Indus Water Treaty

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 21 Feb 2010 19:23

The American administration is talking to India to resolve the water issue with Pakistan, US Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke said in an interview to a private TV channel on Friday.

This interfearance in India's affairs is going too far.

How about India start a discussion on US taking Mexico's share of the Rio Grande river ? Or looting Iraq's oil ?

GOI needs to tell US it does not deal with third parties. Otherwise this interfearance will continue well into the future.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Feb 2010 23:59

SSridhar wrote: As for the water accord of 1991 among the Pakistani provinces, it was never implemented to the satisfaction of everyone except the Punjab.

The forthcoming Indo pak talks will be used by the pakjabis to try and convince the sindhis and the baluchis that the Indians and not the pakjabis are stealing their water.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 22 Feb 2010 11:42

The issues herein being 'technical' we may be able to count on our bureacracy to hold firm and come up with arguments to the political leadership. Still, it will be important to keep parties like the Akali Dal, and INLD, apart from the BJP in the loop, to stop any ill-conceived "concessions."

arun · Post by **arun** » 23 Feb 2010 09:17

chetak wrote:The forthcoming Indo pak talks will be used by the pakjabis to try and convince the sindhis and the baluchis that the Indians and not the pakjabis are stealing their water.

Water will not figure in the Secretary level talks:

Pak tries to put water on table, India says no

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Feb 2010 15:05

arun wrote: Water will not figure in the Secretary level talks:

Pak tries to put water on table, India says no

I am not so sure. My reading is that Pakistan will certainly bring up the water issue and we will certainly discuss that in the upcoming talks.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Feb 2010 15:33

SSridhar wrote:
arun wrote: Water will not figure in the Secretary level talks:

Pak tries to put water on table, India says no
I am not so sure. My reading is that Pakistan will certainly bring up the water issue and we will certainly discuss that in the upcoming talks.

SSridhar ji,

The pakis are coming with their own agenda and playing to their own constituency. Water is the here and now.They need to wrest a lot more of it from India. Kashmir is not going anywhere and can be taken up afterwards.

What ever may or may not be discussed at the meet, it is the press conference after the meet that will become the porki soapbox with sly ineuendo, motivated and slanted reportage from our very own DDM.

Expect orgasmic and panting female anchors from the usual DDM channels paying admiring homage to coiffed, artfully made up and photogenic reps of our neighbors. These rascals have been chosen well and can fake it before any audience.

We will have our own WKK types bemoaning the cold Indian heart when the opposite party has brought such warm and genuine sentiments to the table. Add some pakjabi pappi jappi to this mix and you will really have a roadshow going.

They will wipe the floor with our SDRE types.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Feb 2010 17:35

chetak, you are right. But, pessimistic as I am about Indian ability to deal with Pakistan otherwise, water is one thing where India will not concede a litre of extra water. The politicians know pretty well that they will lose power immediately. Terrorism can go on, people can get killed and maimed, properties can be damaged, economy can be affected and opportunities may be lost, India may be viewed by others at the same level of Pakistan as a security-risk country, but water is one thing where Pakistani coercion will not work with India. I am pretty sure about that.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Feb 2010 18:09

SSridhar wrote:chetak, you are right. But, pessimistic as I am about Indian ability to deal with Pakistan otherwise, water is one thing where India will not concede a litre of extra water. The politicians know pretty well that they will lose power immediately. Terrorism can go on, people can get killed and maimed, properties can be damaged, economy can be affected and opportunities may be lost, India may be viewed by others at the same level of Pakistan as a security-risk country, but water is one thing where Pakistani coercion will not work with India. I am pretty sure about that.

Why is then that we'll never backtrack on Water issue , what would put water abovr terror and economy ?

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 23 Feb 2010 18:21

SSridhar wrote:chetak, you are right. But, pessimistic as I am about Indian ability to deal with Pakistan otherwise, water is one thing where India will not concede a litre of extra water. The politicians know pretty well that they will lose power immediately. Terrorism can go on, people can get killed and maimed, properties can be damaged, economy can be affected and opportunities may be lost, India may be viewed by others at the same level of Pakistan as a security-risk country, but water is one thing where Pakistani coercion will not work with India. I am pretty sure about that.

With MMS, the champion of sekoolaarism and honorary paki, in charge, nothing is impossible.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 23 Feb 2010 18:25

Nihat wrote:
SSridhar wrote:chetak, you are right. But, pessimistic as I am about Indian ability to deal with Pakistan otherwise, water is one thing where India will not concede a litre of extra water. The politicians know pretty well that they will lose power immediately. Terrorism can go on, people can get killed and maimed, properties can be damaged, economy can be affected and opportunities may be lost, India may be viewed by others at the same level of Pakistan as a security-risk country, but water is one thing where Pakistani coercion will not work with India. I am pretty sure about that.
Why is then that we'll never backtrack on Water issue , what would put water abovr terror and economy ?

Because water is life. Without it there will be desert in whatever green patch they have, just an extension of thar. No life, no terror , no economy, a lowly pigsty existence.That is what they are looking at in the long run.

arun · Post by **arun** » 23 Feb 2010 20:13

SSridhar wrote:
arun wrote: Water will not figure in the Secretary level talks:

Pak tries to put water on table, India says no
I am not so sure. My reading is that Pakistan will certainly bring up the water issue and we will certainly discuss that in the upcoming talks.

Sridhar,

I think India will stand firm and not permit water to be discussed. Dawn is confirming that India has made it known that officials of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s Water and Power ministries are not welcome.

Same is the case for officials from the Interior Ministry of the Islamic Republic.

Is the absence of Interior Ministry officials an action to forestall the injection of the theme of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan being a victim of Indian fomented terrorism in Balochistan that our PM Dr. Manmohan Singh so unthinkingly permitted to be included in the Sharm El Sheikh declaration

.

Then off course there is Waziristan and the matter of Indian supplied Polypropylene which the Islamic Republic has pronounced a fatwa that it be declared an explosive

:

India forces change in Pakistan delegation for talks’

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Feb 2010 21:30

Neshant wrote:
The American administration is talking to India to resolve the water issue with Pakistan, US Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke said in an interview to a private TV channel on Friday.
This interfearance in India's affairs is going too far.

How about India start a discussion on US taking Mexico's share of the Rio Grande river ? Or looting Iraq's oil ?

GOI needs to tell US it does not deal with third parties. Otherwise this interfearance will continue well into the future.

Iraq's oil loot has already been split between Unkil and his poodles. India can't expect much except for SDRE labour in shipping that oil back to Texas for refinement. I expect Iraqi oil loot to play a major role in US economic recovery.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 23 Feb 2010 22:15

"Iraq's oil loot has already been split between Unkil and his poodles."

What are Iraq's government( supposedly democratic) and the Iraqi people( supposedly more free now, minus Saddam Hussein) saying and doing about this 'loot' ?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Feb 2010 23:47

Water issue is to extricate Paki from Kashmiri monkey trap and save their H&D. It will be discussed at appropriate time and appropriate level. Paki dont want India to build the capability to control the flow to be used as huge leverage in future and shatter their Mughalite dream they were brought up with , hence all the professional wailing. Uncle's hand behind this puppet show .

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Feb 2010 07:23

TOI on the teaming up of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s political elite and Jihadi establishments on ranting about India’s “machinations” to “rob” the Islamic Republic of its share of water under the Indus Water Treaty.

TOI characterises this attempt as a “misinformation campaign” by Northern Punjab to cover-up their “Water Greed” from Balochistan, Sindh and Souther n Punjab as well. TOI feels that “the grievance narrative, however, suffers from serious infirmities”.

Has Aman Ki Asha hit a wall?:

Water Pakistan's diversionary tactic?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Feb 2010 14:11

Pakistan unlikely to make headway on water issue with India
Excerpts

Indus Water Treaty (IWT) has stood the test of time in resolving differences. IWT Commissioners have met over a 100 times since the treaty was signed half a century ago to exchange information and iron out irritants, which means that the mechanism has been working well.

In fact, Islamabad’s desire to bring the water issue on the table on the eve of this week’s foreign secretary talks is a change from its stand in 2002, when the “Pakistan Water Sector Strategy” argued for thwarting any “attempt by India” to scrap the treaty.

Under the treaty, India is allowed to store 3.6 million acreage feet (MAF) of water of the western rivers, but it has not built any such facility so far, allowing unimpeded flows into Pakistan.

While framing the IWT, the irrigable area of India and Pakistan was assessed at 26 million acres and 39 million acres respectively, while the waters available to them are 32.8 MAF and 135.6 MAF respectively. This means that only about 1.26 feet of water is available to India for its agriculture on eastern rivers, while about 3.5 feet of water is available to Pakistan for its agriculture.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Feb 2010 14:19

arun wrote:Water Pakistan's diversionary tactic?

From the above,

Or, for that matter, that of the crop area of 13,43,477 acres that India is allowed to irrigate using waters of western rivers, India has so far been irrigating only 7,92,426 acres.

In my earlier post here,I had mentioned less than 500,000 acres while ToI mentions a higher figure. The higher figure is probably because, not all areas get assured water supply. Probably ToI included sailaab irrigation which happens only when there is inundation. This kind of irrigation should not be counted against the Indian entitlements, IMHO.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 Feb 2010 03:05

The Envior-mental Paki

He, however, believed that these issues were of technical nature and should be processed accordingly as provided under the treaty.
Informed sources said that India had not only started building three other dams namely Sawalkot, Pakal-Dul and Kirthai on Chenab River, it has also completed the detail project report of Bursar Dam site. The proposed dam would have 829 feet height, storage capacity of more than two million acres feet and power generation capacity of 1200MW. The height of Baglihar, Tarbela and Mangla Dam is 474, 485 and 453 feet, respectively.Bursar Dam would be constructed near Hanzal Village (near Kishtwar) in Doda District of Jammu & Kashmir on the 133-kilometre-long Marusudar River, the main right bank tributary of the Chenab river. Its construction would be a serious violation of the treaty as its storage was much behind the permissible limits. More than 4900 acres of thick forest would be submerged and the whole population of Hanzal village would be displaced.Arshad H. Abbasi, visiting research fellow of the SDPI, said the project area fell in Seismic Zone V and hence most vulnerable to earthquake. Two active geological faults lines - Himalayan thrust and the Kishtwar fault - were passing through the project area, he said, adding that the worst impact of dam would be on glaciers of Marusudar river basin. He said that deforestation, coupled with high altitude military activities, had already created 48 glacial lakes in the Marusudar river basin covering an area of 225.35 sq km and massive construction activities in basin would further aggravate the melting of glaciers

India’s dam on Chenab exacerbates water wars
INDIA'S AQUA BOMBS: Draught & floods imposed on Pakistan: Indus Water Treaty violations- state terror.

http://pakistanpal.livejournal.com/627176.html

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Feb 2010 06:41

Hindustan Times:

River Waters: The next testing ground

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Feb 2010 14:57

Water as the carrier of concord between India & Pakistan - Siddharth Varadarajan

More than Kashmir, it is the accusation that India is stealing water that is rapidly becoming the “core issue” in the Pakistani establishment's narrative about bilateral problems.

At the same time, the fact that river flows from India to Pakistan have slowly declined is borne out by data on both sides. Above Merala on the Chenab, for example, the average monthly flows for September have nearly halved between 1999 and 2009. India says this is because of reduced rainfall and snowmelt. Pakistan disputes this claim, preferring to link observable reductions in flows to hydroelectric projects on the Indian side.

Forget about Jhelum & Chenab. Let's take the Indus which mostly flows within Pakistan and where India has no storage or irrigation or other usage in the small stretch that it flows in India. Somebody should ask them why Indus river flows are also dwindling.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 25 Feb 2010 15:06

This should be proof, if any is required, that the problem between India and Pakistan is not Kashmir , it is fundamentally two different mindsets - and one being a fanatic barbarian terrorist animal mindset that essentially wants to go back to the glory of Babur era of ruling Hindus and forcing them to convert, pay kafir tax, destroy their places of workshop etc. It will keep inventing new reasons for hatred. You give in only to find they have a bigger demand...

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Feb 2010 19:49

Siddharth Varadarajan on CNN IBN (Iirc Sagarika Ghose's show) had said that India should not even hesitate to dangle the carrot of IWT if that is what it takes to bring TSP to the table for talks and increase people to people contact . He was visibly in much takleef when Chandan Mitra snubbed him.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Feb 2010 20:14

negi wrote:Siddharth Varadarajan on CNN IBN (Iirc Sagarika Ghose's show) had said that India should not even hesitate to dangle the carrot of IWT if that is what it takes to bring TSP to the table for talks . . .

But, TSP was always willing to engage India in talks; it was India that stopped the talks after 26/11.

I really do not see what we can dangle as part of IWT to Pakistan.

That India will not build any more Hydroelectric Power Projects on Jhelum & Chenab ?
That it will scrap the ongoing Kishenganga project ?
That there will be no more of the Tulbul Navigation project ?
That India will let more waters flow through Ravi, Beas & Sutlej even at the cost of its own people ?
That India will forego its claim of 3.76 MAF of water that it has been allocated out of the Western rivers by IWT ?
That it will not withdraw water from Jhelum, Chenab & Indus to irrigate 1.343 Million Acres which it is also entitled to under the Treaty ?
Or, it will renegotiate IWT-II that will somehow allocate more waters to Pakistan because of the dwindling water supplies ?

Pray, what can we dangle except something very obnoxious ?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Feb 2010 04:55

Pakistan's water concerns as expressed by its Foreign Secretary

On water, he reiterated Pakistan’s commitment to the Indus Water Treaty but listed five areas where discord existed: violation of the treaty, frustrating efforts to resolve differences as provided under the Treaty, concerns about ongoing projects, deforestation at water sources and melting of glaciers due to human activity.

All of these are eminently solvable under the existing IWT. The Pakistani motive is of course, different.

arun · Post by **arun** » 26 Feb 2010 06:55

X Posted:

ramana wrote:Friday Times – Latest issue

Getting ready for a ‘water war’?

Khaled Ahmed

For once Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah is right. He sees no violation of the Treaty. And he has no jurisdiction over the new issue of scarcity of water because the Treaty doesn't deal with it

Pakistan may be getting ready to go to war with India, not over Kashmir, which it finds futile, but over the river water India is supposed to insist on stealing from it despite the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. Pakistan’s army chief has mentioned ‘water’ in his last challenging statement, followed by the Prime Minister, and there is a one-sided media war going on as the Indian side, still angry over the Mumbai attack, is poised to jump in, all guns blazing. One chief editor in Pakistan says Pakistan should nuke the Indian dams stealing Pakistani water – with him as human payload tied to a nuclear missile!

The world is waiting for this to happen. Water wars have been predicted by the UN, but statistics show that states continue to be sane over shared waters. The Economist wrote on May 1, 2008, ‘Researchers at Oregon State University say they have found that the world’s 263 trans-boundary rivers generate more co-operation than conflict. Over the past half-century, 400 treaties had been concluded over the use of rivers. Of the 37 incidents that involved violence, 30 occurred in the dry and bitterly contested region formed by Israel and its neighbours, where the upper end of the Jordan river was hotly disputed, and skirmished over, before Israel took control in the 1967 war’.

Alarmism of the Lower Riparian : The Economist ends by stating : ‘And some inter-state water treaties are very robust. The Indus river pact between India and Pakistan survived two wars and the deep crisis of 2002’. We may be about to prove the observation wrong. As we go for the next round of Indo-Pak talks – with the Indian army chief alleging cross-border infiltration in Kashmir – Pakistan’s lawyer Ahmer Bilal Soofi, writing in Dawn on February 20, 2010 focuses on the real issue : scarcity rather than theft of water, and recommends fresh talks to consider supplementing the 1960 Indus Water Treaty with a water regime during scarcity of water. The Treaty did not take into account the ecological change that would occur half a century later, depriving the subcontinent of rains and run-off from its mountain glaciers.

Today, water management is akin to conflict management. But India and Pakistan are busy conflict-creating: they started with Kashmir and have ended up with half a dozen more casus belli issues even as they talk peace. Water is the latest such issue. Before we as a lower riparian state raise the ante, let us consider some aspects of the developing confrontation. As a lower riparian, Pakistan is naturally alarmist. This is true of lower riparians anywhere in the world including lower riparian provinces in India and Pakistan. We don’t want water storage on our rivers in Kashmir; Sindh doesn’t want water storage on its rivers in Punjab. And Sindh is as alarmist and non-trusting vis-à-vis Punjab as Pakistan is vis-à-vis India.

Treaty good despite universal hatred of Treaty : In India everyone thinks signing the Indus Water Treaty was wrong. They know that not having a waters treaty is advantageous to the upper riparian if it is militarily strong. In Pakistan, even as Punjab and Sindh fight over waters, both sides denounce the 1960 Treaty. No one says how it would have benefited Pakistan if there was no treaty reserving certain rivers for Pakistan. In India those who hate the Treaty have a good reason for doing so : take all the water and make Pakistan suffer. One is astounded by the intensity of the warmongering in Pakistan over the waters, especially as one looks at the record of Pakistan’s past behaviour under the Treaty.

The Indus Treaty envisages three kinds of complications over waters. The first type is ‘questions’ which are resolved by the two sides through their water commissioners at the Indus Water Commission. The second is ‘differences’ for which the two sides approach the World Bank which appoints a neutral expert. The third type is ‘disputes’ which goes to a Court of Arbitration assembled by the World Bank for the purpose. Both sides fund the process; and the Court can also award costs. So far ‘questions’ have been many, but only one difference, over Baglihar Dam, which turned out to be not as grave as Pakistan had thought, which must have been chastening for our watchdog water commissioner, Jamaat Ali Shah. There has never been a ‘dispute’. It is on the basis of this record that the world thinks the Indus Treaty such a good bilateral arrangement. Have we learned anything from this record?

India allowed storage and some use of Western Rivers : Our bearded Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah once symbolised our lower riparian alarmism, returning from his meetings in India with his dire warnings about the male fides of Indian intent. Today he is being castigated and even insulted on TV programmes because his accumulated knowledge prevents him from crossing the line on the jurisprudence of the 1960 Treaty. Discussants fall into red-faced paroxysms when he says India is not in violation even though it is in the process of building dozens of dams over our rivers – Indus, Chenab, Jhelum – and diverting water from Kishenganga.

As stated above, an upper riparian will not enter into a water treaty unless it sees advantage in it – an advantage over the lower riparian. Although Nehru is cursed in India for having signed the Indus Treaty, the truth is that he did extract from it the advantage of using some water from our three Western Rivers for consumptive use, that is, agriculture. Annexure C of the Treaty is about India diverting certain amount of water in certain months from the Western Rivers. Then, there is no bar on the building of water storage for electricity production or any other non-consumptive use on Western Rivers (Annexure E). If anyone complains in Pakistan about India building dams and taking some water out of our rivers, he speaks out of ignorance.

Water-management is conflict-management : For once Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah is right. He sees no violation of the Treaty. And he has no jurisdiction over the new issue of scarcity of water because the Treaty doesn’t deal with it. He can only say he doesn’t believe what the Indians are saying; and he is saying that. India and Pakistan are facing a calamity they can’t quantify and that pertains to climatic change as never seen in human memory. This calamity is the ‘third party’ against which both should unite, taking along also the other states of South Asia. But this can only happen if India and Pakistan normalise their relations and become ‘sympathetic’ rather than ‘punitive’ in their view of each other. It has been observed in the context of riparian relations that water disputes can be resolved if relations are normal, that is, allowing interpenetration of interests through free bilateral trade and investment.

As a lower riparian Pakistan has no aggressive advantage, nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons. All advantages lie in its median status and the potential it has as a trading corridor with regional states dependent on it for the movement of their goods and for the transit of their oil and gas pipelines. As stated above, 263 trans-boundary rivers in the world have caused the riparian states to cooperate rather than go to war. Many Pakistanis believe they have the advantage of leverage over America and can go on benefiting from America despite being anti-American. One has to look at Pakistan’s record with India to see how much leverage Pakistan has seen seep away as it follows its aggressive approach. Those who denounce the Indus Treaty in India want Pakistan to go on acting like this. We must remember that the Treaty can be set aside in the case of a hostile escalation; and the world will find itself siding with India if it thinks Pakistan is in the wrong.

Shahid Javed Burki’s advice for normalisation : Pakistan’s former finance minister and ex-vice president of the World Bank, Shahid Javed Burki, anticipating the Indo-Pak ministerial talks in late February 2010, wrote in Dawn (16 Feb 2010): ‘If thinking outside the box is to be encouraged, my suggestion would be that Islamabad base the dialogue on an entirely new consideration : how to bring about greater economic integration between the two countries.

‘The objective should be to develop a stake for India in the Pakistani economy and also in its stability. This would entail a number of things including unhindered flow of trade between the two countries, encouraging the private sectors on either side of the border to invest in each other’s economy, the opening up of the border that separates the two parts of Kashmir to trade and movement of people, and grant of transit rights to each other for trade with third countries. As the experience of Europe shows, economic integration among states with a history of hostility towards one another is a good way of easing tensions. Taking that approach would constitute real thinking outside the box’.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Feb 2010 10:25

'Not part of Pakistan'

Sacrifices such as these give meaning to Pakistan's hard stance on the Kashmir issue. Sacrifices such as these give us pause for thought when our rhetoric on Kashmir begins to ring a bit hollow. Our stated position on and dedication to the Kashmir cause failed to pass muster recently when Pakistan refused the request made by the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for the allocation of some 614 cusecs of water for irrigation purposes.The water situation in the country is fast forming into a proper political debate. Many have been foretelling water as the pre-eminent political issue of the future. Their auguries are coming to pass. The "El Nino" weather effect is causing water shortages and draught in the entire region. The issue of water, despite the reluctance of India, is on the agenda in the upcoming foreign secretaries-level talks. Punjab and Sindh have been at each other's throats over water supply in the Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal. (Either way, thousands will be affected and there will be corresponding crop failures.)

The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) has been unable to resolve the inter-provincial bickering and, only last week, the prime minister summoned the chief ministers of all the provinces along with leading officials of the Water and Power Development Authority and the Pakistan Indus Water Commissioner to Islamabad to find out what was going on. And, to top it all, there are almost daily items in our press where experts are lashing out at India for "stealing" our water. In some instances, senior journalists have been reported to have suggested that Pakistan take out India's dams with its nuclear arsenal.The growing political consciousness on the water issue notwithstanding, IRSA declined the request made by the government of Azad Kashmir. The refusal was based on the grounds that, since Azad Jammu and Kashmir was not part of Pakistan, IRSA could not determine its water rights. This decision has turned relations between the governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir cold. Recently, before Kashmir Day (celebrated as an official holiday in our Islamic Republic) on account of the IRSA refusal, the prime minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir informed the protocol office of the president of Pakistan that, should the president come visiting Mirpur, he would not be greeted in person.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=226224

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 27 Feb 2010 11:35

Receding water reservoirs threaten Rabi crops

* Water level at Mangla Dam recorded at 1,041 feet, while the dead level is 1,040 feet

By Zeeshan Javaid

ISLAMABAD: The water levels at all major reservoirs of the country fell to a dangerous level on Friday, posing a serious threat to the Rabi crops harvest, Daily Times has learnt.

According to date obtained from the Indus River System Authority (IRSA), the water inflow at the main rim stations reduced to 65,872 cusecs on Friday, while water outflow remained at 90,276 cusecs. Water reservoirs at the major dams of the country are approaching the dead level, signalling an impending water crisis.

The water level at Tarbela Dam was recorded at 1,398.07 feet, while the dead level is 1,369 feet. According to the IRSA data, the water inflow at the dam has been recorded at 29,000 cusecs and the outflow remained at 40,000 cusecs.

Dead level: The water level at Mangla Dam was recorded at 1,041 feet, while the dead level is 1,040 feet. The water inflow at the reservoir was recorded at 11,596 cusecs, while the outflow was 25,000 cusecs.

The Chashma Dam has a current water level of 640.70 feet, while the dead level is 637 feet. The mean water inflow at the dam was recorded at 45,243 cusecs and the outflow at 42,000 cusecs

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?pa ... 2010_pg7_3

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 01 Mar 2010 04:59

Special report is dedicated to the IWT

Now TSP wants to review the "spirit" of the treaty...

"There is a need to review the spirit of the Treaty"

-- Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Indus Waters Commissioner

The News on Sunday: A lot is being written about in the press about the water controversy between India and Pakistan. What exactly is the dispute?

Syed Jamaat Ali Shah: It is quite unfortunate that the people of Pakistan, including the press, have woken up to the issue after the passage of half a century. We want the Indus Waters Treaty implemented, in letter as well as in spirit. We want the fulfillment of the rights of both sides, as acknowledged in the Treaty.

Secondly, if I say there is no hurdle from the Indian side, that wouldn't be true either. There are certain mechanisms and design parameters that have been defined in the 1960 Treaty, between the two countries. If the conditions are not met, ultimately the required flow of water to Pakistan will be affected.

Let me also say that India has not reduced the due share of water to Pakistan. For example, when India set up Baglihar Dam, in 2008, the cusecs of water from India to Marala was reduced from 55,000 to 38,000. It was then that the issue was raised. We want that India should provide all information to us according to the Treaty, before it starts any project on the said rivers. For example, India didn't provide us information at least six month prior to starting a project on Indus. This is against the rules in the Treaty.

TNS: Is it true that the Kishenganga hydropower project of India is in violation of the Treaty? Also, it is said that New Delhi has started preparations for building another big dam on Chenab river?

SJAS: We have repeatedly asked India to give us details of the proposed water storage and hydropower projects, including Bursar Dam. However, India's stance remains that it is aware of its legal obligations and will let Pakistan know of the project details six months ahead of the construction work.

We have also requested the government to quickly move the International Court of Arbitration in order to stop the construction of the controversial Kishenganga project. Pakistan has already nominated two members for the court. The procedure laid down in the Treaty requires the two nations to nominate two adjudicators, each of their choice, and then to jointly nominate three members to complete the composition of a seven-member court of arbitration.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Mar 2010 08:33

Vivek_A wrote:Now TSP wants to review the "spirit" of the treaty...

"There is a need to review the spirit of the Treaty"

-- Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Indus Waters Commissioner

Syed Jamaat Ali Shah: We want the Indus Waters Treaty implemented, in letter as well as in spirit.

The Pakistani Indus Commissioner has, on more than one occassion, accepted that India was not stealing waters and that there was a natural reduction in flows. He realizes that this natural reduction, coupled with the rights on the Western rivers given to India, which India has not exploited, will impact Pakistan. As abrogating the Treaty was next to impossible, it is calling for the 'spirit of the treaty'. If we look historically at the spirit, Pakistan exhibited the usual hate India spirit only before, during and after the Treaty. At the time of negotiating the Treaty, it first wanted to give us just 15.5 MAF of water only and later revised it to say that it wanted to take 70% of the Eastern rivers and all of the flows of the Western rivers. It wanted money for its part of the water works and India paid 62 Million Pound Sterling. It accused India of violating the Treaty when India started planning the Bhakra Nangal and delayed the project by 3 years. Ever since it has been accusing India on imaginary charges in the cases of Uri, Salal, Tulbul, Baglihar, Ranbir & Pratap canals, embankment on Ravi etc. So much for the contrast in the spirit between Pakistan and India.

SJAS: We have also requested the government to quickly move the International Court of Arbitration in order to stop the construction of the controversial Kishenganga project. Pakistan has already nominated two members for the court. The procedure laid down in the Treaty requires the two nations to nominate two adjudicators, each of their choice, and then to jointly nominate three members to complete the composition of a seven-member court of arbitration.

The IWT offers two mechanisms for resolution of disputes, one, the Neutral Expert and two, Court of Arbitration. The IWT also specifies clearly what disputes can be adjudicated by the NE and what should go to the Arbitration Court.

The IWT specifies the difference/dispute resolution mechism as follows in Article IX titled "SETTLEMENT OF DIFFERENCES AND DISPUTES"

(a) Any difference which, in the opinion of either Commissioner, falls within the provisions of Part I of Annexure F shall, at the request of either Commissioner, be dealt with by a Neutral Expert in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of Annexure F;
(b) If the difference does not come within the provisions of Paragraph (2) (a), or if a Neutral Expert, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 7 of Annexure F. has informed the Commission that, in his opinion, the difference, or a part thereof, should be treated as a dispute, then a dispute will be deemed to have arisen which shall be settled in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5)
Provided that, at the discretion of the Commission, any difference may either be dealt with by a Neutral Expert in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of Annexure F or be deemed to be a dispute to be settled in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), or may be settled in any other way agreed upon by the Commission.

Annexure F of IWT deals with questions to be referred to the NE and states, among other things :

(12) Whether or not the operation by India of any plant constructed in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of Annexure D conforms to the criteria set out in Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of that Annexure.
(13) Whether or not any new hydroelectric plant on an irrigation channel taking off the Western Rivers conforms to the provisos to Paragraph 24 of Annexure D.

Part 3 of Annexure D sets out parameters for building new Run-of-River Hydroelectric plants on the Western rivers by India.

Paragraph 15 deals with how India must deliver waters back into downstream after impounding them for at most seven days only. It gives specific details about such plants on Chenab & Jhelum
Paragraph 16 deals with the definition of what constitutes a 24-hour period.
Paragraph 17 deals with exceptions to Paragraph 15 while filling up the pondage, for which purpose India is allowed some tolerances.

It is therefore quite clear that the matter of Kishenganga should normally go to an NE. However, having been bitten by the NE before, Pakistan wants to try its luck with a larger bench of the Court of Arbitration.

arun · Post by **arun** » 01 Mar 2010 09:06

Vivek_A wrote:Now TSP wants to review the "spirit" of the treaty...

"There is a need to review the spirit of the Treaty"

-- Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Indus Waters Commissioner

Comment of Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Indus Waters Commissioner from the interview linked:

The run-of-river hydroelectric plants are also allowed. But there is no allowance for making power on Indus and selling it to Mumbai. These plants were allowed on the condition that they would be curtailed within Kashmir.

My reading of the IWT is that it does not stipulate that the electricity generated by a run-of-river hydroelectric plant on the Western rivers has to be used “within Kashmir” as claimed by Syed Jamaat Ali Shah.

Confirmation anyone?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 01 Mar 2010 09:18

The pakistanis are pissed at the Kishenganga project at Gurez because it diverts water into the wular lake to aid the tulbul navigation project in the valley. The people of the Kashmir valley will benefit the most. Ultimately this water will flow into POK via the jhelum at uri.

Needless crying of the wolf by the pakistanis. They can't tolerate development in the valley. They can't tolerate develoment in Afghanistan. They lack the ability or the intent to do any development themselves, but will cry from the rooftops when India does it.

SSridhar garu, if you view google earth, and are interested I can send you some interesting placemarks on the various projects being discussed here. An entirely new perspective emerges once you see things in 3D on GE.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 01 Mar 2010 09:51

arun wrote:
Vivek_A wrote:Now TSP wants to review the "spirit" of the treaty...

"There is a need to review the spirit of the Treaty"

-- Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Indus Waters Commissioner

Comment of Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Indus Waters Commissioner from the interview linked:

The run-of-river hydroelectric plants are also allowed. But there is no allowance for making power on Indus and selling it to Mumbai. These plants were allowed on the condition that they would be curtailed within Kashmir.
My reading of the IWT is that it does not stipulate that the electricity generated by a run-of-river hydroelectric plant on the Western rivers has to be used “within Kashmir” as claimed by Syed Jamaat Ali Shah.

Confirmation anyone?

It really does not make any difference because the incoming power to J&K, generated in the mainland, can be diverted to the same extent of extra power generated in the state.

Its high time that this state was also treated just like an any other state. We have mollycoddled them at the expense of others for far too long. This is a democracy. Largesse as well as poverty should be shared equally, especially poverty.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Mar 2010 10:27

arun wrote:
The run-of-river hydroelectric plants are also allowed. But there is no allowance for making power on Indus and selling it to Mumbai.

By the same token, can we say that the waters should also be used only within Kashmir ? Let's see where these rivers originate. The Sutlej originates near Mt. Kailash along with the Indus. The Chenab river originates in the Kulu and Kangra districts of Himachal Pradesh. Ravi river rises in Himacahl Pradesh. Beas river originates near Rohtang Pass in Himachal Pradesh. Only Jhelum originates within Kashmir. What is Jamaat Ali Shah talking about ?

How come, the Mangla Dam at Mirpur (in Kashmir) generates power and wheels it over to Pakistan ? How will Pakistan use the 969 MW of power it plans to generate at Muzzafarabad in Kashmir from its Neelum-Jhelum project all within Kashmir itself ?

This is the 'spirit of IWT' that Pakistan is talking about.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 01 Mar 2010 10:39

SSridhar wrote:
By the same token, can we say that the waters should also be used only within Kashmir ? Let's see where these rivers originate. The Sutlej originates near Mt. Kailash along with the Indus. The Chenab river originates in the Kulu and Kangra districts of Himachal Pradesh. Ravi river rises in Himacahl Pradesh. Beas river originates near Rohtang Pass in Himachal Pradesh. Only Jhelum originates within Kashmir. What is Jamaat Ali Shah talking about ?

How come, the Mangla Dam at Mirpur (in Kashmir) generates power and wheels it over to Pakistan ? How will Pakistan use the 969 MW of power it plans to generate at Muzzafarabad in Kashmir from its Neelum-Jhelum project all within Kashmir itself ?

This is the 'spirit of IWT' that Pakistan is talking about.

SSridhar garu,

First principle of TSP negotiation.

What's ours is ours.

What's your's we negotiate.

May be he means another kind of spirit, where you need to add some IWT water in a glass.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 01 Mar 2010 22:30

Sindh Water Woes

Sindhi dailies and private television channels report that there are villages where water even for ablution and burial rituals is not found and is purchased from far-flung areas. This is indeed a pitiable situation.

Another misinformed TSPian

The Indian government has already started the construction of three dams illegally on the Chenab River, and obviously it will pay no heed to the ICA regarding construction of the fourth dam.

The US and UK governments will also not help Pakistan in this regard, as they will not want to annoy India.

The Pakistan government should immediately warn the Indian government that the construction of any illegal dam will be considered an act of war, and that the Pakistan government will react accordingly.

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Mar 2010 08:08

Tapan Bose, Secretary General of the Indian Chapter of Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD):

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

COMMENT: Plain talk by Indian visitors —Babar Ayaz

………………… The establishment in Islamabad is in fact more interested in ensuring the free flow of water in the rivers allocated to it in the Indus Water Treaty, the concern for the Kashmiris is just an emotive packaging. No country wants to sound materialistic; no wars were fought in the name of material interests — all had altruistic or ideological labelling.

Pro-peace activists and writers had always argued that water distribution under the Indus Water Treaty has withstood the strain of two wars and a Kargil battle between the two countries. But ever since India has started making dams on the rivers allocated to Pakistan, the lobby which demands that Kashmir should be given to Pakistan reminds us that Mr Jinnah has rightly called Kashmir the “jugular vein of Pakistan”. When I talked to Tapan Bose about the potential threat to the peace movement from the water dispute between the two countries, he said that it should be decided in the light of the treaty. He says as an environmentalist he is against big dams in any case. He also pointed out that Kashmiris were not happy about the treaty because they feel India and Pakistan had distributed their river waters without even discussing it with them. At the same time, the Indian stance is that building dams on the rivers for producing electricity is permissible under the Indus Water Treaty. Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah agrees that India has the right to make run-of-river projects and that it can provide water to the villages at the border for daily use. But he thinks India should not sell electricity produced for Kashmir to Maharashtra. In this atmosphere of trust deficit between the two countries, it is easy to build public opinion in Pakistan against India on the sensitive water issue.

Thus, the most immediate task for the peace activists is to study the water issue in depth and develop an effective communications campaign. The Indian peace activists should create public opinion that the Indus Water Treaty should not be violated. Small dams should be made only for electricity production and not for irrigation of land. And India should compensate Pakistan on mutually agreed terms for the water that is blocked for the storage of a dam............

Daily Times

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Mar 2010 11:51

arun wrote:Tapan Bose, Secretary General of the Indian Chapter of Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD):

Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah agrees that India has the right to make run-of-river projects and that it can provide water to the villages at the border for daily use. But he thinks India should not sell electricity produced for Kashmir to Maharashtra. . . . The Indian peace activists should create public opinion that the Indus Water Treaty should not be violated. Small dams should be made only for electricity production and not for irrigation of land. And India should compensate Pakistan on mutually agreed terms for the water that is blocked for the storage of a dam............

Daily Times

I don't know what Tapan Bose, whomsoever peace activist he is, has told the Pakistani gentleman regarding taking electricity outside of Kashmir. Apart from the reasons I posted earlier, the continuous campaign by Pakistan tries to drive a wedge between Kashmiris and the rest of the Indians as also suureptitiously propagating the myth that Kashmir does not belong to India. This should not be allowed to proceed any further at all even by the candlekissers.

Secondly, regarding big dams etc. India has not built, nor is the terrain suitable for building, dams big or small. Whatever India is building are all purely hydroelectric projects as stringently laid out by the IWT.

On the question of what India should do, there is no need for a Pakistani to lecture us that we should not violate the IWT. The mere fact that the Treaty has been successful testifies to the scrupulous adherence to the Treaty by India, the upper riparian. There is therefore no need to create within India an awareness that IWT should not be violated. The awareness that India also has rights and it is only exercising its rights and it has never violated the treaty and that it has been very generous with Pakistan must be driven home to Pakistani masses. This cognitive dissonance must be attempted by the candlekissers and peace activists from their side.

As for any compensation, there are provisions within IWT to resolve if bot the parties do not agree on the issue.

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Mar 2010 07:39

X Posted.

Article suggests that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan having been stymied by India in attaching the territory of Jammu & Kashmir both by the overt use of force in wars and by the covert use of force via Islamic jihadi terrorism is now changing tack and is seeking to detach the resources of Jammu & Kashmir, rather than territory, through external balancers:

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

WASHINGTON DIARY: India-Pakistan conundrum —Dr Manzur Ejaz

…………… For Pakistan, the territory of Kashmir may not be as important as the water issue. If the Pakistani claims are valid, then Indian infringements into the rivers running from its territory into Pakistan will leave major parts of Pakistan barren. Agriculture is not possible in Punjab and Sindh without river water. Therefore, unless Pakistan is assured on the supply of water, it will never abandon the proxies that can keep India on its toes by destabilising Kashmir.

Many world experts have predicted that future wars will be fought over water. States within India, like Punjab and Sindh in Pakistan, are continuously at each other’s throats because of this scarce natural resource. If federating units within India and Pakistan cannot forgo their claims, how will the two hostile nations? Therefore, the Indo-Pak dispute over water in the garb of the Kashmir problem is not unique and will not go away unless credible international organisations provide effective guarantees. …………….

Daily Times

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Mar 2010 08:27

'Water' in India-Pakistan talks - Ramaswami R Iyer

Mr. Iyer was ex-Secretary for Water Resources for GoI and is eminently qualified to comment on IWT. Read in full this fine article.
Excerpts

Pakistan wishes to bring water on to the agenda for future talks. Siddharth Varadarajan (“Water as the carrier of concord with Pakistan,” The Hindu, February 25) takes a benign view of this development and sees in it a positive potential for cooperation. I should like to put forward a different perspective.

India is reported to have told Pakistan that there is no case for including water in the agenda for the ‘composite dialogue' (as and when resumed) because there is another forum for talking about it; but Pakistan is likely to persist in its efforts.

The first and most obvious one is that Pakistan wants to deflect attention from the Indian focus on terrorism, and unsettle India by accusing it of wrongdoing on water. The second explanation is that an attempt is being made to shift attention away from inter-provincial conflicts within Pakistan over water and other matters by portraying India as the cause of water-shortages in Pakistan, and bringing the disputing provinces together by rousing national anger against the national enemy, India. The third explanation is that Pakistan is indeed dissatisfied with the working of the Indus Treaty and feels that it must be on the agenda for any serious India-Pakistan talks. Possibly, a combination of all three factors lies behind Pakistan's move to raise the subject of water.

The inclusion of water in the India-Pakistan talks might give the world the impression that water is an unresolved issue between the two countries

Even more important is the fact that water is a highly sensitive issue over which passions are easily roused.

A feeling of insecurity over this life-sustaining substance, and the further feeling that it can be used as a weapon of war by an enemy country, can be used to mobilise the whole country against India. On this subject, as on the Kashmir issue, even members of ‘civil society' (including intellectuals, academics and others who advocate good relations with India) are likely to echo the government/army view (or the view that these cynically put forward), and anger against India will blaze across Pakistan.

(It may be recalled that in October 2008, the Pakistani media and general public were led to believe that India had stopped the flow of the Chenab, when all that had happened was that India was doing the initial one-time filling of the reservoir of the newly constructed — and arbitrated — Baglihar Project, and it took a day or two for the water to reach the spillway gates, placed high as required by the Treaty, and flow to the other side. If the gates had been still higher as Pakistan wanted, it would have taken some more time for the water to reach them.)

If water does come on to the agenda of India-Pakistan talks, even international opinion may be tilted towards Pakistan because the sympathy of the world is generally with the lower riparian rather than the upper riparian. {Very, very true}

Insofar as the feeling of unfair division of the waters is concerned, it exists in India too, and is quite strong.

However, in any such re-negotiation, either side would want to change the Treaty to its own advantage; and it is clearly impossible for both sides to succeed in that effort. The best course, therefore, would be to leave the Treaty alone and try and operate it in a spirit of constructive cooperation.

However, it is a fact that lower riparians do feel a visceral anxiety about upper riparian control. That is why the Indus Treaty 1960 contains elaborate provisions to safeguard the interests of Pakistan.

Pakistan would of course be happy if there were no Indian projects at all on the western rivers; but that is not what the Treaty says.

Finally, is there a scope for ‘cooperation' or for joint projects under the Treaty? There is hardly any ground for such a ‘positive' view. The ideal course of joint integrated management of the Indus basin as a whole by the two countries was ruled out by the circumstances of Partition and the bitter hostility of the two countries. Instead, a division of the waters was agreed upon, with stringent restrictions on Indian use to safeguard the interests of Pakistan. The Treaty is thus a partitioning Treaty. The land was partitioned in 1947, and the waters were partitioned in 1960. There is indeed an article on cooperation (art. VII), but the kind of cooperation that it envisages is extremely limited. It is hardly possible to base any large visions of cooperation on that article.

. . . if the raising of water as a subject for discussion is in fact a disingenuous tactical move, how can that provide a basis for a constructive new relationship?

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Mar 2010 09:00

^^^ I do hope that the Congress party led UPA Government of Dr. Manmohan Singh heeds the advise of Ramaswamy R Iyer against permitting the inclusion of water in talks outside the mechanism of the Indus Water Treaty with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and does not in a moment of unguarded charity foist on India a CBM that agrees to this.

Speaking of Ramaswamy R Iyer, reminds of his pointing out in a 2008 article in Dawn that the water woes faced by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was very likely a consequence of the Islamic Republic being too clever by half in the Baglihar arbitration

.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s insistence on raising the high level outlets of Baglihar has resulted in their being hoist by their own petard

:

December 08, 2008 Monday Zilhaj 9, 1429

Water dispute takes serious turn

By Ashfak Bokhari ………………………..

Ramaswamy R. Iyer, India’s former secretary for water resources who was involved in this case, gave a different explanation on October 31 for the reduction in flows. He says that in accordance with the project design, there are no low-level outlets in the reservoir. The treaty stipulates high-level outlets, and one of Pakistan’s objections was that they were not high enough.

The absence of low-level outlets, he says, means that as the reservoir is being filled, there can be no flow beyond the dam until the level of the outlets has been reached. It follows that for a short period the condition of a minimum flow of 55,000 cusec cannot be met. In a sense, he says, there is an internal contradiction in the treaty. If the condition of high placement of outlets is met, the minimum-flow condition cannot be met during the filling. Perhaps, Pakistan did not realise this consequence.

That the minimum flow could have been maintained from some other source is not a requirement under the treaty, for the simple reason that the possibility of reduced or no flows because of the absence of low-level outlets is not recognised by it. Such a possibility, Iyer says, ought to have been discussed in the Indus Commission. In fact, the best course for Pakistan would have been to have agreed at the Commission-level on the modalities of filling of the reservoir, as provided for in the treaty.

The capacity of the ‘pondage’ has been reduced on the arbitrator’s recommendations so as to take care of Pakistan’s concerns. But the right course would be to provide low-level outlets in it. . ………………

Dawn