Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 29 Jul 2014 15:32

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2061 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 ... 52  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2012 08:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Posts: 2150
Location: USA
[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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2012 14:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08
Posts: 2647
Is there a way for India to delay the Diamer Basha Project ??

The ADB is being looked upon to finance the bulk of the estimated cost of USD 12 Billion with the blessing of US.
This dam is a more than a fitting case to be rejected by ADB - like how the dam in arunachal has been denied funding (on prodding by China) and based on flimsiest grounds on which china's territorial claim to arunachal rests.

Considering the explicit dejure (Shimla pact) and defacto disputed nature of POK,
Some serious prodding by India onto Japan (which holds the largest share of voting rights within ADB) should be looked into. Ofcourse China and US will oppose this and we may well fail but then the double standards of multilateral banking institutions dominated by US/China will be exposed and erode their legitimacy and capablity for future mischief .

What ever may be the current chankian strategy of GOI on this, leaving the Diamer Basha dam uncontested in international fora will be a big mistake on our part.

And if we are really in a position to delay this project , Pakis should be made to settle Siachen and Sir creek on our terms to let the Dam to be built - because the dam as such is not that a bad furniture to be coming along with the house when we retake POK. Further its massive height and head load will also make the martial pakjabis downstream literally quake with collective browning of pants during times of war.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 27 Mar 2012 00:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6548
J&K Tulbul Project: India, Pak to Hold Talks on Mar 27
Quote:
In a bid to resolve differences over the Tulbul navigation project in Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan will hold secretary-level talks here tomorrow after a gap of nearly a year.

Work was suspended in 1986 by India voluntarily following which talks were held at the government-level. Before that, the matter was being handled at the level of the Permanent Indus Commission.


Sources said India will seek an early resolution to the vexed issue so that it can resume work on the project located on the Jhelum river in Jammu and Kashmir.

While India will be represented by Water Resources Secretary D V Singh, the Pakistani side will be led by its Water Resources Secretary Imtiaz Hussain Kazi.

The last round of talks were held in May last year in Islamabad. Last year's bilateral talks were held after a gap of four years.

Nine rounds of secretary-level talks have been held since work was suspended on the project, followed by five more meetings in 1998, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 under Composite Dialogue between the two countries.

The Tulbul navigation project is located just below the exit of the Wular Lake. India envisages controlled release of water from the lake during the lean-season months of October to February to facilitate year-round navigation for trade, employment and encourage tourism.

New Delhi maintains that the regulating structure is permitted under the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 for the non-consumptive use of navigation.


India has maintained that no "pondage" of water was being created over Jhelum.


Pakistan, however, contests the claim saying it as a "storage project" and charges India with violation of the provisions under the Treaty maintaining that New Delhi was stopping water, thus denying Islamabad its share.

The barrage also has the potential to disrupt the triple canal project of Pakistan-Upper Jhelum Canal, Upper Chenab Canal and the Lower Bari Doab Canal, claimed Pakistan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2012 18:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6548
India for arbitration of Tulbul row
Quote:
India has indicated to Pakistan that it is no longer willing to indefinitely discuss the Tulbul navigation/Wullar lake project in Kashmir and may seek international arbitration to resolve the two decades-old dispute.

This message was conveyed at the two-day Water Resources Secretary-level talks that concluded here on Wednesday. Water Resources Secretary Dhruv Vijay Singh led the Indian delegation, while the Pakistan team was headed by Imtiaz Kazi, Secretary, Water and Power.

The two sides are already in arbitration over the Kishenganga project in Jammu and Kashmir. Earlier, Pakistan sought arbitration by a neutral expert on India's Baglihar hydel project in the State.

Keen to resolve the long-pending Tulbul dispute, India has agreed to provide Pakistan additional technical data. The project, planned on the Jhelum, has been suspended since 1986 after Pakistan raised objections. The issue now forms part of the Composite Dialogue between the two countries.

On Wednesday, India said if no solution was forthcoming, would prefer to go in for arbitration. New Delhi maintains that the Tulbul navigation project, located just before the exit of the Wullar lake on the Jhelum, is within its rights under the Indus Water Treaty of 1960.

A joint statement emphasised the need for an early and amicable resolution of the issue within the ambit of the Treaty.


Now India can decide to continue the project till Arbitration proceedings are decided or some interim order is obtained by Pakistan. India should play by the Rule Book just as Pakistan does it .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2012 01:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14805
Location: Deepest & Highest
India to Assist Pakistana become Saudi Arabia of Water

Quote:
Every year, April 1 brings to mind a bitter memory of what India did to starve millions of people in the Pakistani province of Punjab 64 years ago. It was the first salvo of the Indian water war against the infant State of Pakistan; the news shocked the nation. All protests, pleas and appeals by Pakistan fell on deaf ears of the disciples of Mahatma Gandhi’s gospel of peace and non-violence.
April 1, 1948, was no traditional April Fools’ Day for Pakistan’s Punjab. Rather it was a bleak day, when India suddenly closed the canals carrying water to West Punjab. Water is, undoubtedly, aab-e-hayat (water of life) for a largely arid and agrarian country like Pakistan with scanty and uncertain rainfall. Well anyway, back then hundreds of thousands of acres of standing wheat crops were badly affected. There was no water, even for drinking in the regions underlain by brackish groundwater. The main source of income of millions of poor people, including the newly settled refugees, who had migrated from India, was in jeopardy. The unfair partition of united Punjab in 1947, which was manipulated by the Nehru-Mountbatten nexus, unjustly cut across the rivers and canal network. This left the headworks of some Pakistani Punjab canals in Indian Punjab. Thus, New Delhi stopped the supply of water to Pakistan from the canals flowing from India. It was in blatant violation of the Punjab Partition Committee’s unanimous agreement of July 1947.On May 3, 1948, a Pakistani delegation went to New Delhi to plead with India to restore its water share in the canals. But it was like the water on duck’s tail. On May 4, India pulled another weapon out of its arsenal. A statement was put before the leader of the Pakistani delegation and he was “asked to sign it without changing a word or a comma - a condition for restoring the flow of water.” It meant - sign or starve! So, the agreement was signed under extreme duress to save the lives of millions of Pakistanis.
However, this was not the end of the story, rather trather the beginning of a prolonged water dispute. A series of Indo-Pak talks were held under good offices of the World Bank in Washington DC in 1950s, culminating in the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. It divided the Indus Rivers territorially. India was given the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi (eastern) rivers for its use; whereas, the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus (western) rivers were left for Pakistan. The treaty also allowed the construction of Mangla and Tarbela Dams on the Jhelum and Indus rivers.
The Indus plain irrigated by vast year round canal networks, particularly Punjab, was known as the bread basket of the country. Alas no more! The basket is empty and the mouths to feed aplenty! Unfortunately, this happened because of:
Firstly, the crippling water and power crisis, primarily due to the loss of water from the eastern rivers to India.
Secondly, the decrease in storage capacity of both Mangla and Tarbela reservoirs by siltation.
Thirdly, no large storage dam was built by Pakistan afterwards.Moreover, the water flow from the western rivers into Pakistan is under serious threat by India’s dam building spree, thereon in blatant violation of the treaty in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. A US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report unveiled a shocking fact that India plans to build 190 dams on western rivers, ostensibly for hydropower plants to generate 33,000MW. All the dams - with 33 only on the Indus - are scheduled to be completed in six years; by 2017. The report also observed: “The conflict between Pakistan and India over water resources is serious enough to lead to a war is indisputable.”

Quote:
What to speak of 190 dams, even a fraction, say fifth of their number, could be deadly for the safety and security of Pakistan. By cumulative impoundment of their storages at a crucial crop cycle say during the wheat sowing period - mid-September to end November - could leave millions of acres of land unsown, resulting in widespread famines and starvation in Punjab and Sindh. On the other hand, the simultaneous release of stored waters at the peak of floods in summer could cause more devastation in Punjab and Sindh than experienced in 2010. Either way, these dams could be a recipe for starvation and/or destruction in Pakistan.
Against this backdrop, the Indian policymakers seem to possess the mindset of their ancient guru Chanakya (like Machiavelli). Having achieved full control of the waters of western rivers, there may be little or no water flow downstream, even for drinking in Pakistan what to speak of irrigation. In such a situation, River Kabul flowing in from Afghanistan was the only source of relief for a small part of the country. But it also became a target of the Indian hegemony. New Delhi is financing and building 12 dams on River Kabul disregarding Pakistan’s historic water rights.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2012 11:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6196
[quote="Jhujar"]India to Assist Pakistana become Saudi Arabia of Water

A more appropriate email address for this a$$h@le would be bam420@yahoo.com :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2012 19:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6548
[quote=http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\04\03\story_3-4-2012_pg7_21]Indian electricity: SC orders petitioner to produce Indian SC decision[/quote]

Quote:
ISLAMABAD: Hearing a petition to stop the federal government from importing 5,000MW of electricity from India, the Supreme Court has directed the counsel for the petitioner to furnish the Indian Supreme Court’s judgement on rivers interlinking 2005.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali adjourned the hearing until April 5 due to shortage of time.

It is to be noted the Watan Party on Saturday moved a petition through Barrister Zafarullah, saying Pakistan had accepted India’s offer to get 5,000MW of electricity. He said it was shameful that Pakistan was going to purchase electricity, which India had produced from stolen water by constructing illegal dams.

He said due to this theft, Pakistan was facing scarcity of water for the Kharif crop.

He said it was unfortunate that by buying Indian electricity, Pakistan would approve their theft and also accept violations of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960.


And whatever water goes to Pakistan is devoid of power so it produces powerless people going by the lahori logic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2012 08:09 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55
Posts: 5936
Dont know how credible this is:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-13729-Track-II-Pakistan-India-move-to-avert-water-war
Quote:
Pakistan and India have agreed in principle of a need to set up an independent office of the Indus Water Commission (IWC) comprising neutral experts from outside the South Asian region with an unblemished record and integrity to avert wars on water issues between the two neighbourly nuclear states.

The understanding was reached during a dialogue on strategic relations including water disputes under the track-II diplomacy held in New Delhi on March 28-30


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2012 17:32 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14658
Location: Chennai
The Dileep Padgaonkar Committee offers suggestions
Quote:
On the waters issue, the report speaks of the potential for convergence. The India-Pakistan Indus Waters Treaty has had a grievously adverse impact on the State. The limitations imposed by the Treaty to enhancing water storage capacities on the rivers on the Indian side has curbed both the hydro-power generation capacity of the State as well as stymied efforts for irrigating land, the report pointed out. These factors, in turn, have failed to attract investment in the State.

The group argues that the answer to the waters issue does not lie in the abrogation of the Treaty, but in rendering it more effective. Under the Treaty, India was duty-bound to comply with the obligations as an upper riparian State, and in any case, it was next to impossible to unilaterally abrogate the Treaty as there is no exit clause. Even at the peak of hostilities towards India, the thought of nullifying the Treaty had not crossed minds in Pakistan, the report observed.

Among the proposals on the table for a solution to the waters issue is an integrated development plan for the conservation of the Indus Basin. This would take into full account the linkages between water, land, the users, the environment and the infrastructure. It would have to focus on better cooperative management of shared water resources. “Vast amounts of financial and technical resources would be needed to attain these goals,” the report said, “in addition of course to the political will of all stakeholders.”


In our lovefest with these terrorists, we are willing to concede even more water, that is what this 'integrtaed development of the Indus Basin' would eventually come to. If there must be such an integrated approach, then it means that the division of the lands in 1947 was unsustainable. After division, why an integrated plan now ? Also, does anybody have a clear idea of what integration we are talking about here ? Even worse, I won't be surprised if India once again donates a large sum of money for this 'integration' nonsense after having donated 80Million Pound Sterling in the 60s for the division of waters. It seems we are committed to doing a harakiri.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2012 20:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6548
Traitor committee report is nothing but compilation of recommendations of ISI obtained through FAI to subvert India.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2012 22:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2877
What else can you expect from a person who was only too eager to enjoy Fai's hospitality and who is available to do anybody'd bidding in return for a first class return ticket to America with stay in 5 star hotel?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2012 22:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Posts: 3839
Location: You guys are just like family to me. Mostly Dysfunctional
Quote:
and in any case, it was next to impossible to unilaterally abrogate the Treaty as there is no exit clause. Even at the peak of hostilities towards India, the thought of nullifying the Treaty had not crossed minds in Pakistan, the report observed.
.


What kind of Bullshit is that. So India has no exit clause but Pakis can nullify the treat. Who are these Padgaonkar's of the world trying to fool.
Moreover what is this peak of hostility non sense. So now we are having valley of hostility from Pak. Makes me sick to the core.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2012 23:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56
Posts: 4204
OT but...
SSridhar wrote:
From the above
Quote:
Noting that the situation on the Pakistani side of the LoC was rather different from that on the Indian side, the final report of the group points to the lack of freedoms and autonomy in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the Northern Areas or Gilgit-Baltistan.

Calling Pakistan occupied Kashmir 'Azad Jammu and Kashmir' we have endorsed the paki propaganda. How low can our people fall! How can you speak of the 'lack of freedoms' and use the word 'Azad' in the same sentence?

I am at a loss for words.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2012 23:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6196
VikasRaina wrote:
Quote:
and in any case, it was next to impossible to unilaterally abrogate the Treaty as there is no exit clause. Even at the peak of hostilities towards India, the thought of nullifying the Treaty had not crossed minds in Pakistan, the report observed.
.


What kind of Bullshit is that. So India has no exit clause but Pakis can nullify the treat. Who are these Padgaonkar's of the world trying to fool.
Moreover what is this peak of hostility non sense. So now we are having valley of hostility from Pak. Makes me sick to the core.



Fai and the ISI have spent their money wisely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2012 02:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14805
Location: Deepest & Highest
http://news.yahoo.com/water-wars-why-in ... 16236.html
Water Wars: Why India and Pakistan Are Squaring Off Over Their Rivers

Quote:
India's Wular Lake, a popular picnic and tourist spot nestled in the Kashmir Valley, is an unlikely site for conflict. But India's plan to build a structure on the Jhelum River at the mouth of the lake that will allow it to release water during the river's lean winter months has outraged neighboring Pakistan, which believes the project will give India the power to control how much water flows downstream to its farmers. After two and a half decades of deadlock and 15 marathon rounds of bilateral talks -- the most recent occurring in late March -- the countries appear a long way from finding common ground. A recent Dutch study found that by 2050, shrinking glaciers are predicted to reduce the flows of the Indus by 8%. But in Pakistan, which is deeply distrustful of its larger and more powerful neighbor, the country's crippling water shortage is seen as a direct result of India's upstream dams and water projects.Indeed, India has ramped up its hydroelectricity projects in recent years to try to boost its woefully inadequate power supplies. The government has a total of 45 projects either already completed or in the proposal stage on the western rivers, some as large as 1000 megawatt and many as small as 2 and 3 megawatt. This expansion has irked Islamabad. "India is putting more and more restrictions and constrictions on Pakistan's waters," Kamal Majidulla, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani's special assistant on water resources and agriculture, tells TIME.Unfortunately, we are going towards conflict and not conflict resolution," says Majidulla, who heads a body called the Pakistan Trans-border Water Organization, formed in September to monitor what he calls "increased activity" on the Indian side of the border. The countries' antagonistic political relationship has certainly not helped to ease their differences over water. "Given the mutual hostility between the two countries, it is not surprising that there is a tendency in Pakistan to believe that the scarcity it is experiencing or fearing is partly attributable to upper riparian actions," Ramaswamy Iyer, India's former secretary for water resources, wrote in an op-ed in the Hindu newspaper. At times, the rhetoric has even reached a fevered pitch, such as when Hafiz Saeed, head of the Pakistani militant group Jamaat-u-Dawa and alleged mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, whipped up public sentiment against India's so-called "water terrorism" in 2010 by using slogans like "water flows or blood."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2012 05:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08
Posts: 2647
20000MW HEPs in pipeline in Pakistan
Quote:
Wapda working on 20,000MW projects


LAHORE: The Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) is working on hydropower projects with cumulative generation capacity of about 20,000MW. Of them, the projects about 7,000MW are in the construction phase, while the rest of them are in the final stage of their detailed engineering designs.

This was stated by Chairman Shakil Durrani while addressing a delegation of the National Institute of Management (NIM), Peshawar, at Wapda House here on Wednesday. The delegation was led by NIM Chief Instructor Dr Faizur Rahman.

The chairman said the authority was executing on priority 969MW Neelum Jhelum, 4,500MW Diamer Bhasha Dam, 1,410MW Tarbela 4th Extension, 7,100MW Bunji, 4,320MW Dasu, 740MW Munda Dam etc. to cope with the increasing demand of electricity in the country.

These projects would not only help stabilise electricity tariff by increasing ratio of low-cost hydel electricity in the national grid but also rid dependence on imported oil.

Responding to a question, the chairman said that Wapda had procured two state-of-the-art tunnel boring machines to expedite work on strategically important Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project. At present, about 32 per cent construction work is complete, while overall completion of the project is expected by mid 2016, he said.

Apprising the delegation of technical expertise of Wapda, the chairman said the first-ever tunnel boring machine in the world was used in Pakistan during the construction of the Mangla Dam in the 60s.

Earlier, the delegation was briefed on water and power sector by Wapda Chief Engineer (Diamer Bhasha Dam) Shamshad Muhammad Khan and Pepco Director General (Energy Management and Conservation) Ejaz Rafiq Qureshi, respectively.

Wapda Managing Director (Administration) Naveed Akram Cheema and Secretary Muhammad Imtiaz Tajwar were also present. — Staff Reporter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 19 Apr 2012 22:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6548
Delay in Chinese loan puts Neelum-Jhelum project in doldrums

Quote:
ISALAMABAD: The Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project is facing shortage of funds that could slow the pace of construction providing an edge to India, which is building Kishanganga project on the same Neelum river on its side of Kashmir, a senior official of Ministry of Water and Power said.

According to the Indus Water Treaty the country that first completes its project on Neelum tributary will have the priority rights on the water of Neelum River.

The financial situation of the project got worse as Pakistan did not get the expected credit line of $448 million from China, the official said.

The Chinese were delaying the credit line either on pressure from India or to exert pressure on Pakistani authorities to revise the financing rates of the project, the official said quoting the assessment of the EAD officials.

If Pakistan fails to complete its project before India, then it will lose the water rights to the upper riparian country.

Keeping in view the importance of the project, the official revealed EAD secretary Dr Waqar Masud dashed to China for two days last week to get the loan of $448 million, which the top man of China had committed during the visit of President Zardari to Beijing in 2009.

The Chinese Exim bank did not entrain Masud saying it would give the loan at appropriate time, although three years have elapsed since the commitment of China to Pakistan.


The Chinese Exim bank is delaying the disbursement of the loan since 2009 despite the fact bank’s team came to Islamabad in 2011 and visited the site of project where in it expressed satisfaction. However, the Chinese bank is still evasive in funding the project knowing the fact that Chinese contractor is completing the project. It is pertinent to mention that China has already refused to provide finding for Iran Pakistan gas line project.

The officials are surprised that Beijing has immediately released $130 million for the Chilas Road in Sakrdu, whose PC-I is even not approved just because of the fact the said road would connect border of China, but when it comes to the country’s strategic project, it is delaying the disbursement of the loan.


When asked as to how the construction work is underway on the site of the project on main components keeping in view the acute financial constraints, the official said the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Company has acquired the loan of Rs6 billion from Wapda, which itself is a cash-strapped entity and if Pakistan fails to manage funding for the project, it is quite obvious that the pace of construction will alarmingly slow down.

“We are in contact with Islamic Development Bank, Saudi Development Bank, Abu Dhabi Fund, Kuwait Fund for the required finding,” the official said.

He said that IDB has committed $200 million, Saudi Fund $337 million, Abu Dhabi Fund $100 million and Kuwait Fund $30 million and the government is pursing the said donors to expedite the disbursement of their credit line for the timely completion of the project.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 10 May 2012 00:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6548
International panel inspects Kishanganga project
SUHAIL AJMAL

Quote:
Bandipora, May 8: A high-level team of water commissioners from India and Pakistan and members from the International Court of Arbitration Tuesday inspected the 330 MW Kishanganga Hydro Power Project in north Kashmir’s Bandipora district.
The seven-member team including a Hydrologist reached Gurez Tuesday morning where they inspected the proposed dam site near Malik Kadal, a top official told Greater Kashmir. The team has come to inspect the project before the next hearing of International Court of Arbitration being held at The Hague later this month.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 10 May 2012 20:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 5911
Brahma Chellaney writing in the Economic Times discloses the shocking statistic that India under the Indus Water Treaty agreed to set aside 80.52% of the Indus-system waters for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, an amount of water that is more than 90 times, yes 90 times, greater than what the US is required to release for Mexico under the 1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty, which stipulates a minimum transboundary delivery of 1.85 billion cubic metres of the Colorado River waters yearly:

Quote:
Jawaharlal Nehru ignored the interests of Jammu and Kashmir and, to a lesser extent, Punjab when he signed the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, under which India bigheartedly agreed to the exclusive reservation of the largest three of the six Indus-system rivers for downstream Pakistan.

In effect, India signed an extraordinary treaty indefinitely setting aside 80.52% of the Indus-system waters for Pakistan - the most generous water-sharing pact thus far in modern world history.

In fact, the volume of waters earmarked for Pakistan from India under the Indus treaty is more than 90 times greater than what the US is required to release for Mexico under the 1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty, which stipulates a minimum transboundary delivery of 1.85 billion cubic metres of the Colorado River waters yearly.


From Here:

Water treaties & diplomacy: India faces difficult choices on water


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 10 May 2012 20:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Apr 2011 09:59
Posts: 128
If India's and Pakistan's population is combined, India has 85% of the population. Which means Indian should get 85% of the water :((

We should start saying this again and again everywhere. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 10 May 2012 23:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Posts: 6051
Location: Still in transit....
AFAIK India still has not fully used its Agricultural/Storage quota's on the Western rivers.

India's quotas on the Western rivers are firm numbers not percentages. Still should have kept more for us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 10 May 2012 23:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1867
And the culprit is Govt of Punjab,(in particular the Akalis) which refuses to operationalise the SYL canal.The Punjab govt would let the Sutudri water go to Pakjab than to Haryana and Bikaner or Ganganagar in Rajasthan.

We cant blame everything on Congress,Nehru,Dr MMS.

Dr MMS was PM when Capt.Amarinder Singh annulled SC judment by punjab ordnance.And Dr MMS could do precious little as Akalis would have hijacked the issue.

Before partition Haryana was part of Punjab and the 20% allotment was made in the 50s taking into account the united punjabs needs.

It is easy to blame British or Americans or Chinese.After 60 yrs,we fight over river waters.We fight over regressive state policies on reservation in education/employment.We fight over languages.

And we in BRF blame Dr MMS for siachen piss talks.

All is maya onlee.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 13 May 2012 05:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 256
Quote:
Neelam-Jhelum Hydropower Project

By Zeeshan Javaid

ISLAMABAD: The Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs), which have been detained on the site of Neelam-Jhelum Hydropower Project (NJHP) since the last couple of months, has yet to start the excavation of 32 kilometres (kms) long tunnel under 969 megawatts (MW) hydropower project costing Rs 333.191 billion.

A senior official, who dealt in NJHP, on condition of anonymity informed Daily Times that commissioning of TBMs couldn’t be forecast, however Water and Power Development Authority’s (WAPDA) technical team claimed its commissioning time frame till last week of July.

He further maintained that the assembling of TBMs would likely start within the next four to five days, however the first cutting in tunnel rock is likely to be observed within two months.

No response over specific issue of TBMs could be acquired from the WAPDA authorities despite continuously contacting WAPDA Secretary Imtiaz Tajawar. The official further maintained that only 34.12 percent development and construction work has been completed, while excavation of 32 kms long tunnel could take more than a couple of months even working on 24-hour basis.

Reportedly, TBMs, which were imported by WAPDA, were not mentioned in the original contract being implemented by a Chinese company, however, the Chinese contractor came up with a proposal to use it without the endorsement of a credible foreign consultant. As no international consultant recommended the use of the TBMs for the NJHP, WAPDA managed to get the endorsement from a retired employee who now works as a consultant, official added.

The so-called consultant and former employee of WAPDA, Abdul Khaliq said in a report that the proposed acceleration of the tunnel construction by use of TBMs method would increase the project cost by around Rs 16 billion.

Delay in completion of NJHP costs the government about 300 percent more spending as the initial cost of the scheme Rs 84.500 billion was increased to Rs 333.191 billion, while increase in price of the scheme was due to delay in execution of the project due to financial constraints and multiple other issues including price escalation.

However, the main tunnel about 17.5 kms out of 62 kms has been completed, while river has been diverted, work on power house, headrace tunnel and tunnel excavation is yet to be started.

WAPDA has been deployed two TBMs at a cost of Rs 8 billion each on the 969 MW NJHP.

WAPDA claimed that TBMs technology would reduce construction period of the project by about 18 months, resulting in an estimated benefit of Rs 60 billion, adding that NJHP, due to be completed in 2016, would provide about 5.15 billion units of electricity annually to the national grid.

The TBMs imported from Germany at a cost of $92.3 million will expedite the excavation of 32 kms long water tunnels under Rs 333 billion NJHP that would generate 969 MW of electricity. WAPDA further maintained that with the start of excavation of tunnel, the project would now be constructed and likely commissioned in 2016, two years before schedule.

If Pakistan succeeded to commission NJHP before completion of controversial Indian hydropower project, it would not only grab water priority rights on the Neelum river, but also help in Pakistan’s legal battle in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at Hague against India on Kishanganga hydropower project as India is building it on the same river in held Kashmir with faulty design that negates the Indus Water Treaty.

Public sector power managers ascertained that annual benefits of the project have been estimated at Rs 45 billion, adding that the project would payback its cost in about seven years.

Some 18.5 kms long tunnels and audits have so far been excavated, while the crucial diversion tunnel to divert the river Neelum was also completed in October last year. Construction work on all the three sites is in full swing, the authority maintained, adding work on powerhouse is heading as per schedule, while work on transformer hall is ahead of schedule.


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012%5C05%5C13%5Cstory_13-5-2012_pg5_15


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 13 May 2012 05:37 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55
Posts: 5936
chaanakya wrote:
Delay in Chinese loan puts Neelum-Jhelum project in doldrums

Quote:
According to the Indus Water Treaty the country that first completes its project on Neelum tributary will have the priority rights on the water of Neelum River.

The officials are surprised that Beijing has immediately released $130 million for the Chilas Road in Sakrdu, whose PC-I is even not approved just because of the fact the said road would connect border of China, but when it comes to the country’s strategic project, it is delaying the disbursement of the loan.



It bears repeating, but this is actually not true. India is allowed to divert one tributary of a river into another (which is what India is doing in this project) if there is *no pre-existing* Pakistani project downstream. There was no project when India announced the construction of Kishenganga and there was none when Pakis were given time to object to the project, there was none when initiation of project was delayed due to Paki perfidy and there was none when construction started by India. There is still no pre-existing use of water by the Pakis. So India is allowed to build Kishenganga.

Interpreting the IWT as some kind of race towards *completion* of the project is nonsense. If that were the case then India and Pakistan would have made substantial investment running this race with the losing side set to lose all its investment and construction. No sane treaty is written this way. That is precisely the reason why foreign funding agencies are reluctant to fund the Pakis, because *they wont get their money back* either through operating tariffs or electricity tariffs after the construction.

Pakis on the other hand will be relying on India's Amonkey Asha and large heart for India to stop the project. But thankfully even WKKs cannot do that now because contracts have already been given out, loans taken and construction started. Pakis can now rely only on three things to stall India's project
1. Do some terrorism as usual
2. Promise some future deals in return for India stopping the project
3. Get Arundhatis riled up about environment/Indian oppression of people living in the Kishenganga river/Gandhis with guns who regularly bathe in the river.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 13 May 2012 11:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Posts: 6051
Location: Still in transit....
Quote:
The official further maintained that only 34.12 percent development and construction work has been completed, while excavation of 32 kms long tunnel could take more than a couple of months even working on 24-hour basis.


What he probably means is that 34.12 % of the money has been spent. Tunneling 34 kms through fragile fault prone rock is no mean feat. A TBM may not be the wisest option. TBMS rarely move at more than 2-3 kms per year even under good circumstances. I don't see this tunnel being done in less than 4-5 years. Just for comparison the 57 KM Gotthard base tunnel took 16 years to go 57 KM's. So 32 kms is non-trivial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 15 May 2012 06:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14805
Location: Deepest & Highest
Yeh shalwar Bhighi Bighi. yeh Aqal ki Batteh, Reality mei aaya Poaqstan yeh Bechara
Indus waters
( They are sensing failure in arbitration thus beseeching ground work being done)

Quote:
However, the issues arising in Pakistan by India’s filling of the Baglihar Dam in 2008 and the ongoing Kishanganga Dam arbitration process between the two neighbouring states has placed the spotlight back on the IWT of 1960.Is the IWT – given the changes in demography, increase in the demand for water and climatic changes since 1960 – still relevant as a framework for sharing the Indus waters between the two riparian states? If it is, then the question arises is that why has this issue been recently thrust into the media limelight in Pakistan as an existential security threat emanating out of India? And why did the need arise for Pakistan last year to take India to the Permanent Court of Arbitration over the Kishanganga Dam?According to the IWT, Pakistan has exclusive rights over the western rivers of the Indus basin: the Indus itself, Jhelum and Chenab. India, on the other hand, has exclusive rights over the three eastern rivers; Ravi, Beas and Sutlej.The treaty was essentially an attempt to assuage Pakistani fears – arising from India shutting off the Central Bari Doab Canals at the time of the sowing season in 1948 – of any future Indian attempts to damage Pakistan by either completely depriving it of water flowing in from the Indian-controlled territory at crucial periods of the agricultural season or by causing massive floods downstream.The expectation from the Pakistani side is that India cannot construct any massive hydro-projects on the three western rivers given Pakistan’s exclusive rights over them. And, especially since India has exclusive rights over the three eastern rivers and the freedom to build its water projects on those.This stance, even if it is known to be erroneous by our Indus waters experts and our politicians, is the point of view being projected, through the media, on to the intelligentsia and the common man of Pakistan. The common perception in Pakistan is that any dam-building by India on any of the western rivers by default equates to the ‘theft’ of ‘our’ waters or to handing over a strategic advantage to India that it will not fail to use against us. The reality is that the IWT does contain certain ‘permissive clauses’ that do provide India with a degree of flexibility for water projects on the western rivers. This is allowed on the condition that the essential requirements and guidelines or the ‘restrictive clauses’ of the treaty that protect Pakistan’s interests are not put into jeopardy.The fact that India is testing the permissive parts of the IWT to the full with its projects on the western rivers, in a seemingly unilateral manner, is the backdrop of the recent round of arbitration. It will be unrealistic for Pakistan to hope for a ruling that completely stops India from ever carrying out any water-project on the western rivers. The court cannot take away from India the facility it has been granted by the treaty.

The Pakistani side should instead be prepared for the verdict from the arbitration process to merely seek certain changes by India to the existing design of the Kishanganga dam. The other realistic expectation would be one that seeks joint scientific research by the two countries to gather more data on the claims of the disputing parties so that any final ruling is based on scientific evidence.In either case, India will eventually be given the go-ahead to construct the dam with one or another design variation setting a precedence on the interpretation of both the permissible and restrictive clauses of the IWT that provide for Indian works on the western rivers. Pakistan will have to adapt to the new reality.The Pakistani side needs to understand that India as a country faces energy issues just like Pakistan does. It is only natural that India tries to extract maximum leeway on what it is allowed to do with the western rivers while using creative ways to interpret the restrictive clauses.
The common wisdom in the Pakistani ranks may be that the arbitration courts or neutral experts may deliver a more favourable outcome than what can be arrived at bilaterally with their Indian counterparts. On the contrary, the judgments of the neutral expert on the Baglihar case in 2007 make it evident that the verdict will be closer to India’s stance. This will leave Pakistan in a position where it is not ready to tackle the new implications of that verdict simply because of a lack of research-based data on the subject.
In light of the new stresses on the IWT, a dispassionate analysis of all the options available to Pakistan – including the extreme decision of waging war or altogether doing away with the treaty – would reveal that it is in Pakistan’s interests to work with India within the confines of the IWT of 1960. With this realisation our politicians, Indus waters experts and media should not make a cricket match out of the water issue. It is time for us to change tact. All discourse within Pakistan regarding the matter of the Indus waters, be it at the political and bureaucratic level or in the media, should be conducted on purely scientific grounds based on sound data and research.While the management and administration of the Indus waters can be left in the hands of the government and bureaucracy, the scientific research on all possible issues surrounding the Indus waters must be opened up to the universities in Pakistan.Our research work can be made more palatable for our Indian counterparts during discussions and negotiations by partnering our water research departments and universities with their equivalent in India. Pakistan needs to replace emotional rhetoric and raise its concerns with India regarding the issue of the Indus waters on dispassionate, objective and scientific grounds. Sound and thorough academic research, especially joint work between partner universities in the two countries when provided as evidence, will make India more accepting of Pakistan’s concerns and will help to search for solutions in earnest.Even if this tact fails and arbitration is eventually required, Pakistan stands a much better chance of a favourable verdict if it prepares its case based on thorough and credible scientific evidence, rather than moving the court based on whims and seemingly unqualified apprehensions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 17 May 2012 17:47 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14658
Location: Chennai
Jhujar wrote:
Yeh shalwar Bhighi Bighi. yeh Aqal ki Batteh, Reality mei aaya Poaqstan yeh Bechara
Indus waters
Quote:
This stance, even if it is known to be erroneous by our Indus waters experts and our politicians, is the point of view being projected, through the media, on to the intelligentsia and the common man of Pakistan.

And, this is not the first (or even the last) time that such lies are fabricated and then propagated to the believers. Since before the Partition, this has been the pattern. The question to ask therefore is why should such deliberate lies be regularly thrust upon a whole nation and a community and why should they gulp them willingly ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 06:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Posts: 6051
Location: Still in transit....
Interesting read. Sridhar had earlier pointed out that TSP had trouble understanding the principles of modern Dam Hydraulics. Looks like this is now bearing out full scale. If the TBM has been purchased with out proper Geotech analysis there are going to be fatalities on this project! A TBM is not to be messed with esp. 15 km into a dig. If the interior geology is really mud stones and soft shale I hope they go carefully, else any accident too will get blamed on India.

Note the realistic completion date of 2025 BTW.

Code:
http://www.brecorder.com/fuel-a-energy/193/1192120/


Quote:
The Planning Commission has projected 292 per cent increase in the cost of 969 MW Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project to Rs 331 billion from original cost of Rs 84.5 billion approved in 2002 due to poor planning by Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda).

Official documents available with Business Recorder reveal that the project is likely to be completed in June 2016 - a claim not considered credible by analysts. Financial progress as stated by the Planning Commission has been recorded at 37 per cent (44 per cent of approved cost). Allocation in 2011-12 was Rs 10.8 billion but Finance Ministry released only Rs 4.8 billion. Delay in land acquisition and substantial cost increase due to change in scope and mythology of execution Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) procurement are considered as two key reasons of cost escalation. Physical progress on the project has been reported at 31 per cent.

Wapda management in 2010 decided to induct TBMs. They used the TBMs as bait for the PRC contractor. A quid pro deal was approved in August 2010 where the contractor would supply two TBMs on the plea of earlier completion. Approval was taken from an in-house Wapda consultant almost two years after signing of the main contract. The 8.5m diameter TBMs were according to the in-house Wapda Consultant going to increase the costs by only Rs 16 billion. Wapda claimed two years will be saved but concealed the fact that TBM delivery period was also a factor.

Several questions remain: Firstly how much will they spend cumulatively on these two TBM behemoths? Secondly how the contractor will provide economically the 10MW of electric power required? Thirdly how efficiently will these TBMs work in Neelum Jhelum soft rock, siltstone, mild-stone and sandstone? There are apprehensions about the squeeze factor of soil conditions. The convergence factor becomes higher when minor seismic events are a regular event. TBMs will be clearly facing the prospect of being trapped up to 2.5km below the surface.

What is the real contract escalation after these two TBMs are inducted and the contract basis changed? These expensive moles will only be deployed for 9.1km (8.5m dia) out of the 28.54 long headrace twin tunnel with total tunnelling about 48kms. There can be minimum co-ordination with ongoing "D& B" work for the balance works of Neelum Jhelum tunnel project.

When a TBM works at a downward incline there are severe issues of dewatering. Very high pumping capacity is required otherwise all is lost. If the TBM has ideal conditions it can deliver up to 20m/day in good rock conditions but Neelum Jhelum soil will permit about 10m/day. A TBM cannot be shifted to future projects when each TBM has a fixed width of its electro hydraulic boring wheel designed for specific soil conditions & cannot be "a strategic asset".

The Neelum Jhelum tunnels will be the deepest hydraulic tunnels in the world. Due to hydraulic losses the 969MW rating cannot be expected even after spending 5 billion dollar. This is the minimum estimated cost of the Neelum Jhelum HPP. Today the cost of tunnelling (8m to 9m dia) is over $100 million/ km. This is clearly observed from the Gotthard Base Railway Tunnel expected to be completed in 2016 (route length of 57km).

Geology of sedimentary rock formation (layers of sandstone//siltstone) is not suitable for TBM operations. No international consultant has recommended use of TBMs. High convergency due to shale and clay formations is described in Wapda files as the "squeezing strata". It is a basic and major factor for not using TBMs on specific projects. In fact not a single Neelum Jhelum recognised consultant has proposed use of TBMs in 25 years. The soil squeezing factor will be a constant danger of their getting stuck.

"It is a dangerous, unprecedented and expensive exercise to tunnel below the main river. It is a manipulated massive cost rigging and profiteering," said another analyst. The high pressures could still result in "hydrofracturing". The tunnel joints and natural rock joints could crack open. Evaluation tests have not been carried out.

There has been no detailed design study of the project (with or without TBM deployment) after the 08 October 2005 massive geological changes. The Project Manager of MWH Lead Consultants was forcibly removed because he was complaining about the tactics employed by the bureaucracy to increase costs. No Pakistani technicians and engineers are being trained at site.

The scenario emerging is that it will be the most expensive HPP in history. The cost would be plus $5 billion for less than 969MW rating. The "imaginary race" with India will be definitely lost before 2025 the estimated year of completion even if TBMs do not get stuck. The Neelum Jhelum HPP could be commissioned in a total of five years, if the attempt to go below the Jhelum upper limb is abandoned and the power house built at the upper Jhelum limb as per original feasibility, he opined.

The power generation would reduce to 550MW at 220m head. The total cost would however reduce to about 20%. The shorter tunnel system terminating at the upper limb of the Jhelum may be contracted out to CMEC/CGGC JV on EPC (fixed price basis) with GoP accepting the geological risk. At the JEWG meeting in Islamabad on 08 May 12 Chinese delegation mentioned that an appraisal has been ordered by their Exim Bank''s Board. The smaller Kishanganga HPP in IHK will be clearly built before the NJ-HPP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 12:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2328
If I understand the above article then it means that Pakistan will get less than 969MW only by 2025 if it spends US$ 5Billion which it evidentally does not have. Best case scenario is that it changes the whole design and gets 550MW for USS$ 1 Billion which is also around 2020 or something. Once a Paki always a asshole.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 14:19 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14658
Location: Chennai
vic wrote:
If I understand the above article then it means that Pakistan will get less than 969MW only by 2025 if it spends US$ 5Billion which it evidentally does not have. Best case scenario is that it changes the whole design and gets 550MW for USS$ 1 Billion which is also around 2020 or something. Once a Paki always a asshole.

vic, I would say that Pakistan gives up this project rather than standing on false and non-existent prestige and wasting precious money it does not have or money that the traditional 3-and-a-half are no longer willing to part with. If it continues with this project it means that they are doing that with the single purpose of cutting their nose to spite our face. They are going to lose it both ways. It also shows how deeply entrenched in their psyche is this business of 'parity with or superior to' Hindustan.

It is OT here. But, looking at it in every which way, Pakistan is an entity that was materialized without thinking at all about its capacity to stand on its own legs. The Empire wanted a stooge and the Muslim leaders fell for it. This entity that was living on borrowed time is unravelling (unless something happens out of the blue and either the 3½ or a similar new grouping finds utility in preserving this artificial construct)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 15:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19
Posts: 3342
Location: छिछला पानी में (In shallow waters)
SSridhar wrote:
..
it means that they are doing that with the single purpose of cutting their nose to spite our face. They are going to lose it both ways. It also shows how deeply entrenched in their psyche is this business of 'parity with or superior to' Hindustan.

It is OT here. ... The Empire wanted a stooge and the Muslim leaders fell for it. This entity that was living on borrowed time is unravelling (unless something happens out of the blue and either the 3½ or a similar new grouping finds utility in preserving this artificial construct)

An 'international' scenario seen in Indian manner. The problem is not with pakis who are willing to cut their nose to spite our face, eat grass to finance wars, thousand cuts to India, and so on with 3.50's backing; or 3.50s who may need paki 'irregulars'.

The problem is we consider an 'international' issue to be dealt in 'international' standards but the standards can be thrown to the dogs by the pakis and 3.50s and rest of barbarians while we still observe it as an 'international' situation with elated sense of status-quo with paki :(( . The 'international' people are ignoring the baseless show of paki heartburn.

The question is, who all are supporting/bankrolling/scheming with pakis in this :(( :(( :(( , with absence of clarity of the fact that pakis get enough share of the water per same IWT?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2012 20:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Posts: 6051
Location: Still in transit....
BTW the article has also made it clear for the first time that Panda only provided a bank loan to buy the TBM's and send operators. That is what the $400 million is for. Pakis will have to pay it back some day in hard currency. It does not appear anyone else is financing the project. The economic case for it appears quite ridiculous when one looks at bald numbers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2012 15:03 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14658
Location: Chennai
Troubled Waters - in TFT by Ramaswamy R Iyer.

A very detailed exposition and well articulated. Hats off to him though I am completely against any joint study to remove fears in Pakistani minds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2012 21:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 5911
X Posted from the TSP thread.

arun wrote:
I do hope this information is true and is indeed a consequence of the actions of our Government as I firmly believe that no entity or country that finances a project in occupied Indian Territory is entitled to have a penny returned when it is liberated by us:

Diamer-Bhasha: WB links dam’s funding to Indian agreement


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012 11:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6548
India and Pakistan may have a power transmission line

Quote:
SRINAGAR: The prevailing bonhomie between India and Pakistan may soon have a grid interface as Islamabad is seeking 500 MW energy from New Delhi.



This, however, may be a simple trading exercise and will lack any impact on the existing cold war over water resources, union power secretary Dhruv Vijay Singh hinted in Srinagar.
In a hot debate over Indus Water Treaty and allied controversies involving the two neighbours, Singh said the water sharing treaty is continuously generating a lot of debate for last few years but most of it is half truth.

"It needs an exercise to understand how much of it is presumed and how much of it is a fact," Singh said.

"I believe India has not been able to harness the water resources to the extent the treaty permits and that includes J&K". Even though 87 per cent of the water goes to Pakistan, Singh said India still is unable to use the share it has.


Cold war over water notwithstanding, Singh ruled out the possibility of Pakistan blocking any power project in J&K as long as it is run of river project. "Pakistan seems to have decided not to permit any dam in J&K," Singh said.

