Indus Water Treaty

[chetak]

the pakis awam are ecstatic that a moron from India has come to paxtan to foolishly sign away 80% of the Indus river waters to them.

but alas, the eagerly coveted nobel continued to evade him till the very end.......


1960 :: PM Jawaharlal Nehru Arrives In Pakistan To Sign Indus Water Treaty


via@IndiaHistorypic

[Malayappan]

Indus Waters Treaty: Opening the water front by Sushant Sareen
In conclusion -

For now, India has fired the first shot on the IWT. It remains to be seen if Pakistan is ready to negotiate on modifying the treaty or if it will fall back on its old, time-tested but increasingly rusting tactic of blocking any move by India. Pakistan’s past track record is one of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, only to realise later that the terms being offered earlier are no longer on the table. The ball is now in Pakistan’s court.

An overall take on the possibilities / way ahead. Worth a read!

[srin]

^^^ I'm more concerned about the last paragraph - the precedent set that can be used against us by China on Brahmaputra. Because, if it is true that a significant amount of water of Brahmaputra comes from China, it'd adversely affect our calculations of withdrawal from IWT. Now, China doesn't need any excuse to divert water (it has already started building dams), but we still need to understand the consequences. So, I started digging.

Here's what I found
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/jksr4 ... China.html

“Out of five major tributaries of Brahmaputra, only three come from China, rest are from Arunachal Pradesh. Of the total water entering (Brahmaputra), only 7% is contributed by precipitation in China. What can the Chinese do? How much can they divert?" said a senior Indian government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Same article also says this

According to the Central Water Commission, while 60% of the water in the Brahmaputra comes from India, 40% comes from Tibet.

According to the United Nations, the cross border annual aggregate flow of Brahmaputra river system is 165.4 billion cubic metre (bcm) which is greater than the combined trans boundary flow of the three key rivers—Mekong, Salween and Irrawady—that run from the Tibetian plateau to the South East Asia.

https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/ ... rahmaputra

While China controls most of the basin’s area, most of that area lies in a rain shadow, formed when monsoon winds rise over Himalayan peaks and then descend again onto the Tibetan Plateau. In contrast, the Indian, Bhutanese and Bangladeshi portions of the basin lie in some of the world’s highest precipitation areas, with rainfall consistently above 98 inches per year.

At one extreme, figures from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) put China’s contribution to Brahmaputra flow at 30% while at the other anonymous Government of India sources put the figure at 7%. Both figures have been cited to support differing positions.

To provide context for such figures, we compiled data from a range of sources and computed China’s implied contribution to flow along the Brahmaputra’s course. From this work, it appears that the FAO figure is based on estimates of all Brahmaputra basin waters entering India from China (the Brahmaputra mainstem and tributaries including the Lohit and Subashiri) as a share of the Brahmaputra’s flow at Guwahati, about 75 miles from the border with Bangladesh. The Government of India’s 7% figure appears to include only water entering India from China via the Brahmaputra’s mainstem (i.e., excluding tributaries, as a percentage of all Brahmaputra flow up to the confluence of the Padma/Ganges in Bangladesh). Since China’s infrastructure development is and will continue to be limited to its mainstem waters, the 30% figure, by including flows from other tributaries, overstates China’s hydrologic advantage and potential leverage over India. In contrast, the 7% figure underestimates it, by including flows that enter the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh.

[neeraj]

"World Bank Can't Interpret It For Us": India On Indus Water Treaty

New Delhi: India on Thursday questioned the World Bank's decision to appoint a Court of Arbitration and a neutral expert under two separate processes to resolve differences between New Delhi and Islamabad over the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir.
Last week, India issued a notice to Pakistan seeking a review and modification of the 62-year-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) for management of cross-border rivers following Islamabad's "intransigence" in handling disputes.

"I do not think they (World Bank) are in a position to interpret the treaty for us. It is a treaty between our two countries and our assessment of the treaty is that there is a provision of graded approach," External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said.

India took the significant step of sending the notice to Pakistan conveying its intent to amend the treaty months after the World Bank announced appointing a neutral expert and a chair of Court of Arbitration to resolve the differences over the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects.

New Delhi has been particularly disappointed over the appointment of the Court of Arbitration.

"India's Indus Water Commissioner issued a notice on January 25 for the modification of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 to his Pakistani counterpart," Mr Bagchi said at a media briefing while replying to a question on the matter.

"This notice was issued with the intent to provide an opportunity to Pakistan to enter into government-to-government negotiations to rectify ongoing material breach of the treaty," he said.

Mr Bagchi said India called upon Pakistan to notify a suitable date for the commencement of inter-state bilateral negotiations under article 12(III) of the treaty within 90 days.

"I am not aware of a response from Pakistan as yet. I am not aware of any response or comment by the World Bank," he said.

The World Bank's role is procedural and it appoints neutral experts or the chair of the court of arbitration in case of differences between India and Pakistan on issues relating to cross-border rivers.

"I do not think they (World Bank) are in a position to interpret the treaty for us. It is a treaty between our two countries and our assessment of the treaty is that there is a provision of graded approach," Mr Bagchi said.

New Delhi considers the start of the two concurrent processes to resolve the dispute a violation of the provision of the graded mechanism prescribed in the pact and wondered what will happen if the mechanisms come out with contradictory judgements.

"The world bank itself, around five-six years ago, acknowledged the problem of having two parallel processes. Our interpretation and assessment is that this is not in consonance with the provisions of the treaty and hence we have been talking about a graded approach," Mr Bagchi said.

The spokesperson said India's position on the matter has not changed at all.

"I do not know whether the World Bank has changed its position on it," he said.

India has not cooperated with the Court of Arbitration.

Hopefully after 2024 win NDA will dilute/revoke the treaty or even better revoke it sooner and make us jingos happy

[SSridhar]

"World Bank Can't Interpret It For Us": India On Indus Water Treaty
Hopefully after 2024 win NDA will dilute/revoke the treaty or even better revoke it sooner and make us jingos happy

The IBRD (which mediated the IWT) has no role to play in the fulfillment or modification or revocation of the Treaty. Its only limited role is in the appointment of an NE or convening a CoA in case of a dispute. India is giving Pakistan a chance to have a formal Treaty that would be a follow-up to the IWT which was negotiated seven decades back.

If we recall the arbitration by the NE in the Baglihar issue, he clearly said that hydrological and engineering techniques have changed since the time the IWT was negotiated and these should be incorporated in the hydroelectric projects being implemented by India upstream. He made this in the context of supporting the drawdown flushing technique using low-level sluice gates that had been incorporated in that project, which Pakistan opposed. We also remember the spectacle of the Pakistan PIC visiting Roorkee where all the calculations and design aspects were explained to him, which he later acknowledged as 'going over his head'.

In Kishenganga project too, the disputes raised by Pakistan were fit for an NE to arbitrate (as per Annexure-F of IWT). However, Pakistan wanted a CoA because it knows that an NE who would be a reputed Engineer and a subject-matter expert would mostly agree with India's engineering designs while a CoA, on the other hand, was more broad-based including several non-experts who can be swayed by other considerations rather than narrow technical aspects.

Pakistan's major contention in Kishenganga was that the IWT prohibited India from transferring waters of one river into another, which Kishenganga did in order to get a good head for power generation. Even then, Pakistan introduced the question of 'drawdown flushing' (which had been already categorically determined by the NE earlier in the Baglihar issue) once again the Kishenganga dispute too. The CoA, while striking down Pakistan's main demands on the non-transfer of water of Kishenganga into Jhelum, fell for the Pakistani ploy on the 'drawdown flushing' issue and advised India not to incorporate these low-level sluice gates. The CoA grossly erred in the process, IMHO. The problem arose from the largely non-technical character of the CoA.

Now, we have the amusing spectacle of the World Bank constituting both a CoA and an NE for the same set of issues. The issues are Kishenganga (once again) and the new Ratle project. This is clearly a violation of the IWT. The WB acknowledges that this is legally untenable but it somehow feels that the CoA and the NE would have better sense and find a way out without one interfering in the other and somehow there would be clarity at the end of it all. This is utterly disingenuous on the part of the WB. The proceedings have begun in the CoA. India hopefully argues that the CoA must be disbanded as it has no jurisdiction over the issues.

In fact, since 2016, when Pakistan demanded a new CoA and India an NE, the WB was indecisive and paused the process advising the two countries to negotiate between themselves. Only in the second half of 2022, it woke up, after six years, to compound the issues even more through its folly.

In both Kishenganga (new) and Ratle disputes, Pakistan's efforts are to make the projects useless as it did to Salal. Therfore it says that the intake location for the head race runnel must be higher (which would lead to less overall power generation), and the pondage (storage capacity) must be reduced. It also wants spillways to be located higher which means unsafe operation in case of floods and freeboard (the vertical distance between the crest of the full reservoir and the top of the dam) to be reduced.

The future of water sharing lies squarely in the hands of the upper-riparian India and the lower-riparian Pakistan. Does Pakistan even realize this? The performance of the WB has shown the lacunae in Treaty interpretation and implementation though one must acknowledge that the IWT is otherwise a great piece of work as it has gone into extraordinary details of water sharing in this specific instance.

Article XII of the IWT does not explicitly have a clause that allows either contracting party to withdraw. But, it allows 'modifications' to the Treaty which is what India is seeking now. An inter-ministerial task force has been on the job going through the IWT for quite some years now on how to shape it for the future. It should be on the basis of this detailed analysis that India has taken the next step. The notice, seeking modification to IWT, sent through the Permanent Indus Commission to Pakistan is returnable in 90 days, that is by end April. Pakistan may put on a show of being nonchalant, but this notice nevertheless is a bombshell because the incumbent Indian government takes decisive actions whose effects Pakistan has experienced several times !! Of course, if Pakistan does not see reason due to its usual tactical brilliance and/or arrogance, India can jolly well withdraw from the Treaty, something allowed by the Vienna Convention on Treaties.

[SRajesh]

Sridharji
Two questions:
1.Is this a preamble to withdraw from IWT??
2. If we withdraw given the BIF's/Jihadi/Lawyer Coterie combo can the 'Usual Suspects' go to SC seeking a stay?? Does SC have any locus standi on international treaties to which the state has signed??
Given Pak's precarious situation and Diwaliya state there's not money to lobby. And as you said they have had few 'Jhapads' from this dispensation already.

[SSridhar]

1.Is this a preamble to withdraw from IWT??

Rsatchi, a Dharmic country which believes in Vasudhaiva Khutumbakam and Sarve jana Sukhino Bhavanthu would be patient and not indulge in a knee-jerk reaction. I have always said that while such lofty ideals are all right, we must use them only when their enunciation would be advantageous to us. This is one such instance, IMO, where we can use them to soften the blow. Nations do not live and die for mere sloganeering, as statecraft is complex, ruthless and bereft of personal ideals.

Besides, as MEA spokesperson said, the WB erred by not going through a graded response to the points raised by Pakistan. Having said that, our response would also be graded depending upon exigencies. We have asked for a modification of the Treaty. Article VII of IWT says that both parties should 'cooperate to the fullest possible extent' in order to develop the Indus system of rivers 'optimally'. This is exactly what India is demanding. This demand has come not a day too soon. Pakistan has no reason not to agree with it. But, this time there won't be any mediator, a stand consistent with our position on the J&K issue too. We shall see what happens. But, knowing this government, the direction is clear as daylight.

2. If we withdraw given the BIF's/Jihadi/Lawyer Coterie combo can the 'Usual Suspects' go to SC seeking a stay?? Does SC have any locus standi on international treaties to which the state has signed??

Bilateral or Multilateral treaties or conventions are not under the jurisdiction of courts, at least in India. Let's not forget that the Kashmiris, including terrorists and the anti-national politicians who support them, have been demanding a greater share of waters from the 'Western Rivers'. They have proved that water is sometimes thicker than blood ! They want to expedite the power projects. If anybody goes to courts, I would welcome that because they would stand naked and thoroughly exposed to where their hearts truly lay. There can be some trouble from the usual quarters like JNU, Kharagpur, Hyderabad and Chennai Universities. N.Ram could write an Edit as to how water should not be used as a tool of war to settle scores. Then, that would give everyone a handle to beat him with as to how his China has scant regards for lower riparian of Yarlung Tsang Po or Mekong etc. But, that would be it.

[Yagnasri]

I do not see our SC doing anything on this. But the question is whether we have the political will to take this task to the logical end i.e. getting out of this treaty. As things stand today, we are putting pressure on Pakis. That is all. But if pakis show their pakiness ( I hope they do) then we may go all the way.

[chetak]

I do not see our SC doing anything on this. But the question is whether we have the political will to take this task to the logical end i.e. getting out of this treaty. As things stand today, we are putting pressure on Pakis. That is all. But if pakis show their pakiness ( I hope they do) then we may go all the way.

the sc has nothing to with the IWT.

It is exclusively and solely in the domain of the sovereign state but someone is sure to open his mouth and create a controversy

If the cheeni squeeze us on the water front, then we have no option but to harshly throttle the pakis in the very same way. World bank and IWT be damned.

Anyway, we should first get the maximum advantage from our share of the waters.

[fanne]

Chetak sir I respectfully disagree taht sc has no role in this. I think it is contempt of Shri cji ji. He has say in everything, should one make love to his spouse or not, how much what way and when it is like rape etc etc. they also have pronounced judgement on who is god and who is not and how when one should be worshipped or not. In many subtle way they have judged which god is better than other. They have also judgement on how and who should play cricket. I mean in all dimension of human and non human existence they have a say, they surely have a say in iwt. In my neck of the wood, climate is very cold for 6 months, I am thinking of getting a verdict to make it summer all year round, would anyone know how to file that?

[chetak]

Chetak sir I respectfully disagree taht sc has no role in this. I think it is contempt of Shri cji ji. He has say in everything, should one make love to his spouse or not, how much what way and when it is like rape etc etc. they also have pronounced judgement on who is god and who is not and how when one should be worshipped or not. In many subtle way they have judged which god is better than other. They have also judgement on how and who should play cricket. I mean in all dimension of human and non human existence they have a say, they surely have a say in iwt. In my neck of the wood, climate is very cold for 6 months, I am thinking of getting a verdict to make it summer all year round, would anyone know how to file that?

fanne ji,

wokes are everywhere.

what you say is spot on, and rather sadly, and under the present scenario, your logic cannot be disputed

[Anoop]

[chetak]

India warns World Bank on Indus Water Treaty. Don't Interfere in Bilateral Treaty

‘Can’t interpret treaty’: India’s jab at World Bank on Indus Waters Treaty stand

Feb 03, 2023

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 39622.html

[SSridhar]

Turbulent Waters

[Vips]

The disastrous redesign of Pakistan’s rivers

[Dilbu]

Turbulent Waters

Excellent article SS saar. Please also provide your insights on what Modi sarkaar is thinking as next steps. What are the modifications to be expected and will there be a full abrogation at some point, after demonstrating that all other avenues are exhausted? The nation and unwashed nanhas like moi want to know.

[SSridhar]

Thank you Dilbu. Knowing this government, it will not retract once it decided on something. The notice period is there until April 25. We will see how Pakistan responds. At this point of time, India is not contemplating the scrapping of the Treaty. If we recall, the NE in the Baglihar issue advised India to employ modern techniques in hydrology which were non-existent in the 1950s when the Treaty was negotiated. India wants to incorporate these, and the lessons learned from 62 years of operation of the IWT. Nobody can object to such noble thoughts. It may also want to tweak the dispute resolution mechanism which not only delays projects but also leads to spectacles like what we are witnessing now, a Neutral Expert & a Court of Arbitration being set up for the same set of issues. The WB is even 'hoping' that somehow the combined wisdom of the NE & CoA would divide the issues carefully between themselves and handle them properly !! So, these wrinkles deserve to be addressed in a new IWT. Any opposition to modernizing the Treaty in view of the technological developments, would by itself be a sufficient reason to withdraw from it if it comes to that. We have seen the US withdraw from the ABM & INF treaties. In America's views, the two treaties had no longer become tenable in view of the various technological developments which were threatening it. Some people are unnecessarily linking our moves in IWT with China & Brahmaputra. China will do whatever it wants to do irrespective of what we do with the IWT or not.

[Prasad]

Some people are unnecessarily linking our moves in IWT with China & Brahmaputra. China will do whatever it wants to do irrespective of what we do with the IWT or not.

Excellent writeup sir. As to this, useful idiots will always jump up and down overplaying the Chinese bogey - "what will China do if India steps out of line one single time onlee" as if China has kept up her side of things in all understandings with us so far.

[g.sarkar]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1746179/wishi ... water-woes
Wishing away water woes
Ali Tauqeer Sheikh, April 6, 2023
CLIMATE change is South Asia’s foremost development challenge — and a rapidly emerging non-traditional regional security threat. India’s 90-day notice to Pakistan to initiate renegotiation of the Indus Waters Treaty could pose a development and security dilemma for Pakistan and the rest of South Asia.
India’s letter of Jan 25 was addressed to the Pakistani commissioner of the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), a joint body that oversees the IWT’s implementation.
Instead of initiating a collaborative approach, India has opted for an inward, myopic approach that will worsen its transboundary water relations with Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Nepal and Pakistan. Its insular policy will bifurcate ecosystems and divide regional climate responses when integrated action is needed for implementing the Paris Agreement.
Unless India and Pakistan, together with the international community, devise a climate-smart response, South Asia will fail to devise collaborative approaches to critical climatic challenges such as changing monsoon and rainfall patterns, glacial melt, droughts, riverine floods, cloud outbursts, transboundary flooding, tropical storms, and sinking or salinizing coastal areas extending from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal. India’s limited thinking on this issue can push millions into poverty.
By demanding its revision, India is rendering the well-functioning IWT dysfunctional. However, while Pakistan is opposed to renegotiating the IWT, India’s demands have unwittingly created a window of opportunity for Pakistan to initiate climate and water discussions with India on a range of issues, several of them reportedly stated in the letter to Pakistan.
India has opted for a myopic approach towards water-sharing.
India has based its demand on two key factors: first, the IWT’s dispute-resolution mechanisms aren’t working efficiently; and second, several new issues, such as global warming, have emerged that were not on the horizon when the treaty was signed in 1960.
......
Gautam

[chetak]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1746179/wishi ... water-woes
Wishing away water woes
Ali Tauqeer Sheikh, April 6, 2023 Gautam

The salvo from India seems to have hit home squarely

The writer is an expert on climate change and development.:

If the pakis don't agree to accommodate India's objections, the matters will come to an impasse and extraneous issues will not be addressed

who initiated the illegal and simultaneous two track arbitration processes (never done before) and how did two "interested" third parties seek to insinuate themselves in what is a well established bilateral process with long accepted and entrenched dispute resolution mechanisms...

what happens if the findings of these two "arbitrations" are contradictory or have the pakis and their gora BIF pals fixed that eventuality too by underhand dealings...

BTW, where are the paki "experts" on hydrology and water resources.........

Why send a so called "expert" who is relatively unknown by acknowledged reputation on climate change issues and development, what exactly is he expected to achieve except to try to politicize and obfuscate the situation, and drag every gora into the fight including the neighbor's cat from afghanistan..

The diversion of the subject matter from hydrology and water resources, to the unilateral use of hostile, patently illegal, hitherto unknown simultaneous and coerced multiple arbitration procedures, then moving slyly to the so called climate change issues speciously based on self serving interpretations of the the paris agreement, then onwards to the pet paki perversions on "Hindutwa" politics, and then expectedly to the long litanies of cooked up religious persecution in cashmere, and the grand finale flourish of the loud demands for the revocation of art 370 seems to be the retracing of well practiced and ummah orchestrated, oft trodden routes..

after all, aren't the paki clowns in charge of the paki circus and their show stoppers are the performing porcins and porcines.... aka abduls and ayeshas

Can't wait for the tallel, sweetel, and deepel cheeni shoe to drop

[Vips]

Porki RAPE view:



Watch from 35.00 to 45.00 on what was demanded by both countries in their initial demand in 1953. As usual in typical congress induced way India punched way below its weight.

[chetak]

Porki RAPE view:

[youtube]jfNAwGrrruE[youtube]

Watch from 35.00 to 45.00 on what was demanded by both countries in their initial demand in 1953. As usual in typical congress induced way India punched way below its weight.

neverwho was categorically given to understand that generosity towards the pakis, as regards the Indus river waters would vastly improve the chances of his getting full control of cashmere and the amrikis had craftily planted in his head the visions of the nobel that could accrue to such international "statesmen".

cashmere was a bloody awful mess that neverwho never did manage to live down. 1962 was the final nail in his already spike bedecked coffin

unkil had his jaundiced and delusional eye on the nobel.

It was just too bad that he wasn't in a position to award it to himself like he did with the Bharat Ratna

It is the mark of the man that he did not even award the BR to his greatest benefactor, the man who negated, legally and democratically held party elections, and maliciously sidelined Sardar Patel, who was the officially elected leader, and helped to foist his favorite neverwho on to the PM's gaddi.

It was a clear cut case of electoral fraud and fascist behavior by a man who blatantly misused his honored position as a great leader (and also the faithful stretcher bearer of the empire), and that, IMVHO, on neverwho's part, was a not only ungrateful, but also mean minded

It was also mkg's biggest blunder, one that set India upon a very different path, and also pointed her in a very different direction, and drove her into the clutches of an ideology (socialism with a hard core of communism) that was so very unsuitable to India's civilizational ethos.., all because neverwho had delusions of european grandeur

[Vips]

Is a 1960 treaty between Pakistan and India killing the mighty Ravi River?

NRP Pakistani news article on Indus Treaty.

[SSridhar]

"The silt is being deposited in the canals, in the riverbed, in the dams upstream," he says. "It raises the riverbank" and clogs up the dams.

"That means that when it floods, even the smaller floods, overspill the banks of the rivers," he says. And not allowing the river to flow is causing clogging and salinity of Pakistan's farm lands. "Soils are losing their fertility."

But, Pakistan would not allow low-level sedimentation gates by India because the 'security state' that it is and because of its Faustian Bargain with all the evil forces, all that it has been willing to do is to give India a black eye while willing to go blind in both eyes and lose an arm and a leg too.

The NE in the Baglihar issue resoundingly approved them, but the less 'engineering-minded' CoA in the Kishenganga case reversed it mindlessly. That's why TSP wants CoA even for disputes that fall under the ambit of an NE.

The Pakistani Elite/Establishment has proved consistently that it has no capabilities to govern the country. Pakistan is not a nation-state. The Indus River system is but a small sample of the overall incompetence of the Pakistanis. Who cares?

“. . . this country [Pakistan] will drift from crisis to calamity, from calamity to catastrophe, and from catastrophe to disaster.” Perico, Duke of Amalfi, a former Italian ambassador to Pakistan in 1962

[neeraj]

In my view, India should have never accepted the CoA reversal. Not sure if the acceptance was during Congress regime but likely so as I recall this happened during 2012.

[kancha]

Sharing an alternate view on Ravi River.
Basically, far too much of Ravi River's water is being permitted to flow into Pakistan as it is. Except for the Monsoon season when flows in that part of the country go up significantly, not even one drop of Ravi River should flow into Pakistan. In fact, with some bit of engineering, the natural gradient can help feed the Harike Barrage and the canal network that originates from there, which feeds Rajasthan as well.
Here's what I wrote some years back: Blog Post: On Ravi River Waters Flowing Unchecked into Pakistan

Twitter link

[Vips]

Indus Waters Treaty: India reviews progress on Indus Basin Projects.

India has made progress on several fronts, particularly on completing works on all Indus Basin projects, in a timely manner to better utilise its rights under the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan, a statement said here on Friday. The second meeting of the task force to ensure exercise of India's rights under the Indus Water Treaty, chaired by Deputy National Security Advisor Vikram Misri, reviewed the progress of various hydro-power projects in Jammu and Kashmir.

"It was noted that progress had been made on several fronts and emphasis was lad on completing the works on all the Indus Basin Projects in a timely manner to enable better utilisation of India's rights under the Indus Water Treaty," the statement from the government-run Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation said.

Misri also called on Jammu and Kashmir Lt Governor Manoj Sinha and apprised him of the efforts to monitor implementation of hydro power projects in Indus Basin under the directions of the Prime Minister's Office.

The Deputy National Security Advisor also met top military and security officials in the union territory and was briefed on the prevailing situation in the Kashmir valley.

The meeting on the Indus Water Treaty was attended by officials from the ministries of external affairs, jal shakti, Jammu and Kashmir administration among others.

[Amber G.]

^^Flash: Second meet of task force on India's rights under Indus water treaty takes place in Srinagar, being chaired by Deputy NSA (Vikram Misri). Deputy NSA also briefed about security situation in the UT.

[SRajesh]

https://www.deccanherald.com/national/c ... 34612.html
What does this mean
What are the implications to the dams constructed or under construction

[g.sarkar]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1763425/hague ... -over-dams
Hague court rules against India in row over dams
Nasir Iqbal, July 7, 2023
ISLAMABAD: In a major win for Pakistan, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague on Thursday rejected India’s objections to its assumption of jurisdiction in a dispute between the neighbouring coun­tries over the Kishanganga and Ratle Hydroelectric projects, pursuant to the Indus Waters Treaty.
Deciding in favour of Pakistan, the PCA ruled that it was indeed the competent authority to determine the Kishanganga dispute bet­ween Pakistan and India, sources in the Attorney General for Pakistan’s (AGP) office told Dawn.
Established in 1899 to facilitate arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution between states, the PCA is a non-UN inter-governmental institution that serves as a forum to address the dispute resolution needs of the international community.
“In a unanimous decision, which is binding on the Parties and without appeal, the Court rejected each of the objections raised by India and determined that the Court is competent to consider and determine the disputes set forth in Pakistan’s Request for Arbitration,” Reuters quoted a court statement as saying.
Pakistan was represented by a team of international experts, assisted by a team from the AGP office and included advocates Zohair Waheed and Leena Nishter, while Barrister Ahmed Irfan Aslam acted as Pakistan’s agent at the PCA.
.....
Gautam

[chetak]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1763425/hague ... -over-dams
Hague court rules against India in row over dams
Nasir Iqbal, July 7, 2023
ISLAMABAD: In a major win for Pakistan, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague on Thursday rejected India’s objections to its assumption of jurisdiction in a dispute between the neighbouring coun­tries over the Kishanganga and Ratle Hydroelectric projects, pursuant to the Indus Waters Treaty.
Deciding in favour of Pakistan, the PCA ruled that it was indeed the competent authority to determine the Kishanganga dispute bet­ween Pakistan and India, sources in the Attorney General for Pakistan’s (AGP) office told Dawn.
Established in 1899 to facilitate arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution between states, the PCA is a non-UN inter-governmental institution that serves as a forum to address the dispute resolution needs of the international community.
“In a unanimous decision, which is binding on the Parties and without appeal, the Court rejected each of the objections raised by India and determined that the Court is competent to consider and determine the disputes set forth in Pakistan’s Request for Arbitration,” Reuters quoted a court statement as saying.
Pakistan was represented by a team of international experts, assisted by a team from the AGP office and included advocates Zohair Waheed and Leena Nishter, while Barrister Ahmed Irfan Aslam acted as Pakistan’s agent at the PCA.
.....
Gautam

It was established in 1899, when neither India nor pukestan existed

who in India agreed and when did they agree to accept the verdict of this PCA and that too without recourse to any appeal, was such an agreement ratified by the Indian parliament

Is this PCA binding on a sovereign India that is an independent country

[Dilbu]

This is a good excuse for India to stall the whole arrangement.

[rajkumar]

Hague court rejects India's objections over water treaty arbitration

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ha ... 1005&ei=13

AMSTERDAM/NEW DELHI (Reuters) -The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague rejected on Thursday India's objections to a Pakistan-initiated procedure over water use in the Indus River basin, reopening a procedure that had been blocked for many years.

India called the arbitration proceeding illegal as a neutral expert was also looking at the issue and the World Bank-brokered treaty prohibits parallel proceedings.

The South Asian neighbours have been arguing over hydroelectric projects on the shared Indus River and its tributaries for decades, with Pakistan complaining that India's planned hydropower dams in upstream areas will cut flows on the river which feeds 80% of its irrigated agriculture.....

[Pratyush]

Who is going to enforce the award?

It's just a bunch of whites who think that they are more important than they actually are.

If this PCA was so powerful. Then why was it unable to prevent WW2.

[Trikaal]

Who is going to enforce the award?

It's just a bunch of whites who think that they are more important than they actually are.

If this PCA was so powerful. Then why was it unable to prevent WW2.

Forget WW2, let them first enforce their judgement on Spratley Islands and China's 9 dashed line in SCS, then we'll talk. India needs to adopt the Chinese approach. Build the infrastructure at breakneck pace, then enforce the new status quo.

[chetak]

cheen threw the PCA's order into dustbin when it ruled against cheen over the “south china sea" issue

why would India be so foolish so as to follow the PCA's order on the IWT when the very process followed by the PCA is illegal

[Manish_P]

^ Precise and concise statement. Rest of the world can take a hike.

[Guddu]

Sridharji;
Looking at the timing, when a response is due from Pak, and the govts claims on POK, do you think the govt might link the two issues. i.e. a quid pro quo whereby good behaviour by Pak makes the water flow smoothly ?.

[Aditya_V]

Sridharji;
Looking at the timing, when a response is due from Pak, and the govts claims on POK, do you think the govt might link the two issues. i.e. a quid pro quo whereby good behaviour by Pak makes the water flow smoothly ?.

The most foolish thinking, it like trying to ferry a scorpion on the back expecting to control itself from fear of drowning, its nature is to sting.

[Guddu]

India will end up giving some water to Pak, why not tie that good deed with obtaining concessions on POK. I would think that is smart thinking.