Indus Water Treaty

[SSridhar]

A dear friend brought my attention to a 'breathtaking development' in Pakistan. It is truly mometous. Will CJP, Iftikhar Mian, take suo motu notice of this ?

Warning: This is a long post. Apologies also for a fairly generous use of smileys. I could not help them. I have posted in full newspaper reports for the sake of posterity as not all newspaper websites archives are easily searchable

Asian Development Bank accuses President of Pakistan and Sindh Assembly Speaker as Water Thieves

An Asian Development Bank (ADB) report has accused top Sindhi politicians including President Asif Ali Zardari, Sindh Assembly Speaker Nisar Khuhro and other Sindhi landlords of stealing canal water through Direct Outlets (DOs), a major source of water theft that is virtually turning the irrigated lands situated at the tail-end of water courses into barren tracts.

The report, a severe indictment of the political elite, said that in Nasir Division of Rohri canal where President Zardari’s lands are located, 354 per cent extra water is captured through Direct Outlets (DOs) by influential landowners and in this way they are getting 11.43 cusecs water per acre against the designated amount of 3.23 cusecs per acre. In case of President Zardari’s land, 138 per cent extra water is being granted for irrigation. Nisar Khuhro’s lands are being irrigated through 292 per cent extra water secured through DOs from main canals. {His father was the first Chief Minister of the Sind Province after Aug. 14, 1947} Irrigation laws don’t permit DO to anybody. Anyone drawing water through DO is committing a theft, said an irrigation expert who recently retired from the Sindh Irrigation Development Authority (SIDA).

The Sindh government, instead of looking into the matter, has disapproved the ADB report that was prepared to fund Sindh Water Resources Development and Management Investment Programme to be funded by the bank. Consequently, the ADB has withdrawn the funding offer, it has been learnt.

The report was prepared by a team of 17 national and international consultants who worked on it from March to August 2009. Murad Ali Shah, then Sindh’s irrigation minister who now holds the portfolio of finance, confirmed to our sources that ADB had submitted a report but it was turned down by the provincial government. “There were numerous mistakes. Lots of things were wrong,” he said when contacted through telephone for his version. He refused going into the details about the individuals listed for capturing water through DO, including President Zardari.

President Zardari’s spokesman didn’t respond to telephone calls and messages dropped for his version. However, the report has mentioned his name, also of Nisar Khuhro.

MNA Marvi Memon, who heads a National Assembly’s sub-committee on climate change and had been working on water theft, said she had visited areas in Sindh and the Punjab and theft by landed elite was a common practice in both provinces. Marvi has directed authorities in both provinces to submit a report to her committee about how many landowners were receiving irrigation water through DOs. The sub-committee’s meeting will be held today (Wednesday).

The ADB report’s copy is available with our sources. It said the capturing of water has been allowed through lack of enforcement and loss of management control. “It has changed the cropping patterns on large landholdings to higher water demand crops with lower economic returns to water (but higher financial returns on land),” said the report. It further states: “Despite the high flows, the level of elite (water) capture results in shortage of water for most farmers, creating opportunities for rent seeking that give an impression of power of irrigation officials when, in fact, they have lost effective control of the irrigation system and can only influence irrigation at the margin.”

Writing in reference to Rohri Canal/Nasir Division where President Zardari’s lands are located, the report states: “The large transfers of water from ordinary farms to influential landowners with DO and illegal outlets is not only inequitable but also economically damaging...Substantial economic costs have been incurred through misallocation of water.”

The ADB report has listed as many as 147 landlords benefiting through DO only in Nasir Division of Rohri Canal that include the names of President Zardari and Nisar Khoro. Although, the Sindh government has rejected the report, Professor Ejaz Qureshi who was then General Manager of Sindh Irrigation Development Authority (SIDA), now retired, endorsed the contents of the report. “They (government) have tried to hush it up but the report is based on facts.” Qureshi said DO is part of water theft and is hooliganism of grave nature. He said while a poor farmer receives water from water courses, the feudals get it directly through canals. “Due to this reason, sanctioned lands don’t get water.” He said that according to irrigation laws, there was no room for DO.

Marvi Memon, who is working on water theft, said: “This is downright criminal. In last 10 days, I have toured Sindh and Punjab to see why the poor people of both provinces are complaining of water shortages, how they are used in inter-provincial disputes, and how the elite with the connivance of irrigation bureaucracy steal their rights.” {One can be sure that Ms. Marvi Memon herself is a big time landlord. Now who will see if she also gets water to her lands like that ?}

Further developments on this.

The Sindh government has issued a clarification

The provincial minister for Irrigation & Power, Jam Saifullah Khan Dharejo, has clarified the contents of a news item published in a section of the press in referring to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) report on the Sindh Water Resources Development and Management Investment Programme.

He said that according to factual position, the report was prepared on Sindh Water Resources and Development Management Investment Programme by the AHT Group AG Management & Engineering Consultants appointed by the ADB and draft report was sent to the Irrigation & Power Department for views/comments. It was noticed that in the report there was some incorrect information.

Due to misunderstanding and less coordination among Irrigation staff and consultants such information was incorporated in the report with out getting it authenticated from the record and knowing the facts.

The Irrigation & Power Department immediately pointed out those efficiencies and wrong information to ADB mission with request to discuss the report and the incorrect information which was collected by the consultants may be rectified and corrected accordingly.

Now the Asian Development Bank has submitted the final report where in they have with drawn the information which was incorrect and there are no names mentioned in the report. Publishing names of President and the Speaker without verifying is meant to tarnish the image of politicians, which is highly regrettable.

Umar Cheema adds: The clarification is self-explanatory. It has been explained that information contained in ADB’s first draft report was not based on facts. But in the following para, the Irrigation Minister has also admitted the revised report has removed the names of the alleged water theives.

It smacks of the Sindh government’s cover-up. Supposing the information about water theives in the ADB report was wrong, it should have been corrected with revised name list of theives instead of erasing them altogether.

Sindh Secretary Irrigation, Shuja Junejo, when confornted this question during a National Assembly Standing Committee on Wednesday, had said: “Everybody wants to steal water but everybody doesn’t have the opportunity.”

So this needs to be determined who is priviliged to have the opportunity of water theft and it can only be done through independent investigators who should determine whether the big names accused of water theft merit their mention in the report or not.

Clarification may be a cover-up to hide the excesses of landed elite in Interior Sindh but it can’t avert the crisis of water shortage. Nor it can bring a let up in the miseries of farmed at tail-ends of the water courses.

Explaining why the Asian Development Bank report was withdrawn, he had said the consultants were told about the consequences in form of legal suit from the accused
theives.

[chaanakya]

Reference is excellent. However , Paki reaction is a usual. That report is dated June 2010.

Link to report is http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Co ... d-tacr.pdf

Some nuggets of wisdom from that report

Wasteful use of water is observed and overuse in irrigation is a major problem.This is evident from low irrigation delivery and application efficiency of 35% from canal head to crop root zone and water logging and salinity problems............... Canal deliveries generally bear little relationship with crop water requirements

Many DO farmers who draw water directly from main and branch canals , outside any rotation system , have abundent water at zero marginal cost so make decisions which are inconsistent with national policies and interests but aimed at maximising financial returns to land rather than economic returns to water.

Large transfer of water from ordinary farmers to influential landowners with DO is not only inequitable but also economical damaging as water is transferred from uses with returns over PR 6.0/m^3 to uses with returns with PR 2.2/m^3 to PR 3.7^3.

[SSridhar]

India & Pak must use water as a tool to build trust

India and Pakistan need to adopt a joint, cooperative approach on the Indus river waters to counter the growing water crisis that threatens not only the lives and livelihoods of the people of the region, but also relations between India and Pakistan, according to experts participating in an India-Pakistan seminar here on ‘Water is Life.'

The seminar concluded that the bilateral Indus Water Treaty of 1960 was a viable pact that had stood the test of time and even war, but both sides needed to share data and information on the Indus river to counter misperceptions.

The seminar was organised jointly by Aman Ki Asha and the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation

The delegates urged both the governments to share data, ensure transparency and make the information public.

They suggested that there could be a joint-study of the factors responsible for the reported reduced flows in the western rivers (allotted to Pakistan under the treaty) and proposed joint monitoring of flows at strategic points. {These must be absolutely 'no go' for India}

Why hasn't any of these worthies said that Pakistan should not spread misinformation and raise war paranoia even as they advise India to share data and information and propose joint study and monitor flow within Indian territory ?

[Pratyush]

SS sir,

Expecting the WKKs to ask any thing from TSP is a wasted emotion. To these people Indian can do no right and TSP can do no wrong.

I some times feel that this segment of the population is truly a lost cause.

[SSridhar]

Expecting the WKKs to ask any thing from TSP is a wasted emotion.

I understand that two of India's top people with extensive knowledge about water were in the panel, BG Varghese and Ramaswamy Iyer. One mistake that we repeatedly commit in dealing with Pakistan is that we compartmentalize issues whereas we should deal holistically with that nation.

[chaanakya]

India was filling Baglihar late August 2008 (Dawn article cited above complaining about India filling the Baglihar was August 23, 2008).

Prof. John Briscoe of Harvard claims India filled Baglihar at the time when Pakistan was most vulnerable.

Relief Web
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db9 ... enDocument

reports floods in Pakistan in early August 2008. The above report is from August 5:

Monsoon rains across Pakistan have caused hill torrents and river bank overflows, leading to flood situations in various parts of the country. The Pakistan Meteorological Department has forecasted more rains over the next few days. The Indus river at Tarbela and Guddu, Chenab river at Khanki and Qadirabad, Ravi river at Balloki and Kabul river at Nowshera are at a low flood level, while all other major rivers are flowing below the low flood level.

So much for the credibility of Professors from Harvard! What better time to fill a dam when the downstream area is suffering from floods?

Just to put the things in perspective about Baglihar filling not done as per IWT by India ( Prof Beiscoe and his Pakis friends)

Flood situation continue to worsen across pakistan with almost all rivers witnessing exceptionally high flood level and has already claimed more than 1000 pious people in a short time causing shortage of 72s in the abode of Allatala.

Code: Select all

Unicef spokesman Abdul Sami Malik told Reuters of the more than three million affected, 1.3 million people were severely impacted by the floods in the northwest, losing homes and livelihoods. More than [b]1,400 have died,[/b] he said.

The month is August and the situation will remain critical to worse till september.

Quote from http://daveslandslideblog.blogspot.com/

The flood wave is travelling down the Indus River at present, concentrated initially on the most westerly of the three main tributaries

The flood routing model suggests that the peak should reach Guddu in about three days from the peak at Taunsa, and then take a further day to get to Sukkur and finally three days or so to reach the sea. Hopefully there is sufficient warning to relocate people away from the water, but the potential for damage is high. The government (i.e. the NDMA) in Pakistan is once again coming under severe criticism for its response - this letter, written about Taunsa, gives a flavour of the concerns. Whilst it is easy to criticise NDMA, the core issue probably remains a lack of investment and capacity building in this agency

Meanwhile Pakistan sends Zardari to Lond on to beg borrow or steal. He is busy cleaning his begging bowl sparkling steel to get some sterling response.

The floods in Pakistan appear to be starting to generate substantial interest in the UK, although this may in part be a result of the perhaps surprising decision of the Pakistan president to travel to London today.

Just a day or two earlier

In the UK the current floods in Pakistan are failing to gather the level of coverage that they deserve, although there has at least been some interest. The death toll is currently standing at over 1,100 people, with a million or more directly affected. Fortunately, the Attabad Dam appears to have avoided the worst of the rainfall, so far at least, and has remained intact, although the water level has risen. It seems likely though that this disaster will have slowed the plans for lowering the lake level - at least I hope so as this would be a very bad time to start blasting.

While Indus is in spate


While Pakistan was complaining about Baglihar filling at the wrong time, the recent floods ( usual recurring phenomenon at this time of year in Indian Subcontinent) would point to the underlying rationale for providing those specific dates for filling up of any storage for dams on western rivers.

A_G good effort. You could have also pointed out to the "expert" that IWT (Annexure E, article 18) says

India may carry out the filling as follows :
(a) if the site is on The Indus, between 1st July and 20th August ;
(b) if the site is on The Jhelum, between 21st June and 20th August ; and
(c) if the site is on The Chenab, between 21st June and 31st August at such rate as not to reduce, on account of this filling, the flow in the Chenab Main above Merala to less than 55,000 cusecs.

So the IWT itself stipulates when we can fill water for power generation (India has ~60 days per year and India has no flexibility in adjusting the dates during when India can fill up the dam) and he is talking out of his musharraf if he claims that India did it to cause maximum inconvenience. Maybe as a starting exercise our "expert" should read the IWT? The article by SSridhar ji could be a good start....

Pakistan needs to look to saner voices in sorting out their water problem rather than dragging India at every opportunity it finds within IWT .That will work to their detriment.

[SSridhar]

Water: Not Enough or Far Too Much

One of the principal figures in the ongoing war of words over water with India is Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner. In an interview, Smith asks him why so many Pakistanis are unhappy with the Indus Water Treaty. Shah replies: “India got the headworks of our canals [in 1947] and wanted to green their deserts. Pakistan could not afford a war. We were a new state, with meagre resources. So we made this treaty. It was not a happy marriage. People often say the treaty isn’t good, but we own it. We have to work with it.”

Replying to a question about Pakistan’s objections to Indian hydroelectric projects upstream, Shah replies: “The issue is gates. Why does India need gates on the rivers? Why does it need the ability to cut off our water, even temporarily? They are pushing the limits of the treaty. They are breaking the spirit of the agreement. They promise not to manipulate our water, but who knows what can happen in the future?”

[Pratyush]

One can ask the question to the Pakistanies. If they have problems with water scarcity and of water plenty in the space of 3 to 4 months. Then what steps they are taking to harvest the water resources that are plentiful due to the monsoons.

Rain water harvesting by TSP may reduce a lot of the water scarcity problem for the Pakistanis. Why is it not being tried by them.

Cause blaming India may divert the attention of the population. But it will not make the problem go away.

[milindc]

Any update on the Hunza landslide and the lake? With all the rains, the dam created by the landslide seems to be holding well.
Its been a while since we heard anything on it.

[chaanakya]

Any update on the Hunza landslide and the lake? With all the rains, the dam created by the landslide seems to be holding well.
Its been a while since we heard anything on it.

Pamirtimes.net has some nice set of photos of the spillway and gushing water through it. The upstream areas ( read Attabad and higher reaches of mountains) have been spared Monsoon fury so far while downstream areas Gilgit etc have been facing flood. Landslides are occurring with some frequency and area faced minor quake. The nature of landslide is such that lots of bolders are in the debris so dam is holding up well while spillway discharge is stabilised /maxed at 600 cumecs . Erosion is happening at spillway but large rocks seems to impede rapid erosion which could be saving grace. However, no landslide on Hunza has survived and only time will tell if this one will do. The depth of lake remains above 115 M above the floor of the valley implying a lot of water stored behind the landslide and spillway has not yet made much impact on volume.

There was some recentment among locals that GOP is not taking much action in widening the spillway so as to reduce flooding upstream billages. GOP is yet undecided about blasting the rocks to clear the pillway as they are unsure of what could happen next due to water pressure and blast pressure. So upstream communities continue to suffer while downtream are spared from this misery and are facing another misery flood due to excessive rains.

In winter they may have some respite due to frozen lake.

[SSridhar]

Water through Pakistani eyes - Ramaswami R Iyer
I think this article flows directly from the recent Track-II diplomacy on 'waters' held recently at Delhi which I also posted.

Writing in these pages some time ago (March 3, 2010), this writer had expressed the apprehension that perceptions of Indian wrongdoing on water might become widespread in Pakistan and might affect India–Pakistan relations even at the people-to-people level. That is no longer an apprehension; it is a reality. This is a very disturbing development that needs to be understood in India and responded to appropriately.

Whether the crisis in Pakistan can be averted or minimised through better management is an internal matter for the people of Pakistan to consider. However, the perception of a crisis tends to lead to the attribution of that crisis to Indian wrongdoing. “India is stealing Pakistan's water” has become a familiar cry at the popular level, echoed in the media, picked up by the jihadists, and acquiesced in at the official and expert levels through silence (or even aggravated by official statements). This is a new development. Until recently, there were criticisms of particular Indian projects on the western rivers as not compliant with the Treaty, but no accusations of ‘water theft' by India.

Pakistan could have been totally free of anxiety if the Treaty had given it the exclusive use of the western rivers with no provision whatever for even limited use by India; but such a Treaty might not have been signed by India. What both sides agreed to and signed was the Treaty in its present form; and what both sides can do now is to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Treaty.

The third important component in Pakistan's anxiety, whether at the official level or at the level of civil society, is the worry caused by the number of projects that India is planning on the western rivers. Pakistan is apprehensive that even with strict compliance with the provisions of the Treaty in each case, India might, taking all the projects together, acquire a measure of control over the waters of the western rivers and might potentially be able to inflict harm on Pakistan. (A military variant of this view is that with the assistance of such structures India will be able to use water as a weapon of war.)

Two questions arise here: the number of projects that India is planning, and their cumulative potential for harm to the lower riparian. Some Pakistani writings talk about a hundred projects. There seems to be no basis for that number. It appears that India might have in mind some thirty projects or so. It is not clear whether all those projects will in fact be undertaken, but assuming that they are, it is necessary to consider whether all of them will together give India a greater degree of control; enable large storage; make it possible for India to withhold water from Pakistan, or release stored waters and flood Pakistan. The Indian answer would be that most of these will be small projects; that all these are run-of-the-river projects; that given the restrictive provisions of the Treaty, there is hardly any scope either for the retention of waters to the detriment of the lower riparian or for flooding the lower riparian; and that assuming that India wants to harm Pakistan it can do so only by openly violating the Treaty and by first harming itself, its own people, and its own projects (built at great cost).

Having taken note of both Pakistani and Indian views on this question, one would still suggest that the hypothetical fear of ‘cumulative impact' needs to be looked at. Quite apart from Pakistan's worries (real or imaginary), there is room for some concern even from the Indian point of view: by building such a large number of projects on these rivers what are we doing to the river system as a whole and to the ecological system of which they are a part? Perhaps this too is an imaginary fear, but it seems desirable to look at this carefully before dismissing it.

As evidence of possible harm, Pakistan might mention two cases: the initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir, and the planned diversion of Kishenganga waters. The first was a very minor and relatively innocuous matter which was blown up into a huge controversy. One has written about this elsewhere. In any case, the issue has been closed at the last meeting of the PIC. The Kishenganga diversion, which Pakistan considers to be a violation of the Treaty and India holds to be specifically permitted by the Treaty, is going to the Court of Arbitration, and need not be discussed here.

In the light of the foregoing, what needs to be done? This writer has some suggestions: (i) a joint study needs to be made of the fact and extent of reductions in flows in the western rivers and the factors responsible; (ii) whenever the Treaty prescribes an operational condition (as in relation to the initial filling of Baglihar), there should be institutional arrangements for the joint monitoring of compliance at the relevant point (there are none in the Baglihar case); (iii) the working of the Permanent Indus Commission should change from a spirit of tug of war to one of constructive cooperation (but unfortunately this is a function of the political relations between the two countries); (iv) there should be a review of the totality of the planned projects on the western rivers from the ecological perspective as well as from that of Pakistani apprehensions; (v) in both countries, the media, academia and civil society should refrain from echoing official positions and should examine matters independently; and (vi) to facilitate this, all data and information regarding the working of the Treaty should be in the public domain. Going beyond those specifics, it is necessary to take note of and allay what has been called the “visceral lower riparian anxiety,” but is that feasible in an ambience of distrust and hostility (again visceral) often sedulously fostered by official disinformation?

Perhaps, we should discuss here the points of suggestions given by Mr. Iyer, who had been Secretary of the Water Ministry of GoI.

IMO, any effort to 'allay fears' of Pakistan would be useless because one has to really see why Pakistan is raising these issues. Some of the claims of Pakistan had been simply fantastic. The natural question to ask is why is Pakistan doing so ? Why should Pakistan be sending terrorists into India even when its lid had been blown off many times ? Why should Pakistan describe itself as the 'mirror image' of India ? Why should Pakistan repeatedly 'lie' to its own people and the rest of the world ? Why should Pakistan try to achieve an unattainable 'parity' with India for 63 years pushing its people into impoverishment and the region and the world to great risk ? Why should Pakistan engage in social engineering to develop and nurture hatred for India, a project which is still going on strongly ? Why should Pakistan possess nuclear weapons and a disproportionately-sized armed forces when it has been the initiator of all the aggression, wars and skirmishes even as it claims fraudulently it 'fears' India ?

India has gone several extra miles and many times too to 'ally Pakistan's fears', all to no avail. Pakistan has only misconstrued these attempts as Indian Hindu cowardice and has gone even more strongly on its chosen path of destroying India. There is no need for India to 'allay the water fears' too. How can you wake up somebody who is pretending to sleep and detemined to maintain that posture because of evil intentions ?

I say it again. The water issue has been deliberately drummed up by Pakistan with an ulterior motive. No 'appeasement' by India, even gifting away the three Eastern rivers, will satisfy Pakistan. Pakistan is not only evil but also greedy. Let us put a full stop to these attempts to 'allay Pakistani fears'.

[RajeshA]

I say it again. The water issue has been deliberately drummed up by Pakistan with an ulterior motive. No 'appeasement' by India, even gifting away the three Eastern rivers, will satisfy Pakistan. Pakistan is not only evil but also greedy. Let us put a full stop to these attempts to 'allay Pakistani fears'.

I disagree a tiny weeny bit here.

When we try to 'allay Pakistani fears', we should target the right audience, the Pakistani people. The Pakistani Representatives don't talk to Indian Representatives. They talk to their own constituency and for one purpose - to shift the blame to India, and to agitate the people into a war mood against India, something that is the standard policy of the Pakistani Establishment.

Water is increasingly going to be an excuse for the Pakistani Establishment to divert the people's rage towards India. The feudals in Pakistan continue to steal and waste water, the farmers keep on sowing water-intensive crops with wasteful means, but the blame is going to land at India's door.

With so much time having passed, I am not sure how much pull the issue of Kashmir would really have on the Pakistani people, but water shortage touches everybody there. So it would be an issue with a lot more explosive potential. India has stuck to the Indus Water Treaty for the last half century, despite all the wars.

Now if the strategic community in India, says that Water is on the table as a strategic pressure point against Pakistan, than we can ignore the following suggestion, otherwise if India wants to stick to the letter of Indus Water Treaty, then I would suggest the following.

There is a trust deficit between India and Pakistan. Even as we say it, this means little, as the Pakistani side is only interested in playing to the gallery back home, and figures and facts, empirical data would mean little for them. What India and Pakistan needs is an independent overseeing committee overseeing the implementation of the IWT, and issuing a biannual report.

The question arises, why should India give away its leeway on water usage and deniability and let some independent committee vouch for India's behavior. Well India would be speaking to a wall, if India tries to convince Pakistani representatives and Pakistani people of India's innocence and honorable behavior. It would cut no ice. The Pakistani Representatives at the behest of Pakistani Army, Pakistani Feudals, and Islamists would continue to use water shortage for propaganda.

Either it should not disturb us, and if it does, then we should do something about it. If it does not disturb us, then I ask, 'Why the hell are we sticking to the treaty at all?'. Why don't we use all the water we can? We do need water. Why share the waters with Pakistan at all? If it has to come to war, then it should be for a real reason. What is the need for going to war for apparently having stolen water, even though we clearly haven't? This way, we lose at both ends.

But if we don't want war, especially as India has acted honorably, then we should let our integrity on the IWT issue speak louder, more effectively. Let a monitoring committee consisting of non-Indian, non-Pakistani experts evaluate the findings from monitoring equipment on the river basin, and give their report.

I think, it is important that Pakistani Establishment not be allowed to use water for propaganda. India needs a means to be able to convince the Pakistani people, that the Establishment is only telling hogwash, when it says, 'there is stealing of water going on by India'.

After all, we want that the barbarians turn into cannibals and eat each other, and not be sent to India, so we win the propaganda war in Pakistan, it wouldn't hurt us. We don't want or need to win the hearts of Pakistanis. All we want is that the Pakistani Establishment does not escape the revenge of the common Abdul by pointing the finger at us. An independent IWT monitoring committee, with whom India can take rationally, based on empiric data, would help.

One could think later on about bringing water management and water theft in Pakistan within the preview of this IWT Monitoring Committee.

Just a suggestion!

[Lalmohan]

no, we cannot introduce third parties into the mix
what is needed is a lot more tv and radio broadcasting into pakistan of how water is successfully managed in india and how it is NOT managed in pakistan
that would be far more effective

[Theo_Fidel]

Talking to Pak Abduls is a fools errand. Opinion there is the most irrational of all.

All this tamasha is an attempt to prevent India from gaining legitimate rights on the Western river. It is a power grab.

Paki's do not fear India in the traditional sense. If they truly feared us they would be more careful.

Increasingly they do not fear Massa either. Hence the double dealing.

[Pratyush]

^^^ Theo Bhai, TSP exists in a mortal fear of India. Else, there is no logical explaination for the hate emanating from TSP. India must do what is in its interest regardless of what TSP is telling its abduls.

[Prasad]

Theo,
What we need is not a educational program like UGC mid-day TV programs. What we need is to throw information out to the aam paki abdul about how we're doing things and how the pak government/army is handling things on their side. Psyops of the best kind - the uncomfortable truth. This will mean that arguments from the army/govt on the pak side will need to do more convincing to get their point across. Even a little bit of effect is welcome.

[SSridhar]

I am an ardent fan of using 'all possible means at our disposal' to overcome Pakistan.

To that extent, I would welcome psy-ops, propaganda and re-educating the Pakistanis, though I know the dividends will be abysmal. Everything that the Pakistanis are taught and brain-washed is so patently untrue. From, the creation of Pakistan, from the fear of majority community wiping out the Muslims of pre-Partition India, from the wars of 1947/48 to the entire works, from how they are descendants of West Asian/Turkish/Central Asian ancestors etc. From day one, Pakistani leaders have mischievously propagated the idea that India has been actively working to destabilize their nation and re-absorb it. I don't need to list the entire set of lies. Suffice it to say that the whole Nation is an artificial construct based on fraud, perfidy, lies, half-truths and fabricated history. Those minuscule Pakistanis who might know the truth are so afraid of 'cognitive dissonance' that they either want to ignore the truth or they are utterly powerless.

I am convinced that trying to alter the Pakistani mindset through well-intentioned propaganda will simply not work. If Pakistanis believe that they won the 1965 war, that the secession of East Pakistan was only due to an Indian manipulation, that 26/11 was by India's own intelligence agencies, and that Muslims do not kill other Muslims and it is therefore Indian agents who are responsible for 'suicide bombing' etc. they will believe in anything. Even every Sindhi farmer believes that India too steals water like the Punjabis.

The State, Armed forces, the jihadi publications, the kutbah on Fridays, the Urdu vernacular print media, the Islamist leaders, the politicians, the Television channels and the so-called analysts in Pakistan all propagate myths. While we may try to show the truth to the Pakistanis, the Indian effort will surely come a cropper against the combined might of the entities I have listed just above. However, alternatively, we must 'educate' Pakistan's 3½ friends for whatever it is worth, because we have a better chance of turning them around even if only nominally.

Those who have read the Neutral Expert's verdict on Baglihar would know how frivolous were Pakistan's objections in the first place. After the verdict, Pakistan celebrated it because three of its objections seemed to have been upheld. Later, Pakistan wanted to reject the award and go in appeal to ICJ. It still keeps talking about such a recourse occassionally. Of course, that is not possible because the verdict is final and binding. Later, they raised the issue of 'filling up' the BHEP and said that India violated IWT and 'starved' Pakistani farmers who lost so much. Most Pakistani commentators still frequently refer to the unfair Baglihar project and how India is drying up Pakistan as though this matter had not been arbitrated and settled already more than three years back. All these show the dilemma Pakistan is facing. It has to appear, in every duel with India, to have succeeded. At the same time, it has to keep the flames of hatred alive and rekindled at every opportunity.

Merely forming a non-Indian, non-Pakistani committee will not resolve the water issue because Pakistan will accept only parts favouring it and reject the parts favouring India. We will then be back to square one. After all, wasn't Raymond Lafitte a neutral expert from Switzerland ? He was the expert both India and Pakistan agreed upon in the very first round of names offered by the World Bank. Pakistani commentators, including water managers, still talk about how 'low-level gates' can be used by India to flood her, an issue settled comprehensively by Mr. Lafitte. Common Abduls in Pakistan, even if supplied with data, cannot understand technical issues. They will simply go by what they hear from Pakistani Government and media. And, water is a very emotional issue. The lower riparian is always suspicious of the upper riparian. It becomes easy for Pakistan to inflame passions. It doesn't even need to go out of the way to do anything and yet, it has orchestrated a villification campaign which even its ardent supporter, the USA, is able to see through. The Pakistani campaign is therefore largely aimed at its own people to make India look like devil. Our earnest and sincere attempts will cut no ice in a country that collectively hates us for much less reasons. We have no means of carrying out such a propaganda either.

Pakistan's attempts, as I can see, are two fold. One, keep Indian hatred as high as possible. Second, use this opportunity to put more restrictions on India or invite another round of international arbitration in a region at 'nuclear flashpoint', which may bring it more benefits. Some of those at the highest decision-making levels in Pakistan may even want to delay the inevitable Indian projects just to thwart its development.

[Pratyush]

Just adding to SS guru,

India must do what is in its interests to enhance its interests short of breaking the IWT. however, within the ambit of IWT, a water Jehard should be launched against TSP. If they see the light well and good. Else let the Pakis stew in their own juices.

They must not be allowed to place water on the agenda for talks.

[Theo_Fidel]

This is a little OT but I hope the Admins in indulge.

Psy-ops are all well and good but are more likely to back fire big time. Case in
point is the non-military non-threatening intervention we have tried in Afghanistan.
We all know what the common abdul thinks of that.

The common abduls in Baqui land are not fools. They know the low down and
despite all the rumor mongering they have a rough idea of what the truth is.

I don't buy this whole, '..they have been lied to. Oh! if only they knew the truth..' game.

The truth is the common abdul finds several aspects of India revolting. He is quite simply
disgusted by the things that India is organized around. There is nothing we can do to change this.

First on the list is the Hindu Dharma.
Second on the list is freedom for women.
Third on the list is no primacy to religion, specifically the Koran.
Fourth on the list is cultural practices, such as diet, clothing, language, business dealing, etc.

I could go on.

All we see are the symptoms of this disgust. Even Hatred.

You do not fear what you are disgusted by. You hate it.

In India we find many practices weird and bizarre but
we have taught ourselves to not be disgusted by it. We turn
away but have taught ourselves not to condemn differences.

You look at the clothing on the average Baqui street and the mono culture of thought
is striking. They don't just look like that, they think like that.
All those polls for support for hand chopping and segregation of sexes come out 80% + consistently.

So that brings us to the present conundrum.
How do you accept the legitimate rights of a culture you are disgusted by.
Esp. WRT a river that 'belongs' to you.

The answer is you don't. This is not a negotiation. It is an ultimatum.

[Anindya]

I'm more worried about what is happening on our side - and there are two issues here - (a) the set of myths that the Indians have been fed about Pakistanis and (b) the pusillanimity that our interlocutors tend to show on a consistent basis.

On (a) we have idiotic statements coming from our own folks, like "Packees are like us onlee" - "solving Kashmir is critical to peace" - "a stable Pakistan is in India's best interests" - "Most Pakistanis want peace" and other sundry lies - this is just a reflection of our inability to digest the truth. I see this from people who should know better too

Then there's the pusillanimity that comes with the territory - Vargheese and others who met recently discuss with the Pakis next steps on Paki whinings on the IWT - they know all the facts, but yet the proposal (according to at least one journalist) is moving towards having India implement water management functionality in Pakistan, free of cost - no reason for such a gesture, when you see a small list of threats made recently in the media by the Pakis:

from arvind gupta's article...
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/Vicious ... pta_290310

The following is a sampling of some recent comments made in the Pakistani media:
* Dawn quoted the former Foreign Minister Sardar Asif Ali as saying that “if India continues to deny Pakistan its due share, it can lead to a war between the two countries.” (18 January 2010)

* In a similar vein, PML(Q) Chief Chaudhary Sujat Hussain said that the water crisis between Pakistan and India could become more serious than terrorism and can result in a war (Dawn, 18 January 2010).

* Majid Nizami, Chief Editor of Nawi Waqt group of newspapers, said that “Pakistan can become a desert within the next 10 to 15 years. We should show upright posture or otherwise prepare for a nuclear war.” (Dawn, 18 January 2010).

* Politicians are ratcheting up the rhetoric. Members of the Punjab Assembly passed a resolution to deny India trade transit facility until the resolution of the Kashmir dispute and issues related to water distribution (Dawn, 27 January 2010).

* Member of the Punjab Assembly Warris Khalo said that India would “remain an enemy” until the Kashmir dispute and water issues are resolved. (Dawn 27 January 2010).

* Palwasha Khan, Member of National Assembly, accused India of perpetrating “water terrorism” against Pakistan and said that “experts foresee war over the water issue in the future and any war in this region would be no less than a nuclear war.” (Daily Times 17 February 2010).

* In a recent debate in Pakistan’s National Assembly, several members urged the government to impress on New Delhi “not to use” Pakistan’s share of water (Daily Times, 25 February 2010).

* Dr. Manzur Ejaz, a commentator, writing in Daily Times (3 March 2010) warned that “unless Pakistan was assured on the supply of water, it will never abandon the proxies that can keep India on its toes by destabilizing Kashmir.” He further added: “for Pakistan the territory of Kashmir may not be as important as the water issue.”

Capitulating to such threats sends the message, that India will make strategic sacrifices, if threatened - something, that others are happy to leverage...

[chaanakya]

Kishenganga dispute: Govt earmarks Rs30 crore for legal battle with Pak

With India and Pakistan set for a battle in an international court to settle their dispute over the Jammu and Kashmir-based Kishenganga hydel project, the government has earmarked Rs30 crore to take care of the legal expenses.
<snip>

The Supplementary Demands for Grants passed by the Lok Sabha last week has kept aside Rs30 crore "for meeting fees of arbitrators/umpires and experts for proceedings of court of arbitration on Kishenganga hydro-electric project."

Besides the fees of umpires and arbitrators, the amount will be used to pay for the treasurer of the court and court secretariat which will be set up.
<snip>
The payments are made in US dollars.

At its first meeting, the court would make an estimate of the likely expenses of the proceedings "and call upon each party to pay to the treasurer half of the expenses estimated."

The first court meeting is likely to take place sometime later this year.

[chaanakya]

mistrust, suspicions and lack of confidence

Most of the differences between the two sides over water sharing and river-related projects stem from mistrust, suspicions and lack of confidence in each other. Only an atmosphere of cooperation can bring real or perceived disputes to an end but for that India will have to shed its hegemonic attitude. It is showing zero flexibility in the case of Kishanganga hydropower project.

Since the Indus Water Treaty is silent about how many dams India can construct, the issue falls outside the scope of the treaty. India's move to construct several dams on the Indus and Chenab rivers is, therefore, a unilateral decision taken without taking Pakistan into confidence and based on strategic considerations. But once the decision has been taken, the matter enters the framework of the treaty which provides technical specifications for construction of the structure.

According to Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a Pakistani lawyer dealing with IWT issues, Pakistan is free to contest such a strategic decision of India without entering into the dispute-resolution mechanism of the Indus treaty. Pakistan is entitled to launch a diplomatic offensive outside the treaty if it feels threatened due to the excessive construction of dams, reservoirs. In fact, he says, Pakistan should raise this issue before any forum of the United Nations, the US and the European Union. The IWT does not usurp or curtail the right of Pakistan to protest against such constructions.

But whenever Pakistan has tried to raise the issue outside the treaty, it has been advised to remain within the scope of the treaty for its actions may be interpreted by India as an intention to abandon the treaty.

This can lead to new problems and complications in the current relationships. The fact remains that IWT is the only accord between India and Pakistan which has survived all weathers and storms during the last 50 years. But its mechanism does not provide a satisfactory answer to many current problems, some of which were not foreseen by the negotiators in 1960.

<snip>
Equally depressing, he (Briscoe) says, has been his experience with even the most liberal and enlightened analysts of India who seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the great vulnerability and legitimate concern of Pakistan which is obvious to an outsider Published by

[Prem]

Govt allots Rs 30 crore for legal battle with Pak on Kishenganga
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/aug/ ... th-pak.htm

The Supplementary Demands for Grants passed by the Lok Sabha last week has kept aside Rs 30 crore "for meeting fees of Arbitrators/Umpires and Experts for proceedings of Court of Arbitration on Kishenganga Hydro-Electric project".Besides the fees of umpires and arbitrators, the amount will be used to pay for the Treasurer of the Court and court secretariat, which will be set up.According to the Treaty, both the countries have to place "sufficient fund" at the disposal of the respective Indus Commissioners to meet the initial expenditure of the umpires to enable them attend the first meeting of the court. The payments are made in US dollars. At its first meeting, the court would make an estimate of the likely expenses of the proceedings "and call upon each party to pay to the treasurer half of the expenses estimated." The first court meeting is likely to take place sometime later this year

[chaanakya]

Pakistan's Irreconcilable Trust Deficit With India

India’s apex level political leaders and its policy establishment have taken sixty-three years to recognize that Pakistan suffers incorrigibly from a serious trust deficit with India, a fact which the rest of India has been conscious for years. India’s apex level political leaders have been both blind and deaf in failing to see and hear the confrontationist and adversarial signals that the Pakistan governing establishment has been consistently sending in terms of 1947-48, 1965, 1971, and 1999 Wars and interspersed in every decade with proxy wars, state-sponsored terrorism, suicide bombings and saber-rattling.

India’s apex level political leaders and their confidante advisory setup on Pakistan policy have either been in a state of denial or politically and strategically naïve in not correctly reading Pakistan’s governing establishment’s underlying intentions towards India. The raw strategic truth is that Pakistan’s governing establishment has yet to come to terms with Pakistan’s glaring strategic, military and economic asymmetries with India.

In the last sixty three years, India’s governing elite has failed to recognize the above strategic truth. India’s apex level political leadership has resorted to Pakistan-appeasement policies for a number of reasons. It was possibly perceived by them that India by showing reasonableness might be able to wean away Pakistan from its conflictual propensities with India. Mistakenly, they also applied their own templates of rational political behavior on the thinking of Pakistan’s governing establishment which has consistently been prone to irrational behavior.

More significantly, Indian political leaders have succumbed to external political pressures to adopt appeasement policies towards Pakistan so that Pakistan Army’s sense of insecurities vis-à-vis India are reduced to serve Western strategic expectations from the Pakistan Army. It is being argued that such a process could make the Pakistan Army more amenable for peace with India.

India’s bankruptcy of strategic and political analysis stand exposed in recent months when besides other analysts a very senior strategic analyst opined in his writings that realistically India should now reach out to the Pakistan Army Chief and his Generals to solve outstanding issues as they call the real shots in Pakistan. He suggested that the Prime Minister should depute a Special Envoy for discussions with the Pakistan Army Chief. There seems to be some external orchestration and calibration to generate such assertions from within the Indian strategic community to prepare the base for such an initiative by the Indian political leadership.

Reflected by this Author at the time of the invitation to General Musharraf for the Agra Summit by BJP Prime Minister Vajpayee in one of his Papers was that it was a grave political blunder being committed under United States pressure which wanted that by such an invitation ‘political legitimacy’ would accrue from India to the Pakistan Army Chief. It is hoped that Congress Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would not repeat that blunder by making India an accomplice to accord ‘political legitimacy’ to Washington’s current favorite Pakistan Army Chief General Kayani, possibly positioned as Pakistan’s President in 2013 or even much earlier.

In India’s current political thinking, hovering and predominating political space in India are the utterances of the Prime Minister and his policy establishment with the repetitive refrain that peace dialogue with Pakistan needs to continue despite the setbacks imposed by Pakistan. Indian Foreign Secretary in a TV interview advanced the rationale that dialogue was the only means in which the Pakistan Army could be persuaded to stop its support to terrorist activities against India. Is the historical record being forgotten?

India refuses to learn that peace with Pakistan is “strategically impossible” and the reasons stand spelt out by this Author in one of his recent Papers titled as such. To change the tack on the subject t so that reality dawns on India’s political leadership and their close Pakistan policy advisers this Paper has been titled as “Pakistan’s Irreconcilable Trust Deficit With India”.

After all the new buzz-word in India- Pakistan discussions is “trust deficit” and what better way to disabuse the “India’s Inflated Trust in Pakistan” of India’s political leadership than by highlighting the “Trust Deficit With India” that pervades the perspectives of Pakistan’s current ‘de facto’ ruler of Pakistan, namely the Pakistan Army Chief General Kayani, lionized as such by the United States.

The Indian Foreign Secretary in the same TV interview asserted that “officialdom deals with realities”. If that be so then India’s officialdom would be well –advised not to feed their political masters with rosy and idealistic prognostications in how to deal with the Pakistan governing establishment This Paper attempts to project the ‘realities’ that dominate the Pakistan governing establishment agenda against India.

The Pakistan Army is irretrievably opposed to India and at every conceivable opportunity has resorted to wars, proxy war, terrorism and supplementing these with inventing Pakistan’s ‘rental state’ utility to strategic patrons like China and the United States to strategically discomfit India.

With General Kayani as the Chief of Army Staff, it is led to believe by the United States and Britain after the London Conference, NATO Brussels briefing and the US-Pak Strategic Dialogue in Washington in March 2010 that ‘he is their man’ in Islamabad, makes him unresponsive and not amenable to any peace dialogue with India.

India’s apex political leadership and the policy establishment must take off their blinkers and face squarely the fact that as long as the Pakistan Army exists as the controlling authority in Pakistan’s governance and Pakistan’s foreign policy towards India, talking peace with Pakistan is like “Knocking on Closed Doors”.

In terms of relations with India, General Kayani has already spelt out his agenda that peace with India is not possible unless India solves the following outstanding issues to Pakistan’s satisfaction.

General Kayani’s New Conflictual Agenda with India: Water Disputes

It needs to be recalled that the ‘water disputes’ never topped the agenda as an outstanding issue in India-Pakistan disputes. It received salience lately and that salience has been given by General Kayani. The Indus Waters Treaty has held in good stead for nearly fifty years by now even though the settlement was not particularly favorable to India. India still accepted it.

The Pakistan media abounds in reports that scarcity of water today in Pakistan arises not from India’s actions but from Pakistan’s mismanagement of its water resources and large scale unauthorized siphoning of waters by the Pakistan Army for its vast landed estates.

US State Department papers of that period reveal that the US weighted the Indus Waters Treaty in favor of Pakistan. In a recent issue of the USI Journal, Shri MP Menon brings out that:

“The resolution of the Indus Water Treaty was planned to favor Pakistan, The outcome, all of us know, is a Pakistan biased Treaty and much hyped as a model. Unfortunately, a beleaguered, financially stressed India then was coerced to sign that agreement for maintaining peaceful relations with its neighbor,”

Menon further provides statistical data as follows: “However, the provisions in the treaty, would indicate that by equally dividing the rivers, Pakistan got 135.6 MAF (i.e. 80% of Indus waters) for its 26 million acres of cultivable area, while India with a cultivable area then of 39 million acres got only 32.8 MAF (i.e. 20%) against its rightful share of more than 40% as per the prevailing norms."

Need more to be said on General Kayani’s reiteration of the water dispute solution before peace can be talked about. Somewhere in General Kayani’s thinking a devious linking of the water disputes to the Kashmir issue is freshly being contrived as an additional pressure point on India.

Concluding Observations

Peace and good neighborliness is not a one-way street as it takes two to make peace. In the case of Pakistan, India’s political leaders mistake the ardor of the average Pakistani citizen for peace like his Indian counterparts, as also the urge of the Pakistani governing establishment.

The Pakistan governing establishment and more specifically the Pakistan Army would not be satisfied with anything less than the fragmentation of India so that their insecurities arising from their asymmetric disparities could disappear.

Rather than “Knocking on Closed Doors” of the Pakistan governing establishment and making entreaties for solution of outstanding issues and peace and in the process reducing India to the level of a “strategic co-equal” of Pakistan, India’s political leadership would be well advised to “ignore Pakistan” as a strategic distraction and focus on the larger task of India’s trajectory to global power status.

India can wait for a transformation within Pakistan where either the governing establishment changes its traditional mindsets against India by external pressures or the forces of history sweep away those who persist in forcing Pakistan to be in conflict with both its neighbors.

Till then Pakistan’s trust deficit with India will persist and Indian political leadership’s entreaties for dialogue and peace with Pakistan will be misread as arising from India’s weakness in the face of Pakistan’s present strategies targeting India.

In this process India will continue to be strategically diminished regionally and globally and India’s apex political leadership suffering growing “disconnect” with the overwhelming Indian public opinion which do not favor the ‘Pakistan appeasement’ policies of the current political dispensation.

[RamaY]

^ Beauty.

The best part is “ignore Pakistan” as a strategic distraction and focus on the larger task of India’s trajectory to global power status.

[JE Menon]

Ignoring Pakistan is not enough. The Pakistani military will not let us ignore them. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the last 60 odd years of experience - of sustained and relentless hostility from the controlling establishment of Pakistan (military, bureaucratic, civilian) regardless of our equanimity - teaches us that there is only one solution possible to the problem of Pakisatan.

[Lalmohan]

pakistan has a water shortage problem through x,y,z reasons. when it rains, pakistan has a water surplus problem. so isnt it logical that india, which has done a better job of marshalling the river waters of the himalayas should actively manage the headwaters on pakistan's behalf? i.e. we decide what to release where and when... its for your own good...

[chaanakya]

pakistan has a water shortage problem through x,y,z reasons. when it rains, pakistan has a water surplus problem. so isnt it logical that india, which has done a better job of marshalling the river waters of the himalayas should actively manage the headwaters on pakistan's behalf? i.e. we decide what to release where and when... its for your own good...

Only during moderately high , normal or lean flow , India can regulate flow through western rivers. Reason being , India doesn't have any storage reservoir on any of these rivers though India is entitled to build one. But the stipulated capacity would not be sufficient to hold that much water flowing during Monsoon. Even combined storage of all dams constructed or yet to be constructed would not be enough.
Secondly, Indus system has heavy silt load and drawdown flushing is essential to ensure long working life of dams for which gates have to be located much lower and Pk has been consistently objecting to such designs despite Baglihar verdict clarifying the issue.

The problem is , even though India has followed IWT , as acknowledged by PK authorities time and again, PK is working under a besieged mentality, fearing Indian action and doubting Indian intentions without any basis.

So India would not be able to help PK even if it wants to. Same goes for PK. After Tarbela no big storage works has been constructed by PK which could moderate flood and use storage to provide water during lean season. They have burned their fingers in Tarbela constructions, its capacity reduced due to faulty design and heavy siltation. Mangala dam is same story.

Its irrigation network and flood channels are crumbling , misuse of water is rampant. Theft by influential persons , the very same persons , who accuse India of stealing water such as Gen Kiya_nahi and his corp commanders , indulge in flagrant water theft. There has been no major revamping of irrigation practices, agricultural practices , water use policy enfocement and no major investment on the scale required. Cosmetic works resulting in corruption are norms. World over, earth works are very useful for corrupt practices, siphoning money etc. Pakistan excels in it at the expense of poor people.

suffering double whammy of natural calamity, poor income and terror attacks, they become cannon fodder for terrorists and fanatic religious element. It helps them to have predisposition towards such tendencies indoctrinated by Madarsaa education religious teachings, which render them useless for any other work. For them it become economic activities which army supports in many ways.

It is like Marsh ( daldal) the more they wriggle out the more they sink in. But it is their destiny they have chosen, India can't do much.

[chaanakya]

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/08/12/work ... erway.html

New Delhi, Aug.13 (ANI): Minister of External Affairs S.M.Krishna said on Thursday that the work on Kishenganga Hydroelectric Project is in progress.

In a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha, Krishna said: "Pakistan has instituted proceedings for a Court of Arbitration under the Indus Waters Treaty to settle the disputes raised by it. Two arbitrators each have been appointed by India and Pakistan under the provisions of the Treaty. A draw of lots for determining the persons to be requested for selection of three Umpires was held on July 29, 2010. They would now be requested to select the Umpires as per the provisions of the Treaty," the minister informed.


He also informed that the sharing of water between India and Pakistan was being done in accordance with the Indus Water Treaty signed by the two countries in 1960.

"In the Permanent Indus Commission, no such issue of theft of water has been raised by Pakistan's Commissioner for Indus Waters," he informed.

"The stage-I of Baglihar Hydroelectric Project (450 MW) was inaugurated on 10th October, 2008 by Hon'ble Prime Minister. The State Government has recently submitted the Detailed Project Report of the Stage-II of the project for another 450 MW to Ministry of Power and Ministry of Water Resources for necessary clearances," said Krishna. (ANI)

Secretary Gen of UN, others to name Kishenganga umpires

Representatives of India and Pakistan, who met here
today for a draw of lots, agreed to take the services of the UN chief, Rector, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London and Lord Justice of England to decide on the three umpires, including the chairman.

Sources in the government told PTI that the two countries will write separately to the three eminent men within the next 20 days seeking their asistance on deciding on the names of the umpires.

While the Secretary General of the UN will name the Chairman,

the Rector of Imperial College will decide on the umpire (engineering).

The Lord Justice of England will name the umpire (legal).

[chaanakya]

x-posted

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 91#p923191

It was about time that stilted paki minds would conjure up such theories at the times of unprecedented calamity. The problem is it is mainly Indus and associated western rivers that are in spate and are of concern for pakis. Of course India does not have any worthwhile storage capacity to help pakis in drowning any faster or slower. While Indian side did suffer flooding from eastern rivers , in punjab areas.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Reject-In ... 87205.aspx
Reject Indian aid for flood victims'

"Bharat (India) has released water into the Satluj and the Beas and has also offered relief material worth $50 lakh," it said, referring to Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna on Friday speaking to his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi and offering $5 million for flood victims in Pakistan.

"India on one hand is carrying out an indiscriminate massacre in occupied Kashmir and had the other day killed nine defenceless Kashmiris. It released water in the Satluj and Beas to exacerbate the flood havoc in Pakistan and and the other hand, threw salt on our wounds by offering us assistance of $50 lakh," the editorial said.

It called on the Pakistani government to decline, with thanks, the Indian offer of aid because "India's attitude was hypocritical".

"It (India) has built dams to secure itself, and is releasing water into Pakistan's rivers as part of its design to devastate Pakistan, using water as a weapon. Sometimes, it uses the water to flood Pakistan and sometimes, it restricts the flow to transform Pakistan into a parched desert as part of its conspiracy."

The editorial said the Indian actions in Kashmir and through water showed "it was in effect waging a war against Pakistan which was causing the country extreme damage, while in an effort to hoodwink the world, India had expressed the offer for help."

The Pakistani government should be extremely cautious of India's "deceit and trickery", it said, adding there were only two ways to counter India - "construction of major dams itself, and sustained efforts to free the occupied Kashmiri Valeey, where a genocide of Kashmiri Muslims was underway."

"If the Pakistani government falters on either of these two objectives, India will succeed in its unholy designs of dismembering Pakistan," the editorial said.

[chaanakya]

Drowning Today, Parched Tomorrow

By STEVEN SOLOMON
Published: August 15, 2010

The future looks grim. Pakistan’s population is expected to rise to 220 million over the next decade, up from around 170 million today. Yet, eventually, flows of the Indus are expected to decrease as global warming causes the Himalayan glaciers to retreat, while monsoons will get more intense. Terrifyingly, Pakistan only has the capacity to hold a 30-day reserve storage of water as a buffer against drought.

India, meanwhile, is straining the limits of the Indus Waters Treaty, a 1960 agreement on sharing the river system. To cope with its own severe electricity shortages, it is building a series of hydropower dams on Indus tributaries in Jammu and Kashmir State, where the rivers emerge from the Himalayas.

While technically permissible under the treaty provided the overall volumes flowing downstream aren’t diminished, untimely dam-filling by India during planting season could destroy Pakistan’s harvest. Pakistan, downriver and militarily weaker than India, understandably regards the dams’ cumulative one-month storage capacity as a potentially lethal new water weapon in India’s arsenal.

[email protected]
Dear Soloman

I read your Op-Ed in NYTIMES on 15th Aug 2010. Facts do not support your ideas. The freshwater crisis is that of Pakistan's own making.

The treaty gives 80% water to Pakistan and 20% to India. The use of western rivers for hydroelectric or irrigation or permitted storage purposes are strictly govered by IWT and authorities in Pakistan has not accused India of Violating IWT despite having fought three wars.Per capita availability of fresh water in Pakistan is declining because Pakistanis are proliferating like none.

Their population has grown five fold since 1947 from 31 Mn to >150Mn and one of the highest decadal growth rate.This has put pressure on precious resources. With 80% of water allocated to Pakistan, are they using it efficiently. Their wastage of water , by their own estimates , is about 40%. Crumbling infrastructure and canal system, poor irrigation and cropping practices, inefficient use of water for agricultural and non agricultural purposes are some of the reasons for their sorry state of affairs.

They have not invested in these projects nor constructed any major dams to control excess waters during monsoon seasons and use during lean seasons.Of course they would like to blame India for their cup of woes, which is filled to the brim and likely to overflow. When India constructs dams for hydroelectric or irrigations purposes as per IWT, objections are raised. India has faced such intransigent approach by Pakistan and remains balanced. People like you, who claim to be water expert, fail to provide empirical reasoning and factual basis for their statement and fall for Pakistani propaganda.You have stated that India has untimely resorted to filling up of dams. But you do not know that timings of dam filling is regulated as per IWT and there has not been a single instance of untimely filling.

Had it been done , rest assured ,Pakistan would have raised heaven and hell. Do you know that India has not yet constructed storage dam permitted under IWT, perhaps keeping in mind Pakistan's sensitivities on these issues.

So dear Soloman, do write but be factually correct instead of putting up hearsay to your enlightened readership who may not have independent sources to verify the facts and take your falsehood as facts and truths. A better relationship could only be built on the foundation of facts and truths and realities and not on false propaganda to which western writers often fall prey.

If India did not use water as weapon of war during last three and half wars what makes one assume that India would. The common sense would tell us that India would not do so.IWT is not meant to answer Pakistan's feeling of insecurity but rather a tool for constructive management of water resources while avoiding the conflictual and legal issues of territorial sovereignty.

[Stan_Savljevic]

The briscoe character has started bombarding claws now.
http://claws.in/index.php?action=master ... 3&u_id=132

[SSridhar]

The briscoe character has started bombarding claws now.
http://claws.in/index.php?action=master ... 3&u_id=132

I thought it was a new one. No, it is the same one we have discussed here.

[Pratyush]

just made the followinf reply to the article.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Briscoe,

It would have helped if you had actually read the Indus waters treaty (IWT) before writing this article of yours. As far as Indian press not reporting on Pakistan's weakness regarding water, more power to them.

India's is allocated on 20 % of the waters of the Indus basin. Which is what it is utilizing for agriculture. Moreover, the construction of Dams on the western rivers, India is allowed the run of the river electricity projects for electricity generation. Which is what it is doing.

Moreover, as far as India holding the release of water. Indian is allowed specific days and dates on which it can do so. The same has been agreed by the Pakistanis when they signed the IWT. India did exactly as stipulated in the treaty. Indian has been more then generous with Pakistan in terms of the IWT. It is the paranoia of that country which is not allowing it to see that India is not in violation of the treaty.

Only go get a sermon from the good Harvard professor.

Regards

[Nihat]

Ignoring Pakistan is not enough. The Pakistani military will not let us ignore them. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the last 60 odd years of experience - of sustained and relentless hostility from the controlling establishment of Pakistan (military, bureaucratic, civilian) regardless of our equanimity - teaches us that there is only one solution possible to the problem of Pakisatan.

By ignoring TSP , the author implies merely ignoring the indian initiative of chasing peace with TSP. Not ignoring our internal security, military buildup or intelligence gathering capabilities. If a terror attack happens then hit them back but not bet indias future on peace with TSP.

This is what seems to have happened in Kisanganga dispute. India has not gone out of its way to pacify TSP, it says , if you have the stomach for a battle then be prepared to bear the cost of it. Which in this case is 30 cr. indian Rs.

[SSridhar]

. . . it says , if you have the stomach for a battle then be prepared to bear the cost of it. Which in this case is 30 cr. indian Rs.

This is not the thread to discuss Pakistani behaviour per se. Let us be clear that for a Pakistan that has been totally reckless for 63 years, such costs are peanuts, especially when the 3½ are there to subsidize. It is even doubtful if the Pakistani state is drumming up issues like Kishenganga, Baglihar, Salal, Tulbul with the best interests of its citizens in mind or for some other reason. It is equally doubtful if even a quite sharp, deep and traumatic pain of the 1971-kind would restrain a rump TSP. India, and indeed the world, is increasingly being left with fewer and fewer options for tackling the 'Pakistan-issue' every passing day.

One decision that GoI took a decade back was that it would no longer tie down implementation of hydroelectric and other water projects in the Indus rivers to a negotiated settlement with Pakistan before starting the construction activities. There is a risk there but a confident India working within the IWT parameters is forging ahead. The Baglihar verdict has removed any ambigities. This activism, at least as far as IWT went, upsets Pakistan which was used to a timid India before.

[K Mehta]

Deleted-OT!

[JE Menon]

Taking some of the responsibility for going on an OT tangent, I suggest that discussions here retain the central theme of the thread that is IWT. Other perspectives issues may be discussed in the TSP thread.

[Theo_Fidel]

For once someone in the West asks the relevant questions, even if she got some numbers wrong.

This is basic dilemma. The only thing the will limit the Baqui population is the carrying capacity of the Indus.
The Population will be 450 million+ by 2050 even in the better scenarios.

How do you starve them to limiting the population. Will India's fence hold. Will the Treaty become
unacceptable to Baqui's well before that.

http://www.straight.com/article-339568/ ... r-pakistan

Gwynne Dyer: A question of water in Pakistan

When India and Pakistan got their independence from Britain in 1947, there was plenty of waters in the Indus system for everyone. In fact, almost half the water was still flowing into the Arabian Sea unused. But the population has grown fast over the years, especially on the Pakistani side of the border—from 34 million in 1947 to 175 million now—and the amount of water in the rivers has not.

The per capita supply of water in Pakistan has fallen from over 5,000 cubic metres annually in 1947 to only about 1,000 cubic metres today, a level defined by the United Nations as “high stress”. Ninety-six percent of that goes to irrigation, and the Indus no longer reaches the sea in most years. That’s what has already happened, even before the melting of the glaciers has gone very far.

Fifteen or 20 years from now, the water shortage (and therefore also food scarcities) will be a permanent political obsession in Pakistan. Even now, Pakistani politicians tend to blame India for their country’s water shortage (and vice versa, of course). It will get worse when the shortage grows acute.

What turns a problem into a potential conflict is the fact that five of the six tributaries that make up the Indus system cross Indian-controlled Kashmir on their way to Pakistan. There is a treaty, dating from 1960, that divides the water between the two countries, with India getting the water from the eastern three rivers and Pakistan owning the flow from the western three. But the treaty contains a time-bomb.

India’s three rivers contain only about one-fifth of the system’s total flow. To boost India’s share up to around 30 percent, therefore, the World Bank arbitrators proposed that the treaty also let India extract a certain amount of water from two of Pakistan’s rivers before they leave Indian territory. The proposal was reluctantly accepted by Pakistan.

The amount is not small—it is, in fact, enough water to irrigate 320,000 hectares.(This is not correct. India is allowed a lot more it not using at the moment.)—and it is a FIXED amount, regardless of how much water there actually is in the river. Now roll the tape forward twenty years: the glacial melt-water is coming to an end, and the total flow of the Indus system is down by half. But almost all of the loss is in Pakistan’s three rivers, since the smaller Indian three do not depend heavily on glaciers.

So India is still getting as much water as ever from the eastern three rivers, AND it is still taking its full treaty allocation of water from two of Pakistan’s rivers, although they do depend on glacial melt-water and now have far less water in them. As a result, India’s total share of the Indus waters rises sharply (and quite legally) just as Pakistanis start to starve.

In these circumstances, would an Indian government voluntarily take less water than the treaty allows? Get real. India will be having difficulties with its food supply too, though it will not be in such grave trouble as Pakistan. Any Indian government that “gave India’s water away” would promptly be driven from power—by parliament if it was the usual fractious coalition, or by voters at the next election if it were an unusually disciplined single party.

On the other hand, no Pakistani government, civilian or military, could just sit by as land that has been irrigated for a century goes back to desert and food rationing is imposed nationwide. Especially not if India’s fields just across the border were still green. That is the nightmare confrontation that lies down the road for these two nuclear powers.

[chaanakya]

^^ A good example of showing scholarly ignorance. The arguments are based on contra-factual interpretation and blatant disinformation.

As pointed out in this thread , in several posts , Indus River system carries Annual Average Flow of 168 MAF. Of which 33 MAF comes from eastern rivers and 135 MAF comes from Western Rivers.

At the time if Signing IWT India was irrigating 6.42477 Lakh Acres ( Acres Feet) from Western Rivers. Additionally India was permitted to develop irrigation for 7,01,000 Acres. However India can not withdraw water for more than 2,71,000 Acres ( Acre Feet) till it is able to release water from Conservation Reservoir to be constructed as per ANN E of IWT.

River------------- Conservation Storage Capacity ( MAF)
-------------------General Storage---- Power Storage ------ Flood Storage
Indus---------------0.25 ------------- 0.15-------------------Nil
Jhelum-------------0.50----------------- 0.25-------------------0.75
Jhelum Main--------Nil--------------------Nil-------------------As per ANN E
Chenab----------- 0.50--------------------0.60-------------------Nil
Chenab Main------ NIL------------------0.60-------------------Nil

Total 3.6 MAF

India has not build any conservation storage capacity so It can use on 2710000 AF water only as ICA against total permitted 7,01,000 AF water as ICA. It has developed so far only 1,65,754 AF as ICA.

The Author claims that Treaty provides water from western rivers to India to boost its share to 30% as against 20 % presently. That means total entitlement would be 50.4 MAF as on effective date i.e. 17 MAF more from Western Rivers. All permutations and combination failed to yield extra 17 MAF ( based on effective date) from western rivers on the basis of IWT.

New Hydro Electric Plants are run of the river plants built with optimum design considerations consistent with minimum levels required for operating the plants at specified capacity.

So the authors claim , that India gets 30% from Indus system (inclusive of eastern rivers) is disinformation.

Now the question of reduction in flow of Western river and the claim that India is getting full quota of eastern rivers which are not facing any reduced flow.

First Western Rivers

According to data provided by Pakistan;s WAPDA Water delivery below RIM is around 135-145 MAF. The Data for Average Annual flow and Mean Annual Flow is calculated for about 100 years. During lean years it has been somewhere 95 MAF to peak years 175 MAF.It is established fact that western rivers depend on Glacial melt especially Indus while Jhelum and Chenab do get Monsoon waters as well. About 70-80 % of flow in IRSA comes during August to Nov. Naturally Pakistan has to devise a policy to use water flowing during certain periods to be used during lean periods. It has to develop storage capacities . It has failed to do so and suffer the consequences.Empirical data do not suggest drastic reduction in flow of water in Indus river system. Though seasonal variations are there. For example this year Pakistan is witnessing excessive flow of water through Indus system ( India too is witnessing that).

Table 3.9. Variation of Rim Station Flows for Western Rivers



http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs ... ty_web.pdf

The average (for the years 1975-2000) rim station inflow (that is, the inflow measurement established at the rim of the river tributaries) of the Indus River and its tributaries is calculated to be approximately 154 million acre feet (MAF) per year, of which 144.9 MAF is available to Pakistan.9 Another source puts this availability at 140 MAF.10 However, the inflow of water varies drastically from year to year. The Water Accord of 1991 (an agreement reached between Pakistan’s four provinces on how to share the waters of the Indus River) is basedon 114.35 MAF per year (plus a 3 MAF estimate for ungauged civil canals, making a total of about 117 MAF). Punjab gets the bulk at 55.94 MAF, while Sindh gets 48.76 MAF.11 Any supplies over and above this amount are to be distributed on the basis of a predefined formula among the four provinces, with Sindh and Punjab getting equal shares at 37 percent. The remaining water from the average rim station flow (154 MAF-114.35 MAF) is estimated at nearly 40 MAF and often designated as “outflow to sea below Kotri,”12 but actually includes ungauged canals as well as withdrawals through other smallscale
dams and schemes and river losses. The matter of environmental flows (which refer to the amount of water needed in a watercourse to maintain a healthy, natural ecosystem) for the downstream and delta of the Indus is mentioned in the Water Accord at 10 MAF as a demand of Sindh,13 but these flows have not yet been finalized or included. In recent years, the annual supply of 114.35 MAF as designated by the Accord has not materialized, and is in fact usually lower.

Super floods occur approximately once every five years, which has raised the average flow to 140 million acre feet (MAF) over the past 30 years. In the remaining four years, average water availability has been 135.60 MAF

Now from Eastern Rivers India uses about 22 MAF that means 10-11 MAF still flows to Pakistan to which it is not entitled and It has to make irrigation facilities for diverting waters from Western Rivers to irrigation canals which were fed by Eastern rivers. Pakistan can not feel entitled to use the extra unutilised waters flowing to them. Reduction in water from eastern rivers would certainly put pressure to Pakistani Agriculture.

One fact which is somewhat nearer to truth is that Pakistanis have proliferated like anything , having one of the highest decadal growth rates. It has grown five times. So naturally per capita availability would come down. Apart from this they are wasting 40% water , which means they are wasting not less than 54 MAF due to various factors. Besides overuse/misuse is rampant. These are well chronicled here.

In Indus River System water availability would continue to vary and any supposed reductions ( eventually due to environmental factors) would be visible after decades of observations.Impact of seasonal variations coupled with long term decline in general availability in the system would be visible in immediate future. But it does not make a case for India forgoing whatever water is made available to us. It does make a case for Pakistan to invest in better water management practices/infrastructure and more in family planning methods. Who knows increasing population would force Pakistan to devise similar arguments for getting more land from India since it got less land due to British and Yindoo tactics at the time of partition.

The point to ponder here in all such articles , justifying probability of water war by Pakistan due to reduction in supplies, that Has Kashmir lost its significance for Pakistan, Having take half of Kashmir valley and that it was Kashmir's water and not Kashmir's interest which was at the heart of these war. Chenab Formula discussed in this thread is a pointer t o Pakistani thinking.

If future war would be on Water that would make things clear to Population of Kashmir.