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.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 27 Apr 2008 17:07

Hameed Gul & his friends spewing venom
[quote]Lt Gen (r) Hameed Gull has said that India has so far built 62 dams and hydro-electric units on Pakistani rivers to deprive Pakistan of water and render into a desert.

He said Pakistan was being deprived of water under an international conspiracy to conquer it. At this stage, some insane people were opposing construction of Kalabagh Dam in Pakistan, he added. He said that Shaukat Aziz’s influx in Pakistan was also part of the conspiracy as he formulated such policies, which put the country into crisis. He said that Shaukat Aziz created food shortage. He said the mujahideeen damaged Baglihar Dam and it could not be reconstructed.

Hameed Gull, however, warned that the mujahideen would damage all dams. Sindh Water Council Chairman Hafiz Zahoor-ul-Hassan Dahr said that when the dispute on water would not be resolved, there would be conflict between the two countries. He said, “India is not building dams under the Indus Water Treaty but on the Pakistani rivers.â€

Raghavendra
BRFite
Posts: 1252
Joined: 11 Mar 2008 19:07
Location: Fishing in Sadhanakere

Postby Raghavendra » 27 Apr 2008 17:15

SSridhar wrote:Hameed Gul & his friends spewing venom
He said Pakistan was being deprived of water under an international conspiracy to conquer it. At this stage, some insane people were opposing construction of Kalabagh Dam in Pakistan, he added.

Who wants to conquer a nation inhabitated by jehadis fundoos?
What does pakistan have that others would be interested in conquering it?

[quote]He said that the food shortage would be forty per cent next year that would increase starvation in the country. He warned, “Pakistan can become Somalia and Ethopia,â€

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10113
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Postby sum » 27 Apr 2008 18:18

He said the mujahideeen damaged Baglihar Dam and it could not be reconstructed.

What is he talking about??

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 28 Apr 2008 02:42

sum wrote:
He said the mujahideeen damaged Baglihar Dam and it could not be reconstructed.

What is he talking about??


There was a massive landslide couple of years back which resulted in some damage to the dam structure. This incedent has delayed commissining by couple of years and now Gul is claiming it to be mujahideen's handy work.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 28 Apr 2008 02:51

Katare wrote:
sum wrote:
He said the mujahideeen damaged Baglihar Dam and it could not be reconstructed.

What is he talking about??


There was a massive landslide couple of years back which resulted in some damage to the dam structure. This incedent has delayed commissining by couple of years and now Gul is claiming it to be mujahideen's handy work.


Well, either that or he's mixed up Baghlihar with Tarbela.

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

Postby Vipul » 01 May 2008 20:04

India plans three power projects in four years.

The National Hydel Power Corporation (NHPC) and Jammu and Kashmir's Power Development Corporation (PDC) have drawn up an ambitious plan to build three projects by 2012 in the power-starved state.

The plan comes after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his Kashmir visit last week regretted the delay in power projects in the state.

All three proposed projects will be built on the river Chenab :D :lol: :P. One of these projects, Pakal Dul will generate 1,000 MW of power.

Earlier, the PDC had wanted to float global tenders for the project, but now it has been decided to partner with the NHPC, a central government enterprise for development of hydro-electricity, PDC sources said.

PDC will also sign a joint venture agreement with the NHPC this month-end for two other projects - Kiru of 600 MW and Karwa of 500 MW. The projects will be executed in the next four years, the sources said.

Power Minister Babu Singh said these projects would transform the economic landscape of the state.

Greater availability of power would lure industrial investment and provide many more employment opportunities in Jammu and Kashmir, he said.

Jammu and Kashmir, despite a generating potential of 14,000 MW of electricity, produces only 1,865 MW.

Most power projects in the state are far behind schedule. The Salal project had taken more than 28 years, Dul Hasti took 25 years and Baglihar is still nowhere near completion even after 11 years of work.

"It is for this reason that we are pooling our resources in generating power in the state," said a PDC official, adding the entire cost would be over Rs.120 billion. The NHPC will have 51 percent stake and the PDC the rest.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 15 May 2008 20:57

Delirious TSP minds
The next most serious choke was applied through the Indus Water Treaty (1960): Pakistan lost three Eastern Rivers. The World Bank solution violated the International Law which does not allow change of direction and the flow of the rivers anywhere in the world. River Ravi passing through Lahore was given to India. Subsequently Pakistan saw with open eyes India building dams and powerhouses on the three Western Rivers which were designed "for exclusive use of Pakistan." The Indian Minister for Power and Water, Chakravarty, said openly in a formal meeting of the IWT council held at Delhi: "When we abrogate IWT, Pakistan will be in a state of draught and Pakistanis will cry for drops of water" (June 14, 2002).
The COAS of the Indian Army also said, "The rejection of Kalabagh Dam by elements in Pakistan enhances the insecurity of Pakistan. Salal Dam was completed without our knowledge" (2003).

Pakistani authorities raised a mild objection on Baglihar Dam (2005) when it was nearing completion. The World Bank mediator finally advised lowering of the dam by 2-ft. India had its way towards the final thrust to kill Pakistan.

The ground-breaking ceremony (February 9, 2008) of Kishanganga-Jhelum Hydel Project - vision 2030 - located at Muzffarabad, was held at Aiwan-e-Sadr Islamabad: India has challenged it. India is quite used to imposing its will on Pakistan.

We must have known that Kalabagh and Bhasha dams and other projects are the water-management schemes of local resources: they are not the replacement of the three Western Rivers being controlled by India. Why there was no challenge offered to the enemy? Even the governments were inclined to concede the rights to India to build Wullar-Barrage: the source of Mangla Dam which can be turned into 110 sq mile of sandy-patch. The groundwork of Wullar Barrage was destroyed by the mujahideen on April 7, 1990. Between 1947 and now who is or was responsible for the security of Pakistan and its water resources? I wish, I pray, we must know our enemy or enemies and must know how to stand against them. We are already in the minefield.

The writer is a Retired Brigadier {That shows}


Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Postby Vikas » 15 May 2008 21:04

If Pukes are so pissed off with IWT, why then pukes don't withdraw from it volunterily and then re-negotiate the whole WAPDA with India. :twisted:

Vivek_A
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Vivek_A » 23 May 2008 04:57

Indian dams: IHC reprimands CD for not submitting report

Staff Report

ISLAMABAD: A single-member bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday reprimanded the Cabinet Division (CD) for failing to submit a report on the disruption of river flow Pakistan by Indian dams and their impact on local agriculture.

The bench had previously given the CD four weeks to submit the report, and extended this deadline by two weeks. IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Aslam headed the bench, while lawyer Malik Ishtiaq represented the federation.

Human Rights Society Chairman Kowkab Iqbal had filed a petition with the IHC voicing concerns about the construction of Baglihar and Kishan Ganga dams and 62 proposed water reservoirs by India.

He said that India used around 80 percent of the water in the Jhelum and Chenab Rivers, creating a drought-like situation in Pakistan, and maintained the use of river waters in such a manner is a blatant violation of Indus Basin Treaty.

Kowkab said that India was currently spending around $200 billion on the construction of water tunnels to the Indus River, which could turn parts of Pakistan into a barren land. The petitioner said that the matter had been given ‘the cold shoulder’ by past governments and politicians.

He emphasised that the government should raise ‘this matter of life and death for Pakistanis’ at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Postby Vikas » 23 May 2008 05:47

Vivek_A wrote:Indian dams: IHC reprimands CD for not submitting report

Kowkab said that India was currently spending around $200 billion on the construction of water tunnels to the Indus River, which could turn parts of Pakistan into a barren land. The petitioner said that the matter had been given ‘the cold shoulder’ by past governments and politicians.

He emphasised that the government should raise ‘this matter of life and death for Pakistanis’ at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).


$200 billionon the construction of water tunnels
to the Indus River..

What kind of LMU math is at work over here :roll:

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 26 May 2008 10:39

Indus Commission Meet
[quote]India has finally agreed to send its 11-member team to Pakistan on May 30 to discuss threadbare the controversial water projects and take up routine agenda, The News has learnt.

“The 11-member team will reach Lahore on May 30, 2008, to start formal 4-day session from the very next day,â€

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 27 May 2008 11:18

The Water Bomb
However, of all the problems none is more threatening than the schemes of Hindu India to block the water of Pakistan's Rivers, thereby causing water famine in the country.

Realising the great danger that Pakistan is about to face through acute scarcity of water, we have held several conferences and exclusive sessions with professional experts in this field at the Nazria Pakistan Trust. What role would Nazaria have if the country's survival was not ensured first! The picture that emerged from the evaluation of the situation by the experts is far grimmer than what we had generally known through media reports.

History has acknowledged now that the unannounced dishonest alteration in the Punjab boundary line made by Radcliff and Mountbatten at the time of the Partition in August 1947, by which the two very important headworks of Madhopur on the Ravi and Ferozpur on the Sutlej were given to India, laid the foundation of depriving Pakistan of the water resources that historically and geographically belonged to it. The Indus Basin Treaty (IBT) of September 1960, whose provisions clearly favoured India, and which the dictatorial Ayub regime accepted although it was against our national interest, was, similarly, designed to deny Pakistan even its rightful share of the water of the three allocated Rivers in the years to come.

Added to the foreign sinister schemes is the painful factor of an 'India lobby' among our policymakers, which has let India go on violating the Indus Basin Treaty by building dams and diverting/blocking waters that belong to Pakistan.

To divert the water coming into the Mangla Dam, India is building Ohrri Two Dam at River Poonch, Kishan Ganga Dam at River Neelum, and 19 Hydel-Projects at River Jhelum, aimed to be completed by 2012. Mangla Dam receives its stock of water from Rivers Jhelum, Neelum and Poonch. If this water is stopped, Mangla Dam would turn into a dry clay field.

India is going ahead with the controversial Baghliar Dam on River Chenab, while Pakistan government, after raising belated objections, has still not taken the decisive steps that are necessary to have this project stopped. {Now, is this madcap guy advising the 'boys' to blast the BHEP ? Short of that, how can this project be stopped now after WB arbitration ?} Its pathetic proof was seen at the fourth round of the so-called Composite Dialogue between the two countries held in Islamabad from 19-21 May 2008. According to the officials, "The contentious issue of the Baghliar Dam could not find place in the agenda of the foreign ministers' talks despite Pakistan's insistence."
:lol:
The government has all the experts and the data for evaluation of the dangers that this Dam poses to Pakistan. Just the few details mentioned below will give you an idea of the dangers to come, if the government does not confront India on the water issue.

Baghliar Dam is of such a large size that, whenever it so wants, India can block 7000 to 8000 cusec-ft of water per day. Besides, India has already built 14 hydroelectric plants at River Chenab's northern part and is building still more plants to enable it to block the entire water of Chenab for 20 to 25 days. If India were to store the water of Chenab and Jhelum for just 2 to 3 months, Pakistan's agriculture would be ruined, with dreadful consequences for the nation. India plans to formally begin the operation of Baghliar Dam on June 30, 2008.

If Pakistan fails to move quickly, the Indians, by completing their ongoing projects would have a powerful weapon in their hands. Blocking of the water of Chenab and Jhelum would result in:
" Denial of water to a vast region, including Multan, Jhang, Faisalabad, Gujrat, Okara, Sahiwal, Vehari, Bahawalnagar, Bahawalpur and Rahimyar Khan.
" 406 Canals and 1125 Distributaries will become dry, rendering 35 lakh acres of cultivated land barren, and eventually ruining a total of 70 acres of fertile land.
" The Marala Headworks, through which water from Chenab is poured into River Ravi that had dried up after it went into India's control under the IBT, will stop functioning. The Ravi feeds the Canals along the border, which serve as a most important Defence Line. If Chenab's normal flow stops, Ravi would have no water and the Border Canals would become dry.

The Sindh Tas Water Council Pakistan, which has been engaged since 1984 in the in-depth study of India's designs of denial of water to Pakistan, has discovered that India is actually working on a secret mega-plan that was drawn years ago with the aim of bringing Pakistan to its knees, when the time came, by subjecting it to total starvation of water. This mega-plan is being financed and implemented by a consortium consisting of India and three other countries (one of which is Israel), two multinational companies, one trans-national NGO and three secret agencies. {Wow !}

I was not exaggerating when a few weeks ago I warned our government to beware of India's "Water Bomb."

We have no option now but to urgently take bold and decisive measures against the Indian schemes of subjecting Pakistan to devastation. But, no measures can be effective nor can succeed if Pakistan's policies of giving India the image of a close trading and social partner and a friendly neighbour who poses no threat are not changed.

Indeed, we have seen these misconceived policies proving demoralising and harmful to our country, while facilitating India in promoting its schemes and strengthening its aims against Pakistan.

The "water bomb" is a reality that Pakistan's rulers must not overlook in the artificial scenario created by the so-called "confidence building measures."

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 27 May 2008 12:14

SSridhar wrote:...406 Canals and 1125 Distributaries will become dry, rendering 35 lakh acres of cultivated land barren, and eventually ruining a total of 70 acres of fertile land.

:shock:

Vivek_A
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Vivek_A » 02 Jun 2008 07:02

n00bs: this is from the earth-e-shaster...don't waste your(and our) time or bandwidth analyzing this...

http://www.pakobserver.net/200806/02/Articles03.asp

Hydrological warfare against Pakistan

Prof Khurram Shahzad

“Water wars are not inevitable. It lies in our hands – and in our minds.â€

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 02 Jun 2008 14:28

Indo-Pak Talks on Water Projects Inconclusive

The dispute over the 330-megawatt Kishan Ganga hydropower project across the Jhelum River centres on the diversion of water from one tributary of the river to another. Pakistan says this violates the Indus Water Treaty whereas India says the diversion is within the provisions of the treaty. The treaty, which was signed in 1960, governs water sharing between the two neighbours.

The project is located 160km upstream of Muzaffarabad and involves the diversion of the Kishan Ganga River (Neelum River) to a tributary named Bunar Madumati Nullah of the Jhelum River through a 22-kilometre tunnel. Its powerhouse will be constructed near Bunkot in Indian-held Kashmir and the water will be re-routed into the Jhelum River through Wullar Lake.


Now, this is what Article (15)(iii) of Annexure D which deals with the 'Western Rivers' states:
(iii) 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 existing Agricultural Use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on the former Tributary would not be adversely affected.


Further, Article 7 of "ANNEXURE E-STORAGE OF WATERS BY INDIA ON TIIE WESTERN RIVERS" allows a General Storage Capacity of 0.5 MAF, a Power Storage Capacity of 0.25 MAF (Million Acre Feet) and a Flood Storage Capacity of 0.75 MAF. These exclude Dead Storage and Pondage for Hydroelectric plants.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 08 Jun 2008 08:02

War over Kashmir water heats up

Excerpts . .
Union minister of state for power Jairam Ramesh said NHPC will have to work faster on the Kishanganga power project in wake of Islamabad's efforts to complete Neelam-Jhelum project on the other side of the LoC by 2015. However, he admitted that the stand-off between India and Pakistan over the two projects has geo-strategic implications which he is not competent enough to talk about.

Interestingly, both sides believe that water sharing Indus Water Treaty would uphold the genuineness of the project that is completed early. And this particular clause has urged both sides to speed up their projects regardless of the fact that ultimately one of them would be unviable.

After failing to implement it on its own, energy deficit J&K transferred the project to NHPC in July 2000. The project envisages changing almost a 100-km long downstream course of the River Kishanganga and making it to join Jhelum in Bandipore instead of Muzafarabad, the PoK capital.

The inter-tributary transfer, which India says is permitted by Indus Water Treaty but not accepted by Islamabad, would compensate India for the losses it suffered by abandoning Tulbul Navigation Lock under Pakistan protests as Wullar Lake would witness an increased level that would run an additional turbine on upcoming Uri-II.

After a series of failures and later discouraged by the earthquake, it {Pakistan} has finally inked a deal with a consortium consisting of China's Gezhouba Water and Power Company and China National Machinery and Equipment Import and Export Corporation. It would complete the project in eight years at an investment of $ 2.16 billion.

Another cause of concern for New Delhi is that over 2000 Chinese engineers would be working very close to LoC for the next eight years.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 08 Jun 2008 08:08

Joint Venture to generate 2010 MW in J&K
[quote]The Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Corporation (JKPDC) and the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) will soon sign a memorandum of understanding on a joint venture in power projects in the State to generate 2,100 MW, Union Minister of State for Power and Commerce Jairam Ramesh said here on Saturday.

The State will get 62 per cent share in the power produced by these projects

“The Pakaldul is the major project in Doda, which will be covered under the MoU and has the capacity of 1200 MW. The Keero and the Kawar are the other projects,â€

Vivek_A
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Vivek_A » 08 Jun 2008 09:49

http://www.dawn.com/2008/06/08/top4.htm

India to speed up work on Kishanganga


NEW DELHI, June 7: India said on Saturday that work on the Kishanganga water project would be expedited citing the reason that Pakistan was also constructing a power project on the same river on its side.

During a meeting of the Indus Water Commissioners held earlier last week in Lahore, the two countries had decided that experts from the two countries would inspect the Kishanganga and Neelum Hydel projects.

Media reports quoting Indian Minister of State for Power

Jairam Ramesh said in Srinagar that work on the 300MW Kishanganga project was at an advanced stage.

“We need to speed up the work on the project as Pakistan is also constructing a power project on the river with Chinese assistance,â€

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 11 Jun 2008 13:40

Finally the bakis understand!
Clicky


The first issue on the maximum design flood related to the calculation of the maximum amount of water which can arrive at the dam. In view of many uncertainties of flood analysis, the neutral expert retained the value proposed by India of 16,500 m3/s, as opposed to 14,900 m3/s proposed by Pakistan, for the peak discharge of the design flood. He noted that climate change, with the possible associated increase in floods, also encourages a prudent approach.

On the second issue of a gated or ungated spillway, Pakistan considered that a gated spillway was not necessary, and would allow India to control the flow of the river. The neutral expert determined that the conditions of the site, including hydrology, sediment yield, topography, geology and seismicity, require a gated spillway.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 11 Jun 2008 17:17

Stan_Savljevic wrote:Finally the bakis understand!
Clicky


The most important understanding for the Pakis is the fact that unfortunately for them, the Baglihar ruling is going to set the precedent for all the water issues in future and that unlike the spin put on by the Paki ministers and newspapers, Baglihar was a major mishap for TSP. This would mean that
  1. India is entitled to build run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects on the Western rivers
  2. The Indian calculation of pondage etc is accurate (notwithstanding the fact the Pakis find it difficult to comprehend)
  3. The gated spillway and their numbers and the low-levels where they are placed are as per the requirements of these Himalayan rivers
  4. The IWT lends itself to interpretation according to the evolving engineering technologies and these must be exploited
  5. Unlike in the past, India will boldly go forward with the river projects learning from the bad experience of Salal and the new found confidence after Baglihar

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3310
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Kakkaji » 12 Jun 2008 02:28

Is Baglihar operational yet?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 12 Jun 2008 16:15

Kakkaji wrote:Is Baglihar operational yet?


No. Latest reports say Mar 2009

Vivek_A
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vivek_A » 18 Jun 2008 03:39

analysis:Kishanganga Dam controversy —Ijaz Hussain
Pakistan claims that the Kishanganga project would reduce the power generation capacity of the 969-megawatt Neelum-Jhelum plant by about 11 percent. It also contends that the diversion would result in an ecological disaster for the area

When Pakistan and India signed the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in 1960, it was thought that it would forever put to end water as an issue between them. However, today it appears as if that promise was unfounded.

This is borne out by the number of water-related disputes that keep cropping up between the two countries every few years. First it was Sallal Dam, then Wullar Barrage followed by Baglihar Dam.

Now it is the Kishanganga Dam that has embroiled the two countries in a dispute. Their Indus Waters Commissioners have recently concluded a second round of talks on the issue and are to meet again next month in New Delhi for another round.

What is the nature of this controversy and what are the prospects of a negotiated settlement?

The controversy owes its genesis to India’s plan to build a 330-megawatt hydro-power plant in Indian-held Kashmir across the Jhelum River. The dam site is located 160 km upstream from Muzaffarabad and involves the diversion of Kishanganga River (called the Neelum River in Pakistan) to a tributary named Bunar Madumati Nullah of Jhelum near Bunkot. The diversion will change the course of the Neelum by about 100 km, which will then join the Jhelum through Wullar lake near the town of Bandipur in Baramula district. As a result of this diversion, the Neelum and Jhelum rivers, which at present join each other near Muzaffarabad at Domail, will meet in Indian-held Kashmir.

Pakistan regards the project as a violation of the IWT. It raised a number of objections in 2004 as a result of which India revised the design of the dam in order to meet Pakistan’s objections. Pakistan, however, was still not satisfied with the revised design and raised fresh objections.

During the current round of negotiations these objections, which relate to gate structure, height and size, level, diversion plan, storage capacity, power intact and free board were discussed. However, there was no agreement on any one of them because the two sides refused to budge from their stated positions. Discussions could not be completed on the technical and legal aspects of the issue because of paucity of time.

Of all the objections that Pakistan has raised, diversion of the Neelum is perhaps the core issue. Pakistan argues that India can store water but cannot divert it because under the IWT, it is under obligation to release as much water downstream as it stores. In its opinion, the diversion would reduce the flow of water into Pakistan by about 11 percent in summer and about 27 percent in winter, which would be contrary to the IWT as the Western rivers that are in question belong to Pakistan.

Similarly, Pakistan claims that the project would reduce the power generation capacity of the 969-megawatt Neelum-Jhelum plant by about 11 percent. It also contends that the diversion would result in an ecological disaster for the area. It has no exact data at present but has commissioned an international firm to prepare an environmental damage assessment report.

Pakistan also objects to the construction of the Kishanganga project on the ground that it would affect power generation capacity of the plant that it is building on the Neelum-Jhelum confluence. Besides, it argues that the feasibility study of the Neelum-Jhelum project that it has completed entitles it to stop India from building a storage facility for diverting water. In its view, the planned use of the river Jhelum by it is as good as the term “use of water” in the IWT.

India categorically rejects Pakistan’s line of argument. To begin with, it disputes the contention that the diversion would reduce the flow of water into Pakistan. In its view, the quantum of water would remain the same as before. The only difference that the diversion, in its opinion, would make would be that instead of meeting in Azad Kashmir as is the case at present, the Neelum and Jhelum rivers would meet in the Indian-held Kashmir.

India also rejects Pakistan’s contention that the completion of the feasibility study of the Neelum-Jhelum project has created an acquired right in favour of Pakistan. On the contrary, it asserts that commencement of work on the Kishanganga project gives an edge to India’s claim.

Examining the claims of the two countries regarding the superiority of their right on the ground of “existing use”, we note that it is the Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers which cover the matter. Article 8(2a) defines “existing use” as “a use that is in fact operational...from the time of the initiation of construction directly related to the use.” Given the fact that we do not dispose of the requisite information on the Kishanganga and Neelum-Jhelum projects based on the definition of the “existing use”, it is not possible to pronounce in the matter.

One thing is, however, clear. If Pakistan is to successfully challenge India on the issue it would have to show that the diversion of the Neelum would significantly reduce the flow of water into its territory and cause appreciable damage to the environment of the area.

This brings us to the question of the possibility of a negotiated settlement. India always advocates the bilateral approach as the best and the only way for conflict resolution of IWT-related issues. It claims that bilateralism rather than third party arbitration has emerged as the norm between the two countries.

Pakistan disagrees with the Indian contention and insists on the continuing validity of the IWT. However, it is ready to give the bilateral approach a try on the condition that India spell out a timeframe for a negotiated settlement. This is what it did during the negotiations on the Baglihar issue and also during the recently concluded round of talks.

However, going by newspaper reports, India’s response to the matter is unclear, though the latter has apparently agreed to resolve the issue during the next round of negotiations.

We should take the Indian promise with a pinch of salt because it is an old Indian tactic to keep Pakistan embroiled in an interminable rigmarole of negotiations while continuing with the work at hand.

This is the lesson from the Baglihar negotiations where India used all kinds of tactics to present Pakistan with a fait accompli. For example, it did not let a Pakistani team make an on-site inspection of the dam for quite some time on the ground of security. Then on two occasions, when Pakistan was ready to seize the World Bank for arbitration, it made requests for more efforts at bilateral settlement while all along it was proceeding with mala fide intentions by continuing the work on the dam. Finally, even after the appointment of a neutral expert, the Indian PM termed it as “premature’ and the Indian Water Resources Minister asked the World Bank to leave the two parties alone to settle the matter bilaterally.

India seems to be employing the same tactics of procrastination in the present case. For example, when, during the recently concluded session, Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan’s Indus Waters Commissioner, asked that his six objections be treated as questions, which is a condition sine qua non for invoking article 9 of the IWT relating to third party arbitration, his Indian counterpart reportedly requested him to desist from it and let them remain as objections.

This is just the start of the merry-go-round of dilatory tactics by India. We will certainly see more of them in the months and years to come. Will the Pakistani side be able to checkmate them this time? Only time will tell.

The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vikas » 18 Jun 2008 04:15

Oh and Mr. Hussain forgets to mention that when Pakistan went to World Bank for arbitration, what happened of that complaint ?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2008 09:14

Pakistan regards the project as a violation of the IWT.

Of course, Pakistan would regard everything as violation of IWT. What's new ?
During the current round of negotiations these objections, which relate to gate structure, height and size, level, diversion plan, storage capacity, power intact {sic ! intake ?} and free board were discussed.

Of these, the neutral expert has settled the issues of gate structure, their numbers, height, size, level, storage capacity and power intake points in the Baglihar issue. Of course, there can be variations in each project due to conditions peculiar to that project. But, these should be settled based on the general comments by the neutral expert. But, Pakistan's intentions are different and so it is raking up these issues all over again.
Pakistan argues that India can store water but cannot divert it . . .

Ha. . .this seems to be an improvement now over Baglihar when TSP claimed India cannot even store water even as a run-of-the-river project.
the diversion would reduce the flow of water into Pakistan by about 11 percent in summer and about 27 percent in winter, which would be contrary to the IWT as the Western rivers that are in question belong to Pakistan.

Absolutely wrong. I have no idea how much reduction there would be in summer and winter and knowing Pakis, the figures they quote should be normally discounted 400% onlee. GoI has categorically rejected the claim the flow will be reduced. Last time, when the Pakistani Indus Commissioner (PIC) was taken to the Hydrology Institute at Roorkee to explain the design and calculations of the Baglihar project, he claimed he couldn't understand all that. Not surprising, coming from a Paki. But, the neutral expert understood all that and concurred with the Indian design and numbers. This time too, it will be difficult for PIC to understand the numbers and all this talk of 11% and 27% may be a direct result of that. Even then, if they have no irrigation and power requirements in existence at the time of the project , they cannot claim they are impacted. Again, from my post earlier with ad verbatim reproduction of IWT clause, it is clear that even the Treaty allows some impact which would only be natural. It is only 'adverse' impact that is not allowed.
Similarly, Pakistan claims that the project would reduce the power generation capacity of the 969-megawatt Neelum-Jhelum plant by about 11 percent.

Tough Luck even if it were true. You did not have the project in existence at the time India started work on its side. So, you have no claim, Pakis.
In its view, the planned use of the river Jhelum by it is as good as the term “use of water” in the IWT.

No, it's not. IWT is clear on this. Pakistan's wet dreams don't count in real world.
We should take the Indian promise with a pinch of salt because it is an old Indian tactic to keep Pakistan embroiled in an interminable rigmarole of negotiations while continuing with the work at hand.

This is the lesson from the Baglihar negotiations where India used all kinds of tactics to present Pakistan with a fait accompli.

The Baglihar issue was not settled on the basis of "fait accompli". It was settled on technical merits, demerits within the framework of what is allowed and not allowed in the IWT.Ijaz Hussain is a snake oil merchant.
For example, it did not let a Pakistani team make an on-site inspection of the dam for quite some time on the ground of security.
True, but that was all Pakistan's own making. First, it started the Kargil misadventure in early 1999 and then attacked the Indian Parliament which resulted in a huge mobilization along the Indian border. Obviously, PIC could not visit the borders until there was normalization.
Will the Pakistani side be able to checkmate them this time?

Every time Pakistan had taken such issues to arbitration, they have failed miserably. And, yet, they don't learn.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby arun » 19 Jun 2008 09:30

From Water Policy, number 10 (2008), article by Salman M.A. Salman :

" The Baglihar difference and its resolution process - a triumph for the Indus Waters Treaty? "

Full Text Here.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 20 Jun 2008 08:33

X-Posting from the TSP Thread

Pakistani Islamists call for renewed Jihad - Praveen Swami, The Hindu

Excerpts . . .
Pakistani jihadists have been telling their audiences the jihad in Jammu and Kashmir is essential to the nation’s survival. Nawa-i-Waqt, for example, complained that India was seeking to choke Pakistan’s water sources, India has eaten the mother of our rivers Kashmir, it said. “We should stop talking peace with India, it proceeded, We should strengthen the mujahideen. We should wage jihad against India, otherwise it will turn Pakistan into a barren land.”

He asserted that the Crusaders, the Jews, and the Hindus all have united against the Muslims, and launched the war on terror which is in fact a pretext to impose a horrible war to further the nefarious goals of the enemies of Islam.

India has been subjugating Kashmir for the last 60 years, the Nida-i-Millat argued, and is committing atrocities against our Kashmiri brothers. “Around 52 dams are being constructed on the waters of occupied Kashmir. This will turn our land into a barren desert. India is conspiring to destroy us, but we are importing their cheap culture.”

Islamist polemic of this type is targeted at mid-level officers in the Pakistan army, who have been worn down by their gruelling counter-terrorism campaigns in the North West Frontier Province.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby vsudhir » 20 Jun 2008 21:49

He asserted that the Crusaders, the Jews, and the Hindus all have united against the Muslims, and launched the war on terror which is in fact a pretext to impose a horrible war to further the nefarious goals of the enemies of Islam.


I so wish that were the case. If we dirty kuffr were to play by the momeen's rules of war, we wouldn't have to get off the couch to wipe entire mulk-ul-islams off the map, video game ishtyle.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 31 Jul 2008 07:44

Pakistan's interests will be protected: India
India on Wednesday assured Pakistan that its interests will be protected while constructing any new power project on Indus Basin rivers in Jammu and Kashmir.

Addressing a three-member Pakistani delegation led by Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jammat Ali Shah, Jammu and Kashmir Governor NN Vohra said the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) had stood the test of time and would be observed in letter and spirit while executing any new project.

Earlier, Pakistan’s Indus Commission visited the Baglihar power project to ensure the recommendations made by the World Bank appointed neutral expert Raymond Laftee were being implemented.

"All the major works have been completed," said an official associated with the project. "While the people of Kashmir will gain the benefit of water harnessing, the people of Pakistan need to know that their interests will not be jeopardised,” Vohra told Syed Jamat Ali Shah in Srinagar. The Jammu and Kashmir governor also called for further strengthening the water sharing treaty to make it more beneficial to both countries. Vohra also suggested evolving a mechanism to address problems common between the two countries and share information on various issues of mutual concern, such as depleting water resources in the wake of melting glaciers and water pollution. The governor also expressed the need to strengthen various initiatives aimed at building peace and better understanding in the region.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 31 Jul 2008 08:22

WB refuses to fund projects in PoK & Balawaristan

Hope India's strong objection played its part.

The World Bank has categorically refused to fund water and power projects in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and the Northern Areas (NAs), including the Diamer-Bhasha Dam, The News has learnt.

"The bank's refusal to provide funds has virtually endangered the practicability of the Bhasha Dam on whose feasibility and technical reports huge amounts have already been spent since 2006," sources privy to a high-level meeting said.

The meeting was told that the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) required $30-40 billion for the projects, including the Bhasha Dam and others in the next 15 years to meet the growing electricity requirements through cheap power.

Water and Power Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, Wapda Chairman Shakeel Durrani, officials of the Planning Commission, the finance ministry and the Economic Affairs Division attended the meeting held at the Water and Power Ministry on hydropower generation and water resources.

"Wapda raised the issue of financial resources for its mega projects, which is a big challenge as the Word Bank has declined to finance the Diamer-Bhasha Dam and other projects in the Northern Areas and the AJK," the minutes of the meeting reveal.

The document, available with this correspondent, states that the water and power minister, concerned with the World Bank's refusal to fund Wapda's projects in the AJK and the Northern Areas, made an observation on this occasion that we had to live with these constraints.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Neshant » 31 Jul 2008 13:19

Objection would not be needed as the figure itself is ridiculous.

30 to 40 billion? Are they talking pakistani rupees or US dollars.

I can't see anyone wanting to invest 30 to 40 billion in an unstable place like pakistan. They will never see the return of their loan let alone any return on investment.

I don't think India could get that kind of money for a project.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 31 Jul 2008 15:44

Neshant wrote:Objection would not be needed as the figure itself is ridiculous.

30 to 40 billion? Are they talking pakistani rupees or US dollars.


Neshant, it is not for that single Diamar-Basha dam. It is for a slew of projects including other biggies like Kalabagh, Neelum-Jhelum, lining the canals etc. The WB component would have therefore been small for the specific Diamar-Basha dam plus the 400% onlee commissions. India objected to the dam in the area that belongs to India. It did the same for the Mangla dam earlier but at that time the discussions for the IWT were going on and it was almost certain that Mangla would be built. Yet, India made a strong objection because if it hadn't, it would have been a de-facto acceptance of the status of PoK.

I can't see anyone wanting to invest 30 to 40 billion in an unstable place like pakistan.


Oh, no. Some people claim that Pakistan is an attractive destination for foreign investments, more so than India because they speak better English, they have more freedom of speech etc. See the following: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=518615

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 01 Aug 2008 09:38

Case filed against Kishenganga in Islamabad High Court

May be Pakistan should file a case against India in ICJ, as they always threaten.

A single bench of the Islamabad High Court consisting of Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Aslam will today (Friday) hear two writ petitions, one about the government’s response to the construction of Kishanganga Dam by India and the other over price hike and hoarding.

Human Rights Society of Pakistan President Kokab Iqbal advocate has filed both the petitions.

In the first petition, he has accused the government of taking a lenient stance over the construction of Kishanganga project by India, which he feared would deprive Pakistan of much needed water and render large areas of fertile land barren.

He asked the court order the government to take up the issue with the Indian government more forcefully and on a priority basis.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24220
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 02 Aug 2008 08:56

Pakistan satisfied with Baglihar Project

Hail TSP ! Great Victory for the Believers against the kufr.

Expressing satisfaction at the work going on at the Baglihar power project in Indian-held Kashmir, Pakistan on Friday said the stalemate over another controversial project, Kishanganga, continued. Pakistan has now offered to host an expert Indian delegation this month to verify the adverse impact of the Kishanganga project on the environment, ecology and the agriculture of the region.

Briefing reporters after his three-day tour to Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said his team had minutely examined the works at the Baglihar project using scientific instruments {AoA ! So, the Pakis know how to use scientific instruments ? They only can't understand complex calculations.} to verify the changes as suggested by the World Bank’s neutral expert Raymaot Laftee :) in 2007.

“We are satisfied with the works. They have been executed as per the World Bank award,” Shah said.
:roll:
The expert had asked India to decrease the height of the dam by 1.5 metres while increasing the height of the tunnel leading to the powerhouse by three metres. Shah said that although Pakistan now had no objections regarding the project, it wanted that both dead storage and live storage should comply with the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty. He said that as per the treaty, Pakistan should receive 55,000 cusecs of water through river Chenab at Marala.

Indian officials associated with the project expressed a sense of relief at Shah’s observations. :roll: “The project is now almost near completion and any adverse comment would have delayed its execution,” said one official.

The Pakistan delegation, which was here for the 101st meeting of the Indus Commission, also discussed the 330MW Kishanganga project with the Indian team led by Indus Commissioner G Aranganathan.

Shah conceded that there was no progress and the issue will now be referred to both the governments.

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 05 Aug 2008 09:03


The Islamabad High Court (IHC) here on Monday adjourned the hearing of a writ petition about the response of the government to the construction of the Kishanganga Dam by India and its implications for Pakistan. The single bench of Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Aslam adjourned the hearing for two weeks with a direction to the petitioner, President of the Human Rights Society of Pakistan Kowakab Iqbal, advocate, to make the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Cabinet Division party to the case.

The petitioner contended that the government was taking a lenient view of the Indian project, which, he said, would deprive Pakistan of much needed water and render major chunk of fertile land barren. He said the government should be asked to take up the issue with the Indian government more forcefully and approach the International Court of Justice afterwards.

Clicky

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby amit » 05 Aug 2008 13:51

SSridhar wrote:Pakistan satisfied with Baglihar Project

Hail TSP ! Great Victory for the Believers against the kufr.

>
>
>
Indian officials associated with the project expressed a sense of relief at Shah’s observations. :roll: “The project is now almost near completion and any adverse comment would have delayed its execution,” said one official.
>
>


I can almost visualise the SDRE dhoti clad officials quaking in fear as the great TFTA Syed Jamaat Ali Shah inspected the Dam with a stern expression on his a**, oops sorri, face. :)

The officials stopped quaking in their dhotis after the great Shah (Persian word for King) gave his approval.

The project would have been delayed if he didn't approve?

Pak H&D being rescued once again by who else, a Paki rag.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pradeepe » 05 Aug 2008 14:25

:rotfl:

Bakistan's art of spinning a tight thappad and getting their behinds handed back to them, as an overwhleming victory is legendary by now.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby arun » 06 Aug 2008 20:18

Suitably Islamically credentialed authoress, hijab and all :

Losing water war?

Nazia Nazar

Recently the talks between India and Pakistan over the Kishanganga project failed when both the countries stuck to their stated positions on the issue. The dispute over India's 330-megawatt Kishanganga hydropower project on River Jhelum centres on the diversion of water from one tributary of the river to another. Under the project water from Neelum River will be diverted through a 47 km tunnel and released in river Jhelum. Pakistan says that the diversion of water to Wullar Lake contravenes the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty, as it will reduce water flow into Pakistan by 27 percent.

As a consequence, Pakistan's Neelum Valley could dry up and become a desert. Further, any construction on the Neelum River upstream will affect power generation capacity of Pakistan's Neelam-Jhelum power project in which Pakistan has already invested Rs 71 million. Experts say that the Kishanganga project could reduce Pakistan's total water availability from an estimated 154 MAF to about 140 MAF per year. It would also leave significant portion of the Mangla Dam's storage capacity unutilised. It is also feared that the diversion would result in an ecological disaster for the area. Unfortunately many rounds of talks on the Kishanganga project have ended without producing any fruitful result.

This is not the first time that Pakistan and India are locked in a water-related dispute. The water issue between both the countries is as old as partition when canals' headworks were unjustly given to India which enabled it to interfere with the waters of those rivers which are crucial for Pakistan. As a result, only after six months of partition, India stopped the water of rivers Ravi and Satluj, bringing the new-born country to a famine-like situation. Finally, the issue was somewhat resolved in 1960 when both the countries entered into an agreement known as the Indus Basin Water Treaty. According to this treaty, India was entitled to use water of rivers Satluj, Beas and Ravi, while Pakistan was entitled to unrestricted use of rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. Even after this agreement, many water-related issues between the two countries have come to fore from time to time, especially with regard to the construction of some controversial dams by India such as Sallal Dam, Wullar Barrage, Baglihar Dam and now Kishanganga dam.

In water-related issues, Pakistan has always been on the losing end. By being engaged in negotiations with Pakistan, India secures sufficient time to continue the unnoticed construction of its controversial dams. For that reason India balks at the indulgence of third party in all water-related issues between both the countries and instead it insists on bilateral talks.

By constructing one after another controversial dams, India is causing trouble for Pakistan which is already confronting a severe water crisis. Pakistan is an agricultural country; agriculture accounts for one-fourth of its GDP. Over 50 percent labour force is related to agrarian profession. The use of water in agriculture is 93 percent of the total use of water by the country. So water is of paramount importance for Pakistan. The shortage of water means that our future generations may have to face hunger and starvation. It is lamentable that once Pakistan was among the top wheat producing countries of the world but today it has to import wheat to cater the needs of its people. Among many reasons of wheat crisis, shortage of water has left us with a question: are we heading towards disaster?

Wheat crop needs plenty of water while in winter wheat crop is supplied water from dams. It is unfortunate, rather criminal negligence, that our successive governments have not been able to build any major dam after Mangla and Tarbela whose storage capacity is shrinking due to silt by each passing day. It is a bitter reality that by being indolent to find out a suitable substitute to Kalabagh Dam for many decades, we have reached a situation where not one or two but a series of dams can save our lands from turning into deserts. How disturbing it would be for our farmers to see their lands uncultivated due to water shortage in a situation when 40-42 million acre feet water of Indus River goes waste in the sea annually simply because we have no major dam to save this water.

It is true that India is going ahead with controversial dams and is interfering with our waters showing utter disregard to the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty. However, raising a great hue and cry over India's unjust construction of dams can hardly persuade New Delhi to change its mind. Therefore, the need of the hour is to make the optimal use of our waters by making a number of dams on emergency basis. We should not forget what Dr Qadeer Khan, the renowned scientist of Pakistan, once said. He had stated that the impending water famine would pose a threat greater than the nuclear capability of the enemy.

The fact is that farsighted and prudent nations try to conserve each and every drop of water available to them because they think not of them but of their next generations. Our misfortune is that we are more concerned about our present and less worried about what we are leaving for our next generations. Or perhaps we have developed the habit to feel the storm after the damage has been done.

Thomas Fuller is right when he says, "We never know the worth of water till the well is dry." Unfortunately, our wells are going to dry up. It is not an exaggeration to say that we are digging our own graves.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Lahore

The Post

Vivek_A
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vivek_A » 19 Aug 2008 02:52

Sutlej in spate
submitted 4 hours 19 minutes ago

THE flood in the River Sutlej has put a large part of Punjab into a precarious situation, thanks not so much to the monsoon as to our eastern neighbour, which opened the spillways, releasing about 173,000 cusecs of water recently in addition to the normal water discharge. This stratagem, designed to create problems for Pakistan, had been employed several times with devastating effect, as in the 1965 War. Most of the rivers here were already under medium to low flood because of the monsoon, with several parts of the country struggling to contain the extra water. Flooding Pakistan’s plains at this time is inconsistent with the logic of the peace process and calls for severe condemnation.

Malay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 26 Jan 2007 02:42
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Malay » 19 Aug 2008 10:17

Basher whatever dam is being entirely financed by China now!


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Karan M, sanjayc and 87 guests