Bharat Rakshak

Monday, October 27, 2008

‘India accepts Pak stance on Chenab water’

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: The Chenab water issue with India will be resolved in accordance with the Indus Basin Treaty, ARY OneWorld quoted Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi as saying on Sunday.

Qureshi added that India had accepted Pakistan’s stance on the issue. According to the channel, Qureshi told reporters at the Lahore airport that negotiations with India at a diplomatic level were underway. “Everything cannot be shared with the media,” he added.

Earlier, President Asif Ali Zardari had warned that any Indian move to block Pakistan’s water supply from the Chenab River would damage bilateral ties.

Daily Times

Qureshi added that India had accepted Pakistan’s stance on the issue. According to the channel, Qureshi told reporters at the Lahore airport that negotiations with India at a diplomatic level were underway. “Everything cannot be shared with the media,” he added.

shynee wrote: {What the hell is TAAS Treaty, never heard about it}

The brewing row over the sharing of river waters could dent confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan, President Asif Ali Zardari has said.

The Pakistani President made the remarks during a meeting with Indian High Commissioner Satyabrata Pal on Monday, Geo News channel reported.

Zardari was quoted by Geo as saying that the alleged blockade of waters of the Chenab river could dent the CBMs.

Diplomatic sources said that Zardari had discussed bilateral relations, including the sharing of river waters under the Indus Waters Treaty, with Pal during the meeting held at the presidential palace.

Geo News channel also reported that Zardari had asked India to abide by the terms of the Treaty and stop "blocking" Pakistan's share of river waters.

The channel quoted Pal as saying that the Indian government was determined to advance the CBMs with Pakistan.

In 1978, India had filled Salal Dam by stopping Pakistan's water share and later released the same quantity of water as compensation from Sutlaj River.

There are no two opinions that Pakistan should have good relations with all its neighbours, but not sacrificing or foregoing its rights. Unfortunately, India has never reciprocated the flexibility and good gestures from Pakistan. Despite three wars with India, Zardari said, "India has never been a threat to Pakistan" which is travesty of the truth, as since Pakistan came into being India did not let any opportunity go to destabilise it one way or another. Interestingly, Zardari's statement came at the time when the farmers in Pakistan were enraged on the failure of their crops as a result of the stoppage of Chenab's water by India. Elsewhere, such violation could have been considered as an act of war.

The fact of the matter is that on April 1, 1948, India had stemmed the flow of tributaries to Pakistan and discontinued water to the Dipalpur canal and main branches of Upper Bari Doab Canal. {Even then, India acted correctly and as per agreement} Pakistan wanted an equitable allocation of the flow of Indus River and its tributaries between India and Pakistan. {No, it didn't. It wanted all the waters for itself. The WB, as a facilitator of the IWT, asked both the nations to declare how much water they wanted for themselves and how much they were willing to concede to the other party. Out of the available 119 Million Acre Feet (MAF), India was willing to concede 90 MAF to Pakistan taking only 29 MAF for itself. OTOH, Pakistan demanded 103 MAF for itself leaving only 16 MAF for India. In the second revised attempt, India wanted all the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas & Sutlej) plus 7% of the Western Rivers while Pakistan wanted all of the Western rivers plus 30% of the Eastern rivers as well. The final award was extremely close to India's estimates, not Pakistan's. So, Pakistan was certainly not equitable} Negotiations had started from 1951, and the treaty was signed in 1960 that gave Pakistan the right to receive unrestricted flow of the western rivers. And it was obligatory on the part of India to allow the flow of water unimpeded with minor exceptions. It was provided in the treaty that in case of a dispute, the World Bank would appoint a 'neutral expert' whose decision would be final. Since India had persistently shrugged off Pakistan's reservations about the project, Pakistan had no choice but to refer the matter to the World Bank.

Pakistan had termed the decision of the World Bank's neutral expert as a 'great victory', whereas India claimed a 'moral victory' on its dispute with Pakistan over the Baglihar Dam on Chenab River in Jammu and Kashmir, as according to the neutral expert the dam could be completed with slight modifications. {Does it not contradict the 'great victory' thesis, Mr. Author ?} Anyhow, the present critical situation emerged due to Pakistan's failure to make large reservoirs with the result that Pakistan is facing acute shortage of water, which has bee compounded by India's river-diversion plan.

With the growing population and declining water availability, food security can prove a major issue, which could have undesirable effects on the region and lead to water wars. There is a perception that India is consciously working on a plan to turn Pakistan into a desert and also to create rift between the federation and federating units of Pakistan. {India doesn't need to create any new rift. The huge rift between the water-stealing Punjab and the water-starved Sindh & Balochistan has been there for four decades now.} In chapter Sindh of "Pakistan's Provinces" published in 2004 by Strategic Foresight Group Publications of India, authors presaged: "If Sindh continues to suffer economic deterioration and water shortages, internal turmoil is inevitable...The influx of Sindh refugees can bring India into direct confrontation with Pakistan...Independent Sindh might be born..." Such analysis is based on dishonesty and malice and smacks of sinister designs against Pakistan. {An analysis doesn't design anything. The design is by Pnjabis on the smaller federating units of Pakistan. Indian analysts are simply dis-assembling the sinister Punjabi design to better understand the situation within Pakistan} India's animosity and hatred against Pakistan is deep-seated, as it has not mentally accepted the reality of Pakistan and is based on religious prejudice and antagonism.

The nations endowed with capable leadership and foresight plan 50 to 100 years ahead so that they do not have to depend on others to meet their requirements for raw materials and energy needs. In Pakistan when Mangla and Tarbela Dams were constructed it was known that such dams have certain life, as the accumulation of silt over the years would reduce the capacity of the reservoir substantially. Pakistan had planned construction of Kalabagh Dam in 1970s, but Sindh and NWFP had expressed certain apprehensions, which were addressed fully by WAPDA at different forums. The project had also been reviewed by a Chinese expert and, also by an international panel of experts headed by Dr Kennedy of USA who was nominated by NWFP. To assuage the fears of NWFP, the height of the Dam has been reduced to 915 ft whereas the area is 1000 ft above the sea level as such there is not even the remote possibility of Nowshera being inundated.

Sindh province had also expressed concern that Sindh will be converted into a desert with the construction of Kalabagh Dam; {So, Mr. Author, who is trying to desertify whom ? India or West Punjab ?} Kotri Barrage's lower areas will suffer due to lack of potable water, and will also adversely reflect on fish farming. It has to be understood that Kalabagh Dam or any other dam will not itself consume water but will store water during floods, and would ensure flow throughout the year. In fact, more water will be available due to constant supply to the canals and the existing shortages will end. Anyhow, if Kalabagh was to be abandoned for the sake of national unity {Don't you yourself answer your earlier apprehension about the analysts of the Strategic Foresight Group of India ?}, then why some other dam was not constructed, and after three decades, only previous government had announced construction of Bhasha Dam in 2007 with great fanfare but no progress seemed to have been made in this regard. It is indeed criminal negligence and all the governments from 1977 to-date are responsible for their failure to create consensus on the construction of a large reservoir.

ISLAMABAD, Oct 29 (APP): President Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday said he will write letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the water issue. The President said he will remind the Indian Prime Minister of the promise made by him to resolve the issue of reduced inflow of water in River Chenab at Marrala Headworks in accordance with the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty 1960.

The President made these remarks during a briefing in the Presidency today on the construction of Baglihar Dam in India reducing the inflow of water in Pakistan and adversely affecting agriculture and economy of the country.

The briefing was given by Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Water and attended by Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, Minister for Water and Power, Kamal Majidullah, Special Assistant to Prime Minister for Water Resources, Secretary Water and Power and other senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The President said that letters should also be written to the Muslim countries, “Friends of Pakistan” nations and U.K drawing their attention to the issue and the need to resolve it amicably in accordance with the international treaty signed between the two countries.

He said that Pakistan should vigorously pursue its case for compensation in the shape of water from India caused by the loss of water in Chenab.

The President said that a proactive approach should be adopted in this regard to compel India to give Pakistan its rightful share of water.

Earlier, briefing the meeting Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters said that India had violated the Treaty provisions by reducing the water flow in river Chenab at Marrala Headworks below 55000 cusecs.

He said that India had interfered with the flow of river Chenab by reducing water as compared to historical flows in violation of the Treaty provisions.

Highlighting adverse affects, he said that reduced water flows would cause loss to cropped area in Lahore, Qasoor, Okara, Sialkot, Hafizabad, Sheikhupura, Faisalabad and Jhang districts besides causing early depletion of Mangla Dam by additional water withdrawals from it. He said that Pakistan had rejected the plea of discrepancy in data.

President Zardari said that he had personally raised the issue during his meeting with the Indian Prime Minister in New York last month and Security Advisors of both India and Pakistan had also discussed this issue in New Delhi early this month.

The Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Water said that following intervention at the highest level India had agreed to the physical inspection of the dam and meeting of the Commission but the issue of compensation was yet to be resolved.

Victor wrote:Since the UN has basically endorsed our stand . . .

RajeshA wrote:He said that India had interfered with the flow of river Chenab by reducing water as compared to historical flows in violation of the Treaty provisions.

Certainly not a single tissue can exist on this planet without water. So, importance of water is very much clear for all of us. The Chairman Indus Basin Water Council of Pakistan, Zahoorul Hassan Dahir, who is also Coordinator of the World Water Council (WWC) has warned about Indian mega plan for building 52 new dams on western rivers. He claimed that the plan is not only involved experts of four countries, but also two multi-nations, an international NGO and three secret agencies, including RAW. The plan is meant to destabilise Pakistan and for this purpose billions of dollars had already been spent.

This plan is meant to completely reverse the Indus Basin Water Treaty (IBWT) by building new dams. Although; Pakistan had objected to India launching of power projects in Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) without clearance from Islamabad as required under the IBWT yet New Delhi did not pay any heed to it. A Pakistani team headed by Indus Waters Commissioner visited last year Uri-II hydroelectric project site and objected to starting work till the issue is resolved amicably.

In January 2005 Pakistan invoked the World Bank to solve the Baglihar dam conflict through article IX of the Indus Basin Water Treaty that allows for a neutral arbitrator to be appointed. Pakistan’s concern was/is that in building a dam upstream of Pakistan, on the Chenab River, India would possess the ability to flood or starve Pakistan, at will. Certainly, this violation was witnessed in July 2004 when India, without warning, released water in Chenab River, by flooding large portion of Pakistan. Pakistan’s concern and objection to the Baglihar dam’s construction was/is justified. The World Bank had endorsed the Indus Basin Water Treaty, which was concluded between Pakistan and India on September 19, 1960. Though the World Bank is a signatory to the Treaty yet, not a guarantor and has three other responsibilities under this Treaty, relating to settlement of differences and disputes. These are to appoint a neutral expert; to manage a ‘Trust Fund’ for meeting expenses of a neutral expert if and when needed; for arrangement of a Court of Arbitration (CoA). Raymond Lafitte, a professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, was appointed by the World Bank, under the terms of 1960 Indus Basin Water Treaty, to make a decision on the differences between Islamabad and New Delhi regarding 450MW Baglihar dam project on Chenab River.

It is a clear cut violation of the provisions of paragraph 8 (e) of Annexure-D to the Treaty. Pakistan contended that the Baglihar Project eventually lead to a reduction in downstream flow of water in the Indus. Pakistan’s assertion was that the Baglihar dam would increase India’s storage capacity and would also allow India to control the flow of water towards Pakistan as and when it desires. The construction of controversial gate structure at Baglihar could deprive Pakistan of more than 7,000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) of water a day from Chenab. Experts fear a similar shortage in water flow will also occur with the construction of Uri Dam.

No doubt the water problems in Pakistan will worsen by the construction of Baglihar dam, for example: annual renewable water availability has already shrunk from 5600 m3 per person in 1947 to 1000 m3 at present – it is recognised internationally that this is a level that is expected to induce chronic water infections which impedes human development; soil erosion due to deforestation will lead to sediment buildup. Salinisation in rivers and reservoirs is day by day decreasing water capacity which predicts that large chunks of land will become subsequently in-arable in future. The current decreased water flow and salinisation of freshwater has already forced migration of people to urban areas and increased dependence on other sources of water. Pakistan is highly dependent on agriculture and everybody knows agriculture depends on water. An even more important fact is that many industries of Pakistan are agro-based, such as textiles industry. Thus an interruption of water supply would have broad and adverse effects on Pakistan in the near future. So, one will compelled to say; if need be Baglihar will be bombed instead of Delhi!!

Certainly, construction of dam would adversely affect 13m acres of irrigated land at surroundings areas of Chenab and Ravi rivers. Farmers would face water shortage during the Rabi season which may cause shifting of cropping pattern by replacing the low water delta with high delta crops – which is/will a difficult task for a developing nation like us. Hydrologists in Pakistan believe that a breakdown of the Treaty could lead to widespread famine, and further inflame the ongoing conflict over Kashmir.

Pakistan is already heavily dependent on rivers flowing from IHK for its hydropower and generating up to half of its electricity through the hydropower. So, many studies had viewed water resources as a potential flashpoint between the two nuclear armed neighbours; if violated further. It is urgently required that Pakistan should go to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if it hopes to get the arbitration under the IBWT; without wasting further time on Sanjhota Express, etc. Pakistan should approach all international forums, including United Nations in this connection.

Already Pakistan’s 88 percent of tubewells and canals are down, and we are forced to import no less than 4mt of wheat to manage and avoid shortages similar to this year. Pakistan knows that the clause 3 of the IBWT does not allow India to take any water from western rivers. Pakistan had every right to insist on the complete implementation of the Treaty. If we show that we are ready to throw away our resources like this, then we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. This is India’s water war on Pakistan, which is more serious than nuclear bomb. One remembers the assurance the former Indian foreign minister got from the then US secretary of State, Collin Powell, that they would not let the Kalabagh Dam built. The Indians do consider that if Pakistan’s water channels are captured, they can get this nuclear Muslim nation bowed to its toes without going into any other war. So, certainly, this scribe will say water war is going on against Pakistan fully!!!

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad

SSridhar wrote:

RajeshA wrote:He said that India had interfered with the flow of river Chenab by reducing water as compared to historical flows in violation of the Treaty provisions.

Can that be a basis for claiming India interfered in the Chenab ?

SSridhar wrote:

Victor wrote:Since the UN has basically endorsed our stand . . .

Victor, that is World Bank, not the UN.

“Water is a serious issues and reduced flow had affected our crops, but we are hopeful that the issue would be resolved within very few days,” FO spokesperson Muhammad Sadiq said at a briefing.

To a question about seeking the World Bank’s help to resolve the water issue, Sadiq said that all options were open for Pakistan and efforts continued to resolve the issue.

President Asif Ali Zardari is expected to soon convey Pakistan's concerns about a row over sharing of river waters with India in a formal communication to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The letter, drawing Singh's attention to the urgency of the issue and the need for its early resolution, has been prepared with inputs from the foreign ministry. It is expected to be sent through diplomatic channels before Zardari leaves for an official visit to Saudi Arabia Tuesday.

The issue may become more serious than terrorism and can result in a war between Pakistan and India, Shujaat said in a statement. He said the Indus Water Treaty of 1962 {sic} needed ratification by the governments of India and Pakistan. The water from the rivers of Ravi, Bias and Sutlej had already been blocked, he said, adding that the construction of Baglihar Dam by India on the River Chenab had further reduced the water flow to Pakistan.

He said the “mujahideen in Kashmir are in fact fighting for Pakistan”. He described Kashmir as the lifeline for Pakistan because all rivers flowing in to Pakistan originate in Kashmir. He said the Indo-Pak confidence-building measures would not serve the cause until the ongoing water crisis was addressed.

The PML-Q leader said the water crisis had particularly affected southern Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. “This may lead to a food crisis in the country,” he added. He said the country was already facing a flour crisis and it might face famine if the water shortage was not addressed. He said the country was not financially capable of importing wheat.

SSridhar wrote:Water row can become nasty: Shujaat

The issue may become more serious than terrorism and can result in a war between Pakistan and India, Shujaat said in a statement. He said the Indus Water Treaty of 1962 {sic} needed ratification by the governments of India and Pakistan. The water from the rivers of Ravi, Bias and Sutlej had already been blocked, he said, adding that the construction of Baglihar Dam by India on the River Chenab had further reduced the water flow to Pakistan.

He said the “mujahideen in Kashmir are in fact fighting for Pakistan”. He described Kashmir as the lifeline for Pakistan because all rivers flowing in to Pakistan originate in Kashmir. He said the Indo-Pak confidence-building measures would not serve the cause until the ongoing water crisis was addressed.

The PML-Q leader said the water crisis had particularly affected southern Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. “This may lead to a food crisis in the country,” he added. He said the country was already facing a flour crisis and it might face famine if the water shortage was not addressed. He said the country was not financially capable of importing wheat.

After the neutral expert’s verdict on Baglihar Dam, if we thought we were done with the issue, we were sadly mistaken. This time, the issue is in the shape of water — about 200,000 acre feet of it — that Pakistan has accused India of ‘stealing’ while filling the Baglihar reservoir. The matter is so serious from Pakistan’s perspective that President Asif Zardari took it up with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in September.

The national security advisor of Pakistan also broached it with his Indian counterpart last month in New Delhi. Then Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani raised it with Singh in Beijing on the sidelines of the recently concluded Asia-Europe summit. And now President Zardari has decided to write to the Indian prime minister, asking him to redeem the promise made to him in New York to resolve the issue.

The controversy began when India allegedly filled the dam in contravention of the Indus Waters Treaty. According to Pakistan’s Indus commissioner, Jamaat Ali Shah, India released between 30,000 and 35,000 cusecs of water (and at one point, 23,000 cusecs) between August 19 and September 5. This was in violation of Article 18-C of Annexure E of the Treaty, which obligates India to undertake the filling of a dam on the Chenab between June 21 and August 31, and release at least 55,000 cusecs downstream at Marala headworks.

This was also in violation of the understanding that the Indus commissioners of the two countries had reached according to which India was to fill the dam during the rainy season. As far as reparation for the loss is concerned, Pakistan has refused to consider monetary compensation and insists on the ‘water for water’ formula. Jamaat Ali Shah cities the Sallal Dam precedent where India compensated Pakistan under this formula.

As expected, India’s official position on the matter is diametrically opposed to Pakistan’s. Its Indus commissioner, G Arangnathan, maintains that India filled the dam within the timeframe laid down in the Treaty, and is hence not in violation of it. He contends that Pakistan received less water than stipulated under the Treaty because there was less than normal rainfall this year. He has accused Pakistan of politicising a ‘technical’ issue and of playing ‘arithmetic gymnastics’.

During the meeting of the two commissioners in October in New Delhi, Arangnathan proposed a visit to the Marala headworks to which Jamaat Shah agreed.

Will this visit help resolve the issue, or is it simply a delaying tactic as believed by many Pakistanis? What options are available to Pakistan to get the matter resolved to its satisfaction?

It is not clear how the Indian commissioner’s visit will help resolve the conflict. He has explained the purpose of the visit as verification of the data regarding the water flow that Pakistan claims to have received at Marala during the period in question.

Jamaat Shah is justified in questioning the timing of the visit. In his opinion, it would be useless now as the right time for such an inspection was August-September when Pakistan made the charge about reduced water flow. In fact, undertaking a visit at this point in time looks like a delaying tactic. Besides, the idea behind the visit looks utterly dubious when the Indian commissioner concedes to Pakistan’s claim that water flow was reduced. Incidentally, if he is certain about his ‘reduced rainfall’ explanation, he should not have refused to share the hourly data of water flow in the period in question, which Shah had requested him to furnish during the commission meeting.

While India officially maintains that it never violated the Indus Waters Treaty, the Indian commissioner, during the recent commission meeting, reportedly confessed that India did violate the Treaty {Cannot be true at all. No Indian bureaucrat will behave like that. He would have given technical and legal explanations only.} by filling the reservoir as charged. He, however, justified it on the ground that it was compelled to do so because of ‘unavoidable structural constraints’.

However, when Pakistan’s commissioner proposed that he commit to compensating Pakistan through the water-for-water formula (Shah wants water from the Sutlej for the next Rabi crop), based on Pakistan’s claim but without accepting the violation of the Treaty, the Indian commissioner refused to oblige. The two sides then agreed to refer the matter to their respective political leaderships for settlement.

What options are available to Pakistan to get compensation from India?

First and foremost is the continuation of the political dialogue at the highest level. It is pertinent to mention that the Pakistani commissioner’s recent visit to the dam site and the commission meeting in October were made possible due to the green signal from the top Indian leadership. This is a cause for concern rather than celebration because it means that instead of these being technical matters, any issue arising under the Indus Waters Treaty is dependent on Indian goodwill for its resolution.

Incidentally, this is a legacy of the BJP government, which turned the Baglihar Dam issue into a political dispute, instead of keeping it technical, as was the case in the past, by frustrating Pakistan’s repeated requests for on-site inspections and commission meetings.

The Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson has declared that a settlement of the water issue would be forthcoming ‘in a few days’. Given the absence of concrete evidence in the matter, and India’s past record on keeping its promises, we simply cannot share this optimism. It would be wise to tread with caution. Perhaps conscious of this reality, President Zardari has indicated that in case he fails to get the desired response from the Indian leadership, he would approach Muslim countries, the ‘Friends of Pakistan’ and the UK to put pressure on India. Perhaps he should also approach members of the UN Security Council currently not among the Friends of Pakistan.

The second option available to Pakistan is invoking Article 9 of the Indus Waters Treaty on conflict resolution. After the debacle Pakistan suffered in the verdict on Baglihar Dam, many Pakistanis may be wary of invoking this clause. This may be more so keeping in mind that the option is very expensive, tedious and protractive.

However, we cannot afford to take this attitude for two reasons: First, we need to remember that if we lost the Baglihar case, it was because we did not argue it well. Second, we should not be haunted by the above-mentioned incubi when it comes to affirming that the waters of the western rivers belong exclusively to us. We need to remember that Article 9 is the ultimate guarantor of our rights under the Indus Waters Treaty. {This is the article that deals with Dispute Resolution}

SSridhar wrote:Baglihar is back

• Knows it will face more pressure once India starts exercising its water rights under IWT. Already, Pakistan is severely water stressed and on top of that it relies on water-intensive crops for sustenance. It therefore wants to stop India and also grab as much as possible. It wants to elicit sympathy from other countries by putting on a show of injured innocence.
• It doesn't want to let go of any opportunity to keep India off balance, paint her as a villain and cause discomfiture. There will be even Indians to lap it up and generate pressure within, knowing how well many desh drohis work.
• Thirdly, it wants to hide under a massive failure in water management. Its dams are silted 25% (which means that much less capacity to hold waters), its unlined canals lose heavy water through seepage, it is unable to build newer dams and it is unable to equitably distribute water within the provinces

SSridhar wrote:Baglihar is back

Incidentally, if he is certain about his ‘reduced rainfall’ explanation, he should not have refused to share the hourly data of water flow in the period in question, which Shah had requested him to furnish during the commission meeting.

SSridhar wrote:[*]It doesn't want to let go of any opportunity to keep India off balance, paint her as a villain and cause discomfiture. There will be even Indians to lap it up and generate pressure within, knowing how well many desh drohis work.[*]Thirdly, it wants to hide under a massive failure in water management. Its dams are silted 25% (which means that much less capacity to hold waters), its unlined canals lose heavy water through seepage, it is unable to build newer dams and it is unable to equitably distribute water within the provinces[/list]

India has violated the Indus Water Treaty by filling Baglihar Dam in less time than prescribed, Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said on Friday. Talking to PTV, Shah said India had filled the dam in 10 days instead of 60 to 70, causing water shortage in the Chenab River. He added the water shortage had badly affected Pakistan’s agriculture, as farmers could not irrigate their fields in time. He said Pakistan would ask India to install a telemetry system at the Chenab and provide daily data about the dam.

1. Pakistan has been claiming since August that India had reduced the flow in Chenab to 20000 cusecs. The storage capacity of BHEP is very small as it is a run-of-the-river project. Where else could India have stored all the waters ?
2. If India filled up in just 10 days, why did the water flow go down in August & Sep ?
3. In this report appearing in DT dated 20th Oct, this same guy said "India filled Baglihar Dam in September, creating water shortage in Pakistan."
4. In this DT report two days later, this same Commissioner is "seeking compensation from India for the loss of water flow in the Chenab River between August 19 and September 5, when the dam on the river was being filled."

THAT India has not refrained from drawing waters from the rivers allocated to Pakistan for its exclusive use under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has caused much concern in Pakistan.

Moreover, India’s denial of compensation for the loss of 0.2 million acre feet of water that Pakistan claims it suffered while the Baglihar dam was being filled has disturbed Pakistani farmers who now worry about far-reaching effects of the water shortage in the country.

With the national economy slowing down, the shortage of water will be more painful. And at a time when the economic managers are predicting that it will take several years to recover from the current crisis, Pakistan cannot afford the loss of any more water.

The Pakistani position on the Chenab water issue has been clear: a minimum of 55,000 cusecs of water should flow into Pakistan at the Marala headworks near Sialkot in peak season; however, a flow of only 22,000 cusecs was recorded this year, affecting the output of the kharif crops.

When the Indus water commissioners of India and Pakistan met in New Delhi amid Pakistan’s deepening anxiety about the Chenab water, the bureaucratic-level delegation from Islamabad simply demanded compensation for the water Pakistan did not receive. New Delhi rejected the charge despite the fact that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had assured Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani that Pakistan would be compensated for Chenab water losses.

The blocking of the Chenab river was feared in 2003 when a team of the Pakistan commission for Indus waters alleged that the Baglihar dam, some 150 km north of Jammu in Indian-controlled Kashmir, was being built in violation of the IWT brokered by the World Bank. Chenab is that tributary of the Indus river to which India has no water rights under the treaty signed in Karachi by Jawaharlal Nehru and Ayub Khan in September 1960.The roots of the India-Pakistan water dispute can be traced to Partition which not only divided people but also the waters of the Indus basin. The border between the two states divided the world’s largest irrigation system into two parts. The current situation is reminiscent of the water crisis Pakistan faced immediately after Partition. India being the upper-riparian country stopped the flow of water from the headworks falling on its side, causing severe water shortages in Pakistan.

To end the crisis, the World Bank acted as an intermediary in the negotiations that led to the accord on the sharing of water between the two countries, which gave India exclusive control of the waters of the Beas, Sutlej and Ravi while Pakistan was given the rights to the waters of the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus.

While there were free-flowing rivers, the water in the Indus was enough to flood the delta. But the burgeoning population in the two countries enhanced their need for water. Since the signing of the treaty, India has built several dams and barrages not only on the rivers allocated to it but also on the rivers to which Pakistan has exclusive rights.

Unfortunately, the construction of dams and barrages by India triggered an inter-provincial spat in Pakistan between Punjab and Sindh. According to Sindh, Punjab would divert water meant for Sindh to its own farmlands in a bid to make up for the water allegedly lost on the Indian side of the international border. Sindh being the lower-riparian province and a tail-end user of the Indus system claimed it was unable to stop Punjab from drawing water in excess of its quota. According to some estimates, 80 per cent of the water in the Indus system is diverted to farmlands, a diversion which, according to Sindh, has resulted in soil erosion, salinity, deforestation, desertification and encroachment by the sea in Sindh.

India benefited greatly from the IWT by reclaiming more lands in East Punjab and in the desert of Rajasthan. Sindh, however, lost its precious katchha forests and two million acres of fertile land in Thatta and Badin districts and the Indus delta as the loss of the three rivers to India was compensated for by link canals which diverted water from the Indus. Thus the Chashma-Jhelum link canal channelled water from the Indus river to the Jhelum, then onward to the Chenab and Ravi and ultimately to the Sutlej command area.

This diversion of water has devastated the whole aquatic ecosystem and culture of Sindh. The subsoil water across Sindh and the water in fresh-water lakes have turned brackish and unfit for human or agricultural use. This has not only affected the livelihood of fishermen but it has also disturbed the natural habitat of many species of animals, birds and fish.

In the wake of the gathering gloom on the water front, Pakistan must understand that there is no substitute for this precious commodity. Therefore, there is a need for renegotiating the IWT instead of merely demanding compensation from India. The decades-old treaty brokered by a military ruler handed over three rivers to India at Sindh’s expense. This is a perfect opportunity for the present democratic government to think beyond compensation and renegotiate the treaty keeping in mind the construction of the post-treaty dams and barrages, the recent flooding in the Sutlej valley, and devastation caused by water shortages in the Indus delta.It is important for India and Pakistan to establish channels of effective diplomatic dialogue to resolve the water dispute instead of depending on bureaucratic parleys. When the treaty was brokered concerns such as global warming and climate change did not exist. Now India should be asked to release water from its own share to save the Indus delta which has its own importance for keeping the regional ecosystem healthy.

Throughout the world rivers flow through several countries and the riparian states share the waters by negotiating effective treaties. Since India and Pakistan are not locked in a state of hostility they can follow the example of other countries and hammer out a new treaty for posterity.

[email protected]

RajeshA wrote:Renegotiate the Indus Treaty by Manzoor Chandio: Dawn

Indus Water Treaty was signed in order to ensure peace on the Indian Subcontinent. Since then TSP has instigated two Wars: 1965 and 1998. Since 1989 TSP has upped the ante by supporting cross-border terrorism in J&K, nurturing and giving training, weapons, explosives and financing to terrorist groups in India, which have caused mayhem in India. TSP has also been carrying out a diplomatic and political war against India over J&K. LoC ceasefire violations have been a regular routine.

Perhaps TSP ought to own up the damage TSP has caused India and compensate India and Indians for it, before demanding any compensation for the Chenab Waters. Otherwise I believe, these are grounds enough to repeal the Indus Water Treaty, as such a Treaty can only be had between two friendly countries. Let the Indus Delta dry up! Why should India care?

RajeshA wrote:Renegotiate the Indus Treaty by Manzoor Chandio: Dawn

.. Now India should be asked to release water from its own share to save the Indus delta which has its own importance for keeping the regional ecosystem healthy.

... Since India and Pakistan are not locked in a state of hostility they can follow the example of other countries and hammer out a new treaty for posterity.

[email protected]

This Paki wants India to release water from it's own share

RajeshA wrote:Renegotiate the Indus Treaty by Manzoor Chandio: Dawn

The current situation is reminiscent of the water crisis Pakistan faced immediately after Partition. India being the upper-riparian country stopped the flow of water from the headworks falling on its side, causing severe water shortages in Pakistan.

To end the crisis, the World Bank acted as an intermediary in the negotiations that led to the accord on the sharing of water between the two countries,

After the Partition, both the dominions agreed to a “Standstill Agreement” on Dec. 30, 1947 freezing the existing water turn systems at the two headworks of Madhopur (on the Ravi) and Ferozepur (on the Sutlej) until March, 31, 1948. Any dispute that could not be resolved by the Punjab Partition Committee was to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) which had been setup under Section Nine of the Indian Independence Act by the Governor General to sort out difficulties arising over the division of assets. However, on the expiry of the arrangement and after not receiving an encouraging response to a reminder for talks issued by the East Punjab Government on 29th March 1948, and in the absence of a new agreement, the then Indian Punjab Government promptly stopped the water supply through Madhopur on April, 1, 1948. By a coincidence, the Arbitral Tribunal’s term also expired on the same day. In the meanwhile, the AT had accepted India’s claims regarding seigniorage charges for the waters and ordered payment of the same by Pakistan. At the invitation of East Punjab, the Engineers of the two divided-Punjab States met in Simla on Apr. 15, 1948 and signed two Standstill Agreements regarding the Depalpur Canal and Central Bari Doab Canal to be in effect until Oct. 15, 1948. The West Punjab Government agreed to pay: (1) seigniorage charges, (2) proportionate maintenance costs, and (3) interest on a proportionate amount of capital. In its defence, the GoI cited such charges levied by the Punjab on the Bikaner state under the British.

However, the West Punjab Govt. later refused to ratify this Agreement and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaqat Ali Khan called for a meeting. The Finance Minister of Pakistan, Ghulam Mohammed along with the Pakistani Punjab ministers, Shaukat Hayat Khan and Mumtaz Daulatana visited Delhi and worked out an agreement in the Inter-Dominion Conference held on May, 3-4, 1948. While agreeing to resume release of water from the headworks, India made it clear that Pakistan could not lay claim to these waters as a matter of right and levied seigniorage charges as specified by the Prime Minister of India to be deposited in Reserve Bank of India, which established the sovereignty of India over these rivers. The Indian side also assured that the waters would be diminished slowly giving enough time for Pakistan to develop alternate sources. The West Punjab Government, for its part, also recognized “the natural anxiety of the East Punjab Government to discharge the obligations to develop areas where water is scarce and which were underdeveloped in relation to parts of West Punjab”. Very soon, the Pakistani Government falsely charged that they were compelled to sign this Agreement and also appealed to the Governor General Lord Mountbatten in futility. However, due to the hostilities between India and Pakistan on account of Kashmir and in the general environment of distrust and animosity, no further talks took place. Pakistan’s suggestion in June, 1949 to take the matter to the International Court of Justice at The Hague and widen the conflict across all rivers, was rejected by India. On Nov. 1, 1949, Pakistan unilaterally invalidated the Delhi Agreement and by July, 1950 stopped seigniorage payments into RBI. However, India continued to abide by the Agreement and supplied waters.

Federal Minister for Water and Power, Raja Pervez Ashraf during the press briefing on the Diamer-Bhasha dam project said that dam would generate 4500MW electricity. He said that government would open bids for the pre-qualification of the project by November 30 to hire contractors.

SSridhar wrote:India has already lodged protests for this dam. It should arm twist the contractors not to take up this project.

neeraj wrote:

SSridhar wrote:India has already lodged protests for this dam. It should arm twist the contractors not to take up this project.

SSridhar
Can you please explain why would India be bothered.
Thanks