Indus Water Treaty

[muraliravi]

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.

Sridhar Sir,

Why on earth is Chenab even classified as a western river under the IWT, it originates completely in Himachal, why should porkis get any share from that. Even we assume that its course leads it to pakistan, IWT gives us limited use of western rivers and in that limited use of a river that originates in himachal, that is ridiculous. I am not saying Jhelum falls under a different category since it originates in kashmir, but their at least, porkis could have use international opinion to get classified as a western river, but why chenab. the full treaty looks heavily unbalanced against us in my opinion

[Aditya_V]

Is there anyway we can Khan to make the Pak come with a brilliant Strategy. Withdraw from the presetn IWT and then renogiate.

[chetak]

Is there anyway we can Khan to make the Pak come with a brilliant Strategy. Withdraw from the presetn IWT and then renogiate.

The pakis always negotiate with a gun to their own heads.

Wait for them to come to you.

Khan does not understand water disputes, always having had plenty of it.

[Gagan]

Aren't the low level outlets that Mr Iyer talks about, the ones used for desilting the dam? Pakistan was objecting to this because their own dams did not have this (lack of foresight on their part) and they feared silt flowing down and accumulating in their dams.

[SSridhar]

Why on earth is Chenab even classified as a western river under the IWT, it originates completely in Himachal, why should porkis get any share from that. Even we assume that its course leads it to Pakistan, IWT gives us limited use of western rivers and in that limited use of a river that originates in Himachal, that is ridiculous. I am not saying Jhelum falls under a different category since it originates in kashmir, but their at least, porkis could have use international opinion to get classified as a western river, but why Chenab. the full treaty looks heavily unbalanced against us in my opinion

For that we have to go back to the conditions prevailing at the negotiation time and the mindset. The initial Indian claim itself was 29 MAF, which it later revised to claim the entire waters of Ravi, Beas & Sutlej plus 7% of waters from the Jhelum, Chenab. The final conclusion of the treaty was closer to the India demands. The terminology of 'Western' and 'Eastern' rivers was introduced to make it easy to refer to these rivers.

In fact, the World Bank which was mediating the Treaty wanted an integrated management of all the Indus rivers and their basins, but it was impossible.

[milindc]

Aren't the low level outlets that Mr Iyer talks about, the ones used for desilting the dam? Pakistan was objecting to this because their own dams did not have this (lack of foresight on their part) and they feared silt flowing down and accumulating in their dams.

If I remember correctly they did take notice of silt problem. I don't remember the exact solution.

Added later:
From Ramaswamy's article http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/01/stories ... 861000.htm

(iii) He {neutral expert} has not accepted Pakistan's contention that the bottoms of the spillway gates are not at the highest possible level. He points out that the sluice spillways as designed by India in this case serve two purposes, namely, sediment control and the evacuation of the design flood. On these considerations, and in accordance with international practice and the state-of-the-art, he finds the placement of the spillway gates acceptable. (In fact, he feels that they should be 8 m lower.) He has recognised the need for annual drawdown sluicing for proper reservoir maintenance. As for the placement of these outlets below the dead storage level, he has pointed out that while the portion below the DSL cannot be used for operational purposes (i.e., for power-generation), there is no prohibition of its use for maintenance purposes. He has stressed that maintenance is an absolute necessity.

[chetak]

This is why kiyani, hafiz saeed, and various other paki goons are so
" agitated " over water.

They are desperate to bring it into the composite dialogue in a sly and cynical manner. And inflame unwashed abdul passions as usual.

http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article125277.ece

Why then is Pakistan raising ‘water' as a subject for India-Pakistan talks, and why is it giving it considerable salience?

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. It is therefore necessary to understand why it is doing so. There are three possible explanations.

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.

This seems to me a dubious and dangerous move. 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 and, worse still, that India implicitly accepts that it has given Pakistan cause for complaints about water.

Even more important is the fact that water is a highly sensitive issue over which passions are easily roused. After the attack on Mumbai, when there was some uneasiness in Pakistan, the Pakistan army was able to rally the entire country behind it (the army) by raising the bogey of war and causing the spirit of nationalism to surge and drown all other feelings. Water is an issue that has similar potential. 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.

[SSridhar]

Water issue can lead to nuclear war: Kasuri

PML-Q (likeminded group) Steering Committee Chairman Khursheed Mahmood Kasuri has said that water is the most important issue between Pakistan and India and if they do not take it seriously, it can lead to an atomic war.

Kasuri termed the water issue a sensitive matter between India and Pakistan and the Indian government should adopt a serious strategy in this regard.

[chaanakya]

Water issue can lead to nuclear war: Kasuri

PML-Q (likeminded group) Steering Committee Chairman Khursheed Mahmood Kasuri has said that water is the most important issue between Pakistan and India and if they do not take it seriously, it can lead to an atomic war.

Kasuri termed the water issue a sensitive matter between India and Pakistan and the Indian government should adopt a serious strategy in this regard.

What if India agrees to discuss water issue provided POK is vacated and handed over to IN , renounce their claims on whole of J&K, hand over listed terrorists, stop support to terrorist organization and allow IN to conduct dronisation of terror camps in PK

daydreaming??

[anupmisra]

Water issue can lead to nuclear war: Kasuri

water is the most important issue between Pakistan and India and if they do not take it seriously, it can lead to an atomic war.

Pakis are once again negotiating with a gun pointed to their own heads. Typical of them to use ex-ministers with complete deniability. The big question: is the gun loaded? I think not. But that strategy (of paki negotiations) certainly gets the west's (and many in India) attention all the time.

[Nihat]

this cannot go on for long , there is a limit to even blowing Hot air. It is admitted even in the highest ranks of TSP that India has the right to build run of the river dams across Kashmir and there is nothing anyone can do about it. I for one am extremly glad that we are excersicing our right and if this becomes the cause of un-intended Khujli across the border then so be it.

Going to the world bank will cause embarresment yet again to the land of the pure so that option is ruled out , they clearly don't have the will and the resources to wage a war. It'll be very very intresting to see what they intend to do from here onwards.

[SSridhar]

What if India agrees to discuss water issue provided POK is vacated and handed over to IN , renounce their claims on whole of J&K, hand over listed terrorists, stop support to terrorist organization and allow IN to conduct dronisation of terror camps in PK

daydreaming??

Yes, you are. Is Kashmir, which Pakistan calls as ‘an unfinished agenda of Partition’, a territorial dispute ? While most conflicts in history are territorial in nature, it will be incorrect to dismiss the India-Pakistan conflict as purely territorial because there are other equally, if not more, important factors involved in this, though Kashmir is often that casus belli that Pakistan cites. As events have shown, religion as well as the need to acquire and protect resources, especially territory and water played a central part in the nascent stages of the Kashmir dispute. There was also another militarist reason which was the Pakistani desire of Kashmir acting as a buffer between itself and India since its principal garrison cities were uncomfortably within easy reach from Indian borders. However, the other factors slowly receded into the background as religious fervour overtook them. Now there are two groups. One wants waters because the reality is hitting them. The other are the religious jihadi groups who are fitting 'water' into their agenda.

[arun]

What if India agrees to discuss water issue provided POK is vacated and handed over to IN , renounce their claims on whole of J&K, hand over listed terrorists, stop support to terrorist organization and allow IN to conduct dronisation of terror camps in PK

daydreaming??

Perish the thought!

From the article in the Hindu by our former Secretary Water Resources Ramaswamy R Iyer linked by Sridhar on the previous page.:

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 and, worse still, that India implicitly accepts that it has given Pakistan cause for complaints about water. …………………..

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.

[Gagan]

1. The way to desilt the dams is to have low level desilting channels so that the silt can be washed off periodically with the flow. The WB had in fact recommended that India include this in all dams in kashmir when the issue of Baglihar went there for arbitration.

2. Pakistan's two big dams, Tarbela and Mangla don't have desilting channels, and they are filling up with silt, their reservoir capacity is decreasing year after year. There is nothing that pakistan can do about it. Their lack of foresight is biting them bad. Now both these dams, mangla specially provide the bulk of the water to the canal system which irrigates pakistani punjab.

3. Pakistan is indeed blowing hot over the water issue. Their planning commission chairma has in the past threatened war with India on this issue [link].
The problem is that after threatening dire consquences, what will Pakistan do?
A few jihadi attacks? Sure.
A war with India? Never.

Their bluff will be called by India, as in the past, and they will rush to WB/China/USA for arbitration, only to be rebuffed or have the decision go in India's favour. The end result will be a severe loss of face for Pakistan. But they should have known better than to raise the issue needlessly to such an extent. If they back down, they're damned, if they carry it forward, they're damned.

Exactly like it happened with the Atlantique shoot down, after threatening war for a few days, Nawaz Sharif could do nothing except to go to ICJ, where their case was thrown out. (But those were difficult circumstances for Nawaz as he was fighting for survival with a coup looming around the corner after Kargil)

[abhishek_sharma]

"We will have to look beyond the Indus Water Treaty."

Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah talks to Dawn.com about the urgent need to resolve water-sharing disputes.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... at-shah-02

What are the adverse impacts of this one project according to the Indus Water Treaty? One, it reduces our annual energy generation. Two, the Kishenganga project also has an environmental impact because the depth of the water is reduced and this has an impact on the flora and fauna in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through which the Neelum flows. Three, there are technical problems in the design of the Kishenganga project such as the height of the gates and so on.

Q. But India contends that that it started its Kishenganga project earlier than Pakistan’s Neelum-Jhelum project. According to the Indus Water Treaty, India may construct a power plant on the rivers given to Pakistan provided it does not interfere with existing hydro-electric use by Pakistan. Is this true?

A. Yes. But the Jhelum waters were given to Pakistan. And going by the spirit of the treaty, while the waters are Pakistan’s to use, both countries can accrue benefits. When India made its plans known to Pakistan, that did not mean Pakistan did not have the intention [of constructing a plant]. In 1989, we told India that we are constructing a project there. India wanted to inspect the site. At the time, it was only a small exploration tunnel. Now the intention has been shown, with the Chinese being given the project. So we have a legal case.

Moreover, while the total quantity of water has not been changed, there are no guarantees that India will not store or divert water into the Wullar barrage. Certainly, re-routing will impact the flow-time and therefore reduce the quantum of water [to Pakistan].

Q. Where are talks between India and Pakistan on the Kishenganga project now?

A. In 1988, we came to know about Kishenganga and we asked for details. We were told that India was just conducting investigations. India is obliged by the treaty only to give detailed plans six months prior to construction.

In 1992 or 1993, India asked to conduct its first inspection of the site of the Neelum-Jhleum project in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. That was when there was just an underground tunnel. India told us unofficially that the tunnel was an eye-wash.

...

The commission held five meetings between 1994 and 2006 and the storage height of the dam was ultimately reduced by 40 metres. But by 2006, Kishenganga became a run-off project. Pakistan’s position was that this is a new project, the run-off was not in the 1994 project, and the 1994 project should be considered abandoned.


...

Q. Will Pakistan be taking up other Indian projects with the World Bank?

A. As I said, India is planning two more power projects on the River Indus. But those of concern are the ones on the Chenab because we don’t have any storage site there. So the Chenab is more vulnerable. After constructing three, including Baglihar, India intends to construct 10 to 12 more dams on the Chenab and its tributaries.

Certainly, the treaty gives India the right, but the designs should be compliant. Already, India constructed the Wullar barrage unilaterally without informing Pakistan.

Q. It is said that the Baglihar dam issue was settled by the World Bank in India’s favour because Pakistan did not raise the objections in time. Do you agree with that?

A. Both parties had different points of view. When we approached the World Bank, India blocked us because it did not want a neutral expert. So the fact that a neutral expert was appointed was a small victory. The expert asked for documentation from us, which we provided. India believed that Pakistan was maligning them, but the fact is that the neutral expert settled three points in favour of Pakistan and one in India’s favour. And both parties bore the cost of the proceedings.

Both India and Pakistan need these waters and there is a need for candidness and transparency. Political considerations should not shadow the technical aspects. Unfortunately, the technical side is subordinate to the political side.

For example, India did not provide us updated flow data. In August 2008, India violated the treaty by not providing accurate data on the initial filling of the Baglihar dam. The treaty says the initial filling should not reduce the water flowing into Pakistan. So the initial filling of the Baglihar reduced Pakistan’s water and India should compensate for the lost water.

Q. What impact has the construction of Indian power projects had on Pakistan’s waters? We are, after all, facing shortages for agricultural use and electricity generation.

A. Apart from the Baglihar dam, neither Pakistan nor India has had problems with the Indus Water Treaty. But looking to the future, I foresee problems, especially given climate changes. India has already constructed 50-60, medium-sized projects and it plans more than a hundred. One hundred and fifty will be in the small catchment areas in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This is human intervention: imagine how many trees will be cut, and the resulting environmental impact? They will also impact Pakistan’s water, given the environmental degradation and increased sediment flow.

I think we will now have to look beyond the treaty for solutions. India is allowed run-off hydro-electric projects according to the treaty, but two or three is different from more than a hundred.

In 1960, Pakistan did not want to give three of its rivers to India, but it did. But clearly the World Bank had not factored in climate change and the impact of human intervention. I think the World Bank treaty is likely to be jeopardised. Already, we are facing a shortage in the western rivers, how can we then compensate for the lack of water in the eastern rivers?

Q. Do you think it is time to expand the scope of the treaty?

A. There are some issues with that. Right now, we need to protect and implement the treaty in its full spirit without re-visiting it. But both governments should initiate talks along with expert stakeholders.

Q. Would this be in India’s interest?

A. Yes, because we are neighbours. The Indus Water Treaty was not a happy marriage but we accepted it. But Pakistan should take action at the appropriate time: what happens to the state of Bahawalpur where the rivers Sutlej and Ravi are dry?

[chaanakya]

What if India agrees to discuss water issue provided POK is vacated and handed over to IN , renounce their claims on whole of J&K, hand over listed terrorists, stop support to terrorist organization and allow IN to conduct dronisation of terror camps in PK

daydreaming??

Yes, you are. Is Kashmir, which Pakistan calls as ‘an unfinished agenda of Partition’, a territorial dispute ? While most conflicts in history are territorial in nature, it will be incorrect to dismiss the India-Pakistan conflict as purely territorial because there are other equally, if not more, important factors involved in this, though Kashmir is often that casus belli that Pakistan cites. As events have shown, religion as well as the need to acquire and protect resources, especially territory and water played a central part in the nascent stages of the Kashmir dispute. There was also another militarist reason which was the Pakistani desire of Kashmir acting as a buffer between itself and India since its principal garrison cities were uncomfortably within easy reach from Indian borders. However, the other factors slowly receded into the background as religious fervour overtook them. Now there are two groups. One wants waters because the reality is hitting them. The other are the religious jihadi groups who are fitting 'water' into their agenda.

Yes I know, , such a course is nothing but simplistic characterization of issues between pk-IN. That is what Kasuri would be doing if he thinks pk would go nuclear on water.

However these are the very demands raised in so many words by IN in different fora. Parl. resolution says JK is part of IN .
IN demands stopping support to terrorists working against IN. Numerous lists have been given to pk , though fallen on deaf years.
Last one of dronisation is what was once thought of hot persuit ... once upon a time in IN.

as for JK issue , rightly pointed out that it is a complex issue and well discussed here and elsewhere. existence of a muslim majority state with democratic elections years after years raises question on the very basis of formation of pk. all other aspects are strategic, tactical or operational matter.

I think , given sufficient time, pk is capable of dismembering itself and collapse under weight of its own contradictions. or may be one day aam janta of pk realise that they have been sold on day dreams and join the family.

and sridhar , I really admire the depth of your understanding of IWT among other issues.

and arun, , such thoughts are perished the moment they come out of mouthpiece of spokesperson of me(culp)a.
IA is perfectly capable of teaching pk , the question is how do we neutralize others from intervening in pk-IN conflict before objectives are fully achieved, as in '71.

However , Mr Iyer is not fully right. except pk no other country has blamed IN for pk's perceived water deprivations.

[Theo_Fidel]

2. Pakistan's two big dams, Tarbela and Mangla don't have desilting channels, and they are filling up with silt, their reservoir capacity is decreasing year after year. There is nothing that pakistan can do about it. Their lack of foresight is biting them bad. Now both these dams, mangla specially provide the bulk of the water to the canal system which irrigates pakistani punjab.

Desilting sluices don not help with large storage reservoirs.

They only help with smaller Hydel type pondage dams which have very small dead capacities.

In any case there are desilting techniques that could still be built by TSP, such as for stilling pools, flood bypass channels, etc. But these are expensive. TSP like to sit on their rear and complain.

[arun]

Excerpt from the article devoted to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The article also deals with Yemen:

Grist.org / By Steven Solomon

Why Availability of Freshwater Is a Huge Factor in the 'War on Terror'

Water and national security may not seem at first to be interconnected. But they are-increasingly so as the global freshwater scarcity crisis deepens.

March 4, 2010 ………………………………..

As dangerous as Yemen is as a failed state, it pales in comparison to Pakistan, which is nuclear-armed, Taliban-besieged, regionally fractious, and severely water fragile. Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida’s core leadership are believed to be hiding out in its rugged northwest regions.

American leaders had a big fright in April 2009 when Muslim fundamentalist Taliban fighters broke out of the northwestern provinces and struck within 25 miles of the Indus River’s giant Tarbela Dam, a critical site they’d attacked through terrorism before, and only 30 miles from the capital, Islamabad. The Tarbela Dam is the strategic heart of Pakistan’s irrigation, hydropower, and flood-control network. If the Taliban damaged or took control of the giant dam, and gained critical leverage over Pakistan’s food and energy security, the government’s viability would be imperiled.

While Pakistan’s American-trained elite counterterrorism forces and air power quickly rallied to beat back the Taliban, the U.S. responded to the Taliban’s show of strength in the spring of 2009 by accelerating its $7.5 billion five-year aid package to Pakistan—the lion’s share of which is focused on rehabilitating the nation’s perilously deteriorating and inadequate agricultural and hydropower waterworks. During her tumultuous October 2009 visit to Pakistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was repeatedly warned about the nation’s impending freshwater crisis.

At the heart of Pakistan’s crisis is the Indus River, its water lifeline and foundation of its farm economy, which provides the livelihood for 60 percent of Pakistanis. It’s already so badly overused that its water rarely reaches its now dried-up delta, and its huge fertile irrigated basin cropland is heavily reliant on overpumped groundwater and in dire need of a refurbished drainage system to remove poisoning salts. The Indus River also faces an alarming loss of up to a third of its flow by 2025 from the global warming–induced melting of its source Himalayan glaciers. In the same period, moreover, the nation’s population will grow 30 percent more to 225 million. Global climate change is further menacing monsoonal Pakistan with more unpredictable and intense seasonal floods and droughts. In a country where the water-storage capacity to buffer prolonged drought and loss of hydropower is only 30 days—1/30th as much as in the U.S. and 1/15th as much as in China—the effects of climate change can quickly become catastrophic and destabilizing.

Complicating Pakistan’s water crisis is that most of its water originates outside its borders, in archenemy, nuclear-armed India—with whom it has fought several wars and still heatedly disputes the Kashmir border region—as well as in Afghanistan and China. The Indus water dispute with India, which helped trigger the first war between the countries, was resolved with a 1960 treaty. But under the strain of population growth and climate change, the treaty is in dire need of renegotiation. One source of tension is that both countries are building new hydropower dams on Indus tributaries in the Kashmir. Pakistan is also highly suspicious of India’s increased aid to Afghanistan for dams on rivers that flow into Pakistan; it fears it is an Indian subterfuge to put Pakistan in an east-west hydrological vise once America leaves Afghanistan. For their part, the Pakistanis have awarded their dam contract to China, India’s adversary with whom it has its own water disputes and testy political relations.

The chessboard of Pakistan’s destiny is immensely complex, of course. But how it manages its critical water challenges—both from internal and external pressures—is one of the paramount variables in whether it will hold together as a coherent nation-state. Given its nukes, radical Muslim fundamentalists, and regional stature, what happens to it is of grave significance to American national security and Asian regional security.

AlterNet

[SSridhar]

India is fully complying with IWT: SM Krishna

The Indian government is in full compliance with the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, India’s External Affairs Minister SM Krishna said on Thursday.

Replying to a question in the Indian parliament, Krishna said Pakistan’s charge of denial of its share of water was “completely baseless”. Reacting to a statement by Sardar Aseff Ali, adviser to the prime minister of Pakistan, that Islamabad would go to the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice if India tried to build more dams that affect Pakistan’s share of water, Krishna said all issues regarding the implementation of the Indus Water Treaty should be resolved through the existing mechanisms under the treaty.

[neeraj]

"We will have to look beyond the Indus Water Treaty."

Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah talks to Dawn.com about the urgent need to resolve water-sharing disputes.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... at-shah-02

Paging SSridhar.. Does he have a real case against Kishenganga project or is it all for show

[SSridhar]

Excerpt from the article devoted to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Grist.org / By Steven Solomon

The Indus water dispute with India, which helped trigger the first war between the countries, was resolved with a 1960 treaty. AlterNet

Oh really ? The first time a dispute arose over the Indus waters was not until after the war had lasted nearly six months.

After the Partition, both the dominions agreed to a “Standstill Agreement” on Dec. 30, 1947 freezing the existing water turn systems at the two headworks of Madhopur (on the Ravi) and Ferozepur (on the Sutlej) until March, 31, 1948. Any dispute that could not be resolved by the Punjab Partition Committee was to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) which had been setup under Section Nine of the Indian Independence Act by the Governor General to sort out difficulties arising over the division of assets. However, on the expiry of the arrangement and after not receiving an encouraging response to a reminder for talks issued by the East Punjab Government on 29th March 1948, and in the absence of a new agreement, the then Indian Punjab Government promptly stopped the water supply through Madhopur on April, 1, 1948.

[SSridhar]

"We will have to look beyond the Indus Water Treaty."

Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah talks to Dawn.com about the urgent need to resolve water-sharing disputes.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... at-shah-02

Does he have a real case against Kishenganga project or is it all for show

This question has been discussed here many times. See here for my detailed reply on Nov. 10, 2009.

There is one significant admission from Mr. Jamaat Ali Shah, the Pakistani Permanent Indus Commissioner. That is, he admits, when questioned if the Indian contention of it having started the Kishenganga Project earlier than Pakistan's Neelum-Jhelum Project, that it was true.

Yes. {This is a significant admission} But the Jhelum waters were given to Pakistan. And going by the spirit of the treaty {he is forced to therefore invoke the 'spirit of the treaty', a new terminology introduced by Pakistan}, while the waters are Pakistan’s to use, both countries can accrue benefits. When India made its plans known to Pakistan, that did not mean Pakistan did not have the intention [of constructing a plant] {Intentions do not matter as per IWT. Using the 'intentions' nonsense, Pakistan can shoot down any project by India. The IWT therefore clearly says that only 'existing agricultural & hydroelectric projects' matter}. In 1989, we told India that we are constructing a project there. India wanted to inspect the site. At the time, it was only a small exploration tunnel. Now the intention has been shown, with the Chinese being given the project. So we have a legal case.

Then in 1994, we were officially informed about Kishenganga, which was to be a 330 watt storage work.{The year is false. Pakistan demanded that if it were to allow the Tulbul Navigation Lock project (aka Wullar barrage in Pakistan), India must not execute the Kishenganga project. That objection was raised by Pakistan in February 1992 after the Tulbul Navigation project was agreed upon by both governments in 1991.}

In 1960, Pakistan did not want to give three of its rivers to India, but it did. But clearly the World Bank had not factored in climate change and the impact of human intervention.{Hey, India also did not envisage in c. 1947 for Pakistan to turn out to be such a nasty terrorist scumbag What to do ?} I think the World Bank treaty is likely to be jeopardised. Already, we are facing a shortage in the western rivers, how can we then compensate for the lack of water in the eastern rivers? {Eastern rivers are settled issue. Pakistan is slowly resurrecting its claims on these rivers as well}

Pakistan's logic, as always is, that it and it alone has the right to resources and governance in the Indian subcontinent and it can arrogantly demand anything which the dhimmi India must instantly concede.

Q. Would this be in India’s interest?

A. Yes, because we are neighbours.{Pakistan being a 'neighbours' is an advantage that accrues to India ? What sort of an argument is that ? The deeper implication here is that Pakistan can be an 'unpleasant neighbour' if its demands are not conceded to} The Indus Water Treaty was not a happy marriage but we accepted it. But Pakistan should take action at the appropriate time: what happens to the state of Bahawalpur where the rivers Sutlej and Ravi are dry?

[neeraj]

Thanks SSridhar
Its always enlightening to read your posts. Much appreciated

[arun]

Reposted after the forum software upgrade bombed and sent a bunch of posts to meet their 72.

Blogger from Karachi Tariq Tufail in CHUP! Changing Up Pakistan.

Concludes that that for all the raving and ranting in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, India is not violating the Indus Water Treaty.

Raises the theme that the raving and ranting could be a ploy by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to deflect the focus on terrorism emanating from within the territory controlled by it but unfortunately does not delve into the theme:

Indo-Pak Water Issues 101 – Tariq Tufail ………………………..

March 5, 2010

The Pakistan-India foreign secretary-level talks took place as scheduled. But curiously, apart from the usual rhetoric of “terrorism” from the Indian side and “Kashmir” from the Pakistani side in the run-up to the talks, water became the more prominent issue.

Though the water issue has been raised in the past, and is one of the sustaining factors behind Pakistan’s continued interest in Kashmir, the articulation of water as a core India-Pakistan dispute in such a distinct and clear manner is unprecedented. Within the space of two weeks, water was mentioned as one of the principal disputes between India and Pakistan by our Prime Minister, our foreign minister, our Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and curiously, even Hafeez Sayeed of LeT/JuD. In order to understand the issue better, it is important to first provide a background of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).

Broadly speaking, the IWT grants exclusive use of the three eastern tributaries of the Indus River – the Sutlej, Ravi and Beas Rivers - to India and the three western tributaries – Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab Rivers to Pakistan. India is entitled to use all of the 33 million acre feet (MAF) of water from the eastern tributaries, of which it currently uses 30 MAF. Of the three western tributaries, the Jhelum, Chenab and Indus itself, which carries a flow of 143 MAF, India is entitled to store 3.6 MAF and is allowed to irrigate 13,43,477 acres of land. India does not store any water as of now and irrigates 7,92,426 acres. In addition, India is entitled to build “run of the river” hydroelectric projects, which do not store water on the western tributaries. The rise in the country’s usage of the water allocated to India (which used to flow to Pakistan earlier) is stressing the water availability in Pakistan. In addition, reduced snowfall and shifting weather patterns is reducing the water inflow.

Cutting through the usual rhetoric of India “stealing” water, several possibilities have to be analyzed:

(1). Pakistan is heightening the water issue to moderate the Indian negotiating tactic of focusing on terrorism

(2). India is really stealing water and violating the treaty

(3). India is not violating the “letter” of the treaty but the “spirit” of the treaty

(4). India is neither violating the letter or the spirit of the treaty, but due to increased water requirements, Pakistan is laying the ground to re-negotiate the Indus Water Treaty

It will be fruitless to speculate on (1), so let us concentrate on (2), (3) and (4).

At this point in time, the Pakistani government has not proven that India has stolen water. The allegation of Indian water theft has not been substantiated by either telemetry readings submitted by India or by water monitoring by Pakistan and has not been raised during the meetings of water commissioners of India and Pakistan. Moreover, because water sharing between Pakistan’s provinces is a contentious issue, water monitoring in Pakistan is a murky issue. To prevent discord among the provinces, monitoring sensors installed by Siemens are frequently tampered with and some monitoring sensors are regularly lost due to theft and sabotage. Even our Indus water commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah and ex-finance minister, Dr. Mubashar Hasan agree that no provable water theft is being committed by India.

Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that India is not violating the “letter” of the treaty, even if it may be maximizing its usage as accorded to India by the treaty. This is not enforceable in any court of law, and stirring domestic sentiment over such perceived “violations” reduces our policy options and creates disastrous consequences as the Baglihar episode showed, (for background on the Baglihar dam conflict, see this piece)………..

Indo-Pak Water Issues 101

[arun]

This should ratchet up the raving and ranting in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to a new crescendo.

The Ratle project is on the Chenab River:

Tenders for 690 MW Ratle project opening Monday

TATA, Reliance among 9 bidders await Rs 5000 Cr contract

Rising Kashmir News
Jammu, March 06:

The state government has received nine bids from national and international companies for the 690 MW Ratle project in Kishtwar district, northeast of Jammu. Among the bidders are Tata Power, Reliance Power and Larsen and Toubro Power Development Ltd.

“These tenders would be opened on Monday ( March 8 ),” the official said.

He said the Ratle project, which would be completed by 2016, would be given for 25 years to the highest bidder and would thereafter revert to the state.

The developer is expected to invest more than Rs.5,000 crore for the project, which is going to provide substantial employment opportunities to the youth of the state.

A round up on what else is going on in the hydel sector in J&K:

Meanwhile, the minister of state for Power Shabir Ahmad Khan has said that J&K has a huge power potential of 20000 MW which needs to be harnessed properly to make the state self reliant. “The process for execution of 300 more Power Projects have been started. The construction work on Baghilar-II, Sawalakote, Sewa-I,II and III, Kishanganga, Lower Jhelum-II Hydro-electric Power Projects have been taken up under State and Centre Sector,” he said adding the government would also encourage the construction of power projects under Joint venture and public-private partnership mode in the State.

From:

Rising Kashmir

[arun]

It is beginning to increasingly look like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s insistence of dragging the Baglihar project to arbitration was a strategic blunder committed by them.

The arbitration judgment on the Baglihar case, by settling the ambiguities in the IWT that were causing India to hesitate constructing on the Western Rivers, has opened the door for Indian construction on those rivers.

[SSridhar]

UK-based Lawyer to Represent Pakistan in Indo-Pak Water Talks

The government is likely to finalise a UK-based lawyer, Kiyan Kaiobad, as its lead advocate to argue its case at international forums, in case issues related to the distribution of water between India and Pakistan cannot be settled through bilateral talks.

Sources told Daily Times that Kaikobad was top on the list of names being considered by the government to replace James Crawford – whose services were discontinued a few months ago.

Pakistan has already told India about its intention to move the International Court of Arbitration if New Delhi fails to address Islamabad’s grievances over distribution under the Indus Water Treaty of 1960.

The recent foreign secretary-level talks between the two countries in New Delhi failed to make any headway in the matter. In the given situation, Pakistan feels it would have to raise the issue at international forums.

Kiyan Homi Kaikobad is former legal adviser to Bahrain’s Ministry of State for Legal Affairs, and is currently working as a professor of law and research director at Brunel University. He is considered a legal expert on territorial and water issues. A member of the Pakistan High Court Bar Association and the Hague Institute of Internationalisation of Law, Professor Kaikobad is on the editorial board of two journals of international law.

[Gagan]

SSridhar garu,
Can I have your mail please. I'd like to share something with you
Thanks.

[manjgu]

yes indeed Sridhar is a gem on IWT thread..

A) Inspite of so many hydro projects in J&K, why does the power situation in J&K ( with practically no industry , not much air conditioning etc) remain so poor??

I think option ( 1) is the most potential reason ie to moderate indian negotiating tactic of focussing on terrorism.

(2) has been ruled out
(3) pakis can never enforce the 'spirit'
(4) why would either of the two countries part / reduce their existing quotas and rights? ( as part of renegotiations) or is there a magic wand that would increase both countries quotas/rights to a depleting commodity / resource?

[manjgu]

SSridhar.. i was thinking in addition to the 4 reasons there could be a 5th reasons as well ..

puncture the objection raised by sind and other states to water stealing by the pakjabis ( by blaming the usual suspects.. india) ..basically to end the inter state feuds in pakistan.

[Gagan]

Here it is straight from the Horse's mouth. Pakistani officials admitting that the decreased water in pakistani rivers is due to natural causes and not due to the hydroelectric projects being built by India in J&K


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk-kbSKoyOg

[SSridhar]

Can I have your mail please. I'd like to share something with you
Thanks.

Gagan, you have a PM.

[arun]

Terrorist Islamic Jihadi organizations have got on the water bandwagon in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The UN designated terrorist organization the Jamaatud Dawah Pakistan has launched a “Movement for Saving Water Resources of Pakistan”. JuD leader Hafiz Muhammad Saeed was very much present

For a UN designated terrorist organization the JuD certainly has no apprehensions about openly operating over ground safe in the knowledge that they will remain unmolested in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The clue lies in the description in the article of JuD as a “Charity Group”

Besides Water, the rally also worked up itself into a lather over Jammu & Kashmir and the Indian presence in Afghanistan:

Movement against Indian water aggression

Monday, March 08, 2010
By By Munawar Hasan
LAHORE

HAFIZ Muhammad Saeed, the leader of the charity group Jamaatud Dawah Pakistan (JDP), has launched a movement against what he called ‘Indian designs to obstruct flow of rivers towards Pakistan’.

A new body “Movement for Saving Water Resources of Pakistan” has been established by JDP with the sole aim of lodging protest against “Indian water aggression”.

“India is in the process of constructing several dams on Chenab, Jehlum and Indus rivers in a bid to completely stop flow of water towards Pakistan,” Hafiz Muhammad Saeed told The News here on Sunday. He said this act has catastrophic outcome for an agrarian country like Pakistan. ……………………

Earlier, at first show of strength, hundreds of JDP activists including members of Farmers Wing on Sunday held ‘Water Rally’ in provincial capital to protest against construction of dams in Indian Held Kashmir on western rivers. Farmers from different parts of the country participated in the unique protest demonstration with hundreds of tractors in front of Punjab Assembly.

Farmers riding on tractors gathered at Nasir Bagh area by noon and then marched on The Mall towards Punjab Assembly. Participants were carrying banners and placards chanting slogans ‘Water or War’, ‘Diversion of Pakistani Rivers-Indian Water Bomb’, ‘Water Flows or Blood’, ‘Liberate Kashmir to Secure Water’, ‘No Peace if Indian Water Aggression Continues’.

Speaking on the occasion, Saeed said that by constructing illegal dams and diverting water of Pakistani rivers, India has virtually imposed war on Pakistan. He demanded of the government to prepare the nation to counter this aggression. “The government must take practical steps to secure Pakistani water,” he stressed. He said that due to water shortage, not only cultivation of crops would be impossible but drinking water would not be available to Pakistanis. “It is a matter of life and death for Pakistan”, he said. ………………….

Head of farmer wing of Jamaatud Dawah, Ashfaq Jutt said farmers cried in front of everybody that there was no water for cultivation but no one took notice of it. He thanked Hafiz Saeed who helped in raising this key issue of national importance. He was of the opinion that farmers of Pakistan were suffering due to Indian Water aggression and world bodies should take notice of this violation.

Jamaatud Dawah’s head of Political Affairs, Hafiz Abdur Rehman Makki, convener Tehreek Hurmat-e-Rasool, Maulana Ameer Hamza, Maulana Hasnain Siddiqi, Inamullah, Abdul Qadir Subhani, Abul Aziz Alvi and Asfhfaq Jutt said that if the blockage of water by India continued, Punjab and Sindh might become deserts, which would be a huge blow to Pakistan’s economy, security and stability.

Later, , participants of rally unanimously adopting a resolution said India virtually declared war on Pakistan by unlawfully constructing dams and diverting water of western rivers. India is trying to hatch deep conspiracy of making Pakistan’s agricultural lands barren and economically annihilating us.

So far, actions taken by the government of Pakistan in this regard are terribly insufficient and disappointing. Meeting between Indus water commissioners are by no means sufficient to stop India from violating Indus Water Treaty. Some ‘Practical’ steps have to be taken earnestly in this regard. Time should not be wasted in pointless India-Pakistan dialogue if former is not willing to recognize Kashmir and water related issue as core dispute. ………………………

Participants of rally vowed that Pakistan must keep open the option of using force if India continues with water terrorism. …………………….

The News

[SSridhar]

SSridhar.. i was thinking in addition to the 4 reasons there could be a 5th reasons as well ..

puncture the objection raised by sind and other states to water stealing by the pakjabis ( by blaming the usual suspects.. india) ..basically to end the inter state feuds in pakistan.

The 1991 inter-provincial water accord in Pakistan says that whenever the flow decreases, then water will be shared on a pro-rata basis. Punjab cannot always claim its share of waters first under every circumstance.

Leaving that aside, the suspicion about the Punjab stealing water is not merely a suspicion, at least in the minds of the Sindhis and the Balochis. It is a proven fact. Even within the Punjab, there is discord between the North & South Punjabs.

Frankly, except for the usual seasonal fluctuation, there has not been any substantial change in the quantum of waters so far in the Indus system of rivers either this year or even the previous year. So, why this great hue & cry ? Pakistan clearly sees what is coming. Pakistan does not want India to exploit all provisions in the IWT. The demands for a new treaty, the cries of water stealing by the proxies while the PIC himself is denying that, the talk of the 'spirit of the Treaty' are all out of nervousness and a desire to extract the most when an amenable combination is in power in India.

Plus, the usual desire to unsettle India with wild accusations and paint her as a villain and make her look defensive and uncomfortable always having to explain her position. This will also create demands in Bangladesh with which too India shares waters. This also gives a reason to arouse the passion and keep Pakistanis united and explain away the reasons for terrorism. LeT feels that water is a legitimate cause for terror and the Pakistani state can throw up her arms for not being able to do anything about that.

[manjgu]

SSridhar... good observations... completly agree.

[Theo_Fidel]

One thing to keep in mind is that with present quantity of water only 20 million acres or so of TSP land can be irrigated.

Yet Pakistan irrigates 40 million acres. How is this possible you ask?

Simple. Ground Water.

Conservative estimates are that just the Pakjab area pumps 60 MAF of Ground water every year.
It is now the dominant chunk of water supply in the Pakjab.

The water table is now dropping 10 feet a year. It is also well beyond the Saline sill in many areas. This is what crushes the Pakjab farm productivity vs the Indian Punjab.

For instance the majority of ground water in Pakjab away from the river courses is now over 3000 mg/L TDS (Total dissolved salts). For comparison the ocean is typically 35,000 TDS.

The unique desert like climate with less than 10 inches of annual rainfall in most of Pakjab means recharge can only be by rivers.

At some point in the near future, some suspect 2025, the ground water will be so salty, saline ground water pumping irrigation will have to cease. At which point the good folks of TSP will have to begin importing 20 Million tons of wheat a year.

Pure and simple, they need more water. A lot more.

[Bheem]

When it is said that eastern 3 rivers have 33 MAF does that include flood waters?

Also we need to store and use maximum amount of flood waters also from the eastern rivers as this "excess" flow which we may let go into Pakistan during monsoon will also help recharge ground water of terroristan.

Incidentally from this thread links its seems that India uses around 30MAF out of 33 MAF of eastern rivers and 5-7 MAF out of 12-13 MAF which can be used for "permissable irrigation" from western rivers.

So I think that in next 10 years or so, water flowing from India to Pakistan will decrease by around 10 MAF more, in accordance with letter & spirit of treaty.

Similary water from Afghanistan to Pakistan should also 'normally' decrease with more legitimate dams in accordance with letter and spirit of international upper riparian nation rights of Afghanistan.

So 2020 should see around 20 MAF less water flowing into Pakistan due to letter and spirit of various accords and international law.

The issue is how much differnce will it make to terroristan. As it will be making attempts to build more storage and improve water seepage from its canals.

[Bheem]

UK-based Lawyer to Represent Pakistan in Indo-Pak Water Talks

The government is likely to finalise a UK-based lawyer, Kiyan Kaiobad, as its lead advocate to argue its case at international forums, in case issues related to the distribution of water between India and Pakistan cannot be settled through bilateral talks.

Sources told Daily Times that Kaikobad was top on the list of names being considered by the government to replace James Crawford – whose services were discontinued a few months ago.

Pakistan has already told India about its intention to move the International Court of Arbitration if New Delhi fails to address Islamabad’s grievances over distribution under the Indus Water Treaty of 1960.

The recent foreign secretary-level talks between the two countries in New Delhi failed to make any headway in the matter. In the given situation, Pakistan feels it would have to raise the issue at international forums.

Kiyan Homi Kaikobad is former legal adviser to Bahrain’s Ministry of State for Legal Affairs, and is currently working as a professor of law and research director at Brunel University. He is considered a legal expert on territorial and water issues. A member of the Pakistan High Court Bar Association and the Hague Institute of Internationalisation of Law, Professor Kaikobad is on the editorial board of two journals of international law.

As a thumb rule "teachers" are bad lawyers. Indian case was represented last time by Fali and Shankerdass who are one of leading lawyers of Indian in India in constitutional and international law. Fali was "president" of International Council of Arbitration and has helped in drafting new Indian Arbitration Act.

[Neshant]

India's population is set to expand massively.

She better take care of her water resources.

[chetak]

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=100262

Mangla Dam runs 3 feet above dead level
Updated at: 1505 PST, Monday, March 08, 2010

LAHORE: The water level at Mangla Dam collapsed with dead level three inches down, Geo News reported Monday.

According to Met Department, the inflow at the Dam was recorded at 20,548 cusecs and outflow at 27,476 cusecs.

Meantime, Tarbela Dam is running at 1389.82 feet—11 feet over the dead level.

According to the concerned sources, Tarbela Dam is receiving 26,000 cusecs and outflow here was recorded at 35,000 cusecs.