"We are contesting a case in the international court of justice over Kishanganga power project and now they (Pakistan) are hinting at taking the upcoming Nimoo-Bazgo (in Ladakh) to the international arbitration."

Some of the engineers disagreed with Singh. They asserted that Indus Water Treaty has, in recent past, led to the reduction in the dam height of Baglihar and other changes in the design that reduced generations.


Instead of confrontation, they suggested India and Pakistan should enter into some relationship so that they have mutual benefits from projects in J&K on either side of the LoC.

But power secretary said there is no such requirement.


On Kishanganga which is currently being adjudged by the International Court of Justice, Singh said Pakistan has built it's case mostly on the environmental and ecological impact of the project.

"They have hired a constant and most of their case is based on this only," he said. "I doubt the Kishanganga project is being impeded," Sing said.

Singh refused to be dragged in a debate over the massive losses that J&K has suffered because of the Treaty. Dr Mubin Shah, a business leader asked him about the possibility of central government compensating the losses that the state suffered since 1960 by returning some of the projects that NHPC runs and owns in the state.

"I would be keen to fly specially to discuss this issue here but I think this is nit the right time to discuss the issue," power secretary said.

Singh made his displeasure public that the J&K government is charging twenty five paisa as water usage charges per cubic feet of water used for the power producers," he said. "I would request the state government that they should revisit it because it does not exist anywhere in any Indian state.
"

His response came suo moto amid suggestions that the state government should change the system by seeking the water usage charge on per unit basis rather than quantum of water that goes into the generation.

Singh later had a detailed meeting with states water resources minister Taj Mohi-ud-Din who piloted the initiative that is fetching state government around Rs 800 crore a year.


However, at the conclusion of the inaugural session, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in his detailed speech refused to withdraw the water usage charge saying this is the only resource that is with J&K.

Interestingly, he publicly announced that J&K will not be comfortable in working with NHPC in future on the existing terms in which hot stats get only 12 per cent of royalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 03 Jul 2012 15:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35
Posts: 1148
Misplaced Water Diplomacy

Quote:
Reciprocity is the first principle of diplomacy. But not for India, if one goes by its record. India has walked the extra mile to befriend neighbours, yet today it lives in the world’s most-troubled neighbourhood.

India’s generosity on land issues has been well documented, including its surrender of Britishinherited extraterritorial rights in Tibet in 1954, the giving back of strategic Haji Pir to Pakistan after the 1965 war, and the similar return of territorial gains and 93,000 prisoners after 1971 – all without securing any tangible reciprocity. Despite that record, there are still calls within India today for it to unilaterally cede control over the Siachen Glacier.

Even though India is reeling under a growing water crisis – with hospitals in its capital postponing surgeries because of lack of water and much of the country parched and thirsty – few seem to know that India’s generosity has extended not just to land but also to river waters.

The world’s most generous water-sharing pact is the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, under which India agreed to set aside 80.52% of the waters of the sixriver Indus system for Pakistan, keeping for itself just the remaining 19.48% share. Both in terms of the sharing ratio as well as the total quantum of waters reserved for a downstream state, this treaty’s munificence is unsurpassed in scale in the annals of international water treaties. Indeed, the volume of water earmarked for Pakistan is more than 90 times greater than the 1.85 billion cubic metres the US is required to release for Mexico under the 1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty.

The unparalleled water generosity has only invited trouble for India. Within five years of the Indus treaty, Pakistan launched its second war against India to grab the rest of Kashmir when India had still not recovered from its humiliating rout in 1962 at the hands of the Chinese.

Today, Pakistan expects eternal Indian munificence on water even as its military establishment (with blood of innocent Indians on its hands) continues to export terror. Yet, with all the water flowing downstream under the treaty, the same question must haunt the Pakistani generals as it did Lady Macbeth in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?” Meanwhile, India’s own Indus basin, according to the 2030 Water Resources Group, confronts a massive 52% deficit between water supply and demand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 04 Jul 2012 20:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6196
Nihat wrote:
Misplaced Water Diplomacy

Quote:
Today, Pakistan expects eternal Indian munificence on water even as its military establishment (with blood of innocent Indians on its hands) continues to export terror. Yet, with all the water flowing downstream under the treaty, the same question must haunt the Pakistani generals as it did Lady Macbeth in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?” Meanwhile, India’s own Indus basin, according to the 2030 Water Resources Group, confronts a massive 52% deficit between water supply and demand.


Bangladesh too is expecting exactly the same and with similar blood on the hands as well.

MMS and gang tried to do this surreptitiously by trying to ride roughshod over the govt of west Bengal.

The WKK chapter is soon to be opened on the other border.

Good of mamta to nip it in the bud and publicly and internationally snub MMS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 11 Jul 2012 00:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14805
Location: Deepest & Highest
Poqawn
Verdict on Kishanganga project expected this month

Quote:
ISLAMABABAD: Pakistani delegation left for Hague on Tuesday for the hearing on controversial Kishanganga hydropower project on Jhelum River. The International Court of Arbitration (ICA) is expected to announce its verdict till the next month.
The delegation, headed by Adviser to the PM on agriculture and water resources Kamal Majeedullah, will consult its legal team in London before going for the hearing in Hague.The project’s hearing will take place from July 20 to July 30 in Hague.
India, a party to the project, will present its stance on the project in the light of Indus basin treaty.Pakistan had earlier claimed that Kishanganga project was a clear violation of the treaty signed by the two countries in 1960.Pakistan was of the view that, if the the dam was built then it would reduce water flow in the Neelum River and ultimately reduce electricity production of the count
ry.Earlier, the ICA had barred India from any permanent works on the controversial project on River Neelum at Gurez in occupied Kashmir in response to Pakistan’s appeal for ‘interim measures’ against the dam which may inhibit the restoration of the river flow to its natural channel.ICA’s delegation had twice visited Neelum-Jhelum project, Neelum Valley and Kishanganga project.Pakistan had submitted all the evidences and responses to the ICA.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 18 Jul 2012 07:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 5911
Daily Times reports that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan presented India a “No Objection Certificate” regards construction of the Nimoo Bazgo project during recent secretary-level talks:

Pakistan decides not to move ICA against Nimo Bazgo project


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 18 Jul 2012 08:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14658
Location: Chennai
It is one of the reasons the earlier PIC had to get a Canadian Visa.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2061 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 ... 52  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anandsgh, Arun Menon, Lisa, Merril, Prasan, Supratik and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group