in defeat. Yes, there were technical retreats by the upper riparian, but in good time they succeeded to either steal our endowment or block our progress on the irrigation assets. I calculate they have inflicted an economic loss of over a trillion USD :rotfl: :rotfl: equivalent by blocking Pakistan’s mega dams and its tributaries after 1974. Today the KBD project, acknowledged by world experts as the best hydro project site in Asia and, probably, in the world, stands blocked, while the Pak nation is told that “consensus” is required. The upstream Diamer Basha Dam (DBD) is redesigned as a virtual alternate to KBD and in the process becomes an extremely dangerous and unsafe structure. The belligerents expect that this would be a double blow to Pakistan’s economy and, in fact, make its existence highly precarious.

A light RCC dam structure with an unprecedented 271 meters height storing water behind a dam crest level of 1,160 meters asl. Can anyone imagine the destructive force of over 10 cubic kilometres of water hurtling down from nearly 3,900 ft altitude? Late Dr Butt has described this doomsday scenario in his 2004 letters to General Musharraf. Is anyone listening? The October 8, 2005, earthquake in the northern areas and the May 12, 2008, reservoir-induced earthquake in Sichuan cannot be forgotten. Has anyone ever opposed or even identified the Machiavellian tactics employed by the Indians in creating the historical nexus between the World Bank’s Kashmir policy and our northern areas?

The Indian ICID menace and the consortium of traitors:

There is no answer to the Indian ICID and here lies the administrative fault line in Pakistan. Punjab since a few years has been excluded from the Indus Waters Treaty issues, although it is the most affected one by Indian transgressions. IRSA may not be controlled by one province. Both TP and CJ link canals are vital for South Punjab share. Above all, an organisation has to be created overnight to understand, analyse and respond to the Indian transgressions in IHK. Internally, this organisation must be able to educate the people of Pakistan about the hydro truths. The deliberate and treacherous misinterpretations of IWT 1960 cannot be allowed. The Indians desire for an IWT-2 is not acceptable. An overdue fight back must start since the dangers to Pakistan’s existence are clearly appreciated. Here are the recent Indian moves and the deadly signals from Pakistan’s consortium of traitors.

i India presses ahead with its 129 HPP and reservoirs projects in IHK. At least 42 on the three western rivers and their tributaries are already in operation. Another 14 are under construction and 115 in advanced stages of planning and design.

i Why does India build dams when low-level rivers and tunnels could be more suitable for the run-of-the-river (ROR) power stations? The sediment problem would also be solved.

i India accelerates its activities in IHK. The shifting of the spillway allowed the Indian manipulative storage at Baghliar I to be 164,000AF, instead 60,000AF that is a gross violation of Annexure C.

i IRSA’s working is completely disturbed and now controlled by Mr Kamal Majidullah. Earlier General Musharraf had allowed that the 5th member will also be from Sindh. Later, he ordered that the IRSA Chairman will always be from Sindh.

i Punjab is now excluded from all treaty matters. Mr Majidullah, a lawyer and friend of the President, is leading this campaign against Punjab.

i Today, Punjab is told that the Indus River is only for Sindh. They do not permit operation of the CJ and TP link canals during the critical months from April to June (Kharif period), and also between October to March. When a Balochistan member supported Punjab on (February 13, 2010) his services were terminated. Ex-Senator Marvi Memon, daughter of Nisar Memon, also opposed the CJ operation (tail-end) at the outfall into Jhelum during her Senate Committee tenure.

i The Indus Commissioner has to tour the entire Indus Basin every five years.

i The consortium of traitors disregards the violation of Annexure C para (9), Annexure D para 15 (iii) and Annexure E para (10). More so, India has made a joke of Article III. However, no one complains about the Hudiara drain and other nallahs under Article IV.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by vishvak »

If Madarasa mathematicians are so worries, why not scrap the treaty and renegotiate?

That way there is a chance at least that people of J&K would have water per treaties which it does not because of all the noise.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Vipul »

Indus Water Treaty now ineffective: int’l water expert.

The Indus Water Treaty has now become ineffective as India is continuously violating all clauses of the treaty and Pakistan is not challenging them at any international forum by tacit approbation. International Water Expert Engr Bashir Malik, who has served United Nations and World Bank as chief technical adviser on Thursday said the cheapest and environment-friendly solution to water and energy crisis in Pakistan was the Kalabagh Dam, which could only be built by a patriotic and brave leader having the courage to break all the barriers in the best national interest.

Malik said Save Water Save Pakistan Forum would initiate a campaign to highlight water and energy crisis and their solution at national level for which they would have dialogues with the national leadership besides conducting seminars and conferences with the help of technical and legal experts. Pakistan remained undecided to appoint patriotic and real water management experts to take up its case before International Court of Arbitration (COA) against India over construction of hydropower project in violation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.

Sindh Agriculture Forum (SAF) experts said the country is heading towards the worst water shortage in the next couple of years due to insufficient water management practices and storage capacity, they said.

Pakistan has right to oppose the Kishanganga project because its diversion will reduce 16 percent of the power generation capacity of the 969 megawatts (MW) Neelum-Jhelum power project on the same river downstream Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir, an official of the Ministry of Water and Power said.

Due to the poor handling of case with India as well as in COA, Pakistan could not gain points in favour of its case, only because of a team of jurists, not sincere from the start. A report by the Washington DC based Woodrow Wilson Centre described Pakistan’s water shortage as deeply troubling. He said Neelum-Jhelum power project case in COA, Pakistan would face a loss of energy of more than Rs 6 billion every year. Pakistan and India have agreed on the selection of two arbitrators each for the seven-member court of arbitration, but have failed so far to agree on the appointment of three arbitrators belonging to engineering and law to complete the adjudication forum for more than seven months now.

The Indus Water Treaty with India remained just on papers. India had diverted Pakistani water and constructed more dams, which would further worsen the water situation in Pakistan.

The Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture said underground water in Punjab province was going down due to provision of free electricity to Indian Punjab for tube wells. The farmers were taking excessive water through tube wells, which resulted in downward trend of water in Pakistan’s Punjab. The underground water level went down from about 70-100 feet to up to 1,000 feet and has been termed as a worsening situation. Under the treaty, three western rivers, Chenab, Jehlum and Indus are allocated to Pakistan and India is not allowed to build storages on them.

The mystery of allegedly involvement of former Indus Water Commissioner (IWC), Jammat Ali Shah to facilitate Indian authorities for building controversial Nimo Bazgo has yet to be resolved because of silence adopted by the Ministry of Water and Power. Preliminary report maintained that former water commissioner, Shah did not play his due role and remained silent about the Nimoo Bazgo Hydropower Project (built by India during 2002- 2009) and did not raise any objections during the Pak-India meetings at the level of Permanent Indus Commission of Indus Waters.
saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4231
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by saip »

[quote="Vipul"]
Indian water aggression or genocidal war?

Rejoinder to the above

Rejoinder to the rejoinder

Rejoinder to the Rejoinder to the rejoinder

Let us see where it all ends. It just shows not all pakis use madrassa math.
Post Reply