Indus Water Treaty

[saip]

Has anyone seen this report?

India violating Indus Water treaty, says US report

Foreign Office spokesperson Tehmina Janjua said in a statement that the US report "Avoiding water wars in South and Central Asia," released on February 22, acknowledges that dams India is building in Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] "will limit supply of water to Pakistan at crucial moments."

http://www.samachar.com/India-violating ... ended_news

The complete report is here
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db9 ... report.pdf

As far as I can see all it says the dams being built by India gives it ability to control but does not say India is violating the treaty. Appears to be DDM head lines. Rediff is owned by Pakis?

[Vivek_A]

Has anyone seen this report?

India violating Indus Water treaty, says US report

Foreign Office spokesperson Tehmina Janjua said in a statement that the US report "Avoiding water wars in South and Central Asia," released on February 22, acknowledges that dams India is building in Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] "will limit supply of water to Pakistan at crucial moments."

http://www.samachar.com/India-violating ... ended_news

The complete report is here
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db9 ... report.pdf

As far as I can see all it says the dams being built by India gives it ability to control but does not say India is violating the treaty. Appears to be DDM head lines. Rediff is owned by Pakis?

Denying TSP the water isn't the same as violating the treaty. This is just the DDM's take on things(which, BTW, they just read from the paki newspapers..just like chidanand rajghatta)...

[Vivek_A]

If you believe this, I have a dam on the river Chenab I'm willing to sell....

‘Govt not going to int’l court deliberately’

LAHORE – The government is not going to International Arbitration Court deliberately against India, which has been trying to destroy the agriculture of Pakistan by launching projects for stealing water of the three rivers in violation of Indus Water Treaty.
This was stated by Muttahida Kisan Mahaz, announcing to launch a peaceful protest rally on the Pak-India border against ‘Indian water theft’ as well as against its own government which is not raising voice against the heinous crime of the neighbour.
Muttahida Kissan Mahaz President Ayub Khan Mayo said that India had not provided technical information about the new dams to Pakistan as required under the Indus Water Treaty. He claimed that India was trying to turn Pakistan into a Somalia by stopping and stealing water but warned the people of Pakistan would not allow India to materialise its nefarious intentions.

[arun]

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan gets its shalwar in a twist over India getting carbon credits from the UNFCCC for the Chutak and Nimoo-Bazgo hydel projects:

Govt wakes up to India’s hydel projects

[SSridhar]

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan gets its shalwar in a twist over India getting carbon credits from the UNFCCC for the Chutak and Nimoo-Bazgo hydel projects:

Govt wakes up to India’s hydel projects

From the above,

Under clause 37(b) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it was mandatory for India to get approval from Pakistan before it started getting carbon credits. {WTF ? }

[chaanakya]

http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/05/qureshi- ... issue.html

LAHORE: Farmers Association Pakistan (FAP) Chairman and former Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on Saturday that Pakistan and India should seriously solve the most sensitive issue of water through dialogues.

Speaking to the media after a foundation day ceremony of FAP, he said that water was the basic necessity for agriculture, adding that shortage of water could cause problems not only to the two neighbours but also among provinces.

Loudmouth's part time job is dialogue on IWT. What's his itch to talk to India on IWT when issue is with Arbitration Court.

[chaanakya]

http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstyp ... sid=224526

According to the report - released by the Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, John Kerry, "while studies show that no single dam along the waters controlled by the IWT will affect Pakistan's access to water, the cumulative effect of these projects could give India the ability to store enough water to limit the supply to Pakistan at crucial moments in the growing season".

http://foreign.senate.gov/press/chair/r ... 01bcefc8ae

Report

Washington, DC – Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry( D-MA) released a report today written by the Committee’s majority staff that draws attention to the growing problem of water scarcity in Central and South Asia and how it has the potential to exacerbate existing regional conflicts and lead to new ones. The report, “Avoiding Water Wars: Water Scarcity and Central Asia’s Growing Importance for Stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” sheds light on the drivers of water scarcity in Central and South Asia and provides recommendations for how the United States should strategically approach water-related issues, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“This report highlights how water security is vital in achieving our foreign policy and national security goals by recognizing the duality of water—as a tool for development or a means to exacerbate conflict. It provides recommendations to the administration to foster regional cooperation and long-term stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” said Chairman Kerry. “It is critical that our approach is carefully considered and coordinated across the interagency.”

This report is based on travel in the region by the Committee’s staff and the work of experts in government, academia, and other international institutions. It offers the following recommendations:

1. Provide Benchmark Data to Improve Water Management. Providing basic technical information to all countries is a constructive way for the United States to help create a foundation for bona fide discussion and debate over water management.

2. Focus on Water Demand Management. The United States can help create space for regional and bilateral negotiations on water by reducing pressure on shared water resources.

3. Recognize International Dimensions of Water Issues and Deliver Holistic Solutions. The impact of the United States approach to address water in Afghanistan and Pakistan can extend far beyond each country’s border, as water ignores political boundaries. U.S. assistance should encompass comprehensive activities that encourage conflict management through regional water management.

4. Safeguard Institutions Against Shocks to Water Supply and Demand. Long-term stability requires strong institutions capable of responding to sudden shocks to critical natural resources, such as water.

So Mr Kerry of Kerry-Lugar fame has now come to conclusion that unkil needs to intervene despite acknowledging the fact that IWt has held its own.

[chaanakya]

I was just reading the report to see how they have arrived at the conclusion that India , by building dams on Western Rivers , cumulatively affect Pakistan's access to water. This is long held fear of Pakistan howsoever irrational it may be in the light of scrupulous adherence to IWT by India.I could not find any data mentioned in the report and relied upon.

Here is what report says about IWT

Decentralized Water Management in South Asia The Indus River Basin hosts a major network of rivers flowing between India and Pakistan. It is comprised of six shared rivers: Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej (see Figure 2). The
Indus is one of the world’s longest rivers (1,800 miles long), originating in the Tibetan Himalayas, flowing west through Kashmir, then through Pakistan until eventually reaching the Arabian Sea. The upper portion of the Indus is fed by snow and glacial meltwaters and converges in the Punjab region of Pakistan with the five other rivers in the system.
Of all the rivers flowing into Pakistan, the Indus is the most essential because of its importance to the agricultural sector. Pakistan’s agriculture relies on the world’s largest contiguous irrigation system fed by the Indus waters; in fact, water withdrawals for agri cultural irrigation represent almost 97 percent of all withdrawals in Pakistan. This irrigation network covers an estimated 83 percent of cultivated land in the country and contributes to nearly a quarter of its gross domestic product. Unfortunately, Pakistan has almost fully exploited the surface and groundwater that is crucial for its irrigation, so improvements in management and efficiency are vital.
Although the headwaters for the Indus originate in China, from a long-term planning perspective, it is India’s water management of the Indus that merits scrutiny. With a population already exceeding 1.1 billion people and forecasts indicating continued growth to over 1.5 billion by 2035, India’s demand for water is rising at unprecedented rates. However, water management in India is extremely decentralized and virtually unregulated. Multiple government ministries have established water-use guidelines at the national level, but, they have little effect. Water management is constitutionally delegated to India’s constituent states, which have limited capacity to coordinate among themselves. This has led rapidly to diminishing available surface and groundwater. Waters flowing between India and Pakistan, unlike those in Central Asia, are managed within the framework of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a long-standing agreement negotiated by the governments of India and Pakistan and the World Bank. Signed in 1960, the IWT is considered the world’s most successful water treaty, having remained relatively intact for 50 years and having withstood four Indo-Pakistani wars.
The treaty gives control of the ‘‘western rivers’’ (Indus, Jelum, and Chenab) to Pakistan and gives India the ‘‘eastern rivers’’
(Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi) up to the Pakistani border. The treaty quantifies the amount of water both countries will receive from these rivers and serves an important function by managing the use of the rivers for hydroelectric power projects. It lays out guidelines for hydropower on the eastern rivers, allows Pakistan to object to projects, and specifies mechanisms for conflict resolution. While the IWT has maintained stability in the region over water, experts question the treaty’s long-term effectiveness in light of chronic tensions between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region, where a significant portion of the Indus River’s headwaters originate. In addition, others question whether the IWT can address India’s growing use of the shared waters and Pakistan’s increasing demand for these waters for agricultural purposes.

Similarly, proposals to expand irrigated land in India and Pakistan have exacerbated tensions between these neighbors. Water mismanagement and increased inefficiencies in the existing irrigation systems, requiring more water for less agricultural returns, compound the problem. As the existing agriculture system becomes more water-intensive and, in some areas, more inefficient, water may prove to be a source of instability in South Asia.

<snip>
The drive to meet energy demand through hydropower development is also occurring in India and Pakistan, two countries that lack sufficient access to energy. This is particularly true with respect to India, which faces a rapidly expanding population, growing economy, and soaring energy needs. To meet growing demand and cope with increasing electricity shortages, the government has developed plans to expand power generation through the construction of multipurpose dams. India has 33 projects at various stages of completion on the rivers that affect this region. The number of dams under construction and their management is a source of significant bilateral tension. Currently, the most controversial dam project is the proposed 330-megawatt dam on the Kishenganga River, a tributary of the Indus. While studies show
that no single dam along the waters controlled by the Indus Waters Treaty will affect Pakistan’s access to water, the cumulative effect of these projects could give India the ability to store enough water to limit the supply to Pakistan at crucial moments in the growing season. In the difficult 60-plus year bilateral relationship, water has not yet been used in this way. However, staff met with some experts that argue the treaty’s long-term stability is threatened by a lack of trust between these two countries. Any perceived reduction in water flows magnifies this distrust, whether caused by India’s activities in the Indus Basin or climate change.

<snip>
Finally, climate change is expected to influence monsoon dynamics that are vital for river systems dependent on their seasonal rains. The summer monsoon season is particularly crucial to the agriculture, water supply, economics, ecosystems, and human health of Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. A 2009 Purdue University study predicted an eastern shift in monsoon circulation caused by the changing climate, which today causes more rainfall over the Indian Ocean, Bangladesh, and Burma and less rainfall over India, Nepal, and Pakistan. This shift raises serious concerns
for the countries expecting decreased rainfall. For example, summer monsoon rainfall provides 90 percent of India’s total water supply. As the effects of climate change become more pronounced, agrarian populations in India and Pakistan dependent on monsoons and glacial melt for irrigation will be profoundly affected.

<snip>
The danger posed by water scarcity is that it triggers human insecurity, which can intensify potentially explosive tensions among neighboring countries or regions. As Dr. Peter H. Gleick, cofounder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, wrote, ‘‘[w]here water is scarce, competition for limited supplies can lead nations to see access to water as a matter of national security. History is replete with examples of competition and disputes over shared fresh water resources.’’ As the defense and intelligence community increasingly acknowledge the links between natural resource degradation and national security, their views on the sources of future conflict are also evolving. The 2007 Center for Naval Analysis report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, found that ‘‘environmental crises such as water scarcity, soil depletion, and natural disasters can intensify conflict or stress within a country and potentially contribute to national security issues.’’ When the Central Intelligence Agency inaugurated its Environmental Indications and Warnings program, whose mission is to ‘‘provide intelligence analysts with indications of where societies may experience environmental stress that exceeds local capacity to manage and adapt,’’ the first environ-
mental stressor they identified was freshwater availability. The Navigating Peace Initiative’s Water Conflict and Cooperation
Working Group correctly summarized the current state of water use by saying, . . . water use is shifting to less-traditional sources such as deep fossil aquifers and wastewater reclamation. Conflict, too, is becoming less traditional, driven increasingly by internal or local pressures or, more subtly, by poverty and instability. These changes suggest that tomorrow’s water disputes may look very different from today’s.
<snip>
3 Water conflicts can occur both within and across state lines. Since 1994, the Pacific Institute has maintained a Water Conflict Chronology summarizing historical disputes over water resources. The most recent update to this chronology was released in December 2009. It indicates that local and subnational conflicts are increasing in severity and intensity relative to international conflicts, noting that ‘‘[a] growing number of disputes over allocations of water across local borders, ethnic boundaries, or between economic groups have also led to conflict.’’ 4 The National Intelligence Council echoed these concerns in their Global Trends 2025: A Trans-
formed World, finding that with ‘‘water becoming more scarce in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to become more difficult within and between states.’’
Given the important role water plays in Central and South Asia as a primary driver of human insecurity, it is important to recognize that for the most part, the looming threat of so-called ‘‘water wars’’ has not yet come to fruition. Instead, many regions threatned by water scarcity have avoided violent clashes through discussion, compromise, and agreements. This is because ‘‘[w]ater—being international, indispensable, and emotional—can serve as a cornerstone for confidence building and a potential entry point for peace.’’
<snip>
However, the United States cannot expect this region to continue to avoid ‘‘water wars’’ in perpetuity. In South Asia, the Indus Waters Treaty has been the primary vehicle for resolving conflicts over the shared waters between India and Pakistan. It is a prescriptive agreement that has recently been criticized for its inflexibility to adjust to changes in water levels. Experts are now questioning whether the IWT can adapt to these changes, especially when new demands for the use of the river flows from irrigation and hydroelectric power are fueling tensions between India and Pakistan. A breakdown in the treaty’s utility in resolving water conflicts could have serious ramifications for regional stability.

<snip>

In conversations with staff, experts expressed concern that over time the volume of water managed by the IWT is
likely to change due to unsustainable water withdrawals, increased population growth, and climate change. The Pakistan Government has already alleged misappropriation of water from the Indus by India, which the latter denies. India has not made data on water volume in the Indus widely available, impeding efforts to build trust. Efforts described in the previous recommendations, such as improving monitoring of the Indus basin, decreasing water demand through efficiencies, and creating flexibility to respond to changes in water volume, are possible ways forward to address these concerns. The continued peace, stability, and success of the IWT are in the national security interests of all stakeholders, including the
United States.

[neeraj]

Indian bid to build dams on Pak rivers resented

ISLAMABAD - The political leaders though represent Pakistan but are serving the interests of India to sell electricity in near future instead emphasising to complete local energy projects.
Mutihada Kisan Mahaz Chairman Ayub Mayo has said that he has got logical proofs against rulers and decision-makers that they are following American agenda of supporting India in building dams on Pakistani rivers. But on the other side, local dams are being delayed and have been made controversial at time when country has had no other options.
As per present pace of increasing electricity prices and decreasing hydel share in the total energy, the price of power would be Rs 30 per unit within coming three years. What happen is that India would complete its dams while the Pakistani leaders would remain asleep and in the end Pakistan will be buying electricity from India that is shameful for us as we have the same resources as our neighbour. India is well prepared and committed to impose hydrology war on Pakistan and whatever the rulers do, we must have to fight this war, Mayo said. He said that leader are involved in taking anti-state steps and are not taking national issues seriously.
He blamed both the Prime Minister and Chief Minister Punjab for closing their eyes to the available solutions. He told that as per a report, 2,400MW electricity could be generated in Punjab by building small hydel projects on canals.
What the CM of Punjab is doing when everything is clearly known to him and solutions are available to end loadshedding in the province. He also said that unbundling of Wapda cannot be supported in anyway as organisation has over $50 billion investment value in the country.
Privatisation of distribution companies would make the lives of masses more miserable than ever as they have to purchase costlier electricity.
Answering to a question regarding legal position of India for building run-of-the-river projects, Mayo said that some people have misconception that as per Indus Water Treaty, India has the right to build as much dams as he wants but it is not true.

[chaanakya]

PAK panel wants evidence from India about non violation of IWT in Tawi River project

Jammu: A visiting Pakistani team on Monday sought an evidence from the Jammu and Kashmir government that no provision of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) has been violated during ongoing constrution of an artificial lake on river Tawi here.

The three-member panel, headed by Sheraj Jameel Memon, the IWT Commissioner for Pakistan, had yesterday carried out a survey of the lake project.

On day two of their visit, the team today inspected the main heads of Ranbir and Partap canals built over river Chenab and Munawar Tawi in Jammu district.

Ranbir and Partap canals had been built during the erstwhile Dogra rule in 1880 for irrigating maximum area in the district.

"We need some evidence from the Indian side that no provision of the IWT has been violated with regard to the ariticial lake project," Memon told reporters.

"Our team is here to see which project is undertaken and whether there has been any violation of the IWT or not," he said.

The Jammu and Kashmir government is constructing a two-km-long artificial lake by raising a check dam on Tawi river for providing water to dry areas in Jammu.

The construction work is expected to be completed in a year.

Minister for Public Health Engineering, Irrigation and Flood Control Taj Mohi-ud-Din said Pakistan had not raised any objections so far regarding construction of the lake.

"But the panel wanted to satisfy themselves after visiting the lake site and the place where the check dam is being raised," he said.

"They may have doubts regarding violation of the Indus Waters Treaty signed between the two countries but we have carried out work within the permissible limits of the treaty," the Minister said.

"No violation has been committed in any area which includes the design of the lake and water storage," he said.

[SSridhar]

PAK panel wants evidence from India about non violation of IWT in Tawi River project

Jammu: A visiting Pakistani team on Monday sought an evidence from the Jammu and Kashmir government that no provision of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) has been violated during ongoing constrution of an artificial lake on river Tawi here.

"We need some evidence from the Indian side that no provision of the IWT has been violated with regard to the ariticial lake project," Memon told reporters.

We should return the usual Pakistani courtesies. On the 26/11 case, Pakistan claims that India has to provide evidence and whatever it has so far given in the six dossiers is only information. Let our PIC ask for evidence from Pakistan on the violation of IWT and reject anything that they give us as mere information. I know that IWT has provisions which a rule-bound India sticks by meticulously. Let us for a change do the unthinkable and give the shameless Pakistanis a taste of their medicine. We have to be obstructive and present a granite wall against which the Pakistanis bang their head. Going more than the half-way mark etc. just will not work with the evil doers.

[chaanakya]

We should return the usual Pakistani courtesies. On the 26/11 case, Pakistan claims that India has to provide evidence and whatever it has so far given in the six dossiers is only information. Let our PIC ask for evidence from Pakistan on the violation of IWT and reject anything that they give us as mere information. I know that IWT has provisions which a rule-bound India sticks by meticulously. Let us for a change do the unthinkable and give the shameless Pakistanis a taste of their medicine. We have to be obstructive and present a granite wall against which the Pakistanis bang their head. Going more than the half-way mark etc. just will not work with the evil doers.

Absolutely. Not only that but we should not allow intervention by third party beyond what is in IWT. The US senate report ( parts of which was quoted in earlier post) argues for such intervention in the name of maintaining piss in sub-continent. The earlier articles on possibility of water war by some expert journos and experts in international water relations served as a precursor to this report.

India should highlight the fact of wastage of indus system water by pakistan and that J&K needs more water as it is more developed and further developing it.

The fact that the West originated debate is being picked up in South Asia is a factor of Western world’s attempt to facilitate some progress on Indo Pakistan relations that have a direct impact on the “India Centric Pakistan”. This according to the West will open the doors for other bilateral issues to be resolved. Some in America see this as a strategic opportunity towards perception management post the floods.

This is what we need to guard against.

[arun]

X Posted. Tufail Ahmed at MEMRI with this article titled “Pakistan's Jewish Problem”.

Somehow the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has worked in Israel and Jews in their manufactured water disputes with India :

c) Pakistan-India Water Dispute – Israel's Hand

The dispute between India and Pakistan over the issue of sharing the waters of the rivers that flow from India into Pakistani territory is a purely bilateral matter between the two neighbors. Nevertheless, while articulating their grievances against India, Pakistani leaders make it a point to drag Jews and Israel into the dispute.

In October 2008, Majeed Nizami, editor-in-chief of Roznama Nawa-i-Waqt, wrote an article about the water dispute in which he also described Israel, the U.S. and India as "three Satans" – accusing them of being united against "nuclear-capable Pakistan" and warning: "If, in order to resolve our [water and other] problems, we have to wage a nuclear war with India, we will."[51]

At a seminar on the water issue held by the Nazaria-e-Pakistan Trust in April 2008, Lt.-Gen. Hamid Gul, the former chief of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), spoke about the water issue but also added: "Two states came into existence in 1947 and 1948: one, Pakistan; two, Israel. The two are threats to each other. Ultimately, only one of them will survive... Pakistan can be saved by making a role model of the Prophet [Muhammad]."[52]

The former ISI chief also alluded to Samuel P. Huntington's clash-of-civilizations thesis, stating: "At this point, the matter is not of a war between civilizations, but that of a clash between systems. Islam is a humanity-loving religion. The West is fighting the last battle for its survival."[53]

Hafiz Zahoorul Hassan Dahir, a prominent anti-India Pakistani activist who works with Hamid Gul and Majeed Nizami, has repeatedly argued the following point about the water dispute: "With the cooperation of the Jewish lobby, India has opened a battlefront of a water war aimed at making Pakistan's fertile lands barren."[54] ………………..

Read it all:

Pakistan's Jewish Problem

[neeraj]

A new treaty?

A report by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee says that as there is an increasing danger of an Indo-Pak war over water resources, there is a need for a new treaty between the two to replace the Indus Waters Treaty.

[manjgu]

http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/19/moratori ... urged.html

Moratorium on Kishanganga project urged

[chaanakya]

^^ from above

A plan of Pakistan that failed as India has learnt its lessons in Baglihar . We should make best use of the time to achieve progress that can not be rolled back. Work is apparently in full swing.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan should make efforts to secure a moratorium on the construction by India of the controversial Kishanganga hydropower project on Jhelum River, a government official said on Friday, adding that without such relief Pakistan would be losing precious time while preparing its case for submission to the International Court of Arbitration (COA) that could result in a fait accompli against Islamabad’s water rights.

Talking to Dawn, the official said that during the first meeting of the COA held in January in the Netherlands, the parties to the dispute only agreed to a schedule of proceedings that would be apparently going against Pakistan’s interests.

Under the schedule, Islamabad is required to submit its case memorial before the COA by the middle of April which would be responded to by India in six months, said the official, who holds a senior post in the Water and Power Ministry.

He said the Pakistani team should have pleaded for stopping India from going ahead with the project because New Delhi would have achieved more progress by the end of September, the time when it is required to submit its counter-case memorial.

“As of now there is no restriction on India to stop the construction work,” said an official engaged with the Pakistani team. “We will try our best to seek a moratorium on the construction when we present our case next month.”

[RajeshA]

X-Posted to Managing Pakistan's failure Thread

^^There is no provision to that effect in IWT.It would become ineffective when one side cease to exist .
India doesn't have holding capacity and diversion is not possible as yet.

on side note

Now the question is whether GOI had the authority to enter into treaty with another nation on water resources of J&K unless it is one of the subject included in the central list and concurrent list corresponding to list in IOA

From the schedule to IOA I don't see water is included as the subject

SCHEDULE OF INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION
THE MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE DOMINION
LEGISLATURE MAY MAKE LAWS FOR THIS STATE

So treaty has to be extended to J&K with concurrence of its Legislature only. In fact J&K is , apparently not bound by the treaty so there is no question of violation by J&K govt.( It is not clear to me if J&K govt was consulted and concurrence obtained )
By implication J&K can do whatever they wish to with the waters of rivers passing through their state.

This may have serious implications for Pakistan as well as India in case of independence or merger with either country or sanctified LOC giving each country held portion of J&K. IWT could be properly operated only in these situations. Till such time J&K is not legally bound by IWT nor can it be enforced by parties to either POK or J&K which are not party to IWT.

This is my loud thinking and subject to further elaboration/clarification etc by esteemed members, esp ssridhar.

chaanakya ji,
I like your inferencing here!

I think Government of India should reach a separate treaty with Govt. of J&K on water, which gives J&K full ownership of the waters of the Western Rivers and GoI the ownership of the Eastern Rivers. In the treaty, GoI reaches an understanding on how much India would be willing to pay J&K for the waters of the Western Rivers, depending on the level of financing of J&K Government in building of diversion canals, dams and other infrastructure for the purpose. It must be made clear that J&K Govt. can sell the water, but not the electricity generated from hydel power plants on the rivers, basically reaffirming (Rest of) India's rights on the Western Rivers as per IWT right now.

This way GoI abdicates any responsibility for the Western Rivers, making IWT null and void.

That way J&K Govt. would commission India for the construction of diversion canals on the Western Rivers, and would get paid for the waters, rest of India gets from J&K.

This money we are already pumping into J&K. Why not get J&K to give India something in exchange!

Secondly we push Pakistan to reimburse J&K Govt. for any waters that flow into Pakistan. Considering that Pakistan cannot pay well, obviously J&K would be giving rest of India most of the waters.

We can put another clause in the deal, that in times of war with Pakistan or even during times of heightened threat, GoI is entitled to divert all the waters of the Western Rivers to India, and pay J&K the equivalent amount it would have received from Pakistan.

For J&K it would mean a windfall! If India wants certain other changes in J&K Constitution, Article 370, etc. we can dangle this candle in front of the J&K Assembly. For example, in exchange for letting other Indians buy property in J&K and even vote. The politicians in J&K can make a lot of money through this. J&K should be offered the deal!

Lets also not underestimate, the amount of animosity it would generate between the Pakistanis and the Kashmiris. I'd say, let the Kashmiris haggle with the Pakistanis over the price of water, water that Pakistanis get right now free of charge!

Kashmiris would start saying India pays for the water, Pakistan doesn't, so Pakistan should pay for the water, which passes through their rivers. To put it simply, that would be the end of the love-affair between Kashmir and Pakistan, and basically a few years down the line, Kashmiris would be calling anybody amongst their ranks who speaks in favor of Pakistan, a traitor!

So empowering Kashmir in this case would play in our favor! Also the major powers would have some difficulty coming out in favor of Pakistan against J&K Govt. Can the world stop Kashmiris from selling the waters flowing through their region?!

[Gerard]

I think Government of India should reach a separate treaty with Govt. of J&K

Why should the GOI negotiate as an equal with a state government?

[RajeshA]

I think Government of India should reach a separate treaty with Govt. of J&K

Why should the GOI negotiate as an equal with a state government?

Gerard saar,
Here is what wikipedia says:

Jammu and Kashmir is the only state in India which enjoys special autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India according to which, no law enacted by the Parliament of India, except for those in the field of defence, communication and foreign policy, will be extendable in Jammu and Kashmir unless it is ratified by the state legislature of Jammu and Kashmir.

So obviously in the case of waters, GoI would have to reach an understanding with J&K legislature!

If India wants to get out of the IWT, India has to tell the world, that the Western Rivers belong to J&K (and not to Pakistan), and India has no powers to enter into a treaty on those rivers with anybody! So in order to bolster the claim of J&K over these rivers, it would be useful if the J&K Legislature is treated with respect and honor.

[Gerard]

IWT was signed by India, Pakistan and the World Bank.
The world recognizes India's right to enter into such a treaty. It recognizes India's rights to the water.
There is nothing to gain by pandering to an elite looking for rental income especially those dreaming about Yankee tenants.
Respect and honor should be reserved for those with honor who respect themselves.

[RajeshA]

IWT was signed by India, Pakistan and the World Bank.
The world recognizes India's right to enter into such a treaty. It recognizes India's rights to the water.

The IWT awards the waters of the Western Rivers to Pakistan. How can then one claim, that it recognizes India's rights to the water?

There is nothing to gain by pandering to an elite looking for rental income especially those dreaming about Yankee tenants.
Respect and honor should be reserved for those with honor who respect themselves.

The above suggestion was intended to effect following changes in India's geostrategic environment.

1. Give India access to the waters of the Western Rivers, and if needed to all of them.
2. Effect a positive change in the minds of the Kashmiris towards staying in India. Put an end to Kashmir insurgency.
3. Effect a positive change in the minds of the PoKers, making them wish to be part of India, and them starting an armed insurgency against Pakistan.
4. Give India a potent weapon - water, usable as a coercive means to several effects, including forcing Pakistan to undertake full, effective, transparent, verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament.

So my PoV is that we have much to gain. I look forward to hearing about possible shortcomings in the proposal.

This discussion may be getting OT here, as such reposting to "Managing Pakistan's failure" Thread.

[RajeshA]

Re: John Briscoe's Article

Found on a Paki forum, reproducing in full.

War or peace on the Indus?
Saturday, April 03, 2010
John Briscoe

A Response by Ramaswamy Iyer!

[SSridhar]

Re: John Briscoe's Article

Response by Ramaswamy Iyer!

Of course Ramaswamy Iyer is the most eminent person who can respond. Some things stand out in his response.
On the controversy regarding filling of Baglihar Hydro Electric Project (BHEP) reservoir, he states above

The treaty requires the filling to be done between 21 June and 31 August. The filling was completed by 28 August 2008. There was no deviation here. (Briscoe quotes Pakistani reports that the filling continued into September. Did he try to check the accuracy of those reports?)

Here is what I wrote in BRf on April 17, 2010

The Indian PIC has consistently denied any wrong-doing and he has the data to back up. As usual, the paranoid Pakistanis are waiting for a chance to implicate India and so they falsely claimed that India filled BHP outside of the window. The learned Professor simply swallowed the Pakistani line. Rather than make these statements, the Pakistanis should either openly publish the data and challenge India or better still, take the matter to a Neutral Expert.

[RajeshA]

SSridhar garu,

Perhaps I am missing something with respect to the Indus Waters Treaty! Perhaps you could explain in short (or long), what exactly does India get for being in the IWT?

Okay, India averts a conflict with Pakistan, which hasn't really worked. But besides that?

[SSridhar]

RajeshA, one has to look at the treaty in the context in which it was signed. In c. 1959, Ayub Khan took over Pakistan. In c. 1960, India and Pakistan signed a border agreement in the western sector and by Jan. 1961, troops began to withdraw from areas ceded to each other as part of the agreement. There was an American President, Eisenhower, who felt that he could establish a better relationship with India if he intervened in the water dispute (which started in 1948) as a neutral country friendly to both nations and settled the issue. India was unable to start its Bhakra-Nangal project, in which Nehru placed enormous faith for a green revolution. Nehru probably also thought that he could establish a new relationship with a new President in Pakistan.

So, all stakeholders felt something positive in the agreement.

[RajeshA]

SSridhar garu,

Thanks for your response.

Perhaps it did have its purposes in 1960. But today India has sufficient infrastructure on the Eastern Rivers. Pakistan has some on the Western Rivers. The Partition of the Indus Basin so to speak is complete, and IWT helped us get there.

My question pertained to the Present. What dividends are we getting today from IWT? It has more to do with the idea, whether it would be beneficial for India to terminate the IWT one way or the other? Should we do it, do we have anything to lose from it?

[SSridhar]

Rajesh, the treaty, as it was drafted, is a great detriment to India. There can be no doubt about that. The award is not equitable from an Indian PoV at all. Moreover, it puts a lot of shackles on us, and we constantly have to prove our innocence to a paranoid Pakistan that hides its hatred for us under the facade of paranoia and thus deceives the world. This should be the only treaty where an upper riparian gave up so much to its sole lower riparian which has been most inimical. Such a generosity has brought us nothing but wars, skirmishes, terrorism, killing, maiming, water shortage, huge costs because of the conditions in IWT etc.

But, the question is how to scrap it now and renegotiate. I do not see that happening. We have to relentlessly implement our projects. The lesson here is that India should never barter away its interests because it would be too costly or even impossible to recover from such mistakes. Even if a there is a piece of land 'where not a blade of grass grows', it simply doesn't matter. We cannot let go of it. Similarly, even if we did not realize how to make use of waters of the so-called western rivers at that time, we should not have given four times the water that was eventually allocated to us, to Pakistan.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh, the treaty, as it was drafted, is a great detriment to India. There can be no doubt about that. The award is not equitable from an Indian PoV at all. Moreover, it puts a lot of shackles on us, and we constantly have to prove our innocence to a paranoid Pakistan that hides its hatred for us under the facade of paranoia and thus deceives the world. This should be the only treaty where an upper riparian gave up so much to its sole lower riparian which has been most inimical. Such a generosity has brought us nothing but wars, skirmishes, terrorism, killing, maiming, water shortage, huge costs because of the conditions in IWT etc.

But, the question is how to scrap it now and renegotiate. I do not see that happening. We have to relentlessly implement our projects. The lesson here is that India should never barter away its interests because it would be too costly or even impossible to recover from such mistakes. Even if a there is a piece of land 'where not a blade of grass grows', it simply doesn't matter. We cannot let go of it. Similarly, even if we did not realize how to make use of waters of the so-called western rivers at that time, we should not have given four times the water that was eventually allocated to us, to Pakistan.

SSridhar garu,
I have a little amateurish proposal, consisting of a few mental somersaults.

The three parties to the treaty were India, Pakistan and the World Bank! As I understand, we cannot abrogate the treaty, we cannot terminate the treaty. But the Treaty can still be struck down as illegal in the first place.

This is where Article 370, which has been a millstone tied around our neck, can surprisingly, be of use. According to the Article 370 from 1952, J&K gave India the responsible only for Defence, Communications, and Foreign Policy of J&K, as well as other areas to which J&K Legislature gives approval. There is no mention of water. The waters did not belong to India in the first place.

So GoI in fact was not in a position to barter away the Western rivers and give them to Pakistan as per IWT from 1960.

India should recognize this fact, and allow the ownership of waters of the rivers - Indus, Jhelum and Chenab to revert to J&K state!

GoI should reach an agreement with J&K that preserves India's current rights over the waters flowing through J&K, but gives the ownership of the water itself to J&K.

In fact a simple complainant can bring a lawsuit in front of Supreme Court of India to judge on the matter, whether India was in a position to negotiate the IWT or not! The Supreme Court of India says India was not in such a position, and IWT is declared null and void. E Voilà, the waters of the Western Rivers belong to J&K.

With Indian rights secured, now it is up to J&K to give the waters to Pakistan, being the upper riparian. Of course, World Bank and Pakistan would impress upon J&K to continue with the current arrangements, but J&K can say, No!

India can make J&K an offer to pay for the waters of the Western Rivers, and gets the necessary infrastructure for the diversion built to divert the waters into other Indian rivers.

Considering, that for J&K this could be a lucrative deal, J&K decides to take up on India's offer.

After that J&K demands from Pakistan to be paid a similar amount for the water per cubic meter, that Pakistan receives from Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. That is where the fireworks begin between J&K and Pakistan.

Considering that India would be the country willing to pay for water from the Western Rivers, India controls how much water really goes to Pakistan, which would be equal to the amount India is not willing to buy!

There may be some downsides to this of which I am not sure.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this!

[SSridhar]

Rajesh, there are two aspects as far as I can see.

The first is the constitutional matter. The second is the implication of leaving a foreign policy issue with a state.

On the constitutional issue, being only a layman, I see the following. The Constitution divides powers (legislative, executive and financial) into three lists, the Union List, the Concurrent List and the State List. Legislative power over anything not mentioned in these lists (the so called residuary powers) rests with the Central Government. Now, Article 370 makes certain exceptions for the State of J&K. In its original form of Article 370, the Union List & Concurrent List adhered to the T&Cs of the Instrument of Accession (IoA). These lists have been modified subsequently, especially in 1956. As I understand it, the Union Government can today legislate on Foreign affairs 'which bring the Union into relation with foreign countries' as well as 'Regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament in the public interests'.

If 'water' was not mentioned in the IoA, it comes under the residuary power of the Union Government.

On the issue of leaving it to the state of J&K, there are several issues. Firstly, not the entire Indus system of Rivers concern J&K. The eastern rivers do not flow through J&K. Among the Western rivers, only Jhelum originates in J&K. The Chenab originates in Himachal Pradesh and the Indus itself near Manasarovar in Tibet. So, the entire system of rivers cannot be considered as a package for settlement by an entity other than GoI. Secondly, Indian Constitution does not allow any state to negotiate a treaty with another country. that is a sure recipe to fragmentation in double quick time. Thirdly, we cannot selectively go back on the integration of J&K to suit our convenience.

[RajeshA]

SSridhar garu,

Again thanks for your response!

On constitutional matters, this is what I read:

The Instrument of Accession says the following with regard to External Affairs:

1. External affairs; the implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries;

From the wording, I would assume, that negotiation of treaties and agreements does not fall into the purview of Indian Government.

According to Article 370 the J&K State Assembly has to give its concurrence to any Indian Law for it to be valid over J&K.

That would mean for any Law, which is not about Defence, Communications or Foreign Affairs, India would have to get the concurrence of the J&K State Assembly, regardless of whether the law in question deals with a subject in the Union, Concurrent or Residual List. This is different for other states in the Indian Union.

If 'water' was not mentioned in the IoA, it comes under the residuary power of the Union Government.

My reading is different on this matter. Water would perhaps come under Residuary Power of the Union Government, if it is not part of the Union List or Concurrent List or State List. But the Schedule in the Instrument of Accession is a positive list, and not a negative list. It states the issues over which the Dominion of India may avail without concurrence of J&K State Assembly. For all other issues, the concurrence of J&K State Assembly is required.

So even as GoI would be the only instance to deal with foreign issues externally, in this case IWT, GoI internal to India, would first need to bring the resources or aspect in question under its responsibility, in this case river waters of J&K, which can only happen with concurrence of J&K State Assembly. I am not sure whether GoI has received that concurrence on this matter.

So J&K State Assembly can always claim that before India signed on to the IWT, India should have sought concurrence and clearance from J&K State Assembly. As India did not do so (I am assuming here), India did not have the right to barter away J&K water wealth.

On the issue of leaving it to the state of J&K, there are several issues. Firstly, not the entire Indus system of Rivers concern J&K. The eastern rivers do not flow through J&K. Among the Western rivers, only Jhelum originates in J&K. The Chenab originates in Himachal Pradesh and the Indus itself near Manasarovar in Tibet. So, the entire system of rivers cannot be considered as a package for settlement by an entity other than GoI.

• For Jhelum, J&K takes full responsibility!
• For Chenab, J&K would have to find a sharing formula with Himachal Pradesh, perhaps share in the profits of selling the water, where Himachal's share would flow back to India. The Central Govt. can adjudicate the sharing of river waters. The last law has the concurrence of the J&K State Assembly.
• For Indus, J&K would simply claim all water that passes through its area as its own. Are the Chinese going to change the course?

Secondly, Indian Constitution does not allow any state to negotiate a treaty with another country. that is a sure recipe to fragmentation in double quick time.

I am not saying GoI should not be the party to sign treaties and agreements with foreign countries and then take the responsibility of their implementation.

What I am saying is that GoI should have first brought the river waters of the Western rivers under its responsibility by reaching an agreement with the J&K State Assembly (making the assumption, that they didn't), and then having the J&K State Assembly pass a law to this effect, and then India could/should have signed the IWT.

Only GoI could have signed the IWT, of course! Only GoI did not do the needful to get the authority to do so from the J&K State Assembly as per Article 370 prior to signing on the IWT. This means GoI signed the IWT without the necessary authorization from J&K State Assembly (again some assumption being made here).

So GoI's sole privilege to deal with External Affairs for the Union of India is not being questioned or diluted, just the manner in which it was executed with respect to J&K river waters, thus making India's signature on the IWT untenable.

Thirdly, we cannot selectively go back on the integration of J&K to suit our convenience.

J&K is well integrated with Union of India. Just for reference a list of all the Indian Laws which are applicable to J&K.

There is a certain procedure laid down on how Indian Laws would be extended to J&K. Considering how many laws are already part of J&K legal corpus, it has been proven that at least on this front the J&K State Legislators do not deem necessary to underline the separateness.

Of course, Article 370 has many negatives with respect to India, especially in regard to owning property there or voting there. But in this particular case, Article 370 may be our savior.

<rhetoric start>
If we have had to carry the burden of Article 370 for so many years, why not enjoy this rare opportunity, where it works in our favor. If we water the trees for so long, why not enjoy this one time fruit, it brings forth!
<rhetoric end>

I understand, that my exposition above almost sounds seditious, but the cause is noble - to bring the Western Rivers under Indian control, and with that to bring Pakistan itself under Indian control!

If IWT is so bad, we should explore all venues to get rid of it! We should look for loopholes where ever we can!

If we get Pakistan under our control, then Kashmir gets solved by itself.

[JE Menon]

There is also the matter that J&K issue can be revived at the UN by interested parties - and we do not have a veto there. The issue is dormant, not dead. There are a lot of countries that would like to have a greater influence on the allocation of water resources in that area. And J&K governments are every ready to sniff out the possibility for getting others in, especially if things are not necessarily going their way politically.

I just don't see what we will get, that we don't have now, from allowing J&K government a greater say in the water flowing through there. Why not relentlessly build and keep quietly squeezing the neck, boa constrictor style, with every breath?

I genuinely might be missing something here.

[RajeshA]

There is also the matter that J&K issue can be revived at the UN by interested parties - and we do not have a veto there. The issue is dormant, not dead. There are a lot of countries that would like to have a greater influence on the allocation of water resources in that area. And J&K governments are every ready to sniff out the possibility for getting others in, especially if things are not necessarily going their way politically.

I just don't see what we will get, that we don't have now, from allowing J&K government a greater say in the water flowing through there. Why not relentlessly build and keep quietly squeezing the neck, boa constrictor style, with every breath?

I genuinely might be missing something here.

JE Menon saar,
thanks for the interest!

<metaphorically speaking start>
Basically it is about taking a bone from the neighborhood dog, which it considers its rightful due, and give it our own dog, which has been sniping at us, and wants to join the neighborhood dog out of dog solidarity.

If our dog gets to have the bone, and tells the other dog, the neighborhood dog, that he will get to lick his old bone only if he pays up, then there is a big fight brewing up between the two dogs. Our dog may decide to make peace with us!
<metaphorically speaking end>

We are telling the Kashmiris (or rather citizens of J&K), that they own the 135 MAF per year water that flows into Pakistan. We are telling the Kashmiris, that they have the right to charge for that water (this we tell in whispers). We are telling the Kashmiris, that India would be building the infrastructure to divert the waters from the Western rivers to the other rivers flowing into India. For all the water we divert from the Western Rivers, we shall be paying the J&K state, perhaps twice more than the subsidies they get right now!

Kashmiris would want the Pakistanis too should pay for the water they get from the Western rivers, because if they don't pay up, the Kashmiris are willing to sell even more water to the rest of India.

Considering the amount of money that would be involved, Kashmiris would tend to start leaning towards India, for only India protects the Kashmiris right to charge money for water from the Western Rivers. Now for a people, who do not like to toil that much, this would be a big extravaganza!

We are giving the Kashmiris entitlement over their natural resources! When it comes to entitlement, friendship ends there! We will be having a Kashmiri in South Block in a J&K Water Exports Dept., perhaps recommended by the J&K Chief Minister, who would be negotiating with the Pakistanis for a suitable price for their water!

For the Kashmiri Elite, there is a lot of money to be made here in this business! They would certainly play along!

Then we come to the question of Kashmir in UN. Well with the Kashmiris now in India's favor, it would be difficult for Pakistanis to make a case!

But before we go into UN business, let's consider what would be the mood in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan! The people there would be watching how their cousins in J&K under Indian control are making money from water. Wouldn't they want that the Pakistani government also pays them for the water that flows through their land! Wouldn't they want their share of the 'loot'?!

Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan would now probably want to be united with J&K under Indian control, simply because without that they would be missing out on the loot!

Under such circumstances, Pakistan may not want to take the matter to the U.N.! Taking the matter to the U.N. would also bring forth all of Pakistan's many warts in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan!

And basically whatever the U.N. orders, we can show the middle finger to the U.N. now! There have been several U.N.S.C. Resolutions against Israel and it doesn't bother them!

Under this arrangement, we should not forget, we would be having Kashmiris in India's favor, something we haven't had very often!

Other countries cannot really force either India nor J&K to give water to Pakistan! If Pakistan wants water, they should pay up! If Pakistanis can sell the Basmati, they grow using Indus waters, in the international markets, why can't Kashmiris sell the same water itself!

Mark, this arrangement can only be availed by J&K State and not other Indian States because of Article 370!

So what we are getting:

1. Give India access to the waters of the Western Rivers, and if needed to all of them.
2. Effect a positive change in the minds of the Kashmiris towards staying in India. Put an end to Kashmir insurgency.
3. Effect a positive change in the minds of the PoKers, making them wish to be part of India, and them starting an armed insurgency against Pakistan.
4. Give India a potent weapon - water, usable as a coercive means to several effects, including forcing Pakistan to undertake full, effective, transparent, verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament.

[Gerard]

Give India a potent weapon - water, usable as a coercive means to several effects,

That is a recipe for involvement of Great Powers (UNSC) in India-Pakistan affairs, to the detriment of India. Coercion will be portrayed as a threat to international peace and security and Pakistan's many sponsors will be all too willing to get involved.

[RajeshA]

Give India a potent weapon - water, usable as a coercive means to several effects,

That is a recipe for involvement of Great Powers (UNSC) in India-Pakistan affairs, to the detriment of India. Coercion will be portrayed as a threat to international peace and security and Pakistan's many sponsors will be all too willing to get involved.

This is true. USA, PRC and KSA could feel encouraged to intervene on behalf of their rentier state. But even as we acknowledge this possibility, or rather certainty, we should keep in mind, that it does not constitute an end of the world.

• Plead Helplessness: The model proposed to get out of the IWT is a Supreme Court verdict in favor of J&K State and against India. That is J&K State should take India to court for bartering away its waters without Kashmiri concurrence. India should put up at least a pretense, that India is against scrapping the IWT, but J&K State insists. Once we "lose" the case, we should simply plead helplessness. We should make India's incomplete sovereignty over J&K as an excuse.
• J&K Water Rights: We should put forth a narrative, that it is not India, that is trying to grab the waters of the Western Rivers, but rather the Kashmiris who are trying to assert their rights over the waters. Since "most of the world" has always been for the rights of "suppressed" Kashmiris, the Great Powers would be hard put to justify their support for Pakistan over the rights of Kashmiris. The more images we show of Kashmris rejoicing at winning back the "rights" to "their" waters, the more difficult we make it for the Great Powers.
• It's all Business: J&K State should simply say, that it not about denying Pakistan any water, but rather it is about ensuring revenues for the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Considering the instability of the previous years, mostly because of interference from outsiders, the economy of J&K has suffered. J&K simply wants to be paid for its resources. J&K State also wishes to create a market for its water resources, and hence would also be offering Rest of India the option to buy water from J&K. Pakistan has enjoyed a free ride for far too long.
• Water Wastage: J&K State can also claim that if Pakistan is forced to pay for its water, Pakistan would better appreciate the value of water and not allow it to go waste, in which case Pakistan would learn to be far more environmentally conscious. Also there would be more attention given to the phenomenon of water theft in Pakistan.
• Water Subsidies: J&K State can also claim, that any well-wisher of Pakistan, including the Great Powers, are free to subsidize Pakistan's water purchases from J&K State.
• Great Powers: Great Powers are not that great as they used to be. India in many respects is already there.
• India's power equations: India's relationship with the Great Powers has also seen a shift for the positive. In fact, we are even rubbing shoulders with KSA, Pak's ideological godfather.
• Still some time: In any case, should India adopt such a strategy, it will still be some time in the future, and in this time India would have grown still further - economically, politically and militarily.
• Support for India: In this episode of confrontation with Pakistan, the Kashmiris, in fact on both sides of the LoC would be sitting in India's corner.
• Opportune Time: India should await the right opportunity for the story of the collapse of IWT to break. When USA is sitting in Afghanistan, dependent on Pakistani cooperation for their GOAT, it would perhaps not be the right timing. If India considers that it is in her interest that USA stays put in Afghanistan, and India manages to find alternative supply routes to Afghanistan, then US desire to intervene in Kashmir could be neutralized. Considering that Pakistan is a hotbed for terrorists, it is also only a question of time, when Pakistanis again get involved in terrorism against the West. Western relations with Pakistan may deteriorate. So we have to be on the lookout for the right opportunity.

In the end, we have to make a judgment call - Do we go outside and solve our Pakistan problem or do we sit back huddled in our room afraid of the Great Powers lurking outside?

[chaanakya]

I followed your proposal with great interest. I think one needs to look at it and come out with a model which give us the opportunity to achieve our objectives within the confines of the legal framework as well as IWT. And this is not a loophole which is being exploited but the internal mechanism as it exists in case of other states. There is a genuine feeling in J&K that they have got shortchanged under IWT.India has this responsibility to redress these grievances as well to ensure enduring peace and prosperity in J&K.

The framework of River laws in India

There are quite a few legislation on this subject but first constitutional provisions

Union List , Entry 56

Code: Select all

56. Regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys to
the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of
the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public
interest.

State List ,Entry 17

Code: Select all

17. Water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage
and embankments, water storage and water power subject to the provisions
of entry 56 of List I.

Article 262 of the Constitution

Code: Select all

Disputes relating to Waters
262.  (1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).

Other laws

The River Boards Act 1956
Inter-state water disputes Act 2002

Committees

Standing Committee on Inter-State Issues in Water Resources
The Sarkaria Commission on Centre- State Relations

Policy

National Water Policy, 2002


Instrument of Accession does not include the Subject "River.." for federal govt. That is quite consistent with what is provided for in the constitution of India. Hence by allowing J&K to take decisions in respect of its water no breach of law is observed. In so far inter-state river waters (concerned states are HP, Punjab. Haryana) these matters could easily be sorted out by setting up River Board for Indus Rivers.

Now the question of IWT comes.

The following entry is of interest

Code: Select all

B. External Affairs

1. External affairs; the [b]implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries[/b]; extradition, including the surrender of criminals and accused persons to parts of His Majesty's Dominions outside India.

Now it is here, we have to apply our creative thoughts

District Water and irrigation committees could be set up which would undertake engineering works of canal construction , irrigation etc. Then J&K HP & Irrigation Board can be created and entrusted with the task of coordinating with district committees.

The canal of suitable strength could be constructed within the state on the basis of the outline provided by RajeshA. But not actually connected. District committees and local panchayats could be roped in (??) to create noise about illegality of IWT and that how J&K is not bound by it and that it has right to charge for water. Presently whatever GOI is paying J&K , some of that could be utilised for giving grant to them. J&K can increase the area under cultivation and irrigation.Energy of Locals should be diverted to productive work providing money and epmloyment at the same time lopening their eyes to the perfidy of pakistan when their interests conflict with that of Pakjab etc.

More thought later on this as I once again go through RajeshA's path braking suggestions and revisiting IWT. (#1111 post)

[vic]

First we need to use "all" the water allocated to us under Indus water treaty before thinking of violating it. Even use of our share will take us around 10-20 years.

[RajeshA]

chaanakya ji,
First of all, many many thanks for support and your contributions to understanding the legality of the issue.

I followed your proposal with great interest. I think one needs to look at it and come out with a model which give us the opportunity to achieve our objectives within the confines of the legal framework as well as IWT. And this is not a loophole which is being exploited but the internal mechanism as it exists in case of other states. There is a genuine feeling in J&K that they have got shortchanged under IWT.India has this responsibility to redress these grievances as well to ensure enduring peace and prosperity in J&K.

We should try to extract maximum profit from the current provisions of our legal framework and IWT. Much of that we are already doing.

IWT has many aspects which go against India's interests. However the central weakness of IWT is, that it gives the lower riparian country a sort of entitlement to the waters - the waters belong to Pakistan! And if Pakistanis see something as their entitlement, then a simple rumor of India withholding waters, can set off huge anti-India protests. India has adhered to the letter and spirit of the treaty, and still we get huge propaganda campaigns from JuD claiming that India is stealing their waters. Should India commit even a minor violation, it would be taken up as evidence for all the false accusations every Paki has been throwing at India and vindicate them, not to speak of any major violation. So Pakis have really pinned India to the wall in this game. India is being forced to live up to her commitments due to an aggressive posturing by the Pakistanis, who claim that even the current arrangement of IWT is less than their entitlement.

As long as Pakistanis feel that the waters flowing through J&K is their entitlement and as long as India has to commit herself to ensuring that Pakis get their entitlements, this is the way the game will be played. The Pakistanis would continue to build up jihadism against India on the basis of baseless rumors of Indian theft of their entitlements.

As an upper riparian country we have been forced onto the defensive.

We have to change the game! And two things we need to do for that is:

• Pakistan should feel zero entitlement on the water! That is why it is so important that the water rights get transferred to Jammu & Kashmir. If India asserts those rights over the water, Pakistanis are going to go for full Jihad! Secondly Pakistanis have to be forced to pay for the water they get. More than the money J&K receives from the Pakis, it is important to rub it in, that the Pakis do not own the water. They own only the water they pay for!
• Also India should step back from giving any commitments at all to Pakistan. No Treaty Commitments means No Violation Possibility means No False Anti-Indian Propaganda means No Jihad. Well more or less, and at least as far as water is concerned.

In order to make those two changes in the game, IWT would need to be scrapped. I seem to be unable to see how those two changes can be accommodated within IWT itself.

More later!

[Nihat]

Won't that mean giving J&K effective autonomy. For the state to make it's own decision regarding a national resource like water it has to have certain constitutional exceptions, won't it ??

[Virupaksha]

Won't that mean giving J&K effective autonomy. For the state to make it's own decision regarding a national resource like water it has to have certain constitutional exceptions, won't it ??

doesnt it already have through article 370??

[chaanakya]

Won't that mean giving J&K effective autonomy. For the state to make it's own decision regarding a national resource like water it has to have certain constitutional exceptions, won't it ??

See my post above.

Water is a state subject.

Where inter-state regulation and development of river valleys are concerned , Parliament has to pass an Act to the purpose. Ricer Boards Act 1956 is such enabling act. It is extended to J&K .

For disputes , Inter state water disputes Act 2002 is enacted for setting up tribunals specific to river valleys.

Their role is not exactly binding and taken more as advisory. May a times jurisdiction of Supreme court is also restricted by 262 (2) of COI.

J&K would not get anything more then what other states are already enjoying it.

The whole idea is how to work IWT within its legal framework and test its limit to restrict Pakistan from exercising eventual veto as and when it comes and if possible to make it irrelevant and have a veto on them. Like "behave or we deny DHMO"
I may be wrong in interpreting RajeshA's ideas in this way.