Indus Water Treaty

[SRajesh]

^^^Chetakji
Two major events of 1950's changed the coutnry's outlook:
1. 'Mahatma's Death : gave a free run to Neverwho and he singlehandedly emasculated the right wing thinkers. Many disgusted and some efforts started by forming Swatantra Party
2. Annointing Indira as CWC president kind of clear indication of what he was upto. Kamaraj/Sanjeev Reddy thought they could control her unlike Neverwho but were sadly mistaken.
More than the outsiders the Left Wing cabal inside the country did everthing to break the country it into pieces.
Sorry for digressing from the topic Mods.

[chetak]

^^^Chetakji
Two major events of 1950's changed the coutnry's outlook:
1. 'Mahatma's Death : gave a free run to Neverwho and he singlehandedly emasculated the right wing thinkers. Many disgusted and some efforts started by forming Swatantra Party
2. Annointing Indira as CWC president kind of clear indication of what he was upto. Kamaraj/Sanjeev Reddy thought they could control her unlike Neverwho but were sadly mistaken.
More than the outsiders the Left Wing cabal inside the country did everthing to break the country it into pieces.
Sorry for digressing from the topic Mods.

SRajesh ji,

Makes one wonder if it was an "assassination", or a deep state ordained rearrangement of the national furniture.

It was a tad too convenient to be an accident of history, especially when everything including events with far reaching implications fell into place for a long time after the actual furniture rearrangement

The goras, commies, wokes and abrahamics are all trying to blame the RSS for it, but what if it was a false flag operation

If no one else in the neighborhood had the concept of "minorities", how did we end up with such an outlandish idea.

Who demanded it and how was it allowed to happen.

As a direct consequence of this, history had to be rewritten and this rewriting became an international project with serious efforts ongoing in well funded amriki, britshit, german and Indian universities

can anyone point out a similar process anywhere else in the world, the widespread, well funded and sinisterly collaborative efforts to wipe out the past of an entire civilisation

especially when it is the only civilization that still survives today when all other civilizations have been wiped out and forgotten, and rewrite its history in its entirety, and negate its very origins, to suit the gora world view projecting their abrahamic primacy

[Manish_P]

..
RCase ji, population doesn't figure in the IWT, only quantum of water.
...

Sridhar sir, then what was the underlying parameter beneath the quantum of water. Specifically the '7%' of the western rivers?

[RCase]

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.

SS ji, I probably worded it incorrectly about population. What I meant was the treaty was signed with a country that no longer exists, even though West Pakistan claims to be the successor state to the original entity 'Pakistan (both wings)'. Hence the treaty should be voided on that basis or renegotiated.

I still am baffled as to why India wants to play along this 'rules based order', when China doesn't give a hoot to any of these niceties and does whatever it likes to do - salami slicing, nine-dash claims, planning to build dams without a care for lower riparian states etc. We should just go ahead and build the dams and let the Pakis go pound sand. Always dangle the sword of a blockade of the Karachi port. Even if the Pakis go to ICJ/ CoA etc, that can be ignored like the Chinese did to the Philippines. Who will enforce the judgement on behalf of the Pakis?

Especially now that they are economically weak, it is time to strike the iron when it is hot.

[SSridhar]

..
RCase ji, population doesn't figure in the IWT, only quantum of water.
...

Sridhar sir, then what was the underlying parameter beneath the quantum of water. Specifically the '7%' of the western rivers?

Manish ji,

The World Bank asked both nations to individually stake their claims and submit the quantum of water that they were interested in, as a starting point.

India's first claim was 29 MAF for itself & 90 MAF for TSP.
TSP's first claim was only 15.5 MAF for India & 102.5 MAF for itself.

The two nations were asked to revise their estimates by the WB.

Now, India claimed the entire Eastern Rivers (~33 MAF) + 7% of Western Rivers
TSP now claimed 70% of Eastern Rivers + all of Western Rivers.

Then the final award came from WB allocating all Eastern + some storage & run-of-river on Western to India and rest of Western to TSP. The storage on Western rivers given to India would amount to about 3% (in my rough calculations). The award was in close agreement with what we claimed !

As for the 7%, I can only surmise as follows: India determined that storage reservoirs on the Western Rivers were impossible due to terrain restrictions and there was also no need because of lack of large tracts of farming lands. Only two things were possible at that time - one, limited storage for other consumptive use and two, run of river hydroelectric projects. May be they worked out that 7% of the flow was enough for these purposes. Run-of-river pondage can only hold 7-days' worth of water as per IWT eventually.

The award came in Feb. 1954 and India accepted the award in toto within a month, but TSP rejected it, a typical TSP behaviour. My suspicion is it was encouraged to do so by developing geopolitical situations.

Almost a year later, TSP threatened a water war with us. TSP had signed the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with the US in May 1954. Talks for TSP joining the SEATO & CENTO were already in a very advanced stage with the US at that time. It joined SEATO in Sep. 1954. TSP was emboldened by these developments. More India-US rift was to follow. Already, Nehru's pro-China policies in the Korean War when Nehru suggested that China be admitted to the UNSC followed by his ill-advised intervention in the first Taiwan Crisis (1954-55) when he again took a pro-PRC line had angered the US. These geopolitical developments probably prompted TSP, which felt these were to its advantage, to threaten a water war against India. Ultimately nothing came of this threat. But discussions continued for another five years before the IWT could be signed.

[Manish_P]

^ Thank you, Sridhar Sir. I have got a better understanding of the thinking, short-sighted and self defeatist, of the time.

The times are again hard for us with a belligerent China so I hope our leadership will be very assertive this time around.

We don't have other water sources anyway.

[SSridhar]

Decided to post here links from the 'Pahalgam Thread' regarding IWT suspension, for the sake of single source of information on IWT:

Statement by Foreign Secretary on the decision of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)

Indus Water Treaty suspended: How will it impact Pak?

What India’s Indus Waters Treaty suspension means for Pakistan - DAWN

Communication from Ms. Debashree Mukherjee, Secretary, Ministry of Water, GoI to her counterpart in Pakistan to 'hold in abeyance' the IWT

Response of the Indian Embaasy, Washington on India's IWT decision

[SSridhar]

India mulls Indus Waters Treaty dispute exit, seeks legal view - ET

ndia, having announced the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), is now seeking legal counsel on exiting the ongoing World Bank-mediated dispute resolution process over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu & Kashmir, ET has learnt.

According to sources, the Ministry of Jal Shakti has approached the Attorney General of India to explore legal mechanisms and options that would allow India to exit the resolution framework under the 1960 treaty, brokered by the World Bank.

A key question under consideration is whether India needs to formally notify the World Bank of its decision to suspend the IWT, or if communicating the decision solely to the 'Neutral Expert'-who is currently examining the India-Pakistan dispute-would suffice. {IMO, both are needed but the contents would be different though}

Since this is the only active IWT dispute resolution process, and the primary trigger behind India's call to revise the treaty, New Delhi may opt to notify just the Neutral Expert. Such a move would effectively halt the ongoing Kishanganga-Ratle mechanism and place the IWT in a state of suspension.

Neutral Expert: Michel Lino

The Neutral Expert in question is Michel Lino, President of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). He was appointed by the World Bank in 2022 under Article IX and Annexure F of the IWT, following objections raised by Pakistan over India's 330 MW Kishanganga project on the Jhelum in Gurez valley and the 850 MW Ratle project on the Chenab.

Lino conducted multiple meetings and site visits over two years, and in January 2025, declared he was "competent" to adjudicate the dispute-an outcome welcomed by India. However, with India now aiming to exit the process, the Neutral Expert mechanism may also be paused, despite India already responding to Pakistan's queries, with no new objections raised by Islamabad since.

India Cites 'Fundamental Change' Clause

India has started invoking international legal doctrines to justify its position. In a letter sent on April 24 to Pakistan, India cited a "fundamental change of circumstances" as the basis for suspending the IWT.

This argument leans on the principle of rebus sic stantibus under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which allows a country to withdraw from a treaty due to unforeseen, fundamental changes.

Water Resources Secretary Debashree Mukherjee's communication to her Pakistani counterpart, Syed Ali Murtaza, emphasized that India has repeatedly requested modifications to the IWT in light of significant demographic shifts, clean energy needs, and other altered assumptions underlying water sharing under the treaty.

Treaty Structure and Points of Contention

Since 2022, India has formally sought renegotiation of the IWT, triggered by the World Bank's handling of the Kishanganga-Ratle dispute. Article IX of the IWT lays out a multi-tiered resolution system-starting with the Permanent Indus Waters Commission, escalating to a Neutral Expert, and finally, a Court of Arbitration.

