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.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20907
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 28 Mar 2017 23:33

Satluj is blocked right there in Nya Nangal. It's dry all the way to border unless get rain water .

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 458
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby ranjan.rao » 29 Mar 2017 00:01

is blocking of IWT water part of their red lines, just as blockade of Karachi is?
**************self added*******************
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_doctrine_of_Pakistan
Economic Threshold[4]—— This level implicitly and explicitly refers for the countermeasure operations of Pakistan Navy. The economic strangulation and economic blackade is also a potential threat to Pakistan, in which if Pakistan Navy is unable to counter it effectively (for example, see operations: Trident and Python in 1971). This primarily refers to a potential Indian Navy blockade of Sindh Province and coastal cities of Balochistan Province, or the stoppage or significant reduction of Pakistan's share of water in the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab Rivers under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty. It could also refer to the capture of vital arteries such as the Indus.


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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Kashi » 29 Mar 2017 08:49

manjgu wrote:both..but more of because of us.. I got an idea about this in jaisalmer. Jaisalmer is suffering from effects of excess water !!! as per a local citizen courtesy the canal which brings in water from Punjab..in addition to the numerous dams on the eastern rivers. the eastern rivers are practically dry as they enter Pakistan except probably in monsoon.


Is that really the case? I recall seeing Ravi not so dry near Pathankot many years ago. But that was in October. Even some recent photos from Lahore showed ample water in Ravi.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1570
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 29 Mar 2017 09:01

kashi.. this is what i read in an article and what i deduce when i see sutlej/beas. I have not seen Ravi ever so cant comment though it does form part of eastern rivers. But Sutlej/Beas appear to have v less water almost whole year round near Phillaur and Beas towns.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby vasu raya » 01 Apr 2017 21:46

Something relevant,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Image

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity (PSH), or pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES), is a type of hydroelectric energy storage used by electric power systems for load balancing. The method stores energy in the form of gravitational potential energy of water, pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation. Low-cost surplus off-peak electric power is typically used to run the pumps. During periods of high electrical demand, the stored water is released through turbines to produce electric power. Although the losses of the pumping process makes the plant a net consumer of energy overall, the system increases revenue by selling more electricity during periods of peak demand, when electricity prices are highest.

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity allows energy from intermittent sources (such as solar, wind) and other renewables, or excess electricity from continuous base-load sources (such as coal or nuclear) to be saved for periods of higher demand.[1][2] The reservoirs used with pumped storage are quite small when compared to conventional hydroelectric dams of similar power capacity, and generating periods are often less than half a day.

Pumped storage is the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available, and, as of 2017, the DOE Global Energy Storage Database reports that PSH accounts for over 96% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed nameplate capacity of over 168 GW.[3] The round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies between 70%–80%,[4][5][6][7] with some sources claiming up to 87%.[8] The main disadvantage of PHS is the specialist nature of the site required, needing both geographical height and water availability. Suitable sites are therefore likely to be in hilly or mountainous regions, and potentially in areas of outstanding natural beauty, and therefore there are also social and ecological issues to overcome.


if one is going to connect renewable energy to the grid, these help smoothen out the intermittent nature of it, basically gives an impetus to invest in renewable energy

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23140
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 02 Apr 2017 08:04

There are quite a few pumped storage systems in place in India already. There are two in Tamilnadu that I know of, one of which must be three decades old. But, what is the context here?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby vasu raya » 02 Apr 2017 22:25

We hear about run of river dams on the Indus rivers, but not much about pumped storage, IWT or not this terrain suits such dams, while renewable energy sources weren't a priority back when IWT came into being, its a big deal now and the grid allows renewable sources elsewhere (say Offshore wind turbines) at a large scale to be connected discounting transmission losses

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gyan » 03 Apr 2017 11:14

Some water will always flow to Pakistan from eastern rivers carrying sewage or discharge or monsoon excess water. Actually we need a monthly chart to show water flow to Pakistan to understand the issue better.

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10948
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Falijee » 09 Apr 2017 00:23

Pakistan "Complaints To Massa" ; World Bank Jumps In :roll:

World Bank plans parley to resolve Pakistan-India water disputes

LAHORE: The World Bank’s officials are in contact with the Pakistani and Indian authorities to work out an agenda of a meeting, possibly starting this month in US, to resolve the perennial water disputes between India and Pakistan under the Bank’s meditation, a senior official said on Friday.The official said the World Bank’s management is finalising the modalities, in consultation with both the countries, of the proposed meeting under a dispute resolution mechanism of the Indus Waters Treaty.“The World Bank-hosted meeting is proposed to be held in Washington DC after a week starting from 10 April,” said the official privy to the correspondence. “Both Pakistan and India have been invited to take part in this meeting. Dates and other modalities are being finalised.”The World Bank-mediated parleys are aimed at ironing out the differences over the dispute resolution mechanism for Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects, being built by India.
The Bank’s factsheet said Pakistan had asked the World Bank to facilitate an establishment of a court of arbitration to look into its concerns about the designs of the two hydroelectric power plants. India, on the other hand, asked for the appointment of a neutral expert for the same purpose. The World Bank said it encouraged both the countries to reach an agreement on a mechanism to address the issue. It is also assisting the two parties to strike an agreement on the process of resolving the issue. Generally, the Bank works with them to ensure that the Treaty remains an effective tool to manage the use of Indus Basin Rivers.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23140
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 09 Apr 2017 06:43

There is no provision, AFAIK, in the IWT for the WB to 'arrange' a meeting of the officials. If the PICs cannot resolve an issue then the next level is for the Governments of the two countries to get involved (probably at the Secretary level).

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17717
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 09 Apr 2017 10:59

SSridhar wrote:There is no provision, AFAIK, in the IWT for the WB to 'arrange' a meeting of the officials. If the PICs cannot resolve an issue then the next level is for the Governments of the two countries to get involved (probably at the Secretary level).


these cunning rascals are simply building a "case" in the court of paki public opinion to prove that they have left no stone unturned and it is a recalcitrant and uncooperative India that has wantonly precipitated the water crises to hurt poor pakiland.

2) islam khatre me hai will be the next step.

crooks always know the law, even better than the police.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17717
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 10 Apr 2017 13:34

Supreme Court rejects PIL to declare Indus Waters Treaty unconstitutional

Supreme Court rejects PIL to declare Indus Waters Treaty unconstitutional
Published: 10th April 2017


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today dismissed a PIL seeking the declaration of the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan as illegal and unconstitutional.

"This treaty is of 1960 and this treaty has held good for more than half a century," a bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said while dismissing the PIL filed by lawyer M L Sharma in his personal capacity.

The bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul, however, made clear that the order dismissing the PIL "does not put any impairment on anybody".

The clarification came when Sharma said that the dismissal of the PIL should not put any restriction in the way of the government if it wants to review the Indo-Pak water pact.


During the brief hearing, it was argued that the Indus water pact was not a treaty at all as the same was not signed in the name of the President of India.

"It was a tripartite agreement between three leaders and void ab initio (illegal at the outset) and hence cannot be acted upon," the lawyer said.

The court said that it has perused the entire petition and does not wish to agree with it.

The Indus water agreement was executed on September 19, 1960 between India, Pakistan and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank. Besides Nehru, the then Pakistan President Mohammad Ayub Khan and W A B Iliff for the World Bank were its signatories.

The apex court had last year refused to grant an urgent hearing on the PIL, saying there was no urgency in the matter while Sharma, who filed the PIL in his personal capacity on the issue, to "keep politics aside".

Sharma, in his PIL, had referred to Article 77 of the Constitution and said it mandates that all executive action of the government shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President.

However in the case of the 1960 Indus waters treaty, it has been signed by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and "nowhere it is declared that the said agreement/treaty has been signed in the name of the President of India", the plea had said.

"According to the ministry of external affairs documents, nowhere disclosed further that the said agreement has been signed by the Jawaharlal Nehru for the President of India...," it had said.

Sharma had said, "According to the impugned agreement 80 per cent water goes to Pakistan which is a serious injury to the fundamental right of the citizens of India coupled with further financial and natural injuries to national interest."

The treaty was "against the national interest and violated the fundamental right of the citizen of India affecting their life and livelihood", it had said

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Kashi » 10 Apr 2017 13:57

I don't know if the report is a complete account of the reasons given by Supreme court for dismissing the PIL, but "This treaty is of 1960 and this treaty has held good for more than half a century" reads more like a socio-political stand than a legal one.

Did the court not have anything to say on the legal validity of the treaty?

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1570
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 10 Apr 2017 15:40

there was almost 0 water at phillaur in the sutlej crossing the bridge a few days ago.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17717
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 10 Apr 2017 16:01

Kashi wrote:I don't know if the report is a complete account of the reasons given by Supreme court for dismissing the PIL, but "This treaty is of 1960 and this treaty has held good for more than half a century" reads more like a socio-political stand than a legal one.

Did the court not have anything to say on the legal validity of the treaty?


the "treaty" has not even been ratified by parliament.

The SC has simply said that it will not interfere now.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23140
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 10 Apr 2017 17:22

url

Decisions from the Chair (Lok Sabha)

TREATY

1. Ratification: It is not obligatory on Government to place a Treaty before Parliament for ratification even though it involves financial obligations:

On the 14th November, 1960, after the Minister of Irrigation and Power laid a copy of the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 on the Table of the House, Shri Asoka Mehta enquired whether the treaty had been ratified. The Prime Minister (Shri Jawaharlal Nehru) replied that the treaty had been ratified. Thereupon, Shri Asolm Mehta raised a point of order that the treaty involved financial commitment of pound 62,060,000 and its ratification amounted to an encroachment upon the financial powers of the House. In support of his contention, he stated that in the U.K., all treaty-making power was in the Crown but wherever any financial implications were involved, the ratifying authority was Parliament. He submitted that the locus in regard to ratification resided in Parliament and the Government could not, by itself, ratify the treaty.

Shri Nath Pai supported the point raised by Shri Asoka Mehta and referring to the provisions of articles 253, 246(1) and entry 14 in List I-Union List-of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, stated that Parliament's power in regard to treaties with foreign countries was absolute.

Shri Naushir Bharuchu while agreeing that entering into treaties and ratification thereof was the responsibility of the Government stated that payment of money in consequence of the treaty before the Government came to the House with a Demand for Grant would be a violation of article 266(3).

The Minister of Law (Shri A. K. Sen) was of the view that the question of financial appropriation was a different matter and that it had nothing to do with the ratification of the agreement by the Government.

Ruling out the point of order, the Speaker observed:

"The provision for entering into treaties is contained in entry 14 of List I...................... Article 253 is an enabling provision. Wherever the Government enters into a treaty-Parliament may or may not agree-primary right under the Constitution is with the Government to enter into a treaty.................. We cannot now take away powers which have been vested in the Government under the Constitution. This follows the English practice where no treaties are placed for ratification normally, unless the Government itself wants to do so. Here, it is open to the Government to bring it or not. There will be an occasion for hon. Members to say anything they like at the time when this House will be called upon to vote. Not a single pie out of the Consolidated Fund can be paid to anybody without the sanction of this House. Therefore, by a supplementary grant or otherwise, when it will come before this House, at that time, hon. Members will have the opportunity. So, there is no point of order so far as I am able to see.

* * * * *

In accordance with previous practice, it is not obligatory on the Government to place treaties before this House for ratification unless, as constituent parts of those treaties, the respective Governments have agreed to place them before Parliament and obtain their ratification. I do not find any such thing here. It is open to Government to accept and ratify, which they have done. So far as money is concerned, I am not called upon to give any advice now. When the matter comes up, we will know what is to be done."

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17717
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 10 Apr 2017 17:35

Thank you, SSridhar.

Good to Know.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gyan » 10 Apr 2017 17:54

We have to see the actual judgement as to what exactly the Supreme Court said in its order rather than what was commented upon casually. I think Sharma is professional PIList without any deep knowledge of the subject and such people can do lot of damage due to their half baked petitions.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17717
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 10 Apr 2017 18:13

Gyan wrote:We have to see the actual judgement as to what exactly the Supreme Court said in its order rather than what was commented upon casually. I think Sharma is professional PIList without any deep knowledge of the subject and such people can do lot of damage due to their half baked petitions.


In this case the SC has done no harm and left all doors and avenues open.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4902
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SBajwa » 10 Apr 2017 21:07

Is that really the case? I recall seeing Ravi not so dry near Pathankot many years ago. But that was in October. Even some recent photos from Lahore showed ample water in Ravi.


I was in Pakistan in April 2005., at that time River Ravi had grass grown in it and many people had pitched tents (poor people working on projects nearby). Generally from March till July weather in punjab becomes very dry and thus in April-May the wheat crop gets ready for harvesting (Visakhi on 13th April is actually wheat crop harvesting festival from centuries). In July after the rains (monsoon season is July - August) work on paddy (basmati, etc) gets started., which gets harvested around September-October-november. Basmati rice has lower yield and it also takes long time but it is sold at a higher price.

Satluj and Beaus meet at Makhi (Ferozepur) then the river is referred to as Satluj. One of the good things that first government did was in 1953 constructed a headworks on river Satluj to stop water going into Pakistan. This created Harike - pattan wetland check from wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harike_Wetland

"Harike Wetland also known as "Hari-ke-Pattan", with the Harike Lake in the deeper part of it, is the largest wetland in northern India in the border of Tarn Taran Sahib district and Ferozepur district [1] of the Punjab state in India.

