Indus Water Treaty

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Oct 2008 07:52

sum wrote:Why do our Babus waste our money on providing so much chai biskoots to the Paki "experts"?

The IWT provides for periodic meetings as well as special on-request meetings.

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 09 Oct 2008 07:43

Manmohan to open Baglihar Power Project on Friday

Islamabad—The still-450-megawatt-controversial Baglihar power project constructed by India over the river Chenab in Doda district of occupied Kashmir is being inaugurated by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday, Oct. 10, 2008, reports said.

Pakistan has genuine objections to the water conservation capacity of the Baglihar Dam which is in violation of the World Bank-brokered Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 between Pakistan and India.

The existing water conservation capacity of the project can check the volume of river waters flow to Pakistan.

In his meeting with the Indian Prime Minister in New York on September 24, the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari had raised the issue. Reportedly the Indian Premier had assured Pakistan President to do rectification which has since then not been reported.

Meanwhile Pakistan’s Indus Waters Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah is planning to inspect the project around next week. But the situation may not improve as before his inspection the project would have been formally opened by the Indian Premier.

It is not the Baglihar Dam or hydel power project constructed on it by India, the published reports indicate that about 250 small/medium dams have been planned by India over Kashmir rivers.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Oct 2008 19:01

PM Commissions BHP

Addressing a public meeting, Singh said that in the implementation of project, special care has been taken to ensure that "genuine concerns" of Pakistan were taken care of so that it has no complaints in this regard.

The Prime Minister used the occasion to renew the hand of friendship and cooperation with Pakistan. "It is the duty of people of India and Pakistan to learn to lend a helping hand to each other.

"I would like to invite Pakistan to work with India in achieving this objective," Singh said in his seven-minute speech at the function.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 Oct 2008 01:46

India to set up three more hydro projects on Chenab River.

NEW DELHI, Oct 10 APP: India will set up three more hydro projects on Chenab River to generate 2100 Megawatt electricity in occupied Kashmir.

Agreement to this effect was signed between the Centre and the Kashmir government in Chanderkote (Jammu) on Friday.

Under the agreement, a joint venture company would set up projects.

Out of the three projects, 1,000 MW Pakuldul project has already been identified.The agreement was signed ahead of the visit of Indian Prime Minister to Chandarkote to commission the first phase of Baglihar dam.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 11 Oct 2008 17:29

Pakistan, India to hold talks on water issues

Islamabad, Oct 10 (UNI) Pakistan and India will hold talks in New Delhi on October 23 to discuss the issue of reduced water inflows in the Chenab river.

Pakistan claims that it has faced water losses of over 0.2 million cusecs in the Chenab river due to the water storage in Baglihar Dam in Kashmir in violation of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), Daily Times said today.

A six-member Pakistani delegation, led by Water Commissioner Syed Jamat Ali Shah, would inspect the dam in Kashmir from October 18-22 before the two-day talks in New Delhi.

The Pakistani agriculture sector had faced a loss of more than Rs 40 billion due to the water losses in the river, and many areas in Punjab had been badly hit by the water shortage.

Pakistan believed that India had violated the IWT by reducing the water flow in the Chenab to fill the dam after August 31, 2008 and would demand compensation for water losses.

''Under the IWT, India cannot reduce the water flow in the Chenab below 55,000 cusecs between June 21 and August 31. However, Pakistan has been receiving 20,000 cusecs during August and September,'' said an official in the Water Ministry.

The Pakistani delegation will inspect the water storage in the dam from October 18 to 22 and ask India to compensate the water losses by releasing water in the Ravi, Sutlej and Chenab rivers.

Pakistan also plans to approach the World Bank for arbitration, if India denied it had reduced the water flow in the Chenab.

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 12 Oct 2008 05:31

India blocks Chenab flow again

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 12 Oct 2008 05:34

This should be in the Pakistani thread -- India has done nothing of this sort AFAIK. This is just standard Pakistani whining to cover up their own poor water management downstream.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Oct 2008 06:23

Violation of treaty will damage ties: Zardari

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 13 Oct 2008 07:12

Baglihar talks on 23rd

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 14 Oct 2008 03:36

Water shortage reaches alarming 35%
* Govt calls top-level meeting of provinces, WAPDA and IRSA
* Crisis may affect Rabi crops, shortage may increase to 40 percent
* Load shedding increases as hydroelectric power production down by 4,000MW

By Zafar Bhutta

ISLAMABAD: Water shortage in Pakistan has reached an alarming 35 percent and the crisis could affect crops of the Rabi season that just began.

Sources familiar with the developments told Daily Times the government had called a top-level meeting of the provincial irrigation ministers, members of the National Assembly standing subcommittee on water and power, and the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) chairman to review the situation. Water and Power Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf will chair the meeting, and the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) chairman will brief the participants.

The WAPDA and IRSA chairmen will give their input on how to tackle the crisis.

In a meeting on September 27, IRSA’s advisory committee had predicted a 34 percent water shortage during the Rabi crop season. Officials now estimate the shortage could reach up to 40 percent.

Sindh is currently getting 40,000 cusecs of irrigation water a day, and Punjab is receiving 48,000 cusecs, after IRSA lowered the releases due to shortage.

On Monday, IRSA released 34,000 cusecs of water from the Tarbela reservoir on the Indus River, almost equal to the 32,000 inflow into the dam. But the inflow at Mangla on Jhelum was only 10,255 cusecs, and the outflow 29,000.

Officials said the total water inflow in all reservoirs stood at 68,036 cusecs on Monday, and the total outflow at 86,581 cusecs.

Hydroelectric production: Reduced water releases from the two major reservoirs had also reduced hydroelectric power generation from 6,100 megawatts a day to 2,200 megawatts – resulting in an increase in countrywide load shedding.

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 14 Oct 2008 03:36

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2008_pg1_3

Pakistan lost 2MAF Chenab water’

LAHORE: Pakistan has suffered a loss of two million acre feet (MAF) of water after India reduced water flow in the Chenab River to fill its newly-constructed Baglihar Dam. Pakistan will involve third-party arbitration if India did not compensate Pakistan for the loss, Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah said on Monday. Talking to reporters after the 59th Executive Council meeting of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and the 20th International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage at Aiwan-e-Iqbal, Shah said “Pakistan will ask India to release this water to Pakistan for Rabi crops (November-April).” He said that the agriculture and irrigation department had been evaluating the losses faced by Pakistan after the reduced water flow. He said that a delegation would visit India from October 18 to inspect the sites and assess the Indus Water Treaty violations. staff report

arun · Post by **arun** » 14 Oct 2008 08:50

S. Sridhar,

Is there anything in the IWT or Raymond Lafitte’s Baglihar judgment that obliges India to ensure that Pakistan receives 55,000 Cusecs of water from the Chenab

Looking forward to your views. TIA :

October 14, 2008 Tuesday Shawwal 14, 1429

Pakistan to press India for ‘stolen’ water

By Our Staff Reporter

LAHORE, Oct 13: Pakistan would neither drop its claim nor sell the Chenab water which India ‘stole’ in September this year, Indus Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said here on Monday.

Talking to newsmen at the International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), he said a delegation would leave for India on the 18th and re-emphasise its demand for 200,000 acre feet of water that India used to fill Baglihar dam.

“India will have to compensate Pakistan during the coming Rabi season. Otherwise, Islamabad will resort to other treaty mechanisms to get its due share,” he insisted.

Pakistan has no objection now to the design of the dam, which was changed by India on recommendations of a neutral expert. But it also had to observe the filling criteria, which was not part of the treaty, he said.

“If India insists on its rights under the treaty it also has to observe its duties that exclude tampering with the Chenab flows. It is under treaty obligation to release 55,000 cusecs even when filling the lake,” he said.

Dawn

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Oct 2008 09:19

arun wrote:Is there anything in the IWT or Raymond Lafitte’s Baglihar judgment that obliges India to ensure that Pakistan receives 55,000 Cusecs of water from the Chenab

arun, the below quote is from IWT (Annexure E, Clause 18). However, we do not know the complete case. There has been no instance of India ever violating IWT in letter or spirit. OTOH, Pakistanis always lie and have never been known to speak the truth. We will have to wait till the upcoming IWC meeting and Indian reaction. The only reaction I have seen so far has been that the Indian Indus Commissioner has rejected the charges.

The annual filling of Conservation Storage and the initial filling below the Dead Storage Level, at any site, shall be carried out at such times and in accordance with such rules as may be agreed upon between the Commissioners. In case the Commissioners are unable to reach agreement, India may carry out the filling as follows:
(a) if the site is on The Indus, between 1st July and 20th August;
(b) if the site is on The Jhelum, between 21st June and 20th August; and
(c) if the site is on The Chenab, between 21st June and 31st August at such rate as not to reduce, on account of this filling, the flow in the Chenab Main above Merala to less than 55,000 cusecs.

We have to understand a few terms to see what could have happened. The IWT defines the terms as follows.

"Dead Storage Capacity" means that portion of the Reservoir Capacity which is not used for operational purposes, and "Dead Storage" means the corresponding volume of water.

"Flood Storage Capacity" means that portion of the Reservoir Capacity which is reserved for the temporary storage of flood waters in order to regulate downstream flows, and "Flood Storage" means the corresponding volume of water.

"Surcharge Storage Capacity" means the Reservoir Capacity between the crest of an uncontrolled spillway or the top of the crest gates in normal closed position and the maximum water elevation above this level for which the dam is designed, and "Surcharge Storage" means the corresponding volume of water.

"Conservation Storage Capacity" Means the Reservoir Capacity excluding Flood Storage Capacity, Dead Storage Capacity and Surcharge Storage Capacity, and "Conservation Storage" means the corresponding volume of water.

The conservation storage is the 'Live Storage' that is used for power generation.

There is also an 'initial filling' and 'annual filling'. What has happened in BHEP is 'initial filling'. Annual filling can happen only from next year. In order to generate power, BHEP authorities would have filled (initial filling) of the Dead Storage first (and there is clause c above that applies to it). We don't know when that happened. Next, they would have filled up the Conservation Storage, for which the IWT speaks only of 'annual filling', not 'initial filling'. IWT is silent on this front.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Oct 2008 16:36

Case for a new IWT - DAWN Edit

Now that, Pakistan is under water-strain and India has begun to simultaneously exercise its rights under the IWT and the way is cleared for more BHEP like structures (by the Neutral Expert), Pakistan is feeling the heat.

Let's remember that when the IWT came up for discussion, and the WB suggested each country to define the quantum of water that it would like to have from these rivers, Pakistan wanted almost the whole flow. India was, unfortunately, modest. A revision was asked to be made. Again, Pakistan stuck to a similar quantum of water. The final award came very close to India's initial estimate.

There is however no dearth of experts here who hold that no mechanism exists to check the construction of a reservoir by India on a river formally assigned to Pakistan under the five-decade-old Indus Water Basin Treaty. Baglihar Dam, inaugurated in Indian-controlled Kashmir last week, is a prime example. Indeed, while the controversial project was under way Pakistani experts were labelling the Indus treaty as an unsatisfactory document favouring India.

This may be true but equally significant is the fact that the treaty has served as a useful agreement between easily excitable parties. {That it has survived so far is due to India and India alone as an upper riparian state which did not want to use water as a means to settle its dispute with TSP. One can be sure, judging by the deployment of jihadi warriors and terrorists by Pakistan, that had TSP been an upper rip[arian, India would have been strangulated a long time back} Pakistan’s domestic experience with the issue would suggest that it is not that simple to distribute water among desperate claimants. The inter-provincial accord took a long time coming, and when it was finally signed in 1991 it was far from being the last word on the subject. The fall in water supply and its quality further widens the gulf between provinces, especially between Punjab and Sindh.

The end where one neighbour does not represent a threat to the other can only be achieved through talks. There is no reason why Islamabad cannot propose modifications for reasons of clarity, and no reason why a New Delhi that sees other past resolutions as obsolete shouldn’t respond positively.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Oct 2008 19:29

Water Issues with India - Editorial in Business Recorder

The credibility of Pakistani newspapers is generally next to nil. However, this paper goes one step further and blatantly lies about an international treaty which is available for scrutiny by public. The quality of this newspaper has now been exposed.

Business Recorder fully supports the President's stand on the Baglihar dam whose construction was a violation of the intent behind the Indus Water Treaty which was essentially to protect Pakistan , as a lower riparian country, from being deprived of its due share of the Indus water system.

The Treaty awarded the Eastern Rivers to India and the Western Rivers to Pakistan; however, India was allowed restricted use of the Western Rivers and was strictly forbidden to interfere in the process with the flow of their waters towards Pakistan. Thus the very construction of the Baglihar dam is a violation of the intent and objective of the Treaty.

It is prudent, at this point, to take note of the new ground realities. The Treaty allowed arbitration by a neutral expert, whose award was to be considered final and binding, in case of its non-conformance by either of the two countries. The previous Pakistani government did take the issue of the Baglihar construction to the World Bank in 2005 and the 2007 award is already public knowledge with both India and Pakistan claiming victory. The award overruled all objections raised by Pakistan over the construction of the dam with the exception of a critical one: the Neutral Expert appointed by the World Bank and accepted by the two countries, Professor Lafitte, ruled that India must reduce the maximum permissible pondage from 37.50 million cubic meters (MCM) to 32.56 MCM. Pakistan, reportedly, had requested 6.22 MCM.

In this context when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised President Zardari that India will abide by the Treaty he was, cleverly and diplomatically, referring to the arbitration award already in force. It is unfortunate that President Zardari was not briefed adequately on the issue, which, in all probability, led him to conclusions that were not supported by the new ground realities, foremost among them being the fact that the dam construction was in its final stages of completion and presented a fait accompli to the arbitrator.

The question is who is to blame for Pakistan's defeat in the arbitration in spite of tall claims made by the former minister concerned, Liaqat Jatoi? Why was the arbitration clause invoked so late and not in the initial stages of the dam's construction? Some analysts lay the blame on the architects of the Indus Water Treaty who failed to insist on an explicit provision barring India from constructing a submerged spillway.

The Treaty (Annexure D, section 8, para (e)) bars India from constructing a gated spillway as a rule but is allowed to do so in exceptional cases where it deems that "necessary". Others lay the blame on the Pakistani team that pleaded the case before the neutral expert, a team which obviously failed to convince Professor Lafitte to take into consideration the purpose and objective of the Treaty as mandated by the Vienna Convention (article 31) which stipulates that a judge is not entitled to construe a treaty purely on the basis of the text but must keep its object and purpose in mind as well.

Whoever is at fault, it is fairly evident that Pakistan must evolve a new strategy in order to deal with the consequences of the Baglihar dam and its consequent impact on Pakistan's economy! Threatening India with a worsening of bilateral relations, is unlikely to sway that country which has clearly emerged as an economic giant in the region reaping the benefits of a democracy dividend that Pakistan is only now trying to benefit from.

What is the solution? There are some jurists who maintain that Pakistan can challenge the award. The example of the World Court's judgement in the 1960 case concerning the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain is pertinent, which is based on the assumption that in certain circumstances an award could be vitiated with nullity. At the same time the Pakistan government must attempt to internationalise the negative fallout of Baglihar and remain engaged with India in an effort to amicably resolve the issue.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 17 Oct 2008 21:26

Indo-Pak talks on Chenab water controversy
Friday 17 October, 2008

With Pakistan raising the pitch over the alleged blockade of Chenab river water by India, officials of the two countries will meet in New Delhi next week to discuss the issue.

Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah will arrive in New Delhi on Saturday for talks with his Indian counterpart G Ranganathan.

The Indus Water Commissioners of the two countries are expected to discuss how to address such issues amicably to each other's satisfaction.

The talks have been warranted after Pakistan alleged that India had stopped the flow of water from Chenab river for construction of Baglihar power project in Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan claimed its crops had been affected because of this.

India has said the flow was low because of the lesser availability of water in the river.

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari said on Sunday that the issue could "damage ties" between the two countries.

"The Indian Prime Minister had assured me in our meeting in New York that his country was seriously committed to our water-sharing treaty. We expect him to stand by his commitment," Zardari was quoted as saying.

Besides holding talks in New Delhi, the Pakistani delegation is also expected to visit Baglihar Dam in Jammu and Kashmir for on-the-spot assessment.

The 450 MW Baglihar Power Project on river Chenab, which was caught in a prolonged tussle between India and Pakistan before World Bank gave a go-ahead for its construction over a year ago, was commissioned last week.

India has questioned Pakistan's claim that the reduces water flow had affected cultivation in that country.

"The water from India is stored in the Marala dam in Pakistan and not released directly for irrigation. How is it possible that the dam will dry up in flood season," a senior Indian official said.

Under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, India and Pakistan each have exclusive right over three of the six common rivers.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Oct 2008 08:27

Phase II of Baglihar Project

India plans to formulate a project report to undertake phase-II of the 450MW Baglihar power project, as Pakistan Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jammat Ali Shah arrives in New Delhi today (Saturday) for talks with his Indian counterpart. The project is estimated to cost Rs 18.6 billion.

A Jammu and Kashmir government spokesman said that a memorandum of understanding (MoU) has also been signed with New Delhi-owned National Hydro Electric Power Corporation (NHPC) to soon undertake the Pakal Dul (1779 MW), Kiru (600 MW) and Kawar (320MW) projects on the river Chinab.

The projects will be executed as a joint venture with 49 percent equity ownership dived between the state government and the NHPC. The remaining two percent stakes will remain with the Power Trading Corporation (PTC).

Earlier, an MoU signed in July 20, 2000, Jammu and Kashmir government had transferred seven projects, namely Kishenganga, Uri-II, Bursar, Sewa-II, Pakal Dul, Nimmo Bazgo and Chutak, to the NHPC for execution.

Out of these, four projects, namely Uri-II, Sewa-II, Nimmo Bazgo and Chutak are at an advanced stage of execution.

Blockade: The Online news agency reported that Jamaat would discuss the blockade of the river Chenab’s water by India with his Indian counterpart G Ranganathan. They are expected to discuss how to address such issues amicably, it said, adding that the talks warranted after India had stopped the flow of Chenab water for the construction of the Baglihar power project. Pakistan says the blockade has affected its crops. India, meanwhile, has said the flow is low because of less availability of water in the river.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Oct 2008 18:23

Pak won't compromise on its share of Chenab waters

He described the Indus Waters Treaty as a "tested" framework and mechanism that had delivered in the past. However, Pakistan will resort to "all available mechanisms" to address the problem.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Oct 2008 09:14

Discontent over Indus Treaty

But Baglihar is not the only flashpoint in their low-intensity water wars. Both countries are also squaring off on the Wullar barrage/Tulbul project in J&K. After numerous failed attempts at resolution, India gave in to Pakistani demands to include it as a subject for composite dialogue. But analysts say the dialogue is now so focused on Kashmir and Siachen that there may be little hope of resolving the Wullar/Tulbul issue.

Interestingly, both neighbours have long expressed dissatisfaction with the 1960 Treaty, with each believing the other got a better deal. Pakistan scholar Robert Wirsing says there is equality of discontent on both sides of the border. "Pakistanis hold that they gave up more water than they gained, that the diversion of Indus waters required to compensate for the loss to India of the three eastern rivers has inflicted heavy ecological penalties upon Pakistan, and that, worst of all, India’s retention of the right to ‘non-consumptive’ use of the three western rivers {The term "Non-Consumptive Use" means any control or use of water for navigation, floating of timber or other property, flood protection or flood control, fishing or fish culture, wild life or other like beneficial purposes} presents Pakistan with the endlessly frustrating, and ultimately futile, {I like the admission} task of guarding its water resources against Indian poaching," he says.

The Indians, meanwhile, "hold that it is their side that gave up too much water in the 1960 treaty and that Pakistan has made it virtually impossible for India effectively to exploit non-consumptive uses, the production of hydropower in particular, allowed them on the western rivers."

As the war of words over the Baglihar dam becomes more heated, it would be well to note that it is one of 11 projects India apparently plans to build in J&K, nine of them on the Chenab. The World Bank ruling on Baglihar significantly decreed that India can build run-of-the-river hydropower projects on the western rivers of the Indus.

It also set a precedent in that India was allowed to build dams using modern technology to deal with sedimentation in the Himalayan rivers. This technology did not exist when the treaty was signed 48 years ago. It is hardly surprising that India sees it as a political victory, namely a vote of confidence for development projects in J&K. India’s official response to the WB ruling said, "The three elements of design that require marginal changes, i.e. reductions in freeboard, pondage and increase in the height of the intakes, all arise from calculations and not from basic principles." {Exactly. Hence we see the projects being approached with abundant confidence nowadays after the BHEP ruling.}

The arguments continue to flow.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Oct 2008 11:55

Water for water - Pak

“dollars or rupees cannot be a substitute for water”.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Oct 2008 17:27

Will urination at Wagah suffice, or do they require water all along the international border?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Oct 2008 07:25

Chenab losses hit our agriculture hard: TSP

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 21 Oct 2008 14:23

SSridhar & Indus Treaty Gurus

What is stopping India from completely blocking waters of river Ravi to TSP. Isn't that assigned to India as part of the treaty.

This will tighten the screws further.

sum · Post by **sum** » 21 Oct 2008 16:16

What is stopping India from completely blocking waters of river Ravi to TSP. Isn't that assigned to India as part of the treaty.

Misplaced sympathy for the porkis, spinelessness of politicos and Gandhian/nehruvian lagacy of "moral superiority"...

Jaspreet · Post by **Jaspreet** » 21 Oct 2008 16:27

Quote:
What is stopping India from completely blocking waters of river Ravi to TSP. Isn't that assigned to India as part of the treaty.

As Bajwa explained here some time ago, the infrastructure for harnessing the blocked waters does not yet exist. It is being built.

If you block the waters now, what will you do with it? Allow it to flood the villages?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Oct 2008 09:39

Indian reaction to Pakistani bile

The {Pakistani Indus} commissioner said there was an understanding that the dam’s filling would be done during rainy season, but the engineers at Bhaglihar had filled the dam between August 19 and September 5, after the monsoons.

Indian officials, however, maintain that they have not violated the treaty.

“Our position has been clear and consistent. We have not violated the Indus Water Treaty and have filled the reservoir within the stipulated timeframe permitted by the agreement. There have been lesser rains and it could have impacted the overall discharge of the river,” said Sandeep K Nayak, power secretary of IHK.

Nayak added, “Right now, the first unit is working to its full capacity and another unit would start generating power soon.”

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Oct 2008 14:20

Misplaced sympathy for the porkis, spinelessness of politicos and Gandhian/nehruvian lagacy of "moral superiority"...

Just like to point out that our legacy of "moral superiority" hasn't done us too bad over the years. That's the reason why India's standing in the world is way above that of the Porkis. If we had behaved like them then both of us would have been treated like rabid nations to be used and discarded.

That being said, once the infrastructure is built I fully support diverting the Ravi waters to water deficient parts of North-Western India.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Oct 2008 20:58

India - Afghan review water projects

River Kabul is a tributary of the Indus and joins it at Attock. I hope effective use of the waters of the Kabul river are being discussed. After all, Afghanistan, as an upper riparian state also has a stake in this river. India should also help plan a Hydroelectric project on river Kabul by damming it before the Pakistani border.

The reason I have included this news item here is that the Kabul is an important tributary of the Indus and the Indus Basin is equally important to India. Of course, the project being talked about in the news item below is not on the Kabul river (it is in Herat), but, India and Afghanistan have to look at the Kabul river also.

India and Afghanistan on Wednesday reviewed progress on various irrigation and water resources projects being implemented by India in the war-ravaged country.

Afghan Minister for Water and Energy Mohammed Ismail Khan and Union Water Resources Minister Saif-ud-din Soz discussed the various irrigation and water-related projects taken up in that country by India.

The two ministers also reviewed the progress on the ongoing Salma Dam Project in Afghanistan.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 23 Oct 2008 13:30

Incidentally do we have some ready network by which we can divert water of west flowing rivers gifted to Pak to Rajasthan? i.e. to say, do we have some sort of network or barriers (innocently

) built, which when put to use will change the course of river water to Rajasthan??

What is up with Punjan Haryana Canal which was source of lot of controvery and even subject of Supreme Court Orders.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Oct 2008 14:46

amit wrote:
Misplaced sympathy for the porkis, spinelessness of politicos and Gandhian/nehruvian lagacy of "moral superiority"...

Just like to point out that our legacy of "moral superiority" hasn't done us too bad over the years. That's the reason why India's standing in the world is way above that of the Porkis. If we had behaved like them then both of us would have been treated like rabid nations to be used and discarded.

With all due respect, this is distorted reaity. Despite India's moon mission, despite its IT prowesss, despite India's CEO MMS being invited to US economic summit, and other so called 'super power' traits, it is equal equal: India and Paaaakistaan, India and Paaaaakistaaan all the way.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 23 Oct 2008 21:34

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1200370

Indo-Pak talks on Chenab water controversy begin

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Oct 2008 14:49

Gimme money

Pakistan conveyed to India that the blockade caused a loss of billions of rupees to farmers . . .

amit · Post by **amit** » 24 Oct 2008 15:04

CRamS wrote:it is equal equal: India and Paaaakistaan, India and Paaaaakistaaan all the way.

Sigh!

When Indians themselves think that way, why blame a section of the Goras who think the same?

As a passing thought, just consider some of the news items that have been linked up in the various threads of BRF the past few days.

I seem to see a number of them in different ways conveying the fact that with instrumentation from three premier Western Space research institutes on the Moon mission there's a very high level of interest as well as admiration even in mainstream and generally anti India media like CNN and BBC on the Chandrayaan Mission.

On the other hand almost every news report about Pakistan's present problems is an excuse to sternly tell the nation that it's going to get one last chance to get it's act together and become a normal nation.

But of course these are minor distractions and no way significant.

We need to get back to our mantra: India and Paaaakistaan, India and Paaaaakistaaan all the way.

It's a wonderful comfort zone in which to nurse our pet insecurities.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 24 Oct 2008 19:18

India rejects Baki claims

Rejecting Pakistan's charge that it had blocked Chenab river water flow, India on Friday turned down the neighbouring country's demand for compensation, asserting that there was no wrong-doing by it. At the meeting of Indus Water Commissioners here in the backdrop of Pakistan's allegations, the Indian side furnished data related to outflow of water in river Chenab from this country to show that it had released sufficient quantity despite low availability, sources told PTI.

After two days of deliberations, the meeting remained inconclusive with the two sides failing to reach any kind of settlement on the controversy. The Indian side was led by G Ranganathan while Syed Jamaat Ali Shah headed the Pakistan side. At the meeting, Pakistan alleged that India released only 35,000 cusecs of water instead of 55,000 cusecs, which was the understanding, leading to loss in crop. It demanded compensation for the same.

India categorically rejected Pakistan's demand for compensation as it furnished hydrological data to prove that the quantity of water was actually 55,000 cusecs and that Islamabad had no case. Pakistan wanted India to share data of Baglihar Dam water at an hourly basis, which also was rejected by New Delhi.

The Indian side made it clear it will share with Pakistan data only under the requirements of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty and nothing beyond that. "Pakistan is using arithmetical gymnastics to prove that India breached the provisions of the treaty," a source told PTI, adding Islamabad was trying to "politicise" the matter.

What a jhapad

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Oct 2008 19:54

I am not surprised. The last time the Indian interlocutors took the Pakistanis to Roorkee to the hydrological institute to explain the Indian model of Baglihar and the calculations, the Pkistanis openly admitted that all of that went above their head. Another link posted here a few posts above says that Pakistanis seriously lack experts.

It now transpires from what Stan has posted above, the Pakistanis do not understand even simple arithmetic. But, seriously, they are doing it with a motive without really understanding the full implication of their actions. They realize that India has started asserting its rights available under the IWT. They want to create stumbling blocks, doubts, portray India as villains, issue threats to delay Indian projects etc. Their thinking is that they delayed going to WB for arbitration quite late in the BHEP case and if only they had gone earlier they could have at least delayed India, if not entirely stopped the project. They now realize that the Neutral Expert's ruling has not only vindicated India's interpretation of the IWT but in fact reinforced it and so India will approach future projects with a confidence that is a far cry from what it did in the Salal & Tulbul projects. This is causing jitters in TSP. Hence, the ploy to use every opportunity to paint India as the violator of the IWT. This will also hide from their own people their failings in water management within the country.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 25 Oct 2008 01:23

And I say, that even if India were to violate IWT, so be it. Tough luck. Build the damn dams, harness the rivers, produce electricity, irigate the farms and fill up the drinking water reservoirs in India first. Thats right. India first. If the porkis complain, tell them that the original IWT was unfair and needs to be renegotiated. What's the porkis BATNA (best alternative to no agreement)? War? Collective suicide?

And, if thats not all, then demand monetary (or equal in land) compensation from the porkis for all the water released into pakistan in error by the previous administrations and for all the hunger that has caused in India.

Take the fight to them. No pussyfooting around these scums. Time for another Chanakya amongst the Indian policy makers and strategists to take control of the situation.

sum · Post by **sum** » 25 Oct 2008 10:21

anupmisra wrote:And I say, that even if India were to violate IWT, so be it. Tough luck. Build the damn dams, harness the rivers, produce electricity, irigate the farms and fill up the drinking water reservoirs in India first. Thats right. India first. If the porkis complain, tell them that the original IWT was unfair and needs to be renegotiated. What's the porkis BATNA (best alternative to no agreement)? War? Collective suicide?

And, if thats not all, then demand monetary (or equal in land) compensation from the porkis for all the water released into pakistan in error by the previous administrations and for all the hunger that has caused in India.

Take the fight to them. No pussyfooting around these scums. Time for another Chanakya amongst the Indian policy makers and strategists to take control of the situation.

Yep, that seems to be the best option since the Pakis will anyways whine however fair and self-defeating India is in any treaty involving Pak...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Oct 2008 14:52

Stan_Savljevic wrote:India rejects Baki claims
. . . . Pakistan wanted India to share data of Baglihar Dam water at an hourly basis, which also was rejected by New Delhi.

The Indian side made it clear it will share with Pakistan data only under the requirements of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty and nothing beyond that. "Pakistan is using arithmetical gymnastics to prove that India breached the provisions of the treaty," a source told PTI, adding Islamabad was trying to "politicise" the matter.

IWT prescribes exchange of data on a daily (or even less frequent) interval only.

Article VI

EXCHANGE OF DATA

(1) The following data with respect to the flow in, and utilisation of the waters of, the Rivers shall be exchanged regularly between the Parties:
(a) Daily (or as observed or estimated less frequently) gauge and discharge data relating to flow of the Rivers at all observation sites.
(b) Daily extractions for or releases from reservoirs.
(c) Daily withdrawals at the heads of all canals operated by government or by a government agency (hereinafter in this Article called canals), including link canals.
(d) Daily escapages from all canals, including link canals.
(e) Daily deliveries from link canals.

These data shall be transmitted monthly by each Party to the other as soon as the data for a calendar month have been collected and tabulated, but not later than three months after the end of the months to which they relate : Provided that such of the data specified above as are considered by either Party to be necessary for operational purposes shall be supplied daily or at less frequent intervals, as may be requested,: Should one Party request the supply of any of these data by telegram, telephone, wireless, it shall reimburse the other Party for the cost of transmission.

(2) If, in addition to the data specified in Paragraph (1) of this Article, either Party requests the supply of any data relating to the hydrology of the Rivers, or to canal or reservoir operation connected with the Rivers, or to any provision of this Treaty, such data shall be supplied by the other Party to the extent that these are available.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Oct 2008 11:02

Pakistan wants to seek neutral arbitration once again

All power to Pakistan. AoA.

Pakistan will go to the World Bank (WB) to seek compensation from India for obstructing water flow in the Chenab River and design defects in Baglihar Dam, Indus Water Commissioner (IWC) Jamaat Ali Shah said on Saturday. Shah said India had taken 200,000 cusecs of Pakistani water in September ‘in utter violation of the set laws’, hurting Pakistan’s Kharif crops. The two rounds of talks had ended inconclusively, he said, adding India was sticking to its ‘traditional obduracy and inflexibility’. “Talks were held with the Indian officials at length, but I am not satisfied.”

Now, what did India say ?

According to an Indian periodical, Indian engineers said their government had stored 32.56 million cubic meters of water in the Baglihar Dam from June 26 to August 31, which they said were in line with the World Bank laws and the Indus Water Treaty.

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 Oct 2008 13:33

Have to admire the Paki for their doggedness despite being bitch-slapped each time.

The guys dont have money to buy a coffee in their office and they want to pay hefty money and lodge another case on one which they lost recently...