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 »

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/pakistanis-want-peace-with-india-1.786131

Kuldip Nayar

We, a 12-member delegation who went to Pakistan to promote people-to-people contact, saw the same scenes of fear-stricken people in Karachi, Hyderabad, Islamabad and Lahore. At some places there were bunkers on the roadside. Still, nowhere did we see panic. Nor was there any effect on the turnout at the series of events arranged for us. People seem to have learnt to live with terrorism.

A rash observer will blame Pakistan for the plight in which it has landed itself. To some extent, it is true. But the real responsibility lies on the shoulders of America. After winning the cold war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the US dropped Pakistan like a hot potato.


As regards water, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has offered the integrated development of the Indus basin if Pakistan does not favour the three-river allotment under the Indus Water Treaty.
http://www.the news.c om.p k/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=40982&Cat=6&dt=4/11/2011
Brisoce: The two countries using water as a common resource should cooperate and open up a range of possibilities through “optimum development of the rivers” by “mutual agreement to the fullest possible extent.”
The water issues can be judiciously addressed by sharing the water as a “collective resource” for our future generations. Any major upstream alteration in a river system, should be negotiated, not imposed as in case of Indian water overtures on river Jhelum.
Was there any discussion on this aspect (pakis asking for joint control forgetting that they get lion's share of water depriving India of its legitimate share and ignoring requirement of Water in J&K , that too when India is an Uper riparian state). MMS wants to renegotiate IWT?? Are we yielding ground on this without negotiating a fresh treaty? Why Parliament was not informed and debated on this issue?

Anyway I don't think this can be given in such an simplistic manner.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

chaanakya wrote:http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/pakistanis-want-peace-with-india-1.786131
Kuldip Nayar
As regards water, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has offered the integrated development of the Indus basin if Pakistan does not favour the three-river allotment under the Indus Water Treaty.

Was there any discussion on this aspect (pakis asking for joint control forgetting that they get lion's share of water depriving India of its legitimate share and ignoring requirement of Water in J&K , that too when India is an Uper riparian state). MMS wants to renegotiate IWT?? Are we yielding ground on this without negotiating a fresh treaty? Why Parliament was not informed and debated on this issue?

Anyway I don't think this can be given in such an simplistic manner.
This is the first time I am hearing of this offer by Mr. Man Mohan Singh. When and where did he make that offer ? Why was it not published by any Indian (or even Pakistni) newspaper ? This is the most dangerous move, if there is one. I am afraid that it would be difficult to attribute even the benefit of doubt to Mr. Singh's intentions anymore, if this were true. Does he have the mandate to gift away Indian natural resources to our most inimical country that is threatening us every day with terror and nuclear attack ?

The joint development of the Indus basin was suggested by the World Bank during the initial stages of IWT negotiation but was opposed by both the countries as impracticable given the situation, the enmity etc. It was quickly given up. Today, that enmity has grown manifold since those days. Therefore, such an integrated development of the Indus basin is unthinkable. These were the difficulties of breaking away from Bharat that Pakistan should have thought about before coining the Two Nation Theory; Pakistani leaders like Jinnah probably felt that they could live with such divisions or grab waters also in the same surreptitious manner that they grabbed lands for Pakistan. They have got four times the waters that India got and yet they find it difficult to manage and want to grab all of it. And, we are hearing of Indian acquiescence to it in the form of 'integrated development' ?
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

^^ I fact I am also shocked to see such statement made by Kuldip Nayar as reported in GulfNews
By Kuldip Nayar, Special to Gulf NewsPublished: 00:00 April 2, 2011
As far as I know , this item has not been reported anywhere in Indian and Paki news papers.
If it is done, it would open pandora's box for Indian Subcontinent.

Kerry in his report revived it and Briscoe is a well known proponent of this idea ( both quoted in my post) and Govt position till date is that we have followed IWT in letter and spirit.

But why Kuldip Nayar would attribute something to MMS if it was not offered?
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

chaanakya wrote:But why Kuldip Nayar would attribute something to MMS if it was not offered?
Kuldip nayyar is a bleeding heart WKK who rightly earns the ridicule for that. But, he is not a liar and that is why this splendid offer is getting to my musharraf.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by sum »

^^ Could it be that MMS just shot off whatever came to his mind to the Pakis in some meeting without checking with babus etc which the Pakis dutifully reported to the great WKK, Nayyar ( of course, the proposal would have just been a non-starter from the word go beyond MMS words)?

This is the only "Chankian" explanation for this. Knowing MMS, his Pak high and various examples like SeS etc, wouldn't be surprised if MMS unilaterally shot off whatever came to his mind...
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

One question I have to ask.

Who advises MMS on these wide varieties of matters? These matters as wide as Indus water treaty, relations with Pakistan, relations with China and a zillion other things that GoI deals with. It is the way babus put up things with the PM and the minister concerned.

We need to know more about what is on offer, why this offer came about in the first place.

Knowing MMS, he seems to want to take pakistan along - give them a jadu ki jhappi, give them more goodliness and kindness than they deserve, in the hope (more like a single minded belief) that this will solve all the problems. There seems to be little hard nosed looking at reality and then going ahead.

I get the feeling that MMS was getting bothered that the Pakistanis are getting agitated with water woes, and are blaming the Indus water treaty. It seems MMS doesn't like confrontation, and so he wants to do something about it.

Pakistan's water woes are clearly attributable to them not managing their water well, and not redistributing that water well. They have more water in the Indus river than they'll ever use. They have mismanaged it in the most reckless way possible. They were busy diverting funds from development into defence since day 1 of their formation. That is their fault. All this defence build up against India, ignoring education, health and development was someday going to come back to bite them big time.

It is now starting to bite them really really big time.

I have serious issue with India wanting to subsidize the pakistanis because they are now facing the music.

I get the feeling that India too feels restrained by the Indus Water Treaty. India is actually in a position to do a lot of good with that water, but is weighed down by the constraints that the treaty imposes.
This sounds like a gambit aimed at giving pakistanis some development in return for a treaty that places less restriction on India's use of the Indus basin water. If this is what it is, this has to be played very carefully, 400% chances of it backfiring.

We need to know more. Will watch this closely.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by RajeshA »

The Prime Minister is a skilled cowboy and shoots from the hip! He in fact faxes invitations to others personally. He does not need anybody else. Moreover he knows best!
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

Why is the babucracy not up in arms?

What happened at SES, and the Faxing of the Mohali invitation are clear instances where the Babucracy revolted and let the country know what really went on.

MMS being a former babu is using his knowledge to keep the babus in check. The system in Nai Dilli has checks and balances where neither the netas nor the babus run off with the power that they wield. But if MMS is overruling things based on his beliefs, instead of dispassionate, hard nosed thinking, and then checking dissent on top of it. This'll mean that the system will crash.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

MMS is like Nehru in managing foreign policy. He knows best.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

Which is why the UPA has a person like SM Krishna heading that ministry - obviously.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

From a Sindhi or a Baloch farmer's point of view, if they are not getting enough water then it is 100% because their upper riprarian - Punjab is wasting / misusing that water.
Because at the point where the Indus rivers cross over into POK and then into Pakistan, India releases more than enough water than Pakistan will ever need.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7819
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Anujan »

Gagan wrote:I get the feeling that MMS was getting bothered that the Pakistanis are getting agitated with water woes, and are blaming the Indus water treaty. It seems MMS doesn't like confrontation, and so he wants to do something about it.
This theory has some credence. Groper said in (the usual Paki fashion) "You talk about Mumbai?! What about your interference in Blochistan hain?" and MMS (is reputed to have) replied "Oh if there is info on our intel agencies in Balochistan, I will inquire about it"

Groper goes back and tom toms it as "Great victory!! India to stop interfering in Blochistan" (well that didnt do much damage apart from PR because the Pakis realized later to their horror that it was a self goal, asking India to talk to the Pakis about Blochistan).

Now Groper probably went to MMS and said "You want to talk about 26/11? What about India stealing water hain?" MMS probably replied "Well we can evolve new co-operation mechanism to share water", but this time it is different, because Pakis tom-tomming it is *not* a self goal.
menon s
BRFite
Posts: 721
Joined: 01 May 2010 09:51
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by menon s »

Response to the ICID challenge
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... hallenge/1
Let a commission be formed to counter India's ICID which has become a Frankenstein for weaker nations. The position of the World Bank (IBRD) and others on Diamer Basha Dam project is a direct result of Indian Mechanisation's through ICID.
ICID is an NGO, it stands for International commission on Irrigation and Drainage, having its offices in New Delhi! I really do not understand why? Pakistan is so afraid of this body?
India has launched in 2006 the world's largest single irrigation project estimated to cost over USD 212bn.
:rotfl:

i think he genuinely meant 212 Bn PKR, perhaps?
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

menon s wrote:Response to the ICID challenge
The position of the World Bank (IBRD) and others on Diamer Basha Dam project is a direct result of Indian Mechanisation's through ICID.
Did he mean machination ? :)
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

There seems to be a new badmashi emerging from Pakistan wrt the water distribution.

On the one hand they are questioning the validity of the IWT by allowing hafiz-e-piggy type people to complain loudly.

They are selectively picking up a report that makes a point that the water distribution was one sided and that the three western rivers given to India was wrong.
They know that India hasn't built the capacity to harness the waters in the western rivers, And they laying claim to the waters of the eastern rivers by undermining the IWT itself will unsettle India.

One bit of leverage they are trying to create here.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

alks on water disputes from 11th

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and India will start secretary-level talks on water disputes, particularly the Wullar barrage project, here on Wednesday. Pakistan has firmed up its case to challenge another project being built by India on the Indus in violation of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.

Sources said the Indian delegation, headed by secretary water resources Dhruv Vijai Singh, would be in Islamabad from May 11 to 14 to discuss Pakistan`s objection to diversion of Jhelum river into the Wullar barrage and construction of a 439-foot long and 12-metre wide navigational lock at the barrage.

The Pakistani delegation, to be headed by water and power secretary Javed Iqbal, is expected to inform the Indian team about its decision to take up with a neutral expert the building of 45MW Nimoo-Bazgo hydroelectric plant on the main Indus river.

Ironically, India is already drawing carbon credits from the United Nations on the Nimoo-Bazgo project without carrying out a cross-boundary environmental impact assessment, because it is estimated to cause massive environmental degradation on the Pakistani side.

The two countries have so far held 13 rounds of secretary-level talks, including four under the composite dialogue, on the issue lying unresolved for more than 26 years. Between 1987 and 1998, the two sides held nine rounds of talks but made no progress, except agreeing to discuss legal and technical aspects.

India started constructing the Wullar barrage in 1985 but had to suspend work in 1987 after objections by Pakistan which moved to seek international court of arbitration or the neutral expert.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

AoA,
What is MMS upto?

That development of the Indus basin for Pakistan plan he has - does it include indian companies like L&T etc to build hydroelectric projects in Pakistan?

I say pakistan and not POK.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

X Posted.

A productive use of Indian aid. Assisting our Afghan friends in harnessing the waters of the Kabul River ought to be a priority item for India’s developmental aid to Afghanistan. Let the Islamic Republic of Pakistan fulminate:

India to help Afghanistan build 12 dams on Kabul River
saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4231
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by saip »

About the 12 dams, is it the reason the PM has pledged an additional $500 mil? If this is not chanikyan, I dont what is.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

India & Pakistan agree on amicable resolution of Tulbul Navigation Project
Pakistan and India on Friday emphasised the need for an early and amicable resolution of the issue of Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project within the ambit of the Indus Water Treaty.

This was underscored in a joint statement issued at the culmination of a two-day meeting held under the resumed dialogue process between Pakistan and India, to discuss the Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project.

The Pakistan side was led by Ministry of Water and Power Secretary Javed Iqbal while the Indian delegation was headed by Ministry of Water Resources Secretary Dhruv Vijai Singh.

“The two sides reiterated their commitment to bilateral engagement in a spirit of constructive cooperation. They discussed their respective positions on the issue while reaffirming the commitment to the Indus Water Treaty 1960,” said the joint statement issued by the Foreign Office.

It added, “In order to address the concerns of the two countries, it was agreed that the Indian side shall forward comprehensive technical data to Pakistan within one month. The Pakistan side shall examine the said data and furnish its views to the Indian side by September 15,” it added.

The two sides agreed to take the matter forward in the light of the outcome of such technical consultations and in accordance with the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

saip wrote:About the 12 dams, is it the reason the PM has pledged an additional $500 mil? If this is not chanikyan, I dont what is.
saip, it is not the intention of the GoI that Pakistan should be deprived of waters and it should become a desert. India is certainly not working on a multi-pronged strategy of using whatever is at its disposal to pile up pressure on Pakistan. It is my belief that India has not yet made a determination that Pakistan is hopeless and needs to be tackled down. Even if such a determination were o be made, I doubt if we would use water as a tool to settle scores with Pakistan. The slew of disputes we have had with Pakistan on the waters of the Indus system of rivers is caused by Pakistan itself, not India. Similarly, Pakistan has been propagating a myth since 1947 of India encircling their country in a pincer-move with Afghanistan. Again, a total falsehood fabricated however for its own purposes. I am therefore disinclined to believe that India would be using water & Afghanistan together to harm Pakistan as The News report claims when India has absolutely no intention or history of using either one of them alone. This is again like the 100 odd Indian consulates of India all over Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Tulbul Project Issue: India-Pak Move forward - Anita Joshua in The Hindu
The Dawn reported that India had offered to change the design of the project in a way that one of the bays would remain an un-gated structure to ensure a constant flow of water and thereby address Pakistan's concern of manipulation.

Both sides also agreed to take the matter forward in the light of the outcome of these technical consultations and in accordance with the provisions of the IWT. ``Primarily, the joint statement articulates our intent to work out a win-win solution that is best for the people of both countries,'' Indian Water Resources Secretary Dhruv Vijai Singh said at the conclusion of the talks.

Though the Pakistani media had reported that the Indian delegation had walked out of the talks on the first day, both sides maintained this was far from true and flagged the joint statement as evidence of the effort to move forward on an issue that is celebrating its silver jubilee this year. It was in 1986 that this issue was prised open by India's plans to make the Tulbul Navigation Project in keeping with the wishes of the Kashmiri people for year-round flow of water in the Wullar Lake for commercial and tourism purposes which in turn would generate employment.

Pakistan's contention has been that the IWT prohibits any water storage facility on the Jhelum river. The Indian counter has been that this project is not a storage facility for either drinking water or irrigation but fits into the IWT provision of having regulating structures on water flows for non-consumptive use.

