Indus Water Treaty

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
neeraj
BRFite
Posts: 380
Joined: 12 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: UK

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by neeraj »

At the dead level - the power turbines will run from only the natural flow of the river and not on any added kinetic energy provided by a higher reservoir. Considering the current level is only 3 feet above dead level - the power generation must be affected as well.

Earlier (on Feb 27th) the water in Mangla dam had reached the dead level.
Power generation has also decreased by 900 megawatts due to the water deficit at Mangla.
This situation is bound to get worse in the years ahead.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34990
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chetak »

neeraj wrote:
At the dead level - the power turbines will run from only the natural flow of the river and not on any added kinetic energy provided by a higher reservoir. Considering the current level is only 3 feet above dead level - the power generation must be affected as well.

Earlier (on Feb 27th) the water in Mangla dam had reached the dead level.
Power generation has also decreased by 900 megawatts due to the water deficit at Mangla.
This situation is bound to get worse in the years ahead.

Hike up the prices and let them buy from us!!
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11240
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

OT for this thread, but wrt the kabul river draining into the Indus, Afghanistan already has three dams on the river Kabul (Naglu, Sorubi, Darunta), Pakistan has one at Warsak.
India has completed the survey work for a fourth dam on that river. This one is located between Jalalabad and the Durand line.

Image
The Kabul river drains into the Indus just before Peshawar.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by manjgu »

Ssridhar.. did the IWT take into consideration aspects of global warming and resultant less water in the rivers and how is this ( reduced inflow) catered to in the IWT ?
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by shaardula »

manju,

global warming is a catch phrase. 99.99% of us dont understand what it means. let us not pretend like we do just bcoz we have seen couple of documentaries on pbs.

if himalayan glaciers are melting. then it must mean ice is melting == more water flow. global warming does not alter earth's drainage characteristic. india does not have godrej water heaters that can evaporate water. more water from glaciers means more flow.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34990
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chetak »

manjgu wrote:Ssridhar.. did the IWT take into consideration aspects of global warming and resultant less water in the rivers and how is this ( reduced inflow) catered to in the IWT ?
No one had even heard of global warming in those days!!!

Even pachauri must have been running around barefoot, in his langote in those IWT times :)
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has not added even a single watt of hydro electric generating capacity for the last 32 years :eek: :

‘No hydel power unit installed over 32 years’
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by manjgu »

shaardula... i think it is established that water flow in IWt rivers is reducing ( call it what u want).. the basic question is how are provisions / 2 contending parties of IWT impacted by this phenomena. Since this phenomena was not factored when the treaty was negotiated.
milindc
BRFite
Posts: 761
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by milindc »

manjgu wrote:shaardula... i think it is established that water flow in IWt rivers is reducing ( call it what u want).. the basic question is how are provisions / 2 contending parties of IWT impacted by this phenomena. Since this phenomena was not factored when the treaty was negotiated.
How is it established fact ? Don't quote the low IQ pakis.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by manjgu »

milindc... i am not quoting napakis on this. I think SSridhar mentioned this fact. When i meant reducing ( i meant from the point of origin not what is flowing into napaki land). in fact volume of water in rivers like ganga , yamuna etc has reduced. Even the napaki scientist admitted that the volume of water in rivers has reduced over the years due to climatic / natural causes.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

Despite Larkana being the fiefdom of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s first family, the Bhutto’s, they are not immune from Punjab province’s theft of water and need to suffer like the rest of Sindh province :

Massive protests against water shortage in Larkana
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

manjgu wrote:shaardula... i think it is established that water flow in IWt rivers is reducing ( call it what u want).. the basic question is how are provisions / 2 contending parties of IWT impacted by this phenomena. Since this phenomena was not factored when the treaty was negotiated.
The treaty governs only use of waters of rivers assigned to each country (Eastern rivers for India and western rivers for Pakistan). Use of waters of rivers assigned to other is restricted to permitted use only as per IWT. The treaty does not deal with reduced flow of water in natural course, as long as it is not caused by any man made obstructions , i e storage reservoirs etc . Run of the river projects, which ultimately release water downstream, are permissible.

There was no need to factor in reduced flow in natural course as parties may not have control over such factors. Further, each party would also get reduced flow owing to natural causes for respectively assigned river group.Neither Pakistan nor India is under obligation to makeup for such natural losses.

That is my reading of bare treaty. Hope ssridhar agrees.
neeraj
BRFite
Posts: 380
Joined: 12 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: UK

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by neeraj »

India rubbishes paks water stealing allegations
Pakistan is trying to deflect its own domestic water problem by raising the 'India bogey,' sources said adding that the attempt from that country is always to 'stall' or 'delay' any project undertaken by the Indian side.

Even terror groups like the Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ] and Jamaat-ud-Dawa have been trying to hype the issue by blaming India for growing scarcity of water in Pakistan and their leaders Hafiz Saeed [ Images ] and his deputy Abdur Rahman Makki were making public statements like 'Muslims dying of thirst would drink the blood of India.' :roll:

"We would ask them (the Pakistan government) to get their act together :mrgreen: and do a better management of water. 38 million acre feet (MAF) water constitutes what is known as average escapage to sea," the sources said. :eek:
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

GOI seems to have arranged an off the record background briefing following the raving and ranting in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by their pet Islamic jihadi terrorists like Hafiz Saeed on the theme of India “stealing” water :
The fact that Saeed, who is seen as a proxy for the ISI, is now focusing on water issues is being seen as part and parcel of the Pakistani “propaganda”.
Sources pointed out it is convenient to blame India when other factors are responsible for Pakistan’s water woes. It is also being seen as a ploy to get a larger share of the water. The steady rise in the Pakistani population, particularly in Punjab in Pakistan, increased use of water and intensive irrigation are being seen as reasons for Pakistan’s water woes.
There has been some discussion on this thread on water flows. For the record flows on the Indus River have gone up rather than down:
Also, data has shown that water volume in both the eastern and western rivers are fluctuating due to fluctuating snowmelt and rainfall. Only the Indus river has bucked the trend with water levels actually increasing.
Economic Times:

Pak takes water route to attack India
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

chetak wrote:http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=100262
Mangla Dam runs 3 feet above dead level
Updated at: 1505 PST, Monday, March 08, 2010

LAHORE: The water level at Mangla Dam collapsed with dead level three inches down, Geo News reported Monday.

According to Met Department, the inflow at the Dam was recorded at 20,548 cusecs and outflow at 27,476 cusecs.

Meantime, Tarbela Dam is running at 1389.82 feet—11 feet over the dead level.

According to the concerned sources, Tarbela Dam is receiving 26,000 cusecs and outflow here was recorded at 35,000 cusecs.
The water in Mangla Dam is now down to the dead level. Expect much more raving and ranting from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan about "water theft" by India:

Water in Mangla Dam reaches dead level
Last edited by arun on 10 Mar 2010 09:20, edited 2 times in total.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by manjgu »

chanakya / Ssridhar... what i wanted to know is as under

india is allowed some usage of rivers allocated to pakistan. So is this usage is in terms of absolute figures or as a % of the flow ?

if it is terms of absolute figures ( eg 10 MAF) , then even if there is reduced inflow, India can utilise this entire amount which leaves less amount flowing into Pakistan.

However, if it is in terms of % of total inflow, then indian quota also get reduced proportionately depending on amount of reduction.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by manjgu »

RE: http://ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/b56_3/00800220.pdf

has a very good map of napaki water system.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

arun wrote:This should ratchet up the raving and ranting in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to a new crescendo.

The Ratle project is on the Chenab River:
Tenders for 690 MW Ratle project opening Monday

TATA, Reliance among 9 bidders await Rs 5000 Cr contract ......... {Snipped}
From:

Rising Kashmir
GVK Power and Infrastructure Limited is the lowest bidder:

GVKPIL likely to get Rattle contract
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Pakistan is getting more water than it is entitled to: Indian Home Secretary
Dismissing demands by some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that Delhi provide more water to Pakistan, Indian Home Secretary GK Pillai on Wednesday said Pakistan was getting more water than it was entitled to under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).

Calling the charges of water terrorism against Islamabad “absurd”, the home secretary said, “There have been 200 joint inspections since Independence, to which Pakistan too has signed and has had no complaints. They are getting more water than they are entitled to.”

Speaking at a seminar, he called for a more pro-active approach to apprise the public and the world about “the reality of the water issue”.

“We have not put up our side across. We should put out a paper on what is happening. With Pakistan, the communication is more one-way and they do not want to listen,” he said.

Also speaking at the occasion, former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal said Islamabad wanted the water issue to be on the agenda of any talks and that India would lose out on strategy by agreeing to do so. “We have lost half the battle by allowing Pakistan to raise the issue. There is actually no issue. Hafiz Saeed and Pakistan are hammering away on the issue of water. There is a treaty and if there are any issues, there is a mechanism in the treaty to address them,” he said.
Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1341
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Nihat »

The "Water Issue" rhetoric from TSP may go down in the coming weeks and months if it keeps pushing India and GoI decides to come up with the "facts" of the treaty. TSP is getting more water and it should assume for it's own sake that it in the future it won't get a single drop more than what it is entitled to.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34990
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chetak »

Nihat wrote:The "Water Issue" rhetoric from TSP may go down in the coming weeks and months if it keeps pushing India and GoI decides to come up with the "facts" of the treaty. TSP is getting more water and it should assume for it's own sake that it in the future it won't get a single drop more than what it is entitled to.

Unfortunately their "facts" are the pap that the pakis feed to their people.

It usually bears no resemblance to the "truth" or "reality", as seen by us.

They say that we are "stealing" their water and that is what they will set out to prove irrespective of what explanation you come up with.
The ummah is only going to believe and support them.

The rest don't matter. Our very own DDM will support them. Kandle kissers will support them, after all people to people contacts are important!!!
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

India urged to keep its word
The Pakistan Commissioner also underlined the need to equally share shortage of water in flows of western rivers. Owing to various factors, he observed, water availability is seemed to have reduced in Chenab River, which should be shared by both India and Pakistan. “Why Pakistan suffers shortages alone,” he said, adding that those circles who facilitated Indus Waters Treaty should also press India to reduce its water usage as per overall shortages in inflows of western rivers.
The PPIC is saying several things above.

First, he accepts that there is a natural reduction in flow of water.

Next, he is saying that India must share Pakistan's pain. What usages are allowed for India on Chenab ? These are domestic Use, Limited Agricultural Use (exact acreage mentioned), and non-consumptive use such as run-of-river hydroelectric projects (with one-time filling up of dead storage). So, what the PPIC is saying is that India should not build any more dams (which may need a one-time filling up and thus impounding of water however small it may be), and it should reduce its agricultural use and Indian Kashmiris should not use the Chenab waters. Kashmiris should take note of all these three restrictions that Pakistan wants to impose. This is what a country that day-in and day-out shouts from roof-tops that it stands-by the suffering Kashmiris on the Indian side.

Now, the IWT does not specify what quantum of water must flow down to Pakistan on these western rivers. It simply allocates the entire Western rivers to Pakistan and the entire Eastern rivers to India, subject to some provisions and rights for each other.

Pakistan should introspect why its water availability has come down from 5300 Cu. m per person annually in 1951 to less than 1000 Cu. m. today. There is no five-times reduction in the water flow of these rivers during this period.

He is then asking for a change to the IWT that would introduce a pro-rata definition. India cannot be held accountable for the follies of Pakistan. The treaty is unfair in the sense that it fixed the acreage for India while there was no such fixation for Pakistan. Pakistan had rapidly and disproportionately expanded its agriculture use due to its unchecked explosion of population. It must have employed prudent policies in plant, water and population management which it failed to do.
Similarly, Shah said, India should play its role in curbing deforestation in catchments area of Jhelum and Chenab rivers because it directly linked with fluctuations in river flows. “We want India to have effective watershed management in the area as it is indispensable for sustained flows of rivers,” he observed.
All that I could find was this:
(6) Each Party will use its best endeavours to maintain the natural channels of the Rivers, as on the Effective Date, in such condition as will avoid, as far as practicable, any obstruction to the flow in these channels likely to cause material damage to the other Party.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by manjgu »

SSridhar,

a) I think you meant from 5000 in 1947 and not 1847 ?
b) What was per capita availability on date of start of IWT vs less than 1000 today?
c) I think 5000 is a bit misleading since initially India did not have ability to tap into its rights of the eastern river.
d) Do you have full text of the IWT ? if yes, can u share it.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by manjgu »

SSridahr..... i am pasting one of your old posts

..."For that we have to go back to the conditions prevailing at the negotiation time and the mindset. The initial Indian claim itself was 29 MAF, which it later revised to claim the entire waters of Ravi, Beas & Sutlej plus 7% of waters from the Jhelum, Chenab. The final conclusion of the treaty was closer to the India demands. The terminology of 'Western' and 'Eastern' rivers was introduced to make it easy to refer to these rivers.

In fact, the World Bank which was mediating the Treaty wanted an integrated management of all the Indus rivers and their basins, but it was impossible. "......
Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1341
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Nihat »

besides , a large part of the argument is based on the "spirit" of the treaty and it's just ridiculous to think that India is morally obliged to give more water to TSP, it's not like we are overflowing with fresh water is it.

The Pakis know that any arbritration demanded on the basis of spirit of the treaty will hold no water and so there is no option left for them other than to lower their rhetoric in due course of time.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

manjgu wrote:a) I think you meant from 5000 in 1947 and not 1847 ?
Yes, that was my typo, since corrected. In fact, the exact figure was 5300 Cu. M. in circa 1951.

As for IWT, you can get it through a Google search.
milindc
BRFite
Posts: 761
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by milindc »

Earlier, speaking on the occasion, former Punjab Minister for Irrigation Sardar Arif Rasheed, irrigation expert Eng Mazhar Ali, former LCCI Senior Vice President Suhail Lashari, Eng M Khurshid, Ashraf Ejaz Gill and PPP local leader Mian Tariq Aziz said water shortage was a serious issue for a country like Pakistan. They said water resources of the country were not being fully utilized as huge quantity of water was going downstream Kotri into sea. They observed that water was also being polluted unabated. They stressed the need to build dams for storing surplus water. They said steps should be taken on priority basis to address shortage of water in Chenab River. They said continuation of democratic system in the country was a must for development of water sector projects.
neeraj
BRFite
Posts: 380
Joined: 12 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: UK

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by neeraj »

Steps urged to counter Indian designs on Chenab
LAHORE: Pakistan should build Mangla-Marala link canal on a priority basis to counter Indian designs on Chenab and strengthen its line of defence vis-à-vis India, Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said here on Wednesday.

It was important to pre-empt that situation even if it was a mere possibility, he said. “The implementation of the Indus Basin Water Treaty is being monitored to safeguard interests of Pakistan. But there is no harm in taking parallel steps to minimise the possible negative impact.” -in short Syed Jamaat Ali Shah knows that Pakistan has no case and hence the parallel steps

He said the government would constitute a think tank to create a pool of experts so that the treaty could be kept on track and ensure its implementation in letter and spirit. - focus is on spirit which holds no water legally

It would also allow Pakistan to take up treaty issues with India effectively, he added.

Mr Shah dispelled an impression that Pakistan was wasting its water and said the country had “unutilised water” :roll: for which dams were being built.

The water commissioner called for judicious distribution of water among the provinces - this is the real issue, besides revamping the irrigation system to ensure optimum use of available water. He said new technologies were the need of the hour because they could help reduce water demand up to 15 million acres feet.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

I dont mean to dilute the seriousness of the thread or issue but Jamat Ali must be told and he should tell his Hukumrans and we should let pak Lurkers know that so called "spirit" of the treatry is a Non State Actor as State dont have the Spirit but people do and unless Paki Mango Abdul learn right kind of spirit to live in awe of mango Indian he or she should keep the mouth shut and dont expect any favour from us enemy Indians .
Last edited by Prem on 11 Mar 2010 23:50, edited 1 time in total.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

No Prem, as far as IWT is concerned India is no enemy of pk. It has taken all steps consistent with the letter and spirit of the treaty.In fact, it has not fully utilised its allocated quota of water from western rivers. It has not made any storage reservoir on Indus as per treaty, only run of the river hydro projects. India has provided hydrological data to pk in a timely fashion and data did not yield any support to imaginative noises of ill-informed idiots from pk.

What pk is talking about are factors other than those covered under the treaty. The treaty is functional and not political treaty. It talks about engineering best practices as prevalent or modern best practices in hydro engineering for Indus basin management. PIC can decide any questions that may arise within IWT. If difference of opinion is persisting then then it has to be dealt with by NE. Disputes go to Arbitration court. pk has never had any case against India and that is why it had to accept NE award on Baghlihar which made some minor design changes. In fact, pk argument also did not question the dam itself but design aspect and its negative impact on pk . And pk choose not to go to arbitration as yet.

pk should thank its stars that there is IWT else they would have been dried out within 20 years and wiped out in 25 years if gone to war on water then.

So Indians can proudly say that we have acted in best neighborly interest and all matters should be resolved within IWT . of course pk is free to abrogate the treaty if they want. There can be no pro-rata allocation of waters as rivers are divided in a manner for best management.Neither terror or international opinion nor opinion of people of pk matter or even that of indian people unless working of treaty is proved to be flawed from engineering point of view. So engineers would have to decide and not any politician.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

Chaanakya
Paki dont understand the polite language. In Baghliar case, there was a news that Paki did not know how to interpret the technical data provided by India .
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

PPIC interview looking beyond IWT
Q. India says the Kishenganga project does not violate the Indus Waters Treaty. What is Pakistan’s position?
A.One, it reduces our annual energy generation. Two, the Kishenganga project also has an environmental impact because the depth of the water is reduced and this has an impact on the flora and fauna in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through which the Neelum flows. Three, there are technical problems in the design of the Kishenganga project such as the height of the gates and so on.
Reduction in energy generation is notional as pk project on Neelam-Jhelum is not yet online.
Any Dam project would have some environmental impact but they are still built. If they are so conerned this argument should be applied to all dams built in pk first especially Neelam-Jhelum for which contract is awarded now only to chinese.
Technical problems can be dealt by both PIC or by NE . It is not a dispute but difference to be sorted out on best practices as in Baglihar.
Q. But India contends that that it started its Kishenganga project earlier than Pakistan’s Neelum-Jhelum project. According to the Indus Water Treaty, India may construct a power plant on the rivers given to Pakistan provided it does not interfere with existing hydro-electric use by Pakistan. Is this true?
Yes. But the Jhelum waters were given to Pakistan. And going by the spirit of the treaty, while the waters are Pakistan’s to use, both countries can accrue benefits. When India made its plans known to Pakistan, that did not mean Pakistan did not have the intention [of constructing a plant]. In 1989, we told India that we are constructing a project there. India wanted to inspect the site. At the time, it was only a small exploration tunnel. Now the intention has been shown, with the Chinese being given the project. So we have a legal case.


while the total quantity of water has not been changed, there are no guarantees that India will not store or divert water into the Wullar barrage.


PPIC concedes the point but says in 1989 they told India of their intentions. He also says water quantity bs not changes so bogey of reduced flow is punctured by PPIC himself. Then he says he has a case.

see this
Q. Where are talks between India and Pakistan on the Kishenganga project now?

A. In 1988, we came to know about Kishenganga and we asked for details. We were told that India was just conducting investigations. India is obliged by the treaty only to give detailed plans six months prior to construction.

So India had told of its intentions to build dam a full year earlier. Where does this claim of first intention by pk stand. drowned in neelum.

Q. Will Pakistan be taking up other Indian projects with the World Bank?

A. As I said, India is planning two more power projects on the River Indus. But those of concern are the ones on the Chenab because we don’t have any storage site there. So the Chenab is more vulnerable. After constructing three, including Baglihar, India intends to construct 10 to 12 more dams on the Chenab and its tributaries.


Certainly, the treaty gives India the right, but the designs should be compliant. Already, India constructed the Wullar barrage unilaterally without informing Pakistan.


Well now we have notified at least 17 dams incliding Baghlihar . Intentions are clear and present so only questions of designs or difference in designs should be discussed as and when it arises. PPIC clearly says India has rights as per IWT, so on 11.3.2010 he talks of pre-emptive actions and to look beyond IWT.
It was important to pre-empt that situation even if it was a mere possibility, he said. “The implementation of the Indus Basin Water Treaty is being monitored to safeguard interests of Pakistan. But there is no harm in taking parallel steps to minimise the possible negative impact.”
if Pauper pk has money do take pre-emptive actions under IWT.India does not intend to stop pk.

Q. It is said that the Baglihar dam issue was settled by the World Bank in India’s favour because Pakistan did not raise the objections in time. Do you agree with that?

So the fact that a neutral expert was appointed was a small victory. The expert asked for documentation from us, which we provided. India believed that Pakistan was maligning them, but the fact is that the neutral expert settled three points in favour of Pakistan and one in India’s favour. And both parties bore the cost of the proceedings.


well there were six determinations on Baglihar :-
(i) maximum design flood, NE agreed by Indian values which is higher 16500m3/s against pk 14900 m3/s

(ii) spillway, ungated or gated, Agreed with India for gated spillway.

(iii) spillway, level of the gates,Agreed with Indian design but for reduced the outlets 8 mts lower for upstream flood protection.PK wanted it higher. India had stated that it has designed for highest outlet level.NE decided in view of latest design practices not as per those prevailing while signing IWT.
So this goes in India's favour.

(iv) artificial raising of the water level,
844.5 m above sea level (asl), to dam crest elevation of 843.0 m asl. Great victory to pk amen. They should be happy.

(v) pondage, NE fixed his own pondage value at slightly lower value than those suggested by India and pk.

(vi) level of the power intake NE agreed with pk's estimate and lowered power intake to 821 m asl. , 3 mts higher. Again great victory for pk.

oh btw Dam stands in full glory for India. thanks to great victories earned by pk.

Q. What impact has the construction of Indian power projects had on Pakistan’s waters? We are, after all, facing shortages for agricultural use and electricity generation.

A. Apart from the Baglihar dam,neither Pakistan nor India has had problems with the Indus Water Treaty.( so why they are crying ) But looking to the future, I foresee problems, especially given climate changes. India has already constructed 50-60, medium-sized projects and it plans more than a hundred. One hundred and fifty will be in the small catchment areas in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This is human intervention: imagine how many trees will be cut, and the resulting environmental impact? They will also impact Pakistan’s water, given the environmental degradation and increased sediment flow.

I think we will now have to look beyond the treaty for solutions. India is allowed run-off hydro-electric projects according to the treaty, but two or three is different from more than a hundred. ( look they want more)
)

All dams are human interventions. So what he is talking about. He feels that 150 is too much for India. SO pk would now decide what is too much for India, and his tears for trees and climate change.

when there is no problem why he sees ghost in future.

Q. Do you think it is time to expand the scope of the treaty?

A. There are some issues with that. Right now, we need to protect and implement the treaty in its full spirit without re-visiting it. But both governments should initiate talks along with expert stakeholders.


So he develops cold feet, Without IWT umbrella pk has no option but to fight and perish.

Q. Would this be in India’s interest?
A. Yes, because we are neighbours. The Indus Water Treaty was not a happy marriage but we accepted it. But Pakistan should take action at the appropriate time: what happens to the state of Bahawalpur where the rivers Sutlej and Ravi are dry?


He answers this in another seminar.

Mr Shah dispelled an impression that Pakistan was wasting its water and said the country had “unutilised water” ( another word for wasted) for which dams were being built.

The water commissioner called for judicious distribution of water among the provinces, besides revamping the irrigation system to ensure optimum use of available water. He said new technologies were a need of the hour because they could help reduce water demand up to 15 million acres feet.
[/quote]

So they have problem at home, looking for solutions abroad. So we are neighbours and pk can make our life hell ( as if they have left any stone unturned.) therefore we should think beyond IWT because pk is unable to manage its waters.

Well it is obvious that India is in full compliance with IWT ( as per PPIC) and has taken actions consistent with IWT. Pk has unutilised waters and Indus river had no water problems. They are not making judicious use of available water and not doing fair appropriations among provinces. They conveniently forget J&K and POK.

PPIC himself shoots in his foot. if this is the standard of PK's eminent engineer then even allah would not save that wretched country.
,
Last edited by chaanakya on 12 Mar 2010 01:21, edited 1 time in total.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7902
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Anujan »

SSridhar wrote:Pakistan is getting more water than it is entitled to: Indian Home Secretary
Dismissing demands by some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that Delhi provide more water to Pakistan, Indian Home Secretary GK Pillai on Wednesday said Pakistan was getting more water than it was entitled to under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).
Were these Indian or Paki NGO? If Indian NGOs, then why dont their hearts bleed for Indian farmers?
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11240
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

Pakistan's Neelum - Jhelum Project.

The plan is to construct a dam at Nauseri on the Neelum / Kishenganga close to the LOC and build a 32.5 Km long tunnel, to divert the water to the Jhelum via a powerhouse that will produce 969 MW of electricity. The treaty allows the country which builds a dam on the Neelum / Kishenganga first to keep the water. In any case, India's Kishenganga tunnel is nearly ready. A chinese company was building the tunnel for the pakistani project recently. Pakistan has been showing Indian inspectors a rudimentary tunnel with no work going on since 1989. Now that India's project is nearly ready, pakistan has just woken up to reality. Because pakistan was showing India the rudimentary tunnel all these years, India delayed its project for 18 year.
Image
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Vikas »

Sridhar,
I can understand the reason why Pakistan signed IWT as they had no other option. What I fail to understand is why did India go out of the way to sign IWT. Pakis got 3 rivers for themselves (inspite of crying hoarse over unjust treaty and how they were duped and how they should nuke India) but what on earth did India achieve by giving away water of these 3 rivers to Pakistan under IWT.
Was it just WKK state of Indian mind at that time or did India get something in return for this deal,
Moreover why suddenly IWT is being touted as future root of all troubles between India and TSP. What has changed suddenly that not Kashmir but IWT has become jugular vein for mango Paki , terrorist Paki and Rape Paki.
krithivas
BRFite
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Offline

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by krithivas »

Pakistan externalized an internal problem - Balochistan.
Pakistan is externalizing yet another internal problem - Water mismanagement.

The exploitative priveleged feudal ruling class of Pakistan (2% of population) is re-directing the rising popular resentment on to India.

The RAPEs want it all, want it all now, want it all for themselves, and it always someone else's fault.

Veruka Salt pales in comparison.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

Was it just WKK state of Indian mind at that time or did India get something in return for this deal,
Moreover why suddenly IWT is being touted as future root of all troubles between India and TSP. What has changed suddenly that not Kashmir but IWT has become jugular vein for mango Paki , terrorist Paki and Rape Paki
I have suspicion that IWT has to replace Kashmir issue for Pakcquie to get out of the monkey trap by keeping H&D intact. Guess, Uncle must have thrown AFghanistan as extra. In few months , out of 3.5 massa, 2.5 will tell Pacqui to sign on being good bacchas in front of Indian Daddu. WKKs, RAPEs, APEs and PS crowd go gaga and Nehruvian MMS get Nobel.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11240
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

Externalizing an internal problem is part of pakistan's history of strategic blunders brilliance, that they have grown so adept in the past.
Prem wrote:I have suspicion that IWT has to replace Kashmir issue for Pakcquie to get out of the monkey trap by keeping H&D intact. Guess, Uncle must have thrown AFghanistan as extra. In few months , out of 3.5 massa, 2.5 will tell Pacqui to sign on being good bacchas in front of Indian Daddu. WKKs, RAPEs, APEs and PS crowd go gaga and Nehruvian MMS get Nobel.
Interesting thought indeed.

Already there are voices in pakistan saying:
1. The real issue has always been that of water. All the river heads are located in kashmir, blah blah, but we still stand for supporting whatever wishes the kashmiris have.
2. People like Najam Sethi are now openly saying that the kashmiris don't want to be part of Pakistan.

It is possible that grounds are being prepared for making the issue of water the new core issue. But the end result is still going to be that of using that as a bogey to raise passions within for the next gen of pakis against the evil yindoos of India.

What we are witnessing in pakistan is once again a white lie being created by over simplifying complex issues, and giving it wide coverage until it becomes the truth. This over simplifying issues for the illiterate abdul has precedence - remember the two nation theory? Homeland for the muslims etc. Whereas the truth is that the first thing that Jinnah says when he reaches pakistan is that he wants a secular nation there. :roll:
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Hunza landslide struggles continue with no real action
The debris, as a result of landslides, obstructed the flow of River Hunza and formed an artificial lake whose level is rising by the minute. The length of the barrier is 3,000 meters, width 550 meters, and height 135 meters. The artificial lake is around 11 km long. The reservoir is 171 million cubic meters.
In Gojal, the water level, as a result of melting of glaciers, rises after mid-March. This could further aggravate the crisis.
Incredibly it was caught on camera!!
Image

Here's a picture of the dam!! looks like clay and silt. not the best materials!
Image

Just give you an idea this is more water than the entire Baglihar dam at peak level.

Soon the rains will be here and an almost certain dam burst will occur.

Quick reference on google earth shows that a 11 km lake means a depth of 200 feet so far.

If the dam can hold 500 feet of water the lake will extend a good 50 km back. holding well over 4-5 MAF at maximum, assuming some sort of spillway is cut down into it.
Water level is rising at 2 feet a day right now.

Wonder if Tarbela will hold.

There are records of floods in the mid 1800's the showed floods of well over 8 million cusecs.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

VikasRaina wrote:I can understand the reason why Pakistan signed IWT as they had no other option. What I fail to understand is why did India go out of the way to sign IWT. Pakis got 3 rivers for themselves (inspite of crying hoarse over unjust treaty and how they were duped and how they should nuke India) but what on earth did India achieve by giving away water of these 3 rivers to Pakistan under IWT.
Was it just WKK state of Indian mind at that time or did India get something in return for this deal,
My reading of what led to India signing the IWT is like this:

At the time of the Partition, India was faced with three challenges in the East Punjab area and its immediate neighbourhood. One was that a large influx of hard-working Punjabis had moved into that area and they needed to be gainfully employed. Luckily for India, these were the same people who had developed the canal colonies of West Punjab and the Sind. All that they needed was water. Secondly, most of that area was what was known during the British period as 'Crown Waste Land' and had under-developed or even no irrigation facilities and so irrigation facilities needed to be built up rather quickly. Thirdly, India had suddenly lost a huge and fertile bread-basket to Pakistan and this needed to be compensated for.

Now, some facts. Forty six million people were living in the Indus basin prior to Partition; 21 million in the part that came to independent India and 25 million in the area that went to Pakistan. The culturable, irrigable land in the basin was 65 million acres, of which 26 million acres remained in India and 39 million acres went to Pakistan. Out of the 28 million acres under irrigation at the time of Partition, only 5 million acres were left in India. In other words, of the 26 million acres of cultivable land of the basin that came to India, only 5 million acres (that is less than one-fifth) were irrigated land. These 28 million acres of irrigated land were using some 75 MAF of the Indus system waters, of which as of 1947, about 66 MAF were used in Pakistan canals and 9 MAF in the Indian canals. {These are taken from a book by Shri R. Rangachari on the Bhakra Nangal project.}

Now, if we look at the Indian demand at the IWT time, we demanded all the flows of the Eastern Rivers plus 7% of the Western Rivers which would have met the irrigation needs of the 26 million acres on the Indian side. As early as 1948, India had earnestly started to plan the massive Bhakra project on the Sutlej in the then Princely State of Bisalspur. Similarly, the Harike headworks, again on the Sutlej, was needed to be built near Ferozepur on the Indo-Pak border. India was thus concentrating on the so-called 'Eastern' rivers. On the other hand, the 'Western' rivers were more difficult to harness in J&K and cultivable lands were also practically non-existent.

It is my conclusion that the foremost thought in the minds of the GoI at that time was perhaps developing irrigation for the remaining 21 million acres of un-irrigated land that was left with India after Partition and to protect the water supply for the existing 5 million acres. So, Indian demand was only to meet this requirement (plus a little more) and perhaps nobody thought of carting these waters over long distances to other parched lands. It was either thought infeasible technically or uneconomical or such a thought never crossed their minds at that time.
VikasRaina wrote:Moreover why suddenly IWT is being touted as future root of all troubles between India and TSP. What has changed suddenly that not Kashmir but IWT has become jugular vein for mango Paki , terrorist Paki and Rape Paki.
IMO, there are multiple winners in such a stand by Pakistan now. At least that is what it believes in. The Kashmir situation is reaching a 'solution' stage because of the pressure from the US and some Western countries. There have been enough indications to that, from Musharraf, from Kasuri (ex FM of TSP) and some other Indian leaders as well. That will deprive Pakistan, or at least blunt it, of one stick to beat India with. It needs something else as potent as 'territory' to maintain the unrelenting hostility with the kafir. 'Water' is a fabulous alternative. May be even more capable of raising the hatred for India among the Pakistanis than purely territory. It will also fudge the very threatening and explosive water issues within Pakistan itself. Since the 1960s, when IWT was signed, India has been rather meek in dealing with Pakistan, especially on water issues. We went beyond the dictates of IWT to please Pakistan. This is what Pakistan is currently referring to as 'the spirit of the Treaty'. We conceded to Pakistani demands and either designed waterworks that allayed their fears and disadvantaged India or even gave up very beneficial projects. India's new-found assertive attitude (dictated by compulsions) as far as building hydroelectric projects on these rivers, especially after the vindication of its technical stand in Baglihar, has therefore come very handy for Pakistan to sow seeds of suspicion in the minds of Pakistanis. By constantly accusing India and putting her on the defensive, Pakistan also hopes to derive diplomatic advantage. It also plays to the Pakistani galleries and gives a handle to the jihadists to attack India, which cannot be faulted with as water is the lifeline.
Post Reply