The wetland and the lake were formed by constructing the headworks across the Sutlej river, in 1953. The headworks is located downstream of the confluence of the Beas and Sutlej rivers. The rich biodiversity of the wetland which plays a vital role in maintaining the precious hydrological balance in the catchment with its vast concentration of migratory fauna of waterfowls including a number of globally threatened species (stated to be next only to the Keoladeo National Park near Bharatpur) has been responsible for the recognition accorded to this wetland in 1990, by the Ramsar Convention, as one of the Ramasar sites in India, for conservation, development and preservation of the ecosystem.:[2][3][4]

This man-made, riverine, lacustrine wetland spreads into the three districts of Tarn Taran Sahib, Ferozepur and Kapurthala in Punjab and covers an area of 4100 ha. Conservation of this Wetland has been given due importance, since 1987–88, both by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India and the Punjab State Government (through its several agencies), and over the years several studies and management programmes have been implemented.[5]"

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby vasu raya » 10 Apr 2017 23:22

chetak wrote:
Gyan wrote:We have to see the actual judgement as to what exactly the Supreme Court said in its order rather than what was commented upon casually. I think Sharma is professional PIList without any deep knowledge of the subject and such people can do lot of damage due to their half baked petitions.


In this case the SC has done no harm and left all doors and avenues open.


Would disagree to the SC decision, its needed with the Kulbhushan Jhadav episode where TSP sold a story to its public and it has become a H&D issue for them very much similar to Sarabjit, to broaden their concern area so that focus on Jhadav becomes a non-issue, SC making few statements on the IWT PIL which was at the opportune moment would have helped.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17717
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 10 Apr 2017 23:40

vasu raya wrote:
chetak wrote:
In this case the SC has done no harm and left all doors and avenues open.


Would disagree to the SC decision, its needed with the Kulbhushan Jhadav episode where TSP sold a story to its public and it has become a H&D issue for them very much similar to Sarabjit, to broaden their concern area so that focus on Jhadav becomes a non-issue, SC making few statements on the IWT PIL which was at the opportune moment would have helped.


there is simply no way that the SC should get involved in foreign affairs.

It the GOI wants to unilaterally abrogate the IWT tomorrow, the SC will simply have to smile sweetly and lump it. Not a single bleddy peep from the SC will be tolerated by the GOI.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1570
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 15 Apr 2017 12:56

Indo Pak talks in Washington postponed ..WB to find new dates !!

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23140
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 15 Apr 2017 17:52

In the present environment, there is no possibility of any talks. If anything happens to Kulbushan Jadhav, the IWT will wash down the Indus into the Arabian Sea.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17717
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 15 Apr 2017 18:11

SSridhar wrote:In the present environment, there is no possibility of any talks. If anything happens to Kulbushan Jadhav, the IWT will wash down the Indus into the Arabian Sea.


There was a panic reaction by some paki on times now when maroof raza wanted the IWT scrapped forthwith.

I fear for jadhav though. the pakis may have backed themselves into a corner and there seems to be no give on the Indian side. The pakis may not have gamed the IWT part sufficiently, relying instead, as usual, on the amrekis to pull the paki nuts out of the fire.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4902
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SBajwa » 16 Apr 2017 03:20

From Wiki!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

The Aral Sea was an endorheic lake lying between Kazakhstan (Aktobe and Kyzylorda Regions) in the north and Uzbekistan (Karakalpakstan autonomous region) in the south. The name roughly translates as "Sea of Islands", referring to over 1,100 islands that once dotted its waters; in the Turkic languages aral means "island, archipelago". The Aral Sea drainage basin encompasses Uzbekistan and parts of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.[1]

Formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet irrigation projects. By 2007, it had declined to 10% of its original size, splitting into four lakes – the North Aral Sea, the eastern and western basins of the once far larger South Aral Sea, and one smaller lake between the North and South Aral Seas.[4] By 2009, the southeastern lake had disappeared and the southwestern lake had retreated to a thin strip at the western edge of the former southern sea; in subsequent years, occasional water flows have led to the southeastern lake sometimes being replenished to a small degree.[5] Satellite images taken by NASA in August 2014 revealed that for the first time in modern history the eastern basin of the Aral Sea had completely dried up.[6] The eastern basin is now called the Aralkum Desert.

The biggest river named Oxus or Amu Darya starts from Qal`eh-ye Panjeh. Very close to future CPEC and Indus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qal%60eh-ye_Panjeh

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1570
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 16 Apr 2017 06:55

SBajwa..so u r suggesting Pukeistan will look like Aralkum Desert soon !!

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4902
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SBajwa » 17 Apr 2017 02:11

Right!! All we need to do is make SYL canal, divert little water to Sutlej close to the source and dump that water all the way to Yamuna!! Let's watch them turn to desert as per their wishes.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20907
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 17 Apr 2017 02:17

SBajwa wrote:Right!! All we need to do is make SYL canal, divert little water to Sutlej close to the source and dump that water all the way to Yamuna!! Let's watch them turn to desert as per their wishes.


SYL won't happen soon , so alternative is water pipe lines distribution water all over, to all states, wherever,whenever its required . Network of water pipe lines will be faster and cheaper way to manage this natural resource.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1570
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 17 Apr 2017 04:46

SYL can be made bypassing Punjab..thru HP direct into Haryana...

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 461
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Atmavik » 17 Apr 2017 06:48

We are under using the waters of Ravi. Is it possible to build a canal to connect it to the IG canal?

atamjeetsingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby atamjeetsingh » 17 Apr 2017 19:01

manjgu wrote:SYL can be made bypassing Punjab..thru HP direct into Haryana...


It will be done after 2019 election, Haryana govt is studying the possibilites.

Other option is to put any excess water in Ghaghar river.

kancha
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby kancha » 18 Apr 2017 07:08

manjgu wrote:SYL can be made bypassing Punjab..thru HP direct into Haryana...


A twitter thread on similar lines
Link

Inder Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 18 May 2006 14:35

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Inder Sharma » 18 Apr 2017 18:03

^ For tactical brilliance let us not make strategic blunder. SYL for whatever reason has a emotion cord with Punjab. This bypassing our own people will create a sense of alienation.

I would rather insist that Punjab's water scarcity fears due to SYL are addressed.

Finally, we must help the enterprising Punjabis realize that SYL brings waterport to their business. Win-Win

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23140
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 18 Apr 2017 18:08

Guys, keep out of domestic issues.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6137
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 27 Apr 2017 21:43

‘Neelum-Jhelum plant to start production by January’

MUZAFFARABAD: Minister of State for Water and Power Abid Sher Ali claimed on Wednesday that the 969-megawatt Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project would start production by January next year.

“More than 90 per cent work on this mega project has been completed and it will be commissioned early next year to help overcome the energy crisis in the country,” he told journalists in Chattar Klass, some 20km south of here, after visiting the project site there.

He however underlined the need of a proper investigation by the National Accountability Bureau into the delay in completion of the project as well as escalation in its cost beyond the sanctioned amount in PC-1.

“This project was subjected to deliberate delay and corruption of billions of rupees which must be investigated thoroughly,” he said.

He alleged that the previous governments did not pay attention to power production, due to which the whole nation was suffering.

“But we are determined to bring the country out of darkness in accordance with the vision of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif,” he claimed.

The minister hit out at PTI chief Imran Khan, saying he must tell the public as to who had offered him Rs 10 billion on behalf of the prime minister.

“Imran Khan has lost his senses… By hurling this baseless allegation he has exhausted his last card (in politics) and is now empty-handed,” he said, claiming that the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa would hold the PTI chief accountable very soon.

While alleging that Mr Khan’s life was full of scandals, he asserted that the PML-N did not believe in the politics of revenge or personal attacks.

Pouring scorn on former president Asif Ali Zardari, the minister said he should not rail against corruption, “as he was known as the king of corruption across the globe”.

“All thieves and dacoits have joined hands with each other to destabilise the elected government of Nawaz Sharif, but they will fail.

“We will continue to work for the development and prosperity of the country, while Mr Khan and his likes will continue to weep,” he said.
Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6137
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 09 May 2017 03:33

A day in the lives of nations
As a result, even slightly more positive news looks like mere propaganda (Nawaz Sharif inaugurated the Head-Race Tunnel of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Plant on Friday) that will bring no change.
Cheers Image

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1570
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 13 May 2017 15:51

Last edited by SSridhar on 13 May 2017 18:07, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: manjgu, please always include a caption in the URL and use the URL tag. I have now added one.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20907
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 15 May 2017 22:51

Check this about Brahmaputra flow and China
https://twitter.com/handle_anonymus/sta ... 3377424384
(8)Brahmaputra enters India just after Tsela Dzong. After this point it it goes into 16.8m/km steep fall before entering India, and creating
a gorge in the process. Of the 19800 Cumecs average discharge of Brahmaputra, water from China account for less than 500 Cumecs.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests