Bharat Rakshak

1. First Ignore it (What me, worry?)
2. Then Deny it (Doesn't happen here or islam does not permit it)
...
...

By allowing such kinds of ecologically calculated cost-benefit transactions across the Indus system, India and Pakistan can turn volatile environmental limits into both economic opportunity and political possibility. The way forward is to harness new knowledge on river ecology, de-centre the civil engineering mindset and craft fresh decision-making collectives that draw upon cultures and traditions of river management in the region

Prasad wrote:That is a typical mbagiri type of nonsolution offered when none is asked for after entirely setting aside any engineering or common sense.

NEW DELHI: The much awaited Indo-Pakistan talks on Indus Water Treaty will begin here on Sunday. During the four-day talks, both the sides will discuss contentious issues concerning water sharing between the two countries.

Pakistan's objection on four hydroelectric projects (2018 MW of generation capacity) -- proposed to be constructed by India in the Chenab river basin -- will also be discussed during the meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission. The meeting will conclude on September 25.

The meeting assumes significance when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is expected to meet his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif on sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, US next week.

Though New Delhi has so far not confirmed Singh-Sharif bilateral meeting during Singh's US visit, the two developments -- discussing water issues and visiting of a Pakistani judicial commission to Mumbai to cross-examine witnesses of 26\11 terror case -- indicate both governments' efforts to bring normalcy in relationship from where much meaningful dialogue can place in future.

Killing of five Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops along the Line of Control in the Poonch sector of Jammu and Kashmir in August had made New Delhi furious, putting a complete break on any kind of dialogue between the two countries.

Talks on water sharing issues and visit of Pakistani judicial commission in connection with the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case probe may, however, be seen as a beginning for some meaningful talks on many bilateral issues including trade later on.

During the talks on water treaty, Pakistan will raise its objections to four hydroelectric projects - Ratle (850 MW), Miyar (120 MW), Lower Kalnai (48 MW) and Pakal Dul (1000 MW) -- on the ground that they allegedly violate the Indus Waters Treaty.

The Indian Commissioner for Indus Waters would be asked by its Pakistani counterpart to provide complete information about these projects.Indian side, on its part, will try to convince the other side that all the hydroelectric projects have been proposed completely in tune with the Indus Water Treaty, 1960.

Under the Indus Waters Treaty, India is allowed the use of eastern rivers in the Indus river system and can only use the western rivers for non-consumptive use or for power projects. India has not utilized even half of this right granted under the treaty.

The Indus system of rivers comprises three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej and their tributaries) and three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab and their tributaries). The Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960.

Under Artcile VIII(5) of the Treaty, the permanent Indus water commissioners of both the countries are required to meet regularly at least once a year, alternatively in India and Pakistan and also when requested by either commissioner. The meeting, which is to begin on Sunday, is the first meeting held during 2013-14.

There is some forward movement in the discussion on the four projects in the Chenab basin after the recent visit of the Pakistan Water Commission for Indus to New Delhi and India has put forward its views more clearly, according to commissioner Mirza Asif Baig.

Mr. Baig told The Hindu on Saturday that four projects, especially the Ratle hydroelectric project, were under discussion and Pakistan had asked for changes in the design with reference to the spillway and pondage which affects the intake location. Mr. Baig clarified that the designs of the four projects were according to those specified in the Indus Water Treaty and there was no violation. {Now, Mr. Baig has to seek Canadian visa}

The discussion is likely to continue in December, he added. Pakistan was evaluating the Indian response in the meanwhile. {They usually do not understand the calculations as they admitted 'all those things going above their head' at Roorkee during the Baglihar crisis}

According to a written reply in the [Pakistani] National Assembly on Thursday, there are six projects where there are disputes or there is discussion between India and Pakistan. In addition to the older issues of Kishenganga and Wullar Barrage, there are four run-of-the-river projects under discussion at the level of the Permanent Indus Commission. These are the Ratle project, Miyar dam, Lower Kalnai and Pakal Dul projects.

The reply said the designs of these projects were provided by India a year ago. Pakistan has been asking for India to provide information of its projects at the planning state but India did not do so under the Indus Treaty. {There is no need for India to give information to TSP at the planning stage itself. IWT has no such provision}

Pakistan has objected to the design of the Ratle project, while on the remaining three, objections are of a minor nature and hopefully would be resolved in the PIC.

This is not a comment on Rohan D’Souza’s very interesting article in The Hindu (September 13, 2013), but seeks to provide a somewhat different and supplementary perspective on both the Indus Waters Treaty and on the dissatisfaction with it in Jammu & Kashmir.

The most striking feature of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 (IWT) was that it performed a drastic surgery on an integrated river system, dividing it into two segments, one for Pakistan and the other for India. There will be universal agreement that this was a bad way of dealing with a living, integral whole. The second striking characteristic of IWT is that it is overwhelmingly an engineering document: it was a treaty between two sets of engineers. It is easy enough to criticise these features or characteristics, but in doing so we have to avoid the danger of anachronistic and ahistorical judgment.

Second best course

Yes, there is hardly any doubt that the living, integral, organic whole ought to have been dealt with as a unity and not cut up into two segments. As a matter of fact, David Lilienthal of Tennessee Valley Authority fame did advocate the joint management of the total system in an integrated manner, but such a course was not found practical for obvious reasons. Given the bitterness of Partition, the horrendous bloodshed that followed, and the implacable mutual hostility in which the two new countries were locked, it would have been naïve to expect that they could jointly, constructively and harmoniously manage the Indus system as a whole. (Such a possibility might have been difficult to reconcile with the logic of Partition.) When the ideal course is not possible, we have to settle for the second best course, and that was what the treaty represented. Once the land was partitioned in 1947, a partitioning of the waters was bound to follow, and it happened in 1960. Unfortunately, that history continues to plague us. It can hardly be said that a good, constructive, friendly relationship prevails between the two countries today, and that the IWT can now be replaced by a better and more holistic treaty.

Let me turn now to the other and more difficult point. All of us agree now that water is not a matter for engineers alone, and that it is a complex, multi-dimensional substance (avoiding the economist’s language of ‘resource’) that demands an inter-disciplinary study. We stress hydrology, ecology, sociology, anthropology, economics, law, history, tradition, custom, culture, and so on. All this is familiar talk now and is almost becoming conventional wisdom, but it was quite unknown in the 1950s when the Indus Waters Treaty was being formulated and negotiated.

From the advent of modern engineering with colonial rule up to the 1950s or even later, water was indeed regarded essentially a matter for engineers. Even the constitutional entries on water (Entry 17 in the State list and 56 in the Union List) show the strong influence of engineering thinking. Water use largely meant irrigation, irrigation meant canals, canals meant dams, barrages, weirs, gates, sluices and so on. It is therefore hardly surprising that when Partition forced the two new countries to negotiate a treaty on the Indus waters, the negotiation was largely entrusted to engineers on both sides; and it must be noted that the two opposing groups of engineers shared similar orientations, lexicons and concerns. Besides, Pakistan was anxious not only to secure a share of the waters but also to protect itself against the twin dangers of denial of water and flooding. The IWT was thus not merely a water-sharing treaty but also a water-control treaty.

Certainly, the authors of the IWT wanted the waters used for development but ‘development’ then meant projects for irrigation and hydroelectric power. ‘Projects’ were taken to be wholly benign; Environmental Impact Assessments were unknown; the possible human and social impacts of projects were even less recognised. The idea of a ‘minimum’ or ‘ecological’ flow would have been incomprehensible. Naturally, IWT is silent on these matters. As for climate change, that concern emerged several decades later. We must indeed go beyond IWT today and take these matters on board, but eventually IWT needs to be replaced by a very different, holistic, wise and harmonious treaty. Unfortunately, that will have to wait for a time when the relations between the two countries have ceased to be pathological.

Let us consider now the strong resentment against the IWT in J&K. There is a widespread feeling that while negotiating the treaty with Pakistan, India failed to keep the interests of J&K in mind. At one stage, the J&K Assembly even passed a resolution demanding the scrapping of the treaty. While one must take note of the negative feeling about the treaty in J&K, it would be unfair to say that the Indian negotiators ignored J&K's interests. Water-sharing by itself is only a small part of the treaty. The bulk of the treaty — the large and dense annexures and appendices — is about Indian projects on the western rivers, both storage and run-of-the-river. All those projects will be in J&K. Therefore, the substantial part of the negotiation was about projects to be located in J&K. How then can anyone say that J&K’s interests were ignored?

True, while India proposes to build a number of hydroelectric projects on the Jhelum and the Chenab (and their tributaries) in J&K, it does not follow that J&K will necessarily benefit from those projects. J&K may well feel that the power generated in the State will be taken elsewhere for use. Other States also have similar feelings about projects in their terrain. This, however, is a matter between the J&K State and the Government of India; it has nothing to do with the Indus Treaty.

What puzzles me is the following. When J&K complains that the treaty prevents it from utilising the waters that pass through the State, it appears that it is thinking of the restrictive provisions that limit the storage that can be built and impose several stringent conditions even on run-of-the-river (RoR) projects. India has so far not built the 3.6 MAF of storage that it is allowed to build. As for RoR projects, despite all the stringent conditions, it has built or is building several projects, and is planning a total of 33 projects. Assuming that the treaty was less restrictive, or non-existent, India could perhaps have built many more projects in J&K, both storage and RoR. (I am not going into the question of whether they would have been built by Central or State agencies.) Is that what the State wants?

Impact on ecology

We are talking about pristine, mountainous, seismically active, and ecologically sensitive areas. Does the State want 50 or 60 dams and reservoirs to be built in this area? What will such a massive intervention do to the ecology of the region? Elsewhere in the country, say in Assam, Kerala, Karnataka, Odisha, and so on, there are strong movements against hydroelectric projects. A study has been undertaken of the cumulative impacts of a large number of projects on the Ganga. The recent catastrophic floods in Uttarakhand have been partly attributed to mismanaged, mis-operated projects. In a recent case, the Supreme court has expressed concern about the cumulative impact of many projects on the Alaknanda, the Bhagirathi and on the Ganga as a whole, and has directed the MoEF as well as the State of Uttarakhand not to grant any further environmental clearance or forest clearance for any hydroelectric power project in Uttarakhand until further orders. Is there no similar concern in J&K? Are the people of that State quite easy in their minds about as many as 33 projects being built on the Jhelum and Chenab in their State? Undoubtedly, the energy needs of the people of the State, wisely estimated, must be met. Are massive dams the only answer? Assuming that to be the mainstream view, there must be other voices; but one does not seem to hear them.

New Delhi: India’s Intelligence Bureau (IB) has issued an alert that terrorist groups may target the Uri-II project in Jammu and Kashmir as part of their plan to hurt India’s economy.

Pakistan had earlier raised objections to state-owned NHPC Ltd’s 240MW Uri-II project, citing the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, which regulates the use of water of the Indus river basin by India and Pakistan.

“The IB is fearing a specific terrorist threat on the security of the Uri-II project,” a government official said, requesting anonymity. “We are evaluating the situation.”

The plant is located in Baramulla, which has regularly seen violent clashes between security forces and suspected militants. The work on the project was earlier stalled because of the agitation against the hanging of Afzal Guru, who was convicted over his role in the terrorist attack on Parliament in 2001.


All necessary steps are being taken to counter the threat, an NHPC executive said on condition of anonymity.

Generation and transmission projects have been on the terrorist threat list and have limited surveillance facility. An attack on power plants could cause a collapse of regional grids and lead to a power blackout in states drawing electricity from the targeted grid. The latest threat comes at a time when India plans to increase hydropower generation to meet demand and boost economic growth. With hydropower holding the key to meeting the country’s peak shortage, the government is worried about its shrinking share in the country’s energy basket. Hydropower capacity comprises only 17.6%, or 39,623MW, of India’s installed power generation capacity of 225,794MW. Some 641 hydropower units are running at 184 power stations across the country. “The attack on a project will have a cascading effect,” said Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research, a Delhi-based think tank. Responding to a question on India’s preparedness in such cases, Chellaney said, “The answer is obvious. If cross-border terrorists along with Pakistani special forces can carry out such attacks with impunity in Samba and Karen sectors, what does it say about our preparedness? Every couple of weeks, India is taken aback by a fresh attack. Nothing is being done on the porous border issue with Nepal. One needs to have a macro view.” Border tension and terrorist attacks have increased this year with Indian and Pakistani soldiers being killed in apparent tit-for-tat attacks along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, where a ceasefire between India and Pakistan has largely been respected by both sides since it was put in place in November 2003. There have been recent attacks on Indian army camps.

“NHPC is equated to the East India Company in Jammu and Kashmir. This despite the fact that it generates around 2,000MW in the state,” said the government official cited above. “Also, India is synonymous with the army and NHPC in the state.”

NHPC, formerly the National Hydroelectric Power Corp., has a generation capacity of 5,702MW and includes projects taken up in joint ventures. Executing a hydropower project is a time-consuming and tedious process. It includes a thorough survey and investigation, detailed project report preparation, relocation and resettlement of the affected population and infrastructure development. On average, it takes around five years to execute a hydropower project after it is cleared for construction. The power ministry has been raising concerns about the limited security cover provided by the Central Industrial Security Force. At present, there are five regional grids in India, and all of them, except the southern grid, are connected to each other. A grid collapse is the worst-case scenario for any transmission utility. If that happens, states that draw electricity from a particular grid will have to go without electricity.
With India’s worst blackout leaving nearly 620 million people across 19 states and three Union territories without electricity for hours together when the northern grid collapsed on 31 July last year, and, in a wider blackout, the northern, eastern and north-eastern grids broke down on 1 August, states have been working towards so-called islanding.

Defence mechanisms such as islanding isolates the fallout of a grid disturbance on the national power grid, restricting it to a particular region, or allow a particular region or essential service to isolate itself in the event of a grid failure. While the scheme for Delhi has been finalized, the programmes for Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana are still being completed.

http://dawn.com/news/1048035/looking-at-ways-to-settle-water-dispute

According to Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a reputed Pakistani lawyer, when India is about to start a new project, it simply provides Pakistan the blueprint and technical details, but not the reasons behind such a decision. So, Pakistan can only object to some technical specifications of the blueprint, but not question the political decision.

Thus, as long as India’s blueprints conform to the IWT’s technical specifications, it can potentially undertake any number of projects.

This viewpoint was supported by the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) in its partial award in the Kishanganga dispute case, when it stated, “It would make little sense, and cannot have been the parties’ intention, to read the treaty as permitting new run-of-the-river plants to be designed and built in a certain manner, but then prohibiting the operation of such a plant in the very manner for which it was designed.”

In the 1960 treaty, there is a list of plants that India will construct or complete in that period, but there is no provision regarding the number of future projects to be undertaken by India.

Since this issue lies outside the IWT’s ambit, Soofi suggests that it must be addressed “bilaterally rather than abortively through the treaty framework”. India, being aware of this, takes the decision to construct a dam or a hydroelectric project outside the IWT regime, and its decision is based wholly on an assessment of its energy needs and strategic interests.

Soofi argues that when Pakistan chose to stay within the treaty’s parameters and challenge the legality of India’s construction and operation of the Kishenganga project under the treaty by gong to the ICA, “India must have been relieved that Pakistan had chosen to stay within the IWT’s confines instead of raising the issue bilaterally or at any other diplomatic forum”.

Pakistani lawyers tried hard, but ultimately failed to persuade the ICA, because the IWT contains no provision forbidding India from constructing a project “on the basis of Pakistan’s objections on strategic grounds”.

Ramaswamy R. Iyer concludes his op-ed in The Hindu by saying, “We must indeed go beyond the IWT today and take all the matters on board, but eventually the IWT needs to be replaced by a very different, holistic, wise and harmonious treaty. Unfortunately, that will have to wait for a time when relations between the two countries have ceased to be pathological.”

On its part, Pakistan must realise that the IWT does not provide any framework that takes care of its strategic concerns that proliferation of dams or projects upstream on western rivers might be used against it by India as strategic assets in times of conflict.

Thus, if it wants to effectively challenge India over the sheer number of upstream dams being constructed, as opposed to their technical design, it must not invoke the treaty’s dispute settlement mechanism, but rather bilaterally take up the matter with India or with any other international forum.

<snip>forbidding India from constructing a project “on the basis of Pakistan’s objections on strategic any silly grounds”.

Thus, if it wants to effectively challenge India over the sheer number of upstream dams being constructed, as opposed to their technical design, it must not invoke the treaty’s dispute settlement mechanism, but rather bilaterally take up the matter with India or with any other international forum.

If India succeeds in building the Kishanganga dam on River Jhelum, Pakistan is likely to face 13 percent shortage of water, incurring a loss of $141 million to the national exchequer.

This was stated by the CEO of the Neelum-Jehlum Hydro Electric Project Lieutenant General Zubair Ahmed (Retd) while briefing the National Assembly's Standing Committee on Economic Affairs Division (EAD) ………..

…………… The project's CEO also said: "Neelum Jehlum Hydro Electric Project has not been able to open Letter of Credit (LC) worth $113 million for Islamic Development Bank (IDB) financed equipment. This issue has also been taken up with Neelum Jehlum Hydro Company," the CEO said, adding that loan agreement worth $100 million with Abu Dhabi Fund is pending because the Fund linked it with the issue of Etisalat payments regarding PTCL privatisation process.

He informed the committee that a loan agreement worth $448 million with Exim Bank China was also pending as China's State Council is yet to approve it. " …………….

Pakistan has hinted that it may ask India to review the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 as the historic accord is not favourable to the country, media reported on Saturday.

Water and power minister Khwaja Asif said the "government would decide whether it needs to be reviewed or not". He alleged that India was blocking water and building dams on rivers allocated to Pakistan by the treaty.

Pakistan has concerns regarding the Indus Waters Treaty because the country will get less water in coming years under the pact. The government is seriously looking at reviewing the treaty, Asif said on Friday.

According to The Express Tribune, Asif warned that Pakistan could face the severe consequences of water scarcity in coming years and an Ethiopia-like situation may occur due to water being allegedly blocked by India.

"The water issue has become a matter of life and death for us and we will have to face severe shortage in the coming 10 to 15 years," he said. Previous governments made wrong decisions that caused a water crisis and the country is paying the price today, he added.

Asif, a close aide of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, said neighbouring countries should consider Pakistan's requirements before constructing their water reservoirs.

He said the government needs to adopt water conservation methods to avert any unpleasant situation and it will also have to control the growing population.

Additional Indus Waters Commissioner Sheraz Memon said Pakistan had objections to seven projects of India. He claimed India was using water from the Indus river, leading to a reduction in its level.

He claimed that India was building 53 power projects and seven dams. It has completed 16 projects on Chenab river while another four are under construction.

Memon warned Pakistan will approach the International Court of Arbitration if the construction of the 850MW Ratle project is not stopped.

The Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960 with the support of the World Bank to settle thorny water issues. It is one of the most durable agreements between the two sides.

But Pakistan has become uneasy with the arrangement in recent years and voices are being raised for a review of the accord.

ISLAMABAD: Water and Power Minister Khwaja Asif said that in his opinion Indus water treaty signed with India does not judiciously distribute water.

Briefing the media in Islamabad along with Pakistan’s Commissioner for Indus Water Mirza Asif Baig and Secretary Water and Power Saifullah Chattha, Asif said that when the treaty had been signed, Pakistan had population of 30-40 million which had multiplied five times to 180-200 million.

The minister said Pakistan is currently contesting with India over five water projects including Kishenganga, Ratle, Miyar,Lower Kalnai hydroelectric projects, Wullar Barrage and Tulbul Navigation project.

Terming water a life and death issue for Pakistan, Asif warned that the country could become water starved in the future.

He added that consensus on water issue is needed, so Pakistan could defend its right vigorously. He urged people to change the way they use water.

Commenting on new projects, Asif said that work on Diamer Bhasha and Dassu Dams would be started simultaneously. He added that Rs21 billion have been spent on Bhasha Dam and land acquisition have also been completed.

Secretary Water and Power said India has been trying to get water in excess of the limits it is allowed under the Indus Basin Treaty.

The Indus Water Commissioner said the dispute regarding the proposed diversion of Neelum water by India and draw down of the dead storage level was referred to International Court of Arbitration.

Baig informed that the final hearing was concluded on August 31, 2012 and partial award of the court has been awarded on February 18, 2013 in which the question of diversion of river water was decided in favour of India, while the question of draw down in storage level was awarded to Pakistan.

Both parties now have to submit additional data and written submissions to the Court of Arbitration and accordingly the court will decide the quantum of water to be released below Kishenganga Hydroelectric Plant in Neelum river as environmental releases.

The final award of the court is expected by December 2013.

He said Pakistan has objected on freeboard, magnitude of pondage and placement of spillway of Ratle Hydroelectric plant of 850 megawatts, Miyar Hydroelectric Plant of 120 megawatts, Lower Kalnai plant of 48 megawatts and Pakal Dul Hydroelectric Plant of1000 megawatts located on Chenab river.

These objections were discussed before in two meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission in March and September and will finally be discussed in the next meeting of the Commission likely to be held in December 2013. Pakistan and India are members of the Commission.

Another disputed water project between India and Pakistan is Wullar barrage and during the sixth round of secretary level talks, it was agreed that the Indian side will provide additional technical data to Pakistan.

Pakistan will examine the data to furnish its views before the next round of the talks.

Pakistan had objected that according to the treaty India is not allowed to store water on main Jhelum. The work on the project is suspended since 1987 and it was last verified on May 30, 2013.

When asked if Pakistan would seek to review the "controversial" Treaty Minister for Water and Power, who recently met with Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting as a team member of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said that he cannot take such a decision individually as "reopening of Treaty will be Government of Pakistan''s decision". Pakistan''s water rights are being violated, the Minister added. Asif warned that the country may face a famine in the next 10-15 years if appropriate measures were not taken.

Pakistan also announced that if India doesn''t change the design of Kartely project on the Chenab River, the issue would be raised at the International Court for Justice. Additional Secretary Incharge, Saif Ullah Chattha and other officials of Water and Power Ministry were also present at the press conference.

During the interaction with the media, top officials of the Pakistan Commission on Indus Water were found not on the same page with the minister and secretary.Additional Commissioner of Indus Water Sheraz Memon was of the view that India was not involved in halting Pakistan’s water whereas the minister and secretary had the opposite views. Memon insisted that the hydropower projects that India built so far on Pakistan’s river are not inflicting loss to water interests of the low riparian country.




When his attention was drawn towards the fact that Pakistan Commission on Indus Water had helped India build the Nimoo-Bazgo project from where Indian troops which are at war with Pakistan at Siachen are getting smooth supply of electricity, Memon did not come up with a satisfactory answer and just said that the Nimmo-Bazgo project was justified. When further asked as to why the Wapda secretary had declared the former commissioner of Pakistan Commission of Indus Water Syed Jamaat Ali Shah as a criminal in his preliminary report as he did not visit the site of Nimoo-Bazgo till its completion which was clearly declared a violation of the Indus Water Treaty, Memon opted not to answer.

Memon said that Pakistan had so far objected to seven projects being built by India. He said that the water flow in Indus has slightly reduced as India had the right to some of water on agriculture, but he insisted that water flows in the Chenab River had increased as compared to the water flows prior to the emergence of Indus Waters Treaty. He said that India was building 53 hydropower projects and seven dams. On the Chenab River, India managed to construct 16 projects and four were in the construction phase. He said that India was going to build the Ratle Hydropower Project of 850MW and if its design was not changed, Pakistan will move the International Court of Arbitration.

In recent years, four hydroelectric power projects Ratle (850MW), Miyar (120MW), Lower Kalnai (48MW) and Pakul Dul (1,000MW, to be increased to 1,500MW) initiated by India and being built on the western rivers, have propelled Pakistan's ministry of foreign affairs to raise objections and inform the National Assembly of "this violation of provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), 1960". This has happened despite the fact that India provided Pakistan with designs of the projects, as per provisions of the treaty, about a year ago.


Pakistan has specifically raised serious objections to the design of the Ratle project and minor ones about the other projects. Its main objection pertains to the building of storage capacity as a component of the projects, as it termed the "design parameters" a violation of the treaty. Seeking an amicable resolution of the issues at the level of the Pakistan Indus Commission, the objections were part of the agenda of the 109th four-day meeting last month of the Permanent Indus Commission of both countries in New Delhi.

accuses India of planning 33 hydroelectric projects on the western rivers to deny Pakistan of its "legitimate exclusive right on the waters of the western rivers". Pakistan, in order to safeguard its interests, raises specific objections to the commencement of any project that uses waters of the western rivers, assuming that under the bilateral treaty, waters of the western rivers - Indus, Jhelum and Chenab - were "exclusively allocated" to Pakistan.

Salient features

To put Pakistan's viewpoint and concerns in perspective, it is imperative to focus on some salient features of the treaty. First, it allocates the water of the three western rivers to Pakistan, but allows India to tap the considerable hydroelectric potential of the Chenab and Jhelum before the rivers enter Pakistan. Second, the treaty allowed India to create storage on the western rivers of 1.25, 1.6, and 0.75 MAF (million acre feet) for general, power, and flood storages, respectively, amounting to total permissible storage of 3.6 MAF.

Third, the treaty does not require India to deliver any assured quantities of water to Pakistan. (that would have been obviously illogical) Instead, it requires India to let flow to Pakistan the water available in these rivers, excluding the limited use permitted to India by the treaty. Fourth, there are no quantitative limits to the hydroelectric power that India produces using the western rivers nor any limit to the number of run-of-the-river projects India can build.

Since hydroelectric power development does not consume water, the only issue is timing. Pakistan must realise that the overall effect of run-of-the-river hydel projects will have negligible delay as far as timing is concerned. For general, power, and flood storages amounting to total permissible storage of 3.6 MAF, India has built no storage and is yet to fully utilise its entitlement.


Further, of the 1.34 MAF permitted for irrigation, India is using only 0.792 MAF. Of an estimated potential of 18,653 MW of the western rivers, only projects worth 2,324 MW have been commissioned so far and another 2,018 MW are under construction.

Reduced flows

The treaty requires India to let flow to Pakistan the water available in these rivers, excluding the limited use permitted to India by the treaty. Thus, reduced flows into Pakistan from time to time are not the result of any violation of the treaty by India or any action to divert such flows from the western rivers.

To prevent Pakistan from raising this issue time and again, it is important to convey to the former that as per one estimate, India in general and Jammu and Kashmir in particular suffer an annual loss of Rs. 6,000 crore, a calculation based on the perceived benefits that are denied to J&K from clauses and restrictions laid down in the treaty that deny it from storing water (for generating power) and from diverting flows for irrigational needs.

J&K is, in fact, an energy-deficit state and according to the latest Economic Survey (2012-13), only 23.22% of the required power was being generated within the state, while the rest had to be imported. The state purchases around 1,400 MW from the Northern Grid and spends Rs. 3,600 crore annually on meeting its growing demands, which peaked at 2,600 MW. Thus, given the fact that 'potentially' it can generate approximately 20,000 MW from the rivers and many cascading tributaries that run through its valleys and hills, its capacity has been restricted to mere 2,324 MW.

Cumulative impacts

Notwithstanding the increasing power requirement of the state and economic loss that the state is enduring, there is a need to take a lesson from the recent catastrophic floods that devastated vast areas of the fragile Uttarakhand ecology. This was attributed to a great extent to the mismanagement and operation of the projects on the Ganga. We must prevent such a situation in J&K and preserve the environment and forest cover. It, therefore, is all-important that a study must be undertaken of the cumulative impacts of a large number of projects being planned on the Jhelum and Chenab rivers.

The writer is an expert on the Indus Water Treaty

Monday, November 04, 2013
From Print Edition




The Indus Basin Waters Treaty was brokered by the World Bank for sharing the waters of the Indus Basin rivers between Pakistan and India. Recently, our Minister for Water and Power Khwaja Asif declared that the treaty is not in favour of Pakistan as it was signed by a dictator, Ayub Khan.

I feel the minister is not correct in his perception. A number of benefits have come to Pakistan over the years from the treaty. Two mega dams along with canals linking the western rivers with eastern ones were financed by the World Bank, the guarantor of the treaty. Another four to five dams upstream from Kalabagh financed by the bank would have given us around 50,000 MW of cheap electricity and plenty of irrigation water. Had it not been for these two constructed dams our present electricity problems would have multiplied and we would have been water starved. In the absence of the IBWT the Indians, being the upper riparian of the rivers, would have deprived us of the precious water at their will as they had been doing prior to the treaty. The treaty enabled us to seek international intervention and arbitration in case of any violation by India. We have gotten some relief through the clause of arbitration in some cases. It is our governments and members of the Indus Water Commission who have been acking in monitoring of the treaty which gives us quite a bit of leverage.

Air-Cdre (r) Mohammad Yaqoob Khan

Rawalpindi

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan is close to signing a memorandum of understanding with India for import of 500-MW power as the Indus water commissioner, planning commission, finance and foreign ministries have already issued a no objection certificate.
Sources in Water and Power Ministry told The Nation the Indus water commissioner had assured the authorities that water rights of Pakistan on its rivers would remain intact under the Indus Water Treaty and that India would not assert its right on Pakistani rivers, if Islamabad imported power from New Delhi.

They said following the issuance of NOC by the authorities concerned and assurance of the IWC, signing of the MoU between the two countries was very likely.

Energy experts, however, say India, after providing power to Pakistan, may go for more hydel projects on Pakistani rivers originating from Indian-held Kashmir to meet its power demands and that of Pakistan as well.

They say if Pakistan objects to it, then India may approach the International Court of Arbitration and it could probably get the nod of the ICA on the basis of this proposed power purchase and import agreement.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had advised to have all controversial and trivial issues settled with India in the first place. He had also approved a summary in this respect.

Nevertheless, prime minister’s adviser on water & power, Musaddaq Malik, has already declared the power import on Indian conditions as impracticable.

He said India would have to invest $100 million that would not be in Pakistan's favour.

chaanakya wrote:Pakistan close to signing MoU for Indian power

Sources in Water and Power Ministry told The Nation the Indus water commissioner had assured the authorities that water rights of Pakistan on its rivers would remain intact under the Indus Water Treaty and that India would not assert its right on Pakistani rivers, if Islamabad imported power from New Delhi.

Energy experts, however, say India, after providing power to Pakistan, may go for more hydel projects on Pakistani rivers originating from Indian-held Kashmir to meet its power demands and that of Pakistan as well.

They say if Pakistan objects to it, then India may approach the International Court of Arbitration and it could probably get the nod of the ICA on the basis of this proposed power purchase and import agreement.

chaanakya wrote:The moot point is when India has shortage of electricity , why there is a proposal from India to export 500MW ( load) electricity to Pakistan? What benefit does India derive by doing this? Pakistan is prone to such wild view points and mis-information campaign even when this may be perfectly innocuous move to earn so called goodwill of Pakistan. IWT is entirely different chapter and export of power is not at all linked to it though Pakistan may try hard.

I am not sure if there was a demand from Pakistan for more electricity or it was suo moto proposal from Track II CBMs.

Pakistan is going through a major power crisis, with most of its major cities receiving only 6-7 hours of supply, Moily said in a letter to PM Manmohan Singh. "...as the power grid connectivity from India would take at least three years, the situation could be improved by using gas for power generation," he wrote.

He said team of oil ministry officials and executives of state-run gas utility GAIL have laid the groundwork for starting energy trade between the two countries with a deal to supply some of the liquid gas imported by India to help Pakistan produce power.

The plan envisages a contract for supplying 5 mcmd (million cubic metres per day) of gas for five years initially. GAIL is to lay a 110-Km pipeline from Jalandhar to Wagah via Amritsar. Pakistani Inter State Gas Services Company would lay a 10-km pipeline from Wagah to Jallo on the outskirts of Lahore.

But differences over pricing, especially Pakistan's demand for duty concessions, and Indian apprehensions over guarantee of payment may still prove to be spoilers. Pakistan has already asked India to waive all levies on liquid gas that would be exported to Pakistan.

Pakistan has been insisting on huge discounts to thwart Indian diesel exports from refineries in Punjab and Haryana. The demand for tax concessions on gas from India comes in the backdrop of Algeria's offer to supply liquid gas. For Algerian gas, Pakistan would have to build an import and liquefaction terminal which would take time. Sourcing gas from India, which already has import facilities in Gujarat and is expanding them, would be quicker. beggars are trying to be choosers

But given the state of bilateral relations and the financial condition of the Pakistan's utilities, GAIL is seeking an international bank to guarantee payment or sovereign guarantee from Pakistan to ensure security of its payments. It is also seeking a three-month advance and condition for easy closure of contract incorporated in the agreement.

Suffering widespread blackouts, Pakistan recently also broached to an Indian trade delegation the proposal to import 500 mw from India by connecting the two grids. But building an interconnect would take more than three years, while gas can flow to Pakistan in 18 months.

While the two sides discuss these new proposals, years of negotiations have failed to resolve issues regarding India's concern over the physical security of a pipeline from Turkmenistan to India via Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as Pakistan's charges for allowing gas to pass through its part of the pipeline.

Paul wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7dSMgmcLm4

Mangla Dam History: Watch from 29:50 to see the extent of US support that made construction of this dam possible.
Completely designed by the goras.

ICA allows India to construct Kishanganga Dam

December 21, 2013 - Updated 210 PKT
From Web Edition

HAGUE: International Court of Arbitration (ICA) has allowed India to build Kishanganga Dam in the occupied Kashmir, however, the neighnouring country has been ordered to provide half of the dam’s water to Pakistan.

Pakistan has received the verdict of ICA over Kishanganga Hydroelectric project case.

The court also ruled that India can not take the water on a very low level in the dam.

Pakistan had objected to the construction of the Kishanganga project, which is called Neelum River in Pakistan.

India’s 330 MW Kishanganga hydroelectric project would affect Pakistan’s 969 MW Nelum-Jhelum hydroelectric project.

Kishenganga issue: India gets relief, Pak objections rejected


In a major relief for India, The Hague-based International Court of Arbitration has rejected Pakistan’s objections by upholding New Delhi’s right to divert water from the Kishenganga river for power generation in Jammu and Kashmir.

In its final award on the India-Pakistan arbitration case, the court also decided that India shall release a minimum flow of nine cumecs (cubic meters per second) into the Kishenganga/Neelum river below the Kishenganga hydro-electric project (KHEP) at “all times.”

The issue of minimum flow was left unresolved by the partial award issued on February 18, 2013.

The court, in its final award pronounced yesterday, also decided that both India and Pakistan may seek “reconsideration” of its decision through the Permanent Indus Commission and the mechanisms of the Indus Waters Treaty “after a period of seven years from the first diversion of water from the Kishenganga river.”

In its partial award, the court had unanimously decided that the 330 mw project in Jammu and Kashmir is a run-of-river plant within the definition of the Indus Waters Treaty.

It had also held that India was free to divert water from the Kishenganga/Neelum River for power generation.

The court has given India the right to divert water for the project and has accepted Pakistan’s demand for uninterrupted flow of water.

Pakistan has claimed that the project would rob it of 15 per cent of its share of river waters. It also accused India of trying to divert the river to harm Pakistan’s Neelum-Jhelum hydro-electric project (NJHEP).

Recalling the matters already decided in the partial award, the court noted that India had “coupled intent with action” in the planning and construction of the KHEP before Pakistan achieved the same with respect to NJHEP, and that the KHEP had acquired “priority in right” as a result.

The final award is binding upon the two countries without recourse to appeal.

On May 17, 2010, Pakistan had moved for arbitration against India under the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960.

The Indus Waters Treaty is an international agreement signed by India and Pakistan in 1960 that regulates the use waters of the Indus system of rivers by the two neighbours.

The KHEP is designed to generate power by diverting water from a dam site on the Kishenganga to the Bonar Nallah, another tributary of the Jhelum, through a system of tunnels, with the water powering turbines having a capacity of 330 mw.

In commencing the arbitration, Pakistan challenged the permissibility of the planned diversion by the KHEP of the waters of the Kishenganga into the Bonar Nallah and the effect that this diversion would have on NJHEP.

Besides others, India’s case was defended by jurists Fali S Nariman and R.K.P. Shankardass.

The seven-member Court of Arbitration was chaired by judge Stephen M Schwebel of the US who is former president of the International Court of Justice. The other members of the court were Franklin Berman and Howard S Wheater (UK), Lucius Caflisch (Switzerland), Jan Paulsson (Sweden) and judges Bruno Simma (Germany) and Peter Tomka (Slovakia).

In June 2011, the Court of Arbitration conducted a site visit to the Kishenganga project and surrounding areas located on the Kishenganga river.

In February 2012, a delegation of the court carried out a second site visit to the Neelum river valley.

From August 20 to 31, 2012, the Court of Arbitration held a two-week hearing on the merits of the dispute between India and Pakistan before giving a partial award in February last year.

The International Court of Arbitration has allowed India to go ahead with construction of the Kishanganga dam in Jammu and Kashmir, over which Pakistan has raised objections.

The court delivered its "final award" on Friday night after India requested clarification of an order issued by it in February.

In its "partial award" in February, the court upheld India's main contention that it has the right to divert waters of western rivers, in a non-consumptive manner, for optimal generation of power.

The western rivers are allocated to Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960.

The "final award" specifies that 9 cumecs of natural flow of water must be maintained in Kishenganga river at all times to maintain the environment downstream, said a statement from the Indian High Commission here.

This is much lower than the 100 cumecs of natural flow that Pakistan wanted to maintain, it said.

"We have also received the clarification we sought from the court with regard to the technique of draw-down flushing used for the de-siltation of reservoir in run of the river power projects in the western rivers of the Indus," the statement said.

The court said alternative techniques will have to be used for Kishanganga hydroelectric project and all future run of the river projects undertaken on western rivers of the Indus system.

Contrary to negative propaganda that the Indus Waters Treaty has been receiving in recent years, the International Court of Arbitration's award has shown the pact is a strong framework for division of river waters between India and Pakistan, the statement said.

The treaty has stood the test of time and ups and downs in India-Pakistan relations, it said. "It is hoped that the negative arguments often heard on the working of this treaty will be finally put to rest," it added.

Meanwhile, Water Minister Khwaja Asif claimed Pakistan had achieved a "big victory" through the court's ruling.

"Pakistan has achieved a big victory (as) International Court of Arbitration has accepted Pakistan's right as a riparian state to waters of Kishanganga. Similarly Pakistan's right over waters of Jhelum and Chenab rivers is also established," he said.

"The decision will safeguard our water rights in future also," he said.