Indus Water Treaty

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Apr 2010 23:06

A_Gupta excellent work , what you have done is an example for us to emulate i.e. take internet forum whines to the next level and counter the false information being spread to build a case for TSP .

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Apr 2010 23:14

VikasRaina wrote:I think Pakis get the fact that IWT stands as long as India wishes it to stand and someday once the 1947 generation passes away, the cup of goodwill for Pakistan will also run dry. Thats the whole reason of trying to grab Kashmir from India by hook or crook.

Satvachan,
MMS , may be one PM after him might entertain Paki monkey dance but chances look bleak after 2020. Not only the generational change but also it is gonna coincide with robust economic strength. Of Course , all the dams to damn them will be ready too at ths point.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Apr 2010 23:21

Maybe the gurus here can explain this.

Please see this site:
http://www.southasianfloods.icimod.org/ ... country=PK

You can find daily flow figures for the Chenab at the Marala station until April 17, 2008.
There is no data after that. Why? If there was data, it would be very easy to see if India did indeed reduce the flow in the Chenab below the level set by the IWT when filling up the Baglihar (August 2008).

PS: Bangladesh data is there till Aug 23, 2009
http://www.southasianfloods.icimod.org/ ... country=BA

Nepal till Oct 2, 2007.
Bhutan Aug 12, 2008.
China Oct 15, 2007.

I suppose the various countries dropped out from making their data available at various times.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 17 Apr 2010 01:10

Absence of a water treaty is almost always deleterious to the lower riparian. PRC has no water treaty with India. The games that PRC will play with all our rivers will be orders of magnitude bigger problem. A'stan has refused the water treaty wtih TSP on the Kabul river, which is in A'stan's favor.

If Chacha Nehru was so eager to sign a treaty, and if TSP residents accept a treay quietly, and if it is facilitated by world organizations, it can mean only one thing: it is bad for India, and good for TSP.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Apr 2010 01:49

Pursuing a hunch:

A specific complaint that Pakistan had about Baglihar was that the Marala-Ravi link canal had to be kept closed because of India's blockage of water.

E.g., Dawn Dec 13, 2008
http://www.dawn.com/2008/12/13/nat38.htm
says:

"The Marala-Ravi Link Canal, also originating from the same headworks, has been lying closed for the last four months."

If we take that literally, it means that the Canal was closed August 12th. But as per Pakistan, India filled Baglihar Aug 22 - Sep 5 2008 (or something close to that).

I suspect that perhaps the canal was closed for other reasons - Pakistani incompetence - and India was blamed as an alibi.

I'm seeking evidence that Pakistan did or did not fix the problems expressed here:
Dawn April 2004
http://www.dawn.com/2004/04/08/local16.htm

LAHORE, April 7: The irrigation system of the Punjab, consisting of numerous barrages and canals, is in a precarious condition and prone to failure. It requires immediate and extensive repairs, estimated at Rs150 billion, to save it from further deterioration.
....
The collapse of two major structures in 1996, the outfall structure of Balloki-Sulemanki Link canal and regulator structure of Marala-Ravi Link canal had caused serious concern about the state of the health of the entire irrigation system.

Mr Asrar said that broad categories of damage and deficiencies in the irrigation structures and canals included design-related deficiencies, changes in operating conditions, serious retrogression downstream of barrages, deferred maintenance, aging process and hydraulic, structural and mechanical problems.
.....
An initial investment of Rs1 to Rs1.5 billion per annum should be made for emergency repairs of the irrigation network and Rs2 to Rs3 billion per annum for rehabilitation needs with limited up gradation in a phased manner and intensive investment of Rs4 to Rs6 billion per annum for up gradation and modernization of irrigation network to enable it to face the challenges of the 21st century, the expert said.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Apr 2010 01:59

Asian Development Bank (PDF file)
http://www.adb.org/Documents/PCRs/PAK/pcr-pak-24189.pdf
December 2003
Pages 48-49

The implementation of several externally funded projects has been delayed. The
implementation of NDP, which is cofinanced by Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank
and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), and the Second Flood Protection (Sector)
Project,3 financed by ADB, has been very slow. The ADB loan for Punjab Farmer-Managed
Irrigation Project (PFMIP) was cancelled, while loan negotiations with ADB for the Marala Ravi Link Canal Project financed were unsuccessful.

Does this mean that as of December 2003, Pakistan did not have financing to repair the Marala-Ravi Link Canal? Or was this some other (non-repair) project?

muraliravi · Post by **muraliravi** » 17 Apr 2010 02:06

surinder wrote:Absence of a water treaty is almost always deleterious to the lower riparian. PRC has no water treaty with India. The games that PRC will play with all our rivers will be orders of magnitude bigger problem. A'stan has refused the water treaty wtih TSP on the Kabul river, which is in A'stan's favor.

If Chacha Nehru was so eager to sign a treaty, and if TSP residents accept a treay quietly, and if it is facilitated by world organizations, it can mean only one thing: it is bad for India, and good for TSP.

Surinder Sir,

As of now we cant get rid of it. China and India were never one country, Afghanistan and Pakistan were never one country, but India and Pakistan were and that too long ago. In 1960 we had to do it. It will be while, when Porkistan breaks and then we can say, we have nothing to do with you and cut water. I dont know if ever India has taken such a posture, did we ever try to scrap IWT and go for complete water cut off stance or even re-negotiate the treaty on terms more favorable to us.

Sridhar Sir, can you comment on that.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Apr 2010 02:27

2008 PhD Thesis from Pakistan
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/73S.pdf

Section 1.6.5

Most of the water infrastructure is in poor condition. Pakistan is extremely dependent on its water infrastructure, and it has invested in it massively. Due to a combination of factors such as age, time neglecting attitude of the department towards repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure, much of the infrastructure is crumbling. This is true even for some of the major barrages, which serve millions of hectares and where failure would be catastrophic. There is no modern Asset Management Plan for any of the major infrastructure (World Bank 2005).

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Apr 2010 02:41

Cant India use 1971 excuse that it was joint Pakistan we made treaty with and current Pakjabistan cant inherit it or may be wait till one more province declare Independence and gain freedom from Pakjab and then we can abrogate the treaty and make new one with separate states escept Lahorewalas.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 17 Apr 2010 02:43

SSridhar-ji

A N00bie type of question. I keep hearing that most canals in Pakistan are not lined and lose water to seepage. Is this just negligence/lack of funds or is it because it has defensive value? (I presume that concrete lined canals, even if flooded might be easy for tanks to cross, whereas the bottom of unlined canals may not be able to withstand the ground pressure of a tank)

The reason I ask is that if it is the former, some of the whining by Pakistan can be reduced if we are instrumental in them getting another baksheesh from WB/IMF to go line their canals and improve the infrastructure. Win win for all around -- Politicians get their cut, Pakis get employed, farmers get the water and they stop whining for a few years.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 17 Apr 2010 02:51

Firstly there is no law which says that two nations have to have a water sharing treaty if they were one nation, being one nation has no bearing on treaty.

Secondly, India does not have a water treaty with BD, even though that was part of it. The treaty is a result of India's ever-present generosity which has proven disastrous for us, although we never seem to learn from misplaced sentiment. (What did we get out of the generosity of that valiant Rajput who forgave Ghori multiple times!!!).

Thirdly, 1971 could have been used as a ruse to abrogate IWT, but the fact of the matter is that we do not want to abrogate it. By the law of treaty allows us to give 6 month notice and get out of it. There is no mai kaa laaal who can force us to adhere to this treaty. But that those are options only for the brave, not for the weaklings that we have become. More than that no treaty is forever, not even IWT.

Why would a self-respecting nation aggree to sign any aggreement with someone who is in illegal occupation of your territory is beyond me. (Illegal territory = PoK).

PS: We have never attempted to abrogate IWT, not even during Kargil, or 1965, or 1971 or 26/11. Closest we have come is when BJT threatened to, but did not do it.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Apr 2010 08:30

Wow ! So much in one night !

First of all, A_Gupta has done well to write to the Professor. The Professor who is 'affectionate to Indians and Pakistanis' shot himself in the foot by claiming that "India chose to fill Baglihar exactly at the time when it would impose maximum harm on farmers in downstream Pakistan.". This is pure lifafa. All the four 'approaches' he is suggesting to the so-called 'water issue' prove the lifafaness.

As Anujan said, the IWT specifies stringent time periods when such filling of Dead Storage can take place. The Indian PIC has consistently denied any wrong-doing and he has the data to back up. As usual, the paranoid Pakistanis are waiting for a chance to implicate India and so they falsely claimed that India filled BHP outside of the window. The learned Professor simply swallowed the Pakistani line. Rather than make these statements, the Pakistanis should either openly publish the data and challenge India or better still, take the matter to a Neutral Expert. If the Pakistani fears are that unlimited number of Hydroelectric projects would indirectly allow India to control the timing and quantity of water flow, which the learned Professor Briscoe also agrees with, then they should stop India in its tracks now by challenging the Indian contention that BHP was filled only within the stipulated window. Obviously, Pakistan's aim is to paint India as a villain and so it does not listen to reason. The Professor should know that Pakistan made ridiculous claims of Indian violation of IWT by India in the BHEP case, only to be completely shot down by the Neutral Expert whom the Professor himself claims to have helped to choose. At the time of taking the BHEP issue to the WB and the NE, India had already offered change in the intake level and a reduction of the freeboard. These are the things that the NE also suggested. These were minor in nature compared to the deliberately unsustainable demands made by Pakistan.

The Professor also shot himself in his foot when he wrote, "Since hydropower does not consume water, the only issue is timing. And timing is a very big issue, because agriculture in the Pakistani plains depends not only on how much water comes, but that it comes in critical periods during the planting season.". That's why IWT specifies those time periods. Obviously, the Professor just listened to the Pakistani version and regurgitated it without even realizing that there are special provisions in the IWT to prevent such issues.

Regarding 'live storage', the IWT states clearly that India can store only seven days' worth of river flow at any point of time. In certain instances, like on the Chenab, the water cannot be stored for more than 24 Hours in the Pondage or Live Storage. There are also stipulations on how much water can be released within 24 hours. It cannot be less than 30% or more than 130%. This is to prevent manipulations by India that will be damaging to Pakistan. Obviously, India has to operate within very stringent limits.

One wonders if there is any such water treaty anywhere else that places so many conditions on the upper riparian and that too after the upper riparian has very generously parted with water for the benefit of the lower riparian and even paid a considerable sum of money for waterworks in the lower riparian country. In return, Pakistan has only damaged legitimate Indian interests. For example, Pakistan's opposition to 'low level gates' for managing silt was done with evil intentions of making these projects worthless after sometime as it happened at Salal. Its preposterous claims on the BHEP, Tulbul etc. were made to delay these projects and make them useless. BHEP has been under discussion with Pakistan since circa 1992. Under one pretext or the other, it stalled until India felt enough was enough by about c. 2000.

Of the projects that Prof. Briscoe mentions, Kishenganga involves a tributary of Jhelum, while Sawalkot, Bursar, Pakul Dul, Dul Hasti are all on the Chenab. Gyspa Project is in Lahul and Spiti of Himachal on the Bagha river (which is a tributary of Chenab). Let's take the latest Baglihar project, which got the approval of the Neutral Expert. 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} It is another matter that Pakistan claimed that BHEP will deprive it of 164,000 acre feet of water ! The other hydroelectric projects would more or less have the same pondage or even less. 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 ? This is what the learned professor refers to as ". . . a consequence of substantial cumulative live storage which could store about one month’s worth of low-season flow on the Chenab". In low-season, the live storage will be equally low in the Indian hydroelectric projects because they cannot permanently impound waters anyway as per IWT ! So, when he says' ". . .it {India} could use this cumulative live storage to impose major reductions on water availability in Pakistan during the critical planting season.", it sounds alarming but completely hollow. 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.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Apr 2010 10:05

Anujan wrote:A N00bie type of question. I keep hearing that most canals in Pakistan are not lined and lose water to seepage. Is this just negligence/lack of funds or is it because it has defensive value? (I presume that concrete lined canals, even if flooded might be easy for tanks to cross, whereas the bottom of unlined canals may not be able to withstand the ground pressure of a tank)

The reason I ask is that if it is the former, some of the whining by Pakistan can be reduced if we are instrumental in them getting another baksheesh from WB/IMF to go line their canals and improve the infrastructure. Win win for all around -- Politicians get their cut, Pakis get employed, farmers get the water and they stop whining for a few years.

Anujan, 40% of water is lost due to seepage on account of porous, poor and non-existent lining. Pakistan totally loses over 60% of its water. This also causes water logging and increases salinity of the soil affecting productivity. AFAIK, the US, ADB, WB etc. have spent millions of dollars on a project called 'On Farm Water Management', which mainly attempts to line the canals, without much success. Do you think that you can teach a Pakistani how to get baksheesh ? They have already been there and done that.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 17 Apr 2010 13:21

Chashma Canal project too costly

The project has already been delayed by more than five years. Its cost has risen more than a 100 per cent. The objective of the project is to provide 1.187 million acre feet of water for perennial irrigation of 286,140 acres of land in the southern districts of NWFP. As much as 0.72 MAF of water will be available out of the unutilised share of NWFP. The balance of 0.467 MAF would have to be provided out of the 14 per cent share of the NWFP from flood flows under the Water Accord of 1991.

However, the Planning Commission has said that a certificate from the Indus River System Authority should be obtained, “as a number of upstream water spurs have been built”. The Planning Commission has also pointed out that the project’s annual recurring cost is very high, which makes it unfeasible in the longer run.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 17 Apr 2010 17:02

In the earlier article about rangers and army stealing water, it mentioned 356 cusecs in bahwalpur alone

The Rangers have established two unauthorised outlets and the army another three on the same canal.

The army has also installed 15 pipes on Hakra Right Channel. Both agencies (army and Rangers) are thus jointly stealing 356 cusecs of water in Bahawalpur Zone alone.

Apart from that they had

repeatedly tampering with 16 outlets on 4L distributary in Okara district. This is in addition to “five unauthorised outlets” on the same distributary. These 21 outlets have made it impossible for the department to ensure equitable distribution of water in the local system.

In Sheikhupura division, the army formations laid 44 pipes on nine different channels of the Upper Chenab Canal (Lahore Zone) during Kharif 2009 and Rabi 2009-10, the summary says.

The amount of water theft from above has to be higher than 356 cusecs i guess.

now according to this article

The water inflow and out flow in Tarbela dam is 29,300 cusecs. IRSA sources further told that water inflow in Mangla Dam is 32,199 cusecs and out flow is 28,000 cusecs

That means they are stealing a significant amount of water more than 10% of water supply. To say they steal only 356 cusecs is madrassa math.

My only question is can some one make a image of canals and irrigation works in pakistan, which dam supplies which canals? How much water is supposed to go where etc?
Here I am guessing that tarbela and mangla dams supply to these canals. Even if they dont, the amount of water stolen is huge!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Apr 2010 17:43

or link to flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/macgupta/4 ... 7/sizes/o/

This is from a Pakistani government publication.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 17 Apr 2010 18:25

A_Gupta, thanks a lot.
From the photo I am guessing that the Okara and Bahawalpur regions already have very less irrigation through the canals (atleast bahawalpur i can assume with some confindence from the above pic), the stealing from the canals then becomes even more destructive to the farming.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 49#p853449

A national newspaper carried a prominent news story the other day, about the khakis and their minions stealing canal water from countless peasants in various districts of the Punjab. This is a common feature of the countryside across Pakistan wherever these sacred cows have been allotted land for next to nothing. In Okara district, 120 kilometers from Lahore, a retired khaki was given 50 acres of land. His neighbours were surprised, since it was in a depressed area of the old river bed, completely barren and unfit for agriculture. Within months, the land has been filled and leveled, all with the aid of the state’s machinery with trucks and land movers doing overtime to prepare the acreage. Then the retired khaki set about getting himself some water, and that was only possible by depriving other landowners in the area of the precious resource. Where people will kill and die if their share of water is tampered with, the peasantry came out in revolt and the khaki lodged a complaint. Instantaneously, the local police came out and thrashed the peasants after which they retreated to their homes in sullen silence. Within months of being allotted those barren 50 acres, the retired khaki is now extracting a handsome rent from his land, at Rs 35,000/ per acre (that’s Rs 17,50,000/ per year for doing nothing), and his neighbours whose water he’s stealing, dare not say a word.

No wonder these people are up in arms, the only thing they can do is to show their impotent anger. With India being perceived as amenable to threats, they are doing these protests.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Apr 2010 20:18

I feel that we are going off topic here.
We should stick to the Indus water treaty, instead we are trying to solve Pakistan's water problems.
Pakistan is not a sane entity, there is no will to rectify its own internal differences, complications, or difficult problems. They instead rely on hyperbole to get things going their way.

We should not discuss things that will benefit the porkis. Let 'em stew in the sty they created for themselves. What the pakistanis do with the water once it flows there is their problem, we should not offer solutions or identify problem areas for them.

Please consider my fervent appeal everyone.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2010 20:29

Anujan wrote:SSridhar-ji

A N00bie type of question. I keep hearing that most canals in Pakistan are not lined and lose water to seepage. Is this just negligence/lack of funds or is it because it has defensive value? (I presume that concrete lined canals, even if flooded might be easy for tanks to cross, whereas the bottom of unlined canals may not be able to withstand the ground pressure of a tank)........<SNIP>

Let me take a dig at the question - The crossing of water obstacles, as in canals, will be undertaken using the bridging equipment with Engineer Corps (the various BLT). What you're referring to - snorkling - is not undertaken unless very important. Another thing, the banks of these canals are extremely steep and generally, will not allow a tank to use snorkeling.

See example of canal here:

http://www.spate-irrigation.org/photo_l ... stan-1.jpg

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 17 Apr 2010 20:39

Gagan, I wish it was as simple as that!
The issue of water shortage is being created by the TSPA.
This issue is being used to claim that India is violating the IWT, which it is not.

We need to therefore create a foolproof argument against that.

For that purpose we need to study how much water does pakistan gets from India and how much is wasted due to inefficient canal and irrigation system, non-removal of silt from the dam reservoirs.
These can be said to be indirect measures to create a water scarcity.

And also how much of the problem is actually created by direct measures like the water theft above.

Over and above this understand that there are issues like population explosion, improper agricultural practices, climate change etc. which are also affecting the situation.

An argument based on this would be irrefutable and can be used to change "neutral" opinion.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 17 Apr 2010 20:40

It is quite instructive to read the Indus Water Treaty 1960 and all its annexures. Operational content of the treaty are put in Annexures
Annexure B - Agricultural use by Pakistan from certain Tributaries of the Ravi
Annexure C - Agricultural use by India from the western rivers
Annexure D - Generation of Hydro-Electric Power by India on the western rivers
Annexure E - Storage of Waters by India on the western rivers

Disputes as per

Annexure F - Neutral Expert
Annexure G - Court of Arbitration

There are several restrictions on India as to the discharge of waters from various Headworks. Neither it can be decreased nor can it be increased arbitrarily by India.(Max-Min discharge) India has to Inform Pakistan whenever excessive discharge takes place except when it is not possible, such as sudden increase in inflow which could not be held up. As per Treaty no claims for damages would lie against India in such a situation. Further if water was available but Pakistan failed to make use of the water then it can not claim subsequent increase in allocation to the extent it did not use earlier available water. (No cumulative effect).

Storage capacities for different purposes allowed by India on western rivers are already pointed out in earlier posts here. Pakistan has raised so many objections that it is yet to utilise the full allocation. Since it has not built conservation storage to regulate the flow on western river esp Chenab and Indus It is restricted to develop areas under irrigation for only 270,000 acres(still not fully developed). As per IWT pk does not acquire rights for use of any water of eastern rivers on account of any releases to it by India. (clause 9 and Ann B para 4)

This has reduced the ability of IBIS in flood mitigation system since its RIM stations ( tarbela , mangla) receives full flood flows not designed to accommodate.

Rim station inflow of river indus and its western tributaries ( entering Pakistan)

1975-2000 Kharif Rabi Annual
Average MAF 118.99 25.92 144.91

Eastern Rivers Inflow at Rim Stations ( entering Pakistan but no rights could be claimed.)
1990-2000 Kharif Rabi Annual
Average MAF 7.446 1.69 9.136

Since above figures are only long term average , year to year this could vary on account of glacier melt ( excessive warm season or heavy monsoon) Indus river is primarily glacier fed where as Jhelum and chenab gets both glacier melt and monsoon.

Above data clearly shows that India is releasing full quantity of water as per IWT and approximately 145 MAF enters pk below RIM, a point made time and again in this thread and on international fora. This has not yet been disputed by Pakistan. Primarily because these are the data from their own water and power ministry and could not be repudiated by them.

RIM Stations near the border.

Now let us take their data on seasonal variability of water availability in Indus system

Reader would not help but notice that peak flow period is between July to Sept for Indus and Aug-Mid Oct for Jhelum. In fact IWT prescribes filling of reservoir for each river during peak flow period, point noted by A_Gupta.

Filling of reservoir By India
On Indus 1st July to 20th Aug
On Jhelum 21st June to 20th Aug
On Chenab 21st June to 31st Aug keeping min flow in chenab main above Merala RIM station not less than 55000 cusecs ( baglihar is on chenab)

India can make withdrawal from any general storage on Jhelum and Chenab for irrigation purposes within the maximum permitted area to be irrigated from General storage only during above mentioned periods.

One might observe that IWT goes to a great length to protect a lower riparian state with history of disputes with upper riparian state from any mischief .

It is clear from above table for Indus River that it has a high variability with peak flow upto >120 MAF and lean flow of >30MAF and requires astute mater management practices by pk. However their own institutions claims that around 53-40% of water entering RIM is lost due to various reasons.

source=PMO, Irrigation and Power Department, Government of the Punjab, pk
Punjab covers about 60 percent of the Indus Basin
Irrigation System (IBIS), and has a complex river and link canal system. Despite of this, water allocation and management in various parts of the system is carried out using hand calculations, including estimation of demands and pattern of releases from the reservoirs. Also, there is no well established and integrated system of water accounting in various parts of the system i.e. at barrages, rivers, link canals, main/branch canals, and distributaries etc. Instrumentation used for measuring water, sediments, cross-sections of the river and canals are outdated and in many cases hand held staff gauges are used. Punjab needs to modernize its water allocation and management system and water accounting system with modern simulation and optimization models and decision support system.

source=Ahmed Kamal Federal Flood Commission, Ministry of Water and Power,Government of Pk, Isla***abad, Pk

Water and Environment Issues Of the 145 MAF of water that enters the Indus Basin annually 104 MAF is diverted for irrigation at the canal heads. It is estimated that about 35% of the water is lost in transit from canals to fields and 25% because of inefficient irrigation techniques. With the continuing increase in population at the current rate of 2.7 %, there is a need to optimize the water resources management: irrigation efficiencies, optimization of consumptive uses, amending cropping patterns compatible with agro-ecological zones, harnessing of hill torrents and harvesting rain-fed areas. This is also essential to stop the per capita availability of water from falling below the minimum required threshold of 1000 cubic meter capita per annum which will lead to Pk falling into the category of water scarce countries. Hence availability of surface water is also an issue that poses a considerable threat to the resource base-the environment. The continued abstraction of groundwater particularly through over-pumping has led to the depletion of the water table in many areas. This problem has become more acute in recent years due to the continued and extended drought cycle being suffered by Pk.

According to report from International Water Management Institute , Pk's requirement is increasing ( mainly due to population) and existing reservoir storage capacity is depleting (due to sedimentation) whereas water availability remains same. Loss of Water in storage and conveyance facilities , seepage through irrigation conveyance facilities cause major water losses. Report goes on to mention that excessive Ground water recharge results in water logging and consequent soil management problems. The estimated loss due to seepage is counter balanced by recharge of ground water as per that report and claims that such loss may not be a great cause of concern.

source=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51020 ]

Daniyal Hashmi, a civil engineer in Pakistan’s Water and Power Development Authority, noted that when the IWT was negotiated, the three western rivers had sufficient water to support the country’s irrigated agriculture. The cropping intensity then was about 70 percent, he told IPS.

"The Indus irrigation system was designed for this cropping intensity," he explained. "But over the years, cropping intensity increased to about 170 percent."

"Pakistan wastes twice the amount of water each year in watercourses than could be stored at Tarbela dam (on the Indus) when it was built (in 1974)," Qutub pointed out. "We grow sugarcane and low-value rice, called Irri, with our precious water resources, when we could import these items at lower cost to the consumers. Head-end farmers steal much of the water of their downstream neighbours."

"First," said Qutub, "we should correct these mistakes."

He also disagreed with those who saw dark war clouds looming over Pakistan and India because of water. "Nations generally cooperate, not go to war, over water."

Water specialist Mustafa added: "There is no harm in reviewing the treaty in the light of climate change, but it needs creative thinking." ( I will suggest one at the end of this writeup )

"In a climate-change future, those base flows are going to be all the more critical for the health of the ecological systems in downstream Pakistan," said Mustafa. "In return, Pakistan could allow equivalent of base flows in eastern rivers from its three western rivers for India to use." ( so they want waters of eastern rivers assured)

They are fully aware of their own shortcomings.

In essence what they want is for India to compensate for any additional water requirement due to their growing population and due to recharge of ground aquifers on account of seepage and consequently not available for irrigation. Certainly a weird concept. Pk's total water requirement from IBIS is claimed 185 BCM ( approximately 150 MAF, total water availability in Indus System plus Indian unused share from eastern rivers as well). Whereas if we take only 40% loss in IBIS that itself amounts to 60 MAF.
They want to ensure that unused waters of Eastern rivers be permanently allocated to them and India not to use waters on western rivers for any purposes. This would not be achieved under present IWT and hence they are raising the heat outside the IWT.

IWT treaty for India is not fair in the sense that it allocates only 20% of water (33 MAF from eastern rivers) for exclusive use of India whereas 80% water is allocated to Pk. Whatever use on western river is granted is fettered with numerous restrictions. In fact India has not been able to use eastern rivers. Once projects on Indian side ( SYL, BSL IGFC etc) is completed no water would be available to pk.

Clearly , if India was in non compliance of the IWT pk would have raised the matter in the forum available to it within IWT which is quite extensive and neutral. Neutral expert of arbitration procedures could be availed of. In fact, no pk or indian can be on Court of Arbitration. Both parties would nominate two arbitrators each and Secretary General of UN and president IBRD(world Bank) would select the Chairman.President of MIT, USA and Rector of ICST, London UK would select engineer member. Chief Justice of USA and UK would select legal member. (total of 7 members)

But so far Pk has not chosen to avail this opportunity. It fears that their logic has no legs to stand on as proved in case of decision of neutral expert on Baglihar.In fact the decision has set a precedence of allowing current technological practices to determine the design parameters of a reservoir( either storage or power generating). It is also the position in International court of Justice.

source=Salman M. A. Salman Lead Counsel, Legal Vice Presidency, The World Bank

the International Court of Justice in the Danube dispute between Hungary and Slovakia (the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case)required that the current standards must be taken into consideration when evaluating the environmental risks of the project (International Court of Justice, 1997 p. 66). This manner of interpretation will most likely influence the future interpretation of the Treaty, as well as other international water treaties.

Several articles which are appearing at sickening frequency juxtapose the peace with India and water requirement of Pk in a sense that one is not possible if the other is not met. This is the same trick pk is playing with USA when they take aids of various kinds with assurance to stop zehadi export.India must emphasize the fact that it is in full compliance of IWT. It also provides data as per IWT to PK despite the fact that they have not paid for it even when demand was raised in 2001 under IWT provisions. In fact matter still appears to be under correspondence.

Now imaginary problems of a cantankerous neighbor demands imaginative/creative solutions. Water resources can not be increased nor Pk can improve themselves(a contradiction in terms). While Pk Armed forces are doing sterling job and TTP doing excellent, India could export to PK Made for PK cond*ms to contain over-breeding. That will solve water problem for future generations.

Briscoe's misplaced article would not stand scrutiny of IWT as that of the stand of Pk.If PK feels it can abrogate the treaty unilaterally so be it.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 17 Apr 2010 22:25

To substantiate the water losses point from their own sources

Source=Project Management & Policy Implementation Unit (PMPIU) of the Ministry of Water & Power , PK

Proliferating population can put untold pressures on scarce resources

Water losses can cause loss of sanity and reason

The result of this is

The situation of Punjab is already alarming where 50% of total water use in agriculture is now contributed by the groundwater and farmers are suffering due to high electric tariff, poor quality of power supply and rise in prices of diesel fuel. The government has provided subsidy to the tune of 25% to all the tubewells in the three provinces excluding Balochistan, where there is 91% subsidy on electric tubewells.

Luckily none of the speaker talked about IWT or water war .Obviously they know what is best for them.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 19 Apr 2010 15:58

Gagan:

We're not suggesting solutions to Pakistan's water problems.

The point very simply is that Pakistan has neglected the necessary upkeep of its water-management facilities, and is now covering up the failures of its infrastructure on India. If Pakistan had attended to the source of its prosperity, namely the assets shown in the diagrams above on this thread - instead of building nukes and proliferating, sponsoring jihad in India and in Afghanistan, military adventures like Kargil and making Swiss banks rich - they would not be suffering from such systemic failures.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Apr 2010 17:37

When Pakistan decided to snatch J&K, it felt three reasons for doing so: one, J&K was a Muslim state, especially on the boundary between the two nations and so it felt it could grab it through subterfuge; two, the Pakistani garrisons were uncomfortably close to enemy India as Pakistan lacked depth and therefore J&K appeared to be a good buffer; and three, and most importantly, most of its water sources came from or through J&K.

The water issue was bound to happen sooner or later. It first happened in 1948. But, water was plenty in those days and India did not have much of storage or means to divert waters (except for a few headworks in the East Punjab). The supply was much more than the demand in Pakistan. Even then, the IWT was bitterly opposed in Pakistan for allowing India to tap even the 33 MAF that was awarded to her. That trait of 'entitlement', the sense of 'inheritance' and the feeling that it can demand assets and resources 'vastly disproportionate' to its size and requirement have continued ever since. It was the same feeling that compelled Mohammed Ali Jinnah to demand disproportionately more reserved seats in the Parliament and Assembly as well as the number of ministers and allocation of important ministries to his Muslim League in the Nehru cabinet of 1946.

With the signing of IWT under international intervention, there was relative lull especially as India faithfully implemented the Treaty and did not attempt to build any waterworks across these rivers. On those rare occassions that it attempted to do so, Pakistan either successfully stopped the works or altered the design to its advantage and, more importantly, to the disadvantage of India. It was (and has been) more interested in harming India than even benefitting. An unwilling and generous India, belabouring under false notions of correcting an errant brother, was not forcing the issue all these years. With demands for power and water increasing, both within India and Pakistan, the latter is trying to pre-empt further Indian works such as more hydroelectric projects and 'IWT-allowed' storage works.

This has multiple benefits for Pakistan. It can conveniently hide its pathetic water management and low crop yields by blaming India. It can invest in the hands of the jihadis another 'legitimate reason' to attack India. It can increase the levels of paranoia among its masses regarding India so that the flame of hatred can be kept burning. More than that, it can harm India by delaying tactics, so that legitimate Indian power generation projects can be either delayed or even thwarted. It can also scare away investors or companies willing to partake these projects. Besides, it also fits into the overall Pakistani policy of harassing, discomfitting, unsettling and humiliating India.

Overall, the development of the 'water issue' could not have been unexpected.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2010 19:03

The point here is to expose the games played by PK on water front. The fact that their official system actively discusses their problems and in public spread misinformation for their ulterior motives.

I chanced upon this document which has some interesting bits of information.

http://www.strategicforesight.com/final ... secret.pdf

In 1990, a bright and ambitious Pakistani brigadier at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London was asked to prepare a dissertation as part of his one-year training programme. In September of that year, he presented his dissertation with the rather lengthy title: The Arms Race in the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent, Conflicts with the Pressing Requirements of Socio-economic Development. What are its Causes and Implications? Is there a Remedy? The paper provided a new analytical framework to define the security paradigm in South Asia. Despite its rather lengthy and cumbersome title, the paper was clear in its diagnosis of the South Asian security situation. The brigadier argued that the basic problem in the region was the divide between the Hindu and Muslim mindset. Since it was a psychological problem, nothing much could be done about it. He reasoned that there were two other core problems and since they were of practical nature it should be possible to resolve them. One of them was the issue of Jammu & Kashmir, which was known to the international community. The other was about the distribution of the Indus Rivers between India and Pakistan.

According to the brigadier, the two issues were interdependent if one were resolved the other would not exist.
In fact, he contended that it was essential to craft a lasting arrangement, ensuring fair distribution of river waters from the
Pakistani perspective, if there were to be any solution to the Jammu & Kashmir conflict. The argument differed from the public stance taken by the Pakistani government in the last fifty years. Successive Pakistani governments still insist that Jammu & Kashmir is the unfinished business of partition.

As a Muslim majority state, it should belong to Pakistan. India has argued that it belongs to India on the basis of instrument of accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, then ruler of the state, and the wish expressed by Shaikh Abdullah, leader of the people's movement. The public debate has always focussed on issues of terrorism, human rights and the legality of accession. It has never linked the conflict to the rivers of Jammu & Kashmir.

The brigadier was suggesting that the rivers hold the key to the solution. His theory implied that the Kashmiri people's aspirations were secondary. The brigadier returned to Pakistan to briskly climb the ladder of the army ranks. In 1998, he replaced General Jehangir Karamat as Chief of Army Staff.

Soon after General Pervez Musharraf's elevation, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief opened a track-two channel with the Government of India. The main thrust of the Pakistani proposal, mooted in early 1999, was that rivers should be used as the basis for resolving conflicts between India and Pakistan, including the issue of Jammu & Kashmir. It advocated using Chenab River as the border. The special envoy of Pakistani Prime Minister, made this proposal to his Indian interlocutor on March 29, 1999 in New Delhi. His visit to New Delhi was a secret known only to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

By a curious coincidence, on the same day when the envoy was in New Delhi, General Musharraf summoned Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief for a discussion at General Head Quarters. The General concluded that the only solution acceptable to Pakistan, to settle its conflicts with India, was the Chenab Formula. The envoy returned to Islamabad on April 1, 1999, oblivious of the meeting that had taken place between the army chief and the Prime Minister.

On the following day, the envoy was taken to the General Head Quarters for consultations with General Musharraf. This meeting was meant to last for 30 minutes. It went on for 3 hours, from 8 pm to 11 pm. Besides General Musharraf and the envoy, only the head of ISI was present in the room. The meeting concluded that the Chenab Formula should be the basis of discussion with India to resolve the Kashmir conflict.

In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf staged a coup against the elected government. He declared himself the Chief Executive. Western donors, especially the US, suspended cash flows to Pakistan.

In November 1999, on a cool afternoon in New York, a Pakistani head of an international political organisation, with very strong network in the Pakistani army and political parties, met a senior ICPI functionary. The meeting took place at the Manhattan office of the political organisation, a few blocks away from the UN office. The eminent Pakistani cited that finding a permanent solution to the India-Pakistan conflict would depend on ensuring Pakistan's water security beyond the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. Perhaps, Chenab River could be the border. Perhaps, some other formula could be worked out but the fundamental determinant should be water. There was no mention of self determination of the Kashmiri people.

The following week, the ICPI functionary was invited by a top Pakistani lobbyist, known for his strong network in the General Head Quarters in Rawalpindi, to dinner in a suburb of Washington DC. Once the formalities of the welcome drinks were over and before the dinner was served, the Pakistani lobbyist said that he had an idea for resolving the India-Pakistan conflict for good. A detailed proposal would need to be worked out by experts but its basis must be face-saving for both the countries, while the substance must ensure water security for Pakistan from the rivers of Kashmir.

In December 2001, when terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament, India blamed Pakistan and withdrew her High Commissioner, in protest. On the very next day, a high profile seminar was organised in Lahore on how to respond to the possibility of India using water as a weapon against Pakistan. New Delhi had not even alluded to water. It had snapped rail, road and air links but there was no reference to water. In Rawalpindi, Lahore and Karachi, there was little regret about the breaking down of rail, road and air links the greatest apprehension was water.

At a seminar in Karachi in the last week of December 2001, attended by ICPI, the only occasion when tensions rose, was when someone alleged that the Indian government had plans to use the water weapon. A participant warned that any conflict over water would lead to Pakistan using nuclear weapons on a first strike basis against India.

A month and half later, on February 8, 2002, the editorial of Jang, a moderate Urdu daily, said that Pakistan's water scarcity could threaten relations between provinces and lead to a nuclear war against India. Since then, a lively debate has ensued in the Pakistani press, which continues till date with the President, Prime Minister, senior army officers and leaders of various Kashmiri groups offering their views underlining the centrality of water in India-Pakistan relations.For instance, in June 2002, Syed Salahuddin, chairman of the United Jihad Council, entered the debate. UJC is an umbrella organisation responsible for coordinating the activities known as liberation movements in Pakistan of all jihadi groups.

This organisation has been placed on the US State Department's list of groups involved in terrorism. Syed Salahuddin is also the leader of Hizbul Mujahideen a member of UJC that has claimed responsibility for many acts of violence in Jammu & Kashmir. Salahuddin was quoted in Ausaf on June 18, 2002: “Kashmir is the source from where all of Pakistan's water resources originate. If Pakistan loses its battle against India, it will become a desert.” Since then in most public meetings that Salahuddin has addressed, he has emphasised that Kashmiri freedom fighters were actually fighting for Pakistan to enable it to gain control over Kashmir's rivers.

A few months later, Sardar Mohammad Anwar Khan, President of Kashmir under Pakistani control, known as Azad Kashmir in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in India, joined the debate. He was quoted in most Urdu newspapers of October 21, 2002, saying: “Pakistanis who believe that they can survive without Kashmir are wrong. The Pakistani economy is dependent on agriculture and hence on water, and therefore on Kashmir.”

Two weeks later, he explained in a public forum: “Kashmiris are fighting for the security, strength and prosperity of Pakistan. Building dams in Kashmir can irrigate Punjab and Sindh. Kashmir is important as Pakistan's water resources originate in Kashmir. Even peace between Punjab and Sindh depends on water, and therefore on Kashmir.”

Sardar Sikandar Hayat, Prime Minister of Kashmir under Pakistani control, said in a seminar on March 6, 2003: “Without the rivers of Kashmir, Pakistan will become a desert. The freedom fighters of Kashmir are in reality fighting for Pakistan's water security and have prevented India from constructing a dam on the Wular barrage.”

Finally, on March 27, 2003, a senior officer of the Pakistan army, Lt General Zarar Azim, the then Corps Commander of Lahore, was quoted in Khabrain, a newspaper known for its proximity to ISI, saying: “Kashmir is our lifeline and its importance increases in view of our water security.”

Immediately after the announcement of peace initiatives by India and Pakistan in mid-2003, Sardar Sikander Hayatbegan advocating the Chenab Formula for resolving the Kashmir dispute. He argued that an autonomous Kashmir was not acceptable as it would be difficult to safeguard the freedom acquired. However, this suggestion evoked very strong criticism from all political and jihadi leaders of Pakistan as it meant bifurcation of Kashmir. Most leaders wanted him to quit as Prime Minister for having advocated such a formula. The jihadi leaders were clear they wanted a united Kashmir.

Little known is the fact that as per the Kashmir (Pakistan) charter, a person who does not uphold the vision of accession
to Pakistan cannot stand for elections or even aspire for a job in the government. While applying for a post in the government of Kashmir (Pakistan), the applicant has to sign an affidavit affirming their belief in the ideology of "Kashmir banega Pakistan" (Kashmir will become Pakistan). Sikander Hayat ostensibly has some powerful backing, for despite his differences with the President of Kashmir (Pakistan), he seems unrelenting. He definitely has some powerful backing in a country where the General Head Quarters has the monopoly of power.

In the summer of 2003, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the head of Jamiat-e-Ulema Islami (JUI (F)), visited India. On his return, he suggested in his press briefings that he had proposed a resolution to the Kashmir conflict on geographical basis. This was interpreted as subtle advocation of the Chenab Formula. It is important to note that Maulana Fazlur Rehman was then reportedly engaged in quiet negotiations with General Musharraf on power sharing and a role for himself in Islamabad.

In November 2003, Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali announced a ceasefire in preparation for the SAARC summit to be held in Islamabad in January 2004. Suddenly, since this announcement, the debate in Pakistan on the linkages between water and the Kashmir conflict almost disappeared. As frozen relations between India and Pakistan thawed, General Musharraf announced on December 18, 2003 that he was prepared to give up Pakistan's traditional insistence on the UN resolutions to address the Kashmir conflict. This provoked strong reactions from the leader of Jamaat-e-Islami AJK wing, Abdul Rashid Turabi, who stated: “If LoC is accepted as a permanent border, then the provinces of Punjab, Sindh and NWFP would be deprived of water resources which is irrigating their land and flowing from the other side of Kashmir.”

On the eve of the SAARC summit in Islamabad beginning on January 3, 2004, General Musharraf was quoted saying that he was aware of a dozen options to resolve the Kashmir conflict. While he did not indicate preference for any particular formula, the media quoted so-called sources close to the General as advocating the Chenab Formula. It is difficult to state whether the media was indulging in speculation or whether it was indeed, given some serious indications.

The peace process initiated at Islamabad in January 2004 proved to be most sustainable. It continued despite the change of government in India when Dr. Manmohan Singh of the Congress Party replaced Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bhartiya Janata Party as the Prime Minister, in May 2004. This period saw new heights in people-to-people contacts such as a warm reception for the Indian cricket team, numerous political leaders visiting Pakistan, unprecedented sojourns of Pakistani journalists and pilgrims to Kashmir in India.

Amidst this new bonhomie between the two countries, General Pervez Musharraf announced on several different occasions in September-October 2004 that he had a new formula to resolve the Kashmir conflict. It was akin to the old Dixon plan rejected by India fifty years ago! The most striking element in the Musharraf/Dixon plan is to treat Jammu- Kashmir-Ladakh in the Indian side as a set of five, instead of three, regions. This would entail dividing Jammu into sub regions roughly along the Chenab River. The President of Pakistan did not refer to the river waters in his formula but the implications of the division of Jammu were obvious.

General Musharraf's proposal in the autumn of 2004 was the first time that a Pakistani leader came close to mentioning rivers in public, and even then he did not cross the line of convention. Otherwise, the reference to the role of rivers in India-Pakistan relations has been confined to secret talks and internal debate in Pakistan. Even academic seminars involving scholars from the two countries rarely debate on the issue.

A clause in the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, signed between Pakistan and India, explicitly prohibits linkage between the water issue and the general position of both parties on the Kashmir issue. Also, it is much more convenient to support the Kashmiris for their cause than openly admit the truth that Kashmiri youth are being sacrificed to safeguard Pakistan's lifeline.

There may be a possibility that Kargil war was an effort by PK to pries open the question of IWT without PK ever committing to any position. This could be the result of frustration of PK as IN is not violating IWT. Now Pk is taking peace for water route by hanging Damocles sword of Zehad. PK would be further squeezed if IN fully utilises waters under IWT without violating it. And if war happens on any ostensible reason, IN is unlikely to be the aggressor. Mostly PK would be shown as aggressor denying legitimacy of their action and bringing pressure on them for not going Nook.

As long as India takes the high moral ground on the question of IWT and refuses to concede the Zehadi blackmail tactics of PK , the political space to maneuver would be denied to them.

Another point is that IN would need more water for its fertile North North-West region as it continues to bring areas under cultivation. This situation would arise by 2020. Since food supply would not match the requirement due to population pressure. Hence at some time IN has to revisit the treaty to correct the disproportionate allocations under IWT which is in the ratio of 20:80:: IN:PK. But any revisit to treaty would be at a time and condition of our own choosing, not because PK needs it. Being upper ripparian state would have some advantage accrued to us.

In fact IN can start playing J&K card by talking about needs of more water for J&K to be drawn from three rivers allocated to PK.People of J&K must be shown PK for what it is.This may make PK more desperate and itching for you know what. And hopefully , In would be better prepared to respond at that time.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Apr 2010 20:19

chanaakya, that was a fine article that you posted. From that article,

General Musharraf's proposal in the autumn of 2004 was the first time that a Pakistani leader came close to mentioning rivers in public, and even then he did not cross the line of convention. Otherwise, the reference to the role of rivers in India-Pakistan relations has been confined to secret talks and internal debate in Pakistan. Even academic seminars involving scholars from the two countries rarely debate on the issue.

That was incorrect, the bolded part. The reference by Jinnah of Kashmir being the 'jugular vein' was exactly to the waters.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Apr 2010 21:08

Thanks for pointing out factual inaccuracy.

Its only part of the work that I posted. Full article deals with many issues between IN and PK.
Can be seen at

http://www.strategicforesight.com/finalsettlement/

Jinnah had first referred to Kashmir waters being Shah-e-Rag and it is never far from their thinking.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 19 Apr 2010 21:09

)

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_ji ... in_1071685

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 21 Apr 2010 10:41

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2010_pg3_2

COMMENT: Life and death issue of water

If readers cannot be bothered reading up the treaty (courtesy the internet), they should — at the very least — read and digest John Briscoe’s absolutely wonderful article on the subject, published in a national daily on April 3. Here is a man who knows what he is talking about, being an expert on the subject. And he makes my case better than I could ever hope to do.

I thought A_Gupta fisked this guy earlier on. Tells you how little even this relatively well read Abdul understands the nuances of the treaty.

But what I can do here is to stress again some inescapable realities that we would do well not to ignore. The first is that the upper riparian states the world over naturally hold all the cards (think of the habitual complaints of Sindh against Punjab regarding its share of water). Possession, as they say, is nine-tenths of the law. Thus, the goodwill of the upper riparian towards the lower riparian is of immense real value.

To drive home this reality, consider the second point. India can easily, staying well within the technical ambit of the Indus Water Treaty, inflict a great deal of damage upon us should it choose to do so What does it say about us that we we havn't done this yet? (and what does this say about that much trumpeted theory that our threat perceptions should be ‘based on capability rather than intentions’?). The recent shortage in Chenab waters, as a consequence of India filling the Baglihar Dam, is a painful example of what I mean here. Another canard. The total capacity of Baglihar including Dead + Live storage is ~ 1.6 TMC. A flow of of 10,000 cusecs would fill it in ~ 40 hours flat. Less than a day & a half.

And here is the third point. We cannot do without the treaty. We cannot just repudiate and scrap it. And it takes two to even amend it. Are we, therefore, again going to ask the international community to pressure India and address our every concern under the treaty? That would be a futile hope, quite apart from being an impractical one.

The only real choice we have is to create an environment where India will go out of its way to respect the spirit of a treaty rather than always insist on applying the strict letter of the law. For, the treaty, though perfectly reasonable from our point of view when signed decades ago, has, in today’s then unforeseen circumstances, significant practical lacunae that have the potential to do us great harm should India insist on extracting its full pound of flesh. There may have been a time for this. But now you got to show us the money first.

To sum up: we need India to be large-hearted and generous towards us on many issues that are of vital concern to us. We cannot expect this as long as a state of confrontation persists. And confrontation is something India can comfortably live with while we cannot without paying an inordinately high price. Of course it remains a possibility that what we seek from peace may still not be forthcoming should India choose to act in niggardly fashion. But do we have any other option except to take that risk?

I don't get it. Why all this heartburn over Baglihar. In truth the Hunza lake now holds twice as much water as Baglihar will when completely filled. I don't see any mention of that fact.

I think the real heartburn is that India might actually benefit from what TSP always thought was entitled to them. They really think that the Jhelum and Chenab belong to them, Who ever 'they' might be. In reality the only thing they have is a piece of paper. When push comes to shove lets see how many divisions the World Bank has.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Apr 2010 12:29

Theo_Fidel wrote:http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2010_pg3_2

COMMENT: Life and death issue of water

From the article posted by Theo_Fidel,

For, the treaty, though perfectly reasonable from our point of view when signed decades ago, has, in today’s then unforeseen circumstances, significant practical lacunae that have the potential to do us great harm should India insist on extracting its full pound of flesh.

That is the point. Pakistan is trying, among many other things, to pre-empt India from exercising its full rights vested in it by the Treaty. We have to learn one thing in dealing with this wily enemy. We should never, never be generous; because, not only will that be interpreted as weakness that would then lead to more bizarre demands and attacks, but also it would be used as a precedent to stall us from executing anything that would be beneficial to us. It is time for us to re-start the Tulbul Navigation Lock project full steam ahead, for example. We halted this project in c. 1987. Not only this project improves transportation, but it ensures a better flow in Jhelum during the lean winter months. This would be helpful for the Pakistanis as well because India is not consuming any water in this project and Mangla would have better storage in the winter. The Wullar lake will be recharged and possibly expand to its original size, if not entirely. Pakistan had 'agreed ' to the project in c. 1991 but later withdrew citing Kishenganga,

Theo_Fidel, the author of the article you posted, Munir Ataullah has been a long time critic of Pakistani policies. He has consistently advocated friendlier ties with us. I think he is invoking John Briscoe's article (however flawed it may be) to gather support for his usual thesis of friendship with India. Indirectly, he says exactly what you commented namely that the IWT has survived so far only because of India, that India has not violated the terms of the Treaty, that it has not exploited much of its rights bestowed on her by the Treaty.

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 21 Apr 2010 19:05

I think Pakistan will loose around 30-40MAF water in next 20-30 years as India uses its full entitlement of water and Afghanistan also uses its share. Now this is not much loss as pakistan releases around the same amount in sea 30 MAF. Increase in water consumption due to the Population growth can be handled by better "lined" canals. Hence Pakistan will not suffer IF it gets down to improving its water/irrigation infrastructure, dams and cropping pattern. All money spent on Chinese arms are just bringing Pakistan closer to Saharaland.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Apr 2010 19:42

Bheem, the water left flowing into the Arabian Sea is the excess flood water that Pakistan is unable to save for lack of another one or two large dams. They have to build Kalabagh. Diamar-Basha is a troublesome project both from a seismological and Indian objection points of view. Their major trouble, however, is during the lean season.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 21 Apr 2010 19:44

SSridhar,
Why don't we use the full entitlement of water? Is this on the Eastern or the Western rivers? India is short of water too, so why do we let that water go?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Apr 2010 20:18

Surinder, most of the flood flows come from the western rivers. On the eastern rivers, AFAIK, not more than 3 or MAF of flood flows reach Pakistan. Even that is high (being about 10% of our allotment) and steps are being taken to stop that flow.

Ameet · Post by **Ameet** » 22 Apr 2010 22:03

SSridhar, hope you can shed some more light on this.

Chinese dam not to impact Brahmaputra: Krishna

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 845191.cms

China has assured India that a hydroelectric project it is constructing on Tsangpo river in Tibet will not impact the downstream flow to the Brahmaputra and the two countries will discuss the issue later this month, parliament was informed Thursday.

"It is a fact that when we met in Beijing, the question of the power station did come up. The Chinese foreign minister assured me that there would be no water storage at the dam and it would not in any way impact on downstream areas," External Affairs Minister S M Krishna said during question hour in Rajya Sabha.

The response came on a supplementary from Ravi Shankar Prasad of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the impact of the Chinese dam, since there was no water sharing treaty between the two countries.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Apr 2010 11:52

Ameet, please take this to the more appropriate 'Water Issues in the Indian Subcontinent' thread.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 23 Apr 2010 12:30

China has assured India

nobody in the neighbourhood trusts a word they say.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 24 Apr 2010 10:07

Bringing clarity to the nonsense spewed by Pakis
SIDHARTH ZUTSHI
First Secretary, Press & Information, High Commission of India
Islamabad

Looks like someone is reading BRF.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 24 Apr 2010 15:03

Neeraj

He forgot to mention flood storage on Jhelum main and Off channels of jhelum as per para 9(d) of Ann E. That is not clearly quantified except for design restrictions but forms additional storage beyond 3.6 MAF

Still , by far good Summation of facts on IWT. PK knows this as much.They fear what happens next .

Essentially they fear flood when they don't want it and drought when they want water. Dams on Indian side would provide this ability. But IN would adhere to IWT.

They can't even bomb dams on indian side as this would put tremendous water pressure on mangala, Tarbela and merala headworks ( as the case may be ) that they would collapse. India would also have to empty its dams in such a scenario to avoid damage to other water works.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Apr 2010 16:24

Let's remember also that Ranbir & Pratap Canals are not completely used by India and they remain under general neglect & disuse.

The Ranbir Canal, built in 1870, was intended to feed the areas of Miran Sahib, Vijaypur and Madhopur. Poor maintenance has ensured that it can now carry just 300 cubic feet per second of water, rather than the 1,000 cusecs it was designed for when originally built. The Pratap Canal, meant to meet the needs of the Akhnoor-Sunderbani belt, has also silted up. These canals off take from Chenab between Salal and Marala headworks. These two canals need urgent repair work to restore their earlier capacities. Under the treaty, India is allowed to take out a fixed quantity of water for these channels.