Also, India maintains that the project is beneficial for Pakistan as it checks the flow of water during the monsoons and prevents flooding while becoming an assured source of water during the lean season. Officials privy to the negotiations said Pakistan wanted an assurance from India that the navigation project will not be used to block water flow in early March when supply is crucial for agriculture. India is understood to have expressed a willingness to give such a guarantee.

Given that India is keen to resolve this issue and meet a long-pending demand of the Kashmiri people and fight back the charge of just paying lip service to their interests, arbitration is the other option for India if an agreement does not come through. Pakistan has already exercised the arbitration option to resolve differences over the Kishanganga Project.
On the face of it, this looks like a good development.
pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4163
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by pgbhat »

x-posting from PoK thread.

Stumbled upon this in the PoK news digest on IDSA.
A very significant development captured in one of the reports in this issue, especially from the point of India, is US having committed to fund the controversial Diamer Bhasha dam. The construction of the said dam has ever since been embroiled in problems owing several pertinent concerning the local population- problems of inundation of agricultural land, submergence of archaeological sites and the construction site being situated in a high risk seismic zone. In July 2010, the World Bank refused to fund the dam citing the territory is claimed by India. A little later, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) declined to provide the finances in 2011.
SOURCE
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

^^^ The ADB seems to have changed its mind less than a week back:

Energy boost: ADB offers $4.5b for Diamer-Bhasha dam

By Shahbaz Rana Published: May 26, 2011

ISLAMABAD:

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) on Wednesday formally conveyed to Pakistan that the bank will give $4.5 billion for the construction of Diamer-Bhasha Dam to address the issue of water storage capacity and boost hydropower generation capacity.

The formal commitment was given by ADB’s Director General Central West Asian Department Juan Miranda at the conclusion of a two-day visit to Pakistan………………

The Express Tribune
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

^^^
WRT the ADB, it has only been reported on TSP papers. I wouldn't believe a word they say in support of their wet dreams. They have constantly lied and spun words to suit themselves. Sometime back they claimed that China would fund $10 Billion after some low level functionary said that China has 20,000 laborers it can divert to the project after Three Gorges. If you don't see a connection between what China said and what was claimed, the Chinese too were mystified and had to put down the rabid dog again..
SSridhar wrote:The Dawn reported that India had offered to change the design of the project in a way that one of the bays would remain an un-gated structure to ensure a constant flow of water and thereby address Pakistan's concern of manipulation.
Hmmm. This is not good. The entire purpose of this barrage is to tackle the silt problem in Wullur lake. Without a Gate, there will be no way India can control the water level and control silt. We have already sacrificed one project to TSP insanity, should have learned our lesson by now...
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12270
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

Even if the news is correct, how will the Pakis re pay the 4.5 billion from ADB. Will they use the IMF / WB loans to repay this debt.
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Airavat »

Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

http://pamirtimes.net/2011/06/21/draini ... nder-soon/

Draining water: Decision on Attabad Lake tender soon
ISLAMABAD: A high level committee will visit Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) to assess the situation at Attabad Lake and decide whether it contracts for draining out the accumulate water and rebuilding the damaged road would go to local or foreign firms.

This was decided during a meeting between President Asif Zardari and army chief General Ashfaq Pervaz Kayani last week at the President House. The two discussed the 24km of Karakoram Highway which was submerged in the Attabad disaster.

The blockade has not only caused serious problems for locals, but also had badly disturbed trade between Pakistan and China for the last one and a half years.

After assessing the situation, the committee, which is also headed by General Kayani, will decide whether to award the tender to drain out water to Frontier Work Organization (FWO) or a foreign firm, particularly Chinese firms as the Chinese government has already expressed its willingness to execute the project.

Locals have already demanded that the federal government award the tender to a foreign firm as FWO has failed to excavate spillways to drain out water as it could not construct even a 10-foot long spillway during the last one and half year.

Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly Speaker Wazir Baig, who is also the elected member from the same constituency, recently wrote a letter to the prime minister, requesting him to immediately devise a water drainage plan, preferably giving the tender to a foreign firm. He said the Chinese government is interested in working on the lake and could complete the job in quickly as it has required equipment and capacity to do so.

The Executive Committee of the National Economic Council recently approved Rs24 billion for draining the artificial lake and rebuilding the damaged road. The final approval of funds will be given by the Central Working Party in its next sitting. The funds will be used for roadwork including a 6km tunnel and a 100 foot deep spillway to release water.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

I would strongly suggest to Afghanistan that they not execute any treaty with TSP. Esp. an opened ended, unfair, one sided one like the Indus treaty.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/193655/mini ... d-dispute/

Ministry suggests water treaty with Kabul to avoid dispute
ISLAMABAD:

The Ministry of Water and Power has proposed to the government to ink a water treaty with Afghanistan to enjoy water rights over Kabul River and avoid any dispute between the two countries.

After India which is building dams on Chenab and Jhelum Rivers, posing a threat to Pakistan’s irrigation system, Afghanistan has emerged as another country which is constructing 13 dams on Kabul River with a water storage capacity of 4.7 million acre feet (MAF). Indian experts are said to be assisting Afghanistan in building these dams.

Pakistan is seeking intervention of the United States and the World Bank into the matter and desires to reach an accord on the pattern of Indus Waters Treaty signed with India or at least put in place a mechanism of information-sharing on building of dams on Kabul River to avoid any dispute on water issues.

Pakistan also wants assurances from Afghanistan that it will not build such storages which will reduce water supply for the irrigation system.

“We had suggested to the government to take up the dam issue with Afghan President Hamid Karzai during his visit to Pakistan on June 10,” a source quoted the water ministry as saying.

Sources told The Express Tribune the ministry sought information about the progress on building of dams by Afghanistan, but the Foreign Office did not disclose the response, if any, by the Afghan president. Pakistan receives 16 to 17 per cent of water supply from Kabul River. According to data released by the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda), 38,500 cusecs were received from Kabul River at Nowshera on June 21.
Chitral River contributes water to Kabul River and the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) has proposed diversion of water from Chitral River to Panjkora River to prevent water from entering Kabul River.

This way, according to Irsa, a dam could be built to store five to seven million acre feet of water. But the water and power ministry did not endorse the proposal, sources said.
Meanwhile...

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Kisha ... ty/806053/
A team of Court of Arbitration along with experts from India and Pakistan on Sunday visited the storage facility for the 330-MW Kishanganga hydropower in Bandipora district of J&K to look into objections raised by Islamabad.

The 29-member group surveyed the storage facility in Bandipora, sources said. The group includes the 10-member Indian team led by Indus Water Commissioner G Ranganathan. His Pakistani counterpart, Sheraz Jamil Memon, is heading a nine-member delegation.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Ravi River water flow: Indian and Pakistani engineers battle it out
Every year the banks of river Ravi becomes the battlefield for the engineers of both India and Pakistan during rainy the season. Indian engineers are at war of wits with their Pakistani counterparts in not only preventing the erosion of strategically important land on banks of Ravi but also in neutralising Pakistan's offensive to deflect river course to India.

Sources informed TOI on Thursday that Pakistan has constructed various bundhs along the river in Amritsar and Gurdaspur sectors to deflect the river course. They have also constructed defense structures including bunkers by raising high bundh on Ichhogil canal.

Due to construction of these bundhs, a large part of land from Ranian and Kakkar villages of Indian side are washed away during the rainy season. During this season Pakistan releases water, nearly one lakh cusec, from its villages of Mandhal and Marala and it increases the water level in Indian villages up to 3 lakh cusec. This high flow of water submerges villages around Ranian and Kakkar.

Sources, seeking anonymity, informed that the satellite images also showed that Pakistan had constructed a cross bundh on Phulku nallaha, situated opposite Indian villages of Cheema and Wadali thus blocking nallaha and diverting its flow to Indian side, which washes away a large part of border fence during flash floods. The water also submerges the agricultural land of Dariya Mansoor, Kot Razda.

Jallalia bundh constructed by Pakistan along Ujha and Jalliala further complicates the problem, leading to the submergence of Indian villages - Chebe, Kajle, Toor, Paharpur, Makhanpur etc in Gurdaspur district. The bundh is reported to be around four kilometer in length and 10 to 15 feet in height. Similarly another bundh is constructed by Pakistan opposite Indian village Rossae on the right side of river Ravi. The bundh poses grave danger to villages of Dera Baba Nanak, Sadanwali, Kalanaur, Momaanpur etc, said sources.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

Excerpt from an article in The News by a Pakistani by name of Asif H Kazi who claims to be “honorary vice-president of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)”:
Misusing the Indus treaty

Asif H Kazi
Friday, July 01, 2011

Prof John Briscoe of Harvard University has identified India’s various unfair dealings with Pakistan in water-sharing. He has said that India must not interpret the treaty with the sole objective of punishing Pakistan.

There is growing feeling in Pakistan that while India is increasingly building dams on its western rivers, it is simultaneously engaged in activities aimed at stopping Pakistan, the lower riparian, from building storage dams on Pakistani rivers. In the case of its upper riparian neighbour, Nepal, India has even deployed heavy artillery to partially destroy dams which were being constructed by the Nepalese. India’s water strategy thus boils down to construction of more and more dams on cross-boundary rivers inside its own territory while obstructing dams in lower-riparian neighbours and destroying those in upper-riparian Nepal.

Pakistan’s farmlands have been deprived of the uses of the waters of three eastern rivers, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. The flows of these rivers were allocated to India under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. Authorities on the subject accept that when rivers and canals in Pakistan’s demarcated area were classified as Pakistan’s assets under the Partition Act, 1947, it meant only one thing: that these rivers and canals were to continue to receive water in the same way as before. Under the treaty, Pakistan was to enjoy the unrestricted use of the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab. However, exceptions were inserted as annexures which allowed India to develop and use certain specified quantities of water of the three western rivers as well.

Annexure E established Indian storage limits on the western rivers, which add up to 3.6 MAF (million acre feet). If Indian dams under rapid construction since then were to impound this storage water during high flood periods, as specifically defined in the treaty, Pakistan could live with the situation. However, India deliberately followed a pattern of filling water behind Baglihar Dam constructed on the Chenab River by impounding flows in the low-flow month of September, a clear breach of the treaty which prescribes the filling period as being from June 21 to Aug 31.

Ironically, the 3.6 MAF of Indian storage share exceeds the sum total of the entire flow of the three remaining rivers entering Pakistan during the low-flow months of December, January and February. Thus the 3.6 MAF of storage creation, combined with its operational control over impounding and releases by India could mean completely drying up Pakistan’s three rivers for as long as three months. The consequences of this will be disastrous.

Obviously, the foregoing was not the intent of the Indus Waters Treaty. And it is precisely for this reason that Pakistan has been insisting that India adopt well-known dam design features, especially for the outlets, which can easily ensure that the reservoir operators would not be able to manipulate flows of the western rivers at their own sweet will. India is opposing this using as an excuse the need for the prolongation of the reservoirs’ lifespan through sediment flushing. …………………………

The News
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

Response of the First Secretary of our High Commission in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the article by Asif H Kazi:
Indus Waters Treaty

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Kindly refer to the article titled ‘Misusing the Indus Treaty’ by Asif H Kazi published in The News on July 1, 2011. Mr Kazi’s contention that the Baglihar Dam was filled in the low-flow month of September in violation of the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty is incorrect. Paragraph 18 of Annexure E of the Indus Waters Treaty provides for the initial filling to be carried out “at such times and in accordance with such rules as may be agreed upon between the Commissioners” and, “in case the Commissioners are unable to reach agreement, India may carry out the filling, if the site is on the Chenab between June 21 and August 31.” The initial filling of the Baglihar Dam was carried out by India as per the provisions of the Treaty and before August 31, the procedure for which was explained during the site visit of Pakistan’s commissioner for Indus Waters in July 2008. Further, apropos the initial filling, the minister for water & power of Pakistan stated in the National Assembly of Pakistan on September 30, 2010, in response to a question regarding “the total quantum of Million Acre Feet (MAF) of run-of-river water of Pakistani rivers stopped by India” that, “During the period from August 18 to August 25, 2008, less inflows were observed at the Marala Headworks on the Chenab River in Pakistan. According to an estimate, about 0.2 MAF of water was stored during these eight days for the initial filling of dead storage of Baglihar Plant. No other violation of stopping of waters was observed at present.” It is evident that the difference between the two sides related to only a small quantity of water at the time of the initial filling of the Baglihar Plant by India in August 2008 and this matter was resolved during the meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission in June 2010.

Pakistan chose to refer the question of the technical specifications of the Baglihar Dam to the Neutral Expert whose decision was accepted by both India and Pakistan. As the Kishenganga hydroelectric project has similarly been taken to the International Court of Arbitration by Pakistan, it would be advisable to await the Court’s decision than to prejudge matters. With regards to the Tulbul Navigation Project/Wullar Barrage, we would like to update that, as agreed during the talks held on this subject in Islamabad on 12-14 May, 2011, India has forwarded the technical data to Pakistan and Pakistan is to furnish its views to the Indian side by September 15, 2011. Both sides also agreed at the talks to take the matter forward in the light of the outcome of such technical consultations and in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty.

Mr Kazi’s allegation that India used heavy artillery to partially destroy dams in Nepal as well as his assertion that India is trying to take control of the three western rivers are not true. The Indus Waters Treaty was not a unilateral imposition by any one side but an exhaustive and thorough document concluded after eight years of painstaking negotiations. India has always abided by the provisions of the Treaty and will continue to do so.

Sidharth Zutshi

First Secretary
High Commission of India
Islamabad

The News
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Vipul »

Pakistanis fret on outcome of Kishanganga project arbitration.

Observers in Pakistan say that India may have stolen a decisive march in the battle for water ''priority rights'' between the two - frequently warring -neighbours. Pakistan, they feel, may have, for all practical purposes, already lost the case against India on the controversial 330mw Kishanganga hydropower project even before formal commencement of legal proceedings in the international Court of Arbitration (CoA).

While India initiated the Kishanganga hydropower project to generate 330mw of electricity Pakistan initiated the Neelam-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project, which lies downstream, to produce 969mw of electricity.

The simple conundrum to be resolved by the CoA is to judge which country is ahead on its respective project. Under the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 between India and Pakistan, the country which finishes its project first on the Neelam would get ''priority rights'' to the use of the river's waters.

The Kishanganga River assumes the name of Neelam River when it enters the Pakistan-occupied- Kashmir (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) region and further downstream becomes the Jhelum upon entering Pakistan.

India proposed to build the barrage in 1984 on River Kishanganga, at the mouth of Wullar Lake, India's largest fresh water lake, near Sopore town in Kashmir Valley. The proposed site for dam is near Kanzalwan – a town from where the river enters Azad Kashmir.

The Indian plans include storing water and then tunnelling it to the Wuller Lake, where it is constructing a 330mw powerhouse.

Pakistan is constructing its Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower project near Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistani-occupied-Kashmir (PoK). With the help of a tunnel, waters of the Neelam River will be diverted from Nauseri, about 41km east of Muzzafrabad and after passing through power generating turbines at Chatter Kalas, 22 km south of Muzaffarabad, they will be released in the Jhelum River, about 4 km south of Chatter Kalas.

The project is designed to produce 969mw of electricity on an annual basis.

Pakistan has opposed construction of the Kishanganga hydropower project, claiming diversion of waters of Neelum is not allowed under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.

It claims it will face a 27 per cent water deficit, when its own project is completed in 2016. The reduced water flow in the Neelum would also ensure that the required results of the proposed Neelum-Jehlum hydropower project would not be attained.

Members of the international Court of Arbitration (CoA) constituted to resolve the dispute had earlier visited Pakistan, and subsequently India in the month of June, to assess the extent of the work completed on the respective Neelum-Jehlum Hydropower and Kishenganga projects.

It is the CoA's business to assess which country is likely to complete the project first, as water priority rights of the Neelum River will then be accorded to that nation under provisions of the Indus Water Treaty. Should the CoA assess that the N-J project lags behind the Kishenganga project, Pakistan will not only lose water priority rights but also the legal battle with India.

On the other hand, if the CoA finds that the Indian project is far behind the N-J project in terms of construction work, India will lose the battle and water priority rights.

The Court of Arbitration is chaired by Stephen M Schwebel of United States, who is a former president of the International Court of Justice. In addition to the expert briefings and features observed during the site visit, the court will also consider the written and oral pleadings submitted by Pakistan and India after which it will issue the award.

Pakistan deposited its memorandum with the CoA at the end of May 2011 and under rules India gets six months to submit a reply.

Pakistan moved the CoA in Hague to stop India from constructing the Kishenganga dam, arguing that the construction negated the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 by diverting waters.

The Indian Kishenganga project is likely to be completed by 2014 while the Pakistani Neelum-Jhelum project is scheduled for completion by 2016.Observers in Pakistan now say that by the time the CoA starts hearing the case India will very likely have completed 90 per cent of the project.

An unidentified monthly report on the Kishanganga project, quoted by these observers, suggests that India may have already completed 40 per cent construction work on the project. Because of this there is a certain amount of anger in Pakistan as the country's water and power ministry had earlier informed the Senate Committee on Water that India had only completed 23.5 per cent work on the project.

The monthly report, quoted by Pakistani observers, reveals that 29 per cent work on the Spillway left bank, 36 per cent on the Head Race Tunnel and 48 per cent on the Surge Shaft has been completed.

Engineering firms from three countries - the UK, Italy and Germany - are subcontractors on the project, which these observers say provides India with a certain amount of political clout.

They point out that India has already reduced the timeframe to complete the Kishenganga project by 2014, even as Pakistan tries to complete the Neelum-Jhelum project by 2016.

Observers point out that while India is using the advanced Tunnel Boring Machine to complete its project Pakistan will acquire the technology only in 2012.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

The News frets about India’s progress in the construction of the Kishganga project while the Islamic Republic of Pakistan lags in the construction of the Neelum-Jhelum project:
Pakistan virtually loses out on Indian dam

Khalid Mustafa
Thursday, July 07, 2011 ……………………………………

“The country that completes the project first will have water priority rights of the Neelum River. If the Court of Arbitration assesses that the N-J project lags behind the Kishenganga project, Pakistan will not only lose water priority rights but also the legal battle with India. On the other hand, if the CoA finds that the Indian project is far behind the N-J project in terms of construction work, India will lose the battle and water priority rights.” ……………………………

The Kishenganga project is likely to be completed by 2014 whereas the Neelum-Jhelum project is to be completed by 2016. It is feared that by the time the CoA starts hearing the case, India will already have completed 90 percent of the project, top sources confided to The News………………………

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Vipul wrote:Pakistanis fret on outcome of Kishanganga project arbitration.

Observers in Pakistan say that India may have stolen a decisive march in the battle for water ''priority rights'' between the two - frequently warring -neighbours. Pakistan, they feel, may have, for all practical purposes, already lost the case against India on the controversial 330mw Kishanganga hydropower project even before formal commencement of legal proceedings in the international Court of Arbitration (CoA).

While India initiated the Kishanganga hydropower project to generate 330mw of electricity Pakistan initiated the Neelam-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project, which lies downstream, to produce 969mw of electricity..
I would like to draw attention o ssridhar garu's posts in this regard especially this one

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 37#p364137

There is no priority rights but Pakistan has to establish that it had existing usage either hydro or agri at the time of India began construction of Kishanganga dam. There is none as per my knowledge. Indian teams did visit during planning stage while sharing technical data and PPIC people were not able to point out any such usage which would be adversely affected. Kishanganga dam might reduce the flow 13-21% and they may have to resize their plan for Neelam dam but that's about it, I suppose.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

The Neelum project in it self is no cupcake. A 35 KM tunnel through numerous unmapped faults that has not even been seriously begun. They dream when they say 2016. It would not surprise me if it was abandoned shortly.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

http://www. thenews. com. pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=56382&Cat=11


Kindly refer to the article titled ‘Misusing the Indus Treaty’ by Asif H Kazipublished in The News on July 1, 2011. Mr Kazi’s contention that the Baglihar Dam was filled in the low-flow month of September in violation of the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty is incorrect. Paragraph 18 of Annexure E of the Indus Waters Treaty provides for the initial filling to be carried out “at such times and in accordance with such rules as may be agreed upon between the Commissioners” and, “in case the Commissioners are unable to reach agreement, India may carry out the filling, if the site is on the Chenab between June 21 and August 31.” The initial filling of the Baglihar Dam was carried out by India as per the provisions of the Treaty and before August 31, the procedure for which was explained during the site visit of Pakistan’s commissioner for Indus Waters in July 2008. Further, apropos the initial filling, the minister for water & power of Pakistan stated in the National Assembly of Pakistan on September 30, 2010, in response to a question regarding “the total quantum of Million Acre Feet (MAF) of run-of-river water of Pakistani rivers stopped by India” that, “During the period from August 18 to August 25, 2008, less inflows were observed at the Marala Headworks on the Chenab River in Pakistan. According to an estimate, about 0.2 MAF of water was stored during these eight days for the initial filling of dead storage of Baglihar Plant. No other violation of stopping of waters was observed at present.” It is evident that the difference between the two sides related to only a small quantity of water at the time of the initial filling of the Baglihar Plant by India in August 2008 and this matter was resolved during the meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission in June 2010.

Pakistan chose to refer the question of the technical specifications of the Baglihar Dam to the Neutral Expert whose decision was accepted by both India and Pakistan. As the Kishenganga hydroelectric project has similarly been taken to the International Court of Arbitration by Pakistan, it would be advisable to await the Court’s decision than to prejudge matters. With regards to the Tulbul Navigation Project/Wullar Barrage, we would like to update that, as agreed during the talks held on this subject in Islamabad on 12-14 May, 2011, India has forwarded the technical data to Pakistan and Pakistan is to furnish its views to the Indian side by September 15, 2011. Both sides also agreed at the talks to take the matter forward in the light of the outcome of such technical consultations and in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty.

Mr Kazi’s allegation that India used heavy artillery to partially destroy dams in Nepal as well as his assertion that India is trying to take control of the three western rivers are not true. The Indus Waters Treaty was not a unilateral imposition by any one side but an exhaustive and thorough document concluded after eight years of painstaking negotiations. India has always abided by the provisions of the Treaty and will continue to do so.

Sidharth Zutshi

First Secretary

High Commission of India

Islamabad
saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4231
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by saip »

There is rejoinder to Mr Zutshi letter that appeared in Dawn on July 11 from a so called 'technical expert'
Moreover, the treaty allows India to build run-of-the-river hydropower plants. How could it count a project with 840 feet high Bursar Dam as run-of-the-river hydroelectric plant?
Link

What is he talking about? I thought run-of-the-river meant we cant consume water but can use it for power generation. How else can we generate power without building a dam and does it make a difference if the height is 640' or 840'?
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25099
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

I do not have enough details about Bursar dam.

Is this guy confusing dam heights which are usually mentioned as elevation above mean sea level ? Also, the height does not mean anything, it is the amount of impounded water that matters to Pakistan.

In the case of Baglihar, (2 X 450 MW) India's original 'Pondage' (aka 'Live Storage' or 'Operational Pool' that is used to generate electricity and which represents the impounding of water for seven days as allowed by the IWT), was a mere 37.5 million cubic metres (MCM) (or 30,401 acre-feet) out of the 26 Million Acre Feet of annual flow of the Chenab. {1 Acre-foot = 1233.482 Cubic Metres}. The other projects on the Chenab are Sawalkot, Bursar, Pakul Dul, Dul Hasti. In total, these will not amount to 1% of the Chenab's flow. Pakistan wastes more than 50% of its waters and it is complaining about the 1% that the Indus Water Treaty legally allows India ? Let's remember that the IWT allows India a storage of 1.7 Million Acre Feet (general storage + power generation storage) over and above the run-of-river projects on the Chenab itself.

PS: I edited the above post as I am not sure at this point if Bursar is a storage-cum-HEP or merely a run-of-river HEP. See my next post on storage allowed for India.
Post Reply