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.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10983
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gagan » 06 Sep 2017 01:51

After objecting to sluice gates at Indian Dam projects in J&K, the pakis are possibly building cleaning sluice gates at Tarbela with Chinese Mai Baap's help

34° 5'28.11"N, 72°41'11.07"E

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9934
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby arun » 14 Sep 2017 07:32

X Posted from the Indus Water Treaty thread.

Indus Water Treaty: Next round of Indo-Pak talks at World Bank to begin today :

Zee News

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 14 Sep 2017 16:53

X Posted on the STFUP Thread

Pakistan’s likely soft stance over water dispute with India to drag issue further

LAHORE: Pakistan’s flexibility to dispute resolution mechanism related to its long-pending conflict with India over Indus hydropower projects is feared to let the deadlock persist for another two or three years, sources said.

Sources said a Pakistani delegation, which will attend a second round of talks starting on Thursday (today) with its Indian counterparts, may show flexibility in discussing other options, including changes in Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), to resolve water disputes.

“Now, if the World Bank establishes a special court to determine future line of action about dispute resolution mechanism it would further waste about three years,” said a source privy to the development. “By that time, India would be successful in completing Ratle hydropower project as well.”

India has already completed construction of Kishanganga hydropower project, the source said. Officials, however, said the country is determined to iron out differences after wasting more than a year in negotiating water issues with India.

Pakistani and Indian delegations will discuss the conflict during a two-day meeting (September 14 and 15) in Washington under the aegis of the World Bank. The two neighbouring countries already held secretary-level talks on August 2.

Pakistan and India disagree over whether or not technical design features of the two hydroelectric plants Kishanganga (330 megawatts) and Ratle (850 megawatts), being built on tributaries of the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, contravene the IWT.

The Treaty designates two rivers as well as the Indus as the western rivers to which Pakistan has unrestricted use. Under the Treaty, India is permitted to construct hydroelectric power facilities on these rivers subject to constraints specified in the Treaty.

Pakistan first moved case to the World Bank, which is a custodian of the treaty signed in 1960, about formation of court of arbitration for resolving the issue. India, on the other hand, opted to go for appointment of neutral experts to buy time and to delay the whole process, sources said. “There is no justification in India’s stance as it is ridiculous that a country wants to go for a dispute resolution against itself,” another source said.

Sources said the indecisiveness of Pakistani delegation about dispute resolution mechanism could lead to modification of Indus Waters Treaty.

“Once Pakistan shows any sign of modifying the treaty, it would be an unending exercise and would potentially hurt the interest of the country,” a source said. Kishanganga and Ratle Hydropower projects may affect flow of water downstream.

“And, being a lower riparian, Pakistan has the right to submit its case about violation of Indus Waters Treaty,” the source added.

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22859
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 14 Sep 2017 17:21

I was baffled when news came that the WB was facilitating talks between PICs of India and Pakistan over resolution of Kishenganga & Ratle projects. I even posted that it was a fake news because WB had no authority to act as an arbiter and India would never concede to such a role by the WB.

But, now, I believe after reading the above by Peregrine that it may be that Pakistan requested the WB to alter the IWT and these talks are more towards such an idea because the WB might also have felt that with increasing number of disputes between the two, and for other reasons, it was time for alterations.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7649
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 14 Sep 2017 18:24

Can you guess the reason why pakhanistan is unable to get resolutions on its disputes with India on various dams that India is illegally building?

Pakistan’s likely soft stance over water dispute with India to drag issue further

Pakistan’s flexibility to dispute resolution mechanism related to its long-pending conflict with India over Indus hydropower projects is feared to let the deadlock persist for another two or three years, sources said.
Sources said a Pakistani delegation... may show flexibility in discussing other options, including changes in Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), to resolve water disputes.
“Now, if the World Bank establishes a special court to determine future line of action about dispute resolution mechanism it would further waste about three years,” said a source privy to the development. “By that time, India would be successful in completing Ratle hydropower project as well.”
India has already completed construction of Kishanganga hydropower project, the source said. Officials, however, said the country is determined to iron out differences after wasting more than a year in negotiating water issues with India.
India...opted to go for appointment of neutral experts to buy time and to delay the whole process
Sources said the indecisiveness of Pakistani delegation about dispute resolution mechanism could lead to modification of Indus Waters Treaty.
Once Pakistan shows any sign of modifying the treaty, it would be an unending exercise and would potentially hurt the interest of the country


There you have it. Its a (self) goal!!! The large-heartedness by the pakis is the reason why al bakistan is unable to find resolution to all its disputes with India. I had heard of "victimology" as a strategy used by the pakis in negotiations but what does this tactic qualify under?

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/229685 ... settlement

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9741
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Aditya_V » 14 Sep 2017 18:28

I think we must use this chance to ask Pakistan to Withdraw from IWT and Negotiate a new one.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 14 Sep 2017 19:00

SSridhar wrote:I was baffled when news came that the WB was facilitating talks between PICs of India and Pakistan over resolution of Kishenganga & Ratle projects. I even posted that it was a fake news because WB had no authority to act as an arbiter and India would never concede to such a role by the WB.

But, now, I believe after reading the above by Peregrine that it may be that Pakistan requested the WB to alter the IWT and these talks are more towards such an idea because the WB might also have felt that with increasing number of disputes between the two, and for other reasons, it was time for alterations.


One sided request to the WB to alter the terms of the IWT will go nowhere.

India must necessarily acquiesce and also accept the WBs role in the IWT which it is not likely to. The WB has far outlived its usefulness as an arbitrator and must mandatorily await India's express invitation to assume a supervisory/arbitrator role, if at all.

India's fear/reluctance of displeasing the WB or even the IMF is now completely non-existent so no traction is available here. The IWT is essentially a bilateral issue here with some agreed upon mechanism for external arbitration and not necessarily involving the WB.

Lastly, the US's overbearing/overarching role while negotiating the original IWT will be missing this time around with possibly the hans attempting to gain some sort of leverage by sneaking into the negotiations on one pretext or another.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 14 Sep 2017 19:49

SSridhar wrote:I was baffled when news came that the WB was facilitating talks between PICs of India and Pakistan over resolution of Kishenganga & Ratle projects. I even posted that it was a fake news because WB had no authority to act as an arbiter and India would never concede to such a role by the WB.

But, now, I believe after reading the above by Peregrine that it may be that Pakistan requested the WB to alter the IWT and these talks are more towards such an idea because the WB might also have felt that with increasing number of disputes between the two, and for other reasons, it was time for alterations.
SSridhar Ji :

My knowledge of the IWT could be written on the back of a Postage Stamp - after wiping off the mucilage. So Sir Ji, can India make the IWT a more equitable one for India? What are your thoughts on the alterations? More importantly could India ask for a bigger share - try Fifty / Fifty?

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22859
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 15 Sep 2017 08:57

Peregrine ji, the IWT has twelve Articles and the last one, Aricle XII, is appropriately called "Final Provisions" and it states as follows:

(3)The provisions of this Treaty may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments.

(4) The provisions of this Treaty, or the provisions of this Treaty as modified under the provisions of Paragraph (3), shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments.


So, IMHO, both modifications and termination are possible per IWT provisions.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22859
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 15 Sep 2017 16:50

India, Pakistan hold talks on Indus Waters Treaty - PTI
WASHINGTON: India and Pakistan are holding high-level talks on technical issues of the Indus Waters Treaty here, a senior World Bank official has said.

"These meetings are a continuation of a discussion on how to safeguard the Treaty for the benefit of the people in both countries," a World Bank spokesperson told .

The meetings between India and Pakistan on the technical issues of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) are taking place in Washington on September 14-15, the spokesperson added.


Looks very suspicious to me. The bolded part above may be an euphemism for alterations to the treaty and not merely some technical discussions on KGHEP or Ratle.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10336
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 15 Sep 2017 20:03

The bolded part is similar to what WB said after both India and Bakistan demanded separate issue resolution forum and following that the Indian comment that simultaneous process initiated by the WB would end up destroying the IWT.

So to protect the IWT, WB has frozen the CoA and the NE process. The current process is similar to the pre-CoA, pre-NE step i.e. the joint/premanent Indus commission [or some such forum] expect that this is now being held under WB.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 15 Sep 2017 23:01

SSridhar wrote:Peregrine ji, the IWT has twelve Articles and the last one, Aricle XII, is appropriately called "Final Provisions" and it states as follows:

(3)The provisions of this Treaty may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments.

(4) The provisions of this Treaty, or the provisions of this Treaty as modified under the provisions of Paragraph (3), shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments.


So, IMHO, both modifications and termination are possible per IWT provisions.
SSridhar Ji :

Thank you very much indeed. You have made it totally clear. Crystal!
Cheers Image

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3413
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby saip » 16 Sep 2017 02:35

My knowledge of the IWT could be written on the back of a Postage Stamp - after wiping off the mucilage. So Sir Ji, can India make the IWT a more equitable one for India? What are your thoughts on the alterations? More importantly could India ask for a bigger share - try Fifty / Fifty?


Peregrine, I read somewhere that 80/20 is related to catchment areas of the countries. So while it may not be possible for 50/50 split it is always possible to go for more equitable treaty like paying suitable compensation when a party makes frivolous objections like the Pakis do all the time and machinery for quicker resolution of disputes and unilateral abrogation of the treaty. To my mind this treaty did not protect India's rights.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22859
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 16 Sep 2017 06:49

saip wrote:
. . . can India make the IWT a more equitable one for India? What are your thoughts on the alterations? More importantly could India ask for a bigger share - try Fifty / Fifty?


Peregrine, I read somewhere that 80/20 is related to catchment areas of the countries. So while it may not be possible for 50/50 split it is always possible to go for more equitable treaty like paying suitable compensation when a party makes frivolous objections like the Pakis do all the time and machinery for quicker resolution of disputes and unilateral abrogation of the treaty. To my mind this treaty did not protect India's rights.

There are one or two principles on which transboundary water sharing happens. The IWT is largely based on one of them, namely 'prior usage'. The northern plains of united India were where large agricultural activity happened and they went to Pakistan in West Punjab. Even East Punjab was considered as ‘Crown Wasteland’ and water courses had not been developed well enough (It is another matter that by dint of pure hard work, it became a powerhouse in agriculture after Independence). Besides, the areas where some of the Indus system of rivers flowed on the Indian side were not amenable to large-scale agriculture and hence India insisted only on the rights for power generation, consumptive usage such as for drinking water, tending to orchards etc. Other rivers that passed through Indian plains (East Punjab) alone were thus secured for Indian agricultural usage under IWT by Indian negotiators. Thus was born the 'Western Rivers' (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) and 'Eastern Rivers' (Ravi, Beas & Sutluj) dichotomy.

The biggest lessons that India should have learned from this (mis)appropriation are a few: one, that we do not give away our natural resources even if we do not foresee any immediate use because we never know what the future holds for us. Not a blade of grass may grow on the surface but we don't know what lies below or when this territory would turn strategic. In c. 1948, who could have imagined that our soldiers would one day patrol Siachen 24X7X365? Global warming, receding glaciers and changing weather patterns were probably never heard of in the 1950s when the IWT was negotiated and yet it is precisely for these 'unforeseen' reasons that we should have been very careful in not frittering away our waters; two, these river systems were a huge leverage against an implacable enemy, but again, no Indian leader, much less Nehru, had a strategic mindset or had seen Pakistan for what it was. Pakistan was still (and until recently) considered as a 'wayward brother' or a 'prodigal son' who could return to the family fold with appropriate generosity and magnanimity from a much larger Mother India; third, we were very 'dharmic' in statecraft. The practice of statecraft can never be dharmic. It is not for the pusillanimous or the unthinking. There was (and continues to be) no unanimity in transboundary water sharing principles and we could have taken a tougher stand and it would not have been violative of any principles. We let ourselves be manipulated by the IBRD without even realizing that. In fact, when IBRD recommended this solution in 1954, we readily accepted that in toto but Pakistan refused for another six years taking a maximalist position!

Perhaps, Nehru was interested in securing the tags of 'world leader', 'Statesman' etc and did not see other possibilities in binding future generations of India and the very fate of India to this unequal treaty.

It should make our blood boil to know that, on top of this unheard-of generosity putting the entire nation in peril perpetually, we also paid to Pakistan 62 Million Pounds for works on the Indus. WTF.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9934
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby arun » 16 Sep 2017 11:02

World Bank Press Release on the meeting between India and the Mohammadden Terrorism fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan to resolve issues regards the Indus Waters Treaty:

PRESS RELEASE SEPTEMBER 15, 2017

World Bank Statement on the Indus Waters Treaty Meetings

Washington, September 15, 2017 - Another round of the Secretary-level discussions between India and Pakistan on the technical issues of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric power plants within the framework of the Indus Waters Treaty took place on September 14-15 in Washington, D.C.

Both countries and the World Bank appreciated the discussions and reconfirmed their commitment to the preservation of the Treaty. While an agreement has not been reached at the conclusion of the meetings, the World Bank will continue to work with both countries to resolve the issues in an amicable manner and in line with the Treaty provisions.

The World Bank remains committed to act in good faith and with complete impartiality and transparency in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Treaty, while continuing to assist the countries.


From the World bank Website:

World Bank Statement on the Indus Waters Treaty Meetings

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 16 Sep 2017 11:23

The (very foolish) overly generous split in the share of waters was driven by the amrekis who convinced nehru the imbecile, that this was an excellent way to make the pakis more amenable to considering India's views on cashmere and pave the way for a quick and peaceful settlement of the dispute as also a way of showing goodwill and an understanding of the paki water security concerns.

Obviously, lost in the din of this one sided "goodwill", it slyly glossed over the fact that the amreki's own supreme national interest was eminently served by keeping India quiet and on a very short leash and at the same time gaining the confidence and the continued amicable cooperation of the pakis for active and illegal amreki intelligence operations against the russians launched from paki soil.

Eugene R. Black of the WB and the other amreki David Lilienthal, formerly the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission were surely not motivated by the unalloyed goodness of their hearts and obviously took briefing/guidance from the State Dept.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20852
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 17 Sep 2017 00:31

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/23038 ... -agreement
Pak,India secretary level talks on Indus Water Treaty end without agreement

WASHINGTON: Pakistan and India on Saturday failed to reach an agreement during the latest round of talks on Indus Water Treaty.
“While an agreement has not been reached at the conclusion of the meetings, the World Bank will continue to work with both countries to resolve the issues in an amicable manner and in line with the Treaty provisions,” the World Bank said in a statement.“Both countries and the World Bank appreciated the discussions and reconfirmed their commitment to the preservation of the Treaty,” the World Bank said after the conclusion of the Secretary-level discussions between the two South Asian neighbours on the technical issues of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric power plants within the framework of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).The two-day discussion took place in Washington at the World bank headquarters on September 14-15.“The World Bank remains committed to act in good faith and with complete impartiality and transparency in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Treaty, while continuing to assist the countries,” the bank said in its statement.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 17 Sep 2017 03:18

Pakistan asks World Bank to set up arbitration court

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has requested the World Bank to fulfil its obligation to establish a court of arbitration to settle its water dispute with India in the light of the Indus Waters Treaty.

The request came after delegations of India and Pakistan met at the World Bank headquarters on Thursday and Friday for talks on the way forward in the dispute involving India’s plans to build Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelecytric plants. The Pakistani delegation was led by Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf Ali.

Earlier, the secretary-level talks between the two countries failed to resolve the impasse on choice of forum for the settlement of the dispute.

Pakistan had raised objections to India’s plans at the Permanent Indus Commission more than a decade ago. When the objections were not addressed, Islamabad approached the World Bank on August 19, 2016 for the court of arbitration as provided in the Indus Waters Treaty.

Subsequently, on October 4, 2016, India made a request for appointment of neutral expert to adjudicate in the dispute. The World Bank initially agreed to set up both the fora but later “paused” the two processes, fearing their separate rulings might conflict with each other.

In an effort to end the impasse, the World Bank invited the water resources secretaries of the two countries for consultations. In the first round in Washington on July 31 and August 1 this year, Pakistan proposed amendments to the designs to make the Indian project treaty compliant.

But in the latest round of the talks in September, India not only refused to accept any of the design amendments proposed by Pakistan but also refused to agree to any of the dispute settlement options suggested by the World Bank.

Pakistan has now requested the World Bank to fulfil its duties under the Treaty by empanelling the Court of Arbitration. Sources told The Express Tribune that despite the passage of more than a year, the World Bank is not establishing the court of arbitration, because the Indian lobby has also big influence on the bank not to play an active role in the matter.

Cheers Image

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Sep 2017 16:39

SSridhar wrote:...
So, IMHO, both modifications and termination are possible per IWT provisions.


I defer to your knowledge. However, a question.

A new treaty can replace the existing one according to the provisions but unless and until a new treaty comes into force by agreement by and between the two signatories, the existing one continues in force.

Based on the above, my take is that the existing IWT cannot be terminated unilaterally. On top of that, you have a situation where the two parties are so far apart on their views on the existing one, the possibility that they can agree on a completely new one is remote. The pakis are not going to be asking for less.

As written, it seems to say even both parties working together cannot terminate it without replacing it with a new one.

So the question is does it suit India to keep talking and building or negotiate a new IWT? I think so. What are your thoughts?

komal
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 14:47

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby komal » 17 Sep 2017 17:00

In 1960, the WB was in a position to punish India if India was found to have violated the provisions of the treaty. India was dependent on WB aid. Also, WB jobs were a huge carrot for Indian IAS officers.

Not sure how the WB can punish India these days.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby ArjunPandit » 17 Sep 2017 18:03

There is a narrative in porkistani MSM that Indians are small hearted, the % of water given to them should be provided as a rejoinder/reminder to these abduls relying on sialkoti stats.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7649
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 17 Sep 2017 19:05

ArjunPandit wrote:There is a narrative in porkistani MSM that Indians are small hearted, the % of water given to them should be provided as a rejoinder/reminder to these abduls relying on sialkoti stats.


So, the pakis must confess and release the true census count (300 Million) instead of the made up numbers (210 Million) in order to prove to WB that their dire need for water has grown multi-fold instead of manifold? Diabolical, evil Yindoo.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 17 Sep 2017 19:49

we dont have to withdraw from treaty... even if we legally take our share Pakis are screwed...and if we get a little chankian, then pakis get royally screwed.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22859
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 18 Sep 2017 08:20

Cosmo_R wrote:A new treaty can replace the existing one according to the provisions but unless and until a new treaty comes into force by agreement by and between the two signatories, the existing one continues in force.

Based on the above, my take is that the existing IWT cannot be terminated unilaterally. On top of that, you have a situation where the two parties are so far apart on their views on the existing one, the possibility that they can agree on a completely new one is remote. The pakis are not going to be asking for less.

As written, it seems to say even both parties working together cannot terminate it without replacing it with a new one.

Cosmo_R, From the 'Final Provisions' that I posted, I presume that Paragraph 3 pertains to modification and Paragraph 4 to termination.

In both cases, a new treaty negotiated between the two parties (note the absence of IBRD in this) must replace the existing one.

Therefore, my presumption is that 'termination' is possible through a new treaty between us and them which simply states that the Treaty is now terminated. If this was not possible, that is, there should always be an Indus Water Treaty in some form or the other, then there was no need for Paragraph 4. But, there is no need that a IWT must always exist. That is how I would interpret that.

So, termination is possible if and only if *both* parties agree. You are partially right on that score. But, termination is possible which answered Peregrine's question.
So the question is does it suit India to keep talking and building or negotiate a new IWT? I think so. What are your thoughts?

IMO, a new IWT is simply impossible so long as Pakistan exists in its present form and content. That question doesn't even arise. My worry is that we shouldn't even agree to modification of existing provisions because of global warming etc. Remember that the NE allowed us low-level sluice gates in Baglihar to manage sedimentation and even urged us to employ more modern methods but the CoA struck it down agreeing with the fears of downstream Pakistan?

Rajnath Singh has just said that Pakistan did not seem interested in improving ties with us. We know that it is a mild statement. I am not sure if GoI has made the determination that there is absolutely no possibility at all ever of Pakistan becoming a reasonable nation-state that will one day have a normal state-to-state relationship with us even with disputes, warts et al. If that is made, we should cite 'national interests' and walk out of the IWT. But, the whole country should stand solidly behind GoI. That may not be possible in the current political circumstances. Possibly no government would ever make that decision because governments believe in diplomacy.

But, the present government at least recognizes that every possible squeeze must be applied on Pakistan. So, the only option left for us is to take an uncompromising stand on every project on these rivers, arm-twisting the IBRD where our share has increased considerably, make it untenable for IBRD to carryout the provisions of arbitration (like how we demanded NE now against Pakistan's CoA), threaten to invoke 'national interests' without actually doing so, brazenly go ahead with projects, threaten to walk out of any arbitration proceedings and stretch the IWT to its extreme limits and delaying any and every IWT process. We should not be afraid of behaving like a rogue state without actually being one.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 18 Sep 2017 15:00

twitter

1960 :: Jawaharlal Nehru Arrives in Karachi to Sign Indus Water Treaty

Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 18 Sep 2017 17:09

Pakistan seeks arbitration court as water talks fail

WASHINGTON: Pakistan has asked the World Bank to constitute a court of arbitration to settle its water dispute with India after the latest round of talks ended without an agreement.

Dawn has learned that India and Pakistan failed to break the impasse on choice of a forum for settling the dispute. “India not only refused to accept any of the amendments proposed by Pakistan but also refused to agree to any of the dispute settlement options proposed by the World Bank,” an official source told Dawn.

“While acknowledging the Bank’s continued efforts, Pakistan has now requested the World Bank to fulfil its duties under the (Indus Waters) Treaty by empanelling the Court of Arbitra­tion,” the source added.

The World Bank, which was hosting the talks, issued a statement on Saturday, which underlines its commitment to help find a solution.

“While an agreement has not been reached at the conclusion of the meetings, the bank will continue to work with both countries to resolve the issue in an amicable manner and in line with the Treaty provisions,” the bank said. Could might possibly be that "Zee Bank" thinks that the way the discussions are going there are good chance of the GOI either withdrawing or asking for negotiation so that there is equitable distribution of the Indus Waters between India and Clapistan

The World Bank noted that both countries “reconfirmed their commitment to the preservation of the Treaty”.

The bank “remains committed to act in good faith and with complete impartiality and transparency in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Treaty, while continuing to assist the countries”, the statement added.

The secretary-level talks took place on Sept 14-15 at the World Bank headquarters in Washington, within the framework of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Concluded in 1960 with the World Bank’s support, the treaty recognises the bank as a mediator.

In the last two months, the World Bank hosted two rounds of IWT talks. In the first round, which concluded on Aug 1, India and Pakistan exchanged proposals.

They returned to Washington this week for the second round, which focused on the technical issues of two hydroelectric plants — Kishanganga and Ratle — that India is building on the tributaries of the Jhelum and Chenab rivers.

Pakistan believes the construction violates the Indus Waters Treaty which gives Islamabad right of “unrestricted use” of the waters of these two western rivers in the Indus system.

India, however, argues that the Treaty also allows “other uses”, including the construction of hydroelectric plants. India interprets “other uses” as meaning that it can not only construct the Kishanganga and Ratle dams, but also several other projects.

Pakistan disagrees with the Indian interpretation and has asked the World Bank to set up a court of arbitration; saying that India was not fulfilling its obligations as an upper riparian state.

India opposes the court of arbitration and has instead asked the World Bank to appoint a neutral expert to look into the matter.

In the latest talks, the two sides were expected to present proposals that could lead to a mutually acceptable definition of the “other uses” clause in the Treaty but they failed to do so.

Both sides then urged the World Bank to play its role in ending the impasse. But they further complicated the issue by telling the bank how they expect it to resolve this dispute: Pakistan demanding a court of arbitration and India insisting on a neutral expert.

The Treaty also has a mechanism – the Permanent Indus Commission – for resolving such disputes and Pakistan went to the commission more than 10 years ago, underlining its objections to India’s plans.

After the process failed to produce any results, on Aug 19, 2016, Pakistan asked the World Bank to set up a court of arbitration as provided in Treaty.

On Oct 4, 2016, India asked for a neutral expert to adjudicate the same dispute.

The World Bank initially agreed to setting up both fora but later ‘paused’ both processes, saying that two forums carry the potential for conflicting rulings.

The World Bank then invited the secretaries for ministries of water resources of both countries to consultations for resolution of the impasse. In the first round of consultations, Pakistan proposed amendments to Indian designs that would make the project IWT-compliant. India agreed to study those designs and the parties decided to meet again in September 2017.

But the second meeting also ended without an agreement.

Cheers Image

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20852
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 18 Sep 2017 23:49


chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 21 Sep 2017 13:30

Indus Water Treaty can be resolved within its agreement: Abbasi



Indus Water Treaty can be resolved within its agreement: Abbasi

New York, Sep 21 2017,

The disputes between India and Pakistan over the Indus Water Treaty can be resolved within the context of the agreement itself, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has said.

Abbasi, who was responding to a question on the Indus Water Treaty, said there were provisions in the treaty on how to resolve the disputes.

"It's a legal issue now. And it can be resolved within the context of the agreement," Abbasi said on Wednesday at an event organised here by the Council on Foreign Relations, a top American think-tank.

"That's been our stance from day one, that the issue should be resolved as per the provisions of the agreement, which are very clear. I think the World Bank also appreciates our viewpoint," Abbasi said.

India and Pakistan held the latest round of talks on the Indus Waters Treaty on September 14 and 15 under the aegis of the World Bank that ended without any agreement.

The second round of discussions between India and Pakistan on Ratle and Kishanganga hydroelectric projects, over which Islamabad has raised objections, took place at the World Bank headquarters in Washington, amid a chill in bilateral ties.

The Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960 after nine years of negotiations between India and Pakistan with the help of the World Bank, which is also a signatory.

The World Bank's role in relation to the "differences" and "disputes" is limited to the designation of people to fulfil certain roles when requested by either or both of the parties.

The last round of talks were held on August 1, which the World bank said were held in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 21 Sep 2017 20:27

boss...whats the reason why pakis always want a COA and not a NA??

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby periaswamy » 21 Sep 2017 21:01

Court of Arbitratration calls for a political appointee who can then change the goal posts and rule in pakistan's favour, whereas Neutral Expert would only ensure that India was not violating any terms of the IWT agreement. I think an earlier post by SSridhar explained this clearly.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9934
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby arun » 22 Sep 2017 10:18

Excerpt dealing with the Indus Waters Treaty from the Q&A sessision with the Prime Minister of the Mohammadden Terrorism fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, at the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

A Conversation With Shahid Khaqan Abbasi
Past Event — September 20, 2017 4:45pm EDT …………………..

Q: Prime Minister, this is Nassir Kayum (sp) with Channel 24.

My question is to you, today you met with the World Bank president on the—and you discussed with the World Bank president on the water issue going on between Pakistan-India. Do you see any breakthrough in the near future on this issue between Pakistan-India?


ABBASI: There’s an agreement, consensus, or a solution, (but not released ?) on the technical issues. So there are provisions in the agreement on how to resolve that. So—and that’s been our stance from day one, that the issue should be resolved as per the provisions of the agreement, which are very clear. And I think the World Bank also appreciates our viewpoint. So there’s no—it’s a legal issue now. And it can be resolved within the context of the agreement.


From here:

A Conversation With Shahid Khaqan Abbasi

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9934
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby arun » 26 Sep 2017 11:01

India rejects all 4 options presented by WB on dams issue

September 26, 2017

ISLAMABAD - A Parliamentary Committee was yesterday informed that India has rejected all the four options, presented by World Bank, for the resolution of issue pertaining to construction of Dams, by New Delhi, on the western rivers in the violation of Indus Basin treaty.

In view of the options floated by the World Bank and Indian reaction to those, it seems that both forums, Neutral Experts and Court of Arbitrations, would be formed where Neutral Experts would consider differences (matter specific to the projects) and the court disputes (the matters of general applicability) said Indus Water Commissioner, Mirza Asif Baig, while briefing the Senate Standing Committee on Water Resources here.

The meeting, chaired by Senator Yaqoob Khan Nasir, recommended the government to not allow India to construct spillways below dead level of the dams on the western rivers.

Indus Water Commissioner, Mirza Asif Baig, briefed the meeting about the violation of India of the treaty, the steps taken by Pakistan to stop the Indian designs and recent Secretary level talks held in Washington under the auspices of the World Bank.

He said that under the Indus treaty India is allowed to construct dams on the western rivers but after the consultation with Pakistan.

Indian design of new dams, on the western rivers, are in complete violation of the India treaty, he added.

Senator Taj Haider said that there is trust deficit in the relationship between India and Pakistan and ,therefore, India cannot be granted the permission of constructing spillways below the dead level as it can be used against the country.

In a briefing it was informed that Pakistan has dispute on the design aspects of Kishenganga Hydroelectric Plant (KHEP) and Ratle Hydroelectric Plant (RHEP).

After India failed to remove Pakistan reservations about KHEP and RHEP, it was decided that at Pakistan would take the matters to the third forum for resolution i.e Neutral Expert (NE) or Court of Arbitration(COA).

Subsequently, following the procedure in the treaty, Pakistan invoked the disputes under Article IX of the treaty in February 2016.

Pakistan submitted its Request for Arbitration (RfA) to India on August 19 2016 but India wanted to go to NE while Pakistan wanted to go to CoA.

India has approached the World Bank for the appointment of NE in October 2016.

However, apparently on India’s request an opportunity was provided to both the countries to resolve the issue amicably.

Pause intended to resolve the matter related to the decision of the issue but it was not achieved as the parties didn’t agree on the mode of resolution.

Meanwhile, taking advantage of the pause India completed the construction of KHEP and announced in July that it would carry out initial filling of reservoir.

After Pakistan’s protest, the Bank took the matter with India and India has agreed to Secretary level talks. In the first Secretary level talks held in Washington on July 31 and August 1, for RHEP Pakistan side stated that such alternative designs were possible that would not cause any reduction in power and energy and would be sound and economical.

During the second round of talks held in Washington on Sept 14-15, on the alternative design of KHEP and RHEP India made a general observation that Pakistan ignores soundness of the design and economy while making objections.

On the issue of Pondage India stuck to its earlier position that the upper limit of the pondage is to be worked out by load fluctuations.

In response Pakistan noted that the design should be carried out considering first the Treaty’s limitations concerning, minimum freeboard, pondage of only sufficient magnitude to meet fluctuations of load,spillways providing no control over the water stored in the reservoir (Ungated spillway).

It was evident from Indian stance on the pondage and intake that it would not be possible to achieve resolution on the technical matter, as India didn’t show any flexibility in modifying its designs, the Commissioner said.

Regarding KHEP, India didn’t want to discuss this matter and held the view that as the project stood completed it need not be discussed. As Pakistan insisted having Indian evaluation on the alternative designs India summarily provided its observation and said that it was not possible to modify the designs.

On proposal of ungated bay on the right side of the dam Indian side said that geology was weak and constructing a spillway would endanger the safety of the dam.

On the proposal of construction in front of spillways and intake Indian side said that it would require constructing coffer-dam again and putting the facility out of function.

He had no appreciation of the concern of Pakistan that the project’s was achieved without addressing Pakistan objections to the design.

In the first round of Secretary level talks the Bank had presented eight options to the parties for consideration as mode of resolution. After the resolution of the technical matters failed the bank presented four shortlisted options to the parties under article IX(2) of the treaty,which specifies that the Commission has the discretion of adopting resolution of differences by NE or disputes by CoA or by any other way agreed upon by the commission;.

Options presented by the Bank includes:

1. Expert Panel to be decided by the parties along with ToR

2. Merge NE into CoA with a person who qualifies to be NE

3. Make both forums and divide the work between them(NE considers difference CoA considers disputes or division of projects)

4. Make both forums and stagger the sequence (drawing of lots)

India in its initial response stated that the treaty specifies only NE and CoA as resolution forums and any other way required meeting of the Commission at a proper place.

Pakistan evaluated the option and except for the option of Panel of Experts accepted the options with the following priority.

Pakistan prioritised option

1. Merge NE into CoA with a person who qualifies to be NE

2. Make both forum and divide the work between them (NE considers differences CoA considers disputes or division of projects)

3. Make both forums and stagger the sequence(Drawing of lots)

Bank has once again asked Indian response and India has rejected all the four options as non-treaty complaint and asked for the appointment of NE for resolution of the differences.

On this Pakistan asked the Bank that since all options presented by the Bank have been rejected by India, Pakistan also asks for empanelment of the Court of Arbitration for resolution of the disputes.

The Bank announced that it will discharge its responsibility according to the treaty provisions without delay and that the bank would continue consultations with the parties.

Baig said that Pakistan should accept the option with the condition that the court decided first the matter of general applicability and NE later.

On the basis of the decision of the court, decide the matter specific to the projects.

Fawad Yousafzai


From the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan located newspaper, The Nation:

India rejects all 4 options presented by WB on dams issue

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22859
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 26 Sep 2017 18:20

I did not read the above report completely. I will do so soon.

But, what caught my eye immediately was this: In view of the options floated by the World Bank and Indian reaction to those, it seems that both forums, Neutral Experts and Court of Arbitrations, would be formed where Neutral Experts would consider differences (matter specific to the projects) and the court disputes (the matters of general applicability)

That's the point. Last time, Terroristan deliberately created a crisis that would fall within the ambit of a CoA (by claiming that India was diverting water that was not allowed) and slipped in an NE-worthy-alone issue (sediment management through low-level sluice gates) which too had already been settled. The CoA was favourable to Terroristan on that score.

It wants to repeat this tactic. That's what we have to strike at its very root.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10336
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 26 Sep 2017 18:22

^^
India has already indicated that all options suggested were treaty non-compliant and shot them down. We should continue to insist on treaty compliant measures only.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 27 Sep 2017 07:19

i didnt quite get the issues being discussed in the so called talks. the CoA has already given its final award on Kishenganga..about flushing and diversion. Whats the fuss about. What is the issue about Ratle??

khan
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby khan » 27 Sep 2017 08:39

IMO - It's high time India took the China approach to the IWT.

Build what ever needs to be built and make it a fait-accompli.

Hopefully, while this jibbering is going on - construction is continuing simultaneously.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22859
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 27 Sep 2017 09:31

manjgu wrote:i didnt quite get the issues being discussed in the so called talks. the CoA has already given its final award on Kishenganga..about flushing and diversion. Whats the fuss about. What is the issue about Ratle??

In both cases, Terroristan objects to the design issues. In Ratle, it also wants us to reduce the storage capacity to one-third claiming that otherwise the quantum of water flowing into Terroristan would go down significantly.

Clearly, in Kishenganga, Terroristan is trying a delaying tactic as a last ditch effort. Its objection is vague but it seems to claim that the project is not conforming to what was agreed in the CoA. The project is otherwise ready but I understand that the 'filling' of the reservoir is yet to happen. In Ratle, Terroristan says that it would lose 40% water (this is the magical number Terroristan always uses; it was the same in Kishenganga as well) if the project goes ahead. In a run-of-the-river system, that is not possible except in the dead-storage which is a one time filling and permitted under IWT.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17300
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 27 Sep 2017 09:51

SSridhar wrote:
manjgu wrote:i didnt quite get the issues being discussed in the so called talks. the CoA has already given its final award on Kishenganga..about flushing and diversion. Whats the fuss about. What is the issue about Ratle??

In both cases, Terroristan objects to the design issues. In Ratle, it also wants us to reduce the storage capacity to one-third claiming that otherwise the quantum of water flowing into Terroristan would go down significantly.

Clearly, in Kishenganga, Terroristan is trying a delaying tactic as a last ditch effort. Its objection is vague but it seems to claim that the project is not conforming to what was agreed in the CoA. The project is otherwise ready but I understand that the 'filling' of the reservoir is yet to happen. In Ratle, Terroristan says that it would lose 40% water (this is the magical number Terroristan always uses; it was the same in Kishenganga as well) if the project goes ahead. In a run-of-the-river system, that is not possible except in the dead-storage which is a one time filling and permitted under IWT.


Ask for proof, use their own tactics against them by rejecting everything that they produce as not proof sufficient enough to warrant action from India.

Rinse and repeat.

Release a wee bit of water every now and then, to keep alive the myth that it IS a run of the river project.

In the meanwhile, proceed as you want and complete the filling claiming that the run of the river conditions have been full filled because "no proof to the contrary was given by the pakis"

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gyan » 27 Sep 2017 14:29

Whats happening with our SYL canal?

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 29 Sep 2017 14:34

X Posted on the Terroristan Threat

Powering into trouble
Then came the court intervention in the Steel Mills deal in 2005, followed by the striking down of the LNG agreement and the Reko Diq case. In other forums, like the World Bank’s arbitration under the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan claimed to have scored a victory in the Baglihar dam case, but in reality all that was gained was a reduction in the height of the dam and a slight shrinkage in the size of the pondage. Now once again Pakistan is pushing for international arbitration in two other similar hydropower stations, and is likely to emerge with an equally feeble victory.
Across the board, whether it concerns dealings with the bureaucracy, the courts or the FBR, the state has grown accustomed to acting in a way that international forums find to be arbitrary and in violation of the covenants against which the investment in question has been made. Perhaps we, the taxpayers and the ultimate owners of the state, are being shafted by global capitalism. Or perhaps resort to arbitrary action is increasing because the investors find themselves caught in the crossfire between the contending factions that vie in an endless, and merciless, power struggle to drag each other down in the political arena.
In the case of water disputes with our neighbour, perhaps we fail to get the kind of victories we seek because we are the smaller party that gets unfair treatment. Or perhaps it is because both countries are channelling their territorial and emotional disputes through the mechanisms of arbitration in the Indus Waters Treaty.
In any case, the story remains the same. Another defeat is on the horizon, and unless resort to arbitrary action is not halted, more such defeats are inevitable.
Cheers Image


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests