Indus Water Treaty

arun · Post by **arun** » 27 Nov 2010 20:21

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan fears that India will commission Kihanganga before Neelum-Jhelum conveniently forgetting that under construction dam projects like Neelum - Jhelum does not prempt India’s right to the waters of the Jhelum per the Indus Water Treaty:

Costly Venture : Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project Trudges Along

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has completed only 16 per cent of the work on the Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project as compared to the relatively faster pace of construction of the Kishanganga project by India. This may deprive Islamabad of priority water rights under the 1960 treaty on water.

An official of the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) said on Thursday that with the current pace of work Pakistan will be able to complete the 969-megawatt (MW) project by 2016, a year after India finishes the Kishanganga power project on the Neelum River.

Under the 1960 Indus Waters Basin Treaty, any country that constructs and commissions a power project on Neelum River will have priority rights on the use of its water.

“The Indians are using advanced technology that will help them complete the project by 2015,” said Tahir Mahmood, the chief financial officer of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Company. He said that Pakistan has also decided to use this technology, which will cost $150 million.

“Pakistan is negotiating a loan for the purchase of technology and if successful, this will enable it to complete the project two years ahead of schedule,” he added …………………………..

Express Tribune

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Dec 2010 17:33

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... 713&Cat=13

Here goes Jamaat Ali Shah CPIWT. Replaced by a Sindhi. Looks like regional water politics had a role in his ouster.While his presence was of immense benefit to India ( due to his statements) his absence is going to benefit India doubly as the person taking over does not know i from t in iwt, so decision making process is likely to get into gyretics of their system without any leading or guidance.(my presumption)

ISLAMABAD: In a highly unexpected move, the erstwhile Commissioner Pakistan Indus Water, Syed Jamaat Ali Shah was removed unceremoniously by the federal government, replacing him with Mr Sheraz Memom, an official of Sindh Irrigation Department who reportedly has no workingknowledge of the intricacies of water related issues with India in the light of Indus Waters Treaty, The News has learnt.

The development comes at a critical juncture when Pakistan has already moved the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the controversial Kishanganga project (in Jhelum valley in Kashmir), being built by India with a controversial design, and the process to constitute ICJ is about to get completed.

After the constitution of arbitration, the role of Mr Jamaat, an experienced hand at such issues, would have attained immense importance because of his established expertise on Indus Water Treaty matters.

According to a highly informed source, Mr Shah had been replaced because of “his persistent differences with Assistant Advisor to Prime Minister on Water, Mr Kamal Majidullah on some sensitive water issues”. Mr Kamal Majidullah, reportedly enjoying close links with Presidency, has used his clout with the Presidency in removing Mr Shah.

The source claimed that Mr Majidullah, had been exerting pressure on Ministry of Water and Power to change Mr Shah for the last two years, but the former secretary of Water and Power Mr Shahid Rafi had not entertained such pressure.

A top functionary of the Ministry of Water and Power told The News that the decision to remove Mr Shah was not taken by Ministry of Water and Power, rather “it came from the very top”, implying presidency pressure.

When contacted, Syed Jammat Ali Shah confirmed his removal and said that he received a verbal direction from Ministry of Water and Power about my release from the post at 3.30 pm. “However so far I haven’t received a written order to this effect.”

He said that he was grateful to the Ministry of Water and Power which had extended him full cooperation in his fight with India on water issues. To a question, Mr Shah while mentioning his dismissal from the pivotal post without any reason said that it was the government’s prerogative to take any such administrative measure.

When contacted, Mr Kamal Majidullah said he had no role in removing Syed Jamaat Ali Shah saying: “This is the Ministry of Water and Power that would have taken this decision”, adding, “However, I am getting this news from you for the first time, and since I’m in some official meeting in Karachi, so after the meeting I will respond to you after knowing about this development.” When asked if it were the proper time to sack Mr Shah when Pakistan is going to fight its case against India on Kishanganga project, he said that this is the decision of the government of Pakistan to move the International Court of Justice and it has nothing to do with presence and absence of the Mr Shah as Commissioner of Pakistan Indus Water, adding in an irritated tone, “Anyway, no one is indispensable”.

According to the official sources that Mr Kamal Majidullah is opposed to building of dams on Indus river and he had also developed serious rifts with Wapda Chairman Mr Shakil Durrani in this regard.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Dec 2010 18:08

chaanakya wrote:http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... 713&Cat=13

Here goes Jamaat Ali Shah CPIWT. Replaced by a Sindhi. Looks like regional water politics had a role in his ouster.While his presence was of immense benefit to India ( due to his statements) his absence is going to benefit India doubly as the person taking over does not know i from t in iwt, so decision making process is likely to get into gyretics of their system without any leading or guidance.(my presumption)

Now, doesn't that give a good excuse for Pakistani analysts to later claim why Pakistan lost the Arbitration ? That would be similar to the loss in the 1965 war when the replacement of Gen. Malik by Yahya Khan was blamed for the defeat. Pakistanis would never learn that it is the inherent flaw in their position vis-a-vis India that leads to such problems. They will have to find a scapegoat and here is one bhakra.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Dec 2010 19:58

SSridhar wrote:
Now, doesn't that give a good excuse for Pakistani analysts to later claim why Pakistan lost the Arbitration ? That would be similar to the loss in the 1965 war when the replacement of Gen. Malik by Yahya Khan was blamed for the defeat. Pakistanis would never learn that it is the inherent flaw in their position vis-a-vis India that leads to such problems. They will have to find a scapegoat and here is one bhakra.

Yes, I think its likely, almost certain. However there is another bakra made ready along with sindhi PPIC ( new one) and that is President of the wretched land who happens to be Sindhi and dus percenty. Once Pakistan looses the case, Army will pounce on him amidst chaos and sense of defeat among ordinary abdul. It would emerge as messiah as usual. Just my thought.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 23 Dec 2010 00:27

Don't know who this WWalton guy is. Google comes up blank. Doesn't come across as the typical lifafa piece.

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2 ... er-treaty/

Pakistan and India in Dam Building Race — Interpreting the Indus Waters Treaty

This is the key point causing Takleef.

Robert Wirsing, a professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar who studies South Asian water issues, says India is considering building 33 dams on parts of the Indus and its tributaries granted to Pakistan. India is allowed to use a small portion of the rivers for storage projects, but the distrust between the countries and the scale of development leave much to worry about, he said.
“It’s a phenomenal piece of work. But it’s unrealistic because the Indians haven’t really gotten started [building dams]. And they have now started big time.”

“There is a comforting notion,” he added, “that this was a really good treaty, and in my judgment it is. It’s a phenomenal piece of work. But it’s unrealistic because the Indians haven’t really gotten started [building dams]. And they have now started big time.”

Huh! What the f@#!!.. ..I thought the treaty was a means to divided the resources. When did it become a war booty type thing.

..conflict prevention indeed.

The World Bank-appointed expert Raymond Lafitte, a Swiss engineer, ruled in favor of India on three of six objections. Robert Wirsing, the Georgetown professor, thinks Lafitte missed an opportunity to hit on a solution that would balance technical considerations with the spirit of the treaty.

“His concern was that this be a good dam,” Wirsing told Circle of Blue. “Of course, that ran right up against the Pakistani feeling that what was important was the treaty and the treaty’s purpose, which was conflict prevention.”

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Dec 2010 09:14

arun wrote:The Islamic Republic of Pakistan fears that India will commission Kihanganga before Neelum-Jhelum conveniently forgetting that under construction dam projects like Neelum - Jhelum does not prempt India’s right to the waters of the Jhelum per the Indus Water Treaty:

Costly Venture : Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project Trudges Along

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has completed only 16 per cent of the work on the Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project as compared to the relatively faster pace of construction of the Kishanganga project by India. This may deprive Islamabad of priority water rights under the 1960 treaty on water.

An official of the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) said on Thursday that with the current pace of work Pakistan will be able to complete the 969-megawatt (MW) project by 2016, a year after India finishes the Kishanganga power project on the Neelum River.

Under the 1960 Indus Waters Basin Treaty, any country that constructs and commissions a power project on Neelum River will have priority rights on the use of its water.

“The Indians are using advanced technology that will help them complete the project by 2015,” said Tahir Mahmood, the chief financial officer of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Company. He said that Pakistan has also decided to use this technology, which will cost $150 million.

“Pakistan is negotiating a loan for the purchase of technology and if successful, this will enable it to complete the project two years ahead of schedule,” he added …………………………..

Express Tribune

My feeling is that Pakistan has not even completed 0.16% of work. They will build a madrassa in Lahore and call it dam related work. Indian dam will be complete anywhere between 2014-20 while Pak dam construction will start in 2020.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 26 Dec 2010 00:03

seven-judge Bench is slated to start the arbitration proceedings from January 14 in the Hague.

Over six months after Pakistan decided to move an international court of arbitration to resolve the dispute over the 330-MW Kishanganga hydro-electric project in Jammu and Kashmir, a seven-judge Bench is slated to start the arbitration proceedings from January 14 in the Hague.

Justice Stephen M Schwebel, who heads the Bench, is learnt to have written to India and Pakistan, asking them to start the proceedings.

Incidentally, this is the first case referred to international arbitration under the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty, 1960. Earlier, India and Pakistan had sought the services of a neutral expert appointed by the World Bank to resolve their differences over the 450 MW Baglihar dam under construction on the Chenab river.

The Bench — comprising Justice Stephen M Schwebel (head), Justice Sir Franklin Beman, Prof Howard S Wheater, Justice Bruno Simma, Jan Paulsson, Justice Peter Tomka and Lucius Caflisch — has three neutral umpires, including the head of the Bench, and four arbitrators nominated by India and Pakistan.

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 26 Dec 2010 11:00

Kishanganga hydropower project - ‘Govt should mull better selection for pleading case at COA’

Shankk · Post by **Shankk** » 26 Dec 2010 13:40

Does this treaty have an expiry date? If this verdict goes against the core interests of India then India should refuse to renew the treaty unless China gets into similar treaty.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 26 Dec 2010 22:19

Shankk wrote:Does this treaty have an expiry date? If this verdict goes against the core interests of India then India should refuse to renew the treaty unless China gets into similar treaty.

no it doesnt

as long as Pakistan exists

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 26 Dec 2010 23:49

ravi_ku wrote:
Shankk wrote:Does this treaty have an expiry date? If this verdict goes against the core interests of India then India should refuse to renew the treaty unless China gets into similar treaty.
no it doesnt
as long as Pakistan exists

Actually the Pakistan that signed the treaty doesn't exists; Bangladesh needs to be given its due share

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 27 Dec 2010 01:29

Shankk wrote:Does this treaty have an expiry date? If this verdict goes against the core interests of India then India should refuse to renew the treaty unless China gets into similar treaty.

Its everlasting!

Under the treaty we just got 33 MAF (million acres feet) of annual flow from the eastern rivers and Pakistan got 168 MAF from western rivers. Nehru went to Karachi signed The Indus treaty on September 19, 1960 and it came into existence with retrospective effect from April 1, 1960. Nehru surrendered India’s right by this treaty to build dams and reservoirs or building of storage facilities or diverting the rivers even though India is the upper riparian state. As per Helsinki Rules (1966) a basin state like India has a right to a reasonable and equitable share of the beneficial use of the water in the basin and legally we can scrap the treaty.

Nehru did it without consulting Parliament.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 27 Dec 2010 02:55

India needs to develop the means to sequester water first, and then contemplate scrapping the treaty. Pakis know this and thus the takleef over projects that are well within the guidelines of the treaty.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Dec 2010 18:01

India constructing 250 dams over the Chenab

PoK Prime Minster Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan has said that India was planning to construct about 250 small and big dams over River Chenab that would aggravate the water situation in Pakistan.

Speaking at the Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) on Wednesday, Sardar Attique said, “If the inflows in the rivers continue to decline, people in the cities like Lahore and Karachi may face rationing of water in the near future.”

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 30 Dec 2010 18:12

Already Pakistan has complained of all the water coming from India during flood season. What more do they want ?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 Jan 2011 12:41

Kishanganga: Nariman to battle it out with Pakistan

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Kisha ... tan/731877

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Jan 2011 12:50

^^ from above link.

Government sources said that India’s efforts, to begin with, will be focussed to stall any attempt by Pakistan to get an interim order to stop the ongoing activities on Kishanganga project. New Delhi fears that Pakistan may choose to drag the case and delay the project indefinitely once it gets a stay order.

this is the first thing to ensure.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Jan 2011 05:32

Bhasha dam project in dire straits: US rejects call for funds

http://www.businessrecorder.com/news/to ... funds.html

ISLAMABAD (January 13, 2011) : Pakistan is facing problems in arranging funds for much-trumpeted Bhasha dam hydropower project as the Untied States, following multinational financial agencies such as the World Bank, has declined Pakistan's call for funds for this key project and help it plug growing power shortfall.
Sources in the Planning Commission told Business Recorder that the US has flatly rejected Pakistan's request for funds and instead asked Islamabad to focus on small projects for enhancing its power projection to meet growing demand. After a negative response from the World Bank for providing finances to Pakistan to help build Basha dam as it was Pakistan's only mega hydropower project for which the government of Pakistan has already completed the paper work, the US was seen as a possible fund supplier and on the same ground a formal request for funding was made to Obama administration but the answer from it was not encouraging. Negative US response in terms of raising funds for Basha dam has put Pakistan into a difficult situation.
According to the officials of the Planning Commission, the government does have any other alternative to approach for raising funds for Basha dam. However they do confirm that despite negative response to its efforts made so far for raising funds for Basha dam, the government of Pakistan was working on the project. "We have no other option but to keep on pushing Basha dam project ahead as per its original plan as the ideal project in terms of its cost and completion period," the official said.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 Jan 2011 15:34

On 4th Jan Hunza landslide completed one year. The threat still remains instead of abating. Currently , Lake seems to be frozen.
http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2011 ... e-year-on/

Unfortunately, both the chronic and the acute hazards associated with the lake remain. The same Pamir Times article states that boat movements on the lake have been banned for a month, presumably because of the ice, effectively isolating the upstream population once again. Meanwhile, the threat of an outburst flood remains, although we still have no way of knowing how acute this threat actually is at the current time, or in the summer ahead.

All talks of clearing water through spillway etc has come to a naught. Next summer and Monsoon are going to be trying times for Hunza lake. While it has survived so far despite estimation , this region had several landslide dams and none have survived so far. Lets see if this breaks the record.

Meanwhile KKH is closed and alternative routes are yet to be opened.Don't know whether Pandas are really helping with funds and high tech.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Jan 2011 09:56

Kishenganga hearing: India gets relief for now

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/kishe ... w/737649/0

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Jan 2011 10:27

Pak bid to stall Kishenganga power project work thwarted

Pakistan's bid to stall construction work at the Kishenganga power project in Jammu and Kashmir was thwarted today as it was forced to withdraw a petition in this regard at the International Court of Arbitration.

During the first hearing of the Kishenganga Arbitration Court in The Hague in The Netherlands, the Indian side put up a spirited argument for construction of the 330-MW project on Kishenganga, a tributary of the Jhelum river, sources said.

Pakistan had moved a petition for stopping work as an "interim measure" till the case over the disputed project was decided by the court.After the Indian argument, Pakistan was forced to withdraw its petition, the sources said.

Had the court, headed by Justice Stephen M Schwebel, agreed for the interim measure, work at the site would have to be stopped.

Well one hurdle crossed. India needs to speed up the work on war footing though it may not materially affect the case as such.

PK seems to be contending that the Project would result in 16 % reduction in water flow with diversion resulting in unviability of the Neelum Project. However , it has to prove existing usage and not future usage. None was found whatsoever.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Jan 2011 10:39

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/pakist ... spute.html

This is the first water dispute between the two neighbours that has been taken up by the COA for adjudication since the Indus treaty was signed 50 years ago.

A four-member Pakistani delegation, led by Prime Minister‘s Adviser on Water Resources Kemal Majidullah and comprising Deputy Attorney General K K Agha, Indus Waters Commissioner Sheraz Jamil Memon and consultant Shumaila, left this week for the Netherlands to attend the hearing. Two members of the delegation have dual nationalities.

Pakistan has nominated Bruno Simma, a German jurist currently working with International Court of Justice, and Jan Paulson, a Norwegian from an international law firm, as its arbitrators.

India has nominated Peter Tomka, a Slovak national and vice-president of the International Court of Justice, and Lucius Caflish, a professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva.

The time is, however, of real essence. Pakistan is currently facing three problems in implementation of the 969MW Neelam-Jhelum hydropower project - recent floods, slow pace of acquisition of a part of the project area and non-completion of a bridge. The per megawatt generation cost on the project is about $2m.

India, on the other hand, is working on the construction of Kishanganga project, which will cost an uneconomical $3.2m per megawatt, but it wants its completion for strategic reasons. India plans to complete the project in February 2014, well before the scheduled 2016.

Pakistan is of the opinion that diversion of the river water will reduce 16 percent power generation capacity of the Neelam-Jhelum power project on the same river downstream Muzaffarabad, Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The economic effect on the project will be a loss of energy worth Rs6bn a year.

Moreover, the diversion will reduce river flows near the Line of Control on the Pakistani side for at least six months every year and cause irreparable loss to the environment.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Jan 2011 10:40

On the other hand Mr 10% is being primed for in the event of certain defeat
President's friend destroying Pak case on Kishanganga Dam?

highly informed sources told The News that Pakistan's panel of experts led by Kamal Majidullah, Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Water & Agriculture, is neither competent enough to deal with the matter nor does it enjoy the full support of the Ministry of Water and Power. In fact the ministry has even expressed its total surprise on the inclusion of two irrelevant individuals in the delegation.

"We had objected to the names of Shumaila Mehmood, and Khalil Ahmad who is ambassador at large, but Kamal Majidullah, who has special relations with President Asif Zardari and chief executive of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, prevailed upon the objection of the ministry and managed to include the said two names," a top official at the Ministry of Water and Power confided to The News.

The allegation is also borne out by the contents of a summary moved by the ministry to the prime minister to 'sanctify' the whims of the all-powerful special assistant. In para 6, the summary states, "...The ministry, however, is unaware of the involvement and the roles of Mr Khalil Ahmed and Ms Shamila Mahmood in the instant case since legal advisors have already been engaged". And then interestingly, the summary goes on to request the prime minister to accord approval for para 6. Highly informed sources told The News that Shamila Mehmood's services had already been dispensed with by the Law Ministry and that she had 'left Pakistan' some time back under mysterious circumstances which had also led to an exhaustive probe by a non-civilian intelligence agency.

People closer to Majidullah deny any influence on his part in this issue. Majidullah, according to a senior functionary of the ministry, had hired three international lawyers including Alan Vaughn Lowe, James Crawford, Shamsin Woordsth to fight the case at exorbitant rates of $750 per hour, $500 per hour and just under $500 per hour respectively. In an inexplicable zeal, Kamal Majidullah, according to the source, had even suggested an open ended time limit for the highest rates offered to the said lawyers. "However, the ministry had opposed to the proposal of open ended time limit," the source said, adding, "On top of it, we also have strong fears that Pakistan will lose the legal battle just because of incompetence of our point man (an indirect referral to the PM's special assistant)." The official went on to say: "Mr Majidullah is not technically qualified in matters of water and agriculture management, he is neither a lawyer nor does he have any proven credentials of acquired expertise in these disciplines. He was simply a former editor of an eveninger and has only one qualification of being the president's friend".

Kamal Majidullah is also opposed, the official disclosed, to the construction of any water structure on any river in Pakistan arguing it would hurt the flows of the Sindh River despite that fact there exists the 1991 Water Apportionment Accord between the four federating units.

He also played havoc with Pakistan by replacing Jamaat Ali Shah with Sheraz Memon as Pakistan's Commissioner for the Indus River as Shah is the sole expert of the Indus Waters Treaty inked in 1960 between India and Pakistan. "As far as Mr Memon is concerned, he is an alien to the Indus Waters Treaty and we have strong fears that he will not be able to give his required input before the court."

The official divulged that Shumaila had served in the Ministry of Law as a consultant, but the government refused to extend her tenure as consultant keeping in view the unsatisfactory reports of the intelligence agencies about her, but unfortunately, Mujahidulla again played the role to get her included in the delegation. Khalil Ahmad, Ambassador at Large, is a retired bureaucrat and also reputedly a close friend of Zardari and other than that he has no qualification required to give his valuable input in the legal battle against India on controversial construction of the Kishanganga Hydropower Project which is the issue of life and death for Pakistanis.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Jan 2011 12:49

chaanakya wrote:Pak bid to stall Kishenganga power project work thwarted
. . . as it was forced to withdraw a petition

abhishek_sharma wrote:Kishenganga hearing: India gets relief for now
. . . as Pakistan did not press for a stay on the activities during the first hearing of the international court of arbitration in Hague on Friday.

Which one is correct ?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Jan 2011 12:57

chaanakya wrote:On the other hand Mr 10% is being primed for in the event of certain defeat
President's friend destroying Pak case on Kishanganga Dam?

"On top of it, we also have strong fears that Pakistan will lose the legal battle just because of incompetence of our point man (an indirect referral to the PM's special assistant)." The official went on to say: ". . . . the legal battle against India on controversial construction of the Kishanganga Hydropower Project which is the issue of life and death for Pakistanis.

Yes, bakra goats are already being prepared.

On another point, see how Pakistani society's frenzy is whipped up by terming the Kishenganga project as the 'life & death issue'.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Jan 2011 14:40

Yes it is a diversion from the meltdown that civic society in Pk is facing. Someone has to be fall guy.

PK was actually forced to withdraw since Justice Schwebel asked it to submit memorial to the COA it had no other option .

It was Pk's plan to try to get interim stay which has failed for the time being. Indian TEAM needs to be alert.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Jan 2011 13:16

ADB to assist Diamar-Basha Dam project

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) on Saturday assured Pakistan of financial and technical assistance for the Diamer Bhasha Dam project and said that the process of finalising the modalities would be completed on fast-track basis.

This assurance was given by the ADB Acting Country Head Donneth A Walton during a meeting on Saturday at the ministry under the Chairmanship of Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to review the progress and other related matters of the project.

The meeting was also attended by the ministry’s secretary, adviser and additional secretary, WAPDA Chairman Shakeel Durrani, member, Planning Commission member (infrastructure), Bhasha Dam project general manager and other senior officials of the ministry, Kashmir affairs division, WAPDA and ADB.

The ADB delegation informed the meeting that the bank is already in the process of due diligence of the project and all the aspects of this very important hydel power generation project have been included for assistance. The minister while chairing the meeting highlighted the importance of the project in the national development and said it will be a multipurpose project, play a vital role in flood mitigation and open a new era of economic development and prosperity in Pakistan.

Ashraf said that after completion, the dam will generate cheaper electricity of 4,500 megawatts with live storage capacity of 6.4 million acres feet to irrigate thousands of acres. He said that the life of Tarbela dam will extend about 35 years after completion of the Bhasha Dam. He said that Pakistan is facing an energy crisis challenge and taking all possible measures to mitigate it. The minister said that the government is also working on various other hydel power projects to reduce dependence on thermal power and generate cheaper and clean electricity to meet the future electricity needs. He said that the government is very enthusiastic and the people of the area are very keen for early construction of the project. He said that WAPDA has started implementation of the resettlement plan and land acquisition.

Earlier, the WAPDA chairman briefed the meeting about the current status of the dam, allocation of funds by the government during 2009-10, sanctioning of Rs 20 billion for the 2010-11, establishment of land acquisition and resettlement unit in WAPDA, land acquisition in Gilgit-Baltistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, upgradation of KKH, three years resettlement plan and other related matters.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 17 Jan 2011 05:24

Didn't the WB refuse to finance this one because the project is located in disputed territory? How is it that the ADB is able to look beyond this but not Arunachal?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 17 Jan 2011 07:01

vera_k wrote:Didn't the WB refuse to finance this one because the project is located in disputed territory? How is it that the ADB is able to look beyond this but not Arunachal?

good question.

looks like US is funding it from behind the scenes.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jan 2011 07:17

vera_k wrote:Didn't the WB refuse to finance this one because the project is located in disputed territory? How is it that the ADB is able to look beyond this but not Arunachal?

Yes, see the post here. The question to ask therefore is what has changed since then, assuming of course the report is correct.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 Jan 2011 07:32

^^^ Sadly it would not surprise me that our Congress led UPA Government headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh, in a cynical attempt to corral the vote bank of our fellow Muslim Citizens, has now done the equivalent of caving in to P.R. Chinese pressure and letting the World Bank know that India would not apply for loans for Arunachal Pradesh. Perhaps that is what has changed.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Jan 2011 07:47

Pakistan seeks quick resolution of Kishenganga dispute in CoA

Pakistan sought a quick resolution of its dispute with India on the 330-MW Kishenganga hydropower project in Jammu and Kashmir and wanted an immediate site-inspection by the International Court of Arbitration during its preliminary hearing on January 14 at The Hague.

Pakistan did not seek an interim stay on India's Rs. 3600-crore project — as in the case of the Baglihar Dam dispute, which went to a neutral expert — but did seek an early decision before the project construction reached an “irreversible” stage.

Both India and Pakistan will have to spend an estimated $2.5 million each towards the settlement of the dispute that was taken by Islamabad to the international arbitration court that was specially set up as per the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960.

Inspection suggested

Pakistan wanted an immediate inspection of the project in the snow-bound Kashmir region. India suggested inspection of Pakistan's Neelum-Jhelum project site as well, which was agreed to.

India will now invite and send a schedule for a visit by the seven-member court headed by international law expert Stephen M. Schwebel to the Kishenganga site in Jammu and Kashmir.

The court is learnt to have asked Pakistan to submit its memorial (affidavit) after which India would submit its counter-memorial. As per the procedure, Pakistan would then be asked to give its rejoinder. {And, India must have a right to counter. I am not sure if that is the case}

Law expert

The Indian team comprised international law expert Shankar Das, noted lawyer Fali Nariman, Water Resources Secretary Dhruv Vijay Singh, Chairman of Central Water Commission A.K. Bajaj, Indus Commissioner G. ArangaNathan, Deputy Commissioner Darpan Talwar, Mr. Nariman's junior Subhash Sharma, officials from the Ministry of External Affairs, and K.S. Nagaraja, executive director of the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC Ltd.) which is constructing the project. Besides them, India has taken on board four international experts/lawyers.

Pakistan has raised objections on India diverting waters for its run-of-the-river project on Kishenganga, a tributary of Jhelum, saying that it would affect water-flows for its Neelum-Jhelum project downstream.

India maintains that it is well within its rights under the treaty to construct the project.

Islamabad also has reservations about India's plan on drawdown flushing outlets in the project below the dead storage level. Such a provision was allowed by the neutral expert in the Baglihar project, says New Delhi.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 04 Feb 2011 21:58

J&K: Pak team to survey lake project on Tawi http://www.zeenews.com/news685027.html

Jammu: A high-level Pakistani team will be here this month to study the artificial lake project on Tawi river.

The visit by the Indus Water Commission team from Pakistan, scheduled for February 15-25, will help dispel any apprehensions about violation of provisions of Indus Water Treaty (IWT), a senior official of Public Health Engineering (PHE) and Irrigation said Friday.

Minister for PHE, Irrigation and Flood Control Taj Mohi-ud-Din said though Pakistan has not raised any objections so far regarding construction of the lake "but they wanted to satisfy themselves after visiting the lake site and the place where the bundh is being raised on the Tawi bed.

"They may have doubts regarding violation of Indus Water Treaty signed between the two countries but we have carried out work within the permissible limits of the Indus Water Treaty," he said, adding "no violation has been committed in the design of the lake or even in the water storage."

The Pakistani panel will be accompanied by the Indus Water Commissioner from India.

The work on the lake project is in full swing and is expected be completed in one year.

The project will not only attract tourists to Jammu, but will also help in irrigation purposes, the official said.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 04 Feb 2011 22:31

Hmm! That's a new one. Are they trying for yet another 'face-save' move.

SSridhar wrote:Pakistan seeks quick resolution of Kishenganga dispute in CoA
Islamabad also has reservations about India's plan on drawdown flushing outlets in the project below the dead storage level. Such a provision was allowed by the neutral expert in the Baglihar project, says New Delhi.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 Feb 2011 09:09

Link

On Pakistan's protests against India's dam-cum-power project in Kashmir across the Kishanganga, a tributary of the Neelam, Mr. Khursheed said the matter was in the International Court of Arbitration in Geneva. “But there are signals that it could be resolved outside it. Fali Nariman is appearing for us.”

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 12 Feb 2011 11:50

What might be the implications of a Unilateral withdrawal from the Indus water treaty by India in case of a JDAM response, what is the nature of sanctions which India can be legally subjected to.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 12 Feb 2011 13:31

^^There is no provision to that effect in IWT.It would become ineffective when one side cease to exist .
India doesn't have holding capacity and diversion is not possible as yet.

on side note

JK ACCUSED OF VIOLATING IWT

Meanwhile fresh controversy has erupted between India-Pakistan, with former alleging Indus Water Treaty (IWT) violation this time on River Tawi where Jammu and Kashmir government has taken up a prestigious project to construct an artificial lake.
A high-level team from Pakistan is expected to visit Jammu from February 15 to 25 to review the construction work on the first artificial lake.
“Pakistan has raised certain objections over the creation of the lake and has expressed concern that it violates Indus Water Treaty (which binds both the countries over usage of waters in the region),” Taj Mohi-ud-Din told reporters.
<snip>
The IWT is a water-sharing treaty between the India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank. The treaty was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960 by first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru and President of Pakistan Mohammad Ayub Khan.

IWT is a treaty between India and Pakistan without prejudice to territorial claims of each on J&K State. India has given special status to J&K by Art 370 and its accession to India is governed by IOA.

Now the question is whether GOI had the authority to enter into treaty with another nation on water resources of J&K unless it is one of the subject included in the central list and concurrent list corresponding to list in IOA

From the schedule to IOA I don't see water is included as the subject

SCHEDULE OF INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION
THE MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE DOMINION
LEGISLATURE MAY MAKE LAWS FOR THIS STATE

A. Defence

1. The naval, military and air forces of the Dominion and any other armed forces raised or maintained by the Dominion; any armed forces, including forces raised or maintained by an acceding State, which are attached to, or operating with, any of the armed forces of the Dominion.

2. Naval, military and air force works, administration of cantonment areas.

3. Arms, fire-arms, ammunition.

4. Explosives.

B. External Affairs

1. External affairs; the implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries; extradition, including the surrender of criminals and accused persons to parts of His Majesty's Dominions outside India.

2. Admission into, and emigration and expulsion from, India, including in relation thereto the regulation of the movements in India of persons who are not British subjects domiciled in India or subjects of any acceding State; pilgrimages to places beyond India.

3. Naturalisation.

C. Communications

1. Posts and telegraphs, including telephones, wireless, broadcasting, and other like forms of communication.

2. Federal railways; the regulation of all railways other than minor railways in respect of safety, maximum and minimum rates and fares, station and services terminal charges, interchange of traffic and the responsibility of railway administrations as carriers of goods and passengers; the regulation of minor railways in respect of safety and the responsibility of the administrations of such railways as carriers of goods and passengers.

3. Maritime shipping and navigation, including shipping and navigation on tidal waters; Admiralty jurisdiction.

4. Port quarantine.

5. Major ports, that is to say, the declaration and delimitation of such ports, and the constitution and powers of Port Authorities therein.

6. Aircraft and air navigation; the provision of aerodromes; regulation and organisation of air traffic and of aerodromes.

7. Lighthouses, including lightships, beacons and other provisions for the safety of shipping and aircraft.

8. Carriage of passengers and goods by sea or by air.

9. Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the police force belonging to any unit to railway area outside that unit.

D. Ancillary

1. Election to the Dominion Legislature, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any Order made thereunder.

2. Offences against laws with respect to any of the aforesaid matters.

3. Inquiries and statistics for the purposes of any of the aforesaid matters.

4. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts with respect to any of the aforesaid matters but, except with the consent of the Ruler of the acceding State, not so as to confer any jurisdiction or powers upon any courts other than courts ordinarily exercising jurisdiction in or in relation to that State.

So treaty has to be extended to J&K with concurrence of its Legislature only. In fact J&K is , apparently not bound by the treaty so there is no question of violation by J&K govt.( It is not clear to me if J&K govt was consulted and concurrence obtained )
By implication J&K can do whatever they wish to with the waters of rivers passing through their state.

This may have serious implications for Pakistan as well as India in case of independence or merger with either country or sanctified LOC giving each country held portion of J&K. IWT could be properly operated only in these situations. Till such time J&K is not legally bound by IWT nor can it be enforced by parties to either POK or J&K which are not party to IWT.

This is my loud thinking and subject to further elaboration/clarification etc by esteemed members, esp ssridhar.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Feb 2011 07:09

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-news ... -add-960MW
Tarbela extension to add 960MW

ISLAMABAD (APP) - The extension plan of Tarbela Dam would add 960 MW electricity to the national grid system in next four years.Official sources told APP that an amount of US $ 700 million would be spent on the project funded by the World Bank.They said," engineering consultants have reached Pakistan for the fourth Tarbela extension project which will be completed in four years". After the completion of the project, 960 MW additional electricity would be generated from the reservoir as its existing power generation capacity is 3,400 MW. The sources said that the development work was underway on 969 MW Neelum-Jhelum project which would be completed in seven years.They said that a 10 kilometre tunnel had been constructed at the project site. The United States government had signed two agreements with Pakistan to provide $66 million for the completion of Gomal Zam and Satpara Dam projects, they added.The sources said these dams would provide over 35 megawatts power to nearly 55,000 households in South Waziristan and Skardu and would help meet the country's energy needs.
They said that out of total amount, the United States would provide $40 million to help complete the Gomal Zam multipurpose dam in South Waziristan in FATA. The project would provide 17.4 megawatts of electricity to 25,000 households, adding that the Gomal Zam dam would have the capacity to store enough water to irrigate 191,000 acres of farmland. They said the US government would also provide $26 million to complete the Satpara multipurpose dam project, located in Skardu.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Feb 2011 08:09

chaanakya wrote: From the schedule to IOA I don't see water is included as the subject

The Instrument of Accession is now defunct as a duly and democratically elected Constituent Assembly of J&K ratified the accession to India in Feb. 1954 and the GoI accepted J&K as a State of the Union of India in c. 1956 though Article 370 is maintained giving the state of J&K certain special privileges. J&K was thus included in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India which defines the territories that comprise the State of India. The executive authority of the Union Government of India applies to the state of J&K without any restrictions. GoI can enter into agreements or treaties with sovereign foreign governments without the concurrence of the Parliament or the States of India (like for example the Indo-US Nuclear Treaty). J&K assembly can unanimously pass resolutions protesting allocation of water, deprivation of their natural assets etc. but this cannot impinge on the validity of the 1961 IWT.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 20 Feb 2011 22:18

Not so simple , I think

Article 370
1. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution:
a. the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir,
b. the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to;
i. those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
ii. such other matters in the said Lists, as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.
Explanation—For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948;
c.the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to this State;
d.such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify
i. Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph
(i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:
ii. Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of the Government.
2. If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph
(ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause
(1) or in second proviso to sub-clause
(d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.
3. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of the article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may notify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.
4. In exercise of the powers conferred by this article the President, on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, declared that, as from the 17th day of November, 1952, the said art. 370 shall be operative with the modification that for the explanation in cl.(1) thereof the following Explanation is substituted namely:
Explanation—For the purpose of this Article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the *Sadar-I-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office.

IOA is reincarnated as Art 370 as you see.It is not correct to say IOA is defunct as it forms the very basis of indian claim.

4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor General and the Ruler of this State whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of the State, then any such agreement shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
5. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.

Water is not a subject in IOA, That is why I asked if J&K had give concurrence.
Nuk deal is different matter, IWT is without regard to legality of territorial claims of either party. Hence J&K might take independent view.

This might help, but then water is not one of the subject, unless concurred by J&K.

B. External Affairs

1. External affairs; the implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries; extradition, including the surrender of criminals and accused persons to parts of His Majesty's Dominions outside India.