What's new

India's Water War against Pakistan/ ISPR Pakistan

Is Ahmad Qureshi your relative? or do you have shares in 'Hilal'?

About cristy, i can only sympathise with you.... she is known to be racist towards Indians. :whistle:

Is Ahmad Quraishi from your family? :whistle:
I do not buy shares in 'Rags' or 'Tabloids'.
And your dear Christy Baby (of middlesex) has 'tattas' or "low hanging fruits", now how about that? :azn:
 
This 20% and 80% fact is claimed by your Indians, not by me.
So war is never a option, but you did provoke to get a "war"-answer, neither I did say that Pakistan or me will start a war, but we are prepared for a war like every state "to protect our interests" !

ok ...then tell me about iwt what does it say?
 
ok ...then tell me about iwt what does it say?

Did I claim anything ? Did I say the Information in the article are right or wrong ? NO


Is Ahmad Quraishi from your family? :whistle:
I do not buy shares in 'Rags' or 'Tabloids'.
And your dear Christy Baby (of middlesex) has 'tattas' or "low hanging fruits", now how about that? :azn:

Comments like this show the low moral of our indian GUESTS in this PAKISTANI forum.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why the indians stay/post not only in their own indian forum bharatrakshak.com when the Pakistanis are so bad.......
 
Did I claim anything ? Did I say the Information in the article are right or wrong ? NO




Comments like this show the low moral of our indian GUESTS in this PAKISTANI forum.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why the indians stay/post not only in their own indian forum bharatrakshak.com when the Pakistanis are so bad.......

Ulla bro your first unedited comment was much more better than this :coffee:
 
Our BC politicans dont care about water shortage! They just wanna fight on silly issues when building dams!



In 1960's because of Indus treaty you guys were given western rivers and were denied access to eastern river systems. You guys have built only two major reservoirs Mangla and Tarbela on western rivers. But these reserviors have decreased storage capacity because of silting and other factors like inadequate rainfall and droughts. This only compounded your water problems.

Pakistan is rapidly moving from water stressed to water scarce country. In Pakistan your per capita water availability has decreased from 5600 cu mts per head during 1950s to 1000 cu mts presently.

As our population grows this water availability becomes even more acute. We are all water stressed countries in south asia and our countries are heading for a major disaster. Our governments are aware of the gravity of the situation but are not willing to address and encourage water conservation techniques.
 
This is the ugly reality of IWT

Indus largesse backfires on India
Posted on April 12, 2013

Brahma Chellaney, India Today, April 22, 2013
Indus system rivers

The six Indus-system rivers flowing from India to Pakistan, with the main rivers (the upper three) reserved for Pakistan’s use.

The Indus treaty represents the most generous water-sharing agreement in modern world history, reserving for Pakistan 80.52 percent of the waters, or 167.2 billion cubic meters annually. No other water pact in the world comes anywhere close to this level of upper-riparian munificence. In fact, the Indus treaty uniquely allocates entire rivers by drawing a north-south partition line to gift Pakistan the upper three Indus-system rivers, confining India’s full sovereignty rights to the much-smaller three rivers to the south.

Yet this 1960 treaty imposes more fetters on the upper-riparian state than any other water pact in the world. An elaborate series of India-specific curbs obviate any Indian control over the timing or quantum of the transboundary flows of the Pakistan-earmarked rivers — the Chenab and the Jhelum (which boast the largest cross-border discharge) and the main Indus stream. Indeed, the treaty remains the only interstate water agreement in the world embodying the doctrine of restricted sovereignty, whichseeks to compel an upriver state to defer to the interests of a downstream state.

Pakistan, despite securing a matchless water-sharing arrangement, has repaid India’s water largesse with blood by sponsoring acts of grisly terrorism there. This treaty of indefinite duration may stand out as a major folly bequeathed to future Indian generations by the Nehruvian era, yet no Indian government has ever sought to link water flows with an end to terrorism. However, the same question must haunt the Pakistani generals as Lady Macbeth in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?”

Unfortunately for India, its already-limited sovereignty over the upper rivers is now being further crimped by a sweeping new principle defined for all future projects by the recent international arbitration award on the small Kishenganga project. This is a big price India is being made to pay for embarking on the long-delayed, 330-megawatt Kishenganga project, whose design and size, paradoxically, were changed and scaled down in 2006 in response to Pakistani objections.

The treaty permits India to build only run-of-river plants — a type that generates hydropower without a reservoir by using a river’s natural flow velocity and elevation drop.Because of very limited water storage, such plants experience fluctuations in power output due to seasonal flow changes, making them less cost-effective than the larger, storage-centred plants.
Clipboard01

Pakistan has repaid India’s water largesse with blood by sponsoring acts of terrorism.

The arbitration award represents a triumph of Pakistan’s efforts to reinterpret the treaty’s terms more narrowly so as to remove whatever leeway India may have and make the Indus regime even more lopsided. The recent award imposes a new condition on spillway configuration that would seriously undermine the run-of-river plants’ commercial viability by potentially allowing them to silt up, as happened with India’s Salal plant in the 1980s due to design changes carried out at Pakistan’s insistence. By precluding effective silt control through drawdown sluicing and flushing, the award flies in the face of the common international practice to build gated spillways.

Indeed, the arbiters have attempted to override — without any legal power — an international neutral expert’s 2007 decision in the earlier Baglihar case that such spillway outlets were consistent with the treaty’s provisions. The spillway matter is a technical issue and, as per the terms of the treaty, it must decided by a neutral expert, not by an arbitration panel. Yet, overruling India’s objection, the arbiters chose to wilfully encroach onto the technical turf.

International arbitration — with the arbiters and high-priced lawyers collecting millions of dollars in fees from the parties — often functions on the lowest common denominator. In the Kishenganga case, the panel, while upholding the legality of the Indian project, has tilted in Pakistan’s favour on the key design issue. And in an effort to further milk the two parties, the arbiters have extended the lengthy proceedings since 2010 to at least until this year-end, when they “hope” to give their “final award” on another issue that they have contrived — the minimum flow of water India would be required to release for Pakistan in the Kishenganga stream.

Fixing a minimum flow rate will go beyond the terms of the treaty and tie India’s hands, even if climate change or hydrological factors were to affect the stability and predictability of the Kishenganga flow.

Pakistan’s motive is clear: to deny the limited benefits the treaty grants Jammu and Kashmir by objecting and seeking to stall the modest-size projects that New Delhi has belatedly sought to initiate there to allay popular resentment over crippling power shortages. This motive springs from the Pakistani military’s continuing strategy to foment discontent and violence there. The arbiters have unwittingly played into Pakistan’s hands by going beyond the Indus treaty’s provisions on a crucial issue and thereby seeking to effectively arm Islamabad with a veto on any Indian project’s viability.

India must blame itself for reaping the bitter fruits of a remarkable lack of strategy. It concluded the treaty, as its chief negotiator admitted, without any long-term assessment. Despite a widening demand-supply water gap in its own Indus basin, India has yet to exercise some key treaty-sanctioned rights (such as on storage) but allowed Pakistan to drag it before international proceedings. How much longer can a parched but generous India remain visionless?

Brahma Chellaney is the author of the award-winning book, Water: Asia’s New Battleground.

Indus largesse backfires on India | Stagecraft and Statecraft
 
Just the other day I made a clarification about this incidence, but since I challenged the infinite wisdom of a mod, he felt it would be wise to close the thread down.

Anyway, here it is again.

Below is the speech by Mrs Vijay Laxmi Pandit, at the UN:

Mr. Zafarulla Khan has once again raised the question of canal waters. What are the facts? There were sixteen canal systems in the undivided Punjab; after partition, as many as twelve belong to Pakistan and only three to India, while the remaining one is divided between the two countries. Eleven million acres of the Pakistan side are canal irrigated as against only 3 million on the Indian side. West Punjab is a highly developed surplus food area while East Punjab is dry and parched and liable to famine. In December 1947, a standstill agreement for the continuance of the supply of water to Pakistan canals was signed by the Chief Engineers of East and West Punjab, which was to continue until 31st March 1948. But despite reminders, the Pakistan authorities took no steps whatsoever to enter into a fresh agreement. In consequence, with the termination of the agreement, through no fault of the Indian irrigation authorities, the supply of water to the Pakistan canals became automatically terminated. As soon as this became known, the Prime Minister of India intervened and a fresh agreement was executed and the supply of water resumed on 4th May 1948. The water resources of the entire Indus basin were developed as a single unit prior to the partition. Since the partition of India the position is that out of the 45% of the waters of the basin which are utilized for irrigation purposes, Pakistan received 40% while India received 5%. The rest of the waters of the basin, that is about 55%, flows into the sea. To avoid the wastage and to utilize more of the water supply, talks are in progress to see if some arrangement can be worked out to the mutual benefit of both countries and the millions of agriculturists by a greater utilization of the waters of the Indus and its tributaries.

UN meeting #610; 23, Dec, 1952; para 26​
 
India's Water War against Pakistan

Welcome to ISPR

Ahmed Quraishi

India resorted to using water as a weapon of war against Pakistan in the very first few months after our independence. Choking Pakistani water was one of the first weapons used by India against a weak, newly-born Pakistani state. It is part of a long list of 'firsts' that India introduced into its relationship with Pakistan. Some of these 'firsts' include the use of non-state actors [started in 1950 by India through lawless Afghan regions to stoke separatism in western Pakistani provinces] and nuclear weapons [1974 nuclear detonations]. In another first, India launched an unprovoked invasion across international borders in 1965 & 71 to seize territory. It was later followed by the occupation of Siachen during 1984. These days, India is busy introducing nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers in Pakistani seas.

In short India has left no stone unturned to transform a simple international dispute with a neighbour over Kashmir into a multifaceted conflict and a running blood feud.



The Indian water war tops this list of 'firsts' against Pakistan. Most analysts are not aware of what Indian officials did at the highest levels of government more than half a century ago to ensure that a new Pakistani state dies of thirst. The details of this early Indian water warfare show the pettiness and insecurity of the early Indian leadership vis-a-vis a country that posed no strategic threat at any level. It also discredits the theories of many diplomats and experts today who contend that Pakistan exaggerates Indian theft of Pakistani waters. And since this is a technical issue, it is easy for India to feign innocence and get away with one of the worst examples of how a large country can cause so much misery across a region in pursuit of its hegemonic and aggressive intentions against a smaller neighbour.

Before expanding on how India started a water war with Pakistan, it is important to quickly recall the root cause of this Indian aggression against Pakistan.

Two things have always been at the core of India's policy on Pakistan. The first is the need to wane Pakistan off of Kashmir. And the second is to reclaim Pakistani territory as part of a mythical Greater India.

In August 1947, when both Pakistan and India gained independence from British occupation, India took control of the bulk of the infrastructural, educational, and agricultural developments that the British administration left behind. Very little of this infrastructure came into Pakistani control. This included the irrigation system.

Agriculture in Pakistan was concentrated in Sindh and Punjab provinces. By early 1948, merely four months after Pakistan's independence, India "choked" the water that irrigated two Pakistani provinces by closing the canals that originated in the Indian Punjab state. This 'choking' of water was aimed at bringing the Pakistani state to its knees. The Indian water closure continued through May 1948. The Pakistani foreign minister negotiated with the Indian Prime Minister Nehru to reopen the flow of the canal system.

Nehru grudgingly agreed to this but with the condition that the reopening of the canal system to irrigate Pakistani provinces of Sindh and Punjab would continue only for four months, following which Pakistan will have to find alternative sources for water. That, of course, was near impossibility for a new state. Nehru and the Indian leadership knew this.

There hardly could be a better example of the early Indian loathing and animosity toward Pakistan. The elite in New Delhi was eager to see a nascent Pakistan collapse. This Indian animosity and pettiness toward Pakistan is at the core of the tensions in South Asia. Indian officials today attribute the tensions to Pakistani mischief but that is not correct.

In May 1948, Nehru and India reopened the water flow only after senior Pakistani officials flew to New Delhi to sign the Inter-Dominion Agreement on the Canal Water Dispute.

Much more details of what happened can be found in a book released this year by the Oxford University Press Pakistan, authored by a former senior Asian Development Bank official, Saiyid Ali Naqvi. The book was reviewed on Aug 1 by Pakistani journalist Khaled Ahmed for Newsweek Pakistan. ['Is India Stealing Pakistan's Water?']

While Ahmed chose to regurgitate the usual line that Pakistan exaggerates Indian water warfare, the details he quotes from Naqvi's book serve to strengthen Pakistan's arguments.

On the Inter-Dominion Agreement, Ahmed writes, "Through this agreement, India made clear its intent to use all of the water of the rivers in question; the agreement merely allowed Pakistan time to find alternative sources to replace the lost water.To make matters worse for Pakistan, its West Punjab government was notified by India's East Punjab government that this agreement would be discontinued on Sept. 4, 1948. Pakistan's foreign minister appealed to the Indian prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, to continue water supplies to West Punjab and to the Sindh irrigation systems until the two governments could reach a final agreement. Nehru responded that supplies would be continued temporarily, and with no commitment for the future."

Then came the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960, brokered by the World Bank, that granted India the right of fair use of Kashmiri rivers flowing into Pakistan.

But far from a policy of fair use, India is dotting the Kashmiri landscape with large and small dams that exceed its need and requirement. This massive dam buildup ignores the fact that it is happening on a disputed territory that remains on the UN Security Council agenda awaiting resolution. The Indian dam buildup is like creating a large valve that can be turned off any time to punish Pakistan, or to thirst it to death or surrender.

What makes things more dangerous is the fact that Kashmiri resistance groups fighting Indian occupation resent this Indian control over Kashmiri waters. The possibility exists that some faction of armed Kashmiri resistance [freedom fighters] might attack or destroy Indian dams. Since India may not be able to identify or arrest the Kashmiri fighters, New Delhi can make Pakistan an easy scapegoat and ignite a war. A major Indian water project in occupied Kashmir, the Wullar Barrage Project was attacked twice by Kashmiri resistance fighters. On Aug. 27, 2012, a group of Kashmiris attacked the project site, threatened the Indian contractors, and damaged the construction work on the site. The Indian Express newspaper quoted eyewitnesses saying the attackers were 'Kashmiri-speaking.' This was the second attack on this mega project. In January 2012, Kashmiri fighters raided the Indian dam site and got away with important design documents.

The Indians are going far too ahead in manipulating the water sources of the region and are also involved in releasing water during floods in Pakistan. How far shall this war on water go, only time will decide but India is playing a dirty game, and may face consequences in the times to come.

(Courtesy Hilal Magazine)

_______________________________________


"only time will decide but India is playing a dirty game, and may face consequences in the times to come."

What consequences ? More Kargils and some ran of Kutch conflicts ?

Thing is simple, compel india to release water in some time decided by Gov of Pakistan.

If they not agree then include this clause in our Nuclear red Line. Then if they do any mischief then simply Nuke the **** out of them.
 
Thing is simple, compel india to release water in some time decided by Gov of Pakistan.

If they not agree then include this clause in our Nuclear red Line. Then if they do any mischief then simply Nuke the **** out of them.

Lol, wow.

Maybe India should stick cross border terrorism as a clause in it's 'nuclear red line'.
 
Thing is simple, compel india to release water in some time decided by Gov of Pakistan.

If they not agree then include this clause in our Nuclear red Line. Then if they do any mischief then simply Nuke the **** out of them.

Pakistan's red lines are getting pathetic by the day.
 
Thing is simple, compel india to release water in some time decided by Gov of Pakistan.

If they not agree then include this clause in our Nuclear red Line. Then if they do any mischief then simply Nuke the **** out of them.

Yes and wipe out Pakistan from the face of earth once for all and make a waste desert on Western India border which will act as deterrent to other terrors , neway pak has not contributed anything to human civilisation nor in business.
 
Our BC politicans dont care about water shortage! They just wanna fight on silly issues when building dams!

Whatever these politicians are doing, it shows they are incompetent but this does not mean that India can go on & close our water which is a clear violation. Why India is not able to do anything when there is military rule in Pakistan? At the time of Gen. Zia & Gen. Musharraf rule they were scared sh!t & shitting out their dippers but now because of the incompetent, corrupt & spineless politicians they are able to do hooliganism.

Only one man has dared to speak & fight against these sob politicians for Pakistan’s water & other rights, he is Sheikh Rasheed.
 
Yes and wipe out Pakistan from the face of earth once for all and make a waste desert on Western India border which will act as deterrent to other terrors , neway pak has not contributed anything to human civilisation nor in business.

They have made their contribution in science and technology i.e how to trigger a bomb through cell phone.
 
Just the other day I made a clarification about this incidence, but since I challenged the infinite wisdom of a mod, he felt it would be wise to close the thread down.

You can clarify as much as you want, they are not about to allow a trivial thing like the truth get in the way of a good story.
 
Paranoid pakistanis can only bark on internet forums. The ICJ has always dismissed their baseless claims. and yet they blame India for all their problems. They harbored terrorists in the 80's and when the same terrorists targeted you, you said it was Indian conspiracy.

Pakistan has always messed up its priorities. First utilize all the water you have and then think about problems India MAY create by their dams.

Indias water war against pak? Please tell me how many cubecs of water India has robbed you off. Why don't your govt release those stats? India has never used water as a bargaining tool after signing the IWT. It has always stood by it even during the wartime.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom