Indus Water Treaty

habal · Post by **habal** » 27 Sep 2016 11:16

It's not dam busters that is going to spoil the show here, the pakistanis have known since pretty long time how water can be manipulated at Indus headworks. The filibustering & display of non-chalance is for pakistani audience not to get excessively alarmed and revolt against the establishment.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Sep 2016 11:19

Is there any book, treatise that describes the historicity and rationale for the IWT that helps us to understand how and why we entered into such a biased and totally one sided treaty with our undoubted enemy??

The world bank involvement in the IWT is not worth a hill of beans and has no enforceable legal sanction or even precedent. If the WB is involved, then the dirty blood stained hands of the US cannot be too far behind.

or is it just another one of our not so dearly departed and easily forgettable, fearless leader's priapic decisions??

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Sep 2016 11:53

The below is specific to the "Managing the Chinese Threat" thread. However, I post it here for a level-set as people link China with IWT.

China is going ahead with diverting waters from Brahmaputra (Yarlung Tsangpo or Yarlung Zangbo). It has also built a dam on the Satluj (what China claims as ‘a small hydroelectric project’ at Zada in Tibet to meet ‘local requirements’). In October 2010, it started damming the Brahmaputra at Zangmu in Tibet for a hydroelectric project (510 MW). It is generally unwilling to reveal data about such projects that could affect lower riparian states. In February 2013, the Chinese media reported green signal from the State Council (or Cabinet) to build three hydroelectric power generating dams in the middle reaches (between Lhasa and the Great Bend of the Brahmaputra river). A 640 MW dam will be built in Dagu, which lies 18 km upstream of Zangmu. Another 320 MW dam will be built at Jiacha, downstream of Zangmu. A third dam will be built at Jiexu, 11 km upstream of Zangmu. The New Energy Development Plan announced in January, 2013 said the government “will push forward vigorously the hydropower base construction” on the middle reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo. The massive plan to divert the river waters from south to north were temporarily on hold. However, news emerged in late August 2013, that the Chinese had conducted three to four low-yield PNEs (Peaceful Nuclear Explosions) deep underground in c. 2005to divert Brahmaputra. It has been the Chinese plan to take the Brahmaputra to arid zones in the north by building a 200-km-long canal passing through Mount Namcha. Reacting to Indian concerns, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that China has “always taken a responsible attitude towards the utilisation and development of cross-border rivers.” {That's it. Once China says so, everybody ese has to simply accept that. No more questioning} Apart from making this customary statement, China has, however, shared little specific information about the status of approved or proposed new projects.

The issue of the dams was raised by the Indian NSA Shiv Shankar Menon when he met his outgoing Chinese counterpart Dan Bingguo in Beijing in December, 2012. The Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, also took up this issue with the visiting Chines Prime Minister, Li Keqiang when he paid a state visit to India during May 19-21, 2013. India and China only renewed the pact on sharing hydrological data on Brahmaputra (Yarlung Tsangpo) twice a day during the flood season (June 1 to October 15) and similar data if water levels exceed mutually agreed levels during the non-flood season.. However, the Chinese side was unwilling to consider the long-standing Indian request for a joint mechanism over river water sharing especially concerning the 39 projects identified by China over the Brahmaputra. In October 2013, a Chinese scholar accused India of pressurizing China by garnering the sympathy of the international community on the Brahmaputra issue. Li Zhifei of the National Institute of International Strategy of the influential Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, wrote in a commentary on in Global Times, that India was looking to “put more pressure on China by exaggerating the facts and drawing attention from the international community, with the intention of preventing China from developing Tibetan water resources. China should firmly resist such remarks and actions, and actively seek to address disputes through following the principles of peaceful negotiation and cooperation.”.

