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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby kancha » 16 Sep 2018 09:08

SSridhar wrote:
kancha wrote:Folks, doing a three part blog series titled Indus Water Treaty - A Pragmatic Water Sharing Agreement or a Potential Source of Conflict?
This is the Link to the first part.
May have a look.

Good effort, kancha.

However, you start by saying, "a fair and acceptable treaty". From an Indian PoV, it is not fair and therefore nor acceptable. Was so even at the time of agreement and continues to remain so.


Thanks for the endorsement, SSridhar Ji.
I'll revisit the 'fair and acceptable' part in the last part of this three part blog series. That is the plan as of now.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gyan » 17 Sep 2018 18:21

I have a small query, it may seem like someone asking who was Sita after reading the whole Ramayan.

The water sharing between India and Pakistan seems to be in the ratio 33 MAF v s 125 MAF ie 80/20.

But does this water that is 33 + 125 =158 MAF represent the total amount of water flowing through Indus system or it represents only the water flowing from India to Pakistan.

Evidently Indus water system/Bhasin catches water from Afghanistan as well as from within Pakistan itself, therefore it is relevant to know what is the "total" water flowing through the system. Experts may kindly enlighten us.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 17 Sep 2018 21:34

SSridhar wrote:
kancha wrote:Folks, doing a three part blog series titled Indus Water Treaty - A Pragmatic Water Sharing Agreement or a Potential Source of Conflict?
This is the Link to the first part.
May have a look.

Good effort, kancha.

However, you start by saying, "a fair and acceptable treaty". From an Indian PoV, it is not fair and therefore nor acceptable. Was so even at the time of agreement and continues to remain so.


I think it is good division and acceptable from Indian POV.

India got ~20% of water that was being used by Pakistan at the time for les than 10% of the total cost of diverting water for existing user. The treaty was signed on the water division principles that India wanted (current need) not what Pakistan wanted (historical rights). Existing usage almost always take priority over new demands. I think our negotiator did very well for India.

A good deal is the one that has goodies for both the sides. Lopsided deals don't survive and often end up creating much bigger mess for all parties involved. This deal has survived quite a bit and still perseveres which is a testament to its fairness.

Now nothing is perfect so it would have its own flaws. A perfect treaty for Indian interest would be where we would get 100% right to water of all the rivers and leave Pakistan to whatever we can't or won't use. But you won't be able to get other side to sign off on such a treaty.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Kashi » 18 Sep 2018 06:05

Katare wrote:I think it is good division and acceptable from Indian POV.

India got ~20% of water that was being used by Pakistan at the time for les than 10% of the total cost of diverting water for existing user. The treaty was signed on the water division principles that India wanted (current need) not what Pakistan wanted (historical rights). Existing usage almost always take priority over new demands. I think our negotiator did very well for India.


Not sure if negotiating just based on current needs was a good move. Seems rather short-sighted to me, especially since the treaty did not envisage any modifications in lieu of future water consumption patterns, water flows etc.

Our biggest sin was signing away Chandrabhaga (Chenab) river that flows much longer in India (504km; Himachal Pradesh and Jammu) than Pakistan (456 km). Basically, the water dependency of these regions was signed away and till recently we did not even build any significant dams to utilise our allotted share.

Katare wrote:A good deal is the one that has goodies for both the sides. Lopsided deals don't survive and often end up creating much bigger mess for all parties involved. This deal has survived quite a bit and still perseveres which is a testament to its fairness.


19.8% vs 80.2%. How is that not lopsided?

Katare wrote:Now nothing is perfect so it would have its own flaws. A perfect treaty for Indian interest would be where we would get 100% right to water of all the rivers and leave Pakistan to whatever we can't or won't use. But you won't be able to get other side to sign off on such a treaty.


But they managed to get us to not only sign off on an unequal treaty but also pay for it. Did we receive any compensation for waving away our rights to Indus, Jhelum and Chenab?

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 19 Sep 2018 00:21

Kashi,
You have your opinions and that is fine.

You don't like the 20% to 80% ratio than what should it have been and on what basis you would decide it?

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3440
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby saip » 19 Sep 2018 00:23

19.8% vs 80.2%. How is that not lopsided?
Something to do with catchment area?

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 19 Sep 2018 02:11

Long back I read a book written by India's chief negotiator for this treaty. He goes in a lot of detail about how all this was calculated. Lot of world leaders including US president were directly involved in mediating and making sure a deal is reached. In the end they ended up paying most of the cost of that 20% of water that India got. It's all excess or new use water we got. Unfortunately we haven't been able to utilize what we received through the treaty and chances are it'll take decades before we would get to a point where we have utilized all the water we negotiated.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Kashi » 19 Sep 2018 03:56

Katare wrote:Kashi,
You have your opinions and that is fine.

You don't like the 20% to 80% ratio than what should it have been and on what basis you would decide it?


I agree they are opinions and that's what we do here, we share, discuss and critique opinions.

As for your question, I see that you did not respond to my "opinion" on Chenab river and the basis that I formulated it on.

Perhaps the book written by chief negotiator of this treaty had some opinions on this matter..

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 19 Sep 2018 08:16

It appears to me that Majority of Chenab flows in Pakistan not in India. Since the river changes its name and merges with other rivers it allows people to calculate it’s length to suit there own goals. Anyhow that point doesn’t matter much because of the following two reasons
1) The primary principle of division was based on the need of the users not the length or flow of the river. Users are defined as people who depend on the water of that river or live in its delta/catchment area.

2) Western river (including Chenab), in Indian side, flow mostly in moutains and sparsely populated areas where need/scope for irrigation is very limited so they were naturally assigned to Pakistan where all the Indus tributaries flow in fertile planes of west Punjab. Western rivers were valuable for India for hydroelectric power generation so those rights were reserved for India in the treaty. Needs of local population for irrigation/industrial and residential use were also well protected. This water still remains largely unutilized because of the difficult terrain and poor economics.

Estern rivers flow into indian planes with large population base so those rivers were allocated to India for all type of exploitation including diversion of water.

Now this solution had one major problem. Since we were getting unlimited rights to eastern rivers, what would happen to the people downstream in Pakistan who depended on these rivers for their survival. The solution to this problem was to divert excess water from Pakistan’s share of rivers via canals to these people. Pakistan was broke so they asked that India should pay for it. Indians flatly refused and treaty got stuck for years until western donors got togather to fund roughly 80% of the vost while india and Pakistan shared roughly 10% each.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Kashi » 19 Sep 2018 08:53

Katare wrote:It appears to me that Majority of Chenab flows in Pakistan not in India. Since the river changes its name and merges with other rivers it allows people to calculate it’s length to suit there own goals.


And you should have pointed out that the entire Chandrabhaga river (Persianised to Chenab) has been allotted to Pakistan, including the rivers Chandra and Bhaga, the confluence of which makes Chendrabhaga. By your twisted logic on the part that has "changed" its name to "Chenab" should be counted :roll: .

Katare wrote:Anyhow that point doesn’t matter much because of the following two reasons


It doesn't matter to you, but to people living on the banks of these rivers and those who have been using these resources for centuries, it matters a lot.

It matters to the abnormally high silt levels in our reservoirs in upper reaches.

Katare wrote: This water still remains largely unutilized because of the difficult terrain and poor economics.


The phrase you are looking for is "lack of political will" or "wilful ignorance", if you will.

Katare wrote:Estern rivers flow into indian planes with large population base so those rivers were allocated to India for all type of exploitation including diversion of water.

Now this solution had one major problem. Since we were getting unlimited rights to eastern rivers, what would happen to the people downstream in Pakistan who depended on these rivers for their survival. The solution to this problem was to divert excess water from Pakistan’s share of rivers via canals to these people. Pakistan was broke so they asked that India should pay for it. Indians flatly refused and treaty got stuck for years until western donors got togather to fund roughly 80% of the vost while india and Pakistan shared roughly 10% each.


And why did we end up paying for this? By that account, why did we not receive compensation for the waters of the Western rivers that we had lost? Why we did not receive funding to put up hydropower projects and irrigation projects on the Western rivers?

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 19 Sep 2018 13:23

Katare wrote:Long back I read a book written by India's chief negotiator for this treaty. He goes in a lot of detail about how all this was calculated. Lot of world leaders including US president were directly involved in mediating and making sure a deal is reached. In the end they ended up paying most of the cost of that 20% of water that India got. It's all excess or new use water we got. Unfortunately we haven't been able to utilize what we received through the treaty and chances are it'll take decades before we would get to a point where we have utilized all the water we negotiated.


Sirji, would you please post the name of the book??

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 19 Sep 2018 19:33

Kashi wrote:
Katare wrote:It appears to me that Majority of Chenab flows in Pakistan not in India. Since the river changes its name and merges with other rivers it allows people to calculate it’s length to suit there own goals.


And you should have pointed out that the entire Chandrabhaga river (Persianised to Chenab) has been allotted to Pakistan, including the rivers Chandra and Bhaga, the confluence of which makes Chendrabhaga. By your twisted logic on the part that has "changed" its name to "Chenab" should be counted :roll: .

Katare wrote:Anyhow that point doesn’t matter much because of the following two reasons


It doesn't matter to you, but to people living on the banks of these rivers and those who have been using these resources for centuries, it matters a lot.

It matters to the abnormally high silt levels in our reservoirs in upper reaches.

Katare wrote: This water still remains largely unutilized because of the difficult terrain and poor economics.


The phrase you are looking for is "lack of political will" or "wilful ignorance", if you will.

Katare wrote:Estern rivers flow into indian planes with large population base so those rivers were allocated to India for all type of exploitation including diversion of water.

Now this solution had one major problem. Since we were getting unlimited rights to eastern rivers, what would happen to the people downstream in Pakistan who depended on these rivers for their survival. The solution to this problem was to divert excess water from Pakistan’s share of rivers via canals to these people. Pakistan was broke so they asked that India should pay for it. Indians flatly refused and treaty got stuck for years until western donors got togather to fund roughly 80% of the vost while india and Pakistan shared roughly 10% each.


And why did we end up paying for this? By that account, why did we not receive compensation for the waters of the Western rivers that we had lost? Why we did not receive funding to put up hydropower projects and irrigation projects on the Western rivers?


Why are you getting so worked up?

All the questions that you are asking have already been answered in the post, if you only read it. You don’t have to agree with it but please don’t argue for arguments sake . The treaty could have been concluded in 100 different ways and many of those could have been significantly better than wht we have currently. That is not the argument, the argument is if the current treaty in its entirety is fair or a sell out.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 20 Sep 2018 03:23

chetak wrote:
Katare wrote:Long back I read a book written by India's chief negotiator for this treaty. He goes in a lot of detail about how all this was calculated. Lot of world leaders including US president were directly involved in mediating and making sure a deal is reached. In the end they ended up paying most of the cost of that 20% of water that India got. It's all excess or new use water we got. Unfortunately we haven't been able to utilize what we received through the treaty and chances are it'll take decades before we would get to a point where we have utilized all the water we negotiated.


Sirji, would you please post the name of the book??


Chetakji maharaj, here is the book info. If you find it in pdf format in net (or any other format in USA) i would love to read it again !

Gulhati, Niranjan D., The Indus Waters Treaty: An Exercise in International Mediation, Allied Publishers: Bombay, 1973.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 20 Sep 2018 03:27

Another interesting piece of information is that Pakistan use to pay India an annual fee for getting its water uninterrupted after 1948 blockade. They were OK with keep paying for water than to sign the IWT.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Kashi » 20 Sep 2018 05:44

Katare wrote:Why are you getting so worked up?


To me it seems that you are getting overly defensive about the Indus Waters treaty.

Katare wrote:All the questions that you are asking have already been answered in the post, if you only read it.


Not quite, if you had read my questions you would have known.

Katare wrote:You don’t have to agree with it but please don’t argue for arguments sake . The treaty could have been concluded in 100 different ways and many of those could have been significantly better than wht we have currently. That is not the argument, the argument is if the current treaty in its entirety is fair or a sell out.


Well you do not have to respond to all queries, if you do not wish to, please do not get worked up or overly defensive over it.

This is precisely what we are discussing here isn't it? That the treaty could have been concluded in a different way that would have been more accommodating of our interests.

Especially since you claimed.

I think it is good division and acceptable from Indian POV.


I disagreed and put forth my points as to why I believe that the treaty could have been negotiated better and as such it would have been better from Indian PoV, especially given the circumstances then and now.

But instead of giving a direct answer, you are now shifting the goal posts to newer binary metric- "entirely fair" or "sell-out".

I never used the phrase sell-out, you did.

All I asked was if you have any opinion or rejoinders on the points that I raised above.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 20 Sep 2018 07:39

That is fair! I have nothing else to add.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 20 Sep 2018 09:22

For people interested in nitty gritty of IWT negotiations, principles, players and events, following is a very good short description. Describes clearly the battle that raged for 12 long years to determin the water sharing ratios, replacement cost and all other ofton repeated but not really understood partisan points on both side of the border.

IWT negotiation process
Last edited by Katare on 20 Sep 2018 17:20, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 20 Sep 2018 12:26

Katare wrote:
chetak wrote:
Sirji, would you please post the name of the book??


Chetakji maharaj, here is the book info. If you find it in pdf format in net (or any other format in USA) i would love to read it again !

Gulhati, Niranjan D., The Indus Waters Treaty: An Exercise in International Mediation, Allied Publishers: Bombay, 1973.


Thank you, sirji.

I am looking for the same but haven't found it yet.

Will certainly update you if I do.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 20 Sep 2018 18:01

the one fact that some people are missing is that in the 50's 60's India did not have a very independent foreign policy as probably it has today... there were economic reasons, historical reasons, political reasons. I would imagine in the context of 50's 60's it was fairly equitable. I mean even if today we excercise our rights on all the rivers to the max, pakistan will turn into a desert !! we have just begun tapping chenab and in 5 to 6 years we will be in a position to squeeze paki balls.

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

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 20 Sep 2018 18:08

X Posted on the Terroritan Thread

Dam politics

There is no supra-constitutional centre of power in any democratic system. The pillars of the state derive their powers and roles from the constitution of Pakistan. Perhaps, we need to remind ourselves that this constitution was framed by the supreme will of the people and their representative body, the country’s parliament.

The constitution lays down clear-cut powers of the pillars of the state – the executive, the judiciary and the legislative. And any attempts of over-stepping causes problem and creates tensions. To suggest that some people are playing politics over the issue of building a dam in country is an incorrect assertion. The construction of dams is a critical matter of political economy, since it results in the allocation of resources at the cost of several other ongoing and future projects for many years – because the construction of dams costs a huge amount of money. In the past, Pakistan was not able to build a big dam from its own resources, and the World Bank mainly funded dams.

We should also note that no other province – other than Sindh – should have a final say in matters such as constructing dam. This is so because Sindh is a lower-riparian area and it suffers most due to water reservoirs and diversions up-stream. Since pre-Partition days, Sindh has been complaining about Punjab’s attempts at water diversion.

Rasool Bux Palijo, Sindh’s water warrior, in his book ‘Sindh-Punjab Water Dispute (1859-2003)’ traced the history of the water dispute between upper and lower riparians before and after the creation of Pakistan. Palijo led long protest marches of thousands of people against the man-made water-famine in Sindh. He has also discussed the water conflict in the context of international law that governs the shared waters of rivers and intervention of the British government, basically the idea of ‘not allowing Punjab’ to build dams, canals and barrages’ without prior approval from Sindh.

How can Sindh forget the fact that, before dams were constructed, the Kotri-downstream water flow was 125 million acres feet (MAF) of water. It is on record that, before the Tarbela Dam was constructed, the average downstream flow was over 70 MAF, and the delta region was green and flourishing.

The construction of large dams is a political question which needs to be decided by the institutional mechanism envisaged in the constitution. This is not in the domain of institutions, other than the one designated by the constitution of the country to handle such matters.

Because of the upstream dams and reduced water flows in the delta region, Sindh has already lost 2.3 million acres of land to sea intrusion. The province faces a serious challenge of losing the two coastal districts of Thatta and Badin to sea intrusion. In fact, some estimates fear that by 2030 both districts may not even exist if the destruction of the delta continues at the current pace. Why do people from other provinces assume that the people will be silent on this? When their agricultural lands, cities, villages, graveyards etc will be lost to sea intrusion, will it not be a matter of their very existence?

According to Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah, the flow to downstream Kotri in the past 10 years has been lower than 10 MAF, which was set as minimum under the Water Accord of 1990-91.

The accord was signed by a dummy Sindh government led by Jam Sadiq Ali, in alliance with the MQM – a government that compromised the interests of Sindh. However, even that water accord is not implemented. The 1991 Water Accord called for a minimum 10 MAF water discharge downstream the Kotri barrage but that is never done, unless there are floods.

General Musharraf, who led a campaign for forcing a consensus (not building a consensus, because three provincial assemblies – of Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan – had through their resolutions rejected the Kalabagh Dam), ended up failing to convince people in Sindh to agree on the dam. In a meeting with growers and MNAs from Sindh, Musharraf had offered any guarantee to them. One participant to the meeting, late Qamar Zaman Shah, is said to have made this comment: ‘Sindh does not need any guarantee. When there is no guarantee of the constitution of Pakistan in this country, because when a dictator takes over he throws it away and brings in PCO etc, what guarantee are we talking of?’ There were other such sentiments expressed during that meeting as well, some of which General Musharraf is said to have been rather taken aback by. The meeting did reflect how serious the issue of constructing a dam on the Indus is for the people of Sindh.

Dams do not create water. They serve as reservoirs of available water. Thus, the fundamental question is the availability of water in the system in any given year. The Indus River Basin gets surplus water only during floods, so basically we are suggesting we build a dam to store flood water. We are suggesting we spend $15 billion to $20 billion dollars on the construction of a dam which will depend on flood water. Based on past experience, Sindh also fears that the dam will be filled every year despite the availability of water, and at the cost of Sindh’s share of national water.

For example the Greater Thal Flood Canal, which Sindh unanimously opposed, was constructed by Gen Musharraf, with the idea that it would be opened only during flood season. Has there been a single year when this canal is not opened?

The problem with Punjab’s authorities is that they carry out irregular and unapproved water diversion projects, and then build a new case for another project to regularise earlier irregularities. Musharraf lobbied for the Kalabagh Dam, which he did not get approval for.

But then he went ahead without the Indus River System Authority’s (IRSA) approval for construction of the Thal canal. This is how Sindh’s water share has been stolen under undemocratic regimes.

It is a serious concern for Sindh that some elements are pushing the dam agenda, due to which the province will suffer the most. And anger and a sense of deprivation will take deeper roots.

Cheers Image

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

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 24 Sep 2018 19:17

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Weather systems, not Indian 'water warfare', behind slight rise in water levels in rivers: PMD

The Pakistan Meteorological Department's (PMD) Chief Meteorologist, Muhammad Riaz, on Monday dismissed local media reports that India had 'released water' into Pakistani rivers, resulting in flooding.

According to local media, "several villages in Pakistan were flooded after India released water in River Ravi, River Sutlej, and River Chenab on Sunday".

Riaz explained that heavy rainfall had occurred in the Pakistan-India border region, which was the reason behind the increased flow of water in the rivers. He also clarified that PMD had not received any reports of water being released into Pakistani rivers.

The PMD official said that the weather systems had generated floods across the border, mainly in the watershed areas of the Chenab, Sutlej and Ravi rivers.

Riaz said India had followed its usual procedure and accommodated water in its dam reservoirs. He said the water that subsequently entered Pakistani villages was not 'extra-ordinary', and the water which did enter the Sialkot and Narowal areas was dealt with by the districts' own officials.

According to Indian media, heavy rains have lashed parts of the north of the country, including Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh, for three consecutive days. The Indian Meteorological Department has also issued a red alert for various areas.

Cheers Image

anandsgh
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 12 Jul 2009 21:54

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anandsgh » 27 Sep 2018 22:05

I don't know if this has been shared here or not but this is a video of the location of paki Diamar Basha dam made by some paki.
https://youtu.be/oCDiPIJ9M0E

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 30 Sep 2018 08:15

Not directly IWT related but has implications:

Dam-centric approach has emptied Indus, deprived delta of water, says expert

Eminent water expert Dr Hassan Abbas has said Pakistan needs to adopt ‘flowing river model’ as a dammed river was either ill or bad river and regretted that dam-centric approach has emptied the Indus River and deprived its delta of water.
So, he said, Indus was emptied and “now water flows don’t reach delta”. Hardly 1-2 MAF water flowed downstream Kotri Barrage in a year, making the delta lose its value. The river used to bring silt deposits which kept sea intrusion in check and nature created this balance after millions of years, he said.
He said that Pakistan faced this situation for lack of hydrological knowledge thus projects built so far proved detrimental to the economy.
He said that it was Karachi which faced the most serious water problem although it was the highest income generating city.
Pakistan opposed India over building of dams but failed to sell its narrative on water issue to international community for two reasons. Pakistan based its claim on being the lower riparian to argue that India could not be allowed to build dams upstream but domestically it was promoting construction of dams at the cost of rights of lower riparian, he said. :D


https://www.dawn.com/news/1435585/dam-c ... ays-expert

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

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 30 Sep 2018 23:24

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

What Pakistan’s worsening water crisis needs — another conference

HYDERABAD: What can be an alternative to the large storage water dams which often trigger resentful controversies in Pakistan? At an interchange of views at a dialogue, organised by non-profit organisations in Hyderabad on Friday, the participants discussed the concepts of reverting to the natural flow of the river and adoption of water conservation models.

Students set out to help water-starved residents

“Tarbela and Mangla dams contribute around 10% of the total water required for irrigation of agricultural lands in the country. The remaining 90% still comes from flow of the river,” said Dr Hassan Abbass, an expert of hydrology, who dwelt at length in his presentation making an argument against construction of dams.

“The world now acknowledges that a flowing river is a healthy river and the stored water is unhealthy.” He underlined the need of adopting the ‘flowing river model’ and desisting from the dam-centered approach of water management.

For him, dams are costly and besides creating inter-provincial controversies over water sharing, they also end up denying release of the required quantity of water to the sea which leads to sea intrusion. “It’s a misconception that the delta [the place where river meets the sea] belongs to Sindh province only. It [the delta] belongs to the river and to the whole country,” he clarified.

According to the estimates he shared from the 1980s to the present times, the sea has been affecting 24 million acres of land and consuming eight acres every day. In the last century, up to 200 million acre per feet water went to the sea from the River Indus which has currently shrunk to the paltry one or two MAF. This is despite the 1991 Water Accord which provides for releasing 10 MAF in the sea.

He said the coastal land in Badin, Thatta and Sujawal districts where sea intrusion is being neglectfully allowed is a pricey land in terms of agriculture and other purposes.

Dr Abbass suggested utilisation waterfront land along the river for commercial and residential purposes and inland navigation through the river to generate economic activity. He said that the stretch of the rivers in Pakistan spread to around 7,000 kilometers. “To begin with, the government can build a pot at Kotri Barrage [in Jamshoro near Hyderabad]. And later, the people living near the barrages in Sukkur, Guddu, Multan and Attock may demand construction of ports there as well.”

All the provinces of Pakistan, he said, can earn significantly from the inland navigation which is the cheapest mode of transport. According to him, India is already planning an inland navigation project but as compared to Pakistan, the former country is at a disadvantage because its delta is mostly located in Bangladesh.

He traced navigation in River Indus as far back as 326 BC by Alexandar of Macedonia. It was also done in different times in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. “The port at Kotri can be built and made operational much before the Gawadar port. It requires some investment and release of water in the river,” he shared.

According to him, at the Karachi port, only around half of some 30 berths are presently being used because inland road communication does not allow loading and offloading of containers in all the berths. He said the Kotri port can immediately help reduce burden from Karachi while helping the country increase its exports and imports.

The water expert also shared models of efficient use of water to irrigate agricultural land which will end the need of constructing dams and provide more water for the river. “In a meeting with the Chinese policy makers, they said they wouldn’t have built the Three Gorges dam if the solar technology was harnessed in the 1990 when the dam project began. They are generating 8,000 megawatts from the dam while the solar power is providing 70,000 MW energy to the country,” the expert said.

SHC serves notices on petition against unclean water supply, water theft

Zahid Hussain Bhurgari, a representative of the Sindh Chamber of Agriculture, which is a farmers’ lobbying group, differed with Dr Abbass on the matter of dam building. He said they support construction of the Diamer Bhasha dam. “Sindh’s agriculture is currently dependent on Tarbela dam. When Tarbela empties we don’t get water for our crops,” he contended.

He said both China and India have constructed tens of thousands of dams but when Pakistan decides to build the dams, voices of opposition crop up without cogent justification.

Advocate Ali Palh of Rights Now, a non-profit, who also belongs to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, contended that the dams do not affect environment or the biodiversity. He said the dams which have been approved by the Council of Common Interests (CCI) should be constructed.

Sindh Abadgar Board General Secretary Dr Zulfiqar Yousfani supported Dr Abbass’s propositions about putting a stop on dam construction and releasing more water in the river while adopting efficient farming. “Bhasha dam can be filled once in four to five years only. But Dr Abbass’s concept about allowing natural flows in the river, commercial and residential use of waterfront land and inland navigation can revolutionise the water management and the economy.”

Advocate Israr Chang, an office bearer of the Sindh High Court Bar Association, objected to the television campaign being run in favour of the dams. He argued that the campaign does not inform the people about flip sides of the dams.

Cheers Image

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 01 Oct 2018 17:55



The wages of mindless bisection.

Why should there be any sympathy for Terroristan? There should have been no sympathy in the negotiations leading up to 1960 for we had already suffered enough.

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

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 01 Oct 2018 18:30

SSridhar wrote:The wages of mindless bisection.

Why should there be any sympathy for Terroristan? There should have been no sympathy in the negotiations leading up to 1960 for we had already suffered enough.

SSridhar Ji : Thank you JLN for giving everything away (80.2% Indus Waters along with Sixty Three Million Pounds Sterling without consulting the Indian Parliament!"

Cheers Image

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

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 03 Oct 2018 02:53

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Pakistan facing water scarcity ahead of Rabi sowing - Sehrish Wasif

In its latest seasonal forecast, the Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD) cautioned the authorities concerned to use the water reserves judiciously to meet the requirement for Rabi sowing.

PMD Spokesperson Khalid Malik told The Express Tribune that the country received 31 per cent below average rainfall this year as compared to 23 per cent below average showers in 2017. “This year, the below average rainfall during monsoon did not help much to improve the water levels in main reservoirs of the country and underground water,” he added.

“Mostly October and November are transitional periods of weather, therefore, in Pakistan, October and November go dry or there are few spells of light rainfall,” said Malik, adding that chances are the winter season may start by the third week of October.

On the contrary, the Met office had twice issued drought alert in the southern parts of the country due to scarcity of rainfall.

“It is too early to predict as to when the ongoing drought in the southern parts of the county will come to an end,” he maintained.

Water reservoirs: Preparation to build two small dams under way

According to PMD monthly monsoon update, the country in September recorded 35 per cent below normal rainfall in all the provinces except Balochistan where it remained above normal.

In August, the country received 51 per cent below normal rainfall in all the provinces. In July, rainfall recorded in the country was 12 per cent. However, it remained above normal in Punjab, K-P, Gilgit-Baltistan, below normal in Sindh and Balochistan and close to normal in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

The latest season forecast suggests near normal rainfall in the country with two or three spells of light to moderate rainfall during October. In the meantime, due to rapidly falling temperatures, the snow and glacier melt contribution to Tarbela reservoir will become minimal.

The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) said the water level in Tarbela Dam had reached its dead level for the very first time in the month of July. Moreover, Mangla and Tarbela Dam reached dead level for the first time in March for the first time in 15 years.

The current water level in Mangla Dam is 1,166.50 acres feet against its maximum conservation level of 1,242 feet and dead level of 1,050 acres feet. In Tarbela Dam, the current water level is 1,497 acres feet against its maximum conservation level of 1,550 feet and dead level of 1,386 feet.

“This year, Tarbela Dam had reached its dead level twice in May and unprecedentedly in July, however, Mangla Dam reached its dead level in late February, improved a bit in April but is still at its lowest now,” IRSA Spokesperson Rana Khalid told The Express Tribune.

Therefore, considering the severe water crisis, Irsa will carry forward 5.8 million acre feet (MAF) water storage from Kharif to Rabi crop season, which is the second lowest in history after 5.4 MAF in 2004

Cheers Image

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 05 Oct 2018 21:52

Pakistan asks India to share Kishanganga water data.

Pakistan has asked India to immediately share the data showing inflow and discharge of water at the Kishanganga dam and water flows in different rivers.

It has also sought dates for inspection of the 330MW hydroelectric project that India had agreed to during a two-day meeting held in August in Lahore between Indus water commissioners of the two countries.

“We recently asked Indian authorities for Indus waters in writing to give us dates for inspection of the Kishanganga dam as soon as possible. Through the letter, we have also pressed Indian authorities to immediately share the data concerning flows of water at the river and releases/discharges, in/outflows at the dam with us under the relevant provisions of the Indus Water Treaty,” Pakistan’s Commissioner for Indus Waters Syed Muhammad Mehr Ali Shah told Dawn on Thursday.

Dates for inspection of 330MW power project also sought

“We are receiving water at Jhelum basin in our territory, but to ascertain our need or requirement we need data India is obligated to share with us time to time,” he said.

During the 115th meeting of the Permanent Commi­ssion for Indus Waters, India had agreed to allow Pakistan to inspect the projects built on the Jhelum basin, including Kishanganga hydroelectric project, in the near future.

Similarly, Islamabad had agreed to allow New Delhi to carry out inspection of the Kotri barrage over the Indus under Article VIII (4) (c) of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Besides Kishanganga, India had also agreed to let Pakistani experts inspect sites of two hydro­power projects — 1,000MW Pakal Dul and 48MW Lower Kalnal at Chenab basin — by the end of September.

However, Indian authorities later confirmed on Oct 7 to 11 for tour/inspection of the projects by a three-member Pakistani team, headed by the Indus water commissioner. But finally it postponed the inspection on the pretext of local elections in held Kashmir.

Mr Shah said that Pakistani authorities wanted to have a detailed tour of the Kishanganga project since Pakistan had already raised various objections on its design and construction.

Pakistan has already approached the World Bank, demanding constitution of a seven-member court of arbitration to address its concerns. On the other hand, India wants a neutral expert over the issue. However in June this year, the World Bank reportedly requested Pakistan to stand down from pursuing its stand of referring to the Kishanganga dam dispute to the court of arbitration and instead accept India’s offer of appointing a neutral expert :mrgreen: , but Pakistan didn’t do so and stuck to its stance to date. :((

“Our stance is still the same as it was before. Under the treaty, it is our right to select the way that suits us :rotfl: (Porki is day dreaming) . And that is the court of arbitration. Similarly, the World Bank, under the treaty, could not proceed further until willingness of both the parties at a mutually agreed stance. Recently, the WB president reportedly assured our foreign minister to make another effort to address Pakistan’s concerns on the project,” the commissioner explained.

In reply to a question about the fate or status of Pakistan’s objections since the project has already been completed by India, Mr Shah said that it did not matter.

“Technically, Pakistan’s objection can be addressed even now, as our concerns are related to design and legally, under the IWT, if any project facing objections by either party could not be recognised,” he maintained.

Under the treaty, he said, if the decision came after completion of any project facing objections raised by either party, the relevant portions of such schemes would be demolished.

“Under the same provisions, the neutral expert had got demolished the upper side of the Baglihar dam in India,” Mr Shah said.

He said that Pakistan had also written a letter to Indian authorities to give dates for inspection of Pakal Dul and Lower Kalnal projects at Chenab basin.

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

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 07 Oct 2018 17:29

X Posted on the Terroristani Thread

Seismic costs - Imaduddin Ahmed

WHEN considering investment in an infrastructure project, responsible investors or donors would ask: what is the need? What are the financial, social and environmental costs? What are the risks and the unknowns? Is the project likely to yield higher costs than benefits? Is the project the best option to address the need?

Pakistan’s judiciary and government have called upon Pakistanis to invest in the Diamer-Basha and Mohmand Dam Fund, and yet they have insufficiently addressed these questions. The Supreme Court’s online appeal is not accompanied by a feasibility study. From the outside looking in, this is a red flag.

The court explained the need in uploads to its website related to Petition 57 of 2016: a) Pakistan faces an issue of water scarcity, and b) it sees water reservoirs as essential to the survival of Pakistan’s people and economy. The Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources corroborates the former claim. The argument for reservoirs rests on the premise that insufficient storage capacity causes water shortages. These assumptions merit scrutiny.

Is it necessary to target water storage capacity when water can be used more efficiently? Agriculture accounts for more than 95 per cent of Pakistan’s water consumption, and it is being used suboptimally.

For a start, distribution losses can be as high as two-thirds along unlined watercourses. These can be curbed with lining at a fraction of the cost. Secondly, Pakistan’s portfolio of crops needs to be rethought. The government should incentivise a shift away from water-intensive crops towards drought-resistant strains and species.

If optimising water use is insufficient on its own to solve Pakistan’s looming water crisis and additional storage is needed, would construction of the Diamer-Basha and Mohmand dams be the best way of addressing that need? What would be the shortfall if existing dams were desilted, maintained and rehabilitated? What would be the shortfall of capacity needed if instead of mega dams, smaller dams, with their smaller risks and costs, were built? Savvy impact investors would need these questions answered in a publicly available feasibility study.

Among the social costs of the Diamer-Basha dam foreseen by Wapda in 2011 in a document once made available online were the dislocation of over 30,000 people, the sub­mersion of over 2,500 acres of agricultural land and the loss of many of the 33,000 prehistoric rock carvings that cannot be relocated. As a remedy to the social costs, nine model villages with amenities were envisioned for the displaced, and selected rock carvings would be moved to a museum in Chilas. Environmental costs were not mentioned.

For these, in the absence of a published feasibility study, we turn to Engineer Bashir Malik’s opinion published in The Nation in 2012. Described by King’s College geographer Daanish Mustafa as a former adviser to the World Bank and UN and “one of the most ardent supporters of dam-building in Pakis­tan”, Malik first distinguished Diamer-Basha from Tarbela and Kalabagh as “not a natural site for a storage dam”. He then proceeded to illustrate the seismic risks that the roller-compacted concrete Daimer-Basha dam would face as well as cause. The dam would be “vulnerable to cracks and leakage”.

A serious risk factor, Malik wrote, is reservoir-induced seismicity due to the immense weight of water stored behind the unprecedentedly high dam in the middle of an earthquake zone. The dam, in other words, could trigger tremors. “India’s Koyna dam induced [a] magnitude 6.4 earthquake killing 180 people in 1967 [...]”, while the Zipingpu mega dam may have been responsible for triggering a 7.9 magnitude earthquake in China in 2008, which killed 80,000 people.

Professor of Geolo­gical Sciences She­min Ge of the Uni­versity of Colorado Boulder and her co-authors have sugges­ted the same. Greater than any other financial, economic or soc­ial cost is the chance that the Diamer-Basha dam, by virtue of being a mega dam in an earthquake zone, could cause loss of life on a catastrophic scale.

If the Diamer-Basha dam were the miracle that it would have to be to justify all the risks and costs, why would CPEC or development banks not finance it? Could it be that they read the feasibility studies?

Mega projects are inherently political, acc­ording to Andrew Edkins, UCL professor of the management of complex projects. Har­v­ard international development professor Lant Pritchett predicts that policy advocates withhold information about a project’s effectiveness when they believe this information would deter support; they instead use emotive rhetoric to hoodwink prospective supporters.

One cannot doubt the sincerity of the new government or the judiciary. One does wonder, however, at the politics of the policy advocates. Pakistanis should demand answers to hard questions before they part with their money.

Cheers Image

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Katare » 08 Oct 2018 06:29

India should put a condition that if pak goes in litigation, it loses all of its IWT rights of inspections and data sharing.

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

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 20 Oct 2018 21:24

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

President Alvi calls for engaging India in water talks - Hasnaat Malik

ISLAMABAD: President Dr Arif Alvi has urged the Foreign Office and the concerned stakeholders to engage in ‘a constructive dialogue’ with India to achieve bilateral and multilateral arrangements on trans-boundary water matters.

“Pakistan should also make efforts towards safeguarding our ‘Water Rights’. Issue(s) pertaining to the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) is one such example. This would require meticulous thinking on our part and engaging with our neighbours to avoid potential conflicts in the future,” said Dr Alvi on Friday.

The president was addressing a two-day International Symposium on ‘Creating a Water-Secure Pakistan’ held at the Supreme Court premises. He said about 2 million drought-ridden and impoverished residents of Tharparkar and Cholistan amplified the human side of the problem.

He said the concerns of different stakeholder should be addressed at the institutional level and also in parliament. He called IRSA Water Accord of 1991 a good example in this regard.

Dam opponents are traitors: CJP

Dr Alvi said the real issue is lack of trust among the provinces, and measures should be taken to end it. “We as a nation need to think beyond local and parochial interests. We need to think for our country. Pakistan comes first. We need to build a general consensus and a feeling of mutual trust,” he added.

According to the president, Tharparkar represents one of the worst-hit regions of the country, where because of poor water management thousands of children have also lost their lives.

“The situation in Tharparkar is a case in example of how bleak the things may become in other parts of the country in case adequate water management measures are not adopted. In order to improve the ground water levels and recharge our aquifers, we need to build more delay action dams,” he said.

The president said Pakistan’s water storage capacity is limited to only 30 days, which is reducing with time due to sedimentation. In case new water reservoirs are not constructed, the irrigation supplies would reduce substantially to the level which Pakistan had in 60s when there were no reservoirs.

“This situation would create serious water conflicts in society which can only be addressed by taking timely action. There is a need for building large water reservoirs,” he added.

He said the other area of concern is power generation which serves as a lifeline to the industrial sector. He noted an ever-widening gap between demand and supply of power generation, and said this energy shortfall is seriously hampering the industrial growth.

“As a result, our GDP has been stunted while foreign reserves have depleted. The power generation sector is badly plagued with circular debt and one of the reasons for this is our over reliance on thermal rather than hydel means of power production.

“According to the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority’s (Nepra) 2015 State of Industry report, Pakistan has the potential of generating 40,000 megawatts of hydro power. The need of the hour is to shift to efficient and cost-effective means of power generation,” he said. Of course! Have the Chinese Dismantle their Old Redundant Coal Powered Generating Power Plants which have been MOTHBALLED and Install them in Terroristan!

Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar – who has also established a fund for construction of Diamer-Bhasha and Mohmand dams – said it is ‘a criminal negligence’ that no new dams was constructed in the last 40 years.

PM Imran’s bid to crowdfund $14 billion for crucial dams

“The Supreme Court, as one of the three pillars of the state, is under a duty to serve the country and its people. The greatest duty that a government owes to its people is the duty to protect their right to life as contained in Article 9 of our Constitution and in various International Covenants,” he said.

The CJP said many states interpret this as a duty to invest in their military, to expand law-enforcement presence, and enter into arms agreements. “And while they are, without a doubt steps that could ensure security of the citizens, the threat often comes from deprivation of the most basic sources,” he added. The Terroristan Army is going to put the CJP's Nuts in a Nut Cracker and Squeeze Hard on them to the Dulcet Tones of The Nutcracker Suite!

“In this case, the source is water. It has long been established that water is essential for the existence of life. A dire water shortage has led to the recognition of a right to water itself … can there be any life at all without water? The significance of water encompasses all, and so does the problem of water scarcity, both nationally and globally,” he added.

Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) Chairman Muzammil Hussain said construction work on Diamer-Bhasha and Mohmand dams is set to start soon. He said the CJP’s intervention in the issue is a turning point in the country’s history. “We are entering an era of progress and stability,” he added.

Cheers Image

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 21 Oct 2018 09:55

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1830216/1- ... nspection/
India rejects Pakistan demand for Chenab dams' inspection

India has refused to permit Pakistan from inspecting controversial water projects being built on the Chenab, Express News reported on Saturday.
Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters Syed Mehr Ali Shah had telephoned his Indian counterpart PK Saxena on this account. Shah reminded him of talks held in Lahore two months ago where both sides had spoken about Pakistani experts inspecting the projects.Saxena rejected the Pakistan demand, according to Express News. Shah had earlier written to his Indian counterpart in this regard too. In the letter, he emphasised Pakistan’s right to inspect water projects being built on the river in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty.Pakistan had also sought pertinent data. This too India refused to provide.A Pakistani team was expected to visit India this month to inspect the water projects. India cancelled the planned visit at the last moment

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 21 Oct 2018 13:35

^ We can't vouch for the authenticity of the 'rejection' by PICS, India simply because it has come from a Pakistani source. But, assuming it is true, there may be no surprise either. Pakistan has been claiming that Kashmir is 'boiling' and the situation is dangerous and the world must intervene etc. In such a situation, how can India ensure a safe and successful trip to a Pakistani team which can be a legitimate target of attack even by terrorists, to remote and terror-infested places? So, I think that Pakistani PIGS must not ask for a site visit until normalcy is restored to India's satisfaction. We can then consider the request on merits. There should also be a valid reason for the Pakistani PIGS to raise such a request.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Gyan » 22 Oct 2018 19:20

Prem wrote:https://tribune.com.pk/story/1830216/1-india-rejects-pakistan-demand-chenab-dams-inspection/
India rejects Pakistan demand for Chenab dams' inspection

India has refused to permit Pakistan from inspecting controversial water projects being built on the Chenab, Express News reported on Saturday.
Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters Syed Mehr Ali Shah had telephoned his Indian counterpart PK Saxena on this account. Shah reminded him of talks held in Lahore two months ago where both sides had spoken about Pakistani experts inspecting the projects.Saxena rejected the Pakistan demand, according to Express News. Shah had earlier written to his Indian counterpart in this regard too. In the letter, he emphasised Pakistan’s right to inspect water projects being built on the river in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty.Pakistan had also sought pertinent data. This too India refused to provide.A Pakistani team was expected to visit India this month to inspect the water projects. India cancelled the planned visit at the last moment


I think Article is false

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Lisa » 23 Oct 2018 01:30

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/i ... 2018-10-20

"India stands by Indus Treaty commitment, rejects Pakistan reports"

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 23 Oct 2018 17:47

Pakistan to launch aggressive campaign against India over Indus Waters Treaty: Report
Minister for Water Resources Faisal Vawda said he did not want to go into a threatening mode, but would launch an aggressive campaign at home
jeehard jeehard :rotfl: :rotfl: and abroad as India had seriously violated the 1960 treaty to Pakistan’s disadvantage.

Without explaining, the minister said he would trap India to its own bluff card because the matter also pertained to Pakistan’s security and he was in the process of consultations with stakeholders to resolve the challenges with India on a war footing.


With India following all the provisions in the treaty, pakistan will as in the past end up making a spectacle of itself and its own failings and wasteful usage of water will come to the fore.

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

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 28 Oct 2018 19:14

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

SSridhar Ji : Your views please.

Rethinking water management

Many world leaders have already predicted that the next world war will be fought for clean water. Numerous countries in the world are trying to make substantial policy and management alterations for better utilisation of water.

Various countries sharing international waters have come up with new policies and governing rules for equitable usage and to limit their global-warming footprints to save nature, water resources in particular. Pakistan too is in the midst of a water crisis. According to the IMF, it is the third most water-stressed country in the world. Pakistan faces a number of water-related challenges to Pakistan, including vulnerability to climate change, belligerent neighbours, difficult hydro-politics, and inter-provincial conflict on distribution of water. Like many other countries, Pakistan too has to shift from conventional water usage and management policies to more advanced and sustainable ones if it wishes to avert this colossal crisis in the making.

Rising temperatures, flash floods, long droughts, heatwaves and untimely monsoon showers are some of the reverberations of climate change, but the most acute challenge to Pakistan today is the effect of climate change on the flow of the Indus Basin. Being an agrarian economy, 90 percent of Pakistan’s agriculture on arable lands is sustained by this basin. The Indus water resource, supported by ice and snow melt in the Karakoram and Hindukush ranges, also plays a significant role in steering the country’s domestic usage, industrial power and energy needs.

Statistics by the IMF paint a rather dingy picture for Pakistan’s water needs. A 2016 report asserts that the water capacity of Pakistan has reduced from 5600 cubic meters at the time of independence to currently at an alarming 1070 cubic meters only. Similarly, the Global Climate Risk Index ranked Pakistan at number 7 in the list of countries most vulnerable to global warming. At such a critical junction, Pakistan cannot afford the implications of climate change on the Indus Basin and its tributaries. It is essential for Pakistan to design a pragmatic framework to limit the repercussions of climate change, particularly on the Indus water resource.

Another major hindrance to Pakistan’s water security is the water dispute and other regional hydro-politics with India. The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between India and Pakistan, which was signed in 1960 via mediation by the World Bank, was hailed as one of the most successful treaties that have averted potential conflict between two hostile nations. However, as time passed by, the rigid nature of the treaty and loopholes within it have overshadowed its success.

Contemporary obstructions between the two nuclear-armed nations are India’s continuous construction of dams over the three western tributaries that were allocated to Pakistan. India seems to be exploiting the loophole of the IWT that allows it to use 20 percent of the water of the western tributaries for hydroelectric purposes and domestic use. Additionally, the comments made by Indian PM Nadrendra Modi (to stop the water supply to Pakistan) have further fuelled the fire. Moreover, Modi has recently formed a task force to ‘review’ the IWT, an indication that India could be repudiating the IWT at any point. Pakistan maintains a stance that any alteration in the present IWT is not acceptable. If the neighbours are to live with harmony, they ought to let go of this negativity and come back on the table to renegotiate the terms of the treaty. Methinks Terroristanis are CONVINCED THAT THERE IS A CASE for India to repudiate the IWT!

The water dispute within the country is equally detrimental; provinces often resort to blame game against each other. For instance, issues regarding the construction of the Kalabagh Dam were a wakeup call for the federal government to ensure that all federating units are on the same page. For example, Balochistan, being a low-riparian area, had the view that Sindh would get its share of water if the Kalabagh project were realised. Similarly, Sindh had the same opinion against Punjab. Punjab was the only province in favour of building this new dam. The Kalabagh Dam was merely one of the many issues that underscored the dire need for national unity. Subhan Allah - The Chief Justice of Terroristan Main Saqib Nisar - the Chief Proponent of the Kalabagh Dam - is a PAKJABI!

The blueprints of Pakistan’s chronic water challenges are manifold. First, with respect to climate change, the national climate change policy must be implemented in letter and spirit. Moreover, forestation along the banks of rivers and canals are the need of the hour. According to the WWF, River Indus has lost 90 percent of original forest cover owing to agriculture extraction. To deal with the threat of climate change, awareness on individual, local and governmental levels is essential. Furthermore, in order to safeguard the water of the Indus Basin, Pakistan needs to build more dams.

Statistics by Wapda show that Pakistan has a water storage capacity of merely 30 days. India, on the other hand, has storage capacity of over 170 days. Despite this, no new major dam has been constructed since Mangla and Tarbela, whereas, the population of Pakistan has increased six-fold since Independence.

Second, India and Pakistan must renegotiate the terms of the IWT and come up with solutions that would include many contemporary factors, including climate change which has severe adverse effects on water.[/b] The International Law Association’s Berlin Rules, which replaced the Helsinki Rules in 2004 could be a good guiding set of laws – Pakistan and India do not have to reinvent the wheel when its already out there. Furthermore, they can work out a way from other examples in the world, including, River Nile (flows between 11 countries), the Amazon river (flows between 6 countries) and the Danube river (flows between 10 countries) to implement something similar for the Indus Basin. India may benefit if Terroristan stirs this Hornets Nest

And, finally, the current times call for greater national cohesion to defeat the water crisis for good. Pakistan has to revisit the already formulated water policy of equitable distribution of water to all the provinces, but this time keeping in mind their contemporary requirements and climatic challenges. Being at the brink of being declared a water-stressed country, it is high time that our provinces rose above their nationalist rhetoric and worked in harmony to defeat this challenge. Failure on this is out of the question; it will be extremely disastrous if Pakistan fails to overcome these water-related impediments.

The writer is a Young Development Fellow at the Planning Commission, and is an associate researcher with the chief economist of Pakistan.

Cheers Image

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 13 Nov 2018 07:53



Paki Indus water Commissioner, federal minister, a so called legal expert and journalist/anchor letting off lot of gas on paki inability to pin down India (on the neutral expert/court of arbitration saga)

AlapArya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 03 Jul 2017 21:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby AlapArya » 13 Nov 2018 14:06

Do these Pakistanis even read the contents of the Indus Water Treaty?

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 13 Nov 2018 17:17

Yes, but like typical pakis they think the treaty is only written for them. They even argue on it that way before neutral experts and the COA asking them to interpret it only in their way and overlook India's interest. Result is for the world to :rotfl: and for the pakis to :((


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests