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.
ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby ArjunPandit » 13 Nov 2018 17:40

Paki is a racial slur

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3030
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Kashi » 13 Nov 2018 17:45

"The 2013 verdict was in our favour" "2013 mein hum jeete the"

Do they never tire of lying?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 13 Nov 2018 17:51

ArjunPandit wrote:Paki is a racial slur


racial slur??

never.

its a term of endearment.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby ArjunPandit » 13 Nov 2018 18:18

^^^https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paki_(slur)

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 13 Nov 2018 18:59

Dont want to go OT, the Pakis are a slur on humanity itself and hence any term used for them will not be sufficient to describe the low lives.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23134
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 15 Nov 2018 06:48

Kashi wrote:"The 2013 verdict was in our favour" "2013 mein hum jeete the"

Do they never tire of lying?

Kashi, the whole country is built on a pa(c)k of lies.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 15 Nov 2018 11:01

ArjunPandit wrote:^^^https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paki_(slur)



Please recognise sarcasm when you see it, saar. :)

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6123
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 15 Nov 2018 16:17

Kashi wrote:"The 2013 verdict was in our favour" "2013 mein hum jeete the"

Do they never tire of lying?
Kashi Ji :

One of the meanings of the Term Pakis is "Habitual and Veritable Liars".

Lying is ingrained in the Pakis' Blood as well as Genes.

Another of their "Standard" Lies is "We won the 1965 War!"

Cheers Image

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1353
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Bart S » 15 Nov 2018 17:52

SSridhar wrote:
Kashi wrote:"The 2013 verdict was in our favour" "2013 mein hum jeete the"

Do they never tire of lying?

Kashi, the whole country is built on a pa(c)k of lies.


Christine Fair analyzed their mentality correctly in here book where she mentioned that the Paki army views even any defeat that allows them to survive, as a great victory. So anything that does not wipe them out of existence is still a victory in the delusional Paki mind.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 18 Nov 2018 21:32

THE KISHANGANGA CONUNDRUM.

I magine a case involving the most sensitive issues of national security possible. Imagine that Pakistan wins a conclusive victory in that case. Now imagine that Pakistan wastes that victory and spends 5 years blundering about in a dead end. Kishanganga is that case.

To restate the above paragraph in less dramatic terms, Pakistan’s dispute with India over the design of the Kishanganga Project involves vital aspects of national security. Whatever conclusion is reached will affect not just the Kishanganga Project but every subsequent project designed by India on the Western Rivers. Given the importance of water to our economy and our security, it is hard to imagine a more vital issue. Unfortunately, there is both good news and bad news to report.

The good news is that Pakistan did well in the first round of the Kishanganga dispute and received a favourable award from a seven-member Court of Arbitration. The bad news is that Pakistan has not taken advantage of this victory.

After winning its legal case in 2013, Pakistan should have referred the technical aspects of the Kishanganga dispute to a Neutral Expert. Indeed, that had been the plan. However, Pakistan made an ill-advised u-turn and sought to take all remaining questions to a different court of arbitration. As a consequence, no progress has been made for the past five years. Pakistan is today in the same position as it was in December 2013. Meanwhile, India has completed the Kishanganga project.

Pakistan won a significant legal victory in its dispute with India over the Kishanganga Project five years ago. But it has squandered the advantage. A legal expert suggests how to save the day

Origin Stories

The roots of the water dispute with India go back, like many such disputes, to Partition. The development of the canal irrigation network in the Indus river basin was one of the finest achievements of the British Empire. However, when the British left in 1947, they had yet to ensure its continued operation.

The consequence of this failure became evident on 1 April, 1948, when India cut off the flows of certain canals into Pakistan. While flows were restored after a few weeks, trust between India and Pakistan was destroyed. Pakistan and India then negotiated for many years on a comprehensive agreement regarding water flows. In 1951, the World Bank became formally involved in those negotiations. And in 1960, those efforts resulted in the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960.

The substantive provisions of the treaty can be summarised as follows:

a. The waters of the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) would be reserved for Pakistan and India would be under an obligation to “let flow” their waters (subject to certain specified rights and exceptions).

b. The waters of the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas) would be reserved for India exclusively.

c. India would be free to construct hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers (subject to various design constraints intended to limit India’s capacity to manipulate water flows).

Between 1960 and 2002, the treaty was rarely in dispute between India and Pakistan. Issues did arise, but they tended to subside after both parties had stated their respective positions. However, starting from 2002, the treaty became a “hot zone” as India started pushing ahead aggressively with the Kishanganga and Baglihar projects.

Under the treaty, all “questions” are first required to be addressed bilaterally by the Indus Waters Commission. If the two sides cannot resolve these questions, then they are referred — depending on the nature of the question — to either a Neutral Expert or a Court of Arbitration. For example, technical or engineering differences are referred to a Neutral Expert. Other disputes are referred to a Court of Arbitration.

Disputes under the Treaty

The first questions to be formally litigated under the treaty related to the Baglihar Project and were taken before a Neutral Expert. The most important question related to India’s usage of low-level outlets. In simple terms, the level of the outlet matters because it allows India to drain all water above the outlet. The lower the outlet, the greater India’s capability to interfere with Pakistan’s water flows and, consequently, the greater the threat to Pakistan’s security.

The treaty states in clear terms that outlets for sediment control are to be as small and as high as possible. Pakistan’s argument with regard to India’s design was therefore as follows:

a. Low-level outlets are only superior to higher outlets (in relation to reservoir sediment control) if the water level of the reservoir is lowered.

b. The treaty prohibits lowering of the reservoir water level except in the case of an “unforeseen emergency.”

c. Sediment control does not constitute an unforeseen emergency.

d. The low-level outlets provided by India were, therefore, contrary to the treaty.

Pakistan’s argument was ultimately rejected by the Neutral Expert. He admitted that Pakistan was correct in contending that unless the water level in the reservoir was lowered, low-level outlets provided no additional benefit as compared to high-level outlets. Nonetheless, he held, in February 2007, that the prohibition on drawdown applied only to “operation” of a project, not to its “maintenance.” And on that basis, India’s design was upheld.

At the time of the Neutral Expert’s decision, this issue was not generally recognised as a major national security concern because India had, till then, shown no broad intent to build hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers. However, it emerged shortly thereafter that India was planning hundreds of new projects on the Western Rivers, including a number of large projects in excess of 600 MW. The issue related to reservoir control, therefore, was not just a minor question related to the “maintenance” of one project on one river but a life-or-death issue for Pakistan.

Pakistan decided to try and contain the fallout of the Baglihar decision not by directly challenging it but by trying to quarantine it. Since India’s design for the Kishanganga Project had a similar design (to Baglihar), featuring low-level outlets, Pakistan had already challenged the Kishanganga Project on similar grounds. Pakistan, therefore, framed a purely legal question as to whether or not India was entitled to drawdown the water level of a reservoir except on the basis of an unforeseen emergency. This was a high-stakes gamble in some ways because the decision of the Court of Arbitration would not be restricted to one project (like a Neutral Expert) but would apply to every project. At the same time, Pakistan was confident that the legal conclusion of the Neutral Expert regarding drawdown flushing was unsustainable.

The second important question which arose in the context of Kishanganga (and which was taken to the Court of Arbitration) was not a general question but one which was unique to that project. More specifically, Para 15 of Annexure D to the Treaty provides that the water received upstream of a project has to be released in its entirety so that, at least on a week-to-week basis, the river flows remain constant. However, sub-para (iii) of Para 15 provides for an exception in the following terms:

“Where a plant is located on a tributary of the Jhelum on which Pakistan has any agricultural use or hydroelectric use, the water released below the plant may be delivered, if necessary, into another tributary but only to the extent that the then existing agricultural use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on the former tributary would not be adversely affected.”

This specific para applies to the Kishanganga project because it is located on a tributary of the Jhelum and because the water it diverts for the purpose of power generation is not returned to the Kishanganga but to the Bonar-Madmati Nullah which is a different tributary of the Jhelum. The Bonar-Madmati Nullah, in turn, flows into Wullar Lake and, thence, into the Jhelum which rejoins the Kishanganga river at Muzaffarabad (where it is known as the Neelum).

Pakistan’s challenge to the diversionary aspect of the Kishanganga project focused on the argument that it would adversely affect the Neelum-Jhelum Project being constructed by Pakistan near Muzaffarabad. In this regard, it was not seriously disputed by India that the construction of the Kishanganga Project would adversely affect the Neelum-Jhelum Project. However, India instead argued that the Neelum-Jhelum project could not be considered as “the then existing … hydro-electric use” by Pakistan, not only because it was still under construction by Pakistan, but because Pakistan had committed to the Neelum-Jhelum Project after India had committed to the Kishanganga project.

In December 2013, the Court of Arbitration decided the drawdown question in favor of Pakistan and held that India was not entitled to drawdown the water level of a reservoir for “maintenance” purposes. The Court further specifically held that sediment control could not be construed as an “unforeseen emergency.” To this extent, the Kishanganga decision represents an unqualified triumph for Pakistan.

If Pakistan reverts back to a Court of Arbitration, there is a significant danger that the judgment already given in favour of Pakistan may be diluted. This is not a risk worth taking.

On the diversion front, Pakistan had more mixed success. The Court of Arbitration held that even though Pakistan had a superior right to the flows of the Kishanganga/Neelum river, it had waited too long to exercise those rights. It therefore declared that India was indeed entitled to divert water for the Kishanganga Project. This decision was however mitigated to a certain extent by the Court of Arbitration’s conclusion that notwithstanding the absence of environmental provisions in the Treaty, India was required (on the basis of environmental concerns) to release certain minimum flows. As a consequence of the release of these minimum flows, the average annual energy loss at the Neelum-Jhelum Project will be reduced from 16% to 10%.

Notwithstanding the split decision handed down by the Court of Arbitration, the Kishanganga award is regarded by experts as a victory for Pakistan (yeah sure) As already noted, the diversion question is unique to the Kishanganga project and there is no other possible location where Para 15(iii) could come into play. Even if it did, such diversion would likely be blocked by virtue of the now operational Neelum-Jhelum Project. Finally, to the extent the Neelum-Jhelum Project generates less electricity as a consequence of reduced flows, the diverted water can be exploited by Pakistan through the Kohala project (land acquisition for which is currently under way).

By comparison, the decision regarding drawdown flushing affects the design of every single project being planned by India. In simple terms, India now has two options. It can either change the design of its projects so as to avoid sedimentation concerns. Or it can stick with the same designs and watch the reservoirs get filled with mud. Either way, Pakistan’s security concerns will be alleviated.

The problem though is that the Kishanganga award is not self-executing. In order to change the design of the Kishanganga Project, Pakistan had to have the remaining technical questions actually decided as well.

When Pakistan had originally challenged the Kishanganga Project, the idea had been to implement a favourable arbitration award through a Neutral Expert and, more specifically, to have the low-level outlets in the Kishanganga design be declared illegal. However, at some point after the final award was rendered in December 2013, Pakistan decided that it would take this issue to a Court of Arbitration as well. Since the question regarding the legality of the Kishanganga design had been earlier framed as a question for the Neutral Expert, Pakistan had to revert back to the Indus Waters Commission for the framing of fresh questions rather than proceed straight to a Court of Arbitration.

Not surprisingly, the Indus Water Commission failed to agree on how to proceed. Consequently, both countries approached the World Bank. Pakistan sought the appointment of a Court of Arbitration, while India insisted that the questions be examined by a Neutral Expert. Therefore, two parallel appointment processes were underway till the World Bank declared a “pause” in December 2016 and asked the two countries to examine the possibility of a mutual agreement on how to proceed. In the interim period, the World Bank refused to proceed further with either option. And since then, there has been no movement despite multiple appeals by Pakistan to the World Bank.

The Case For ‘Neutral Expert’ Rather Than Arbitration

The net result of all this is that five years after a favourable award, Pakistan has made no progress towards actually getting that award implemented. Meanwhile, India has completed the Kishanganga project and is planning hundreds more of the same design. Pakistan is continuing to insist that the World Bank set up a Court of Arbitration even though the World Bank has made it crystal clear that it will only do so if India consents. And India has made it equally clear that it will never consent.

It is also worth noting that even if the World Bank allows the Court of Arbitration appointment process to continue, India’s refusal to participate will badly affect the legitimacy of the proceedings. And if ex parte proceedings are held without India, the Court of Arbitration will be under immense pressure to bend over backwards in favour of India. Finally, wholly apart from the self-evident problems with delay, legitimacy and bias, it does not make sense for Pakistan to approach a Court of Arbitration rather than a Neutral Expert. The Kishanganga Award represents a very strong victory for Pakistan. If Pakistan reverts back to a Court of Arbitration, there is a significant danger that the judgment already given in favour of Pakistan may be diluted. This is not a risk worth taking.

By comparison, if Pakistan accepts India’s position and allows the questions to be referred to a Neutral Expert, that Neutral Expert will be bound by the earlier award in Kishanganga :?: . A Neutral Expert appointed for Kishanganga will, therefore, not be able to repeat the mistake made by the Neutral Expert for Baglihar (Paki wishful thinking). Finally, even if a Neutral Expert reaches an unfavourable conclusion, that finding will be limited to Kishanganga alone. (So a precedent will be set only if it the decison is set in paki favor and not if it is in India's favor. Lahori Logic :) ) Pakistan will also have the opportunity to challenge such an adverse finding before a Court of Arbitration (to the extent such finding is based on legal issues, rather than technical issues).

It is also better for Pakistan to argue before a Neutral Expert rather than a Court of Arbitration. A Neutral Expert will examine the narrow question of whether a low-level outlet can be justified at Kishanganga on grounds of sediment control. A Court of Arbitration will examine the broader and more general question as to whether or not low-level outlets can ever be justified on grounds of sediment control. This factual background is important because the sediment load at Kishanganga is very low. As per estimates earlier prepared by Pakistan, the Kishanganga Project can operate for a minimum period of 80 years (and possibly indefinitely) without sediment control issues. Thus, when India argues that it requires low-level sediment control outlets at Kishanganga, it is arguing not only contrary to the treaty but also contrary to the facts. By comparison, projects on the Chenab and the Jhelum have massive sediment control issues. At Baglihar, for example, it was conceded by India that the reservoir would silt up in less than a decade in the absence of effective sediment control.

From a purely legal perspective, this factual background is irrelevant. But judges and experts are human. It is far better for Pakistan to argue that India’s position is both factually unwarranted and legally incorrect rather than arguing that India’s projects should not be able to take advantage of effective sediment control techniques (i.e., drawdown flushing) because of Pakistan’s security concerns.

Given the current impasse, a graceful way out for Pakistan is to propose that the Neutral Expert first determine his own jurisdiction. Not only would this be in accordance with the Treaty (as per Para 7 of Annexure F) but it would allow Pakistan to present its position before an independent third party (rather than wasting time in getting the Indians to change their mind).

If Pakistan wins, India will no longer have any basis for not participating before a Court of Arbitration. If the Neutral Expert decides that he can hear all the questions involved, Pakistan will then have a face-saving basis for appearing before him. In any event, as already noted, proceeding before a Neutral Expert is preferable.

Moving forward

The Baglihar Dam is similar in design to India’s design for the Kishanganga Project featuring low-level outlets
The one thing that Pakistan should not do is waste time in bilateral discussions with India. India has every incentive to delay and no incentive to compromise. Pakistan’s consistent aim has always been to have its disputes with India adjudicated by a neutral and independent third party. India’s aim has consistently been the opposite. A referral by consent to a Neutral Expert represents a triumph for Pakistan’s goals. Even if it is assumed that a Court of Arbitration is preferable (which assumption is incorrect), one should not let the best be the enemy of the good.

One argument which has been raised in reply to the above contention is that Pakistan has already staked out its position and that its rights under the treaty will be permanently compromised if it now changes its position. This argument is a textbook illustration of the “sunken cost” fallacy. The fact that Pakistan has wasted almost five years as the consequence of a bad decision is no basis to argue that Pakistan should continue to perpetuate a folly. Ego is no basis for deciding questions of national security. Beyond that, the contention that Pakistan will henceforth be permanently barred in all case from approaching a Court of Arbitration without first approaching a Neutral Expert is also false.(Again no precedent to fear if pakistan gets an adverse decision :lol: )

The World Bank is refusing to empanel a Court of Arbitration because it thinks certain specific questions arising out of one specific project are technical questions which clearly belong before a Neutral Expert and not a Court of Arbitration. Indeed, nobody can insist that approaching a Neutral Expert is always mandatory. First, the text of the treaty is crystal clear that the Neutral Expert and the Court of Arbitration represent two distinct and parallel dispute resolution mechanisms. The practice of the parties supports this interpretation in that the Court of Arbitration which earlier decided two questions regarding the Kishanganga Project was directly seized of the matter (i.e., without any prior examination of those questions by a Neutral Expert). Furthermore, even if India maintains this position in relation to other potential disputes pending before the Indus Waters Commission, Pakistan can always frame this question regarding the interpretation of the treaty as a separate question and then take that particular question to a Court of Arbitration.

It is also worth remembering that the issue of project design and sediment control is the single most important issue requiring adjudication under the treaty. It is, therefore, worth taking a risk regarding future problems in order to ensure the proper adjudication of this issue.

One possible response to the above contention is that in addition to sediment control and design concerns, there is a separate issue regarding the interpretation of the term “pondage” which should go to the Court of Arbitration. That contention is not without merit. There is, indeed, a genuine lack of clarity regarding the meaning of the term “pondage” as used in the treaty.

But the problem is that pondage is a minor concern compared to the issue of low-level gates. It makes no sense to compromise the adjudication of low-level gates in order to obtain a definitive interpretation of pondage. One should not allow the tail to wag the dog. Instead, Pakistan should accept India’s offer to take all remaining Kishanganga issues before a Neutral Expert. If the Neutral Expert’s decision on pondage is unacceptable, Pakistan can then frame a separate legal question on pondage and escalate that dispute to a Court of Arbitration.

The final point is that this is possibly Pakistan’s last chance to have the Kishanganga issues adjudicated. The Kishanganga Project has already been completed. At the same time, India cannot argue that it is too late to have the design of the Kishanganga Project changed because it has recently repeated its offer to have the dispute resolved through a Neutral Expert. However, as time goes by, it will be increasingly difficult for Pakistan to insist that India should demolish the Kishanganga Project and change its design. At some point, Pakistan’s insistence on barking up the wrong tree could disentitle it to any relief — if not legally, then equitably.

The above is written by an a Pakistani lawyer who fought and lost the Baglihar and Kishenganga case against India :D (Paki logic of suffering just a partial defeat and hence being a victor against India continues)

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8172
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 18 Nov 2018 23:06



To save rakshaks time in going through the apologetic diarrhea by the paki lawyer (pronounced, "liar"), the liar summarizes his understanding of the IWT in these three bullet points (highlights are mine):

a. The waters of the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) would be reserved for Pakistan and India would be under an obligation to “let flow” their waters (subject to certain specified rights and exceptions).

b. The waters of the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas) would be reserved for India exclusively.

c. India would be free to construct hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers (subject to various design constraints intended to limit India’s capacity to manipulate water flows).


As they say, the devil is in the details. Thank heavens that pakis have no eye or patience for details. That's why they keep going to the World Bank and keep getting rebuked and insulted. Apparently, the English language is not one of their fortes.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6123
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 20 Nov 2018 23:03

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Water storage

Pakistan’s water problems have been at the forefront of the national agenda recently, with both the prime minister and chief justice of the Supreme Court bringing public attention to their initiative to raise funds for construction of new dams. We were given some more evidence of how dire the crisis is when the Wapda chairman said that Pakistan’s existing dams have lost one-fourth of their storage capacity. This is not a new problem. Increased sedimentation in dams has been gradually reducing the ability of dams to store water and this is expected to become worse in the coming years. At present, dams have the capacity only to hold about 30 days of water. The Wapda chairman wants this to be increased to 120 days. To do so, however, we cannot focus only on constructing new dams. As the chairman said, we need to shift the entire way we think about water. He believes Pakistan has to improve the way hydel electricity is generated, and the circular debt has to be brought under control. The water crisis is going to become an existential threat to the country as we begin to feel the ravages of global climate change; current thinking is simply not bold enough to stave off this looming disaster.

There are steps the government could take to start Pakistan down the road to water sustainability. It should empower the National Water Council and implement a water policy that encourages conservation and more efficient use of water. The largest user of water is the agricultural sector and current policy allocates water based on size of land holdings rather than need. This needs to be changed immediately. Existing dams need to be better maintained so that their capacity does not shrink so rapidly. Pakistan’s biggest problem, however, is also the one that is most difficult to solve. The country is reliant on the Indus Waters Treaty to ensure we get a fair share of the water from the tributaries of River Indus. India, though, has been changing the facts on the ground by rapidly constructing new dams. This has allowed it to divert more water for its own use. Renegotiating the treaty or convincing international courts and arbiters to restore Pakistan’s share is crucial for a country that does not receive sufficient rainfall. Until such time as the Indian government is ready for negotiations and an equitable solution, Pakistan will just have to use the water it has as wisely as possible.

Cheers Image

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 443
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby VKumar » 21 Nov 2018 00:08

How about stopping the flow of water till flow of terror is stopped.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3030
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Kashi » 21 Nov 2018 08:02

Like all Baki "anal-ysis" this one takes the easy way out by accusing India of "divert more water for its own use" and calling for international mediation to "restore Pakistan’s share." Of course the dimwit would not bother to point out that all our projects are well-within the ambit of the IWT, which is already lopsided against us.

What the Baki "anal-yst" :(( :(( about is that with India deciding to be more judicious in the use of our allotted share, Bakis will no longer get a free ride on those waters that were ours to use but were allowed to flow unused, unharvested into Bakistan. They probably thought this would continue for ever and therefore did nothing to improve on their side.

Now that we are finally taking steps to try and maximise the use of our allotted share, Bakis are doing all the rona-dhona.

I also feel that all this talk of international mediation on IWT is a "moist-run" if you will. Should our side foolishly agree to such a thing in the case of IWT, there will be persistent demands from the Bakis, their forefathers and within for international mediation on Jammu and Kashmir. It will be argued, if it can be done for IWT, why not for J&K?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gyan » 21 Nov 2018 10:46

In December 2013, the Court of Arbitration decided the drawdown question in favor of Pakistan and held that India was not entitled to drawdown the water level of a reservoir for “maintenance” purposes. The Court further specifically held that sediment control could not be construed as an “unforeseen emergency.” To this extent, the Kishanganga decision represents an unqualified triumph for Pakistan.


By comparison, the decision regarding drawdown flushing affects the design of every single project being planned by India. In simple terms, India now has two options. It can either change the design of its projects so as to avoid sedimentation concerns. Or it can stick with the same designs and watch the reservoirs get filled with mud. Either way, Pakistan’s security concerns will be alleviated.

. This factual background is important because the sediment load at Kishanganga is very low. As per estimates earlier prepared by Pakistan, the Kishanganga Project can operate for a minimum period of 80 years (and possibly indefinitely) without sediment control issues. Thus, when India argues that it requires low-level sediment control outlets at Kishanganga, it is arguing not only contrary to the treaty but also contrary to the facts. By comparison, projects on the Chenab and the Jhelum have massive sediment control issues. At Baglihar, for example, it was conceded by India that the reservoir would silt up in less than a decade in the absence of effective sediment control.


This is important issue where we lost, have we debated it's consequences?

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6123
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 25 Nov 2018 17:35

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Looming water crisis biggest risk for Pakistan economy: WEF survey - Amin Ahmed

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s ease-of-doing business is likely to be affected in the coming decade as the $300 billion economy struggles to mitigate imminent risks, according to a report released by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The report titled ‘Regional Risks for Doing Business’ has listed water crisis, unmanageable inflation, terrorist attacks, failure of urban planning and critical infrastructure as immediate risks faced by the country with 220 million inhabitants.

The risks were identified after the WEF carried out an ‘Executive Opinion Survey’ between January and June. The findings were tabulated after receiving responses to survey’s risk-related questions for the South Asian region – Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The report highlights 10 major risks to doing business in South Asia including failure of national governance, unmanageable inflation, unemployment and under-employment, failure of regional and global governance, cyber attacks, failure of critical infrastructure, energy price shock, failure of financial mechanism or institution, water crises and large-scale involuntary migration.

Failure of national governance was listed as one of the foremost challenges faced by the countries in the South Asian region which has remained politically active during the last two years as Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Maldives went through highly charged election seasons.

South Asian elections are usually observed with anxiety, as they are prone to violence, blockades and tensions. Even after completion, the period following elections is usually mired with uncertainty.

The report also points out that Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh are susceptible to cyber-attacks as they continue to run on computers using Microsoft products that report malware encounters almost regularly. The region’s vulnerabilities came under spotlight after Bangladesh Bank was hit by hackers who got away with one of the biggest heists in the history, robbing the country’s central bank of more than $80 million.

‘Unmanageable inflation’ was ranked as the second-highest risk in the region. South Asia benefited from low global oil prices during 2014-16, but a combination of rising energy prices and expansionary monetary and fiscal stances point to rising inflationary risks.

In July this year, Pakistan’s inflation rate reached four-year highs as rupee’s value continues to deteriorate. The report highlights unemployment or under-employment as the third leading risk for the region.

Of the 19 countries facing imminent cyber-attack risks, 14 were from Europe and North America, by contrast, 22 of the 34 countries that facing ‘unemployment or under-employment’ as top-most risks hail from sub-Saharan African region.

Geo-political concerns were relatively muted, with ‘failure of regional and global governance’ and ‘terrorist’ attacks in ninth and tenth place globally, respectively.

The starkest of geopolitical risks, ‘interstate conflict’ was ranked in the top three risks in 17 countries. Most of these countries were in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, a pattern that reflects the increasing importance of that part of the world as global geopolitical balances undergo recalibration.

Cheers Image

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 26 Nov 2018 00:47

India to expedite 3 projects to stop its share of Indus waters from flowing into Pakistan.

India has decided to fast-track three projects, including construction of two dams, to arrest the unutilised water of its share under
the bilateral Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, government officials said.

The three projects include the Shahpur Kandi dam project, a secondSutlej-Beas link in Punjab and the Ujh Dam project in Jammu and Kashmir,
they said.


"These (three) projects were stuck in red tape and inter-state disputes. But it has been decided to expedite the execution of these projects," one of
them added.

Under the Indus Waters Treaty, waters flowing in three of Indus tributaries — the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — have been allotted to India; while the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus waters have been allotted to Pakistan.

Of the total 168 million acre-feet, India's share of water from the three allotted rivers is 33 million acre-feet, which constitutes nearly 20 per cent.

"India uses nearly 93-94 per cent of its share under the Indus Waters Treaty. The rest of the water remains unutilised and goes to Pakistan," an official added.

The Ujh dam is a proposed hydroelectricity and irrigation multipurpose project in the Kathua district of Jammu over the Ravi 11/25/2018 India to expedite 3 projects to stop its share of Indus waters from flowing into Pakistan The total water utilisation from this project is 172.8 million cusec metre (mc), but it has the capacity to store 925 mcm of water, the officials said. The estimated cost of the project is Rs 5,950 crore.

The J&K government has forwarded the Detailed Project Report (DPR) to the Centre for its appraisal, which is expected to be okayed by the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Water Resources for clearance, they said.

After the Uri attack in Kashmir in September 2016, the government had sought to use the Indus Waters Treaty to put pressure on Pakistan. The measures included effectively using India's share of waters that flow into Pakistan. This also included fast-tracking irrigation and hydropower projects by resolving the inter-state disputes.

The Centre has also asked the Punjab government to prepare a feasibility report of the second Ravi-Beas link that is expected to further help in increasing utilisation of India's share of water under the treaty.

In September, the Punjab and the Jammu and Kashmir governments signed an agreement to resume works on the Rs 2,793- crore Shahpur Kandi project. Though the work on the project began in 2013, it was halted due to certain issues raised by the J&K.

The Punjab government also submitted a revised cost estimate of Rs 2,793.54 crore and requested the Centre to include the project in the prioritized list of the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY)/Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP) projects.

The project, when implemented, will enable the up-stream Ranjit Sagar Dam project power station to act as a peaking station, besides having its own generation capacity of 206 MW and irrigation benefit of 37,173-hectare to Punjab and J&K.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23134
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 26 Nov 2018 07:11

Gyan wrote:This is important issue where we lost, have we debated it's consequences?

Many times. We have not overlooked that. The sedimentation control decision by the CoA was a big blow for us especially when the NE, a subject matter expert, had agreed with us in the earlier ruling. Though there are other methods to control sedimentation, low-level gates are the simplest, cheapest and surest way to do so. In earlier pages, there had been discussion on the other methods too. The CoA was either ignorant or did it wilfully to support Pakistan and stymie our legitimate efforts. I suspect the latter. IMHO, I can only think of two reasons for the latter: lifafa or the deeply entrenched racial mindset among some to treat India and Pakistan equally. That is *the* reason that Pakistan asks for CoA for every difference of opinion because it feels that it can influence the decision in its favour and put a spoke in the Indian wheel.

As for specifically Kishenganga, I do not know the sedimentation load and how long we can sustain etc. But, Salal was lost due to sediment load. Pakistan lost Tarbela due to that. At Mangla, it had to raise the height of the dam fifteen years back. The fact is that all Himalayan rivers carry heavy sedimentation as the mountain range is quite young.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gyan » 26 Nov 2018 18:11

IIRC our Irrigation Secretary ie Babu made a concession in oral evidence that sedimentation control can be made by other methods.

Now how to get over this decision?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23134
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 26 Nov 2018 19:09

Gyan wrote:IIRC our Irrigation Secretary ie Babu made a concession in oral evidence that sedimentation control can be made by other methods.

True. But, the fact that the CoA asked that question to the babu, already shows that they had determined what they wanted to rule. The ruling was not due to a babu's concession.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gyan » 27 Nov 2018 09:48

That's was the whole issue of Arbitration? Either Babu intentionally sabotaged or was unprepared & just came along for foreign trip.

No one in sane mind makes such a huuuge blunder. All indian hydro power projects on western rivers are compromised irretrievably.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6123
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 03 Dec 2018 15:13

Vawda seeks India’s support to resolve water issue - Our Correspondent
LAHORE: Minister for Water Resources Faisal Vawda hopes to take India on board for resolution of the water crisis but says no compromise will be made on the dignity and sovereignty of Pakistan.
While speaking to the media here on Sunday, Vawda said the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government has its policies on the right track to resolve issues facing the country, assuring his ministry will try to resolve the water issue through consensus and talks.
“I will solve the matter even if it takes five, ten or twenty options but there will be no compromise on the country’s dignity, its flag and sovereignty,” said the water resources minister.
Cheers Image

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4259
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Karthik S » 03 Dec 2018 15:28

Gurus what are the ramifications of us completely stopping Indus water? Will it attract international sanctions? As this an international accord and not bilateral, will bodies like world bank create any trouble? Btw I assume China or Russia would have done it long back if they were in out place.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6123
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 03 Dec 2018 15:41

Karthik S wrote:Gurus what are the ramifications of us completely stopping Indus water? Will it attract international sanctions? Btw I assume China or Russia would have done it long back if they were in out place.
Karthik S Ji :

Sir Ji, Nehru agreed to 19.2% of the Indus Waters AND THEN PAID AROUND 65 MILLION POUNDS STERLING stating "We have today purchased our Supply of Waters! Or similar words.

I do not believe India could stop the Indus Waters as the Agreement has Nehru's Signature on it.

By the way : The I W T agreement - I believe - is between Nehru and Ayub Khan and signed by them. The I W T was neither discussed nor approved-sanctioned by the Indian Parliament. :twisted:

Re: China and Russia - Do they have any River Water Sharing Treaties?

Any case I await for SSridhar Ji's inputs.

Cheers Image

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4259
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Karthik S » 03 Dec 2018 15:51

Yeah right, pakis don't acknowledge treaty of accession, but they want us to stay true to IWT?
BTW, I didn't mention between Russia and China, I meant to say if they were in our place, don't think they would have honored any agreement with pakis.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Deans » 03 Dec 2018 22:16

Karthik S wrote:Gurus what are the ramifications of us completely stopping Indus water? Will it attract international sanctions? As this an international accord and not bilateral, will bodies like world bank create any trouble? Btw I assume China or Russia would have done it long back if they were in out place.


I have written on this for a couple of friendly think tanks.
We do not even ensure that our share of water is being used. Apart from the 3 projects being fast tracked, mentioned in an earlier post, we can do the following fairly easily:

1. We are allowed to utilise some water, of the 3 rivers allocated to Pak, under IWT, for water supply to Jammu. Similarly with irrigation
(we irrigate only 20% of the acreage available to us). We need to draw our full quote for drinking water/ irrigation.
2. Similarly, not a drop of water of the 3 rivers allotted to India should flow to Pak. We have scored own goals by not completing the Sutlej-Yamuna link canal.
3. Complete the Tulbul barrage across the Jhelum near Srinagar. Apart from enabling water transport along the river, we can control the flow into
POK. Flooding the Neelam valley (in summer) is a lot more effective than shelling it.
4. Move highly polluting industries away from the Ganga, to Jammu, (leather/ chemicals etc) where they can pollute the rivers just before they
flow into Pakistan. Relax pollution norms, to encourage jobs for J&K youth etc.
5. Help Afghanistan to negotiate water sharing treaties with Pak. Afghanistan holds the upper hand as its rivers flow into Pak. Help Afg complete
dams that restrict water flow into Pakistan.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2307
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 03 Dec 2018 23:59

Gyan wrote:IIRC our Irrigation Secretary ie Babu made a concession in oral evidence that sedimentation control can be made by other methods.

Now how to get over this decision?


From what I remember, the CoA said that since the treaty only provides for run of the river, India can't claim for any pondage. I think the logic was when the pondage tank is filled by the slit (up to spillway) the project becomes, at worst, a purely run of the river project.

This means we would loose all the storage capacity below the spillways over the years but will still have above spillway storage (gated spillways) with silt control in perpetuity. Not ideal but livable deal since the neutral expert ruled in our favor for the spillway gate heights

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 04 Dec 2018 03:07

Deans wrote:
Karthik S wrote:Gurus what are the ramifications of us completely stopping Indus water? Will it attract international sanctions? As this an international accord and not bilateral, will bodies like world bank create any trouble? Btw I assume China or Russia would have done it long back if they were in out place.


I have written on this for a couple of friendly think tanks.
We do not even ensure that our share of water is being used. Apart from the 3 projects being fast tracked, mentioned in an earlier post, we can do the following fairly easily:

1. We are allowed to utilise some water, of the 3 rivers allocated to Pak, under IWT, for water supply to Jammu. Similarly with irrigation
(we irrigate only 20% of the acreage available to us). We need to draw our full quote for drinking water/ irrigation.
2. Similarly, not a drop of water of the 3 rivers allotted to India should flow to Pak. We have scored own goals by not completing the Sutlej-Yamuna link canal.
3. Complete the Tulbul barrage across the Jhelum near Srinagar. Apart from enabling water transport along the river, we can control the flow into
POK. Flooding the Neelam valley (in summer) is a lot more effective than shelling it.
4. Move highly polluting industries away from the Ganga, to Jammu, (leather/ chemicals etc) where they can pollute the rivers just before they
flow into Pakistan. Relax pollution norms, to encourage jobs for J&K youth etc.
5. Help Afghanistan to negotiate water sharing treaties with Pak. Afghanistan holds the upper hand as its rivers flow into Pak. Help Afg complete
dams that restrict water flow into Pakistan.


No 5 is something that we should be paying extra attention to and go all out to achieve. Who would Pakistan go crying to? The Taliban? Even they would like to secure extra water for Afghanistan and would support any investment or dam building we do on the Kabul River.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20905
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 04 Dec 2018 04:21

Dumping all the crap into water flowing to Pakistan should be the first step. While we clean the filth , it create natural habitat for paki species.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby V_Raman » 04 Dec 2018 05:14

Katare wrote:Not ideal but livable deal since the neutral expert ruled in our favor for the spillway gate heights


Noob question: Does this affect power generation capacity in any way?

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2307
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 05 Dec 2018 04:44

It'll be much better if we can keep the pondage below gate level empty of silt by using new technology and understanding that has come up in the last 40 years. Unfortunately this technology and understanding didn't exist at the time of signing the treaty so it has not been explicitly included in the text. Pakistan is using this to it's advantage. IWT conditions are very clear that India has to release whatever water it receives in the last 24 hours within the next 24 hours and also keep a minimum flow/second at all times. With these conditions there is not much scope for us to divert or hold water but with larger pondage we gain strategically in defense.

The battle here is not for water as such but for or against India developing capability to control short term flooding of rivers during war to block Pakistan's counter offensives or aid Indian offensive in Kashmir. The LOC is broadly around the water bodies and ability to flood those bodies gives a tremendous advantage to us.

Pakistan fears that with multiple run of the river dams even with a modest storage capacity, India will have substantial capability to selectively flood rivers to suit it's war plans. We are getting there even while playing within the legal limits.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 932
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Lisa » 05 Dec 2018 12:22

Excuse the uneducated question, what are the options to dredge or siphon the silt from one side of the dam to the other to maintain dam capacity? The other side of the dam flows to pukistan and it becomes their problem and not ours, correct?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1100
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gyan » 05 Dec 2018 13:56

If it's workable then why is Salal Dam dead.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 05 Dec 2018 20:33

Prem wrote:Dumping all the crap into water flowing to Pakistan should be the first step. While we clean the filth , it create natural habitat for paki species.


This is not crap.

Its very good for irrigation and fertilization of land. This silt is very rich in nutrients, like a natural super fertilizer.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2307
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 06 Dec 2018 07:04

Lisa wrote:Excuse the uneducated question, what are the options to dredge or siphon the silt from one side of the dam to the other to maintain dam capacity? The other side of the dam flows to pukistan and it becomes their problem and not ours, correct?


Dredging cost for a large dam is usually much higher than what it would cost to build a new dam of same size at same location.

Anyhow in run of the river dams, power intake are located much higher at the dam and storage below can’t be diverted so it is basically useless in conventional sense. In other words if it gets filled with silt it wont affect power production at all.

The reason for pondage are related to river bed slope and population center upstream. As silts deposits at the river bed water level increases causing permanent flooding further upstream. Pondage in run of the river power plants are designed based on silt load in water and how long it takes for river to start flooding upstream areas that are not part of the dam. India and Pakistan both did those calculations for 60-100 year pondage life for baghliar but came up with very different pondage requirements. So it went to neutral expert.

IIRC, Chenab river has very high silt loads so the dam design uses state of the art draw down flushing technique. In last couple of decades hydrologist have learned that the draw down sluice gates need to be very low and as big as possible to generate a lifting force that can bring silts from as far away as 20-50 miles upstream.

This kind of excess water is available only during mansoon so Baghliar dam is design to do silt flusing each year by discharging massive amount of water through gates located very low during rainy season. These gates are only for flushing, regular gates are located higher up and finally spillways at the top. The dispute was around location and size of the flushing gates and the size of pondage.

One might ask why create a reservoir if you can’t really use it for anything? Power intakes are located near top so cant use stored water to turn turbines and can’t divert it for agriculture either because of the IWT. Well the pondage gets created because you need a large water head to turn turbines for electricity generation. To create that head you build a massively tall wall to block water behind it. The other reason is to control upstream flooding, river widening or change of river course.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Deans » 06 Dec 2018 10:38

chetak wrote:
Prem wrote:Dumping all the crap into water flowing to Pakistan should be the first step. While we clean the filth , it create natural habitat for paki species.


This is not crap.

Its very good for irrigation and fertilization of land. This silt is very rich in nutrients, like a natural super fertilizer.


Effluents from the leather and chemical industry, which have ruined large sections of the Ganga can be relocated to Jammu (just before
where the Chenab and Tawi rivers flow into Pak. These effluents make the water useless for drinking/ irrigation etc. Announcing (for e.g). a SEZ in Jammu for the leather industry, will at one stroke, help clean up the Ganga, create jobs in J&K and affect Pakistan's water quality.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17710
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 06 Dec 2018 15:57

Deans wrote:
chetak wrote:
This is not crap.

Its very good for irrigation and fertilization of land. This silt is very rich in nutrients, like a natural super fertilizer.


Effluents from the leather and chemical industry, which have ruined large sections of the Ganga can be relocated to Jammu (just before
where the Chenab and Tawi rivers flow into Pak. These effluents make the water useless for drinking/ irrigation etc. Announcing (for e.g). a SEZ in Jammu for the leather industry, will at one stroke, help clean up the Ganga, create jobs in J&K and affect Pakistan's water quality.


Deans saar,

Your points are well taken but I was talking about the silt accumulating in the j&k dams.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9876
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Dec 2018 17:24

Now that the topic of effluents has come up, people will realise why have been advocating Leather Industry moved to Pakiland giving up other forms of agriculture.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1592
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Manish_P » 07 Dec 2018 11:58

Centre okays dam on Ravi, will cut water flow to Pakistan

The Centre on Thursday approved implementation of the Shahpurkandi Dam project on the Ravi in Punjab. The move will allow India to use the water which at present goes “waste” flowing through the Madhopur Headworks downstream to Pakistan. Once completed in June 2022, it will improve irrigation potential of farmers in Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab.


The decision in this regard was taken by the Union Cabinet, keeping in view the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan. Under this 1960 treaty, India has full rights for utilisation of waters of the three eastern rivers namely Ravi, Beas and Satluj.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6123
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 08 Dec 2018 16:33

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

India’s next weapon - Eric Sharoon Shahzar

With the government’s braggadocios on the 100-day performance stealing all headlines, we are constantly neglecting our most pivotal security challenge — water. Climate change has struck us hard. Low precipitation levels, droughts and heatwaves have aggravated our water challenges. However, we are missing one crucial development here — a headline nowhere to be seen in Pakistan’s mainstream media. In an unprecedented move, India is using water as a weapon to further exacerbate relations with Pakistan — this time in Afghanistan.

In the Char Asiab district of Kabul, New Delhi is funding an ambitious dam that could reduce water flow to Pakistan’s downstream. The proposed Shahtoor dam will hold 146 million cubic metres of potable water for two million Kabul residents and irrigate 4,000 hectares of land. It is important to mention that the Kabul River empties into the Indus River near Attock, Punjab. As a result, there will be a 17%-20% reduction in Pakistan’s water flow. Using water as a weapon could easily trigger war in the fragile South Asian region.

Amid President Trump’s controversial South Asian Policy and India’s major investments in Afghanistan’s infrastructure in recent years, it is evident that India wants to use the Afghan soil to terrorise Pakistan. As the most water-stressed nation in South Asia, we are reaching towards dangerously low water levels, even below the crucial threshold of 1,000 cubic metres — a standard given by the World Bank. Water shortages are often root causes of war. Lack of water leads to food shortages, price increases and famine — all beget economic and politic turmoil. War-torn countries like Syria and Yemen are recent examples where absolute water shortages, along with other factors, led to total war.

Not to forget, India’s recently inaugurated Kishanganga dam also violated the historical Indus Water Treaty of 1960. The controversial dam has been constructed in the disputed territory of Kashmir. Adding more fuel to the conflict, New Dehli now has plans to debilitate our already paralysed water status through the Afghan soil.

Here, an extensive debate in parliament will serve to be extremely auspicious. A water caucus must be set up to investigate the depleting water levels and initiate a robust strategic plan to tackle this debacle. Pakistan should also intensify its water advocacy and diplomacy. The UN needs to know about India’s malicious attempts at deteriorating our water levels that might lead to a war in the region. As a low riparian state, the IWT allows us to contest these developments.

The question here is: Can Pakistan depend on river flows to curtail its precipitous water demands? With our population boom and unsustainable economic challenges, we need to explore alternative avenues. A country blessed with a 700km coastline must invest in water desalination plants. Faced with severe water scarcity by 2025, we must initiate long-term solutions. The Middle East has been a leader in desalination. India has already started a national mission on it. What is Pakistan waiting for?

To avoid a major conflict, Pakistan and Afghanistan must urgently start working on hydro-diplomacy. Both countries should look for joint solutions on common problems. Border challenges like climate trauma, water woes and diseases must be countered in coordinated forums. In an era where prospects of a peaceful Afghanistan are the priority of the world, New Delhi must not use the Afghan soil to hinder any peace process. Indo-Pak tensions over access to shared waterways have escalated in recent times — the last thing we need to see is war-torn Afghanistan becoming a part of this.

The 21st century is full of challenges for Pakistan. We cannot afford another major conflict based on water security. India’s animosity will only be counterproductive for South Asians.

Cheers Image


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests