Bharat Rakshak

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.”

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.