Indus Water Treaty

[drnayar]

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.

why not keep the Indus waters and get back POK., after pok is pok !!..whats the need for pro quo ?

junk the IWT and what hague !

[Yagnasri]

Just IWT. When pakis do not recognise J&K as a part of Bharat, on what basis can the treaty be made with them?

[SSridhar]

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

While a comparison with the Chinese case under ITLOS PCA may be tempting to make, there are many structural differences which make our rejection of the CoA very just and legal.

Let me explain.

As the IWT CoA says, its formation is legal under the provisions of the IWT. It is also right that India's rejection of the CoA does not make it incompetent.

While superficially the CoA may appear to be correct, there are a few problems with this formulation which are what India has pointed out and which is what the CoA has not come to grips with. I would believe that this CoA is prejudiced against India already with the statements it has made and cited above.

We need to understand the three grades of issues that the Indus Commission has to deal with. Questions, differences and disputes. Questions are the initial set of problems raised by one Indus Commissioner to the other. They either become a difference or a dispute based on whether the questions fall under issues covered in Part-1 of Annexure-F of IWT or not respectively. The differences are resolved by a NE and disputes by a CoA.

What the CoA has not understood are several things:

1. The issues referred to it fall under the competence of a NE as per provisions of the IWT
2. An NE has already been chosen per the provisions of the IWT and the proceedings are on-going where both India and Pakistan are presenting their respective cases.
3. The CoA is neither an overarching (like a Supreme Court) nor an appellate body where an NE's award can be appealed against
4. Since what can be referred to the NE and to a CoA have been clearly defined in the IWT.
5. The grievous error has been made by the WB which has constituted both an NE and a CoA for the same set of issues. There is no provision in the IWT for such dual process of 'settling differences and disputes'. Article IX of IWT says, "If the difference does not come within the provisions of Paragraph (2) (a), or if a Neutral Expert, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 7 of Annexure F. has informed the Commission that, in his opinion, the difference, or a part thereof, should be treated as a dispute, then a dispute will be deemed to have arisen which shall be settled in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5)" Paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 deal with the process of establishing a CoA.
6. The WB, by agreeing to constitute a NE has willy-nilly concluded that the questions raised by Pakistan are only 'differences' and therefore fall under an NE and therefore CoA is superfluous. However, Pakistan has used a provision of Article IX which says, "Provided that, at the discretion of the Commission, any difference may either be dealt with by a Neutral Expert in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of Annexure F or be deemed to be a dispute to be settled in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), or may be settled in any other way agreed upon by the Commission." The highlighted 'OR' above is crucial. A question cannot be a difference and a dispute at the same time. This is the mistake of WB which had been overlooked by the CoA
7. Another glaring error of the WB and the CoA is that according to Paragraph 6 of Article IX, "The provisions of Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) shall not apply to any difference while it is being dealt with by a Neutral Expert". The NE is already on the job and the two countries have started to present their cases before him. The CoA is therefore illegal and incompetent.

Therefore, our case of rejection of the CoA constituted by the WB is valid and legal and as per provisions of Article IX of the IWT itself.

IMO, the WB and the CoA have justified the recent GoI calls for re-negotiation of the IWT and made the task easier for India to withdraw from it if Pakistan does not agree to that proposal and if this WB/CoA tamasha continues.

Now, let us look at the ITLOS PCA which China junked.

China has signed and ratified the provisions of UNCLOS and it is therefore bound to its arbitral awards, just as India conceded a large chunk in BoB after maritime delimitation award by the PCA of ITLOS. Unlike the IWT, there are no NEs and CoAs or differences and disputes or UNCLOS Commissioners in each country etc. within the provisions of the UNCLOS. Any country can raise an issue with the ITLOS and a PCA will hear the case and give its binding award. Simple.

China refused to present itself before the PCA, not based on any sound provisions of the UNCLOS, but based on frivolous and unsustainable accusations. For example, it said that one of the Judges (a Sri Lankan, IIRC) was married to a Filippino. The Sri Lankan judge withdrew. China then invented other reasons. For example, it accused the President of ITLOS of picking the jury panel out of malice towards China because he was a Japanese and Japan had enmity with China. Then it proffered a hilarious reason, which the Chinese diplomacy alone is capable of doing, saying that the African & European jurists on the panel were unqualified and they did not know Asian conditions. Asian conditions?