Appointment of Sean D murphy Chairman of a five member Court of Arbitration (CoA) on Pakistan’s demand- alongside the appointment of a ‘Neutral Expert’ in 2022 over Ratle/Kishenganga dispute and initiation of concurrent proceedings was a key trigger for India to seek renegotiation of the IWT and also an indirect questioning of the World Bank’s stance.

India sent its first formal notice on 25 January 2023- two days before the Court of Arbitration (CoA) met at The Hague and boycotted the January 27 meeting on the two power projects. It sent a second notice on 30th August 2024 seeking modification of the IWT.

In January 2025, Neutral expert Lino, finally issued a press statement announcing he was ‘competent’ to resolve the issues raised--- a major reaffirmation of India’s stance on going back to the graded mechanism.

New Delhi then noted that it was India’s ‘consistent and principled position that the Neutral Expert alone has the competence under the Treaty to decide these differences’ which does not provide for ‘parallel proceedings’ on the same issues.

[bala]

Some historical perspectives of IWT by Foreign Secretary of India, Kanwal Sibal. In this YT Kanwal Sibal recounts facts from history, highlighting the historical bias against India. Eastern punjab, haryana, etc are water deficit. However World Bank armtwisted India into giving 80% of waters to Puke land. Later they wanted India to share waters with BD and Nepal. Tis timely that India has placed IWT in abeyance. Now is a good time to reassess and retune.

youtube.com/watch?v=bmGc6Dx5uBU

// BTW his brother Kapil Sibal is a complete opposite and aligns himself with desh drohis.

[SSridhar]

If you have access to SRR article that I published long back, you'll find that India itself didn't demand anything more. It was TSP that demanded a lot more. Ultimately, the award was almost similar to what India itself demanded. Our political leaders of that time were not far-sighted and strategic. That's the simple truth. It is also true that the people of J&K were cut up with the GoI that it bartered away their waters to TSP, a grievance which was (is) not without substance.

Added later:

Initial Indian demand was 29 MAF with TSP getting 90 MAF. (MAF=Million Acre Feet)
Initial TSP position was that India got only 15.5 MAF while TSP got 102.5 MAF

The WB asked both nations to submit a revised estimate.

India then demanded all of the Eastern Rivers + 7% of the Western rivers.
TSP's revided demand was it got 30% of Eastern rivers and India got nothing from the Western rivers.

The WB's final award was almost the Indian position, in fact more beneficial. India got all of the Eastern rivers (33.3 MAF) plus unlimited run-of-river HEPs on western rivers (which can impound 7 days' worth of waters) and some storage for consumptive use.

[Cyrano]

Vohra ji was in the iwt meetings. He knows this better than any analyst.

[chetak]

^^^Chetakji
Two major events of 1950's changed the coutnry's outlook:
1. 'Mahatma's Death : gave a free run to Neverwho and he singlehandedly emasculated the right wing thinkers. Many disgusted and some efforts started by forming Swatantra Party
2. Annointing Indira as CWC president kind of clear indication of what he was upto. Kamaraj/Sanjeev Reddy thought they could control her unlike Neverwho but were sadly mistaken.
More than the outsiders the Left Wing cabal inside the country did everthing to break the country it into pieces.
Sorry for digressing from the topic Mods.

responding to one of your old posts, SRajesh ji.


two assassinations (ghundhy and rujeev) are not what the seem to be, because their impacts were extremely far reaching, overarching in their scope, multi generational in terms of entrenched narrative building and deeply profound in terms of changing the Indian society and it's civilizational Sanatani ethos to allow an unfettered free run to the abrahamics, via neverwho and the mafia mamamia who empowered, enabled, protected, patronized, and allowed these dark farces to proliferate and propagate while suppressing, adversely micromanaging, and subjugating the majority, often using brute force to quell democratic protests


In hindsight, and over the years of witnessing how events unfolded in India, (NAC, raincoat and a gora approved and publicly gora patronized alternate power center, even when the mafia was not in power at the center), both killings have the signature of false flag operations set up to precipitate very specific outcomes that have only benefitted the BIF to entrench themselves in the body politic


The impacts on India of these two events helped the BIF to gain immense ground, influence and also build their deep state to enforce their anti Hindu agendas, and this includes the one sided IWT that was choregraphed by the britshits and the amrikis who sold the snake oil to neverwho in the first place


That evil deep state continues to operate to this day, undermining all initiatives and efforts by the Modi govt and the most recent example is in pahalgam where locals patronized by the MLAs and power brokers of the party in power were hand in glove with the paki terrorists and their houses were bulldozed

[nachiket]

India mulls Indus Waters Treaty dispute exit, seeks legal view - ET

Sridhar ji one of the unfortunate consequences of the treaty was the CoA decision regarding the Kishenganga project in 2013 where it forbade India from using drawdown flushing to desilt the reservoir. Pakis had hailed that as a big victory at first before raising objections yet again about the same issue after India resumed construction because while India agreed to abide by the decision no design changes were made acc. to the pakis. The low level outlets which were to be used for drawdown flushing are still part of the design.

So now that the treaty is held in abeyance can they be used for drawdown flushing to desilt the reservoir or were there any other changes during construction that prevents us from doing that? This can have the dual effect of making sure the Kishenganga dam never ends up like the Salal dam and also gives us the option to drain the reservoir completely and then stop the water flow while it is being refilled causing panic downstream in bakistan.

[SRajesh]

Chetakji
Responding in an another thread as I think there is another important portal we miss

[SSridhar]

Nachiket ji, yes you are correct about drawdown flushing to desilt especially considering the heavy sedimentation load of the rivers from a 'young Himalayan range'. The NE in the Baglihar issue advised India to employ modern techniques in hydrology, including low-level sluice gates & draw-down flushing, which were non-existent in the 1950s when the Treaty was negotiated, but the less 'engineering-minded' CoA in the Kishenganga case reversed it mindlessly. 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 'sedimentation' issue and advised India not to resort to draw-down flushing. The CoA grossly erred in the process. The problem arose from the largely non-technical character of the CoA. That's why TSP wants CoA even for disputes that fall under the ambit of an NE as in the latest issue.

The action by the WB to appoint both an NE and a CoA for the same set of 'differences' in Kishenganga & Ratle was the last straw on the Indian camel's back. Since 2022, when CoA was announced, India has refused to meet the Pakistani PIC. It has refused to attend the CoA deliberations either. It demanded a re-negotiation of IWT. The NE has two months back declared that the seven issues cited by Pakistan fell under his ambit and he would give his award. This means that the CoA is infructuous, but the WB has not disbanded the CoA. In any case, all these are thrown out of the window in one fell swoop by the 'abeyance'.

Now that the IWT is in abeyance (it is as good as buried, IMO), India will never revive it in its present form & content because it has long oulived the drastically changed circumstances and it was also unfair to start with. The WB can do nothing about this Indian position. ICJ cannot settle disputes between Commonwealth countries as was determined by the Atlantique case. Kulbushan Jadhav case pertained to Vienna Conventions), India is under no obligation to conform to any of the provisions of this 'former' bilateral Treaty.

Now, there are two methods of controlling the sedimentation. Low-level sluice gates and/or draw-down flushing. The latter employs flushing water out from the very bottom, that is emptying & refilling the pondage. This is a costly process, but is needed in the Himalayan rivers. OTOH, the low-level sluice gates are the most efficient as they do not allow the sediments to 'settle down' and lead only to fairly low-level velocities of water-flow downstream unlike draw-down flushing, but it will not suffice. The problem is that the IWT does allow sluice-gates below the Dead Storage Level (Annexure 3, Part D, Clause 3) which states, "There shall be no outlets below the Dead Storage Level, unless necessary for sediment control or any other technical purpose; any such outlet shall be of the minimum size, do and located at the highest level, consistent with sound and economical design and with satisfactory operation of the works." This was what was allowed by the NE in Baglihar but rejected by the CoA in Kishenganga and future projects. The CoA accepted the 'fears' of TSP that India might cause flooding etc. Had we not had a treaty, we could do as we please just like China is doing on the Brahmaputra or the Mekong etc. but as a responsible nation-state in transboundary water issues which we have repeatedly demonstrated.

In Salal, we agreed to remove the six sedimentation control sluice gates and also agreed to reduce the height, a double whammy. Then, the sediments caused two problems, damaging turbine blades and reducing the capacity. In Salal, reservoir capacity fell from 285 MCM to 25 MCM within five years. We agreed to all these TSP conditions as this was the first negotiated project under the IWT. There was no NE or CoA, it was a direct negotiation between the two PICs. The idea of Pakistan has always been to make the Indian projects worthless over time because they knew that they couldn't stop the project under the IWT. It is this nuisance that we will now get rid of.

[Agasthi]

@SSridhar ji and other experts.

I'm not a dam expert but i was reading up and learnt that Kishenganga is diverted to Jhelum river under the Pir Panjal mts. via the 24 km KHEP tunnel which was completed in 20 months or so and appears to have cost approx Rs. 4000 crores. Not bad at all!

1. Can we build similar diversion pipelines from Salal, Baglihar and upcoming Ratle dams to pondages further south? A straight line from Baglihar to Ranjit Sagar is around 80 km. Is that easy since it is the Siwalik hills and not the high himalayas like the Pir Panjal and therefore relatively more stable. Does the IWT "abeyance" now frees India to pursue this vigorously.

2. Can the waters from Uri dam on Jhelum be diverted to the Chenab river pondages. It appears that it can be done in 30-40 months and does not appear to be cost prohibitive.

3. If the above gets traction, will it give more impetus to the Sutlej Yamuna canal and Rajasthan canals as the waters from the Chenab and Jhelum can be diverted here.

4. I would like to suggest the Rajasthan canal be extended into two branches, one heading off to Gujarat and the other to Sindh. Depending on good behaviour from Pakistan, water will flow to Sindh not Pak Punjab thereby we are showing magnanimity towards lesser Pakistanis. Is this kinda of idea even feasible geo-politically?

[bala]

One of the things that India can consider, now that IWT is in abeyance, is pumped storage to generate more MW of electricity. Here is a successful project in Uttaranchal. With the completion of this pumped storage project, the tehri hydro power complex will have a total installed capacity of 2,400 MW. THDC India has successfully synchronized the first 250 MW unit of its 1,000 MW pumped storage plant at Tehri in pump condenser mode to the Indian grid.

[chetak]

@SSridhar ji and other experts.

I'm not a dam expert but i was reading up and learnt that Kishenganga is diverted to Jhelum river under the Pir Panjal mts. via the 24 km KHEP tunnel which was completed in 20 months or so and appears to have cost approx Rs. 4000 crores. Not bad at all!

1. Can we build similar diversion pipelines from Salal, Baglihar and upcoming Ratle dams to pondages further south? A straight line from Baglihar to Ranjit Sagar is around 80 km. Is that easy since it is the Siwalik hills and not the high himalayas like the Pir Panjal and therefore relatively more stable. Does the IWT "abeyance" now frees India to pursue this vigorously.

2. Can the waters from Uri dam on Jhelum be diverted to the Chenab river pondages. It appears that it can be done in 30-40 months and does not appear to be cost prohibitive.

3. If the above gets traction, will it give more impetus to the Sutlej Yamuna canal and Rajasthan canals as the waters from the Chenab and Jhelum can be diverted here.

4. I would like to suggest the Rajasthan canal be extended into two branches, one heading off to Gujarat and the other to Sindh. Depending on good behaviour from Pakistan, water will flow to Sindh not Pak Punjab thereby we are showing magnanimity towards lesser Pakistanis. Is this kinda of idea even feasible geo-politically?

Agasthi ji,

A lot of such info is not in the public domain because there have been jihadi attacks at some of these sites and high security has been maintained

but some things are slowly being revealed and that too by disparate sources, so connecting dots will have to be done

On teevee talk shows/podcasts usually, some retired chappies will let slip a little detail now and then

but some of what you suggest is already in the works

[ernest]

Is that easy since it is the Siwalik hills and not the high himalayas like the Pir Panjal and therefore relatively more stable

Shivaliks are more unstable compared to the other ranges, if I remember correctly. More loose material

[SSridhar]

Pakistan preparing to challenge India's suspension of Indus Waters Treaty post Pahalgam terror attack - ET

Pakistan is preparing international legal action over India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty after a terrorist attack on Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam that killed 26.

Aqeel Malik, the Minister of State for Law and Justice, told Reuters late on Monday that Islamabad was working on plans for at least three different legal options, including raising the issue at the World Bank - the treaty's facilitator. {The WB has no role to play. It has very limited and very narrow role after the ratification of the IWT by both nations. This situation does not fall within that narrow role}

It was also considering taking action at the Permanent Court of Arbitration or at the International Court of Justice in the Hague where it could allege that India has violated the 1960 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, he said. {This does not fall within the ambit of the CoA. Vienna convention allows withdrawal from Treaties in bilateral exigencies}

"Legal strategy consultations are almost complete," Malik said, adding the decision on which cases to pursue would be made "soon" and would likely include pursuing more than one avenue.

Malik added that a fourth diplomatic option that Islamabad was considering was to raise the issue at the United Nations Security Council. {Being a non-permanent member of UNSC at this point in time, it wants to leverage that along with China. It would be interesting to watch China's behaviour, a country which steadfastly refuses to have any such water sharing agreement with its various downstream nations, including India}

"All the options are on the table and we are pursuing all appropriate and competent forums to approach," he said. {None of the four options is workable. India has struck well after having given a long noose to TSP}

"The treaty cannot be suspended unilaterally and cannot be held in abeyance, there is not (such a) provision within the treaty," said Malik. {Yes, there is no such explicit clause, but we did it. There ends the matter}

Kushvinder Vohra, a recently retired head of India's Central Water Commission, said: "There are very limited options (for Pakistan) ... I can say that there are solid grounds for us to defend our (India's) action." {YES}

[SSridhar]

Article XII, the 'Final Provisions' says the following:

(3) The provisions of this Treaty may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments.

(4) The provisions of this Treaty, or the provisions of this Treaty as modified under the provisions of
Paragraph (3), shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments.

That the Treaty has no clause for exit by a party is only by implication and is not stated explicitly. The Treaty has no provision to address this situation and has probably left it to international conventions & practices. None of the actions contemplated by TSP will be applicable in this case. Here a condition has arisen where TSP has not even replied for two years now on the Indian request to start negotiating a new treaty. Its stance vindicates that it is mostly interested in stalling projects and is not sincere otherwise in finding a solution. Secondly, the WB has, for its part, also made the treaty dysfunctional by appointing a NE and a CoA for the same set of 'differences' which squarely fall under the scope of an NE. The 'abeyance' of the IWT is therefore a justifiable legal stand taken by India.

[a_bharat]

^^^
Why do we even need to look into legalities and technicalities? A compromised/incompetent/stupid PM can't bind the country forever by signing a lopsided treaty, giving away rights of his country for perpetuity. Enough of seeking approvals from others. Country should just ignore the hypocrites and pursue its own interests.

[chetak]

^^^
Why do we even need to look into legalities and technicalities? A compromised/incompetent/stupid PM can't bind the country forever by signing a lopsided treaty, giving away rights of his country for perpetuity. Enough of seeking approvals from others. Country should just ignore the hypocrites and pursue its own interests.

You are right, a_bharat ji,


just exit the treaty and protect our supreme national interests. No one else is going to protect it for us


neverwho, by all accounts, (rajiv dogra tells it pretty well) was forcibly made to bribe the pakis and he said that we have "bought" peace with the pakis as his alleged justification. The very same pakis, just some months later, went ahead and attacked India as before, even before the ink on the treaty had properly dried.

Over time, neverwho's anticipated nobel, for his imagined role as an "international statesman", sank without a trace and his lifelong foolishness came back to bite him in the nether regions and he died as he deserved .... a bitter, dried up, and defeated old man, with the full knowledge of all the evil that he had done haunting his last hours after being r@ped by the britshits (religion of love), r@ped by the pakis (religion of peace), and r@ped by the cheen (religion of commies) while he himself r@ped his greatest supporters, the foolish Hindus and cast them as second class citizens in their own country


every attack on India since, has broken the terms under which the treaty was made and for which reason the money paid. Money was paid in pound sterling, afer emptying India's coffers, money that would have fetched more than 145 tons of gold, even at today's prices


goose, gander, sauce and what not. Let us not seek false equivalences to justify rank stupidity


Exit the treaty and let's see who intervenes.


No one will, because, like it or not, everyone has a profit to make from dealing with Hindu India and they will never let go that option


more importantly, India has a very strong case for renegotiation of this stooopide "treaty"


some dip$h!t NGOs may cry murder, ....... so, let them

[chetak]

Nehru NOT ONLY gave 84% water to Pakistan in 1960, BUT ALSO ₹83 Crore in Pound sterling (today's approx ₹5500 Crore) & that too, when 'India's' Forex holding was almost zero.

Why did Nehru love pakistan so much? Any hidden agenda?

The Nation must know.

WATCH VIDEO

[drnayar]

Treaties are only possible with partner countries who understand giving and taking.. there are no freebies. , no one is obligated to do anything.

FAFO.

[SRajesh]

Sridharji
for extracting full potential and thereof controlling the IWT retaking of POK is essential or not!!
HE projects all across J&K including Gilgit will have a huge impact on the power supply.
Plus controlling the headwaters has long term implications isnt it??

[SSridhar]

Absolutely, SRajesh.
Re-taking POK is immutable and there can be no two ways about it.
Apart from the fact that it is ours, and for other strategic reasons, water and power generation would be very high too.
There is a reason why it is called 'Indus River System' and the creators of the artificial construct of TSP never understood that.

[A Deshmukh]

We need to bombard PoK with artillery for a prolonged time, till all the population runs out. Then walk in.
we don't need the hostile population.

[SSridhar]

@SSridhar ji and other experts.

I'm not a dam expert but i was reading up and learnt that Kishenganga is diverted to Jhelum river under the Pir Panjal mts. via the 24 km KHEP tunnel which was completed in 20 months or so and appears to have cost approx Rs. 4000 crores. Not bad at all!

1. Can we build similar diversion pipelines from Salal, Baglihar and upcoming Ratle dams to pondages further south?

2. Can the waters from Uri dam on Jhelum be diverted to the Chenab river pondages. It appears that it can be done in 30-40 months and does not appear to be cost prohibitive.

3. If the above gets traction, will it give more impetus to the Sutlej Yamuna canal and Rajasthan canals as the waters from the Chenab and Jhelum can be diverted here.

4. I would like to suggest the Rajasthan canal be extended into two branches, one heading off to Gujarat and the other to Sindh. Depending on good behaviour from Pakistan, water will flow to Sindh not Pak Punjab thereby we are showing magnanimity towards lesser Pakistanis. Is this kinda of idea even feasible geo-politically?

Agasthi ji, me no dam expert either.

I do not have answers to the questions you have raised because these would call for DPRs that by themselves can take several years.

Secondly, excavation experience from one site cannot be easily extrapolated to other sites because of the geological differences. By the way, the KHEP tunnel took a lot more than 20 months. The tunnel used TBMs for almost two-thirds of the length and traditional drill & blast methods for the rest. The TBMs themselves took 36 months and the rest two years (I think).

On diversion to the Sind, there are two issues. One is technical. Have no idea at present about technical feasibility. Secondly, we cannot and should not show any magnanimity to any province of Pakistan. On what basis can we negotiate with the Sind and sign a deal when it is part of TSP? If it secedes, and establishes a good relationship with us and if we can technically divert water, we can equitably do so after quenching our own needs first and planning strategically, not like signing off our rights as we did in IWT. IMO, it is far fetched at this stage.

We have to take back our GB and build (or seize) the powerplants there and control water flow in the Indus to starve West Punjab.

[Amber G.]

Good discussion.. not an expert but some points (FWIW - may be easily wrong) :

- Diversion projects are technically complex, site-specific, and require years of hydrological, geological (apart from political/treaty-level) evaluation.

- Inter-basin transfers like Jhelum-to-Chenab or water flows to Sindh are , IMO, constraints more politically (and legally under the Indus Waters Treaty.)

- Extending the Rajasthan Canal further within India could be explored, but cross-border extensions are not feasible without regime change (or big pressure).

--- some more details/comments/queestions:
- The claim that the KHEP diversion tunnel was completed in 20 months is incorrect. TBM excavation alone took about 3 years, and the rest (non-TBM tunneling) took another couple of years. The entire project took much longer overall—close to a decade from concept to commissioning. (Tunnel boring in the Himalayas faces complex geology (fault zones, high overburden, water ingress), making timelines hard to generalize.)
- Has any hydrological or geological pre-feasibility been done for diversion tunnels from Salal, Baglihar, or Ratle?
- Extending Rajasthan Canal to Gujarat and Sindh may require cross-border infrastructure ...The Thar region could, in theory, benefit from canal extension within India (to Gujarat), but water loss due to evaporation, seepage, and climate stress must be studied....
(Anyone who has good reference or reading material please post..)

[SSridhar]

Key Jammu & Kashmir reservoirs' flushing to begin soon as India suspends Indus Waters Treaty - ET

Having put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, India may soon give the go-ahead for 'flushing' or desilting of key hydel plants in J&K instead of waiting for the monsoons, ET has learnt.

Most of the essential flushing, reservoir emptying and refilling to check sedimentation is largely restricted to the peak monsoon month of August, as per the IWT regime.

However, with the treaty in abeyance, India can now desilt the most affected plants much earlier, it is learnt.

The most significant being the Salal hydel plant on Chenab river in Reasi district - located downstream from Baglihar dam.

The first and the oldest project on the India side that came up under IWT, the Salal plant, is said to be working at just about half its capacity due to heavy silting and the highly restricted 'flushing' operations.

A 2019 NHPC assessment found that the average annual sediment load entering Salal reservoir is around 30 million cubic meters. While the reservoir's initial capacity was 284 MCM, it is now 'down to just 12 -13 MCM'.

Flushing of the Baglihar project, also on Chenab, could be expedited, as the recent rainfall has deposited considerable silt, it is learnt.

IWT has considerably constrained India from conducting the 'flushing' exercise despite high sedimentation or silt load across J&K rivers.

As a result, power output at hydel plants and overall longevity have been adversely impacted.

Following the Pahalgam attack and the consequent suspension of IWT, India has been mulling steps to optimally use its share of the western rivers of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.

The overall impact of this to the water flow in Pakistan is unclear but is a major cause of concern in the neighbouring country, given the high dependency for its agriculture sector.

Flexibility in determining 'flushing' is one of the key steps on the table. India is also considering withholding hydrological data with Pakistan.

[sanjaykumar]

The article does not explain why the timing of the flushing is important. In fact it seems counterintuitive that India should flush in the drier season. That would benefit Pakistan.

[vera_k]

It does. Taking the Salal reservior as an example, if 12-13 MCM water is released now, up to 284 MCM of water could be stored later on if the flushing allows most of the silt to flow away. That would reduce the amount of water that is available downriver in the next dry season.

[nishant.gupta]

The article does not explain why the timing of the flushing is important. In fact it seems counterintuitive that India should flush in the drier season. That would benefit Pakistan.

Not sure but is it not true that drier season has more water due to more ice melting in Himalayas? In which case this could be the ideal time to flush and flood the down areas (pakistan) and then fill up again and be ready for drying up pakistan?

[sanjaykumar]

If one flushes in the monsoon, the reservoir is replenished, it holds the same quantity. But perhaps the net amount is greater. So in effect the overall flow has decreased downstream. Makes sense.

[Vayutuvan]

It does. Taking the Salal reservior as an example, if 12-13 MCM water is released now, up to 284 MCM of water could be stored later on if the flushing allows most of the silt to flow away. That would reduce the amount of water that is available downriver in the next dry season.

I am intuiting that desilting is more effective when the water levels are low. Any fluid dynamics folks here who can tell us the technicalities of the transport mechanism involved here?

[Vayutuvan]

https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences ... 22_508.pdf

If anybody has access to CFD software, they can have a go at modeling our dams on Indus rivers.

Four sediment transport stages are generally involved in a drawdown flush:

1. When the low-level outlets are first opened, a high velocity flow is generated and fine deposits are entrained close to the outlets, resulting in a short period of high sediment concentration outflow. This stage is similar to pressure flushing.

2. After local deposits are removed, the velocity is not sufficiently high to move the remaining sediment. This stage is similar to the final stage of pressure flushing.

3. As the reservoir level is lowered further, the sediment deposit at the reservoir upstream is entrained. At this stage, the entrained upstream sediments move towards the downstream and eventually out of the dam; in the process, coarse ones may redeposit in the reservoir.

4. In the final stage, when the water level is at its lowest level, previous reservoir deposits may be resuspended and transported out of the dam.

[Vayutuvan]

I can see another benefit for India (negative for Pakis) is when we flush our dams, the flushed sediment accumulates in their dams downriver which will force them to desilt as well.

[SSridhar]

^ That's true. Desilting is a constant process in all reservoirs & dams. The alluvials also have a positive side, of enriching the soil.

[SSridhar]

Pahalgam Terror Attack LIVE Updates: 'India has cut water flow through Baglihar dam after Indus Treaty suspension' - ToI

India has cut water flow through Baglihar dam after Indus Treaty suspension: Source

India has stanched the flow of water through the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River and is planning similar measures at the Kishanganga Dam on the Jhelum River, a source said. The source familiar with the matter said these hydroelectric dams -- Baglihar in Ramban in Jammu and Kishanganga in north Kashmir -- offer India the ability to regulate the timing of water releases.

India's decision to suspend the decades-old treaty follows the killing of 26 people, mostly tourists, in a terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam.

The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank, has governed the use of the Indus River and its tributaries between India and Pakistan since 1960.

The Baglihar Dam has been a longstanding point of contention between the two neighbours, with Pakistan having sought World Bank arbitration in the past.

The Kishanganga Dam has faced legal and diplomatic scrutiny, especially regarding its impact on the Neelum River, a tributary of the Jhelum.