Bharat Rakshak

Economic Threshold[4]—— This level implicitly and explicitly refers for the countermeasure operations of Pakistan Navy. The economic strangulation and economic blackade is also a potential threat to Pakistan, in which if Pakistan Navy is unable to counter it effectively (for example, see operations: Trident and Python in 1971). This primarily refers to a potential Indian Navy blockade of Sindh Province and coastal cities of Balochistan Province, or the stoppage or significant reduction of Pakistan's share of water in the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab Rivers under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty. It could also refer to the capture of vital arteries such as the Indus.

manjgu wrote:both..but more of because of us.. I got an idea about this in jaisalmer. Jaisalmer is suffering from effects of excess water !!! as per a local citizen courtesy the canal which brings in water from Punjab..in addition to the numerous dams on the eastern rivers. the eastern rivers are practically dry as they enter Pakistan except probably in monsoon.

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity (PSH), or pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES), is a type of hydroelectric energy storage used by electric power systems for load balancing. The method stores energy in the form of gravitational potential energy of water, pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation. Low-cost surplus off-peak electric power is typically used to run the pumps. During periods of high electrical demand, the stored water is released through turbines to produce electric power. Although the losses of the pumping process makes the plant a net consumer of energy overall, the system increases revenue by selling more electricity during periods of peak demand, when electricity prices are highest.

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity allows energy from intermittent sources (such as solar, wind) and other renewables, or excess electricity from continuous base-load sources (such as coal or nuclear) to be saved for periods of higher demand.[1][2] The reservoirs used with pumped storage are quite small when compared to conventional hydroelectric dams of similar power capacity, and generating periods are often less than half a day.

Pumped storage is the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available, and, as of 2017, the DOE Global Energy Storage Database reports that PSH accounts for over 96% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed nameplate capacity of over 168 GW.[3] The round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies between 70%–80%,[4][5][6][7] with some sources claiming up to 87%.[8] The main disadvantage of PHS is the specialist nature of the site required, needing both geographical height and water availability. Suitable sites are therefore likely to be in hilly or mountainous regions, and potentially in areas of outstanding natural beauty, and therefore there are also social and ecological issues to overcome.

Pakistan "Complaints To Massa" ; World Bank Jumps In

LAHORE: The World Bank’s officials are in contact with the Pakistani and Indian authorities to work out an agenda of a meeting, possibly starting this month in US, to resolve the perennial water disputes between India and Pakistan under the Bank’s meditation, a senior official said on Friday.The official said the World Bank’s management is finalising the modalities, in consultation with both the countries, of the proposed meeting under a dispute resolution mechanism of the Indus Waters Treaty.“The World Bank-hosted meeting is proposed to be held in Washington DC after a week starting from 10 April,” said the official privy to the correspondence. “Both Pakistan and India have been invited to take part in this meeting. Dates and other modalities are being finalised.”The World Bank-mediated parleys are aimed at ironing out the differences over the dispute resolution mechanism for Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects, being built by India.

The Bank’s factsheet said Pakistan had asked the World Bank to facilitate an establishment of a court of arbitration to look into its concerns about the designs of the two hydroelectric power plants. India, on the other hand, asked for the appointment of a neutral expert for the same purpose. The World Bank said it encouraged both the countries to reach an agreement on a mechanism to address the issue. It is also assisting the two parties to strike an agreement on the process of resolving the issue. Generally, the Bank works with them to ensure that the Treaty remains an effective tool to manage the use of Indus Basin Rivers.

SSridhar wrote:There is no provision, AFAIK, in the IWT for the WB to 'arrange' a meeting of the officials. If the PICs cannot resolve an issue then the next level is for the Governments of the two countries to get involved (probably at the Secretary level).

Supreme Court rejects PIL to declare Indus Waters Treaty unconstitutional
Published: 10th April 2017


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today dismissed a PIL seeking the declaration of the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan as illegal and unconstitutional.

"This treaty is of 1960 and this treaty has held good for more than half a century," a bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said while dismissing the PIL filed by lawyer M L Sharma in his personal capacity.

The bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul, however, made clear that the order dismissing the PIL "does not put any impairment on anybody".

The clarification came when Sharma said that the dismissal of the PIL should not put any restriction in the way of the government if it wants to review the Indo-Pak water pact.

During the brief hearing, it was argued that the Indus water pact was not a treaty at all as the same was not signed in the name of the President of India.

"It was a tripartite agreement between three leaders and void ab initio (illegal at the outset) and hence cannot be acted upon," the lawyer said.

The court said that it has perused the entire petition and does not wish to agree with it.

The Indus water agreement was executed on September 19, 1960 between India, Pakistan and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank. Besides Nehru, the then Pakistan President Mohammad Ayub Khan and W A B Iliff for the World Bank were its signatories.

The apex court had last year refused to grant an urgent hearing on the PIL, saying there was no urgency in the matter while Sharma, who filed the PIL in his personal capacity on the issue, to "keep politics aside".

Sharma, in his PIL, had referred to Article 77 of the Constitution and said it mandates that all executive action of the government shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President.

However in the case of the 1960 Indus waters treaty, it has been signed by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and "nowhere it is declared that the said agreement/treaty has been signed in the name of the President of India", the plea had said.

"According to the ministry of external affairs documents, nowhere disclosed further that the said agreement has been signed by the Jawaharlal Nehru for the President of India...," it had said.

Sharma had said, "According to the impugned agreement 80 per cent water goes to Pakistan which is a serious injury to the fundamental right of the citizens of India coupled with further financial and natural injuries to national interest."

The treaty was "against the national interest and violated the fundamental right of the citizen of India affecting their life and livelihood", it had said

Kashi wrote:I don't know if the report is a complete account of the reasons given by Supreme court for dismissing the PIL, but "This treaty is of 1960 and this treaty has held good for more than half a century" reads more like a socio-political stand than a legal one.

Did the court not have anything to say on the legal validity of the treaty?

Decisions from the Chair (Lok Sabha)

TREATY

1. Ratification: It is not obligatory on Government to place a Treaty before Parliament for ratification even though it involves financial obligations:

On the 14th November, 1960, after the Minister of Irrigation and Power laid a copy of the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 on the Table of the House, Shri Asoka Mehta enquired whether the treaty had been ratified. The Prime Minister (Shri Jawaharlal Nehru) replied that the treaty had been ratified. Thereupon, Shri Asolm Mehta raised a point of order that the treaty involved financial commitment of pound 62,060,000 and its ratification amounted to an encroachment upon the financial powers of the House. In support of his contention, he stated that in the U.K., all treaty-making power was in the Crown but wherever any financial implications were involved, the ratifying authority was Parliament. He submitted that the locus in regard to ratification resided in Parliament and the Government could not, by itself, ratify the treaty.

Shri Nath Pai supported the point raised by Shri Asoka Mehta and referring to the provisions of articles 253, 246(1) and entry 14 in List I-Union List-of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, stated that Parliament's power in regard to treaties with foreign countries was absolute.

Shri Naushir Bharuchu while agreeing that entering into treaties and ratification thereof was the responsibility of the Government stated that payment of money in consequence of the treaty before the Government came to the House with a Demand for Grant would be a violation of article 266(3).

The Minister of Law (Shri A. K. Sen) was of the view that the question of financial appropriation was a different matter and that it had nothing to do with the ratification of the agreement by the Government.

Ruling out the point of order, the Speaker observed:

"The provision for entering into treaties is contained in entry 14 of List I...................... Article 253 is an enabling provision. Wherever the Government enters into a treaty-Parliament may or may not agree-primary right under the Constitution is with the Government to enter into a treaty.................. We cannot now take away powers which have been vested in the Government under the Constitution. This follows the English practice where no treaties are placed for ratification normally, unless the Government itself wants to do so. Here, it is open to the Government to bring it or not. There will be an occasion for hon. Members to say anything they like at the time when this House will be called upon to vote. Not a single pie out of the Consolidated Fund can be paid to anybody without the sanction of this House. Therefore, by a supplementary grant or otherwise, when it will come before this House, at that time, hon. Members will have the opportunity. So, there is no point of order so far as I am able to see.

* * * * *

In accordance with previous practice, it is not obligatory on the Government to place treaties before this House for ratification unless, as constituent parts of those treaties, the respective Governments have agreed to place them before Parliament and obtain their ratification. I do not find any such thing here. It is open to Government to accept and ratify, which they have done. So far as money is concerned, I am not called upon to give any advice now. When the matter comes up, we will know what is to be done."

Gyan wrote:We have to see the actual judgement as to what exactly the Supreme Court said in its order rather than what was commented upon casually. I think Sharma is professional PIList without any deep knowledge of the subject and such people can do lot of damage due to their half baked petitions.

Is that really the case? I recall seeing Ravi not so dry near Pathankot many years ago. But that was in October. Even some recent photos from Lahore showed ample water in Ravi.

chetak wrote:

Gyan wrote:We have to see the actual judgement as to what exactly the Supreme Court said in its order rather than what was commented upon casually. I think Sharma is professional PIList without any deep knowledge of the subject and such people can do lot of damage due to their half baked petitions.

In this case the SC has done no harm and left all doors and avenues open.

vasu raya wrote:

chetak wrote:
In this case the SC has done no harm and left all doors and avenues open.

Would disagree to the SC decision, its needed with the Kulbhushan Jhadav episode where TSP sold a story to its public and it has become a H&D issue for them very much similar to Sarabjit, to broaden their concern area so that focus on Jhadav becomes a non-issue, SC making few statements on the IWT PIL which was at the opportune moment would have helped.

SSridhar wrote:In the present environment, there is no possibility of any talks. If anything happens to Kulbushan Jadhav, the IWT will wash down the Indus into the Arabian Sea.

SBajwa wrote:Right!! All we need to do is make SYL canal, divert little water to Sutlej close to the source and dump that water all the way to Yamuna!! Let's watch them turn to desert as per their wishes.

manjgu wrote:SYL can be made bypassing Punjab..thru HP direct into Haryana...

manjgu wrote:SYL can be made bypassing Punjab..thru HP direct into Haryana...

As a result, even slightly more positive news looks like mere propaganda (Nawaz Sharif inaugurated the Head-Race Tunnel of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Plant on Friday) that will bring no change.