At its most fundamental core, how can any country in this modern day defend arbitrary nine dashes drawn centuries ago?

[SSridhar]

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 ?.

Guddu ji, Pakistan and 'good behaviour'?

As usual, the clever-by-half TSP is putting the noose around its own neck and asking us to pull the chair from under its feet. I think we must oblige, mustn't we?

[Lisa]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blo ... ince-1960/

Indus Water Treaty: Dynamics of technological knowhow, climate change and socio-economic parameters since 1960

"As we look ahead, it is clear that almost 63 years after ratification of the Treaty, material facts and conditions under which the treaty was ratified do not hold good. As an emerging economy, India’s serious efforts to present and lead the world when it comes to management of climate change despite having the world’s largest population, the intensity, the vulnerability and the risk that India faces with climate change and its monsoon design agricultural economy have to be taken into consideration if this Treaty is to remain sound and sustainable and fair to the people of the subcontinent. The IWT has failed to account for the progress in technological knowhow and other socio-economic parameters that has taken place over the last six decades. India is well within its rights to construct hydroelectric projects as per the prevailing sound engineering practices and a fresh framework is to be built to bring the focus to people, economy and the climate change. Thus, for survival of the Treaty and to mitigate the losses India is suffering every year, it is to the benefit of both nations and in the region’s interest that the changed parameters and advancement in technological knowhow are accounted for and modification of the Treaty is carried out urgently to ensure equitability and sustainability."

[Guddu]

Some international water security related data. Much of the world is water insecure.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... ity-levels

[bala]

An interesting and informative talk by Lt Gen KJ Singh and Lt Gen Shankar on matters related to weaponizing the Indus Water Treaty.

All these structures and arrangements were created during the colonial era to the disadvantage of Bharat. Sustainability of correcting the mistakes of the past and its timeline would depend on the decisions taken by the Central and State governments in alignment with the objective to benefit Bharat, while not putting others to extreme disadvantage. Bharat needs to put proper controls in place and use them when terrorism or war occurs from across the borders. There is price to be paid for indulging in destruction of Bharat.

[chetak]

The #Modi Sarkar is bringing Pakistan's Nightmare into Reality sooner than expected! Water Flow into Pakistan ready to get curtailed!

Major milestone is achieved at 850 MW Ratle Hydro Electric Project in Jammu & Kashmir, with DIVERSION of Chenab River through diversion tunnels at Drabshalla in Kishtwar district on 27 Jan, 2024.

The river diversion is a critical step that enables isolation of dam area at riverbed, paving way for start of crucial activities such as excavation & dam construction.

Apart from stopping water flow into Pakistan, implementation of Ratle Hydro Electric Project is poised to create direct & indirect employment for around 4000 individuals. Furthermore, J&K stands to benefit from free power worth ₹5289 crore & water usage charges amounting to ₹9581 crore over the project's 40-year life cycle.

The progress on the Ratle Hydro Electric Project is not only a strategic move but also promises significant socio-economic benefits for J&K. Kudos to #ModiSarkar for turning dreams into reality, ensuring sustainable growth, and utilizing resources for the nation's progress.

Note that Pakistan was DELIBERATELY given Undue Advantage by Jawaharlal Nehru under Indus Water Treaty.

Govt diverts Chenab river water to expedite hydroelectric project in Jammu and Kashmir


https://www.deccanherald.com/india/jamm ... statement.

[Ankit Desai]

Flow of Ravi water to Pakistan fully stopped

-Ankit

[sanman]

No More Ravi Water for Pak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XplSvc596LQ

[bala]

Col Ajay Raina take on Ravi river's water in PGurus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DGT_7Aj0KQ

Col Ajay Raina with Adi Achint, this one has maps. Worth watching, since it clearly spells out the IWT and various nuances. India gave 3 rivers to the Pukes and the other 3 are with India, Ravi included. However all 6 rivers have a quantum of around 250 billion cft and the 3 with India is only around 40 billion cft, well over 80% goes toward the Pukes and they still complain a lot. India gave a ton of money to Pukies to build canals etc after signing the IWT by prime idiot NeverWho.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWR4Gxab77w

[mody]

The stupidest part that no one has ever highlighted is that only 5 rivers cross over from India into Pakistan!!!!!!
Where are the 6 rivers? Can anyone show them on the map???
The 6 rivers are taken as the rivers of the undivided Punjab and based on the same this most stupid of the treaties has been signed.

The river Beas does not flow into Pakistan. It merges with Sutlej well within Indian territory and thereafter the river is known as Sutlej only.
The distribution should have been done on the basis of these 5 rivers, with India retaining the rights over Sutlej, Ravi and Chenab rivers and Pakistan getting access to the waters of Jhelum and Indus.
This would have solved most of the issues.

[Aditya_V]

Why agreement with nation which killed all its minorities, they broke away. They don't need farming

[chetak]

The stupidest part that no one has ever highlighted is that only 5 rivers cross over from India into Pakistan!!!!!!
Where are the 6 rivers? Can anyone show them on the map???
The 6 rivers are taken as the rivers of the undivided Punjab and based on the same this most stupid of the treaties has been signed.

The river Beas does not flow into Pakistan. It merges with Sutlej well within Indian territory and thereafter the river is known as Sutlej only.
The distribution should have been done on the basis of these 5 rivers, with India retaining the rights over Sutlej, Ravi and Chenab rivers and Pakistan getting access to the waters of Jhelum and Indus.
This would have solved most of the issues.

mody ji,


It was the haramkhor amrikis convinced neverwho that his "generosity" would go a very long way in helping India untangle the cashmere issue...... and everyone knows how they messed up the issue even further, putting immense pressure on India to "accommodate" the pakis, meaning just hand over cashmere to them


Has anyone noticed that for long the beedis have pushed for similar "generosity" on India's part concerning the teesta waters and they say India is the big "brother" and it must give to the smaller countries, without asking for reciprocity in any manner whatsoever, quoting the stupid gujral doctrine


Dispute between India and bangladesh have been engaged over water-sharing of the Teesta River. The Teesta River is an important river for both India and bangladesh, and it is a vital source of water for irrigation, fisheries, and drinking water, and there are 53 common rivers between bangladesh and India

[Yagnasri]

One thing we have to note. Pakis do not accept J&K as part of Bharat. So how can there be any treaty without accepting it?

[bala]

How India will Unleash Strategic Power of Ravi River Waters?

Maj Gen Ajay Chaturvedi, Col Ajay Raina with moderator Brig. Rakesh Bhatia

India's control over the waters of the Ravi River diminishes the defence potential of the Pakistan army in the region. The strategic stoppage of Ravi water can severely impact Pakistan's defense infrastructure, particularly its defensive canals, which heavily rely on water from the Ravi River. Without access to sufficient water, these canals become ineffective barriers, making it easier for adversaries to breach Pakistan's defenses and penetrate its territory. By disrupting the flow of water to these defensive installations, India can undermine Pakistan's ability to defend its borders effectively, thereby tipping the balance of power in the region in its favor. This aspect adds a crucial dimension to India's strategic calculus, emphasizing the significant military advantage gained through the control and manipulation of water resources along the Ravi River.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CRu1GqkaM0

[chetak]

the pakis are quoting vedas, Hindu scriptures and the "coming of the aryans" as proof that the ravi river has ancient significance for the city of lahore

they have been reduced to mouthing inanities, emotional blackmail playing their standard issue victim card to blame India for exercising her rights under the IWT

All to note that this "gem" is a paki produced video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMpqu7Dwt38


Death of Lahore’s River Ravi | India Pakistan Water Politics | Syed Muzammil Official

Mar 5, 2024

The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan, is a significant water-sharing agreement that allocates the waters of six rivers between the two countries. In this video we have talked about the recent development in which India has taken steps that impact the flow of the Ravi River to Pakistan by constructing a new barrage, halting the river's flow.

This action is part of a broader context where India is considering using the treaty as leverage in its relationship with Pakistan

[Prem]

After Lahori build a whole new townsnhip on Ravi Riverbed , India can release the precious water to wash them down and away.

[SSridhar]

Indus Water Treaty: India serves formal notice to Pakistan, seeks modification - ToI

India has sent notice to Pakistan seeking changes in crucial Indus Water Treaty. According to news agency PTI sources, the Indian government served a formal notice to Pakistan seeking modification in the treaty.

The notice highlighted fundamental changes in circumstances that require review of treaty.

India had also sent a notice to Pakistan in January, 2023 seeking amendment to 1960 treaty.

The notice was issued due to Pakistan's failure to cooperate in the implementation of the treaty.

[SSridhar]

The fun starts now.

[chetak]

If need be. it's time to use water as a weapon and screw all the paki descendants of the porcine genus


BTW, India, in its notice, said in today’s scenario, it is not feasible to maintain the same treaty and thus it needs modification, adding that “We must look to change treaty as Bharat is going forward for clean energy.”

[Manish_P]

Nice touch that 'clean energy' thing.

Maybe Greta ben can chime in with her support

[sanman]

[chetak]

Neutral expert upholds India’s stand on Indus Water Treaty.

Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects rattled Pakistan.

The Indian government has welcomed the decision by a neutral expert in favor of India's stance on seven questions related to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects under the Indus Waters Treaty.

The expert will now proceed to the merits phase, which will result in a final decision on these differences.



India-Pak rift on Indus Water Treaty: Neutral expert backs New Delhi’s stand

January 22, 2025

Indus Water Treaty: Expert upholds right to decide on all seven questions over Kishenganga, Ratle projects.


A World Bank-appointed neutral expert has backed New Delhi’s position on the framework to resolve certain disputes between India and Pakistan on Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects.

While India has been pressing for resolution of the issues by the neutral expert as mandated under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) between the two countries, Pakistan has been backing the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague to resolve them.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... t-9792009/

[SSridhar]

^ Good news.

From my post here in 2023 on this subject:

1. The issues referred to it fall under the competence of a NE as per provisions of the IWT
2. An NE has already been chosen per the provisions of the IWT and the proceedings are on-going where both India and Pakistan are presenting their respective cases.
3. The CoA is neither an overarching (like a Supreme Court) nor an appellate body where an NE's award can be appealed against since what can be referred to the NE and to a CoA have been clearly defined in the IWT.
4. The grievous error has been made by the WB which has constituted both an NE and a CoA for the same set of issues. There is no provision in the IWT for such dual process of 'settling differences and disputes'. Article IX of IWT says, "If the difference does not come within the provisions of Paragraph (2) (a), or if a Neutral Expert, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 7 of Annexure F. has informed the Commission that, in his opinion, the difference, or a part thereof, should be treated as a dispute, then a dispute will be deemed to have arisen which shall be settled in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5)" Paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 deal with the process of establishing a CoA.
5. The WB, by agreeing to constitute a NE has willy-nilly concluded that the questions raised by Pakistan are only 'differences' and therefore fall under an NE and therefore CoA is superfluous. However, Pakistan has used a provision of Article IX which says, "Provided that, at the discretion of the Commission, any difference may either be dealt with by a Neutral Expert in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of Annexure F or be deemed to be a dispute to be settled in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), or may be settled in any other way agreed upon by the Commission." The highlighted 'OR' above is crucial. A question cannot be a difference and a dispute at the same time. This is the mistake of WB which had been overlooked by the CoA
6. Another glaring error of the WB and the CoA is that according to Paragraph 6 of Article IX, "The provisions of Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) shall not apply to any difference while it is being dealt with by a Neutral Expert". The NE is already on the job and the two countries have started to present their cases before him. The CoA is therefore illegal and incompetent.

Therefore, our case of rejection of the CoA constituted by the WB is valid and legal and as per provisions of Article IX of the IWT itself.

[chetak]

India cannot forever be held to the terms and conditions agreed upon when the treaty was first introduced. The initial conditions catered to the existing situation then prevailing on the ground, and the geopolitics that influenced those realities will change, and the longevity of any treaty is dependent on its adaptability to reflect current realities, destinies, fortunes and circumstances. neverwho gave up too large a share of the waters to the pakis under the hope that this generosity would go a long way in "solving" the cashmere issue in India's favor, as was slyly insinuated by the amrikis who convinced him to be the bigger man. Of course, the amrikis were careful not to put anything in writing. The pakis were in cahoots with the amrikis to defraud India of her rightful share of the waters while the amrikis had their own agenda.

There may have been the expectation or even a formulated strategy that the Indians would soon run out of water and thus be back to beg for more, thereby trapping them and also rendering them vulnerable and defenseless on the cashmere settlement front, thus subjecting and placing them at the mercy of the pakis/amrikis to set the terms of the surrender of cashmere.

There was no other earthly reason for the amriki state, using the offices of the world bank, to broker such a dubious deal as the IWT, unless they saw a big payout for themselves. The IWT was signed circa September 1960, when bases in pukestan were in active use by the amrikis to base their U2 spy planes which were used overfly russia for intelligence gathering. In fact, May 1960, was when Francis Gary Power's U2 spy plane, launched from peshawar, was shot down by the soviets

The U-2 spy plane program continued thereafter, but the gun shy amrikis used taiwanese pilots to fly over china and other countries and many of these spy planes were shot down by the chinese during over flights of mainland china.

Thus there was a not so subtle expectation from the Indian side to accommodate the pakis. Plus India also parted with a great deal of money that was given to the pakis during the signing of the IWT for construction of canals and headworks

A transition period of 10 years was permitted in which India was bound to supply water to the canals of Pakistan from its eastern rivers until Pakistan was able to build the canal system for utilization of waters of the western rivers. Such water supply to Pakistan was not interrupted even during the 1965 Indo-Pak war. Per Article 5.1 of IWT, India agreed to make a fixed contribution of UK Pound Sterling 62,060,000/= (Pound Sterling sixty-two million and sixty thousand only or 125 metric tons of gold when gold standard was followed) towards the cost of construction of new head-works and canal system for irrigation from western rivers in Punjab province of Pakistan.[19] India had paid the total amount in ten equal annual installments despite the 1965 Indo-Pak war.

The pakis will once again greedily seek a heavy financial (and possibly trade concessions) compensations, just as they did when the treaty was first signed

The beedis are also seeking a similar arrangement with India, insisting on a grossly disproportionate share of the teesta waters (and waters from the other rivers) as was done with the IWT. In both cases, India's rights as the upper riparian state has been / will be compromised due to poor negotiating skills and foolish compromises based on a "consultative, non-reciprocal and outcome-oriented basis", and the futile people to people contacts meme so beloved of grandstanding, pot bellied Indian politicians.

[SRajesh]

Sridharji and Chetakji
A question:
is there any clause in the treaty about impact of Barrage/Dam on the aquatic life and ecological disaster.
Can Wildlife/animal rights issue be used against proposed dams
meaning less flow impacting on flora and fauna??
Was watching a programme on disappearing Indus Dolphin population.
Claims by Pakistan eggspurts that its prehistoric and has to be preserved!!

[SRajesh]

Sridharji and Chetakji
A question:
is there any clause in the treaty about impact of Barrage/Dam on the aquatic life and ecological disaster.
Can Wildlife/animal rights issue be used against proposed dams
meaning less flow impacting on flora and fauna??
Was watching a programme on disappearing Indus Dolphin population.
Claims by Pakistan eggspurts that its prehistoric and has to be preserved!!

[SSridhar]

^S.Rajesh, at the time this IWT was negotiated (between 1951 & 60), there wasn't much awareness of ecology, flora & fauna etc. The IWT makes minor reference to pollution and that's all.

A combination of our usual weakness of no strategic thinking, to not look ahead sufficiently, to not appreciate that Pakistan was out to destroy us using every means (like China is today), and the colossal foolishness of Nehru which destroyed us in multiple areas led to this unequal treaty where the upper riparian gave away willingly its waters & rights.

On the broader question of flora & fauna, since when is TSP (or its mentor China) concerned about these issues? Don't we remember the case of the houbara bustards which were allowed to be hunted down to extinction by the West Asian Kings to improve their virility?

Anyhow, the blind dolphins of the Indus are restricted to the small stretch on the Indus between Sukkur & Guddu barrage, whereas they are recorded to have been along the entire Indus stretch for centuries, if not millennia.

At the time the IWT was negotiated, the Indus had a flow of 93 Million Acre Feet (MAF) on the Indus per se, 23 from Jhelum, 26 from Chenab. So, totalling 142 MAF. It is only the 33 MAF - 6 from Ravi, 13 from Beas and 14 from Sutlej - that India has got from the IWT. Even then, India took a long time to build storage facilities on these Eastern rivers to reduce their flow significantly. It has only been the Modi government which has decided that these rivers must be fully exploited. So, how can India be responsible for the plight of the dolphins?

But, this is a big BUT, the Indus Dolphins had become rare a long time before, even by the 1980s. What was the reason? Certainly, not the progressive withholding of the 33MAF from India. It was the series of dams & barrages that were built from Tarbela, Kalabagh, Chashma, Taunsa, Guddu, to Sukkur (in that order) after IWT was signed. The Pakis also hunted the dolphins down as the Indus became more tamed as a result of the IWT.

The Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi & Sutlej join the Indus only at Panjnad, just above the Guddu barrage. Why did the dolphins become extinct or rare in that 2000 Km long stretch from Skardu to Guddu? Certainly, it cannot be because of evil Yindoos, can it?

[SRajesh]

Sridharji
Thanks
The pakis have been hunting and killing the dolphins for meat and get this : aphrodisiac
Also some disgusting rumours of raping dolphins as the sexual organs can resemble human ones.
But given the Paki Strategic thinking you neverto what level they reach for the sake of Water
Indus Dolphins now restricted to a small stretch of Indus
Ravi ones have completely disappeared
They might blame it on India for drying up of Ravi

[SSridhar]

SRajeshji, the time is long gone for us to worry about TSP. Sooner or later, TSP will force India to completely withdraw from the IWT. Already, we have asked for a review of the Treaty in line with technological developments & climate change. The case is being built-up.

[Avik]

ssridhar-why do we prefer a NE over an arbitrator? what is a NE were to decide against us?

[RCase]

When the IWT was negotiated, it was with the state of Pakistan, which had a Western and Eastern wing. With the break up of Bangladesh, why are we extending the same deal to the entity that was erstwhile West Pakistan? The IWT talked about distribution of the waters based on the combined population of the Pakistan at partition. Since about half the population (Bangladesh) is no longer with them, the water quantities should also be reduced by at least 50%.

I think the difference between a neutral expert vs. arbitration is like going through a professional court system vs. getting Jahangiri insaf from a kazi. The neutral expert would be a technical person who understands the subtleties of engineering and is willing to consider reasonable workarounds. The arbitrator on the other hand might end up delivering Samsonian justice that may not be technically the optimal one and can be binding.

[Manish_P]

...The IWT talked about distribution of the waters based on the combined population of the Pakistan at partition. Since about half the population (Bangladesh) is no longer with them, the water quantities should also be reduced by at least 50%.
...

That was then. A lot of water has flown since our government of that time missed that opportunity.

If we go along that route the arbitrators might ask for the present numbers.

What was the relative population ratio of the time of the treaty signing to what it is now?

[isubodh]

...The IWT talked about distribution of the waters based on the combined population of the Pakistan at partition. Since about half the population (Bangladesh) is no longer with them, the water quantities should also be reduced by at least 50%.
...

That was then. A lot of water has flown since our government of that time missed that opportunity.

If we go along that route the arbitrators might ask for the present numbers.

What was the relative population ratio of the time of the treaty signing to what it is now?

All this thought is within the framework of IWT.
What happens if we declare the Treaty as Null. What prevents us from doing that. What options pak has ? What are worst consequences?

[williams]

We need to slowly start exploiting the loop holes in the treaty and constrict the Pakis. The moment we exploited enough we can say bye bye to the treaty. Until then we'll throw a bone for the Pakis to get a sense of security. We had the opportunity to do some Salami slicing post Kargil to lay the ground work for future recovery of GB areas, but missed that one. We are still waiting for the Pakis the implode and once that happens we could take PoK.

[isubodh]

We need to slowly start exploiting the loop holes in the treaty and constrict the Pakis. The moment we exploited enough we can say bye bye to the treaty. Until then we'll throw a bone for the Pakis to get a sense of security. We had the opportunity to do some Salami slicing post Kargil to lay the ground work for future recovery of GB areas, but missed that one. We are still waiting for the Pakis the implode and once that happens we could take PoK.

On same lines i would wish for China to implode/explode and get the whole of Tibet. Very strategic, with no efforts.

[SSridhar]

When the IWT was negotiated, it was with the state of Pakistan, which had a Western and Eastern wing. With the break up of Bangladesh, why are we extending the same deal to the entity that was erstwhile West Pakistan? The IWT talked about distribution of the waters based on the combined population of the Pakistan at partition. Since about half the population (Bangladesh) is no longer with them, the water quantities should also be reduced by at least 50%.

RCase ji, population doesn't figure in the IWT, only quantum of water.
The problem was that India itself did not claim. Our claim was all of the three Eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) plus 7% of the Western Rivers (Jhelum, Chenab & the Indus). That was all.
OTOH, TSP claimed all of the Western rivers and 30% of the Eastern Rivers.
In the final agreement we got all of Eastern rivers plus some storage and right to run-of-the-river systems on the Western Rivers.
We have to blame only ourselves.
Our foolishness is stark when we realize that 80 MAF (Million Acre Feet) of the total 175 MAF (~50%) of the Indus water was going waste into the Arabian Sea when the IWT was signed !

I think the difference between a neutral expert vs. arbitration is like going through a professional court system vs. getting Jahangiri insaf from a kazi. The neutral expert would be a technical person who understands the subtleties of engineering and is willing to consider reasonable workarounds. The arbitrator on the other hand might end up delivering Samsonian justice that may not be technically the optimal one and can be binding.

Very true. NE is a highly competent technical person whereas the composition of a Court of Arbitration (CoA) is of 7 members like this:

1. Two each by India & TSP
2. A reputed person as Chairman (need not be an engineer)
3. A Lawyer
4. An engineer

The CoA can be influenced by Pakistan more easily or it may not be able to appreciate the highly technical nature of the case put forward by India (Pakistan can't do that as we saw when the Pakistani Permanent Commissioner visited Roorkee during the Baglihar issue and said all the calculations went above his head). This was brought out starkly in the NE-arbitrated Baglihar case vs. the CoA-arbitrated Kishenganga project.

In the Baglihar project, the NE advised India to employ modern techniques in hydrology which were non-existent in the 1950s when the Treaty was negotiated, in handling sediments, the biggest problem in the Himalayan rivers which have a high sedimentation rate. The sediments fill up and make the dams almost useless unless managed well. Salal & Tarbela are examples.But, the CoA shot down this in the Kishnganga case and proposed alternatives which may be unimplementable, costly and less modern. CoA suggested we go back to stone age.

[SSridhar]

On same lines i would wish for China to implode/explode and get the whole of Tibet. Very strategic, with no efforts.

Don't want to deviate, but let me say this.
Some Indians have not learnt from our IWT fiasco yet.
They are suggesting that over 80% of the waters of the Brahmaputra come from watersheds in our own areas. Similar to India agreeing to only the three Eastern Rivers of the Indus system of rivers.
Time to start a Brahmaputra thread.

[chetak]

...The IWT talked about distribution of the waters based on the combined population of the Pakistan at partition. Since about half the population (Bangladesh) is no longer with them, the water quantities should also be reduced by at least 50%.
...

That was then. A lot of water has flown since our government of that time missed that opportunity.

If we go along that route the arbitrators might ask for the present numbers.

What was the relative population ratio of the time of the treaty signing to what it is now?

Manish ji,

Population was never the consideration when the IWT water shares were assigned.

It was a con job by the amrikis whose sole objective was to appease the pakis, thus benefitting themselves in the process. It was all about military bases and the geopolitics of crude oil and the overwhelming need to secure, protect and exploit the sources of this oil, meaning the entire gulf region

India was seen as a loser country because of the stupidity of its leaders who were overly keen to keep the rajah in britshitistan happy and thus hopefully, using his blessings, gain entrance to the international geopolitical and social space, and present globally as a "moral force".

The britshits and the amrikis know very well how to use coconuts to further their ambitions, after all they have been in the game for centuries

this coconut policy continued almost until 2014 when India first showed the gumption to strike out on her own. Even ABV was a wishy washy, well mannered leader, cast in the mold cum pigeonhole that the goras had assigned for India.

They also needed India to be on her best behaviour, as far as, china was concerned and not rock the boat because they were in the opening phase of their china engagement policies. It was here that raincoat and the eyetaaliaan mafioso delivered flawlessly

IG was a flash in the pan, that era did not last too long. She foolishly lost on the negotiating table, what the IA++ had won for India on the battle field because she was so very mindful of her Ps and Qs

contrast this to the time when the eyetaaliaan usurper and her man friday wanted to gift the siachen to the pakis under pressure from the amrikis and she was told, in no uncertain terms, to bugger off.

There has been a shadowy amriki hand steering India since even before 1947, and several of hamare leaderan have been traitorously complicit

The pakis miscalculated badly.

Firstly, they flubbed all their chances because of their inherent greed and corruption.

Secondly, they grossly underestimated the gora's ability to keep arch enemy India under control

the constant विधवा विलाप of "trade", "people to people" contacts and the aman ki tamasha dirge that both the pakis and the beedis wail constantly is the result of such gora helplessness