Indus Water Treaty

[jagga]

Delhi's revocation of Indus treaty will be an act of war, warns Sartaj Aziz
Pichwada On Fire

[pankajs]

While Bakis are realizing their weakness wrt the IWT perhaps it is time folks here realized that stopping water flow without infrastructure to move/transfer water out of the Indus basin is impossible.

1. Will abrogating/scrapping the IWT stop the flow to Bakis? NO. No explanations needed.
2. If we shut the gates of all our current storage will that stop the flow? NO. The water will just overflow the structure and land in Bakistan.
3. Can we manipulate the flows at least to disrupt the flow and their *core* agri. sector? Given how little *active* storage we have the impact would be minimal. I understand that many do not agree with this position but I have stated mine.
4. Will BIGGER dams help *stop* the flow? NOt by itself. After the dams are full the rest of the water will just pass over or through to Bakiland.
5. Will BIGGER dams help manipulate flows downstream? To the extent that it is bigger it will have a larger impact than our current *active* storage capacity. If we have enough storage we can do considerable damage.

So why is the Modi government hyping its *action*, the little and inconsequential that it is? All the sound and fury being unleashed is to placate the jingos with *visible* action. It is easy to fool mangos on something that is as arcane as topography and Hydrology. It is an easy *maneuver* to execute when most folks buy the line that stepping out of IWT is going to *stop* the water flow. Talk is cheap.

I am not even for a moment suggesting that the Modi government is not serious about punishing Bakis but this talk on IWT is pure and simple garam hawa designed as an valve to release some of the pent up pressure within India. The Bakis are afraid because this GOI has dared to break the nehruvian consensus and talk of stuff that was previously unthinkable from Bakis POV. They see it as a sign of things to come and that scares them.

[SSridhar]

I think just one thing is missing with respect to the China angle, which is that the amount of water flow in the Tsangpo and the Indus at the India China border is merely a fraction of the total volume of these rivers. Even if China were to impound that water, it should not cause a huge reduction in the flow of these rivers.

Yes, it is true that a significant volume of water in the Brahmaputra comes from within catchment areas within Indian borders itself; but, that does not mean that India can acquiesce to diversion or damming of Brahmaputra at its will by the upper riparain China. There is a principle involved in transborder water sharing and China should not be allowed to ride roughshod as it is just doing in the Indo-China Sea, for example.

As for the Indus, I have no idea of the flow volume of water at its exit point from India which is at Sazin in Gilgit (not near Khapalu in Baltistan near Siachen base) where the Indus river enters Kohistan district of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa where it is immediately dammed at Tarbela. But, I know that the Kabul river contributes ~ 30 MAF to the Indus and that when the deal was signed in 1960, almost 80 MAF water from the Indus system of rivers was flowing unutilized into the Arabian Sea.

But, the point I was trying to make is that we should not unnecessarily invoke China's name when we discuss IWT. China is already staking a claim to discussions on Kashmir between India & Pakistan by virtue of the Shaksgam Valley ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963. We should not give it any excuse to poke its ugly nose everywhere. Let us therefore keep China completely out whenever we discuss IWT.

[chetak]

The mere threat of abrogating or even reviewing or even using our full entitlement of waters under the IWT has the paki pissing their pants.

It simply means that India can, will, may complete its dam constructions/ barrages/ storage facilities without any heed to paki objections or interference and will not recognise or participate in any arbitration proceedings as laid out under the IWT.

This has unnerved the blackmailing pakis as it has removed the very root of their threatening capacities.

The world bank is a toothless tiger and has no locus standi in the IWT. It cannot guarantee shit to the pakis or even dream of enforcing it's writ on India. India has economically gone well beyond the world bank stage

International court of justice is also another crock of shit, should India choose to ignore it. Will those buggers serve a non bailable warrant on India?? or impose sanctions??

Why would we be foolish enough to flood our own land by trying to stop the flowing waters for now??

Once our storage capacities are augmented and some of the paki stalled projects on the Indian side are restarted and completed, then we have much more elbow room for tactical and strategic maneuvers.

In the meanwhile the waters will continue to flow until India chooses to exercise the choke hold when ever it is ready to do so.

In one fell swoop, Modi has effectively disenfranchised the pakis from exercising their options per the IWT as "understood" by them and also removed the paki army out of it's comfort zone, because the paki army is now slowly beginning to see the contours of the bill that they may have to pay for exercising the terror option.

[chetak]

[chetak]

what will the pakis do if India delays it's response by some years or sends some low level clerk/baboo(n) to mutely attend the proceedings and says it will get back after consultations with it's "experts"??



Pakistan urges World Bank to stop Indian projects on Neelum, Chenab

Pakistan urges World Bank to stop Indian projects on Neelum, Chenab

ANWAR IQBAL —

WASHINGTON: Pakistan took its case on the Indus Waters Treaty to the World Bank on Tuesday, urging it to prevent India from making illegal constructions on the Neelum and Chenab rivers, embassy officials said on Tuesday.

“In the meeting with the Pakistani delegation, the World Bank committed itself to timely fulfilling its obligations under the treaty while remaining neutral,” said a statement issued by the Pakistan Embassy in Washington.

A Pakistani delegation, led by Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf Ali, met senior World Bank officials at its headquarters in Washington to discuss Pakistan’s recent request for arbitration under Article IX of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), 1960.

Read: Delhi decides to suspend Indus Water Commission talks

The IWT is a water-distribution agreement between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank and was signed in Karachi on Sept 19, 1960 by President Ayub Khan and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

The treaty gives India complete rights to waters of the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Sutlej and Beas) and gives Pakistan the rights over the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) with limited allowance for use of water by India from the western rivers for purposes of, among others, power generation.

Its Article IX deals with arbitration of disputes between the parties concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty or the existence of any fact which, if established, might constitute a breach of the treaty.

The treaty provides specific design criteria for any hydroelectric power plants to be built by India.

Pakistan has held the position that the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric plants violate the design parameters of the treaty.

The differences on the designs of the two plants were discussed but could not be resolved in the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th and 112th meetings of the Permanent Commission for Indus Waters, comprising one commissioner from each country, which is responsible for the implementation of the treaty. Secretary-level talks were then held between governments of India and Pakistan on July 14 and 15 this year.

After the failure of secretary-level talks, on Aug 19, Pakistan initiated formal dispute settlement proceedings under the treaty.

On Aug 19, the government of Pakistan formally requested the government of India for settlement of outstanding disputes over India’s construction of Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric plants on rivers Neelum and Chenab respectively, by referring the matters to the Court of Arbitration as provided in Article IX of the treaty.

Pakistan reminded the World Bank that the treaty gives the bank an important role in establishing a court of arbitration by facilitating the process of appointment of three judges, called Umpires, to the Court. India and Pakistan each appoint two arbitrators.

In their meetings with World Bank officials, the Pakistani delegation insisted on early appointment of the judges and setting up the court. The delegation consisted, besides the attorney general, of Water and Power secretary Muhammad Younus Dagha; Pakistan’s Commissioner for Indus Water Mirza Asif Baig; and Joint Secretary (Water) Ahmad Irfan Aslam.

Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Jalil Abbas Jilani and World Bank’s Executive Director for Pakistan Nasir Khosa also participated in the talks.

The World Bank was represented by Senior Vice President Anne-Marie LeRoy; Vice President for South Asia Annette Dixon; Deputy General Counsel for Operations Alberto Ninio; Chief Counsel for South Asia Melinda Good; and Senior Counsel for International Waterways Victor Mosoti.

The treaty was signed in 1960 after India started interfering with the water flowing downstream by stopping water on rivers Ravi and Sutlej from April 1, 1948.

An Indian newspaper, The Hindu, reported on Monday that India has decided to suspend Indus Water Commission talks until “Pakistan-sponsored terror” in India ends.

The decision was taken at a meeting presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the treaty with Pakistan amid heightened tension between the two countries.

India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar, the water resources secretary and senior officials were present at the meeting, the paper said.

But a former commissioner for the treaty, Syed Jamaat Ali Shah told Dawn that India’s decision to suspend talks on the treaty means that there will be no meetings, as described in the agreement, between the commissioners of the two countries in future.

Sources told The Hindu that while the treaty was not reviewed at the meeting, steps to utilise India’s western rivers in a better way were discussed.

Published in Dawn, September 28th, 2016

[vdutta]

China cannot divert Indian rivers even if it wants to do so to support pakistan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqNPZaChsvs

[kmkraoind]

I am posting a tweet series by @avarakai who goes by Sniper name.

- My concerns on #IWT signed by the then PM, in following tweets.
- 1. Was the treaty discussed in Parliament before signing?
- 2. How was the share of water decided? How come less water for India & more water for much smaller Pakistan?
- 3. Why only water for J&K being discussed? Even Kutch falls within the basin of Indus - if there's no border. Why no water for Kutch?
- 4. Why full use of potential - even within the treaty - wasn't done all along? Who stopped it? What's the reason?
- 5. After giving 80% of water, why did we give GBP 620Mn to Pakistan - to repair THEIR canals? Why didn't Nehru oppose it?
{620 million GBP in those days is a very very big amount, do not know what is Jawahar's compulsion or itch for this generous dole out to Pak}
- 6. Was the treaty approved by Cabinet / Parliament? Since it involves financial implications. Why it never came to Parliament first?
- 7. Was the then government under pressure to sign something so utterly biased? 80:20? We don't even use the 20% as "goodwill". WHY?
- 8. @Swamy39 is very right in pointing on Article 253. Since the first installment was given without Cabinet / Parliament nod.
- 9. Was there an inter-ministerial consultation with experts on Security / Water resources before signing the treaty? Or, was it by one man?
- 10. The above questions needs to be raised and make Congress answer the same. The INC has gone silent after raising #IWT by Govt.
- 11. It strikes me, that it is definitely not possible that the treaty stood without interruption even during war. Something is not right.
- 12. Are we being not told about something? Is this why, INC prefers a war than review / abrogation of treaty? Is that why libbies shouting?
- 13. Forget for a moment, review / abrogation part. Even using what is rightfully ours (per the sham treaty), is being opposed. Why?
- 14. Pakistan cheater Kashmiris of their waters. J&K State LA passed a resolution against #IWT. Why wasn't it taken up for review earlier?
- 15. Why didn't J&K politicians - NC & PDP - pro-actively campaign against this all along? Why didn't they call Congress bluff?
- This is overall a SHAM treaty. Should be reviewed. Not more than 35% water to Pakistan. 5% should be given to Kutch region. (FINI) #IWTSham

[SSridhar]

I
- 5. After giving 80% of water, why did we give GBP 620Mn to Pakistan - to repair THEIR canals? Why didn't Nehru oppose it?
{620 million GBP in those days is a very very big amount, do not know what is Jawahar's compulsion or itch for this generous dole out to Pak}

It was 62 M GBP, not 620 M.

[Varoon Shekhar]

http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/in ... 160927.htm

Another Pakistani( RAPE, specifically) where he actually makes the claim that India benefits more from the Indus treaty.

[SSridhar]

http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/in ... 160927.htm

Another Pakistani( RAPE, specifically) where he actually makes the claim that India benefits more from the Indus treaty.

I haven't read it, but I can guess. There is a long-standing Pakistani grouse that at the time of the signing of the IWT, India was only utilizing 8 MAF (out of the 33 MAF that was allocated to India by virtue of all Eastern Rivers) and therefore, Pakistan generously gave away 25 MAF more than necessary !!

There are several fallacies:

• India had already made provisions for several projects and most of them were well under way when the negotiations started.
• The British had designated East Punjab as 'Crown Wastelands' and it was by dint of hardwork of the Punjabi immigrants from west Punjab that these 'wastelands' were converted into fertile places. So, the irrigation facilities were more concentrated on what became of West Pakistan in 1947. The circumstances in a united India before Partition cannot be held up against the partitioned India, can it?
• In Pakistan itself, 80 MAF of water annually was being let down into the Arabian Sea at the time of negotiations. So, why did they need all that water?
• A fair principle of sharing of water would have been to guarantee enough water for 'prior usage' as at a cut-off date and then think about a formula for sharing the rest of water based on various parameters such as size, population, potential use etc. This was not done and the water was shared very arbitrarily

[chetak]

pakjabis screwing their own

Sniper ‏@avarakai 5h5 hours ago

Sniper Retweeted Anand

Wow! This is gold. HUGE province of Balochistan gets total of 3.87% of Indus water.

[chetak]

Recalling the Indus Water Treaty or Nehru’s Sixth Blunder

Recalling the Indus Water Treaty or Nehru’s Sixth Blunder

Arvind Lavakare

Immediately after last month’s aborted Indo-Pak NSA-level talks, a participant in a Rajya Sabha TV debate said “Let’s see how their Water Talks go.”

“Water Talks? Indo-Pak Water Talks? What, pray. are they?” That may well have been the response of the common man whose reading is, for several reasons, confined to the mainstream media which, alas, is obsessed with saturated with reporting debates over the judicially ordered hanging of a much-wanted terrorist and a much-married woman suspected of killing her daughter.


Kishanganga Dam

But trust the PTI to be on the ball for hard news where the national interest is concerned. Its report, filed from Lahore datelined August 27 was published prominently in a pink newspaper of Mumbai. And its intro told us that “The three-day talks between India and Pakistan here over designs of KishanGanga Dam and four other hydroelectric power projects at the Jhelum and the Chenab rivers respectively has ended inconclusively, but the two sides hoped to find a solution in next meeting in Delhi.” The report also went to quote the leader of the Pakistani delegation as saying “We are optimistic that India will redress our concerns and the matter will be resolved without going to the International Court of Justice. In case our concerns are not met we will have no other option but to move to the ICJ.”

The “Water Talks” report in “The Dawn” newspaper of Pakistan was from Islamabad and it quoted the Federal Minister for Water and Power Khawaja Asif as saying “We will contest our case at an appropriate forum if India encroaches upon our water rights.” He also said that India should honour the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).

What is there in that treaty which compels India to bow to Pakistan for the permission to build dams for its power from hydroelectric projects?

Unless you are at least 75 years old, you are unlikely to know much about the IWT. Why? Because it was signed between India and Pakistan exactly 55 years ago today — 19th September 1960.


Professor K.Warikoo

As to why the Treaty was necessary and what it contained, in brief, let’s go over to Professor K.Warikoo, a Ph.D. in Central Asian Studies (School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and an eminent scholar from Jammu & Kashmir State. In a 6,845-word Paper (with 64 References) he wrote in June 2006, he made the following salient points relevant to the subject of this particular article.

The Indus river is 2880 kms. long and the length of its tributaries is 5600 kms. The main Indus river rises in the Kailas range in southwestern Tibet. Its five tributaries from the east are the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej and the Beas, while its three tributaries from the west are the Kabul, Swat and the Kurram rivers
The dispute over sharing of Indus waters came to the fore immediately after the Partition of 1947 because the existing canal head works of Upper Bari Doab Canal and Sutlej Valley canals fell in India State of East Punjab, while the lands being irrigated by their waters fell in Pakistan’s West Punjab and Bahawalpur State. In order to maintain and run the existing systems as before partition, two Standstill Agreements were signed on 20 December 1947 between East Punjab and West Punjab. These interim arrangements were to expire on 31st March 1948, after which East Punjab started asserting its rights on its waters. On 1st April 1948 the East Punjab Government in control of the head works at Madhopur on the Ravi and at Ferozpur on the Sutlej, cut off water supplies to the canals in Pakistan fed by these head works, after the Standstill agreements had expired and because the canal colonies in Pakistan served by these head works did not pay the standard water dues.
The West Punjab government (in Pakistan, remember) agreed to deposit the dues immediately in the Reserve Bank of India. Though this agreement of May 1948 was not final, it did provide some basis for dealing with the problem. But soon it was found that Pakistan was unwilling to stick to the agreement, as it was seeking to use the Indus water dispute as a political tool in the battle over Kashmir being fought at the United Nations. Pakistan also sought to create anti-India hysteria in Pakistan over this issue. Pakistan unilaterally abrogated the agreement, and refused to pay the dues to India. Instead, Pakistan asked for a reference to the International Court of Justice for a final verdict, which was objected to by India. Pakistani media and politicians launched a campaign over the issue of canal waters dispute to create a scenario of serious crisis in Indo-Pakistani relations. All along Pakistan’s policy was to seek third party adjudication, which India was opposing. Enter the USA and its World Bank creating worldwide fears of another Korea.
After more than eight years of negotiations to resolve the dispute over the usage for irrigation and hydel power of the waters of the Indus water system came the IWT between India and Pakistan.

The main features of the Treaty were:

(i) The waters of the three eastern rivers — the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej — would be available for unrestricted use by India, after a 10-year transition period.

(ii) The waters of the three western rivers–the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab–would be allowed to flow for unrestricted use by Pakistan except for domestic, non-consumptive and agricultural use and for generation of hydro-electric power run-of-river-plants in Kashmir.

(iii) During the transition period of ten years, India would continue to give Pakistan some supplies from the eastern rivers

(iv) India would contribute in ten equal annual installments the fixed sum of Pounds Sterling 62,060,000 towards the cost of replacement works in Pakistan.

(v) Non-consumptive use, domestic use etc. would be permitted in all the rivers by both the countries, but such use should not in any way affect the flow of rivers and channels, to be used by the other party. (Emphasis added)

(vi) India would contribute in ten equal annual installments the fixed sum of Pounds Sterling 62,060,000 to the Indus Basin Development Fund towards the cost of replacement works in Pakistan.

(vii) The two countries would regularly exchange data regarding the flow in and utilisation of waters of the rivers.

(viii) A Permanent Indus Commission would be constituted with the Commissioners for Indus Waters of the two countries. The purpose and functions of the Indus Commission would be “to establish and maintain cooperative arrangements for the implementation of this Treaty.”

(ix) If the Indus Commission fails to reach agreement on any matter pertaining to the Treaty it would be referred to a Neutral Expert. And, if the latter certifies that the difference is in the nature of a dispute, the matter would be dealt with by the two Governments/ a Court of Arbitration.

Nehru’s assertion in the Lok Sabha on 30 November 1960 that “we purchased a settlement, if you like; we purchased peace to that extent and it is good for both countries”, was not borne out by the subsequent events. Members of Parliament belonging to both the Congress, PSP and Jana Sangh pointed to the glaring mistakes committed in conclusion of this Treaty. Congress MPs from Punjab and Rajasthan, Iqbal Singh and H.C. Mathur called the treaty disadvantageous to India stating that both their home states “had been badly let down”. Ashok Guha, another Congress MP lamented that “interests of India had been sacrificed to placate Pakistan“. Ashok Mehta, leader of the PSP in the Lok Sabha described it as a “peculiar treaty under which Pakistan, already a surplus area, would be unable to make full use of her share of the Indus Water and would have to allow it to flow into the sea.

Clearly, Jawaharlal Nehru had committed a blunder—his sixth on J&K, as we shall see.

On the contrary, India after the fullest development of the water resources, would still be short of supplies”.38 But Nehru’s efforts of creating goodwill and understanding with Pakistan by giving concessions through the Indus Treaty, did not bear fruit. That Nehru himself had realised this soon after, is confirmed by N.D. Gulhati, who led the Indian delegation during the negotiations over Indus. Gulhati recalls: “When I called on the Prime Minister on 28th February 1961, my last day in office, in a sad tone he said, ‘Gulhati, I had hoped that this agreement would open the way to settlement on other problems, but we are where we were“.

Clearly, Jawaharlal Nehru had committed a blunder—his sixth on J&K, as we shall see.

Convincing proof that Nehru signing the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan 55 years ago was a blunder came last year from the horse’s mouth. Ironically, it came from the grandson of his very dear friend Sheikh Abdullah, the Sher-e-Kashmir, for whom Nehru did so many favours such as making him a member of the Constituent Assembly of India, allowing him to form a separate Constitution for the State of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).

Yes, it was Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister of that State, who blasted the IWT on August 23, 2014.

According to a PTI report of that date from Srinagar, Omar Abdullah, said the “losses caused to the state on account of Indus Water Treaty are enormous.” He said “due to this Treaty, J&K cannot utilize its water resources to its will for generating hydro power, irrigating agriculture fields and providing drinking water to the people.” He mentioned the hurdle caused by the IWT in launch of the huge water supply project for Greater Jammu to utilize Chenab water to meet the requirements of the people for next 25 years.

Thus, while Nehru believed that the IWT was “a good thing for the country” it has actually become a blinder. What he signed sign 55 years ago was a Treaty of a suicidal trap from which Indians are unable to escape.

Here’s why.

Of the various features of the IWT enumerated in Part I of this article, the most damaging to free India, was that the eastern rivers given to India carried just 20 to 25 percent of the total flow of the Indus Basin as against the 75 to 80 percent in the three western rivers allocated to Pakistan. Further, the bulk of the irrigation canals earlier developed on the Indus system were gifted to Pakistan. And out of 26 million acres of the pre-Independence Indian land irrigated annually by the Indus canals, 21 million acres lay in Pakistan and only 5 million acres in India.

Secondly, it was a crime to have denied free India the use of the western rivers for consumptive and agricultural use as well as for generating hydro-electric power without consent of Pakistan to ensure that flow of rivers and channels did not affect Pakistan.

It is this mandate of the IWT which has allowed Pakistan to scuttle hydel-eletric projects in J&K by creating a controversy over their design, height and spillways of a proposed Indian dam. That is why India had to abandon the construction work on Tulbul Navigation Project in 1987 and also led to obstruction of the construction of anti-siltation sluices at the Salal Hydel Project. Similarly, Pakistan created such a noise over the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab river that the Rs.4000-crore project with an installed capacity of 450 MW, which the J&K government began constructing in 2000, could be started only in October 2010, three years later than scheduled. And now it is Kishan Ganga Dam and four other hydro-electric power projects at the Jhelum and the Chenab rivers that have become the subject of “Water Talks” although they are “run-of-the-river” projects permissible under the IWT.

Thirdly, the IWT entailed India being made to pay a near fortune (62,060,000 Pounds Sterling) for the water infrastructure of …a confirmed enemy country! This remains the most ludicrous and anti-national deed ever committed by any Prime Minister of any country. It becomes unbelievably stupid considering that of the estimated $1000 million (partly in local currency) required for the replacement and development works of the Indus system, $697 million out of the $747 million of grants and loans from the USA and its friendly countries, $691 millions were to be spent in Pakistan and only $ 56 million in India. As against this “Other Backward Class” treatment of India, consider that Pakistan got all her development underwritten by the Bank’s financial plan besides the World Bank’s Press release remaining mum on the additional U.S. grant of 235 million dollars in local currency.

No nation, no Prime Minister, could be as naïve as that.

As a matter of fact, Nehru’s signing of the Indus Water Treaty on September 19, 1960 was his sixth blunder on J&K. The earlier five were as follows:

Not allowing Sardar Patel, Minister of States, Home and Deputy Prime Minister, to deal with the Maharaja of Kashmir on accession to India.

The man who had successful made the Nawab of Junagadh to change his accession from Pakistan to India in September 1947 and flee the country, and who was so successively overseeing the making of a unified India out of 562 Princely States, was denied the opportunity of pursuing the Kashmir Maharaja — for reasons which can be traced to Nehru’s fetish about J&K’s relations with India..

A day before the beleaguered Maharaja of J&K was sure to sign the Instrument of Accession (IOA) document in India’s favour after Pakistani armed tribals and covert Pak forces had reached Srinagar, Nehru sent a telegram dated 25th October 1947 to the UK Prime Minister saying:

“I should like to make it clear that [the] question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view, which we have repeatedly made public is that [the] question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people and we adhere to this view”. This assurance of abiding by the “wishes of the people” was well-nigh anti-national, when no such provision was even mentioned in the IOA.

Even as the war of 1947-48 against Pakistan over Kashmir was going on after J&K State had acceded to India, Nehru, without informing Sardar Patel, went to All India Radio Station in New Delhi on November 2, 1947, and in his broadcast said:

“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.”

It was the totally unwarranted Plebiscite promise yet again — the one that the Hurriyat leaders repeatedly press on India day after day.



By the end of 1948 India’s armed forces responded to the logistical challenge of long distances, bad roads and rickety bridges, mobilized their significantly larger resources and were ready to crush the Pakistani forces, and occupy Pakistani territory. Pakistani forces were losing everywhere, and there were no resources in reserve, whose mobilization could have turned the situation around. India was close to victory, but Nehru refused permission to Major-General Thimayya to move into Muzzafarabad and win back India’s lost territory. Instead, in November 1948 the government (Nehru, who else?) requested UN mediation to resolve the conflict.

During the Constituent Assembly Debates (December 9, 1946 to January24, 1950,), it was his confidante, Gopalaswami Ayyangar, a Minister without portfolio, whom Nehru asked to draft an Article that was to be specially carved out for J&K State where the tallest political leader was Nehru’s apple of the eye, Sheikh Abdullah, an ambitious and scheming politician. That draft was really the modern day Article 370 which has created a big cleavage between J&K and the rest of India, especially with regard to extra special privileges given to elite citizens known constitutionally as “Permanent Residents”. Ayyangar had apparently briefed Sardar Patel on its contents which were totally opposed by the latter. However, Nehru met Patel before the Constituent Assembly Debate and wanted him to remain quiet on that draft Article. Accordingly, that Article 370 continues to plague the Indian nation till this date, even as Nehru’s belief that it will be gradually eroded into its abrogation. Thus, Article 370, included in our 1950 Constitution as a “Temporary” provision continues to be “Temporary” 65 years later.

After the above five blunders comes Omar Abdullah’s strong repulsion over the Indus Water Treaty’s effect on J&K. It was Nehru’s 6th blunder that hounds and haunts us even 55 years after it was created with his signature.

These six are apart from Nehru’s Himalayan blunders on China, socialistic and leftist creations, his almost total neglect of rural development including education, his cover anti-Hindu attitude when he, against the will of the nation’s President, got the Hindu Code Bills passed but not a Uniform Civil Code etc.

Just what is this Nehru “legacy” which the Congress talking about? And just why does Sonia Rajiv Gandhi call Nehru as the “Congress’s tallest leader”?


Arvind Lavakare
Arvind Lavakere has been a freelance writer since 1957. He has written and spoken on sports on radio and TV. He currently writes on political issues regularly. His writings include a book on Article 370 of the Indian Constitution

[Peregrine]

I am posting a tweet series by @avarakai who goes by Sniper name.

- My concerns on #IWT signed by the then PM, in following tweets.

{620 million GBP in those days is a very very big amount, do not know what is Jawahar's compulsion or itch for this generous dole out to Pak}

kmkraoind Ji :

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!
Cheers

[chetak]

I am posting a tweet series by @avarakai who goes by Sniper name.

- My concerns on #IWT signed by the then PM, in following tweets.

{620 million GBP in those days is a very very big amount, do not know what is Jawahar's compulsion or itch for this generous dole out to Pak}

kmkraoind Ji :

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!
Cheers

Err saar,

It's 62 Million GBP and not 620 million GBP.

The figure was corrected in the original tweet but maybe not on the retweets

Even so, it was a pretty large sum in those days.

[anupmisra]

Pakistan urges World Bank to stop Indian projects on Neelum, Chenab

Pakistan urges World Bank to stop Indian projects on Neelum, Chenab

Pakis just don't get it or pretend not to get it or they just do not have legal acumen. IWT treaty does not permit this above step. The protocol has been strictly laid out. This "mai-baap-huzoor-alampanaah" approach may have worked under the mughals but this is the 21st century.

[anupmisra]

I see only two burkini-clad motor-mamas.

[saip]

Now Pakistan says J&K is not integral part of India. Indus River system passes through J&K. So how did India sign the treaty without the permission of J&K?

[Lalmohan]

as jasjit singh says - the raisen d'eater of pakistan is the headwaters of the five rivers
hence fixation with cashmere...
everything else ko maro goli(s)

[chetak]

Code: Select all

Nehru's messed up right frm May 4 1948 till signing of IWT in 1960 for which we are still paying the price (InterDominian agmt)

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtclSfhVMAAf8g_.jpg:large[/img]

[chetak]

Nehru's messed up right frm May 4 1948 till signing of IWT in 1960 for which we are still paying the price (InterDominian agmt)

[habal]

It feels so good to be an upper-rapearyan.

from what I could gauge out of few genuine talks on pakistani side, they had 2 main concerns.

On the Indian projects like baglihar and kishenganga and others we have set up various small ponds along with the drainage which if used correctly can impede or block water supply for upto 2 weeks. Which is just enough time to destroy crops, because the genuises at Islamabad establishment are still dependent on gravity to aid their agricultural needs and not a thought have been spent by the rAPes to make some dams that can store water and check Indian jahiriyat.

Secondly one learned maulana (who seems to be a technical expert named Abbasi) mentioned that Indians have already set up tunnels from dam site In Kashmir to a dam site in himachal, this tunnel will help in siphoning off water from Indus to India. this is like a spigot that can be opened or closed at will.

I had already suggested on learned forum that tunnelling below the ground until near the river and then linking tunnel with river through viaducts is a great way to siphon off water and punishment for misperformance.

Also Kashmiris need to be given more than their fair share of water. Despite being the anti-India types that the valley denizens are, they should be given enough water to bathe, clean daily instead of once in 6 months as they are prone to do now. Streams should be built that straddle roads and water should be plentiful, only the rest should be drained off into Pakistan. Taking more baths will also calm them somewhat and bring clarity of thought. We need to really get upto speed on this front and on providing underground electricity connectivity to valley Kashmir so that even snowing in does not disrupt supply. Channelize their energy to other pre-occupations instead of getting trapped in cyclical negativity, it is upto us to break this cycle from time to time.

[deejay]

It feels so good to be an upper-rapearyan.

from what I could gauge out of few genuine talks on pakistani side, they had 2 main concerns.

On the Indian projects like baglihar and kishenganga and others we have set up various small ponds along with the drainage which if used correctly can impede or block water supply for upto 2 weeks. Which is just enough time to destroy crops, because the genuises at Islamabad establishment are still dependent on gravity to aid their agricultural needs and not a thought have been spent by the rAPes to make some dams that can store water and check Indian jahiriyat.

Secondly one learned maulana (who seems to be a technical expert named Abbasi) mentioned that Indians have already set up tunnels from dam site In Kashmir to a dam site in himachal, this tunnel will help in siphoning off water from Indus to India. this is like a spigot that can be opened or closed at will.

I had already suggested on learned forum that tunnelling below the ground until near the river and then linking tunnel with river through viaducts is a great way to siphon off water and punishment for misperformance.

Also Kashmiris need to be given more than their fair share of water. Despite being the anti-India types that the valley denizens are, they should be given enough water to bathe, clean daily instead of once in 6 months as they are prone to do now. Streams should be built that straddle roads and water should be plentiful, only the rest should be drained off into Pakistan. Taking more baths will also calm them somewhat and bring clarity of thought. We need to really get upto speed on this front and on providing underground electricity connectivity to valley Kashmir so that even snowing in does not disrupt supply. Channelize their energy to other pre-occupations instead of getting trapped in cyclical negativity, it is upto us to break this cycle from time to time.

Well said Sir! I like the ideas you have put forth.

[kit]

Now Pakistan says J&K is not integral part of India. Indus River system passes through J&K. So how did India sign the treaty without the permission of J&K?

Does that mean the IWT was null and void ? .. Now India has reason to celebrate ..no need to bother about breaking any treaty

[kit]

It feels so good to be an upper-rapearyan.

from what I could gauge out of few genuine talks on pakistani side, they had 2 main concerns.

On the Indian projects like baglihar and kishenganga and others we have set up various small ponds along with the drainage which if used correctly can impede or block water supply for upto 2 weeks. Which is just enough time to destroy crops, because the genuises at Islamabad establishment are still dependent on gravity to aid their agricultural needs and not a thought have been spent by the rAPes to make some dams that can store water and check Indian jahiriyat.

Secondly one learned maulana (who seems to be a technical expert named Abbasi) mentioned that Indians have already set up tunnels from dam site In Kashmir to a dam site in himachal, this tunnel will help in siphoning off water from Indus to India. this is like a spigot that can be opened or closed at will.

I had already suggested on learned forum that tunnelling below the ground until near the river and then linking tunnel with river through viaducts is a great way to siphon off water and punishment for misperformance.

Also Kashmiris need to be given more than their fair share of water. Despite being the anti-India types that the valley denizens are, they should be given enough water to bathe, clean daily instead of once in 6 months as they are prone to do now. Streams should be built that straddle roads and water should be plentiful, only the rest should be drained off into Pakistan. Taking more baths will also calm them somewhat and bring clarity of thought. We need to really get upto speed on this front and on providing underground electricity connectivity to valley Kashmir so that even snowing in does not disrupt supply. Channelize their energy to other pre-occupations instead of getting trapped in cyclical negativity, it is upto us to break this cycle from time to time.

well said sir

[svinayak]

It feels so good to be an upper-rapearyan.

from what I could gauge out of few genuine talks on pakistani side, they had 2 main concerns.

On the Indian projects like baglihar and kishenganga and others we have set up various small ponds along with the drainage which if used correctly can impede or block water supply for upto 2 weeks. Which is just enough time to destroy crops, because the genuises at Islamabad establishment are still dependent on gravity to aid their agricultural needs and not a thought have been spent by the rAPes to make some dams that can store water and check Indian jahiriyat.

Secondly one learned maulana (who seems to be a technical expert named Abbasi) mentioned that Indians have already set up tunnels from dam site In Kashmir to a dam site in himachal, this tunnel will help in siphoning off water from Indus to India. this is like a spigot that can be opened or closed at will.

I had already suggested on learned forum that tunnelling below the ground until near the river and then linking tunnel with river through viaducts is a great way to siphon off water and punishment for misperformance.

Also Kashmiris need to be given more than their fair share of water. Despite being the anti-India types that the valley denizens are, they should be given enough water to bathe, clean daily instead of once in 6 months as they are prone to do now. Streams should be built that straddle roads and water should be plentiful, only the rest should be drained off into Pakistan. Taking more baths will also calm them somewhat and bring clarity of thought. We need to really get upto speed on this front and on providing underground electricity connectivity to valley Kashmir so that even snowing in does not disrupt supply. Channelize their energy to other pre-occupations instead of getting trapped in cyclical negativity, it is upto us to break this cycle from time to time.

With the water from the Indus and other rivers the ground water level in Punjab, Haryana and even Rajasthan can be improved.
This will benefit about 100 million population in India. This should be the next focus of India

[SSridhar]

Slowly, truth stares at Pakistanis.

‘WB not a guarantor of Indus Water Treaty’ - DT

The Senate Standing Committee on Water and Power was told on Thursday that the World Bank (WB) was not a guarantor of the Indus Water Treaty, but according to Article 9 of the agreement, Pakistan could move the court in case the accord was breached.

A special meeting of the committee was held at the Parliament House – with Sardar Muhammad Yaqoob Khan in the chair – in which Indus Water Commission Additional Commissioner Shiraz Memon gave a briefing to the committee members. He said that some 90 million acre-foot (MAF) of water flows through Indus River every year, but India could only use 9,000 acre-foot of water {No sir, it is 0.4 MAF}.

About Chenab River, he said that the flow of water was 20.25 MAF, while India could only use 94,000 MAF {No sir, it is 1.1 MAF}. However, he said that India could create problems for Pakistan by making a dam on it in the future.

Shiraz Memon said there was a conflict between India and Pakistan over seven controversial water projects. He said that India was working on projects to generate 2,800 megawatts of power, which would adversely affect the flow of Jhelum River where 25 MAF water flows annually. He told the committee that Pakistan had contacted international guarantors on Ratle and Kishanganga hydroelectric plants.

State Minister for Water and Power Abid Sher Ali said that the nation should first show consensus on construction of water reservoirs by keeping aside their internal differences.

He informed the committee that the next few years would be tough for Pakistan with regard to water crisis. “ If we fail to take appropriate measures for storing water at this time, the coming generations will never pardon us,” he added.

Senator Taj Haider said on the occasion that India could store 2.8 MAF water. He said that Pakistan and Afghanistan had no agreement on the use of water, so Afghanistan could also stop water from Kabul River and Chitral River and create problems for Pakistan. He also informed the committee members that India was supporting Afghanistan for making dams.

On this, the state minister said that Pakistan had raised the issue with Afghanistan through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for inking an agreement on Kabul River.

Indus River System Authority (IRSA) Chairman Rao Irshad Ali said that the flow of Kabul River is 22 MAF, of which only 6 MAF comes from Afghanistan, while the remaining water was added to it in Pakistan’s territory.

Demanding construction of small dams, Senator Aajiz Dhamra said that mangrove forests were being destroyed due to wastage of sweet water.

Meanwhile, a Foreign Ministry representative told the committee that India had not formally conveyed to Pakistan that its water was being blocked. “Such threats have appeared only in newspapers,” he added.

[Prem]

World bank was broker not a guarantor. IWT will be the first treaty broken by the stupidity of the beneficiary party.

[Yagnasri]

Now Pakistan says J&K is not integral part of India. Indus River system passes through J&K. So how did India sign the treaty without the permission of J&K?

Does that mean the IWT was null and void ? .. Now India has reason to celebrate ..no need to bother about breaking any treaty

My thoughts exactly. Further Paki parliament itself resolved that this treaty needs to be renegotiated. So they already shot themselves in the foot.

Now India shall help Afghans to build dams on Kabul and other rivers which flow into paki lands. No need to allow that to happen.

[svinayak]

Labourers walk on a bridge near the newly inaugurated 450-megawatt hydropower project located at Baglihar Dam on the Chenab river which flows from Indian Kashmir into Pakistan, at Chanderkote, about 145 km (90 miles) north of Jammu October 10, 2008. REUTERS/Amit Gupta

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india ... SKCN120022

"The objective is to bring about a change in Pakistani behavior, and for that you need to move on multiple levels.

"The strategy will involve all instruments of national power. Military is only one of the options," added the official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Options under consideration include choking trade with Pakistan that takes place through third countries such as the United Arab Emirates, officials said, even though it is limited and in India's favor.

New Delhi is also considering building dams on rivers running into Pakistan and intensifying diplomatic pressure, hoping that it can show other countries how militants based in Pakistan impact the rest of the world, the officials added.

According to one of them, India could try to dissuade international companies from conducting business in Pakistan.

[JohnTitor]

All this talk of punishing Pakistan by using IWT is just hyperbole.

Fact is, today really don't have the capability to manipulate those rivers even if we wanted to.

What Modi has proposed is the right way.

First, we need to build dams and utilize the rivers to the full legal extent. This will not only put pressure on Pakistan but also do it in a manner that is not seen as breaking any treaty. First let us use the 20% we are entitled to. This itself will put them under tremendous pressure.

Secondly, worrying about Chinese response is foolish. They have not signed any treaty with us and will do whatever is in their best interest irrespective of what anyone says, look at what they are doing in the south China Sea. We need to learn to do the dance and do what is best for us irrespective of treaties or misguided promises. Treaties are gestures of good will and are not the same as laws applied to citizens. Supranational organizations can't do anything other than make a fuss. The Chinese ignored the recent ruling of a Supranational organization when it came to the SCS.

Once we have exploited the rivers to the full legal extent, we should look at options of how to proceed with the next step of abandoning this insane arrangement all together. Until then let's not get over excited and leave reality behind.

[anupmisra]

Slowly, truth stares at Pakistanis.

‘WB not a guarantor of Indus Water Treaty’ - DT

The Senate Standing Committee on Water and Power was told on Thursday that the World Bank (WB) was not a guarantor of the Indus Water Treaty, but according to Article 9 of the agreement, Pakistan could move the court in case the accord was breached.

...Pakistan had raised the issue with Afghanistan ...for inking an agreement on Kabul River. Chairman Rao Irshad Ali said that the flow of Kabul River is 22 MAF, of which only 6 MAF comes from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, a Foreign Ministry representative told the committee that India had not formally conveyed to Pakistan that its water was being blocked. “Such threats have appeared only in newspapers,” he added.

Two points:

1. India should advise Afghanistan on this matter on a pro-bono basis and prevent another IWT-type treaty between AFG and Pak from happening. If Afghanistan only gets 25% of the water, where is the need for a treaty? It will only harm Afghanistan, the upper-riparian state. Also, most of NWFP is disputed Afghan territory. An unequal treaty will legitimize paki occupation similar to Kashmir. The biggest losers in the IWT are the residents of J&K.

2. Pakis going straight to WB is again a breach of protocol (which I had mentioned in an earlier post). Seems to be an emotional move (what's new?). Article IX is clear on that arbitration process: an irreconcilable dispute has to be established first. In fact, Article IX details a decision-tree type mechanism. Besides, WB is not a "Court of Arbitration" as stipulated in the article.

Clearly the pakis have jumped the gun. Especially when their own "experts" have stated that "Such threats have appeared only in newspapers".

Illiterate pakjabi inbreds!

[anupmisra]

Fact is, today really don't have the capability to manipulate those rivers even if we wanted to.

One does not need to have the capability to manipulate the rivers to effect revenge (although it has been done before often with disastrous results).

In order to bring the pakjabis to their knees, India only needs to regulate / manipulate the average nominal amount of water flow during peak kharif, rabi and cotton cultivation seasons. Pakjabi economy is agrarian and their water table is running low. A ten percent deviation of available water can cause havoc. A typical paki rant to the IWT commission will take months if not years to be resolved. But by that time, there could be social and economic chaos in the farm lands of pakjab and upper Sindh. High unemployment and religion are a potent mix.

[manjgu]

world bank only is gurantor for 2 articles in the IWT pertaining to financial matters... Why the F are we not building dams on Kabul river in Afg?

[Yagnasri]

From what I understand, gurus may correct me here if I am wrong, pakis don't have any water storage facility on Sindh. No dams etc if there is any excess water flow. All we need to do is to regulate the release of water and send it all at once. It is their responsibility to store it and if they fail to do so bad luck to them.

[chetak]

All this talk of punishing Pakistan by using IWT is just hyperbole.

Fact is, today really don't have the capability to manipulate those rivers even if we wanted to.

What Modi has proposed is the right way.

First, we need to build dams and utilize the rivers to the full legal extent. This will not only put pressure on Pakistan but also do it in a manner that is not seen as breaking any treaty. First let us use the 20% we are entitled to. This itself will put them under tremendous pressure.

Secondly, worrying about Chinese response is foolish. They have not signed any treaty with us and will do whatever is in their best interest irrespective of what anyone says, look at what they are doing in the south China Sea. We need to learn to do the dance and do what is best for us irrespective of treaties or misguided promises. Treaties are gestures of good will and are not the same as laws applied to citizens. Supranational organizations can't do anything other than make a fuss. The Chinese ignored the recent ruling of a Supranational organization when it came to the SCS.

Once we have exploited the rivers to the full legal extent, we should look at options of how to proceed with the next step of abandoning this insane arrangement all together. Until then let's not get over excited and leave reality behind.

Modi has just given a mere inkling of his intentions and this itself has caused such massive takleef and colossal panic in the pakjabi lot who stand to lose the most, should waters actually be curtailed.

Ironically, the J&K assembly, the paki parliament have both passed a resolution at different times, asking for the IWT to be renegotiated and Modi is using this very fact against them.

Everyone is aware of the present capacity of India to physically curtail river waters to the pakis but the potential is there and capacity can always be augmented in due course. Paki nukes are of no use here because radioactive waters are of no use to paki man or paki beast. It is actually the pakjabis and the paki army that is between a rock and a hard place. Less water will put them in direct confrontation with the other provinces from whom currently they are actually stealing water anyway.

Though this sword is presently still in the scabbard and has not yet been unsheathed but could be unsheathed sometime in the future, is the worst nightmare of the pakjabis coming true and this is the reason that they have been fighting for cashmere all these days under the guise of islam.

Everyone knows the options and in due course the unwashed mango pakis will also find out that his govts have been lying to them for seven decades now.

What is extremely interesting though, is the fact that the panicked kashmiri politicos, of all hues and political persuasion, almost in one voice have opposed the weaponizing of the waters by India. Obviously, such instructions have come from GHQ.

Makes you wonder, as to exactly whom, these treacherous, traitorous, sly jehadi b@$t@rd$ have been secretly supporting all these years while greedily gobbling up Indian funds. congi, NC and PDP thugs are all involved in this "humanitarian" venture, slimy mehbooba most of all.

Modi may disarmingly tell you that he is a mere chaiwalla but the pakis, commies, lootyens and many others have all woken up to the fact that he is possibly the most cerebral of India's PMs, with the possible exception of PVNR.

Nanga mani shankar aiyer can attest to the fact that this "mere chaiwalla", whom he so very badly underestimated, ripped the entire congi lot, bleeding new ones.

Also, not to mention the fact that, Modi is also among the most powerful speakers in the world today, having won his parliamentary seat by the largest margin ever, anywhere in the world.

The cat is finally out of the bag.

[Lalmohan]

the punjabi muslim officer class were granted agricultural land in lieu of their fealty to the crown - it is this agri-land that is the base of their wealth and power. this land is watered by the himalayan rivers... the headwaters of which are in... yep - you got it!

there is next to no water management in west punjab, and even less in sindh... all that life giving resource just drains into the konkan sea without enriching the poor peasants who toil for their overlords along its length

you do the madrassah maths...

[Atmavik]

the punjabi muslim officer class were granted agricultural land in lieu of their fealty to the crown - it is this agri-land that is the base of their wealth and power. this land is watered by the himalayan rivers... the headwaters of which are in... yep - you got it!

Some trouble is already brewing. the temprature can be increased.
http://www.fairobserver.com/region/cent ... -or-death/

there is next to no water management in west punjab, and even less in sindh... all that life giving resource just drains into the konkan sea without enriching the poor peasants who toil for their overlords along its length

you do the madrassah maths...

+101 for Konkan Sea

[Prem]

http://linkis.com/swarajyamag.com/worl/Jnu4j

A plain reading of this provision would say that unless India and Pakistan mutually agree, the Treaty cannot be terminated. But international law does leave India with some options that it can exercise should it wish to terminate the Treaty unilaterally. With these options, India can terminate the arbitration clause as well and deny the Pakistani request for arbitration.The law relating to treaties is largely governed by customary international law. This was codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. India participated in the Vienna Conferences, which were held to discuss the draft text proposed by the International Law Commission. In fact, if one goes through the minutes of the sessions, one will find that India's contributions to the draft text have been quite substantial. (For instance, the minutes of Session 1 and Session 2)However, India has neither signed nor ratified the law on treaties. So, it can make an argument that it is not bound by the additions in the text that were not a part of customary international law at the time of adoption. Put simply, India is party to the contract, but the Contract Act doesn't apply to it; only the general law of contract will.
India can cite the fact that the circumstances under which the Treaty was agreed upon have undergone a dramatic shift in the intervening years and those circumstances formed an essential basis for the consent that was given at the time. India cannot make use of hostilities with Pakistan to make this a straightforward argument, as it has not done so in the past. There have been hostilities in the past, in 1947, 1965, 1971 and, more recently, in Kargil in 1999, but the present circumstances are fundamentally different. Here is why:The Preamble to the Treaty speaks of the Government of India entering into the Treaty in a spirit of "goodwill and friendship" and states that the purpose of the Treaty is to make a settlement in a "cooperative" spirit of any such questions that may arise in the future on the use of such waters. India can cite the fact that it no longer knows who is the lawful civil power in Pakistan with which it is to conclude any agreement or arrangement, given the nexus between the military and civilian state apparatus.At the time of entering into the agreement, Pakistan was under a military arrangement and has seen the restoration of a civilian government and further coups ever since. However, the current situation is a quasi one, where promises made by the Pakistani civilian government can no longer be held reliable on account of the military and security establishment running a parallel establishment since the apparent restoration of a civilian government after Musharraf.In the past, India has either dealt with a Pakistani general or a Pakistani civilian leader. Today, India is in a situation where it is difficult to engage in negotiations with either, making goodwill, friendship and cooperation difficult, thereby fundamentally changing the circumstances.Previous engagements with Pakistan have been on a military level, with civilians largely left out of the picture. But Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism has changed the dimensions, as the Pakistani establishment has begun targeting civilian targets. With the Security Council's resolutions calling on states globally to take steps against nations who are known supporters of terrorism, India has a case to make that the Pakistan of 1960 is very different from the Pakistan of 2016 and, therefore, the circumstances under which India gave its consent to the Treaty in 1960 have been fundamentally altered.
Further, India's commitment to the global war on terrorism also requires it to cease all cooperation with state actors who support and sponsor designated terror outfits. India can cite Pakistan's support for groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawa (which Pakistan still hasn't banned) as a cause for ending all cooperation with Pakistan.

[Dipanker]

...
Also, not to mention the fact that, Modi is also among the most powerful speakers in the world today, having won his parliamentary seat by the largest margin ever, anywhere in the world.
...

[OT]
Bolded part is factually incorrect, he is currently 4th highest winner.

1. Pritam Munde (BJP) 2014 ( ~7 lacs )
2. Anil Basu (CPM) 2004 ( ~5.9 lacs )
3. PV Narasimha Rao (Congress) 1991 ( ~5.8 lacs )
4. Narendra Modi (BJP) 2014 ( ~5.7 lacs)
5. Ram Vilas Paswan (LJP) 1989 (~ 5.04 lacs)
[/OT]