In June 2014, during Vice President Hamid Ansari’s visit to China to mark the 60th anniversary of Panchsheel, Beijing formally agreed to allow India to “dispatch hydrological experts” to conduct study tours “according to the principle of reciprocity.” China also agreed to extend provision of hydrological data, from May 15 to October 15 every year on a daily basis, adding 15 days to an earlier agreement. The data will be provided by three stations at Nugesha, Yangcun and Nuxia in Tibet on the main stream of the river. In November 2014, the Indian Minister of state for external affairs VK Singh said, “the government would commission a study to examine the impact of the dams. It is essential to re-examine studies done in the past. It is only after through study that the risk posed by Tibetan dams could be determined. In the early 1950s, a major earthquake took place and changed the course of Brahmaputra. The river bed also went up. We have to see how much water comes from China, and how much is contributed by its different tributaries like the Lohit”. In October 2015, China operationalized its largest yet hydroelectric power project on the Brahmaputra with the commissioning of USD 1.5 billion Zam Hydropower Station (aka Zangmu Power Station), the largest in Tibet

la.khan · Post by **la.khan** » 27 Sep 2016 11:53

chetak wrote:Is there any book, treatise that describes the historicity and rationale for the IWT that helps us to understand how and why we entered into such a biased and totally one sided treaty with our undoubted enemy??

Chetakji,

For 1960, this treaty might have been fine. Neither Nehru or Ayub knew the future. However, India could have insisted on a time-bound exit clause, just in case things go bad (for. ex. IWT is valid till 2000; beyond that, the treaty may be extended/renegotiated only if both parties agree etc).

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Sep 2016 12:16

In the discussions over IWT, I generally see the following issues raised:

The treaty has many stakeholders besides Pakistan & India. These are the World Bank, the US, the UK, Australia & Japan

The efforts to initiate the treaty were taken by the then President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). The US President Truman was keen in resolving the water-sharing dispute. There were two reasons for his keenness. The effort started in c. 1951. He wanted to secure the friendship of either India or Pakistan or both. He wanted to also remove a certain element of bitterness that had crept in between him and Nehru. Instead of directly intervening in this issue, he used the offices of the IBRD. The IBRD was involved right up to the signing of the deal in 1960, but beyond that it has no stakes except in appointing the Neutral Expert or a CoA if needed. The World Bank is *NOT* a stakeholder in the IWT.

Simultaneously, an Indus Basin Development Fund was established with contributions from Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the UK and the US along with India’s share of the cost. The Eisenhower Administration contributed roughly half the cost of the Fund, while the World Bank provided US$ 250 Million and the other donor countries put together provided a similar amount. India paid 62 Million Pound Sterling. (We parted generously with water and we also paid a lot of money to an enemy country! We dug our own grave. Such was our generosity.) So, none of the countries US, UK, Australia, Germany, Canada, New Zealand & Japan can be termed as stakeholders.
China will take its cue from our action and refuse to share waters in Brahmaputra or divert waters from it into China

As far as China & Brahmaputra (Tsangpo) are concerned, we need to understand a few things. First of all, we don't have a trans-border water sharing treaty with them. They have been simply refusing to negotiate any such treaty in spite of repeated requests. They have in the last couple of years barely started sharing some hydrological data with us and that too only during flood times. On the other hand, they have been building dams across the Brahmaputra claiming to be merely run-of-the-river hydropower projects while planning seriously to divert the waters. They have not shared details and specifications of these projects. So, the two situations cannot even be compared. The Chinese do not need, therefore, any new excuse to simply do whatever they want. They have never been respecters of any bilateral, multilateral or international treaties or conventions. The recent verdict at The Hague under UNCLOS is a classic exmple as also their gross violation of NSG terms and conditions in grandfathering reactors after reactors to Pakistan completely fraudulently. They have given slaps to international community and nobody has been pretty much able to do anything. We are imposing our dharmic principles on an adharmic China (in fact the rest of the world) by expecting them to follow our good behaviour elsewhere in their dealings with us. Why should they?

Also, remember that India is not the only lower riparian state for rivers like Brahmaputra originating in Tibet. Bangladesh & Nepal too are.
As some of the favourable rulings on Baglihar & Kishenganga have flowed from the IWT, India must not abrogate the treaty

There are also negative aspects of these rulings, for example, the CoA in the Kishenganga ruled out low-level siltage-controlling sluice gates which will only lead to reduced power-generation (with higher costs to consumers) over the years and eventually a useless project. Had we not had a treaty, we could do as we please just like China is doing on the Brahmaputra or the Mekong etc. Haven't we given away our share generously to Pakistan? It may be that in the 50s when we negotiated the treaty, there was no immediate need for these waters or we did not have the technology and the wherewithal to divert these waters further inland. We were content with the 33MAF (all the flow in the Eastern Rivers put together) as our immediate projects then were Bhakra-Nangal, the Madhopur-Beas Link and the Sirhind Feeder, some new channels on the Upper Bari Doab Canal and the Rajasthan Canal. So, we gave up our equitable claims on the remaining 90 MAF out of which, Pakistan was wasting 80 MAF that simply went to the Arabian Sea!!

Without a vision, without a care for the future, we gave up our rights. This was just like saying that the Chinese occupied Ladkah doesn't grow even a blade of grass! Is that strategic thinking?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Sep 2016 14:47

IWT, the paki view.

Interview: ‘Indus treaty can't be revoked unilaterally’

Interview: ‘Indus treaty can't be revoked unilaterally’

KHALEEQ KIANI —

ISLAMABAD: In its anti-Pakistan rhetoric following Islamabad’s recent diplomatic effort to highlight the Kashmir issue, the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been whipping up ideas to scrap the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 to cause irreparable economic loss to the lower riparian.

While such a move could be labelled as a ‘hostile act’ and attract international criticism, India has the capability to increase the use of waters flowing into the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers. It can also build more reservoirs in India-occupied Kashmir as a double-edge weapon.

Signed by President Ayub Khan and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in Sept 1960 and brokered by the World Bank, the treaty set bilateral principles of water sharing between the two nations. Under the provisions of the treaty that also survived the 1965 and 1971 wars, the waters of the eastern rivers — the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — had been allocated to India and the western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — to Pakistan except for certain non-consumptive uses.

Dawn spoke to Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a former federal law minister, President Research Society of International Law and an advocate in the Supreme Court on the issue. Following is the Q&A of the session.

Former federal law minister Ahmer Bilal Soofi
Former federal law minister Ahmer Bilal Soofi
Q: Can India unilaterally revoke IWT?

A: India has no legal competence under the treaty to revoke it per se on its own. Article 12(4) of the treaty entitles the termination of the treaty only if both India and Pakistan agree in writing. In other words, a termination treaty has to be drafted by both states and then ratified by both, to bring the IWT to an end. The treaty has no provision for unilateral “suspension”. It is of an indefinite duration and was never intended to be time-specific or event-specific.

The IWT is not regime-specific — but rather state-specific. It will not expire with regime change. It is binding on both the states equally and offers no exit provision. Walking away from a treaty is in effect its breach. If India unilaterally stops following the treaty by giving any justification such as “revocation”, “suspension”, “withdrawal” or “annulment” etc. then it really means that it has decided to interrupt the water flow into Pakistan. In other words what India will call “revocation or withdrawal”, Pakistan will refer to as a “breach”.

Q: Is there any arbitration clause that can be set in motion should India go to that extreme?

A: There is an arbitration clause in the IWT. It is article IX and annexes F and G which contain detailed procedures about the taking of the grievance by either party under the IWT first to the commission, then to a neutral expert and later to the forum of arbitrators. Under the IWT, if India thinks that Pakistan’s conduct constitutes a dispute under article IX, then it must commence the procedure prescribed under Annexes F and G. India cannot itself conclude that Pakistan has breached the treaty on any grounds, including mistrust.

In case India “revokes” the treaty, it literally means it has shunned it. The dispute resolution mechanism under article IX and Annexes F and G of the IWT will be of no use and assistance to Pakistan.

It is limited to a dispute under the treaty and not meant to provide for specific performance of the treaty itself.

Since there is no provision in the IWT about its duration or suspension, there is no avenue that Pakistan can approach for “revival” of the treaty. Nor can Pakistan approach the International Court of Justice seeking specific performance to implement the treaty because of the Indian reservation given under IC J statute that bars filing of case by Pakistan against India.

In other words, Pakistan will not be left with any peaceful mechanism for seeking performance of the treaty by India.

Q: What if India stops Pakistani waters downstream and could this set a precedent for China upstream? Indian acts as a precedence for China?

A: Even if there were no IWT, an upper riparian, under the International Water Law, has no right to stop the water flow to a lower riparian. In case India tries to interrupt water flow into Pakistan as an upper riparian, it is setting up a regional state practice which under international law can serve as a precedence and equip China with an argument to consider suspension of the waters of Brahmaputra river.

India may have already damaged itself by even considering the suspension of water flow as an upper riparian and the Chinese government must be watching Indian moves with interest.

Q: How did IWT survive the 1965 and 1971 conflicts?

A: The treaty survived the two wars as well as other Pakistan-India conflicts because none of them were termed a war under international law. They were armed conflicts short of the legal status of “war”.

In the event of a war, states are entitled to suspend treaties, including diplomatic relations. In fact, if India considers revoking the treaty, it is itself signalling the same to be an act of war or a hostile act against Pakistan. This will equip Pakistan with the right under international law to take up any other coercive or non-coercive measure as an act of reprisal.

Treaties are state-specific obligations, and not regime- specific. These are not contingent upon deterioration of political atmosphere. It is much better that the states implement treaties through mutual trust, but even if there is deterioration of trust on account of extraneous events then that, per se, cannot be the sole reason to consider revocation of the treaty.

Published in Dawn, September 27th, 2016

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 27 Sep 2016 15:09

Good to see the things being considered by the government. This is the new high mark, which this government is planning to go beyond.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 27 Sep 2016 17:47

ramana wrote:Dipanker, The movie was Dambusters and the RAF squadron was 633 Dam Busters Squadron.

the bomb was a spherical shaped weapon developed by Barnes Wallis.

633 Dam Buster Sqn used the "Bouncing Bombs" designed and developed by "Sir" Barnes Wallis. It is another "Sir" Leonard Cheshire who led at least one of the raids and later founded the Cheshire Homes for the mentally challenged children, branches of which are found in many Indian cities even today, including Bangalore.

jagga · Post by **jagga** » 27 Sep 2016 19:18

Indus Waters Treaty: Modi's offensive can wreak unspeakable havoc for Pakistan

Don't be fooled by the official line that India took on Monday that it would stand by the infamous Indus Waters Treaty. If you read between lines, the very announcement that India would ignore Pakistan’s objections to three hydro-electric projects on Indus tributaries and go ahead with them in itself constitutes nothing short of a major water offensive by India.

If the government’s talk on Monday wasn’t just empty rhetoric—there is no reason at least yet to believe it is—it will take about two years to harm Pakistan’s agricultural interests. If the government is serious about all this, it amounts to the first big threat Modi is making to the terror exporters across the border after the Uri attack.

Both the 1,000 MW Pakal Dul hydel project on the Marusadar river, a tributary of the Chenab, and the 1,020 MW Bursar project on the Chenab that India spoke about on Monday will raise Pakistani hackles. These two are among the projects that Pakistan has been dead set against.
And the 1,200 MW Sawalkot project, much bigger than these two, will drive the Pakistanis up the wall even more. Pakistan has been saying that the proposed Sawalkot dam falls within the seismic zone of the Himalayas and would be highly vulnerable to earthquakes. Some experts across the border argue that Sawalkot would pose the threat of a huge environmental disaster for Pakistan.
And the Tulbul navigation project, which India had suspended and which it said on Monday would review, is designed to drive the Pakistanis into a state of paranoia. Pakistanis have been claiming that this project, apart from depriving them of water, would pose a serious security risk to them. According to them, the Tulbul project would help Indians manipulate the water level in the Jhelum, making it easy for them to cross the river in times of war. That also means, they claim, Indians can make it tough for the Pakistani soldiers to cross the river if they choose to.

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 27 Sep 2016 19:51

The IWT was signed by India and Pakistan in 1960.
However the Pakistan of 1960 broke into two in 1971.
Does the current Pakistan get all the rights and privileges of undivided Pakistan?
Or can India claim the second party to IWT no longer exists?

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 27 Sep 2016 19:53

Until now Bakis were crying about bad bad treaty. They wanted it to be scraped. Now we are doing that then they cry again.

vinod · Post by **vinod** » 27 Sep 2016 19:58

Bishwa wrote:The IWT was signed by India and Pakistan in 1960.
However the Pakistan of 1960 broke into two in 1971.
Does the current Pakistan get all the rights and privileges of undivided Pakistan?
Or can India claim the second party to IWT no longer exists?

Yes, invite Bangladesh to the IWT discussion as a party.

habal · Post by **habal** » 27 Sep 2016 19:59

For the first time, in a long time, I am seeing a lot of sad gloomy faces on paki talk shows discussing Indus, despite the brave front.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 27 Sep 2016 20:36

Not intending to draw or fire flak here, AFAIK the Dam Busters sqn was 617. Again, AFAIK, there never was a 633 sqn except in the movie of the same name.http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_RAF_units_600.html

633 is a Mosquito sqn in the movie whereas the Dam busters were a Lancaster sqn.

Happy to stand corrected.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/ ... adron.aspx
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._617_Squadron_RAF

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 27 Sep 2016 20:39

Indus Water Treaty 1960 - full agreement in the link here (World Bank Source). Let the legal eagles among us weigh in.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTS ... ty1960.pdf

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 27 Sep 2016 21:06

[OT Alert]

I was about to post the same

The 633 squadron raids shown in the movie of the same name were said to be based by 613 Squadron Mosquitos raid on a gestapo HQ in the Hague. Link

A less known (and less successful) sequel to the 633 squadron was Mosquito Squadron about a bombing mission against a secret Nazi V-2 rocket testing facility in France

[/OT]

rahulm wrote:Not intending to draw or fire flak here, AFAIK the Dam Busters sqn was 617. Again, AFAIK, there never was a 633 sqn except in the movie of the same name.http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_RAF_units_600.html

633 is a Mosquito sqn in the movie whereas the Dam busters were a Lancaster sqn.

Happy to stand corrected.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/ ... adron.aspx
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._617_Squadron_RAF

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 27 Sep 2016 21:13

Here's a more detailed version i=of the IWT with annexes. Source - UN.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication ... nglish.pdf

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 27 Sep 2016 21:41

Dambusters were the 617 squadron.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 27 Sep 2016 21:55

Reducing water supply to bakistan is an awesome thing.
Now we can troll bakis, musharraf dhone ke liye bhi pani nahi denge.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 27 Sep 2016 22:02

nirav wrote:Reducing water supply to bakistan is an awesome thing.
Now we can troll bakis, musharraf dhone ke liye bhi pani nahi denge.

Dhotee kahan hei ? Bus yoo kaam chala rahe hein.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 27 Sep 2016 22:05

Indian media is doing very well fuelling the fear of God in Pakistani people and it will become hysteria when India starts squeezing them with reduced water supply and Pakistan government will be forced to divert money from defence to boosting water storage by building new dams.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 27 Sep 2016 22:12

PRC refuses to sign any water treaty. Even Afgh refues to do so with TSP. Why did we *have* to sign a treaty with TSP. I think the Brutes after creating TSP knew that they had to also look out for their creation and provide it with the necessary treaties to make it stable. Having a treaty on water is far, far better than not having a treaty. So most likely they did what they always have done, approach JLN and either gave him some secret advice or some NAM mumbo jumbo and he signed the treaty with the nation that took a big chunk of our land. The behind-the-scene story has to have a Brutish+JLN angle to it. Why would a self-respecting nation sign a treaty with someone who is in occupation of its land?

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 27 Sep 2016 22:39

http://www.abplive.in/blog/scrap-the-indus-water-treaty-heres-the-first-step#

Shakti Sinha

Despite last Sunday’s Uri attack, immediate military retaliation does not seem to be on the cards. That, however, does not mean that India has no non-conventional, non-nuclear options open to it.

Strategic thinkers like Brahma Chellaney have argued that India should unilaterally withdraw from the Indus Water Treaty, signed in 1960 and in operation since then, uninterrupted despite three wars between India and Pakistan. The Treaty does not provide for its dissolution or for unilateral withdrawal of any country.

Chellaney in a recent article argues for using international law, specifically Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which provides for dissolution based on fundamental change of circumstances. Former Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha too has suggested withdrawal from the Treaty, a demand that is likely to gather pace as the Government explores different options.

The Indus Water Treaty was necessitated by the partition of Punjab in 1947, which left the head works of the Indus basin irrigation system in India and the actual canals in Pakistan.

At independence, Pakistan panicked at the possibility of India’s turning off the tap though the two countries soon entered into a stand-still agreement which ensured that things would go on normally, giving the two sides time to negotiate a mutual agreement.

Pakistan, not satisfied, approached the Americans for help in formalising its access to the river waters. The cause of Pakistan’s concerns could be its own behaviour with Kalat (Balochistan) and Jammu & Kashmir, where it unilaterally used force to try incorporate these kingdoms despite having entered into stand-still agreements with their rulers.

The Americans, in the guise of journalism, sent David Lilenthal, a former Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission and Tennessee Valley Authority, to the region.

He proposed joint development of the basin to help both countries produce more food, fearing war if there was no agreement. He also suggested the involvement of the World Bank to help both countries reach an agreement.

Both countries agreed and negotiation produced a draft agreement by 1954 but Pakistan refused to accept it, seeking better terms. The World Bank also moved from being a facilitator to one becoming an adjudicator.

This was despite the World Bank’s earlier assurance to India, required to overcome India’s objections, that their role would be purely a technical one.

The final agreement in 1960 basically mirrored the 1954 draft in that India was given the rights to the three East flowing rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – while Pakistan was given ‘permanent’ rights to the three West flowing rivers – Indus, Ravi and the Jhelum.

India could use waters of these Western rivers to a limited amount, essentially non-consumptive use, drinking water.

In percentage terms, Pakistan got over 80%, an unprecedented amount for a lower riparian. In the final Treaty, Pakistan was extended soft loans and grants to build alternate systems, with even India required to contribute to it.

A legitimate question which arises is, why did India agree to such egregious terms? In fact, why did it agree to what became third party adjudication of its rights to waters flowing in its territory?

By 1949 the Cold War was unfolding, and though not a treaty ally, Pakistan was seen by the British as more likely to be a junior partner in containing Communism. The US went along and soon Pakistan became a camp follower of the West.

India’s development needs were huge and the US was India’s biggest donor, followed by the UK. India also needed increased access to the World Bank. These circumstances forced India’s hand.

The Treaty effectively came into force in 1970, and Pakistan has twice resorted to dispute settlement, first using a neutral expert in the Baglihar case, and later the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Kishenganga dispute it raised.

The PCA’s interim and final ruling are highly damaging to India, restricting its use of the Western rivers far beyond what the Treaty provided for. This would constrain India’s ability to produce enough electricity for Jammu & Kashmir or meet its other development needs.

Pakistan is too important a country for the US to allow it to go under, which would happen if its access to the Indus system were to be disrupted, turning it potentially into a desert. China is also not likely to allow matters to precipitate beyond a point.

However, India should take a leaf out of the Chinese stand, welcomed by Pakistan, that it would not accept the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This first step, rather than outright withdrawal, would allow India to sufficiently raise the costs of exporting terror to Pakistan without resort to outright aggression.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 27 Sep 2016 22:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMfg0VvOOzI

Saifuddin soz , saba naqvi are flapping like fish on ground.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Sep 2016 22:55

scrap it, keep moving to use the water within land 100%.

these freaking discussions are insane.. not allowing one person to present an argument, beating around the bush and what is there for 5 minutes of discussion you rona dona and maro mari crap. typicial.. EOD, you feel you just came out of a street fight.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Sep 2016 23:18

Paul wrote:Dambusters were the 617 squadron.

There are at least two books on this story

The Dam Busters Story Author(s): Jonathan Falconer

Dam Busters Author(s): Paul Brickhill

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 27 Sep 2016 23:20

SSridhar wrote:In the discussions over IWT, I generally see the following issues raised:
...

China will take its cue from our action and refuse to share waters in Brahmaputra or divert waters from it into China

As far as China & Brahmaputra (Tsangpo) are concerned, we need to understand a few things. First of all, we don't have a trans-border water sharing treaty with them. They have been simply refusing to negotiate any such treaty in spite of repeated requests. They have in the last couple of years barely started sharing some hydrological data with us and that too only during flood times. On the other hand, they have been building dams across the Brahmaputra claiming to be merely run-of-the-river hydropower projects while planning seriously to divert the waters. They have not shared details and specifications of these projects. So, the two situations cannot even be compared. The Chinese do not need, therefore, any new excuse to simply do whatever they want. They have never been respecters of any bilateral, multilateral or international treaties or conventions. The recent verdict at The Hague under UNCLOS is a classic exmple as also their gross violation of NSG terms and conditions in grandfathering reactors after reactors to Pakistan completely fraudulently. They have given slaps to international community and nobody has been pretty much able to do anything. We are imposing our dharmic principles on an adharmic China (in fact the rest of the world) by expecting them to follow our good behaviour elsewhere in their dealings with us. Why should they?

Also, remember that India is not the only lower riparian state for rivers like Brahmaputra originating in Tibet. Bangladesh & Nepal too are.
...

Wonderful post SSridhar! This is a great backgrounder on the gamut of issues. I think just one thing is missing with respect to the China angle, which is that the amount of water flow in the Tsangpo and the Indus at the India China border is merely a fraction of the total volume of these rivers. Even if China were to impound that water, it should not cause a huge reduction in the flow of these rivers.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Sep 2016 23:41

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Sep 2016 00:00

Lilo wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMfg0VvOOzI

Saifuddin soz , saba naqvi are flapping like fish on ground.

This is exactly why all commies like lechury, raja and such silly one MP parties should be kept very clear of the cashmere issue. They will wilfully go against the Indian govt line and take the paki pasand line.

dnivas · Post by **dnivas** » 28 Sep 2016 00:06

2016 IWT

every paki or paki sponsored [no dossiers needed to make determination] found on this side of the border means 10 days of no water during drought season or 10 days of excess water during flood season. That should be the only line in the new treaty

Also we need to randomly fvck with them to show them who the daddy is

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Sep 2016 04:18

Aaj Ki Khabar 27 September 2016 MODI vs CHINA on Indus Water Treaty and Sushma Swaraj Speech in UN
Ganza Hilali know that There is no legal recourse of Puker if India refuses to participate. At 1043, no legal path to complaint or involve WB but diplomatic route with guarantor countries.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 28 Sep 2016 06:29

chetak wrote:
Lilo wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMfg0VvOOzI

Saifuddin soz , saba naqvi are flapping like fish on ground.
This is exactly why all commies like lechury, raja and such silly one MP parties should be kept very clear of the cashmere issue. They will wilfully go against the Indian govt line and take the paki pasand line.

Imagine how much India gave up when Congress was in power. All these lefty post modern morons were power brokers. Everything but out nuclear codes must've been put up for sale to the highest bidder.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Sep 2016 07:42

Reality setting in, No legal role for World bank only political weight !!
India Can Break Indus Water Treaty - Nobody can Stop India - Pak Media

RCase · Post by **RCase** » 28 Sep 2016 08:39

rsingh wrote:
nirav wrote:Reducing water supply to bakistan is an awesome thing.
Now we can troll bakis, musharraf dhone ke liye bhi pani nahi denge.
Dhotee kahan hei ? Bus yoo kaam chala rahe hein.

Without water, there will be ample stones that can be used, and it will be halal!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 28 Sep 2016 09:16

Subramanian Swamy ‏@Swamy39 3h3 hours ago
@auroratrailer : Any treaty is liable to be scrapped on national security grounds--Vienna Convention

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 28 Sep 2016 10:27

This is probably the first time after Kargil and Parakram (both NDA govt.) where Pakis are being made to realize the cost of terror. While the impact of the other two was short term for them and somewhat easily recoverable from. The IWT is a different kettle of fish, over the long term it has the potential to turn Paki dreams of emulating KSA into reality. Even the threat of subsequent withdrawal will make them think twice before undertaking terror activities. Why we never threatened them with IWT on previous occasions is beyond me.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 28 Sep 2016 10:31

Turning the screws would not be too far off from describing how GoI are approaching this affair.

I get a feeling that Subramanian Swamy is enjoying himself immensely. He probably has a smirk as he tweets away.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Sep 2016 10:48

IWT was never ratified by INDIAN Parliament.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Sep 2016 11:42

Why is jetlee so very quiet??

Is it because his paki pasand channels and anchors are being pilloried in SM??

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 28 Sep 2016 13:21

chetak wrote:
Lilo wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMfg0VvOOzI

Saifuddin soz , saba naqvi are flapping like fish on ground.
This is exactly why all commies like lechury, raja and such silly one MP parties should be kept very clear of the cashmere issue. They will wilfully go against the Indian govt line and take the paki pasand line.

Soz is scared that if GOI gets into the business of abrogating IWT and such international treaties, 370 to giyo.