Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
SaraLax
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 01 Nov 2005 21:15
Location: redemption land

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SaraLax » 29 Dec 2016 22:05

Folks,

What is current status of Kishenganga Hydro-Power Plant ?.

It appears the HCC led construction of this NHPC owned 3X110 MW project (using BHEL power equipments) is finished and as per last reports in news articles, they indicated filling up of Kishanganga river water in dam associated with this project. They also indicate that the PMO is actively monitoring this project. But no news of this power plant having been operationalized ... i.e commencement of generation of power.

Any ideas among members as to what is happening in this project currently and why the delay in starting of power generation ?.

Meanwhile ... as of Nov 2016 - the downstream 969MW Neelum Jhelum Power project in the POK region on same river - being constructed by a Chinese consortium is 85% complete (as per a news report in a Puke Newspaper).

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 30 Dec 2016 02:33

X Posting from the STFUP Thread

Tarbela dam power generation level reaches at its lowest

TARBELA: (APP) Power generation level of Tarbela dam on Thursday reached its lowest as ten hydro power generation units have been shut down.

According to dam officials, water level is only 40 feet above dead level which is 1378 feet. The inflow of water is 18,200 cusec and outflow 12,000 cusec.

Power generation units of Tarbela shut down

The power generation has lowered to 300 MW due to low water shortage and ten out of 14 power generation units have been shut down. Remaining seven units are not working at their full capacity either.

Dam officials also disclosed that this year owing to shortage of rain, they will be unable to provide full quota of water to the provinces which would also effect Wheat crop.
Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20446
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 30 Dec 2016 05:35

^ That is seasonal.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19916
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 31 Dec 2016 10:43

News was Written by Dar Itself
US ‘intervenes’ in Pak-India water dispute

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan yesterday said it will appreciate a positive US role in reconciliation with India on water issues but stressed that World Bank should not shirk its IWT responsibilities.This came as US Secretary of State John Kerry telephoned Finance Minister Ishaq Dar on Friday, telling him that the US wanted to see an amicable solution on issues relating to Indus Water Treaty (IWT).Being the broker of this water sharing agreement, it’s the World Bank which has a legitimate dispute resolution role; and if it fails then International Court of Justice is the only venue to get justice.But the Bank, in a move termed ‘seriously prejudiced’ by Islamabad, has put to a ‘pause’ the formation of a Court of Arbitration on Pakistan’s request to decide the dispute with the neighbouring country over India’s constructing two hydroelectric power plants on rivers flowing into Pakistan.Kerry told Dar that WB president had recently informed him about Pakistan’s complaints against India regarding IWT, adding his country would like to see the two South Asian states to find an amicable solution, an official statement issued by Islamabad said.
Dar told him that US support on the principles and legal position of Islamabad on Indus Water Treaty will be greatly appreciated. But he told him that IWT was an international commitment and it is the responsibility of the World Bank (WB) to make sure that India honours this treaty so that water rights of hundreds of millions of Pakistanis are protected.He said that the Court of Arbitration (CoA) is the legal requirement and appointment of the chairman of CoA must be fulfilled by the bank. He added that the WB president had been in touch with him in writing and also on telephone during the current month.Dar in a letter to WB president had expressed serious concern over the decision of halting the process of empanelment of the CoA Pakistan had sought.Earlier this week, Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said India's violation of the treaty would set a dangerous precedent for other countries to behave similarly, but remained hopeful that India would refrain from such actions.
Secretary Kerry in his phone talk also appreciated the improvement in economic indicators of Pakistan and congratulated Dar on this achievement.
The finance minister shared with him the latest developments in the economy and the Pakistan Stock Exchange and said that all economic indicators had improved over the last three years. He also said that the government after having achieved macro-economic stability was now focused on achieving higher sustainable and inclusive economic growth.Kerry recalled that his association with Senator Ishaq Dar went back to the days when he was Leader of Opposition in the Senate. The minister warmly acknowledged his association with Secretary Kerry and said that he considered him a friend and supporter of Pakistan and it was always a pleasure to work with him.The finance minister also congratulated Secretary Kerry on his statement of this week on the Middle East peace process and Palestinian rights.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 31 Dec 2016 11:21

^^^^^^^


All round panic in the islamic hordes who now realize that they have been caught with their salwars down. How to explain to their unwashed brethren that the IWT has been very very unfairly slanted in their (paki) favor by US + allies deliberately shafting India?? and that too an upper riparian state??

How do the pakjabis explain to their unwashed abduls that their own (paki) govt has completely and fatally messed up, in spite of fraudulently garnering such a huge advantage, aided and abetted by the US+allies via the "World Bank" which now has no credibility and even less authority and more importantly, no locus standi as the "alleged" guarantor of the IWT .

What happens if the "world bank" is told to f(uk off by the GOI?? which may well ask the WB to first ensure that the pakis completely first stop terror against India. The alleged goodwill that was to accrue to India has not happened and since one of the principal foundation premises of the IWT has failed miserably, the conclusion is that the IWT has failed because of the dishonest machinations of one treaty state, India is well justified in abrogating the IWT it's entirety or seeking to renegotiate a more practical and equitable treaty with new conditions/stipulations embodying the political realities as currently obtainable.

IWT was signed when east and west pakiland was one entity. The treaty will not now legally stand against a completely truncated and diminished state and therefore must be renegotiated as a major portion of the population of the erstwhile state has departed, ergo, their water needs have reduced by the extent of the departed population and diminished landmass. Nowhere does the IWT state that the sole beneficiary of the IWT is ONLY the western region the the erstwhile state of pakiland

so called pakiland is thus a brand new country and not the automatic inheritor or the heir of the mantle of the erstwhile state of the undivided lands/polity of pakiland.

When a majority portion of the truncated erstwhile state of pakiland has given up "claims" to cashmere, how is the new state justified in it's mindless pursuit of such an idiotic policy??

If pukiland 'supports the kashmir struggle diplomatically, politically, morally', then we stand completely justified in withdrawing our (Indian) 'support and commitment to the IWT diplomatically, politically, morally', in light of the blatant terrorism pursued by pukiland against India for untold decades since partition.

Welcome to a legal and political mess which should tie up the pakis for decades to come.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8483
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 31 Dec 2016 12:52

Bakis are just blowing hot air to cover up their failure.

IIRC, WB was just the facilitator during the initial phase and it role after that is very limited. And that goes for the US and UN or for that matter any other international body. Knocking on the doors of ICJ is just loud farting for the consumption of the apduls i.e to show the serious intent of Bakis gov.

As with Kashmir, status quo favors India in that it can keep building while there is a logjam in the IWT implementation process. Suspending the permanent IWT commission (or whatever) by India was with this understanding. India's effort should be to prove that the treaty is unworkable and build up to the point where abrogation is inevitable. It can be renegotiated after that or may be not.

I think the Bakis realize that and that is why they are begging with everyone to intervene on its behalf with India. Nothing will come off it but that doesn't prevent Bakis from making an effort to rope others in for its cause.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 31 Dec 2016 13:50

any idea of what have been yearly flows into various rivers over last 30 years? has the flow been increasing or decreasing?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20446
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 03 Jan 2017 13:29

DAWN says that US initiates process for resolving Pakistan-India water dispute
The US administration has initiated the process for peacefully resolving the current water dispute between India and Pakistan without waiting for an invitation to do so, official sources told Dawn.

The latest dispute concerns two hydroelectric power plants — Kishanganga and Ratle — that India is building on the Indus rivers system. Pakistan believes that the projects violate the design parameters of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), which provides specific criteria for such plants.

Earlier this week, US Secretary of State John Kerry called Finance Minister Ishaq Dar and discussed with him different options for an amicable settlement of the dispute. After the call, US Ambassador to Pakistan David Hale also met Mr Dar in Islamabad at the finance ministry for further talks.


The initiative stems from the fear the US administration shares with the World Bank that the dispute, if dragged, may harm the treaty that has effectively resolved water disputes between India and Pakistan for more than half a century.

The IWT is a water-distribution agreement between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank and signed in Karachi on Sept 19, 1960. It recognises the bank as the main arbitrator {No, absolutely not. The WB is *NOT* any arbitrator. Under certain circumstances, it can appoint either a neutral expert (NE) or a court of arbitration (CoA). That's all} and suggests appointing neutral experts and a court of arbitration for resolving disputes.{No, the WB does not listen to 'complaints' from India or Pakistan and then 'suggests' a NE or a CoA. When an NE is enough or when a CoA needs to be appointed is well and unambiguously laid out in the IWT itself. The present dispute arises from the fact that India justifies the case as fit enough for an NE while Pakistan wants a CoA. That's the crux of the problem facing the WB. Pakistan wants to make out as though the WB has a stake in IWT. Its only stake is in ensuring the appointment of a NE or a panel for CoA. The WB must be cursing itself for getting involved in this tangle now!}

Pakistan has asked the World Bank to appoint chairman of the court of arbitration while India has demanded appointment of a neutral expert.

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim wrote to the finance ministers of India and Pakistan, informing them that he has ‘paused’ the requested arbitration and asked them to decide by the end of January how they wanted to settle the dispute.

On Dec 23, Finance Minister Dar told the bank that Pakistan was not withdrawing its request and since the process had already been “inordinately delayed,” the bank should appoint chairman of the court of arbitration as soon as possible.

Two days later, Dr Kim called Mr Dar for further talks, followed by Secretary Kerry who called the finance minister during the Christmas holidays.

It is unusual for a US official to do so, particularly because the Obama administration completes its final tenure on Jan 20.

Usually, the outgoing administration leaves such issues for the incoming administration to tackle.

“But seriousness of this dispute, particularly the fear that it may harm the treaty, forced Mr. Kerry to make this call,” an official source told Dawn.

Diplomatic observers in Washington say that since the United States has facilitated the Indus Waters Treaty, it feels obliged to take a proactive role in this matter.


The treaty requires appointment of chairman of the court of arbitration and its three members within 60 days after a disputing party asks for arbitration.

If the two countries fail to appoint umpires, the two parties prepare a draw of lots and request a “person” mentioned in the treaty to select the umpire.

While the chairman can be selected by either the secretary general of the United Nations or president of the World Bank, technical members can be selected from a draw of lots by president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or rector of the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.

The legal umpire can be selected from a draw of lots by either chief justice of the United States or lord chief justice of England.

Pakistan took its case to the World Bank in Sept 2016, urging the bank to prevent India from making illegal constructions on Neelum and Chenab rivers.

The differences on the designs of the two plants were discussed but could not be resolved in the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th and 112th meetings of the Permanent Commission for Indus Waters
, comprising one commissioner from each country, which is responsible for the implementation of the treaty.

Secretary-level talks followed but they also failed.

On Aug 19, Pakistan formally requested the government of India to refer the dispute to the court of arbitration, as provided in Article IX of the treaty.

The Indian media reported in September that New Delhi had decided to suspend water talks until “Pakistan-sponsored terror” in India ends.

And last month, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also threatened to choke the flow of water into Pakistan if it does not stop terrorists. This caused Islamabad to fear that India was determined to complete the two plants and was buying time to do so by dragging the talks.

Pakistan wants a court of arbitration, instead of a neutral expert, because only the court can take a decision that’s legally binding. {Rubbish. Both are equally binding as per IWT. however, Pakistan fancies its chances better with a panel that need not contain all members as hydrological experts, whereas a NE will be a highly qualified technical person. The NE in Baglihar case and the CoA in Kishenganga case prove this point.}

An expert can only give a technical opinion, giving India more time to complete the projects.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3435
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby panduranghari » 03 Jan 2017 13:35

International fora do not work for India. What is the point of continuing with the charade? UNSC wrt Azhar, NSG wrt China...our contribution to the running of UN in terms of money itself is substantial.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8674
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby arun » 04 Jan 2017 12:36

X Posted from the STFUP thread.

US State Department on the conversation between US Secretary of State Johna Kerry and Mohammadden Terrorist Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s Finance Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar dealing with the Indus Water Treaty.

John Kirby is certainly not admitting what the Mohammadden Terrorist Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan is saying per the Dawn Article posted by S Sridhar (03 Jan 2017 01:29 pm) in a post in this thread (Clicky):

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 3, 2017 ……………………….

QUESTION: Do you know or do you have some readout about Secretary call or talk with Pakistan’s Finance Minister Dar on Indus Water Treaty?

MR KIRBY: I can confirm that he did speak on the 29th of December with Finance Minister Dar. I’m not going to read that out in any great detail. The Indus Waters Treaty has served, I think as you know, as a model for peaceful cooperation between India and Pakistan for now 50 years. We encourage, as we have in the past, India and Pakistan to work together to resolve any differences.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. offered to mediate on this issue between India and Pakistan? As you know, there are some disputes between the two countries on this issue.

MR KIRBY: As I said, we encourage India and Pakistan to work together bilaterally to resolve their differences.

QUESTION: Has he talked to the Indians also on this issue?

MR KIRBY: We’re in regular communication with the Indian and Pakistani governments on a wide range of issues. I just don’t have any more details for you.

QUESTION: But not at his level, right?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any more detail for you.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.



From here:

Clicky

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12314
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Lalmohan » 04 Jan 2017 16:20

looks like the original masters of 'false news' are up to their usual tricks w.r.t. 'unkil ne bola!'

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19916
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 05 Jan 2017 01:31

Lalmohan wrote:looks like the original masters of 'false news' are up to their usual tricks w.r.t. 'unkil ne bola!'


Dar Miyan is on mission to boost his personal numbers with Paki Awaraam. He has thrown i many manufactured news in the market to double fool the fools of lahore.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 06 Jan 2017 15:32

X Posted on the STFUP Thread

World Bank to set up Court of Arbitration, neutral expert

NEW DELHI: India asked the World Bank not to rush into broker a deal on its dispute with Pakistan over Kishenganga and Ratle projects, asserting that the differences can be resolved bilaterally or through a neutral expert.

India’s position was conveyed during a meeting of World Bank representative Ian H. Solomon with senior officials of external affairs and water resources ministries.

Solomon is here as part of World Bank’s efforts to break the deadlock between the two neighbours on the Kishenganga and Ratle projects which are coming up in Jammu and Kashmir.

In a meeting Thursday, the Indian side, led by joint secretary in the MEA, Gopal Baglay gave a presentation on the two projects and insisted that being a neutral expert he should look into the objections raised by Pakistan on technical issues, government sources said.

They said India also maintained that the design of the projects do not violate the Indo-Pak Indus Waters Treaty. Under the IWT, signed by India and Pakistan in 1960, the World Bank has a specific role of dispute resolution between the two countries.

Soloman, on his part, tried to explore ways on how to move forward, the sources said, adding he did not raise query regarding designs of the two projects.

“We made presentation. We stick to our position that there should be a neutral expert to look into the issue as objections raised by Pakistan relating to the projects concerned are technical in nature.

We also maintained that the projects designs do not violate the IWT. Nothing was decided in the meeting,” said a source. The World Bank had decided to set up a Court of Arbitration (CoA) to settle the disputes following Pakistan’s demand and also agreed to appoint a neutral expert sought by India.

India had reacted strongly to the decision to appoint the CoA and last month the World Bank announced it would temporarily halt the two simultaneous processes to resolve the differences.

India has been maintaining that it is fully conscious of its international obligations and is ready to engage in further consultations to resolve the differences regarding the two projects.

Cheers Image

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8483
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 06 Jan 2017 17:16

cross post
------------------->
http://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.h ... 6439/Indus [Indus Waters Treaty - September 19, 1960]

ANNEXURE F-NEUTRAL EXPERT (Article IX (2))

Point 11 > The decision of the Neutral Expert on all matters within his competence shall be final and binding, in respect of the particular matter on which the decision is made, upon the Parties and ~upon any Court of Arbitration established under the provisions of Article IX (5).

A lay man's reading > Any decision that is made by a *competent NE*, especially on technical matters like Dam design/Spillover design/Gate design/Flushing mechanism is binding not only on the Bakis BUT also on the CoA. Hows that!

It is logical if you think why bakis would rather go to a panel mostly consisting of lawyers than a technical expert. With a bunch of lawyers you can bring extraneous arguments, cite international *norms*, etc and insert the latest worldwide concerns like global warming to argue for an expansion of the treaty terms meant for the protection of the lower riparian.

A Neutral expert has much less leeway when dealing with a technical question.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20446
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jan 2017 18:53

India resists World Bank move to resolve Indus Water Treaty dispute - DAWN
For a while now Pakistan has also wanted to bring China into the picture

At the sixth meeting of the Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) of the CPEC which was held in Beijing on December 29, a special group on water storage was formed to pre-empt any "severe water crisis" impacting economic and food security of Pakistan, an official statement said.

After a Chinese delegation visits Pakistan later this month, the JCC – the highest policy-making forum of the CPEC – may consider including the Diamer-Bhasha dam into the CPEC agreement.

Planned at an estimated cost of around USD 15 billion, if Pakistan succeeds in getting the dam financed under CPEC, planning and development minister Ahsan Iqbal would consider it a "landmark achievement".

Both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have refused to lend money to Pakistan for this hydropower project.

Pakistani experts react

Leading lawyer and former federal law minister, Ahmer Bilal Soofi termed the inclusion of water security into CPEC essentially a "political choice for Pakistan and China" though the issue does not "squarely fall within the otherwise commercial mandate of CPEC".

Speaking to thethirdpole.net, Soofi said Pakistan and China need to exchange notes on a "contradicting state practice of India as an upper riparian to Pakistan and a lower riparian to China, that will help both the states to confront India."


He further added that Pakistan should raise its voice at an international level that "India’s building of reservoir and fully utilising the water storage capacity under the treaty poses a serious threat to Pakistan in particular backdrop of India’s present posturing as it improves India’s capability to manipulate water flows into Pakistan."

This was echoed by former commissioner Shah who said the international community should be duly briefed about the “dilution of the violation of the provisions of the treaty” by India.

At the same time, he said both countries should continue to work closely and quietly to resolve the grievances and find a middle ground.


The recent stance by India where it “lobbied aggressively and influenced” the World Bank, he feared, had further undermined the already “fragile” treaty.

"The WB needs to take the right action – which is to act as arbitrator in this matter, as it has done before," pointed out water expert Simi Kamal.

The reason why the IWT, 74 pages long with 12 articles and 8 annexures and has no expiry date, has worked so far, she said was partly because the Bank acted as a third party.

"The Bank needs to maintain this role and not back off now, when its arbitration role is most required in the face of a belligerent Indian government."

Kamal further said the solution lay not in the pause by the Bank "or for hawks to call for dismantling the treaty", but for both governments to act responsibly and for the Bank to play its role in "containing adventurism by either government – in this matter the Indian government".

Shah also felt when Pakistan plans to proceed with such cases, it never does its homework thoroughly and therefore always appears the weaker party.

The same was endorsed by noted economist Kaiser Bengali when he told thethirdpole.net that he found “the intellectually deficient and politically inane manner in which Pakistan has been pursuing the matter”, criminal.

Bengali had little confidence in the Pakistan IWT team.

He said, “It has no strategy on dealing with water issues with India. Pakistan’s chief negotiator for more than a decade and a half had limited intellectual capacity to lead on such a strategically life and death issue," he said.

He said Pakistan keeps harping on the "spirit" of the agreement.

"Four decades after a treaty is signed, what matters is the letter of the print, not the spirit of the time when the document was signed."

Bengali believed India was not violating the letter of the agreement. "India has been building power plants on western rivers, but not diverting any water."

Nor, he said, were Pakistan’s contentions on the design "substantive enough to warrant a full scale confrontation".

He also observed, like Shah, that differences can and should be resolved in a more "low key" manner.

He feared that since India was not violating the treaty per se, if Pakistan does take the latter to court, it will meet the same fate as the Baglihar Dam case of 2007.


Indian stand

While Indian officials maintain that they are sticking to the IWT, the government has hardened its stand in recent months after attacks on Indian Army camps in Kashmir by suspected militants.

New Delhi had earlier said it was setting up a task force to examine what projects it could undertake in the three western rivers of the Indus basin under the ambit of the IWT.

In the last week of 2016, the government announced that the task force would be headed by Nripendra Mishra, principal secretary to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

This article originally appeared on The Third Pole and has been reproduced with permission.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8483
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 06 Jan 2017 19:44

SSridhar wrote:India resists World Bank move to resolve Indus Water Treaty dispute - DAWN
Kamal further said the solution lay not in the pause by the Bank "or for hawks to call for dismantling the treaty", but for both governments to act responsibly and for the Bank to play its role in "containing adventurism by either government – in this matter the Indian government".

First, going by the whole fart it seems that bakis have accepted that India has the upper hand even with the IWT in place i.e most of the points starting from pulling in China to "both governments to act responsibly" to others all point in the same direction.

Secondly, I had this though and wanted to frame it in the correct context. Both government requested for separate process and WB accepted both request and initiated process simultaneously.

Let us ignore for the moment the question if WB has discretion on wich request to accept or deny, which process to abort and which request takes precedence, etc.

Now that both process has been initiated against the explicit injunction in the treaty where does that leave the treaty hanji? The treaty/process has been violated not by India but by WB by initiating both process. On top of that WB has paused both process. One is tempted to ask under what clause of the treaty has that been done hanji? No wonder WB thinks there is a *threat* to the treaty ... one created by its own foolishness.

Looks like the treaty is under threat because of the foolishness of the Bakis (in trying to pull a fast one on India) and the WB for not initiating consultation before initiating CoA process.

Theek hai let them deal with it. We need to stick to our stand and allow the rest of the situation to resolve itself. Either the Bakis withdraw their request or end up destroying the treaty that is so dear to them now but not long back was hated.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 06 Jan 2017 22:03

Pakistan not doing its homework on Indus Waters Treaty, says former commissioner

Pakistan’s former Indus Water Commissioner Jamait Ali Shah says any bilateral talks at this stage will be an exercise in futility

The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is once again in the news, especially the role being played by the designated mediator, the World Bank. As a Bank representative starts to shuttle between New Delhi and Islamabad in an effort to resolve the disputes over Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, Pakistan’s former Indus Water Commissioner Jamait Ali Shah speaks to thethirdpole.net.

Zofeen T. Ebrahim (ZTE): What is your view of the IWT situation now, especially in light of the ongoing dispute?

Jamait Ali Shah (JAH): In my view the World Bank has bowed to Indian pressure which in turn is stalling on the process of resolution by a Court of Arbitration (CoA). Only after having failed to resolve the issue bilaterally with India had Pakistan approached the Bank to set up the CoA. This was a last resort.

So the Bank’s request to restart start bilateral negotiations at the level of the Indus Commission is going to be an exercise in futility. To my mind, this dilly dallying on the part of the Bank only reinforces the latter’s intention to give impetus to Prime Minister of India’s threat of scrapping the treaty.

This is indeed very alarming for Pakistan and there is suspicion that India is pushing Pakistan for a Treaty II only on the western rivers, the waters of which had been allocated to Pakistan in 1960. That is why the Bank and the US are seen debating it and dictating Pakistan for an amicable resolution (revision in the treaty) bilaterally or with the involvement of a third party. Or at least India wants to get out of the restriction laid down on them in the IWT regarding western rivers, as India cannot liberally utilise these waters as per its will and demand.

ZTE: So what should Pakistan do?

JAH: The disinterest in the matter of the ministry of water and power in Pakistan has also added to the damage. Pakistan first notified India for resolution of the questions (on Kishanganga and Ratle projects) by a NE (neutral expert) and then withdrew it, then approached the Bank for a CoA.

I feel it was an issue to be resolved by the NE being technical/design in nature. Therefore, processing it through CoA was not required. But the question that comes to mind is to look deeper in the vested interest in the deadlock. Who is guiding Pakistan to go round in circles? Most importantly, who engaged the two law firms in Washington DC which decided to process the case for CoA through the Bank? Many people aim to benefit from the case being taken from one authority to another. I have learnt that the expenses incurred are PKR 300 million of which PKR 190 million has already been paid.

Cheers Image

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19916
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 12 Jan 2017 12:16

Hydel generation registers sharp winter decline

SLAMABAD: The hydel power generation in the country has witnessed a sharp decline due to less releases of water from dams following canal closures for de-silting.“The power generation through hydel resources has come down to 550MW against installed capacity of 6,900MW,” said an official of Water and Power Ministry while requesting anonymity.Under the annual canal closure plan, the canals are closed from Dec 26 to Jan 31 for maintenance and de-silting leading to low water releases from dams causing decline in hydel electricity generation.
Dams are built for water storage and electricity is a byproduct. However, the electricity demand in the winter season is about 12,000 MW against 18,000MW to 19,000MW demand of summer.According to reports, eleven power generation units of Tarbela dam have been shut down due to low water level in the lake and power production capacity has reached its lowest. Only three power generation units are producing 297MW electricity and they are also not working at their full capacity.The Tarbela dam officials disclosed that due to decreased water inflow in the dam the capacity of the dam’s power production has reduced from 3,478MW to only 297MW.The present water level at Tarbel dam stands at 1,426.95 feet against the maximum conservation level of 1,550 feet. The water level at Mangla dam is 1,101.30 feet against the maximum conservation level of 1,242 feet while the level at Chashma is 640 feet against the maximum conservation level of 649 feet.Wapda said the inflows and outflows of River Indus at Tarbela and Chashma, River Kabul at Nowshera and River Jhelum at Mangla have been reflected as mean flows of 24 hours, whereas the other flows have been gauged at 6
am.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1292064/clo ... back-page/

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 12 Jan 2017 12:28

a) as SSridhar said due to winters.. less water in rivers ... but what would be interesting to know if the water level has fallen so low in the past also..? b) what is the issue wrt Krishenganga that Pakis want to take for arbitration? thought arbitration already happen. c) what is issue with Ratle? any idea.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8483
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 13 Jan 2017 00:19

Watch from 4:15 to 09 for IWT related stuff ... From back in 2009, just after Obama's election, posted in Feb 2016. I saw it just now.

This seems just after baglihar dam verdict. He seems to suggest that the NE, being a hydrologist and knowing nothing of the geopolitics of the subcontinent, deciding on technical favoring India. Bakis should not go for a NE but prefer a CoA ... like what Bakis did this time.

He says that if 10 such dams are built India will have a tremendous control over the river flow. What is interesting is that the total capacity of Baglihar Reservoir is just 42K acre-feet (Wiki baba; Active:12,161 acre·ft; Inactive: 29,996 acre·ft) while the total annual flow is 21-22 MILLION acre·ft. Put another way, 10 Baglihars could at max store less than 2% of the total annual Chennab flows. If you consider the active portion only, 10 Baglihars could at max store less than 0.5% of the total flow.

Either wiki baba is COMPLETELY wrong or the ex-farts are just farting to score points on behalf of Bakistan.



He endorses a lat af Baki $shit. It is because of these pandus that Bakis get the confidence to spread their stink.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 17 Jan 2017 03:25

Neelum-Jhelum: Sick power project heading towards completion, says PM

SLAMABAD: Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) has made payments to contractors of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Power Project without any work, but assessing the current pace of progress, the prime minister is pleased that the critical energy scheme is on its way towards completion.

The project came up for discussion in a high-level meeting chaired by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

The premier noted that despite the 969-megawatt Neelum-Jhelum project being ill-planned and payments made to the contractors without any work, the current Wapda chairman took personal interest in making the scheme move at a fast pace.

“It is heartening to see this sick project, which had become a national liability, heading towards completion,” he remarked.

Wapda Chairman Muzammil Hussain told the meeting that the project was scheduled to be ready for mock operations in December 2017, and dry and wet tests would be conducted in January and February 2018.

Giving the time frame for commissioning of the power units, he revealed that the first unit would start functioning by February 28, 2018, the second unit by March 15 and third and fourth units by April 15.

Hussain pointed out that Wapda had given Rs1.1 billion to the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, where the Neelum-Jhelum project was located, for socio-economic uplift of people of the region.

He said the previous consultant, who was receiving Rs7.2 million per month, had been relieved of his duties and a new consultant of good repute, who had also been previously engaged with the project, was hired. “This change has been greatly beneficial to the project,” he said.

Wapda, tasked with building dams to ensure water and food security, has come in for a lot of criticism for poor design of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Power Project.

News dams are critical to stave off floods that Pakistan has been facing for the past several years. The deluge has caused loss of human lives and damaged agricultural crops.

The Neelum-Jhelum project is being built on the Neelum River. Initially, its estimated cost in 1989 was Rs15.2 billion that jumped up to Rs420 billion later. The project has been designed in an effort to secure water rights over Neelum as India is constructing Kishanganga Dam upstream.

Wapda authorities acknowledge that the project was not properly planned from the beginning as realistic financial and geographical surveys were not reflected in the original project cycle.

The poor design necessitated mid-course changes in the dam structure, hydraulic structures, cross-section of the Head Race Tunnel and tunneling methodology.

Vague estimates and engineering surveys along with some force majeure like rock burst and water seepage below and above the tunnel were also the reasons behind the delay.

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 17 Jan 2017 10:30

panduranghari wrote:International fora do not work for India. What is the point of continuing with the charade? UNSC wrt Azhar, NSG wrt China...our contribution to the running of UN in terms of money itself is substantial.


forget money, we also "contribute" foolishly in terms of peacekeeping troops.

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3216
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby saip » 19 Jan 2017 01:34

No imminent threat to Indus treaty, minister tells Senate panel

“They have already made three run-of-the-river hydropower projects on the Jhelum and two on the Chenab. All of these are run-of-the-river projects and the water ultimately comes to us, it does not stop there. They did not make any reservoirs,”


Tone of this bozo, who seems to think he is also the Defense Minister, seemed to have changed. So big bad India is NOT stealing water from Pakistani rivers.

Dawn

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 19 Jan 2017 05:56

chetak..let me tell u about 'contribute' foolishly aspect..UN posting is very very eagerly sought after in IA... it has helped many build their house..marry their daughters...cater to childrens education... coming out of the UN system is easier said that done. How many countries as per u have exited UN? even Israel which sees a resolution against it every other day has choosen to stay..

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 19 Jan 2017 12:35

manjgu wrote:chetak..let me tell u about 'contribute' foolishly aspect..UN posting is very very eagerly sought after in IA... it has helped many build their house..marry their daughters...cater to childrens education... coming out of the UN system is easier said that done. How many countries as per u have exited UN? even Israel which sees a resolution against it every other day has choosen to stay..


I am fully aware of all this.

I speak in terms of the country and not the IA/soldier per se.

The country should not be so eagerly running behind such low level house keeping chores, as it were. Let someone else do it. The IA is over qualified for this.

Our IA can certainly be better utilized and indeed better showcased in doing more important things, if at all and not engaging in such menial tasks simply because the "need" is there. It is certainly not our need and we have gained nothing from all the years that we have done this. These tasks are low-grade, low-status and we have not managed to get much national ROI that we could use.

The UN will of course extoll our role because they do not get as much "peace keeping" troops as they need. We have been enmeshed, rightly or wrongly, in some unsavory scandals that has resulted in the international denigration of our troops. This is unacceptable. Our soldiers serve with honor and surely, they deserve better.

We are not now closer to a SC seat nor have we gained any tangible leverage from such actions.

The Army needs to be de linked completely from any foolish gandhian thought. It's a blunt instrument of state power and it is also used at times for diplomatic leverage where some tangible advantage may be gained.

I see no such advantage accruing to the IA nor to the country.

daughter's marriage, house building and children's education, important as they undoubtedly are, cannot form the basis of our international engagements where only national interest should reign supreme.

where did you get this "exit the UN system" from?? Not from me, for sure.

I merely said exit the peace keeping part. Which law says that we HAVE to contribute troops for this purpose??

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3980
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SBajwa » 19 Jan 2017 20:48

When Liaqat and Nehru signed the IWT., the majority population of Pakistan was Bengali. Since then in 1971 majority of Pakistani population have created Bangladesh. I think that India should raise this in UNO thatwhat is the right of "West Pakistan" to call itself as "Pakistan". Also! all treaties before 1971 with "West Pakistan" must be evaluated and/or sign again.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20446
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 20 Jan 2017 19:19

Pakistan asks India, World Bank to inform it of all future hydel projects - DAWN
Pakistan has asked the World Bank and India to inform Islamabad of all the dams and hydropower projects proposed to be built by New Delhi on the western rivers, and not just the two projects under dispute currently, so that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) could be followed smoothly in future, an inter-ministerial meeting presided over by Finance Minister Ishaq Dar was told on Thursday.

Ministers and other representatives of the ministries of water and power, foreign affairs and law and justice, the Attorney General’s Office and civil and military experts attended the meeting.

Pakistan’s executive director in the World Bank, Nasir Mehmood Khosa, attended the meeting as a special invitee and the water and power secretary briefed all those present on the ongoing dispute with India.

The meeting observed that the president of the World Bank had drawn up the lots for appointment of umpires for a court of arbitration before it had put on hold the process about two months ago.

“This meant that the World Bank was convinced and had accepted Pakistan’s position,” said Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf.

Pakistan’s stance was that not only the two schemes under dispute at the moment — the Kishanganga and Ratle projects — but technical and other details of all the upcoming projects should be shared with the World Bank and Pakistan, along with their designs and locations, so that Islamabad could examine them in a manner that they did not create problems every now and then and the treaty could function smoothly :rotfl: , said Mr Ausaf.

The meeting also asked a taskforce led by the attorney general to formulate a strategy for future handling of the disputed projects.

Mr Ausaf said the chief executive officer of the bank, Kristalina I. Georgieva, who is second only in hierarchy to its president, would arrive on Jan 26 for deliberations on the subject. He said the senior official was inducted into the World Bank group on Jan 2 and her visit to Pakistan would be her first trip outside Washington, which meant that the bank was attaching great importance to Islamabad’s case.

At the same time, Mr Ausaf said, it was decided that the bank must be reminded that it had a critical role to play and that it should honour its responsibilities under the treaty.


An official statement about the meeting said Pakistan viewed the treaty as a useful and time-tested mechanism for sharing water with India and that Islamabad had always abided by it.

The finance minister said it was in the interest of both countries that they continue to implement the terms of the treaty. In this spirit, Pakistan would continue to fulfil its obligations under the IWT.

The contrasting stances of Pakistan and India were deliberated in detail at the meeting.

The water and power secretary informed the meeting of the plans for beefing up of the Indus Water Commission.

Mr Khosa briefed the meeting on the role of the World Bank and presented an update on the interaction with the bank’s management. He said that as a guarantor of the treaty, the bank appeared to be cognisant of its role.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby ranjan.rao » 20 Jan 2017 21:20

^^we should ask them to keep checking with us by asking ur PM to keep calling us once in a while, humiliation needs to me meted out to these pigrels

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5092
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 20 Jan 2017 21:43

SSridhar wrote:Pakistan has asked the World Bank and India to inform Islamabad of all the dams and hydropower projects proposed to be built by New Delhi on the western rivers


That's one heck of a dumb request by the pakis. IWT Art. VII is quite clear on the protocol of providing notices. Do the pakis want to revisit it?

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3980
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SBajwa » 20 Jan 2017 22:29

We should start calling Pakistan as "West Bangladesh" or "West Bakistan" just to make them equal-equal to the rest in our neighborhood.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19916
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 21 Jan 2017 01:11

anupmisra wrote:
SSridhar wrote:Pakistan has asked the World Bank and India to inform Islamabad of all the dams and hydropower projects proposed to be built by New Delhi on the western rivers


That's one heck of a dumb request by the pakis. IWT Art. VII is quite clear on the protocol of providing notices. Do the pakis want to revisit it?


Send the list of 16993 projects one at every 24 hr interval .
Last edited by Prem on 21 Jan 2017 01:35, edited 1 time in total.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3435
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby panduranghari » 21 Jan 2017 01:19

manjgu wrote:chetak..let me tell u about 'contribute' foolishly aspect..UN posting is very very eagerly sought after in IA... it has helped many build their house..marry their daughters...cater to childrens education... coming out of the UN system is easier said that done. How many countries as per u have exited UN? even Israel which sees a resolution against it every other day has choosen to stay..


Well thats true, but there has to be tangible benefits of being in the club. Can you enumerate benefits at the nation state level.

Do we really to contribute to peace keeping? No.
Do we really need to beg to be INCLUDED as a member of UNSC with veto powers? No.

UN is just a club made by the western victors to keep the colonised under check. When it was established, we never got a say, we still dont.

Israel and India is an improper comparison. Israel punches above its weight, India punches wayyyy below its.

The global south as the west calls us and the other 3rd and 4th world countries, look up to India for guidance and takes cues from us.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 21 Jan 2017 02:22

manjgu wrote:chetak..let me tell u about 'contribute' foolishly aspect..UN posting is very very eagerly sought after in IA... it has helped many build their house..marry their daughters...cater to childrens education... coming out of the UN system is easier said that done. How many countries as per u have exited UN? even Israel which sees a resolution against it every other day has choosen to stay..
panduranghari wrote:Well thats true, but there has to be tangible benefits of being in the club. Can you enumerate benefits at the nation state level.

Do we really to contribute to peace keeping? No.
Do we really need to beg to be INCLUDED as a member of UNSC with veto powers? No.

UN is just a club made by the western victors to keep the colonised under check. When it was established, we never got a say, we still dont.

Israel and India is an improper comparison. Israel punches above its weight, India punches wayyyy below its.

The global south as the west calls us and the other 3rd and 4th world countries, look up to India for guidance and takes cues from us.
pandurunghari Ji :

If memory serves me right the UNSC membership was offered and our "Noble Peace Prize" seeking - him who agreed to the IWT giving 80.2% of the waters as well as paying about US$ 67 Million to Pakistan without having it being authorized by the Indian Parliament - proposed his Bhais who stabbed him in the back in 1962 - in India's place :x :evil:

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20446
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 21 Jan 2017 13:57

National Assembly body wants govt to ask WB to adjudicate on dispute - DT
National Assembly Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Water and Power advised the federal government to ask the World Bank on constituting the Court of Arbitration for mediation under the Indus Waters Treaty without further delay to adjudicate on India's ongoing construction of water projects.

A meeting of both committees was jointly held on Friday in Parliament House with the chairmen of both committees of Awais Khan Leghari and Arshad Khan Leghari jointly presided over the meeting. The meeting was briefed on the agenda "Indian threat on Indus Waters Treaty and to chart out a course of action for Pakistan".
An expert on International Treaties Ahmer Bilal Sofi has said during the briefing, that according the treaty, no country could unilaterally revoke IWT.

He said Pakistan could take up water issues with India on different international forums. He also proposed that Pakistan also should sign and ratify UN conventions on water. Water and Power Secretary Younus Dagha briefed the committee that Indian Prime Minister Modi's threat of revoking the agreement was serious. He said that Pakistan had taken up the issue according the treaty forcefully.

Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry said recently in the wake of resistance by Kashmiris in Indian held Kashmir, India wanted to divert the international community's attention from it. He said that the Indian PM's statement for revoking IWT was in this perspective. He said India was violating the treaty and using delaying tactics while Pakistan wanted a quick resolution of water issues with India. He said that Pakistan had concerns that India was making plans to construct more than 40 water projects. He said that resolution of water issues with India out of IWT were not in favour of Pakistan and it would only serve Indian interests. {So, Pakis admit that the IWT is in their favour}

After a detailed discussion, it was unanimously decided to demand the government of Pakistan to ask the World Bank that it must, in accordance with its responsibilities under the IWT, without further delay constitute the court of Arbitration to adjudicate on issues raised by Pakistan against India's ongoing construction of KG and Rattle Hydro Electric plants. Till the World Bank constitutes the court of Arbitration, it must demand of India an immediate halt to ongoing construction of Rattle Dam till the issue was resolved.

During the meeting, the members of the Committees, Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that water was serious issue and in future would become more complex. Ghulam Mustafa Shah, without taking names, blamed a bureaucrat who according to him was the culprit in not pleading Pakistan's case in a proper manner with India. {That gentleman is now in Canada, right?}


Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 21 Jan 2017 16:54

X Posted on the STFUP Thread

Pakistan asks India to suspend work on Kishanganga, Ratle hydro power projects in Jammu and Kashmir

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's two parliamentary committees in a joint resolution asked India to immediately suspend the ongoing construction of the Kishanganga and Ratle hydro power projects in Jammu and Kashmir, Dawn reported.

The two projects are being constructed on the Jhelum and Chenab rivers.

A resolution adopted by the National Assembly's foreign affairs and water and power committees also asked the World Bank to set up a Court of Arbitration to mediate the dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty between the two countries.

It said that under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), it is the responsibility of the World Bank to play its role without further delay.

Until the World Bank constitutes the court of arbitration, it must persuade India to put an immediate halt to ongoing construction of the Ratle dam till the issue is resolved, read the joint resolution adopted unanimously by both the government and opposition members of the committees.

The construction of dams on the western rivers by India has brought the two countries at loggerheads and Pakistan has engaged the World Bank, a facilitator of the IWT, to stop India from going ahead with the construction.

The committees were briefed on the agenda -- Indian threat on the Indus Waters Treaty and to chart out a course of action for Pakistan. The meeting was co-chaired by Awais Ahmad

Khan Leghari and Muhammad Arshad Khan Leghari, members of the parliament and the chairmen of the two committees.

Briefing the committees, Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry said all options were available with Pakistan in case India violated the IWT.

"We will not let India violate the treaty," Chaudhry said, adding that Pakistan had already engaged the World Bank to look into the issue as guarantor.

"We have already requested the World Bank to appoint chairman of the arbitration court," he said.

The secretary said Islamabad would defend its right at any cost. New Delhi, he alleged, was using delaying tactics while "we want to resolve the issue at the earliest".

Pakistan has serious reservations over an Indian move to construct 45 to 60 dams on the western rivers, he said.

Water and Power Secretary Younus Dagha said Pakistan was challenging the construction of Kishanganga and Ratle projects in the court of international arbitration. He, however, said India had not as yet started work on Ratle project.

Former foreign minister and Tehrik-i-Insaf leader Shah Mehmood Qureshi said the water dispute with India had reached such alarming proportions that it could even dwarf the Kashmir issue. He suggested the government to evolve a clear roadmap, assuring his party's support on the issue.

Reason : Pakistan has no money to build dams as major part of all resources are commandeered and seized by the Army.
Cheers Image

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5092
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 21 Jan 2017 23:39

Peregrine wrote:Pakistan has serious reservations over an Indian move to construct 45 to 60 dams on the western rivers, he said.


Why did the "kameti" ask for a heads up on all future projects if they already know that there are "45 to 60 dams" planned? Hain?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14217
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby svinayak » 22 Jan 2017 00:16

Peregrine wrote:
Water and Power Secretary Younus Dagha said Pakistan was challenging the construction of Kishanganga and Ratle projects in the court of international arbitration. He, however, said India had not as yet started work on Ratle project.

Even before the project has started Pak govt has challenged it in the court of international arbitration.
That means they have plans to challenge all the 50 dams proposed for the future and may be in the court.

India may have to bring the total disputes to more than 100. Maybe then the Pak govt will feel that these disputes are more than the Kashmir disputes

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 23 Jan 2017 01:21

Image

Cheers Image

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19916
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 23 Jan 2017 03:43

Peregrine Sir,
WB have made rat hole proof Darwaza,
Unable to Crawl through is Paki Khawaza,
Pani Pani Kaarat Pawki Challe Jaynege,
Na Ayega Koye Parrne Namaz e Janaza.
Na Court of Arbitration,Na Pakistan Rahega
Afsos,Na Rahega Yeh Hassen IWT wala Dhaga,
Chalo Humm Bhi Waqat Guujaar lenge Aisse
Suunke Jimmie Tuu Aaaja ka Geet and Baaza!!

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19916
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 23 Jan 2017 10:19

Wapda cancels Rs5.4bn contracts for Dasu project
Wapda Ka Laffda

ISISLAMABAD: Even before the formal launch of $4.5 billion Dasu hydropower project, the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) has terminated two of its key contracts with a Chinese firm, citing ‘fundamental breaches’ of the agreement.Moving swiftly, Wapda has not only encashed the performance guarantees of the two contracts awarded to China Railway First Group (CRFG) in November 2015 — worth Rs5.4bn — but also ordered the contractor to vacate the project area immediately, while calling for fresh tenders to make up for lost time.The World Bank is the major financier of the 4,320MW Dasu project. TCRFG project director Fan Lingang told Dawn: “The termination of the contract is un-contractual, illegal and fiercely unfair.” He claimed it was Wapda’s responsibility to complete the land acquisition process and hand over the required area to the contractor, adding that all Dasu contracts were suffering due to its default.
“We are going to approach the local courts to allow us to approach an international court of arbitration to protect our rights because Wapda is not willing to resolve [the issue] amicably,” Mr Fan said, adding: “Arbitration is our right and we have to protect ourselves, not only financially but also our reputation and image.”He maintained that his firm would “complain to the World Bank as well”. Mr Fan said the company had mobilised 30 staffers to the project site, but conceded that practically no work was done because of Wapda’s inability to settle land disputes with locals. “Wapda is the defaulter because it didn’t provide the land. The contractor actually had the right to terminate the contract, but it didn’t.”
The authority, however, defended its decision, saying: “The contracts were terminated due to fundamental breaches of the contract by the contractors. In these circumstances, no legal notice was required to be served on the contractor to rectify under the conditions of the contracts.”
Mr Fan explained that “a cooperation agreement” was signed with a local firm before the bidding took place as “a matter of comfort” :eek: . This, he said, was cancelled when it was pointed out by Wapda and the project consultants, long before the authority terminated the contract.
He called Wapda’s encashment of securities and refund of the mobilisation advance a case of fraudulent practice, misrepresentation and use of influence.To secure itself legally against financial loss and project delays in the case of international arbitration, Wapda said it had lodged the claim for encashment of the contractor’s advance payment and performance security guarantees since it was the only tool available to safeguard Wapda and to avoid financial loss.Wapda has already initiated procurement for these contracts by inviting fresh bids through leading newspapers and official websites of Wapda and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, the World Bank and UN Development Business to avoid delays in project implementation.“There will be no delay in project completion if the contractor opts for [international] arbitration,” Wapda said, adding: “Termination will have no adverse impact on the CPEC framework or China-Pakistan relations.”In August last year, the Economic Affairs Division had warned the government that the World Bank could cancel its $1.1bn loan agreement owing to inability of the stakeholders — the federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governments as well as Wapda — to complete land acquisition. The acquisition of about 80,000 kanals of land is a fully funded component of the World Bank.Dasu is one of the top-priority hydropower projects of the government under its 2013 power policy and Vision-2025. The World Bank is providing a $590m loan, along with a $460m credit limit as partial risk guarantee for external commercial financing. Separately, Wapda has contracted about Rs144bn from commercial banks to make available matching financing to meet local expenses.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinash Rav, Gyan and 39 guests