Re: Indus Water Treaty
Posted: 08 Dec 2018 18:49
^ Looks like this Paki moron swallowed a thesaurus
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
When did salal died? Who said it died?Gyan wrote:If it's workable then why is Salal Dam dead.
KatareJi :Katare wrote:Salal generated more power last year than any of the RofR plants of NHPC. It also achieved second best load factor of 79%.
Again RofR power plant by nature of design do not get affected in sny meaningful way by silting.
Regular storage type hydro power plant loose their storage capacity and power generation each year due to silting.
JTull Ji :
Contrast this with the record of other powers on binding accords. China’s 2017 breach of bilateral accords by denying India hydrological data resulted in many preventable deaths in Assam floods. The US is now dumping the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty after unilaterally terminating another IWT-style pact of unlimited duration — the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.A scofflaw Pakistan, despite being in dire financial straits, remains wedded to terrorism, including inflicting upon India death by a thousand cuts. Yet the much larger India, instead of imposing deterrent costs, continues to treat Pakistan with kid gloves, as underscored by the impending visit of the Indus commissioner-led Pakistani team.While Pakistan flouts international norms and rules, India adheres to the IWT’s finer details — and goes even beyond. For example, under IWT’s Article VIII, the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) is to meet once a year. Its next meeting was due in March 2019. But, thanks to India’s zealousness, the PIC met much earlier in August 2018, just five months after its previous meeting.The lopsided IWT, which keeps for India just 19.48% of the total Indus-system waters, is the world’s only inter-country water agreement embodying the doctrine of restricted sovereignty, which compels the upstream nation to forego major river uses for the benefit of the downstream state. India has failed to fully exercise even its IWT-truncated rights. For example, India has built no storage on the Chenab, Jhelum and the main Indus stream, although the IWT permits it to store 4.4 billion cubic meters of these rivers’ waters.ndia gains little from its present approach. For example, despite India’s scrupulous observance of the IWT provisions and its concessions, Pakistan accuses it of not fully complying with the treaty’s terms. Pakistan will never be satisfied. Nor will it stop internationalising every disagreement as part of its water-war strategy against India. Add to the picture its proxy war by terror. While trampling on basic norms, Pakistan claims interminable water rights.In this light, an increasingly water-stressed India should unilaterally remake the terms of the Indus engagement. Four of the six Indus-system rivers originate in India. The other two begin as small rivers in Tibet and gain major flows in India. For starters, India should keep its Indus commissioner’s post vacant. Without formally withdrawing from the IWT, India must assert its upper-riparian rights. India cannot keep bearing IWT’s burdens without any tangible benefits accruing to it from the treaty.
A three-member Pakistan delegation will visit India from January 27 for inspection of projects in the Chenab basin, official sources here confirmed. The visit is mandated by the Indus Waters Treaty to allow both sides to resolve issues related to hydroelectric projects.
In what was the first official engagement between India and the Imran Khan-led government last year, the two sides had discussed ways to strengthen the role of the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) for resolving matters under the 1960 treaty. Pakistan’s water resources minister Faisal Vawda had described India’s approval to the visit as a major breakthrough.
“Pakistan and India have been into Indus water treaty dispute for ages. Due to our continued efforts there’s a major breakthrough that India has finally agreed to our request for inspection of Indian projects in Chenab basin,” he had tweeted. The two countries are currently involved in technical discussions on implementation of various hydroelectric projects under the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty including Pakal Dul (1,000 MW) and Lower Kalnai (48 MW) in the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
Both the countries had in the last meeting agreed to undertake the treaty mandated tours of both the Indus Commissioners in the Indus basin on both sides.
Pakistan media reports had then said that India had invited Pakistani experts to visit the sites of the Pakal Dul and Lower Kalnai hydropower projects on the Chenab river next month to address Islamabad’s concerns over the construction of the projects. During the talks, India was said to have rejected Pakistan’s objections to the construction work.
India’s confused and contradictory signals are only emboldening Pakistan
Pakistan even uses the Indus Waters Treaty, the world's most generous water-sharing pact, as a stick to beat us with. Why does India put up with this stinging rogue behaviour?
Consider two developments in recent days that speak volumes about India’s Pakistan policy: Just as the United States moved to unilaterally withdraw from a major arms-control pact (the Intermediate-Range Forces, or INF Treaty), “Incredible India” — as it calls itself in international tourism-promotion ads — welcomed an inspection team from a terrorist state to scrutinise Indian hydropower projects that are being built under the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
And, as if to mock the Indian foreign secretary’s formal protest over his call to separatist Umar Farooq four days earlier, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mohammad Qureshi on Saturday telephoned another secessionist leader in Kashmir Valley, Ali Shah Geelani.
Qureshi and Pakistan’s all-powerful military generals think they can get away by provoking India.
In the absence of a clear-headed Pakistan policy backed by political resolve, India continues to send confusing and contradictory signals, encouraging Pakistan’s continuing roguish conduct.
India’s welcoming of the three-member Pakistani inspection team, led by that country’s Indus commissioner, illustrated how its incoherent approach to Pakistan has spawned even appeasement.
In 1960, in the naïve hope that water largesse would yield peace, India entered into the IWT by giving away the Indus system’s largest rivers as gifts to Pakistan. Since then, the congenitally hostile Pakistan, while drawing the full benefits from the treaty, has waged overt or covert aggression almost continuously — and is now using the IWT itself as a stick to beat India with, including by contriving water disputes and internationalising them.
Whereas the US has ditched the INF Treaty over an alleged Russian violation of its terms, India clings to the IWT’s finer details — even though Pakistan is waging proxy war by terror against it. Like the IWT, the INF Treaty is of indefinite duration.
Pakistan’s use of state-reared terrorist groups to inflict upon India death by a thousand cuts can be invoked by New Delhi as constituting reasonable grounds for an Indian withdrawal from the IWT. The International Court of Justice has upheld the principle that a treaty, including one of indefinite duration, may be dissolved by reason of a fundamental change of circumstances.
Still, India not only adheres to the IWT’s finer details, it even goes beyond. For example, under the IWT’s Article VIII, the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) is to meet once a year. Its next meeting was due in March 2019. But, thanks to India’s zealousness, the PIC met much earlier in August 2018, just five months after its previous meeting.
It was at that meeting that India agreed to advance Pakistan’s inspection tour to October 2018. The last such tour occurred in 2014 and the next one, in keeping with the IWT provision for a tour “once every five years”, was due by the end of 2019. The local bodies’ elections in Jammu and Kashmir forced the October tour to be deferred to January-end.
Before returning home on February 1, the Pakistani team examined three Indian hydropower projects currently under construction — the Pakal Dul, which will generate up to 1,000 megawatts of electricity, Ratle (850 megawatts), and Lower Kalnai (48 megawatts).
The team also visited the already operational 900-megawatt Baglihar — a project that Pakistan tried earlier to stop by invoking the IWT’s dispute-settlement provisions.
But the international neutral expert appointed to resolve the dispute ultimately ruled in India’s favour.
Pakistan, however, could seek international intercession again by using the information its inspection team collected last week to mount technical objections to the Indian projects under construction. Even before the team visited India, Pakistani officials publicly raised objections to the spillway or freeboard of these projects.
Pakistan’s interest lies in sustaining a unique treaty that incorporates water generosity to the lower riparian on a scale unmatched by any other pact in the world. That interest arms India with significant leverage to link the IWT’s future to Pakistan’s observance of basic international norms.
Yet, India is letting go of the opportunity to reframe the terms of the Indus engagement.
India’s pusillanimity is apparent from yet another development last week. After the Indian foreign secretary summoned the Pakistani high commissioner to lodge a protest over Qureshi’s call to Umar Farooq, the Pakistani foreign office the next day summoned the Indian high commissioner in Islamabad.
This raises the question as to why India does not downgrade its diplomatic relations with Pakistan — why maintain full diplomatic ties with a country that New Delhi branded “Terroristan” in 2017?
There is no reason for India to keep diplomatic relations with a terrorist state at the high commissioner level. Downsizing diplomatic missions and doing away with high commissioners should be part of an Indian strategy to employ peaceful tools, including diplomatic, economic and riparian pressures, to reform Pakistan’s behaviour.
Sadly, India is all talk when it comes to imposing costs on the next-door terrorist state. Indian policymakers do not seem to realise that words not backed by action carry major costs. They not only affect India’s credibility but also undermine its deterrent posture by emboldening the enemy.
Isn’t it telling that Pakistan continues to gore India, although it is much smaller in economic, military and demographic terms? Such aggression is the bitter fruit of India’s present approach — which essentially has remained the same under successive governments.
However, it is still not too late to reverse course.
India ought to talk less and act more. To tame a rogue neighbour, India must emphasise deeds, not words.
For starters, it must discard the fiction that it can have normal diplomatic relations with a sponsor of terrorism.
BRAHMA CHELLANEY
Valley's M's will sell Pakis down the river if the price is right. It is the Hindus who are so in love with Pakis.Singha wrote:sections of valley IMs will be happy to give the water to their brethen in TSP than donate it to any other state.
enviro activists will claim the flora and fauna of the two river systems and it will harm the gangetic ecosystem and 25 years study led by them is needed.
Not really. Those in love with Bakis don't really identify themselves as such.Vikas wrote:It is the Hindus who are so in love with Pakis.
Not only that, most fertile area is east went to what is now Bangladesh. We were left just with a partial Punjab, Gangetic Belt and Assam valley.Singha wrote:the most well watered and fertile part of punjab would be the area between indus and sutlej and TSP took all of that.
Singha wrote:Of the total 168 million acre-feet, India's share of water from the three rivers is 33 million acre-feet,
does that mean the 3 rivers given to TSP have 168-33=135 mil acre-feet and the 3 rivers we got have a paltry 33 mil acre-feet?
or , 168 is across our 3 rivers and we are supposed to use only 33 of that?
I wonder which set of banditji appointed idiots "negotiated" such a sweetheart deal?