Indus Water Treaty

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 26 Mar 2010 08:39

Pak-India water dispute be resolved bilaterally: Jamaat Ali Shah

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=231055

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 27 Mar 2010 08:11

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=231193

Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project
Pakistan, India in race to complete dams in Kashmir; WAPDA to use tunnel boring machines for early completion

Saturday, March 27, 2010
By Mansoor Ahmad

LAHORE: To complete the Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project before Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project being built by India, the Water and Power Development Authority has decided use tunnel boring machine that will reduce the construction time by two years, official sources said.

“It is vital for Pakistan to complete the 969 MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project before India completes a similar project on the same rivers, so that Pakistan can claim its right to water use,” sources in WAPDA informed The News.

They said though India has usurped the right of Pakistan on Neelum water by planning to divert it for the run of river 348 MW Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project, its completion before the Neelum-Jhelum project would give India the right to use the water for electricity generation.

WAPDA officials said that the Kishanganaga project would reduce the hydroelectric potential of the Neelum Jhelum Hydro Project. Originally Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project located in the Indian Held Kashmir and Neelum-Jehlum Hydroelectric Project being built in Azad Jammu and Kashmir were to be completed in 2016, the issue of right to use water has pitched both the countries in a race for the river.

Excavation of tunnelling network through tunnel boring machine (TBM) will reduce implementation period of the Neelum-Jehlum Hydroelectric Project (NJHEP) by about two years, which would establish Pakistan’s right over Neelum water and India would not be able to divert it for use in Kishanganga project.

WAPDA sources said the completion of NJHEP earlier than the schedule is very vital for Pakistan not only to cope with the increasing demand of electricity in the country but also to establish priority rights of water uses over the river Neelum against India.

The use of TBM has remained limited in the past due fear of impact of drilling on weak geological formations. However, in the past decade tremendous improvements in tunnelling technology have been achieved, removing the fears associated with use of TBMs.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 27 Mar 2010 10:15

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... src=imgrss

The Hunza landslide lake enlarges.

The size of the lake & landslide is staggering.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 27 Mar 2010 10:22

SSridhar-ji

What is the timeframe for completion of our own Kishanganga project?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Mar 2010 10:53

Anujan, see my very detailed reply here..

There are two things to note. One, when India's run-of-river project should not 'adversely' affect any existing agricultural or hydroelectric project in Pakistan. Two, PIC's Pakistani Chief Jamaat Ali Shah had already accepted that India had conveyed to Pakistan its intention of the Kishenganga earlier than Pakistan's. That was also posted here earlier.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Mar 2010 09:13

India not violating IWT: Indian PIC

Indian Water Commission chief G Aranga Nathan said on Saturday his country was not tightening water channels and was not violating the Indus Water Treaty signed between Pakistan and India in September 1960.

“We don’t believe in such moves and will try to remove all reservations of the Pakistani government,” Nathan told reporters after his nine-member team arrived in Pakistan.

“I ask you how can India violate the treaty,” Nathan told a questioner, claiming that a misperception had been spread in Pakistan that India was violating the treaty.

“I am sure about the success of dialogue and my team is ready to respond all queries to be raised by Pakistani Water Commission to reach a consensus,” he said.

Pakistani Water Commission chief Jamaat Ali Shah said the Indian commission had come to get Pakistan’s point of view and hoped that positive development would take place.

“We will try to convince the Indian guests to fulfil all requirements entailed to the treaty,” he said. Shah said they would also discuss the agricultural and hydroelectric uses of water allowed under the treaty.

“We have some concerns, which are not replied by the Indian side,” he said, adding these concerns would also be discussed during the meeting. The delegation will stay in Pakistan for five days. staff report/daily times monitor

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Mar 2010 16:45

More on the PIC meeting underway

The main agenda of first day is the decrease of water level in River Chenab and the construction of Nemobaaz Go and Chotak power plants at the River Sindh by India that will block 35,000 foot per acre water.

The Indian delegation has handed over the construction plan and map of the Nemobaaz Go power plant and briefing has been given in this regard by the Indian technical officers.

Moreover, the commissions have agreed to keep the free board height of Neemobaaz Go dam at one metre.

arun · Post by **arun** » 28 Mar 2010 19:31

^^^ That should be Nimmo-Bazgo and Chutak.

Meanwhile Pakistan has raised 8 objections on Nimmo-Bazgo, 6 of which India has rejected. India is considering the other 2.

No breakthrough expected in talks: Jamat Shah

arun · Post by **arun** » 28 Mar 2010 19:39

arun wrote:
Saturday, February 20, 2010

India intends to divert river Neelam: Jamaat Shah …………….

Jamat Ali Shah informed the committee that Baglihar dam affects Pakistan's defence. “We have demanded India of the installment of Telemetry system on the dam.”

The Nation
As far as I recollect there is no obligation imposed on India by the Indus River Water Treaty to install a telemetry system at dams on the concerned rivers such as Baglihar. Neither for that matter do I recall any such obligation of installing a telemetry system imposed by the neutral expert in his arbitration judgment on Baglihar.

I do hope that India and more particularly the Congress party led UPA Government of Dr. Manmohan Singh does not in moment of unguarded charity foist on India a CBM that agrees to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s demand of installing a telemetry system at Baglihar dam.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan once again brings up the telemetry issue. Given that India is not obliged under the IWT to provide telemetry the Islamic Republic should to told to pi$$ off:

Pak, India discuss water issue

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Mar 2010 07:34

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... am-project
India agrees to review Nimo Bazgo Dam project

LA HOLE – India has agreed to the proposal put forward by Pakistan to review the design of Nimo Bazgo Dam project, also declaring the Pak demand of reactivating the telemetry system on rivers as acceptable.
This was decided on the first day of three-day meeting of the Indus River Commission held in the provincial capital on Sunday. G Aranga Nathan heads the nine-member Indian delegation while Jamaat Ali Shah is leading the Pakistani side. Pakistan informed the Indian delegation about the objections to Nimo Bazgo Dam, which was the main agenda of the first day of the meeting comprising the issues of the rapid decrease of water level in River Chenab, the construction of controversial Nimo Bazgo Dam and Chutak Power Plants on the River Indus by India that would cause blockage of more than 35,000 cusec water.The Indian delegation, however, agreed to the proposals put forward by Pakistan and assured to consider the suggestions in near future but sought more time to deliberate the issue.
The Pakistani delegation informed Indians that Pakistan had already installed telemetry system for monitoring water shares among the provinces of the country while there were apprehensions and unrest among the people, particularly the farmers’ community, over the water shortage due to the Indian projects on rivers.Pakistan’s representatives stressed that it was the duty of India to ensure provision of complete water share of Pakistan despite having partial facility of use of water under Indus Water Treaty.
However, Jamaat Ali Shah said as the dialogues were of non-political nature, no immediate breakthrough could be expected, adding that Pakistan recorded its protest against the construction of all the controversial dams by India. He further said that the Indus Water Treaty Commission wanted to resolve all the pending issues in order to win the trust of public.Appreciating the suggestion of the installation of telemetry system, Aranga Nathan asked for more time to deliberate the issue with the Indian experts. He said the telemetry system would help in minimising uncertainty and confusion between the two countries. He said in case the commission failed to resolve the water issues in present session, another meeting was likely to be called soon. The meeting between the Indus River Commissio

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 29 Mar 2010 07:42

^^^

You missed the main load of bull

Pakistan’s representatives stressed that it was the duty of India to ensure provision of complete water share of Pakistan despite having partial facility of use of water under Indus Water Treaty.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Mar 2010 07:45

Water projects

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28045

Pakistan has asked India to install the telemetry system on water sector projects built on the western rivers in held Kashmir.

...

India used to provide inflow and outflow data of the western rivers to Pakistan after three to four months. Official sources said the demand had gained importance due to the fact that after construction of various projects on the western rivers, especially on the Chenab, dwindling river flows had been witnessed. Under the Indus Waters Treaty, the water of three western rivers, including Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, has been given to Pakistan.

Pakistan also criticised blocking of the Chenab waters by India and illegal impounding of water during the initial filling of the Baglihar Hydropower Project on the Chenab river. The visiting Indian team has, in principle, agreed to the proposal of installation of the telemetry system but refrained from accepting the Pakistani blame in this connection.

However, sources said the Indian Indus Waters Commissioner, Aranga Nathan, has said he would give a reply about the telemetry system after consultation with technical experts on this issue.

The sources said India gave designs of the controversial Nimmo Bazgo and Chutuk hydel power projects to Pakistan, which is an obligation under the 1961 Indus Waters Treaty. During the talks, Pakistan raised objections to the construction of 45 MW Nimmo-Bazgo hydel power project on the Indus River in Leh district of held Kashmir, terming its construction a violation of the treaty. These objections include excessive storage capacity, low level of spillway and construction of freeboard. India has shown willingness to accept the Pakistani demand about the freeboard. The sources said talks on conflicting issues will continue on Monday and Tuesday. The Sunday’s parleys were part of the three-day extraordinary talks between the two countries on trans-boundary issues.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Mar 2010 08:56

India asks Pakistan to stop blaming it for its water crisis

Concluding the joint Indus Water Commission talks in Islamabad, India asked Pakistan to stop blaming it for the water crisis persisting in the country and told its neighbour to address its internal water problems, Daily Times learnt on Sunday.

Indian officials have attributed Islamabad’s water woes to a dearth of storage facilities in Pakistani reservoirs, saying a huge 38 MAF of unutilised water flows into the Arabian Sea every year. Reiterating commitment to the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), Indian official sources said the treaty is a significant Confidence Building Measure (CBM) between the two countries that has stood test of time even during wars. ‘India is fully committed to the treaty in letter and spirit,” they said, adding India will do whatever is possible to address Pakistan’s concerns over the IWT.

They further asked Pakistan to use its resources in a better way instead of accusing India of stealing its water and dismissed allegations that India was constructing around 60 dams on Pakistani controlled rivers. According to sources around 33 river projects have been identified on western rivers-Indus, Jehlum and Chenab and the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) has begun consultations on 106 schemes to produce 18,653 MW of electricity although no decision has been taken on these schemes yet.

“We have gone beyond the treaty to provide them data to satisfy Pakistan’s concerns,” the Indian officials said. Sources lamented that Islamabad was raising unnecessary technical issues to delay these projects while worldwide scientific studies worldwide have shown decreasing water flows to all rivers with the exception of Indus, whose water was either at the same level or had even increased. According to the sources, the water flow of western rivers in Pakistan’s control was 136 million acre feet (MAF) against 33 MAF in eastern rivers-Sutlej, Bias and Ravi which were controlled by India while 65 per cent of water flows through the Indus.

Sources said under the IWT, India was allowed to irrigate 1.3 million acres of land while it has only irrigated just 0.7 million acres and New Delhi is allowed to construct 3.6 MAF storage facilities on the western rivers. But contrary to the propaganda, it has not built any facility so far despite the fact that India was granted limited rights to use water of western rivers for domestic, agriculture and hydroelectric purposes.

Arun_J · Post by **Arun_J** » 29 Mar 2010 22:53

Excellent article by By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan. (Sorry if already posted)

Indus Water Treaty: Politicisation will only harm Pakistan:

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers ... r3721.html

Ameet · Post by **Ameet** » 29 Mar 2010 23:12

India says design of Nimo-Bazgo hydropower project is within limits

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_in ... ts_1364960

Rejecting Pakistan's call for a change in the design, India today said the design of Nimmo-Bazgo hydropower project was within the permissible limits of the Indus Waters Treaty and there is no need to change it.

India's Indus waters commissioner G Ranganathan told his Pakistani counterpart Jamaat Ali Shah during the second day of the three-day talks here that there was no need for changing the design.

Ranganathan said India remained committed to the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 and was "designing all power projects as per the criteria permitted under it".

Shah also said Pakistan could opt for third party arbitration under the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty if the issue is not resolved amicably.

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 30 Mar 2010 05:26

Water in Tarbela dam reaches dead level

The water reaches at dead level in Tarbela dam while, water level in Mangla dam is 20.45 feet above the dead level. Indus River System Authority (IRSA) sources told this news agency here on Monday that water level in Tarbela dam reaches at dead level of 1978 feet. The water inflow and out flow in Tarbela dam is 29,300 cusecs. IRSA sources further told that water inflow in Mangla Dam is 32,199 cusecs and out flow is 28,000 cusecs while water level in Mangla dam has reached 1645 feet till last reports came in.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 30 Mar 2010 06:22

Sindh-Punjab water dispute affecting cotton crop

This crop season, Sindh is cultivating 100 percent BT cotton while Punjab is sowing around 65 percent of the total cultivation, a member Karachi Cotton Association (KCA), Shakeel Ahmad said. “There is a report that confrontation again aroused between Sindh and Punjab due to less water availability of 101 million acre feet (MAF) as compared to last year of 107 MAF,” Ahmad said.

Cotton crop accounts for 1.6 percent in the gross domestic product and its value-added sector’s share is 7.3 percent. Sattar said, “If water is released in the canal system by April 15, we will still be a month late for sowing cottonseed as a plant takes 6-week to emerge after watering.”

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2010 06:30

Indo-Pak talks on Nimmo Bazgo project inconclusive

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28069

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 Mar 2010 08:05

There is one thing to be said of the citizens of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, they can be very quantitatively precise in their Islam fuelled paranoia.

The rant’s and rave’s of the Chairman Indus Water Treaty Council Hafiz Zahoor-ul-Hassan Dahr:

Zahoor said New Delhi was also constructing Kargil Dam, the second largest in the world, on Indus, adding that that India was getting support from a consortium of nine non-Muslim countries, four multi-national companies, an international donor agency and three intelligence agencies to accomplish 17 mega water projects for controlling Pakistan’s water.

More rant’s and rave’s of Hafiz Zahoor-ul-Hassan Dahr, this time about the less pious Muslims of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, presumably of the non-Punjabi variety, collaborating with Hindu’s and Jews to permit a Crusader owned company nobble the pious in the Land of the Pure:

According to him, the anti-Pakistan forces have united and evolved a plan to turn the country into a desert and the irrigation system is being given to a Swedish company on contract to forward the vested interests of India. He said India was spending billions of dollars on this project with the financial support of Israel. He said it was very much clear that the Indian and Israeli lobbies were working on long-term projects to harm Pakistan.

Read it all in The Nation:

'India plans 52 projects to control Pakistan's water'

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 30 Mar 2010 08:30

IDSA COMMENT
Vicious anti-India propaganda in Pakistan on Water issues ---- Arvind Gupta
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/Vicious ... pta_290310

There appears to be a deliberate attempt in Pakistan to use the water issue to inflame public opinion against India. This appears to be a part of the larger design of the Pakistani military to drive home to Western interlocutors the continued salience of India in Pakistan’s security calculus. Though Pakistan is facing the prospect of destabilization due to radicalization of its society, the Pakistan Army continues to project India as the number one threat. The water issue is being used to divert attention from 26/11 and the larger issue of terrorism, which India regards as the main issue between India and Pakistan.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Apr 2010 00:58

India and Pakistan Feud Over Indus Waters
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 ... 94592.html

This year the Pakistan province of Punjab—the political heartland of the nation and a major producer of wheat, rice, maize and sugarcane—is facing unprecedented water shortages. At harvest time in Mandi Bahauddin, an area in the north of Punjab province of relatively prosperous farmland, the wheat still grows waist-high but farmers here complain that yields and incomes have dropped by a third in the past five years because of water shortages.In the past, canals used to supply water for irrigation year-round. They are now empty for about four months each year. That forces villagers to pump groundwater, which is fast turning brackish and causing diseases like hepatitis, said Tariq Mehmood Allowana, a local farmer and member of the provincial assembly.Nearby, more than half of the Chenab River bed has become a dusty plain where children play with the flow reduced to a trickle."India is engaged in an economic warfare against Pakistan. If the problem persists for another five years the whole area will become barren," said Mr. Allowana.Pakistan raised the water issue in Washington during an official visit last week. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has signaled that Washington isn't interested in mediating on water issues.A State Department spokesperson pointed to an interview Mrs. Clinton recently did with a Pakistani news channel in which she said it would be "sensible" to stick to the Indus Waters Treaty for resolving disputes.
The Indian projects that Pakistan says are draining its water resources are primarily on Indus tributaries in Kashmir. Some experts say the water issue is a back-door way for Islamic militants to push their political agenda regarding Kashmir.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Apr 2010 08:57

Water talks run dry - Editorial in Daily Times

Just like the water in the Mangla and Tarbela dams, the recent round of talks between the Indus Water Commissions of Pakistan and India have reached dead level. Aimed at removing the many doubts and reservations of both countries — more so by Pakistan — in respect to water distribution, shortage and the construction of controversial new projects — Nimoo Bazgoo and Chutak — the three-day conference produced no significant breakthrough in dispelling these apprehensions.

An annual deliberation since 1960, when the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) was signed, the Indus Water Commissions met this year to address Pakistan’s innate fear that India’s end goal was to cordon off water to the country by constructing hydel generation projects on the rivers Chenab and Jehlum in occupied Kashmir. Pakistani reservations extended to the accusation that India had designed these projects along the lines of the maximum allowed figures as stated in the Indus Water Treaty. This allows the Indians to stay dangerously close to the limits demarcated by the IWT while retaining the potential to manipulate water flows. It is the design of these projects that is proving to be contentious for Pakistan. It is not surprising then that, parallel to these talks, New Delhi has issued a statement confronting Pakistan’s claims by saying that any shortage faced by its neighbour was due to the adverse weather conditions and lack of rainfall. Although the emotionally wrought Pakistani psyche may be tempted to discount this argument, it cannot be gainsaid that Nature may very well be to blame for the water crises looming over the nation. India’s climate prediction may very well be proved or disproved during further talks scheduled in May of this year in New Delhi, where the advent of summer will bring to light whether the problem has heightened due to ‘facilitated’ water shortage or been eased because of the melting snows.

Pakistan is also miffed at the fact that India has, allegedly, violated some of the IWT’s fine print by failing to inform Pakistan about the construction of these hydro projects some six months in advance. With India’s denial of almost all the points presented by the Pakistani side, the provision of details regarding such projects falls short of being redeemed.

However, Pakistan has made some headway in getting India to agree to the setting up of a telemetry system to ensure the measurement of actual river flows, so as to quell doubts about India’s alleged aim to hold back water.

The outcome has come to the sorry stalemate that if, in the proposed May deliberations, Pakistan and India fail to arrive at any conclusions, the World Bank may have to act as third party arbitrator to sort out the conundrum. Seeing that this guarantor has been the mediator for the occurrence of these talks in the first place, in its presence some sort of reconciliatory possibilities are perceived.

Although the IWT has been getting its undue share of flak from certain elements who accuse it of being a document legitimising the sell-out of Pakistan’s eastern rivers, it cannot be stressed enough how defiantly the IWT has stood the test of time. India and Pakistan have engaged in wars and hostilities over the years, but the treaty has consistently remained one of the few common meeting platforms for these traditional enemies.

It must be borne in mind that, at the end of the day, the ecosystem plays by its own rules that transcend political boundaries. Rational solutions ought to be sought instead of playing the blame game. We are living in an era of unpredictable climate change where the only way to battle the elements is to increase cooperation and mutual acknowledgment of a common problem.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 01 Apr 2010 09:00

India needs to divert some water.

The logical response to baseless accusations of philandry is to indulge in the same.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Apr 2010 10:22

From various reports emanating from Paqui sources there seems to be no doubt that after 60 years there's a Kashmir fatigue among the Mango Abdul. Is this manufactured water issue a new piece of TFTA-isque tactical brilliance to keep the hatred alive?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Apr 2010 09:55

US not to intervene in India-Pak water issue: Blake

Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Robert Blake said Pakistan had frequently raised the controversial and contentious water issue with India during his recent trip to Islamabad, but added that the US had no intention of intervening in the bilateral issue.

Pakistan should instead take it up with the Indus Waters Treaty's independent arbitration panel, he said.

Blake, during an interaction with the media at the Foreign Press Center, said, "This is a question that came up in virtually every single meeting I had in Pakistan, not only with civil society people, the press and everywhere.

"And, what I said to everybody there was that if Pakistan believes that India is violating the Indus Waters Treaty, then Pakistan should avail itself of the opportunity to submit whatever grievances it has to the independent arbitration panel that has been set up by the Indus Waters Treaty."

"But I do believe that if asked, that the United States could help both sides with respect to water supply and again how to make better use of the existing water supply. How to make more efficient use of it, how to increase water storage, rainwater harvesting, a lot of those kind of techniques," he said.

"So, that's where we and other friends of both countries might be able to have a role."

"In Pakistan, there's a particular urgency to looking at the agricultural sector, which accounts for more than half of water usage," he said.

Blake said there were "a great many practices that are inefficient," and cited the example of "the practice of flood irrigation, that is modified would make a significant difference to the amount of water that is used in Pakistan."

"That's the kind of thing we are working with Pakistan on. One of the things that we're doing now in Pakistan that's noteworthy is we have a tube-well initiative, where we are helping to make 10,000 tube wells more efficient by replacing the engines on them. And that's just one of the many --and, that's both an electricity and also a water issue," he said.

Blake reiterated that this was where "the real focus should be, as we try to figure out how to improve water storage but also water management and water efficiency," and disclosed that the US embassy in Islamabad was "looking at ways to do that with our friends in the government of Pakistan".

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Apr 2010 10:49

arun wrote:
Saturday, February 20, 2010

India intends to divert river Neelam: Jamaat Shah …………….

Jamat Ali Shah informed the committee that Baglihar dam affects Pakistan's defence. “We have demanded India of the installment of Telemetry system on the dam.”

The Nation
As far as I recollect there is no obligation imposed on India by the Indus River Water Treaty to install a telemetry system at dams on the concerned rivers such as Baglihar. Neither for that matter do I recall any such obligation of installing a telemetry system imposed by the neutral expert in his arbitration judgment on Baglihar.

I do hope that India and more particularly the Congress party led UPA Government of Dr. Manmohan Singh does not in moment of unguarded charity foist on India a CBM that agrees to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s demand of installing a telemetry system at Baglihar dam.

Disappointingly it turns out that India and more particularly the Congress party led UPA Government of Dr. Manmohan Singh has had its moment of unguarded charity and has foist on India a CBM that agrees to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s demand of installing a telemetry system at Baglihar dam:

SSridhar wrote:Water talks run dry - Editorial in Daily Times

However, Pakistan has made some headway in getting India to agree to the setting up of a telemetry system to ensure the measurement of actual river flows, so as to quell doubts about India’s alleged aim to hold back water.

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Apr 2010 10:57

The Indian affiliate of the Wall Street Journal, Livemint, on the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s current pet topic for stoking up a grievance against India, namely water.

Provides sound advice on what India needs to do.

However with what the Congress led UPA Government of our PM Dr. Manmohan Singh has foisted on India such as going beyond the requirements of the IWT to appease the Islamic Republic by providing telemetry on water flows, I am not very sanguine Livemint’s advice will be followed:

Posted: Thu, Apr 1 2010. 9:31 PM IST

A water war out of thin air

Pakistan’s complaint over water-sharing is a device used to mobilize public opinion against India. It deserves a blunt response

It is often difficult to make sense of words uttered in anger. And Pakistan is an angry country. It has now whipped up another dispute with India out of thin air. It has alleged that India is “stealing” its river waters. It has alleged that New Delhi is violating the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 that governs the use of river waters by the two countries…………………

Islamabad’s complaint is a red herring, a device used to mobilize public opinion against India to deflect attention from serious inequities in water sharing between different provinces of Pakistan. It’s an old trick to keep India on the defensive. There is no reason to be defensive. A blunt response will serve our interests well.

Livemint

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 02 Apr 2010 13:19

India has to take full advantage of IWT but that requires huge investment in building storage reservoir and irrigation system for utilising waters of western rivers . Now it is the time to make this kind of investment since UPA says our economy is growing at 7-8 % per annum and we have huger forex. This might make pakistan figdety and propel it into misdventure, for which we should prepare our forces to respond in shock and awe measures. We must make pakistan look an aggressor country and take diplomatic and other measure to bring them to such a pass. However indications are that we will take hundred abuses before striking the head off the Kansa.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 02 Apr 2010 13:39

IRSA agreement or no agreement?

The water distribution among the four federating units during the 6-month Kharif season 2010, that starts from April 1 and will end on September 30, would be based upon para-2 of Water Apportionment Accord 1991. However, the country would brave anticipated water deficit of 12 per cent in next 6 months and early Kharif would face 18 per cent shortage. About 16 per cent MAF would be consumed in the system losses and 8 MAF water have been earmarked to release downstream Kotri to reduce impact of sea water intrusion.

M H Siddiqui, consultant to Punjab government on water issues, said that water distribution would be based on three-tier formula, and distribution on para-2 was possible only when country had 117 MAF in the system.

In related news Indus Delta dying

“It’s not a big deal that IRSA has announced eight MAF for downstream Kotri, as rules already ensure at least 10 MAF for it, but IRSA has never bothered to release even that quantity of water, so who knows if IRSA would keep its word or not,” said eminent environmentalist and coastal ecosystem expert of IUCN Tahir Qureshi. He said Indus delta was dying and at least 35 MAF water flow was required downstream Kotri on permanent basis for its restoration, otherwise the delta would completely vanish and the sea would erode the coastal land.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Apr 2010 06:23

Pakistani foreign minister lets 'water' secret out?

Qureshi has confessed that Pakistan's water woes are primarily due to wastage on its own soil and not because India is hogging water upstream.

"The total average canal supplies of Pakistan are 104 million acres/ft. And the water available at the farm gate is about 70 million acre/ft. Where does the 34 million acre/ft go? It's not being stolen in India, it's been wasted in Pakistan," Qureshi said in the interview.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 03 Apr 2010 12:15

xposted

Prem wrote:Suckling Paki Pig in Irish color?
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=232342
War or peace on the Indus?
Is there an inherent conflict between India and Pakistan?
The simple answer is no. The Indus Waters Treaty allocates the water of the three western rivers to Pakistan, but allows India to tap the considerable hydropower potential of the Chenab and Jhelum before the rivers enter Pakistan.The qualification is that this use of hydropower is not to affect either the quantity of water reaching Pakistan or to interfere with the natural timing of those flows. Since hydropower does not consume water, the only issue is timing. And timing is a very big issue, because agriculture in the Pakistani plains depends not only on how much water comes, but that it comes in critical periods during the planting season. The reality is that India could tap virtually all of the available power without negatively affecting the timing of flows to which Pakistan is entitled. Is the Indus Treaty a stable basis for cooperation?If Pakistan and India had normal, trustful relations, there would be a mutually-verified monitoring process which would assure that there is no change in the flows going into Pakistan. (In an even more ideal world, India could increase low-flows during the critical planting season, with significant benefit to Pakistani farmers and with very small impacts on power generation in India.) Because the relationship was not normal when the treaty was negotiated, Pakistan would agree only if limitations on India's capacity to manipulate the timing of flows was hardwired into the treaty. This was done by limiting the amount of "live storage" (the storage that matters for changing the timing of flows) in each and every hydropower dam that India would construct on the two rivers.While this made sense given knowledge in 1960, over time it became clear that this restriction gave rise to a major problem. The physical restrictions meant that gates for flushing silt out of the dams could not be built, thus ensuring that any dam in India would rapidly fill with the silt pouring off the young Himalayas.
This was a critical issue at stake in the Baglihar case. Pakistan (reasonably) said that the gates being installed were in violation of the specifications of the treaty. India (equally reasonably) argued that it would be wrong to build a dam knowing it would soon fill with silt. The finding of the Neutral Expert was essentially a reinterpretation of the Treaty, saying that the physical limitations no longer made sense. While the finding was reasonable in the case of Baglihar, it left Pakistan without the mechanism – limited live storage – which was its only (albeit weak) protection against upstream manipulation of flows in India. This vulnerability was driven home when India chose to fill Baglihar exactly at the time when it would impose maximum harm on farmers in downstream Pakistan.
If Baglihar was the only dam being built by India on the Chenab and Jhelum, this would be a limited problem. But following Baglihar is a veritable caravan of Indian projects – Kishanganga, Sawalkot, Pakuldul, Bursar, Dal Huste, Gyspa… The cumulative live storage will be large, giving India an unquestioned capacity to have major impact on the timing of flows into Pakistan. (Using Baglihar as a reference, simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, suggest that once it has constructed all of the planned hydropower plants on the Chenab, India will have an ability to effect major damage on Pakistan. First, there is the one-time effect of filling the new dams. If done during the wet season this would have little effect on Pakistan. But if done during the critical low-flow period, there would be a large one-time effect (as was the case when India filled Baglihar). Second, there is the permanent threat which would be a consequence of substantial cumulative live storage which could store about one month's worth of low-season flow on the Chenab. If, God forbid, India so chose, it could use this cumulative live storage to impose major reductions on water availability in Pakistan during the critical planting season.
Views on "the water problem" from both sides of the border and the role of the press
Living in Delhi and working in both India and Pakistan, I was struck by a paradox. One country was a vigorous democracy, the other a military regime. But whereas an important part of the Pakistani press regularly reported India's views on the water issue in an objective way, the Indian press never did the same. I never saw a report which gave Indian readers a factual description of the enormous vulnerability of Pakistan, of the way in which India had socked it to Pakistan when filling Baglihar. How could this be, I asked? Because, a journalist colleague in Delhi told me, "when it comes to Kashmir – and the Indus Treaty is considered an integral part of Kashmir -- the ministry of external affairs instructs newspapers on what they can and cannot say, and often tells them explicitly what it is they are to say."This
Taken together, these reports make astounding reading. Not only was the message the same in each case ("no real issue, just Pakistani shenanigans"), but the arguments were the same, the numbers were the same and the phrases were the same. And in all cases the source was "analysts" and "experts" -- in not one case was the reader informed that this was reporting an official position of the Government of India. Equally depressing is my repeated experience – most recently at a major international meeting of strategic security institutions in Delhi – that even the most liberal and enlightened of Indian analysts (many of whom are friends who I greatly respect) seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the great vulnerability and legitimate concern of Pakistan (which is obvious and objective to an outsider).
A way forward
This is a very uneven playing field. The regional hegemon is the upper riparian and has all the cards in its hands. This asymmetry means that it is India that is driving the train, and that change must start in India. In my view, four things need to be done.First, there must be some courageous and open-minded Indians – in government or out – who will stand up and explain to the public why this is not just an issue for Pakistan, but why it is an existential issue for Pakistan. ( Why in the name of Spaghetti Monster should we give a damnf for Pakistaniant)
Second, there must be leadership from the Government of India. Here I am struck by the stark difference between the behaviour of India and that of its fellow BRIC – Brazil, the regional hegemon in Latin America. Brazil and Paraguay have a binding agreement on their rights and responsibilities on the massive Itaipu Binacional Hydropower Project. The proceeds, which are of enormous importance to small Paraguay, played a politicised, polemical anti-Brazilian part in the recent presidential election in Paraguay. Similarly, Brazil's and Bolivia's binding agreement on gas also became part of an anti-Brazil presidential campaign theme. ( Fudduman , how did you forget Paki terrorism, 26/11)." India could, and should, in my view, similarly make the effort to see it from its neighbour's point of view, and should show the generosity of spirit which is an integral part of being a truly great power and good neighbour. ( let paki pay tribute and come crawling on all four like they do in front of 3.5 Massars)
Third, this should translate into an invitation to Pakistan to explore ways in which the principles of the Indus Waters Treaty could be respected, while providing a win for Pakistan (assurance on their flows) and a win for India (reducing the chronic legal uncertainty ( why dont we just let Paki suck on their terrorist agenda)which vexes every Indian project on the Chenab or Jhelum). With good will there are multiple ways in which the treaty could be maintained but reinterpreted so that both countries could win.
Fourth, discussions on the Indus waters should be de-linked from both historic grievances and from the other Kashmir-related issues. Again, it is a sign of statesmanship, not weakness, to acknowledge the past and then move beyond it. This is personal for me, as someone of Irish origin. Conor Cruise O'Brien once remarked, "Santayana said that those who did not learn their history would be condemned to repeat it; in the case of Ireland we have learned our history so well that we are condemned to repeat it, again and again."

[/quote]

The writer does not give enough credit to IWT which has worked despite enmity between treaty states. It says Pakistan is fearful that India would /might use its leverage if all dams are constructed. It doubts intention of India to inflict major damage on PK through mechanism of IWT without showing any proof, except saying that Baghlihar was filled up when PK needed water. It also blames Indian media for not objectively reporting official indian position and existential vulnerabilities of PK . It overlooks what Pakistan is saying and doing vis-a-vis many Indian concerns. There is very little doubt in India that Pakistan actively encourages terrorist acts, even plans directs and executes which would not be possible if Pakistan state is not involved.

It then asks India to be magnanimous and reinterpret treaty in such a way that forgoes leverages which is available to it.
Unfortunately , the article does not say that official forum including IWT comm and Foreign Minister have duly acknowledged that India is not in violation of IWT. The problem faced by PK in irrigating its agri field is of its own making. The article expects that official Indian position should be that we deliberately violate IWT due to enmity with PK whereas media reports that India is in full compliance with IWT.

Upshot of this is
1. Be courageous for the existence of Pakistan
2. Give leadership to become truly great power and good neighbour
3.Invite Pakistan for IWT
4. Delink IWT from other issues.

Essential article asks India to take initiative to open pandora's box without any commensurate benefit except removing legal uncertainty ( pakistan not challenging any and all IWT projects of India, however he is not in a position to guarantee that).

In my view article fails to make any case for India to seek any of the four positions when it comes to Pakistan, especially when it is not yet proved that IWT has broken down.

Existential problems of pakistan and its bad neighbourly behaviour is of its own making and they should make amends and prove their credentials to the writer. WE don't need such lecturing.

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Apr 2010 15:28

SSridhar wrote:X-posting relevant portion of Abhishek_Sharma's post from TSP thread

Hillary Clinton's Interview With Moeed Pirzada of Dunya TV

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138930.htm

QUESTION: When I look at the list (inaudible), things like apart from security, we have economic development, we have agriculture, we have energy, which (inaudible) with me that all these things are very intimate and very closely linked with the issue of the water. And water, in the context of South Asia, between India and Pakistan is increasingly a transnational commodity, a transnational issue. Are we expecting the United States to play a more active and more robust diplomacy between India and Pakistan on the issue of water?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the issues that you mentioned are all interconnected, and you can’t pull one out and say, well, is this now going to become international as opposed to what we can do within the context of our relationship to assist Pakistan.
Agriculture, water – they’re all connected. We think we can bring to the table technology, innovation. I announced a project that we are funding to help farmers in Pakistan update two wells so that they can get better irrigation from the water that is already there. We’re well aware that there is a 50-year-old agreement between Pakistan and India concerning water.

What we want to do is to help Pakistan make better use of the water that you do have. That’s going to have to be the first priority in countries including our own. Let’s see what we do to protect our aquifers. Let’s see what we do to be more efficient in the use of our water. Let’s see what we do to capture more rainwater; how do we actually use less of it to produce more crops? We think we have some ideas with our experts that we want to sit down and talk with your experts about and see where that goes.

QUESTION: Just – if I want to spend 30 seconds more on that, in the sense that what you mentioned is an internal management of the water resources, and I want to remind you that you have recently launched the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative in which you identified that (inaudible) hunger is a strategic part of the U.S. foreign policy. So I wonder that – will you still be persuaded by the Indian argument that Pakistan and India are a bilateral relationship and U.S. cannot play an active mediation between them? Maybe water will change that perspective, that perception?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, usually, where there is an agreement, as there is between India and Pakistan on water, with mediation techniques, arbitration built in, it would seem sensible to look to what already exists to try to resolve any of the bilateral problems between India and Pakistan. But in the course of the strategic dialogue, what we want to do is focus on the problem. If the problem is water or agriculture or energy, without looking externally, as we do in our other strategic dialogues, when we have a strategic dialogue with Russia, it’s between the United States and Russia.

Now, Russia may have trouble with China or with another neighbor in Eastern Europe, but our strategic dialogue is between the two of us. And our strategic dialogue with Pakistan, which we are taking to the ministerial level at the highest level of civilian democratic leadership, is what we want to build and really put on a strong footing for the future.

Continuing from where the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left off, two excerpts from the US Assistant Secretary Robert Blake’s press briefing which sets out the US position on the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s paranoid accusation that India is stealing water.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s standard operating procedure to rope in an external balancer on any matter in contention with India, has been unambiguously spurned by the US.

The first excerpt:

FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BRIEFING WITH ROBERT BLAKE,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS
THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TOPIC: READOUT ON RECENT TRAVELS TO INDIA, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, AND BELGIUM
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2010, 1:00 EST ………………….

QUESTION: Thank you, Assistant Secretary, for the opportunity. I am Ali Imram for Associated Press of Pakistan.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Nice to see you.

QUESTION: Thank you. You have said that U.S. has good relations with both Pakistan and India. Pakistan is facing an urgent issue, which is water shortage. And you said that U.S. is prepared to help and is already helping Pakistan on energy issues.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Right.

QUESTION: But at the same time, Pakistan is accusing India of stealing its share of water and the talks between the two countries this week remain inconclusive. And the media in Pakistan is portraying it as water terrorism on part of India because it’s a matter of life and death for Pakistani agriculture economy. So in what ways can the U.S. help both of its friends to address this issue so that the attention on Afghan stability and security is not distracted?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: This is a question that came up in virtually every single meeting I had in Pakistan, not only with civil society people, the press, and everywhere. And what I said to everybody there was that if Pakistan believes that India is violating the Indus Water Treaty, then Pakistan should avail itself of the opportunity to submit whatever grievances it has to the independent arbitration panel that has been set up by the Indus Water Treaty. As many of you know, both countries have appealed to that panel many times in the past, most recently with respect to the Baglihar dam. So this is a functioning mechanism that has worked well in the past. And so again, if there are serious issues that Pakistan believes need to be addressed, then that is the address to which it should make its claim.

I also said that it is our view that the real issue is that both India and Pakistan have rapidly expanding populations and rapidly expanding economies, and therefore, of course, water use is growing very rapidly in both of these countries. And so the real challenge is how to make better use, more efficient use, of the water that they now have. And in Pakistan, I think there’s a particular urgency to looking at the agricultural sector, which accounts for more than half of water usage. And there are a great many practices that are inefficient; for example, the practice of flood irrigation that, if modified, would make a significant difference to the amount of water that is used in Pakistan. So I think that’s the kind of thing that we are working with Pakistan on. One of the things that we’re doing now in Pakistan – I think it’s noteworthy – is we have a tube well initiative where we’re helping to make 10,000 tube wells more efficient by replacing the engines on them. And that’s just one of many. And that’s both an electricity but also a water issue. So I think that’s where the real focus should be is to try to figure out how to improve water storage, but also water management and water efficiency. And so I think our Embassy is looking at ways to do that with our friends in the Government of Pakistan.

The second excerpt:

QUESTION: Hi, I’m Anwar Iqbal from Dawn newspaper.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: How are you? Nice to see you again.

QUESTION: Fine, thank you. Going back to the water issue, as you said, it is always present. So do you see any U.S. role at all in easing tension between India and Pakistan on this particular issue?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Again, we’re not going to get involved in bilateral issues related to water, because I think the World Bank is the best mechanism for that. But I do believe that, if asked, that the United States could help both sides with respect to water supply and, again, how to make better use of the existing water supply, how to make it more – more efficient use of it, how to increase water storage, rainwater harvesting – a lot of those kind of techniques. So that’s where we and other friends of both countries might be able to have a role.

From here:

Briefing by Assistant Secretary Robert Blake on Recent Travel

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Apr 2010 07:30

India not responsible for water shortage: Indian High Commissioner

The Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), which was established under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, should be used more effectively to address the water problems between India and Pakistan, Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, Sharat Sabharwal, said on Saturday. Around 104 meetings have been called thus far under the PIC.

Sabharwal was speaking at the function organised by Karachi Council on Foreign Relations (KCFR) and the Pakistan-India Citizens Friendship Forum (PICFF). He said that the Commission could function as a ‘consultative dispute avoidance body’ and solicit opinions regarding technology from national and international experts. The Commission could then work towards the implementation of these suggestions.

The PIC, Sabharwal said, was the best forum to resolve all such matters, while Article IX of the IWT provided a mechanism for settlement of the differences and disputes which are beyond the purview of the PIC.

The IWT provides an ‘elaborate framework’ for the distribution of water and resolution of disputes, he said. The Indian envoy, however, regretted that some quarters in Pakistan had made attempts to ‘inflame public passions’ over the water issue. ‘Angry statements’ targeting India can neither increase the quantity of available water, nor can such statements become a substitute for the mechanism in the IWT to resolve differences regarding its implementation, he maintained.

Sabharwal said that New Delhi had no ‘storage and diversion canals network’ to withhold Pakistan’s share of water, and all claims to the contrary were baseless allegations.

The IWT itself was the result of eight years of negotiations over water issues between India and Pakistan, with the help of the World Bank. The treaty laid down the framework to resolve disputes through bilateral means, neutral experts or a court of arbitration, he said, adding that the IWT also permitted “limited use” of water of Western Rivers by India for “domestic use, agriculture use, generation of hydroelectric power etc,” subject to conditions to protect the interests of Pakistan.

India had this far not utilised its entitlement to the waters of the Western Rivers, he said, adding that India had undertaken 33 hydroelectric projects, out of which 20 had a capacity of 10 megawatt (MW) or less. “Of late, it has been alleged in Pakistan that India was responsible for its water shortage. These claims have nothing to do with reality,” the envoy said. “New Delhi had provided Pakistan its share of water even during the wars of 1965 and 1971, and during other periods of tense relations.”

He pointed out that reduced flow of water into Pakistan from time to time was not the result of any violation of the IWT by India or any action on its part to divert such flows or to use more than assigned share of water from the Western Rivers. Instead, water flows in the rivers depended on melting of snow and quantum of rainfall. He said that India had also suffered serious droughts in 2009 and rainfall during the monsoon season was 20 per cent less than normal. Even winter rains have fallen far short of normal.

Water flows in the three Western Rivers have followed a curve moving up and down, depending upon climate factors from year to year, Sabharwal said, adding had there been any truth to the allegations of India building infrastructure to progressively deprive Pakistan of its share of water, the water flows would have showed a progressive decline.

Under the IWT, India had provided information of all projects to Pakistan, which sometimes resulted in ‘endless delays and cost over-run,’ he said. “In the case of the Baglihar project on Chenab, for instance, neutral experts, at the request of Pakistan in 2005, upheld India’s design approach and suggested only minor changes in the scope of construction,” he said.

He also urged Pakistan to adopt better water management and avoid wastage of water in time of increasing scarcity.

Referring to the Pakistan Water Sector Strategy Report of 2002 and the World Bank’s report of 2005, the Indian envoy said that much of the water infrastructure in Pakistan was in a state of disrepair and water loss between canal heads and farms was around 30 per cent.

“We need to resolve all outstanding issues in an environment free from terrorism,” he said, adding that no treaty could work without trust; and the IWT had developed a degree of trust.

Jang Group Managing Director Shahrukh Hasan then spoke about the significance of ‘Aman Ki Asha,’ which was launched by the Times of India and the Jang Group, in their quest for peace. He said that a large number of Indian journalists will arrive in Pakistan soon to talk about the role of the media in defusing tensions. A code of conduct for the media will likely be chalked out during a two-day conference; issues regarding media coverage beyond conflict will also be discussed.

Lt. Gen. (retd) Moinuddin Haider of the KCFR said that composite dialogue should bring some progress on issues and it should not be restricted to talks only. He said that India has to show greater generosity of spirit in order to settle problems. The Pakistani leadership had realised that extremism and terrorism would destroy the country and had made Herculean efforts to control it, he said, adding that Pakistan needed sympathetic views from India on this issue. {I don't know if he ever was coordinating terror activities when he was in the PA. But, as Interior Minister in Nawaz and later Musharraf's regimes, Moinuddin Haider was directly responsible for terrorism directed at India. He now wants us to forget all our suffering, which has only increased and not stopped, and show generosity ? }In a light mood, he wondered how much water was left for Pakistan after India built 33 hydroelctric projects.{Asking the question of how Sita was related to Ram, after listening to the entire Ramayana}

Liaquat Merchant of the PICFF said that confidence-building measures were a means to settle disputes and both countries had no option but to become friends.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Apr 2010 08:29

X-post from TSP thread

abhishek_sharma wrote:Discourse on India-Pakistan water sharing hots up

Excerpts (of those found missing in the previous report)

Of the view that the Indus Waters Treaty had served the two countries well, the High Commissioner said those who questioned its fairness should note that it assigned 80 per cent share of water of the Indus system of rivers to Pakistan.

As against the storage entitlement of 3.6 MAF, India has built no storage so far. Of the 1.34 million acres permitted for irrigation, only 0.792 million acres is being irrigated, he said. “We have exploited only a fraction of the hydroelectric potential available to us on these rivers.”

Out of a total potential of 18,653 MW, projects worth 2,324 MW have been commissioned and those for 659 MW are under construction. “In any case, even after India starts using its full entitlement of water from the Western Rivers under the Treaty, it will amount to no more than 3 per cent of the mean flow in these rivers.”

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 04 Apr 2010 10:47

SS,

Much like we do for the Pakistan thread, at the beginning of this thread, we should put links to some key articles - like your SRR article, and also article links that clarify that India is well within the IWT. As we all expect that this thread will see a lot of increased activity in the next few months.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 04 Apr 2010 14:40

Water shortage in Baluchistan's Hub River to affect Karachi

In Balochistan, the Hub Dam’s water is not only used for irrigation purposes in district Lasbella, but the entire population of Hub city is dependent on the reservoir for drinking water. Karachi receives around 100 mgd of water from the Hub Dam.

The water level in the dam has been declining steadily, however, owing to minimal rainfall in the catchment area of the Hub Dam during the past couple of years. A similar situation was witnessed in 2002 when the water level in the Hub Dam touched the dead level owing to the paucity of rains in the catchment area of the reservoir; as a result, water supply from the dam to some areas of Karachi was suspended.

The Pakistan Meteorological Department, meanwhile, is not sure about the extent of rainfall in the coming monsoon season. Weather expects predict, however, that Pakistan is not likely to receive much rain this season, because the prevailing El Nino phenomenon has a reverse affect in South Asia.

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 05 Apr 2010 09:54

Baglihar dam location on Google Maps : 33°09’43”N 75°19’40”E

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Apr 2010 07:43

Arindam wrote:SS,

Much like we do for the Pakistan thread, at the beginning of this thread, we should put links to some key articles -

Arindam, yes. You are right.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Apr 2010 07:47

Pakistan must improve storage to avoid water woes

India feels Pakistan should improve its storage capacity to ensure adequate water flow during the lean season instead of raising the pitch over sharing of river waters.

India had offered joint storage under adequate supervision, which would address the immediate water needs of Pakistan and cater to its requirements if the need arises and as per the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).

In fact, it is to avoid any strain on Pakistan's water resources that India has so far refrained from using any of the water of the western rivers for storage, which is allowed under the IWT. Of the water permitted to be used for irrigation, India has been using only two-thirds, officials associated with sorting out water issues between the two countries point out.

While both countries agree on the usefulness of the IWT, India's view that Pakistan should immediately undertake better utilisation of the available water during the lean season by constructing storage projects and canals is backed by a World Bank report, as well as a recent statement by Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

In an interview to a Pakistani channel on April 2, Mr. Qureshi said: “It is not being stolen by India. It's been wasted in Pakistan. The total average canal supplies of Pakistan are 104 million acres per feet. And the water available at the farm gate is about 70 million acre per feet. Where does the 34 million acre per feet go? It is not being stolen in India; it is being wasted in Pakistan.”

Officials, who provided the transcript, say they have the video clip to prove their claim.

The World Bank report that they cite, titled ‘Pakistan's Water Economy Running Dry,' states: “When the river flow is variable, then storage is required so that the supply of water can more closely match water demands. Relative to other arid countries, Pakistan has very little storage capacity.”

Instead, Pakistan is making the “mistaken assertion” — as made out in the non-paper submitted by it during the meeting between the Foreign Secretaries on February 25 this year — that Islamabad has full control over the waters of the three western rivers.

The notion that Pakistan has a veto over the water flow in the three western rivers (the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum) goes against the spirit of the articles and annexure of the IWT. And it is because of this notion that Pakistan is raising objections over the projects implemented by India “in accordance with the Treaty” on the western rivers.

To prove their point, they refer to a clause which states that Pakistan has unrestricted use of only those waters of the western rivers, which India is under obligation to let flow after its own use under the provisions of the Treaty.

Care was being taken to ensure that all hydroelectric projects on the western rivers were run-of-the-river (which do not consume any water) and did not affect Pakistan's interests in any manner, the officials said.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Apr 2010 07:52

We are for peaceful settlement of all outstanding disputes with India: Zardari

Advocating dialogue, he said Pakistan wanted an “honourable and peaceful settlement of all outstanding disputes,” including the water issue and the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir . . . On the issue of water, he said it was raised with India, and Pakistan would continue to raise it at every international forum within the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty.