Pakistan And India-Water Disputes-News And Updates

[ajtr]

Pakistan’s unfinished business of Partition

India-Pakistan relations took another knock last month with Yusuf Gilani’s remark to US defence secretary Robert Gates that his government could not guarantee against another 26/11 attack on India. He argued that if Pakistan could not defend itself against routine terrorist attacks by non-state actors at home it could not prevent them striking India.
The argument wears thin because these non-state actors are Pakistan’s own creation and some of them continue to be patronised by sections of the establishment. On being banned some time ago, the LeT under Hafiz Saeed was renamed Jamat-ud Dawa (JuD), This has now under pressure morphed into yet another ‘charity’ in Lahore called Al Noor University Trust. These aliases do not change the nature of the beast. The statements of Headley and Rana, both non-resident Pakistanis, now under trial in Chicago, chart their movements and actions over the past several years in training, planning and reconnoitering the ground for the 26/11 Mumbai attack under the direction of Pakistani handlers. The trial of Lakhvi and eight other Pakistani LeT operatives in Rawalpindi for the 26/11 terror attack has also come up with clear evidence of their complicity.
Further evidence from the Headley-Rana interrogation points to LeT training a group of Indian-origin jihadis in Karachi for further terrorist strikes against India. Such adventures cannot be planned, let alone launched, without the support and connivance of the ISI. It is in these circumstances Gilani’s bland statement disavowing responsibility for any further 26/11 attacks on India must be seen. The failure to act against JuD and other jihadi elements that appear to be able to move freely in Pakistan is indefensible. Some Pakistani interlocutors privately admit that Hafiz Saeed is too popular and powerful a figure with such influential contacts in high places that none dare touch him for fear of a backlash.
Many in Pakistan are known to be deeply worried by the drift they see in their weak and divided structure of governance with several power centres in which non-state actors have a niche. There is no alternative to dialogue as stated by the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers at Sharm el-Sheikh last summer. The Indian position is that the Sharm el-Sheikh theorem was posited on Pakistan taking credible steps to dismantle its terror outfits and bring the guilty men of 26/11 to justice.
A hard pressed President Zardari, now very much on the back foot, told the J&K Council in Muzaffarabad a week into the new year that regional peace is linked to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. He referred to the state as Pakistan’s ‘jugular vein’, demanded ‘self-determination’ for it and promised to wage a ‘thousand year war’ for its ‘liberation’ — not through war (as his father-in-law Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto ranted) but through an ‘ideological war’ to complete what is often to this day described as ‘the unfinished business of Partition’. And what is that ideology other than the disastrous and discredited two-nation theory, which Jinnah in his moment of triumph sought to jettison before its logic destroyed his new state.
The reference to Jinnah follows several recent statements by Pakistanis recalling the Qaid-e-Azam’s stirring call to the new Pakistan constituent assembly on August 11, 1947 to divorce religion from affairs of state and treat it purely as a personal matter. Jinnah was ignored, even censored subsequently, and himself retracted five months later, calling for a constitution based on the Sharia that would ensure Pakistan’s future as a great Islamic state. This was the beginning of the radical Islamisation of and, now, talibanisation of Pakistan beginning with the expulsion of the Ahmediyas from the fold. The humanist Sufi Islam of what is now Pakistan was steadily replaced by the hardline Wahabi Islam imported from Saudi Arabia through madrasas that sprouted with Gulf oil money seeking the restoration of lost glory through jihad. Afghanistan became the cauldron from which emerged al-Qaeda and the Taliban to take revenge. Kashmir was over time sought to be portrayed by some as yet another symbol of the larger ‘cause’.
It is by such logic that J&K is a ‘dispute’ for some in the OIC and even in the west, which has long embraced Pakistan as a ‘front line state’ and bastion against the spread of communism and a useful ally in stabilising and protecting its west Asian oil empire. The lack of ‘self-determination’ in PAK and the Gilgit-Baltistan area and the deep discontent in Balochistan is well-known and was narrated in graphic detail by representatives from those areas at a seminar in Delhi last month.
Many other myths are repeated, as at that seminar and elsewhere, by even liberal elements from Pakistan. One is about India encircling Pakistan through its activities and consulates in Afghanistan. The other is that India is somehow stealing Pakistan’s share of waters under the ‘unjust’ Indus Treaty that was heavily loaded against Pakistan. This has become a constant refrain of late though the assertions (rather than arguments) made are by and large trivial, political and emotional. The hard fact is that India has yet to utilise fully its prescribed share of storage and irrigation from the three Western rivers in J&K and is also letting down water to Pakistan from the eastern rivers that have been exclusively allocated to it under the Indus Treaty.
Refusal (or delayed) visas to Pakistani publishers wishing to attend the Delhi book fair was another avoidable snub. People-to-people contact must be encouraged and Pakistanis invited for talks on matters like trade and other CBMs even pending the composite dialogue. Meanwhile, the internal dialogue in J&K that has been re-initiated cannot be allowed to flag and should be carried forward. While no one in J&K or Delhi must be allowed a veto, every effort must be made to educate all sections of opinion at home, countrywide, on the issues and stakes involved.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

Pakistan’s unfinished business of Partition

India-Pakistan relations took another knock last month with Yusuf Gilani’s remark to US defence secretary Robert Gates that his government could not guarantee against another 26/11 attack on India. He argued that if Pakistan could not defend itself against routine terrorist attacks by non-state actors at home it could not prevent them striking India.
The argument wears thin because these non-state actors are Pakistan’s own creation and some of them continue to be patronised by sections of the establishment. On being banned some time ago, the LeT under Hafiz Saeed was renamed Jamat-ud Dawa (JuD), This has now under pressure morphed into yet another ‘charity’ in Lahore called Al Noor University Trust. These aliases do not change the nature of the beast. The statements of Headley and Rana, both non-resident Pakistanis, now under trial in Chicago, chart their movements and actions over the past several years in training, planning and reconnoitering the ground for the 26/11 Mumbai attack under the direction of Pakistani handlers. The trial of Lakhvi and eight other Pakistani LeT operatives in Rawalpindi for the 26/11 terror attack has also come up with clear evidence of their complicity.
Further evidence from the Headley-Rana interrogation points to LeT training a group of Indian-origin jihadis in Karachi for further terrorist strikes against India. Such adventures cannot be planned, let alone launched, without the support and connivance of the ISI. It is in these circumstances Gilani’s bland statement disavowing responsibility for any further 26/11 attacks on India must be seen. The failure to act against JuD and other jihadi elements that appear to be able to move freely in Pakistan is indefensible. Some Pakistani interlocutors privately admit that Hafiz Saeed is too popular and powerful a figure with such influential contacts in high places that none dare touch him for fear of a backlash.
Many in Pakistan are known to be deeply worried by the drift they see in their weak and divided structure of governance with several power centres in which non-state actors have a niche. There is no alternative to dialogue as stated by the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers at Sharm el-Sheikh last summer. The Indian position is that the Sharm el-Sheikh theorem was posited on Pakistan taking credible steps to dismantle its terror outfits and bring the guilty men of 26/11 to justice.
A hard pressed President Zardari, now very much on the back foot, told the J&K Council in Muzaffarabad a week into the new year that regional peace is linked to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. He referred to the state as Pakistan’s ‘jugular vein’, demanded ‘self-determination’ for it and promised to wage a ‘thousand year war’ for its ‘liberation’ — not through war (as his father-in-law Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto ranted) but through an ‘ideological war’ to complete what is often to this day described as ‘the unfinished business of Partition’. And what is that ideology other than the disastrous and discredited two-nation theory, which Jinnah in his moment of triumph sought to jettison before its logic destroyed his new state.
The reference to Jinnah follows several recent statements by Pakistanis recalling the Qaid-e-Azam’s stirring call to the new Pakistan constituent assembly on August 11, 1947 to divorce religion from affairs of state and treat it purely as a personal matter. Jinnah was ignored, even censored subsequently, and himself retracted five months later, calling for a constitution based on the Sharia that would ensure Pakistan’s future as a great Islamic state. This was the beginning of the radical Islamisation of and, now, talibanisation of Pakistan beginning with the expulsion of the Ahmediyas from the fold. The humanist Sufi Islam of what is now Pakistan was steadily replaced by the hardline Wahabi Islam imported from Saudi Arabia through madrasas that sprouted with Gulf oil money seeking the restoration of lost glory through jihad. Afghanistan became the cauldron from which emerged al-Qaeda and the Taliban to take revenge. Kashmir was over time sought to be portrayed by some as yet another symbol of the larger ‘cause’.
It is by such logic that J&K is a ‘dispute’ for some in the OIC and even in the west, which has long embraced Pakistan as a ‘front line state’ and bastion against the spread of communism and a useful ally in stabilising and protecting its west Asian oil empire. The lack of ‘self-determination’ in PAK and the Gilgit-Baltistan area and the deep discontent in Balochistan is well-known and was narrated in graphic detail by representatives from those areas at a seminar in Delhi last month.
Many other myths are repeated, as at that seminar and elsewhere, by even liberal elements from Pakistan. One is about India encircling Pakistan through its activities and consulates in Afghanistan. The other is that India is somehow stealing Pakistan’s share of waters under the ‘unjust’ Indus Treaty that was heavily loaded against Pakistan. This has become a constant refrain of late though the assertions (rather than arguments) made are by and large trivial, political and emotional. The hard fact is that India has yet to utilise fully its prescribed share of storage and irrigation from the three Western rivers in J&K and is also letting down water to Pakistan from the eastern rivers that have been exclusively allocated to it under the Indus Treaty.
Refusal (or delayed) visas to Pakistani publishers wishing to attend the Delhi book fair was another avoidable snub. People-to-people contact must be encouraged and Pakistanis invited for talks on matters like trade and other CBMs even pending the composite dialogue. Meanwhile, the internal dialogue in J&K that has been re-initiated cannot be allowed to flag and should be carried forward. While no one in J&K or Delhi must be allowed a veto, every effort must be made to educate all sections of opinion at home, countrywide, on the issues and stakes involved.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

Water war with India?

At the moment, India and Pakistan lack a legal forum to sort out issues of water scarcity. The tension relating to water resources held by India has heated up again and Pakistan has complained that India is holding back the waters of rivers flowing from Indian-administered Kashmir. Some analysts have termed this as a clear violation of the Indus Water Treaty.
In a sense, the availability of less water from the rivers is a security issue for Pakistan as it could put the country�s very survival at stake. The media in Pakistan and the general public, too, appear convinced that India is withholding the waters in violation of the Indus Water Treaty. Pakistan's Prime Minister also wanted for dialogues not for war with their archival rivals. On the other hand, the Indian perception is that Pakistan is assuming that India had restricted the flow, and that this assumption was incorrect as the water level was low the previous year as well.
Pakistan has unlimited amount of river & rainwater, except that they do not know how to exploit it. Yearly water flow in Indus alone is about 170 MAF. Rivers Jhelum & Chenab carry about a quarter of that amount. Hence Pakistan has about 300 MAF of water flowing down the rivers. This does not include tremendous amount of water, which comes down with Monsoon downpour. Indus has about ten times more water than Colorado River in US and three times more water than Nile in Egypt. Anybody with that amount of water in the rivers should be awash with water. What is missing is will to do anything worthwhile to manage water resources. Successive military governments are to be blamed. Most monies are appropriated to build up the military. Monies for economic projects are always in short supply. Hence these projects are lower on priority. For example, with looming water shortage, the Kalabagh Dam is still stuck in a controversy. The missing element is the unfair water distribution policy. Leaders favor Pakistani Punjab as it has more muscle in the military and at the central government. This leaves other provinces angry, annoyed and ready to revolt. For the military rulers it is easy to raise the bogey of India stealing water to incense the public. India�s plan to build hydroelectric projects on rivers allocated to Pakistan in Kashmir is big news in Pakistan. The leaders know fully well that the Indus Water Treaty clearly gives India right to use the Rivers Indus, Jhelum & Chenab to generate electricity and draw water for personal use. They ignore that part. They also know that every electricity generation project requires significant water storage so that electricity generation could continue uninterrupted during the lean months. The same right is given to Pakistan. It is that right that has become of dispute.
From a legal point of view, this argument is interesting as it actually raises the issue of jurisdiction and the scope of the Indus Water Treaty itself. The Indus Water Treaty does not deal directly with the issue of water scarcity. In fact, when the treaty (signed in 1960) was being negotiated, a future possibility of water scarcity was not a priority or a leading concern for the negotiators.
Hence, we find that there is no provision perse that provides a mechanism to both the countries if climate-based water scarcity occurs. The critical provisions of the Indus Water Treaty simply say that India and Pakistan were obliged to �let flow� the river waters without interfering.
Hence any obstruction by India would be seen as an outright breach of the treaty by Pakistan.
Despite speculations by the Pakistani side there is no specific evidence brought forth so far that India is actually obstructing the flow or is diverting the waters. The Indian argument remains that reservoirs such as the Wullar Barrage and others are built within the regulatory framework of the treaty itself. Pakistan, naturally, has a different view and in one case Pakistan was seeking third-party resolution through a neutral expert who did not support fully the Pakistani version.
If the Indian version is correct then the issue cannot be addressed within the framework of the Indus Water Treaty and, in that case, Pakistan is pursuing a remedy in the wrong direction.The question remains as to who determines whether the reduced amount of water flowing into the rivers of Pakistan from the Indian side is because of obstructions or on account of climatic water scarcity. For that both countries would need to agree on an independent and a separate framework or neutral experts� assessment. The determination by such a panel would make matters clearer for Pakistani and Indian policymakers who could then follow a bilateral remedial course of action.
The argument is also advanced that even if the water flowing into Pakistani rivers is less due to genuine climatic water scarcity, India cannot escape responsibility as a state to maintain and manage the water resources that it exercises control over. India�s responsibility comes under the general framework of international law that calls on the upper riparian state to take the necessary measures to minimise water scarcity.
In Europe and elsewhere, water scarcity has promoted trans-boundary water cooperation instead of inciting war over this issue. The UN Convention on Uses of International Water Courses 1997 obliges states to conserve, manage and protect international water courses. Pakistan and India are not party to the said convention but the latter nevertheless offers a comprehensive framework for trans boundary water cooperation.
If this issue is not handled technically without a legal mechanism, then it has the potential to further aggravate tensions between India and Pakistan as it will be clubbed with the Kashmir dispute. Further, a reduced water flow could be perceived as India�s ploy to put additional pressure on Pakistan and, in that event, the response would be equally unmeasured and misdirected.
Finally, whether India is actually blocking the water or the decrease in water flow is due to scarcity and climatic change, needs objective and transparent determination by experts. This determination of the real reason should be agreed to beforehand through a bilateral agreement confined to fact-finding. If the finding is that the reduced flow of water is due to obstructions, then Pakistan could take action under the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty immediately.
On the other hand, if it is determined that there is genuine water scarcity then the issue is outside the jurisdiction of the Indus Water Treaty and needs to be sorted out by both states on a bilateral basis. India, in that case, should undertake its obligations under international law for proper water conservation and management and share the details with Pakistan through a mutually agreed mechanism.

 

[ajtr]

The climatic changes due to global warming have led to depleting flow in all Indus River system of rivers, especially the Indus , which depends on glacial runoffs for 90% of its waters. Generally, the Himalayan rivers also carry a very heavy sediment load especially during summer and rainy season, which in turn leads to river shifting and silting of dams and barrages. The three largest dams in Pakistan , Tarbela, Mangla and Chashma have already lost ~ 25% of their capacity due to silting. This is a serious problem in a country which depends on river irrigation, rather than the monsoon rains, for 74% of its total cultivated land. It is generally agreed that 40% of all the water drawn through the canals at barrage heads is lost because of seepage due to un-lined and porous beds and banks of the canals. Such problems exacerbate the already poor yield of the crops In addition, there is excessive system-loss of water due to improper and antiquated agricultural techniques and heavy cropping of water-intensive varieties like sugarcane and rice. While reeling under increasing drought for the last six years, it is also predicted that Pakistan will have a certain level of drought conditions for the next 15 years.. Since the dams mostly act as storage reservoirs during Kharif season and draw-down reservoirs during Rabi, there is an acute need within Pakistan for more storage
There have been widespread protests against the proposed dams of Kalabagh at Mianwali, and Basha at Chilas, Gilgit area and the raising of the Mangla dam in Mirpur. Out of the four provinces of Pakistan , three viz. Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP are against these dams. Even the illegally occupied *** and Balawaristan oppose the dam projects of Mangla and Basha. The proposed raising of the height of Mangla Dam in Mirpur, ***, by another 40 feet, will further submerge that district. It is also possible that if India exercises its rights to store 1.5 MAF on Jhelum , the raised Mangla Dam will not fill up. The crux of the matter is the lack of agreement among provinces on the total water availability within the country.

The dams, barrages and canals built to satisfy the increasing demands of water upstream have made water scarce in the Indus at the estuaries of the Arabian Sea causing the sea to push in and increase the salinity in 1.2 Million acres of farmlands.The discharge of freshwater from the Indus into the Arabian Sea has declined steadily from 85 MAF in the 1940s to about 10 MAF in the 90s and probably less today. Pakistan also uses the waters of the Indus rivers for another purpose, fortification of its defences along Indian borders. It has built a series of �defence canals� at strategic locations which are flooded at times of wars and tensions to prevent crossing by Indian armour and artillery. In 2002, after India mobilized its forces as part of Operation Parakram , Pakistan diverted waters to these �defence canals� accentuating the then already severe water shortage of 50% to over 70%.

Pakistan faces one of the severest water shortages in the world as seen in its� per capita availability of water per annum fall from 5300 m3 in 1951 to less than 1100 m3 today. This figure is alarming given that it is below the internationally recommended level of 1500 m3 and precariously close to the critical 1000 m3 level. Compounded with the failure to fill the country�s two largest reservoirs to capacity, declining flows in the Indus River System, elusive and contentious the inter-provincial water accord due to mutual suspicions among provinces, and an unsustainable population growth rate of 2% do not bode well for Pakistan�s water situation. Disagreements on construction of new reservoirs, declining groundwater potential, and growing number of disputes with India after a relatively uneventful period of 44 years of water sharing will further complicate matters. In summation, the water situation in Pakistan (a country whose landscape is largely arid to semi-arid) is truly disastrous in spite of the Indus , its tributaries, and a treaty with generous concessions that has been implemented faithfully by upper riparian India to date in spite of grave provocations. Pakistani farmers may be forced to change to higher yielding earlier maturating crops, modify their sowing patterns, and employ micro irrigation in coming years to mitigate shortages-all of which will entail higher costs. Its frivolous objections to Indian projects and a general unwillingness to engage India constructively are partly to force India to amend the IWT to accommodate the emerging patterns of water use in Pakistan , such as water sharing during periods of shortage-a situation not envisaged in the treaty.

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

INTER-DOMINION AGREEMENT, BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ON THE CANAL WATER DISPUTE BETWEEN EAST AND WEST PUNJAB

New Delhi
4 May 1948

A dispute has arisen between the East and West Punjab Governments regarding the supply by East Punjab of water to the Central Bari Doab and the Depalpur canals in West Punjab. The contention of the East Punjab Government is that under the Punjab Partition (Apportionment of Assets and Liabilities) Order, 1947, and the Arbitral Award the proprietary rights in the waters of the rivers in East Punjab vest wholly in the East Punjab Government and the West Punjab Government cannot claim any share of these waters as a right. The West Punjab Government disputes this contention, its view being that the point has conclusively been decided in its favour by implication by the Arbitral Award and that in accordance with international law and equity, West Punjab has a right to the waters of the East Punjab rivers.

2. The East Punjab Government has revived the flow of water into these canals on certain conditions of which two are disputed by West Punjab. One, which arises out of the contention in paragraph 1, is the right to the levy of seigniorage charges for water and the other is the question of the capital cost of the Madhopur Head Works and carrier channels to be taken into account.

3. The East and West Punjab Governments are anxious that this question should be settled in a spirit of goodwill and friendship. Without prejudice to its legal rights in the matter the East Punjab Government has assured the West Punjab Government that it has no intention suddenly to withhold water from West Punjab without giving it time to tap alternative sources. The West Punjab Government on its part recognise the natural anxiety of the East Punjab Government to discharge the obligations to develop areas where water is scarce and which were underdeveloped in relation to parts of West Punjab.

4. Apart, therefore, from the question of law involved, the Governments are anxious to approach the problem in a practical spirit on the basis of the East Punjab Government progressively diminishing its supply to these canals in order to give reasonable time to enable the West Punjab Government to-tap alternative sources.

5. The West Punjab Government has agreed to deposit immediately in the Reserve Bank such ad hoc sum as may be specified by the Prime Minister of India. Out of this sum, that Government agrees to the immediate transfer to East Punjab Government of sum6 over which there is no dispute. 6. After an examination by each party of the legal issues, of the method of estimating the cost of water to be supplied by the East Punjab Government and of the technical survey of water resources and the means of using them for supply to these canals, the two Governments agree that further meetings between their representative6 should take place.

7. The Dominion Governments of India and Pakistan accept the above terms and express the hope that a friendly solution will be reached.

(Signed)
(Signed)

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
SWARAN SINGH
N.V. GADGIL
GHULAM MOHD.
SHAUKAT HYAT KHAN
MUMTAZ DAULTANA

New Delhi
May 4, 1948

 

[ajtr]

The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers

Adopted by the International Law Association at the fifty-second conference, held at Helsinki in
August 1966. Report of the Committee on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers
(London, International Law Association, 1967)
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL
Article I
The general rules of international law as set forth in these chapters are applicable to the use of
the waters of an international drainage basin except as may be provided otherwise by
convention, agreement or binding custom among the basin States.
Article II
An international drainage basin is a geographical area extending over two or more States
determined by the watershed limits of the system of waters, including surface and underground
waters, flowing into a common terminus.
Article III
A "basin State" is a State the territory of which includes a portion of an international drainage
basin.
CHAPTER 2. EQUITABLE UTILIZATION OF THE WATERS OF AN
INTERNATIONAL DRAINAGE BASIN
Article IV
Each basin State is entitled, within its territory, to a reasonable and equitable share in the
beneficial uses of the waters of an international drainage basin.
Article V
I. What is a reasonable and equitable share within the meaning of article IV to be
determined in the light of all the relevant factors in each particular case.
II. Relevant factors which are to be considered include, but are not limited to:
1. The geography of the basin, including in particular the extent of the drainage area in
the territory of each basin State;
2. The hydrology of the basin, including in particular the contribution of water by each
basin State;
3. The climate affecting the basin;
4. The past utilization of the waters of the basin, including in particular existing
utilization;
2
5. The economic and social needs of each basin State;
6. The population dependent on the waters of the basin in each basin State;
7. The comparative costs of alternative means of satisfying the economic and social
needs of each basin State;
8. The availability of other resources;
9. The avoidance of unnecessary waste in the utilization of waters of the basin;
10. The practicability of compensation to one or more of the co-basin States as a means
of adjusting conflicts among uses; and
11. The degree to which the needs of a basin State may be satisfied, without causing
substantial injury to a co-basin State.
III. The weight to be given to each factor is to be determined by its importance in comparison
with that of other relevant factors. In determining what is reasonable and equitable share,
all relevant factors are to be considered together and a conclusion reached on the basis of
the whole.
Article VI
A use or category of uses is not entitled to any inherent preference over any other use or
category of uses.
Article VII
A basin State may not be denied the present reasonable use of the waters of an international
drainage basin to reserve for a co-basin State a future use of such waters.
Article VIII
1. An existing reasonable use may continue in operation unle ss the factors justifying its
continuance are outweighed by other factors leading to the conclusion that it be modified or
terminated so as to accommodate a competing incompatible use.
2. (a) A use that is in fact operational is deemed to have been an existing use from the time of
the initiation of construction directly related to the use or, where such construction is not
required, the undertaking of comparable acts of actual implementation.
(b) Such a use continues to be an existing use until such time as it is discontinued with the
intention that it be abandoned.
3. A use will not be deemed an existing use if at the time of becoming operational it is
incompatible with an already existing reasonable use.
CHAPTER 3. POLLUTION
Article IX
As used in this chapter, the term "water pollution" refers to any detrimental change resulting
from human conduct in the natural composition, content, or quality of the waters of an
international drainage basin.
Article X
1. Consistent with the principle of equitable utilization of the waters of an international
drainage basin, a State:
3
(a) Must prevent any new form of water pollution or any increase in the degree of existing
water pollution in an international drainage basin which would cause substantial injury in
the territory of a co-basin State;
(b) Should take all reasonable measures to abate existing water pollution in an international
drainage basin to such an extent that no substantial damage is caused in the territory of a cobasin
State.
2. The rule stated in paragraph 1 of this article applies to water pollution originating:
(a) Within a territory of the State, or
(b) Outside the territory of the State, if it is caused by the State's conduct.
Article XI
1. In the case of a violation of the rule stated in paragraph 1 (a) of article X of this chapter, the
State responsible shall be required to cease the wrongful conduct and compensate the
injured co-basin State for the injury that has been caused to it.
2. In a case falling under the rule stated in paragraph 1 (b) of article X, if a State fails to take
reasonable measures, it shall be required promptly to enter into negotiations with the injured
State with a view towards reaching a settlement equitable under the circumstances.
CHAPTER 4 . NAVIGATION (Articles XII-XX)
CHAPTER 5. TIMBER FLOATING (Articles XXI-XXV)
CHAPTER 6. PROCEDURES FOR THE PREVENTION AND SETTLEMENT OF
DISPUTES
Article XXVI
This chapter relates to procedures for the prevention and settlement of international disputes as
to the legal rights or other interests of basin States and of other States in the waters of an
international drainage basin.
Article XXVII
Consistently with the Charter of the United Nations, States are under an obligation to settle
international disputes as to their legal rights or other interests by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
It is recommended that States resort progressively to the means of prevention and settlement of
disputes stipulated in articles XXIX to XXXIV of this chapter.
Article XXVIII
1. States are under a primary obligation to resort to means of prevention and settlement of
disputes stipulated in the applicable treaties binding upon them.
2. States are limited to the means of prevention and settlement of disputes stipulated in treaties
binding upon them only to the extent provided by the applicable treaties.
4
Article XXIX
1. With a view to preventing disputes from arising between basin States as to their legal rights
or other interest, it is recommended that each basin State furnish relevant and reasonably
available information to the other basin States concerning the waters of a drainage basin
within its territory and its use of, and activities with respect to, such waters.
2. A State, regardless of its location in a drainage basin, should in particular furnish to any
other basin State, the interests of which may be substantially affected, notice of any
proposed construction or installation which would alter the regime of the basin in a way
which might give rise to a dispute as defined in article XXVI. The notice should include
such essential facts as will permit the recipient to make an assessment of the probable effect
of the proposed alteration.
3. A State providing the notice referred to in paragraph 2 of this article should afford the
recipient a reasonable period of time to make an assessment of the probable effect of the
proposed construction or installation and to submit its views thereon to the State furnishing
the notice.
4. If a State has failed to give the notice referred to in paragraph 2 of this article, the alteration
by the State in the regime of the drainage basin shall not be given the weight normally
accorded to temporal priority in use in the event of a determination of what is a reasonable
and equitable share of the waters of the basin.
Article XXX
In case of a dispute between States as to their legal rights or other interests, as defined in article
XXVI, they should seek a solution by negotiation..
Article XXXI
1. If a question or dispute arises which relates to the present or future utilization of the waters
of an international drainage basin, it is recommended that the basin States refer the question
or dispute to a joint agency and that they request the agency to survey the international
drainage basin and to formulate plans or recommendations for the fullest and most efficient
use thereof in the interests of all such States.
2. It is recommended that the joint agency be instructed to submit reports on all matters within
its competence to the appropriate authorities of the member States concerned.
3. It is recommended that the member States of the joint agency in appropriate cases invite
non-basin States which by treaty enjoy a right in the use of the waters of an international
drainage basin to associate themselves with the work of the joint agency or that they be
permitted to appear before the agency.
Article XXXII
If a question or a dispute is one which is considered by the States concerned to be incapable of
resolution in the manner set forth in article XXXI, it is recommended that they seek the good
offices, or jointly request the mediation of a third State, of a qualified international organization
or of a qualified person.
5
Article XXXIII
1. If the States concerned have not been able to resolve their dispute through negotiation or
have been unable to agree on the measures described in articles XXXI and XXXII, it is
recommended that they form a commission of inquiry or an ad hoc conciliation
commission, which shall endeavor to find a solution, likely to be accepted by the States
concerned, of any dispute as to their legal rights.
2. It is recommended that the conciliation commission be constituted in the manner set forth in
the annex.
Article XXXIV
It is recommended that the States concerned agree to submit their legal disputes to an ad hoc
arbitral tribunal, to a permanent arbitral tribunal or to the International Court of Justice if:
(a) A commission has not been formed as provided in article XXXIII, or
(b) The commission has not been able to find a solution to be recommended, or
(c) A solution recommended has not been accepted by the States concerned, and
(d) An agreement has not been otherwise arrived at.
Article XXXV
It is recommended that in the event of arbitration the States concerned have recourse to the
Model Rules on Arbitral Procedure prepared by the International Law Commission of the
United Nations at its tenth session b/in 1958.
Article XXXVI
Recourse to arbitration implies the undertaking by the States concerned to consider the award to
be given as final and to submit in good faith to its execution.
Article XXXVII
The means of settlement referred to in the preceding articles of this chapter are without
prejudice to the utilization of means of settlement recommended to, or required of, members of
regional arrangements or agencies and of other international organizations.

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

From Indus to Satluj

The dispute between India and Pakistan over the use of the waters of the Indus and its tributaries and its resolution through a treaty in 1960 constitute a useful precedent to solve the present row.

KARNATAKA, ruled the Supreme Court in 1991, answering a Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution, "has assumed the role of a judge in its own cause... The action (of the State) forebodes evil consequences to the federal structure under the Constitution and opens doors for each State to act in the way it desires, disregarding not only the rights of the other States, the orders passed by instrumentalities constituted under an Act of Parliament but also the provisions of the Constitution. If the power of a State to issue such an Ordinance is upheld, it will lead to the breakdown of the constitutional mechanism and affect the unity and integrity of the nation".

September 19, 1960: Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru being received by Pakistan President Field Marshal Ayub Khan at the Karachi Airport. Nehru was in Pakistan to sign the Indus Water Treaty.
Every word of this unusually strong opinion in the Cauvery water disputes case, directed at the Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance issued by the Governor of Karnataka in 1991 to frustrate an Interim Order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, applies fully, if not with greater force, to the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, passed by the Punjab Assembly on July 12 in order to defeat a mandatory injunction granted by the Supreme Court itself to complete the Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal.

Faced with similar intransigence by an erring State, and a similar response by the Union government - following the 1991 precedent, the President referred the Punjab Act to the Supreme Court on July 22 for its advisory opinion - it is highly unlikely that the court will take a different view of the matter this time even though the Punjab Act is far more carefully worded than the Karnataka Ordinance and has the advantage of a preambulary recital no less than 20 paragraphs long.

In addition to the larger considerations that prevailed with the Supreme Court in the Cauvery case - the threat to the federal structure and the lack of legislative competence in States to enact laws affecting the rights of other States - the Punjab case involves an issue of even greater import extending beyond federal or national boundaries: the sanctity of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 between India and Pakistan.

Rightly described by N.D. Gulhati, the principal negotiator of the treaty from the Indian side, as the "biggest and the most complicated river dispute in the world, national or international", the dispute over the use of the Indus waters (including the waters of its tributaries, the Jhelum, the Chenab, the Ravi, the Beas and the Satluj) and its resolution in 1960, constitute a necessary historical and legal background to the current dispute among Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan over the waters of the Ravi and the Beas.

The manner in which the dispute was resolved adds not inconsiderably to the value of the conclusion.

THE Indus diplomacy, writes Gulhati in his book on the treaty, was neither like the highly stylised diplomacy of the old days nor of the "gold-fish bowl" variety. "There was no mass audience to address, no occasion for rhetoric nor for inflammatory debating tactics." The approach was functional and highly professional. The negotiators were "not just playing with opinions and views, they were measuring and proving ideas by facts and figures".

Signed finally by Jawaharlal Nehru and Field Marshal Ayub Khan (and, for certain specified purposes, by Sir William Iliff for the World Bank that had brought the two nations together), the treaty effected a lasting division of the Indus waters to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan, a division that has survived two full-fledged wars plus a third, the Kargil conflict, that was almost so. A division between the so-called "Eastern Rivers" - the Satluj, the Beas and the Ravi taken together - was made available for the unrestricted use of India (Article II) and the so-called "Western Rivers" - the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab taken together - for Pakistan's unrestricted use (Article III).

The significance of the opening clause of Article II - "All the waters of the Eastern Rivers shall be available for the unrestricted use of India" - the single most important provision in the treaty from the Indian point of view, is writ large over the whole of Gulhati's book, a work as indispensable for a proper understanding of river water disputes in the Indus basin as, say, Granville Austin's work on the labours of the Constituent Assembly is for understanding the Constitution. The following passage on page 246 of the book is, however, particularly instructive in the context of the present crisis:

"After ten years of hard and devoted work, we had secured almost a world-wide recognition of our claim to use in India all the waters of the Eastern Rivers, including the 12 MAF which was actually being let down for use in Pakistan as at the time of partition... In India, we had already allocated all these waters, including the 12 MAF referred to above, between Punjab (including the present Haryana), Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir. The scope of the Bhakra-Nangal project had been considerably increased, the Madhopur-Beas Link and the Sirhind Feeder had been completed and opened for operation, several new channels had been built on the Upper Bari Doab Canal and the Rajasthan Canal was under construction."

For anyone to suggest, adds Gulhati, that India should forego the use of the 12 MAF of waters of the Eastern Rivers and allow them to flow into Pakistan "seemed to us more dangerous than a fifth-column activity in the battle for the Indus waters or, to put it more charitably, showed a complete lack of appreciation of the large and vital role this quantity of river flow could play in meeting the food deficit of the country, in the development and prosperity of north-west India".

Both, then, the actual wording of Article II of the Indus Waters Treaty (all the waters of the Eastern Rivers being made available for use by "India" rather than any particular State therein), and its understanding and application by India, embodying what lawyers call contemporanea expositio (contemporaneous exposition) of a statute, rule out a claim or an exclusive claim to the waters of the Satluj, the Beas and the Ravi by any individual State within India.

The fact that a sum of �62.06 million (over Rs.100 crores) was paid to Pakistan by India, rather than any State or States within India, under Article V of the Indus Waters Treaty, towards the cost of construction by Pakistan of a system of replacement" works such as link canals (envisaged by Article IV) that would convey the waters of the Western Rivers to areas in Pakistan hitherto dependent for irrigation on the waters of the Eastern Rivers, further confirms this interpretation.

This financial assistance or contribution by India to Pakistan was the third main plank of the Indus Waters Treaty as proposed by the World Bank, the first two being the allocation of the use of the Eastern and the Western Rivers respectively to India and Pakistan.

More than anything else, therefore, Punjab's claim to the ownership of the waters of the Satluj, the Ravi and the Beas flies in the face of the Indus Waters Treaty which, strictly speaking and subject to the provisions of Article IV(15) thereof, recognises no such title or right of ownership even in India - nor, for that matter, in Pakistan in relation to the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab - and grants India only the right of "unrestricted use" of these waters.

Clause (15) of Article IV preserves, no doubt, "existing territorial rights over the waters" of both the Western and Eastern Rivers, a clear reference to territorial sovereignty on either side of the border. This is subject, however, to the phrase with which the clause opens: "Except as otherwise required by the express provisions of this Treaty", which is, by all accounts, a phrase of limitation and cannot be construed otherwise.

Determination of the precise extent of the limitation would entail a minute analysis of all the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty and its various Annexures (which form, by virtue of Article XII, a part of the treaty) and the rights and obligations of India and Pakistan set out therein, an exercise not possible in the present article. It would suffice and be safe to state that any such analysis would vindicate the opinion of the outstanding German international lawyer and expert on river waters, Professor F.J. Berber, that even though "fairly elastic" and not free of "lacunae, obscurities and inaccuracies" the principle of "restricted" and not absolute territorial sovereignty should prevail in this area of international law.

Especially engaged by the Government of India in the 1950s to provide the necessary legal back-up in the negotiations over the Indus Waters Treaty, at first on a whole-time basis and later as a consultant after he left to join the University of Munich, Prof. Berber contributed significantly to the general plan and final text of the treaty. Translated from the German and published by the London Institute of World Affairs in 1959, his work Rivers in International Law is not likely to be surpassed for its depth and maturity of comprehension.

The principle of absolute territorial sovereignty, he adds, joining issue with Max Huber, may be pertinent for the problems of two neighbouring nations in relation to their territory composed of land. Water, however, is not an immovable but a movable element which today is in the territory of one state (or country) and tomorrow in the territory of another, and that creates further problems which are not exhausted by the principle of absolute sovereignty.

COMING back to Punjab's case, its claim to "proprietary rights in the waters of the rivers in East Punjab" was noticed in so many words, albeit only as a contention, in the Inter - Dominion Agreement concluded at Delhi on May 4, 1948 and signed by Jawaharlal Nehru, N.V. Gadgil and Swaran Singh on behalf of India and Finance Minister Ghulam Mohamed, Shaukat Hyat Khan and Mumtaz Daultana on behalf of Pakistan.

Staked by the then government of East Punjab, the claim was strongly disputed by the West Punjab government, contending that West Punjab had a right to the waters of the East Punjab rivers "in accordance with international law and equity".

Neither of the Dominion governments stated their views with respect to the rival contentions, resting content with the "hope" that a friendly solution would be reached. Behind the dull prose of East Punjab's claim in the Agreement of May 1948 lay a dramatic action on the ground, whose reverberations continued to be felt in the corridors of power in Asia and the West long thereafter. In a sudden, unprecedented move on April 1, 1948, East Punjab stopped all delivery of waters to West Punjab from the Upper Bari Doab Canal.

"In an area as arid and densely populated as the Indus basin," Pakistan was to state five years later, unable to forget the incident, "the appropriation by one community of the water of another is an act with tragic and far-reaching consequences. In its implications and results, such an act can be more devastating than an armed attack."

Had the Inter-Dominion Agreement of May 1948, containing East Punjab's claim to proprietorship of the river waters, remained in force, Punjab would have had an eminently arguable case today, Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act notwithstanding. Its challenge to the constitutionality of Section 78, now rather thin, would also have carried far greater conviction in that event.

Unfortunately for Punjab, however, the May 1948 Agreement did not survive the Indus Waters Treaty. Incorporated in Annexure `A' to the treaty is the Government of India's express declaration, agreeing with Pakistan, that the 1948 Agreement and "the rights and obligations of either party thereto claimed under, or arising out of, that Agreement" shall be without effect as from April 1, 1960, the date on which the treaty itself came into force pursuant to its ratification.

All its claims under the 1948 Agreement having been thus effaced, how can Punjab now legally claim what under the Indus Waters Treaty belongs only to "India" or not even to India?

For all my reservations about the twin judgments of the Supreme Court in the SYL canal case - the specious reasoning employed in the first to assume a jurisdiction expressly denied under Article 262 and the obsessive preoccupation with the technicalities of ordinary civil law in the second - and for all the intensity of sentiment in Punjab today, it is apparent that, in the ultimate analysis, Punjab has no case.

 

[ajtr]

India rubbishes Pak's 'water stealing' allegations

Rejecting recent allegations by Pakistan of non-adherence to the Indus Water Treaty, India [ Images ] on Tuesday said it was yet another move to raise an 'anti-India' bogey to create 'popular resonance' to cover-up their internal domestic water woes and asked Islamabad [ Images ] to do better water management.

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.

There are 33 hydroelectric projects by India including Baglihar and Kishanganaga, which are run-of-river projects permissible under the treaty, the sources said.

The information about all these projects, based on their various stages, have been provided to Pakistan, they said.

"India has all along adhered to the provisions of the treaty. There has never been the slightest of tinkering from our side," sources said, adding that most of the issues raised by Pakistan have been those of technical nature and should be addressed by the mechanism of the Permanent Indus Commission.

The allegations by the adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Education, Sardar Aseff Ali, that India 'steals' water has whipped public hysteria.

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.'

"We would ask them (the Pakistan government) to get their act together 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.

 

[ajtr]

Indian writer and critic B.G. Vergese talks about Indian relations to Pakistan. Learn more about this project at South Asia's Troubled Waters>Here he clearly states about the shenanigans wrt to water.

WATER: Pakistan's Water Policies

Mustafa Talpur, a water activist in Islamabad, talk about Pakistani water policies Learn more about this project at South Asia's Troubled Waters:

WATER: Reporting on South Asia's Troubled Waters

Reporters William Wheeler and Anna-Katarina Gravgaard talks about what they've seen in Nepal, India and Pakistan. Learn more about this project at South Asia's Troubled Waters:

An Enemy Imagined? Episode 5 Part One

The Indus Water Treaty sorted the division of water resources between India and Pakistan. This episodes look into downstream politics between the two countries, and if in the future water can becom..

 

[ajtr]

Pak takes water route to attack India

NEW DELHI: Water sharing is becoming yet another irritant in the Indo-Pak relationship with Lashkar founder Hafiz Saeed’s rhetoric against India on the matter being seen as part of the Pakistani propaganda.

At a public rally, Saeed accused India of constructing illegal dams and diverting water from Pakistani rivers and went on to launch a movement against India. 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”. The Pakistan government had started highlighting water as a major concern ahead of the foreign secretary level engagement and has since continued to do so. Sources said Pakistan is trying to deflect its own water problems and inter provincial water issues by creating the India bogey. Water is also seen as an emotive issue that can easily whip up anti-India sentiment.

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. 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.

Water sharing between India and Pakistan is guided by the Indus water treaty. Under the treaty, Pakistan has water rights over three western rivers—the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — while India has complete access to the eastern rivers—Sutlej Beas and Ravi. At the same time, Article II of the Indus Water Treaty also gives India certain rights over the western rivers including domestic use, navigation, limited agriculture use including irrigation over 1.34347 million acres and generation of hydropower. India is also allowed to create storage on western rivers of up to 3.6 million acre feet of storage.

Sources said that contrary to “the propaganda”, India has not built any storage facility on the western rivers and till 2008/9 has only irrigated 0.7924 million acres. At this point, India has 33 river projects that are completed or in different stages of completion. Sources said information on all the projects had been shared with Pakistan. But there was a pattern, sources pointed out that, in the way Pakistan has raised technical issues to stall or delay the implementation of projects.

India and Pakistan have continued to hold meetings of the Indus water commissioners through the lowest points in the relationship. And even after the Mumbai attacks, the commissioners have been meeting to discuss water related issues.

 

[ajtr]

�Pakistan getting more water than it�s entitled to�

* Indian home secretary calls charges of water terrorism �absurd�

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: 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.

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

Indus water shortage has affected both India, Pakistan

"Pakistan and India are facing water scarcity due to lesser rainfall in the region. India has been affected as much as Pakistan due to water shortage in Indus," India's Indus Waters Commissioner G. Ranganathan told reporters here.

He was speaking after signing a memorandum with his Pakistani counterpart Jamat Ali Shah for inspection of barrages - on both sides of the border - on rivers flowing into this country from India.

He said a delegation of Pakistani water officials would visit India in March to continue discussions on issues related to river waters.

The Indian delegation, accompanied by Pakistani water authorities, had earlier visited the Balloki and Sadhnai barrages on the Ravi river

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan water cry against India: Charade or Real? [/SIZE][/CENTER][/B]

Kashmir issue which has remained a main rallying point to galvanize support across the social, political and military spectrum of Pakistan for decades seems to be loosing its magical formulae of stoking anti India sentiments.

After all over 5000 Pakistanis are killed in the terrorist violence, civil society of Pakistan have understood the repercussions of Pakistan state policy of espousing terrorism.

Pakistan and its proxies have realized that they have exhausted the Kashmir issue and there are very few takers left therefore they have come up with latest catchphrase replacing the 'K' word with water.

Recently Lashkar-e -Toiba chief Hafeez Saeed accused India of waging water wars on Pakistan, Infact, Saeed has decided to launch a nationwide movement against India on the issue. He alleged India of constructing illegal dams and diverting water from Pakistani rivers.imilar sentiments are expressed by Islamabad and the issue also came up at Indo-Pak Foreign Secretary level talks.

Sources have told ANI that Pakistan intentionally took up complex technical issues pertaining to the ongoing hydel projects in Jammu and Kashmir during the talks.

Hafeez Saeed and Pakistan Government raising similar bogey and taking common stand on water issue demonstrates and substantiates the calibrated strategy on one hand and also shows the unholy collusion between the two, the point India has been making to the International community for quite some time .

India sees the latest rhetoric on water aired by Pakistani state and its proxies as a coordinated effort to create anti India hysteria, which can capture popular imagination and have a positive resonance within Pakistan.

According to the Indus Water Treaty, India does have a right on three western rivers the Chenab, the Jhelum and the Indus for domestic use including for drinking water, navigation, limited agricultural use and for generation of hydro electric power by construction of run of the river power projects. But keeping Pakistani sensitivities in mind India has so far not exploited its legitimate right entitled by the Indus Water treaty.

Treaty clearly says that India is allowed maximum storage on the western river of 3.6 MAF storage, but contrary to Pakistani propaganda that India is guzzling all the water, so far India has not done a single unit of storage.

No storage capacity has been created so far. IWT also entitles India to irrigate crops from waters of the western rivers i.e. 1.34347 MAF , this is the area India can irrigate , till 2008-2009 India has irrigated only 0.7924 MAF , less than two third of the entitled capacity is being used.

Indus Water Treaty had cut across Indus Basin, Eastern rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were given to India and western rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus were allocated to Pakistan. Western rivers combined which have gone to Pakistan carry almost four times the water of the three eastern rivers.

According to experts, the flow of rivers is fluctuating because of fluctuating amount of snow melt, fluctuation of rainfall and that impacts the flow in the rivers, it impacts the quantum of waters in the rivers.

However Indus River, which carries 65 percent of the total water is an exception, data shows that since 2000 flow of the river Indus is increasing.

New Delhi also feels that Pakistan is trying to deflect its domestic water problems and inter provincial grievances by creating the India bogey, what is actually happening is that river flows into Punjab which does not provide adequate amount of water to the southern provinces Balochistan and Sindh and it is convenient to say that India is playing mischief.

According to Pak's own admission a great deal of wastage is taking place and is going unchecked into the sea i.e. 38 MAF is wasted. There is also Permanent Indus Commission in place, commissioners from both sides have been meeting regularly and so far there have been 111 tours and 103 meetings of the commission and despite the rhetoric the commissioners are expected to meet again in May.

Certain sections of Pakistan media is also producing misplaced reports, Hafeez Saeed was quoted by a Pakistani national daily that India has built 62 dams whereas only 33 hydro electric projects are under the works and India has already provided the information to Pakistan.

India believes that all the major projects which Pakistan is objecting to are mainly located in Jammu and Kashmir and If Pakistan have objections they are denying the people there legitimate rights as far as water is concerned under the IWT.

Three western rivers are actually in Kashmir Tulbul on Jhelum, Baghlihar on Chenab and there are other projects on the western river for the benefits of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. By Naveen Kapoor (ANI)

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

[/COLOR]INDIA/PAKISTAN: Indus Water Treaty Agitates Kashmiris

SRINAGAR, Oct 15, 2008 (IPS) - As Pakistan and India wrangle over the waters of the Chenab, Kashmiris - through whose homeland the river and four other tributaries of the mighty Indus flow - have reason to be agitated.

Soon after Indian Prime Minister inaugurated the 450 Mw Baglihar hydro-electric dam project across the Chenab, during a visit to Jammu & Kashmir state last week, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari warned that disrupting the flow of the river could reverse recent improvements in ties between the two neighbours.

"Pakistan would be paying a very high price for India's move to block Pakistan's water supply from the Chenab River," the official Associated Press of Pakistan quoted Zardari as saying on Sunday.

Zardari made reference to the World Bank-mediated 1960 Indus Water Treaty which allows the two countries share the Indus river and its five tributaries - the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej - and provides mechanisms for dispute settlement.

Under the treaty, Pakistan received exclusive use of waters from the Indus and its westward flowing tributaries, the Jhelum and Chenab, while the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers were allocated for India's use.

India, which has a right to ‘’run-of-the-river’’ projects has rejected Pakistan's contention that the Baglihar dam reduces the flow of water and says the project is crucial for power-starved Kashmir.

In 2005 Pakistan had sought the World Bank's intervention to stop construction of the Baglihar dam and the hydroelectricity power project, but Bank-appointed experts cleared the project while asking India to restrict the overall height of the dam.

Earlier India had to stop construction of Tulbul Navigation Project on the River Jhelum on account of objections raised by Pakistan. While India maintained that the project was designed to improve navigation, especially during the winter when the water level recedes, Pakistan said that the Wullar Barrage [as Islamabad calls the project] is a storage project which will affect the flow of water. Work on the project has remained stalled for 20 years.

Under the treaty, Pakistan is to receive 55,000 cusecs of water, but authorities there complain that this year Pakistan's share was drastically reduced, causing damage to crops. "Pakistan received between 13,000 cusecs during the winter and a maximum of 29,000 cusecs during summer. This averages around 22,000 to 25,000 cusecs - less than half of Pakistan's share,’’ newspapers in Pakistan, citing authorities, say.

India and Pakistan may be talking to each other to settle their disputes over the Indus water, but the people in Indian Kashmir say that the two countries are actually reaping the benefits of what are their resources. Thanks to the Indus Water Treaty, only 40 percent of the cultivatable land in the state can be irrigated and 10 percent of the hydroelectric potential harnessed.

"Who represented Kashmir then [1960] at the table? What was the ‘locus standi’ of the two countries to abuse waters of a region that had independent identity till 1947, and on which they disputed each other's claim afterwards?" asks human rights activist, Shayik Nazir.

"The issue that remains at the center of Indus water treaty is that the treaty was signed at a time when Jammu & Kashmir was passing through a phase of both economic and political innocence. There was a political leadership in the state which was working in what one can say as national interest [of India] at that point of time", says political analyst Gul Mohammad Wani.

"The popular political leadership; the legitimate political leadership [in Jammu & Kashmir] was out of the political scene. We had a government which had absolutely no legitimacy and no credibility in the estimation of the people of the state and it was during those times the treaty was signed."

Srinagar-based economic expert Arjimand Hussain Talib says that the treaty drastically limits the economic benefits to Kashmir. "And then the power houses which are being built on these are generally owned by the Indian government without taking into consideration the fact that they basically flow through Jammu and Kashmir", Arjimand told IPS.

"They don't share the profits and the resources which are generated through these (rivers) with the Jammu & Kashmir state except for the 12 percent royalty on power that it gets,’’ he added.

Shakeel Qalandhar, president of the Kashmir Industries and Commerce Federation, says that Kashmir's economy would have greatly progressed, but for the 1960 treaty. "Through these three main rivers, we could have generated hydroelectric power not less than 30,000 Mw, but we are generating just over 300 Mw in the state sector and 1,600 Mw in the central sector. In all it is less than 2,000 Mw whereas we require 2,500 Mw of electricity for our own consumption - domestic and industrial.’’

According to Qalandar, every year Jammu & Kashmir purchases power [from the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation] worth billions of dollars. "It is a tragedy that despite having the potential of generating 30,000 Mw of power, 25 percent of our population is without electricity and 55 percent is without safe drinking, despite huge water resources in the state."

Over the last few years, the state government of Jammu & Kashmir and industrial groups in the state have been demanding compensation from the central government for the losses incurred by the state because of the Indus Water Treaty.

Motions were moved in the state assembly on three different occasions by the legislators asking the federal government to review the treaty and pay compensation to the state. "Our state is suffering due to the wrong decision of the then leaders and we are losing billions of dollars annually", contended legislator, Depinder Kour, while moving a resolution in the assembly a few years ago.

"Ours is a land-locked state. We don't have industries and other economic resources except the water. But because of the treaty, India and Pakistan benefit while Jammu & Kashmir suffers huge economic losses. That is why we are seeking compensation,'' says Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami, state secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI).

 

[ajtr]

"We will have to look beyond the Indus Water Treaty."

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 pakistani 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 pakistan 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 pakistan stand.

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 pakistan has money do take pre-emptive actions under IWT.India does not intend to stop pakistan.

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.PaKistan 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 pakistan amen. They should be happy.

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

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

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

People who are interested in great victories of Pkaistan on Baglihar dam issue must read this article.......Baglihar And Other Chestnuts I'Ve posted the same on last page .

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. 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?

Quote:
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.

So they have problem at home, looking for solutions abroad. So we are neighbours and pakistan can make our life hell ( as if they have left any stone unturned.) therefore we should think beyond IWT because pakistan 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. Pakistan 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 ***.

PPIC himself shoots in his foot. if this is the standard of Pakistan's eminent engineer then even allah would not save that wretched country.


As far as IWT is concerned India is no enemy of pakistan. 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 pakistan 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. pakistan 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, pakistan argument also did not question the dam itself but design aspect and its negative impact on pakistan . And pakistan choose not to go to arbitration as yet.

pakistan 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 pakistan 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 pakistan 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.

 

[Nononsense]

Sir it won't hurt India but will destroy us.Our Cities will be flooded and crops destroyed.

India can use this thing in war.We should had destroyed Indian Dams while they were still under construction.Now they have become weapons.

bahi jiska tumne yeh jawab diya hai usse farrak nahi padta, he is in Canada, where there is loads of ice and water.

They would be glued to TV/ Internet to view the War or hostilities ..just like the cricket match.

Problem has to be resolved with dialog and on terms of WIN WIN

There is never a solution where some one looses.

 

[ajtr]

INDIA/PAKISTAN: Indus Water Treaty Agitates Kashmiris

SRINAGAR, Oct 15, 2008 (IPS) - As Pakistan and India wrangle over the waters of the Chenab, Kashmiris - through whose homeland the river and four other tributaries of the mighty Indus flow - have reason to be agitated.

Soon after Indian Prime Minister inaugurated the 450 Mw Baglihar hydro-electric dam project across the Chenab, during a visit to Jammu & Kashmir state last week, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari warned that disrupting the flow of the river could reverse recent improvements in ties between the two neighbours.

"Pakistan would be paying a very high price for India's move to block Pakistan's water supply from the Chenab River," the official Associated Press of Pakistan quoted Zardari as saying on Sunday.

Zardari made reference to the World Bank-mediated 1960 Indus Water Treaty which allows the two countries share the Indus river and its five tributaries - the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej - and provides mechanisms for dispute settlement.

Under the treaty, Pakistan received exclusive use of waters from the Indus and its westward flowing tributaries, the Jhelum and Chenab, while the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers were allocated for India's use.

India, which has a right to ‘’run-of-the-river’’ projects has rejected Pakistan's contention that the Baglihar dam reduces the flow of water and says the project is crucial for power-starved Kashmir.

In 2005 Pakistan had sought the World Bank's intervention to stop construction of the Baglihar dam and the hydroelectricity power project, but Bank-appointed experts cleared the project while asking India to restrict the overall height of the dam.

Earlier India had to stop construction of Tulbul Navigation Project on the River Jhelum on account of objections raised by Pakistan. While India maintained that the project was designed to improve navigation, especially during the winter when the water level recedes, Pakistan said that the Wullar Barrage [as Islamabad calls the project] is a storage project which will affect the flow of water. Work on the project has remained stalled for 20 years.

Under the treaty, Pakistan is to receive 55,000 cusecs of water, but authorities there complain that this year Pakistan's share was drastically reduced, causing damage to crops. "Pakistan received between 13,000 cusecs during the winter and a maximum of 29,000 cusecs during summer. This averages around 22,000 to 25,000 cusecs - less than half of Pakistan's share,’’ newspapers in Pakistan, citing authorities, say.

India and Pakistan may be talking to each other to settle their disputes over the Indus water, but the people in Indian Kashmir say that the two countries are actually reaping the benefits of what are their resources. Thanks to the Indus Water Treaty, only 40 percent of the cultivatable land in the state can be irrigated and 10 percent of the hydroelectric potential harnessed.

"Who represented Kashmir then [1960] at the table? What was the ‘locus standi’ of the two countries to abuse waters of a region that had independent identity till 1947, and on which they disputed each other's claim afterwards?" asks human rights activist, Shayik Nazir.

"The issue that remains at the center of Indus water treaty is that the treaty was signed at a time when Jammu & Kashmir was passing through a phase of both economic and political innocence. There was a political leadership in the state which was working in what one can say as national interest [of India] at that point of time", says political analyst Gul Mohammad Wani.

"The popular political leadership; the legitimate political leadership [in Jammu & Kashmir] was out of the political scene. We had a government which had absolutely no legitimacy and no credibility in the estimation of the people of the state and it was during those times the treaty was signed."

Srinagar-based economic expert Arjimand Hussain Talib says that the treaty drastically limits the economic benefits to Kashmir. "And then the power houses which are being built on these are generally owned by the Indian government without taking into consideration the fact that they basically flow through Jammu and Kashmir", Arjimand told IPS.

"They don't share the profits and the resources which are generated through these (rivers) with the Jammu & Kashmir state except for the 12 percent royalty on power that it gets,’’ he added.

Shakeel Qalandhar, president of the Kashmir Industries and Commerce Federation, says that Kashmir's economy would have greatly progressed, but for the 1960 treaty. "Through these three main rivers, we could have generated hydroelectric power not less than 30,000 Mw, but we are generating just over 300 Mw in the state sector and 1,600 Mw in the central sector. In all it is less than 2,000 Mw whereas we require 2,500 Mw of electricity for our own consumption - domestic and industrial.’’

According to Qalandar, every year Jammu & Kashmir purchases power [from the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation] worth billions of dollars. "It is a tragedy that despite having the potential of generating 30,000 Mw of power, 25 percent of our population is without electricity and 55 percent is without safe drinking, despite huge water resources in the state."

Over the last few years, the state government of Jammu & Kashmir and industrial groups in the state have been demanding compensation from the central government for the losses incurred by the state because of the Indus Water Treaty.

Motions were moved in the state assembly on three different occasions by the legislators asking the federal government to review the treaty and pay compensation to the state. "Our state is suffering due to the wrong decision of the then leaders and we are losing billions of dollars annually", contended legislator, Depinder Kour, while moving a resolution in the assembly a few years ago.

"Ours is a land-locked state. We don't have industries and other economic resources except the water. But because of the treaty, India and Pakistan benefit while Jammu & Kashmir suffers huge economic losses. That is why we are seeking compensation,'' says Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami, state secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI).

 

[ajtr]

Pak muddies waters: ‘don’t build any power plant in J&K’

In a move that’s angered officials here, Islamabad has sought to ratchet up what it calls the “water controversy” by asking New Delhi to undertake “no construction of power generation works” on its western rivers.
This, essentially, means no projects in Jammu and Kashmir.

Sources said this message came for Pakistan in a “non-paper” during the Foreign Secretary-level talks a fortnight ago.

The non-paper comes after Islamabad’s objections to the Kishenganga hydro-electric project and its earlier effort to scuttle the Baglihar project which the World Bank-appointed neutral observer settled in India’s favour in 2007.

It may be noted that this was done in accordance with the dispute-resolution mechanism spelt out in the Indus Waters Treaty. In fact, Pakistan’s documented set of concerns in the recently concluded talks do not go beyond regular complaints about delays in sharing data.

Still, the issue, which has now turned into an anti-India campaign — championed by none other than the likes of Hafiz Mohammed Saeed and leaders of the banned Jamaat-ud- Dawa — prompted the Pak government to make specific suggestions. The key ones:

* Full and timely communication of design information and data by India to Pakistan on new power-generation plants and irrigation works on western rivers.

New Delhi has provided information on all 33 hydro-power projects on western rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus. As for irrigation, India has underutilized its rights — using water to irrigate just about 0.8 million acres as against the permissible limit of about 1.35 million acres.

Officials say India can build as many as run-of-the river hydro-power projects and needs to provide information six months before work begins.

* Communication of data of all existing G&D (gauges and discharges) stations including the data of flow at the newly constructed, under construction and planned plants/works. Officials say India is sharing data with Pakistan every month. In fact, at the time of FS talks, India had already shared data until October 2009. India has also not build any storage on western rivers so far despite that fact that the treaty allows India to do so.

* No construction of power generation works may be undertaken on western rivers until objections are amicable resolved by the two countries

Officials feel Pakistan has used provisions under the Indus Treaty to seek information for endlessly delaying the projects. They point out that India has suffered as it has been able to harness only about 2324 MW as against the estimated potential of 18,653 MW from 106 schemes on these rivers.

* Joint watershed management and joint commissioning of environmental studies to address environmental concerns including deforestation, water pollution and climate change

Indian officials feel New Delhi remains concerned about these issues on its own does not need Pakistan to intervene.

* Cooperation in resolution of issues relating to Wullar Barrage Storage Project, Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant, reported construction of new plants such as Chutak and construcion of storage sites as well as issue relating to reduction of water flow Pakistan contests the project on Wullar as a storage project with a barrage but Indian officials maintain that it’s a control structure for regulated release, which is permitted under the Treaty, and not a storage project. Both countries are still negotiating.

As for Kishanganga, India says it has already revised its project to be a run-of-the river, which is allowed under the Treaty.

Pakistan objects to this project saying that it has existing uses of the water of Kishanganga river, called Neelum in Pakistan. But Islamabad has so far not given details of its existing usage to substantiate its claims.

Incidentally, Pakistan has not built any storage projects on its western rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, which account for an average water flow of 135 million acre feet — this despite the fact that the treaty allows India to utilise 3.6 million acre feet for storage projects. In contrast, of the 33 million acre feet of unrestricted use of water from the eastern rivers, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, India has not been able to harness the entire potential leaving 3 million acre feet water flowing into Pakistan.

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

Do Pakistan’s claims over the Indus hold water?

Pakistan has, since 2009, virtually inscribed Indus waters as the “core issue”. Witness the Pakistan foreign secretary, Salman Bashir’s recent demarche in Delhi meshing with the heady jihadi rhetoric of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa/LeT chief, Hafiz Saeed.
The Indus Waters Treaty has worked well in a harsh environment of recurrent war and recrimination under the watchful eye of the Indus Commission, headed by empowered engineers fortified with a concurrent conflict management and resolution mechanism. A neutral expert was only summoned once, over Baglihar two years ago, a court of arbitration never. For the rest, the Indus commissioners have overseen current operations and future plans by means of a reasonably transparent and accountable process.

The treaty allocates the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) wholly to Pakistan, but entitled India to irrigate 1.3 million acres and store 3.60 million acre feet of water for conservation, flood moderation and hydel generation within Jammu and Kashmir. India, in turn, was allocated the entire flows of the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi), barring minor irrigation uses for Pakistan from four nullahs that join the Ravi. In the final reckoning Pakistan got 80 per cent of the overall flows of the Indus and India 20 per cent.

The treaty mandates broad Pakistani approval for Indian works on the western rivers in J&K. This led to considerable delays in progressing Sallal, Uri, Dul Hasti, and Baglihar, all run-of-river hydel schemes with diurnal peaking “pondage” to drive the turbines, but no “storage”. The Tulbul flood detention barrage across the Jhelum has been stymied for 18 years! The design objections to Baglihar, finally cleared in India’s favour with minor modifications by the neutral expert two years ago, as in the case of Sallal was that sudden pondage or release of such impoundments could dry up the lower course of the Chenab, or cause floods that would render Pakistan economically and strategically vulnerable. The argument is bizarre and ignores simple facts of valley geometry and prior hazards that India would face before any damage to Pakistan 110 kms down river.

Objection has been taken to the proposed upper Chenab Sawalkote and Pakul Dul projects and the re-designed Kishenganga project, all run-of-river schemes. Uri-II and Baglihar-II will merely utilise seasonal flush flows to generate secondary power as permitted by the treaty. The Kishenganga project entails diverting this Jhelum tributary (known as Neelum in Pakistan), into the Wular lake through which it is returned to the Jhelum, in accordance with the treaty. Pakistan claims that the Kishenganga diversion will leave insufficient water for its Neelum-Jhelum irrigation-cum-hydro project above Muzaffarabad. India has, however, assured it certain ecological releases which, with other stream flows, should suffice to protect Pakistan’s “existing uses” at the time India first submitted its Kishengaga proposals, as required.

In any event, recourse may be had to IWT mechanisms for resolving “differences” and “disputes”. India has so far not fully utilised its irrigation quota on the three western rivers nor invested in its storage entitlement. “Surplus” Indian waters continue to flow to Pakistan from the western and even the eastern rivers, as the Rajasthan Canal command, under development, is yet to draw fully from Ravi-Beas waters.

Both Pakistan and India face water stress, which will be accentuated by climate change. Aberrant weather and melting Tibetan permafrost and glacial ice could enhance sedimentation and debris dam and glacial lake hazards. Cooperation is essential, not only between India and Pakistan but with China. Meanwhile, even as Indian utilisation of its water entitlements in J&K encounters Pakistani objections, the latter has no control over the upper catchments of the three western rivers. If these waters are to be optimally utilised, the key lies in chapter VII of the treaty, “Future Cooperation”, that envisages joint studies and engineering works in the upper Indus catchment on both sides of the LOC.

Rather than seek conflict resolution or future cooperation under the aegis of the IWT, Pakistan seems inclined to up the ante. J&K is being emotionally resurrected as a “lifeline” issue even as its territorial claims on Kashmir are undermined by jihadi terror. Hafiz Saeed has addressed rallies in Muzaffarabad and Lahore. As recently as March 7, he denounced India’s “theft” of waters through “illegal dams” that could trigger nuclear war. Banners proclaimed “water or war”, “water flows or blood”, “Liberate Kashmir to secure water”, and “No peace with Indian water aggression”.

A carefully constructed and longstanding water framework is being crudely altered from technical to political. Reason is yielding to emotion, accepted principles to ideological hysteria. The locus is shifting from the Indus Commission to the mob and non-state actors. Undermining the IWT can do no good. We need cooperation, not confrontation.

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------

Water: a pre-eminent political issue

Urban/urbane

Friday, March 12, 2010
Ahmad Rafay Alam

The word "riparian" has been appearing in the media far too frequently for my liking. It's usually preceded by the adjective "lower" and usually followed by an irrational rant about how the "upper riparian" is taking advantage. This is unsettling because, as one knows, when the word "riparian" becomes part of one's day-to-day vocabulary, it means water has become a major issue. And it should be. As has been foretold, water is becoming, if not already is, the mother of all political issues.

At Partition, we are told that Pakistan had water resources in the region of 5,000 cubic meters per person. Now, we are told this resource has fallen to close to 1,200 cubic meters per person, a figure the UN warns is close to when a country is said to be "water scarce". That may sound alarming but, as someone once said, there are lies, damn, lies and then there are statistics

Nevertheless, the fact is that Pakistan's water resources are fast dwindling. But before someone panics, they need to understand that, more than other things, we are becoming water scarce because of the remarkable job we've done at breeding: it's the increasing population that's one of the reasons our per capita water resource statistics are falling.

There are other reasons why Pakistan's water resources are falling. There is, for example, the remarkably outdated and inefficient irrigation system we currently have in operation. Over 90 per cent of Pakistan's water resources are used in irrigation (with somewhere near 3 to 5 per cent servicing drinking water requirements and the remainders servicing specific industrial purposes), and over 40 per cent of irrigation water is said to be "lost" because of evaporation and theft. Then there's the world famous Pakistani work ethic: in today's day and age, farming is a science and economical yields simply can't be achieved if sowing and harvest dates are left subservient to the whims of lazy farmers (with due apologies to the many hard-working members of the agricultural sector).

Pakistan's water resources aren't just threatened by inefficient irrigation and farming techniques. There is also the spectre of climate change. Almost all of Pakistan's water resources originate from glacial melt off of Himalayan glaciers. Increases in global temperatures resulting from climate change are expected to affect the rate of glacial melt: At first there will be widespread flooding and then, as the glaciers melt away, there will be no water resource. This is expected to happen within the next century.

The 2003 Government of Pakistan Initial Communication on Climate Change indicates that global warming will affect every one of Pakistan's cash crops. This will affect our agriculture -- the current backbone of the national economy -- and rural livelihood. As things stand, poverty in Pakistan -- and nearly 30 per cent of the population hovers near the poverty line -- is a rural phenomenon. The economic effects of a shortage of water will affect rural livelihood and only exacerbate the conditions of poverty that increasing numbers of children will be forced to experience.

Water shortages have affected inter-provincial relations. The waters of the Indus Basin are regulated within Pakistan by the Indus River System Authority (IRSA), which itself was created by the inter-provincial Water Accord of 1991. Sindh regularly accuses Punjab of not providing it with its share of water. Punjab, on the other hand, claims nothing more than its rightful share of water under the Water Accord. With crop productivity affected in both provinces due to water shortages, IRSA hasn't been much successful in resolving the increasingly antagonistic positions being taken by these opposing provinces. This has the potential to affect inter-provincial harmony and, by extension, the balance of power in government.

If these factors don't qualify water to be a pre-eminent political issue in this country, then surely the international repercussions of water will.

Just as the lower riparian Sindhi is a vicious critic of the upper riparian Punjabi, the lower riparian Pakistani holds a deep amount of scepticism of his upper riparian Indian. The flow of water in the Indus Basin is regulated by an agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan: the Indus Basin Treaty, 1960. Under the treaty, the rights over the water of the three Eastern rivers (Sutlej, Bias and Ravi) are given to India and the use of the waters of the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) is given to Pakistan. Recently, and there has been further proof that water is an pre-eminent political issue of our time--India has been accused of "stealing" Pakistan's share of water. Even if Pakistan had the latest means to accurately measure the flows of water--and thereby substantiate its claims--this accusation cleverly hides the fact that, on account of climate change, there are circumstances of drought along the Indian side of the western rivers under Pakistan's control.

Pakistan and India need to sit down to examine the issue of the management of their shared resource of the Indus Basin. Pakistan can only do this if it has a strong opening bargaining position vis-�-vis India, else it stands to lose even the precarious ground it holds under the Indus Water Treaty. This is a point that the proponents of "revisiting" the treaty on the grounds that it does not envision the impact of climate change must keep in mind.

Water also has security repercussions. It is my understanding (and I stand to be corrected here) that one of the reasons the Pakistan Army maintains the troop levels it does on the eastern border (when the fighting is so obviously along the western border) is because water is considered a security issue. If India gains control of the western rivers of the Indus Basin, it will have the advantage to literally shut off Pakistan's water resources. In addition, since the canal irrigation system also provides security against a ground attack, Pakistan's ability to charge these canals will determine some of its defence capabilities. Unlike other political issues in Pakistan, water is not just one- or two-dimensional. Water is multi-dimensional. No other political issue affects the Pakistani economy and society, creates internal migration, is directly linked to climate change, places stress on inter-provincial relations, has security repercussions and involves negotiations with India all at the same time.

At the moment, the types of voices that are filling the debate are unsettling. Over and above the clich�d upper and lower riparian antagonism, the debate is often fuelled by anti-Indian sentiment. One senior journalist has gone as far as offering himself as a human bomb against Indian dams. For once, I wish he would carry out his threat to prove to others who share his worldview: This is not how things are resolved.

In water, the mother of all political issues, Pakistani politics faces a great challenge. For better or worse, the full attention of the Pakistani people is soon going to focus on water-related issues. This is the time for forward and out-of-the box thinking on never-before- encountered problems. Solutions to water-related issues are hot topics globally and all eyes are fixed on how a democratic Pakistan is dealing with the issues water is throwing at it. We must not let the debate and our actions on water be hijacked by unproductive jingoism. In today's world, Pakistan must constructively deal with its problems. If this can be done, water can be an issue on which Pakistan can be an example to the world.



The writer is an advocate of the high court and a member of the adjunct faculty at LUMS. He has an interest in urban planning. Email: ralam@nexlinx.net.pk

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan Water Front formed

Friday, March 12, 2010
By Mansoor Ahmad

LAHORE: India is building water projects on Jehlum, Chenab and Indus in violation of international treaties apart from building huge $120 billion storage capability (national river linking project) of 178 cubic KM water from north to south that has environmental repercussions.(The dams india is building is run-of-the river dams not the storage dams.secondly when the river linking project has been scrapped at the study level itself by terming it not feasible.

Convener of the newly formed Pakistan Water Front Shahzad Malik stated this in a brief given to the farmers, media and civil society representatives.

He said the projects have been designed to deprive its neighbouring countries Pakistan, Bangladesh and China of their legitimate rights to the rivers that pass through Indian soil.(I'm not aware of any river which flows from india to china.this is height of spreading rumors and lies and mis-information

He said as far as Pakistan is concerned the Indian politicians have full backing of their trade and industry.

Shahzad said the Federation of Indian Commerce and Industry in its detailed advisory report on Pakistan had asked its government to use all means to control Pakistan including surprise military strikes, denial of air space rights to Pakistani aircrafts and stopping river water from going into Pakistan by building dams.

The report pointed out that water is a matter of life and death for Pakistan and the country could be brought to its knees by this tool.

"The FICCI is a two faced monster that supports Pakistan-India trade at public forums while advising its government to destroy Pakistan", he added.

He said Pakistani businessmen are now determined to defeat the nefarious designs of Indian businessmen and expose them to the world.

He said the PWF having blessings of the Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been formed by the Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry that has deplored the anti-Pakistan stance adopted by FICCI.

The LCCI President Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry said PWF has been formed to mobilize the domestic and international opinion on the rights that Pakistan enjoys through internationally guaranteed Indus Water Treaty.

He said all stakeholders including farmers, media, and civil society representatives have been inducted in the PWF. The LCCI president distributed the FICCI report to the media and informed them that it was downloaded from FICCI website but after uproar in Pakistan it has now been withdrawn from the net.

The Pakistan Water Front, he added, had already sought the cooperation and guidance from all farmers associations, civil society and media.

He said unified line of action would be formulated so that the case of the country could be effectively pleaded at the international forums.

The LCCI President Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry said that after seeing the designs of the Indian businessmen the trade talks with India should be stopped forthwith.

He said trade could only be conducted with those that respect the legitimate rights of each other. Usurpers of basic water and human rights he added cannot be trusted trade partners.

Through a presentation given to the media, the LCCI made the point that Pakistan is on the brink of mass starvation as the process to turn it into a desert had begun because of a drastic cut in water availability from 5,000 cubic meters per capita in 1950s to 1,000 cubic meter in 2010 despite the fact that water availability per capita ranks last amongst Asian countries and Pakistan experiencing severe water stress.

Without water 20 million acres of otherwise fertile land would dry up in a week and tens of millions of people would starve.

No army, with bombs and shellfire could devastate as thoroughly as Pakistan could be devastated by India by cutting off river flows, the LCCI chief warned.

[

 

[hillman32]

I am very much sure that next Pak-India war will be over water dispute.

India is a cheat and India is stealing Pakistani water share.

we, Pakistani masses, wont let that happen for long time.

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan writes to World Bank on concerns over Sutlej power project​

Ratcheting up tension with India over water, Pakistan has gone to the World Bank in an attempt to block the 775 mega watt Luhri hydroelectric project being set up in Himachal Pradesh on the Sutlej.
Pakistan has accused India of not abiding by the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and wants all its water concerns to be addressed before the Bank goes ahead with the funding of this project.
“India is benefiting from the flow of eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej). However, the obligation by India with regard to western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) — the waters of which have been allotted to Pakistan — are not being met in letter and spirit of the treaty,” said the Pakistani government in its April 19 letter to the Bank.
Even though the Sutlej is one of three eastern rivers awarded to India under the treaty, Pakistan has indicated to the Bank that Delhi should take its (Pakistan’s) views on projects coming on the eastern rivers.
Pakistan has no ‘locus standi’ on the issue, an official in India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) told HT.
“India is allowed to tap all 33 million acre feet of water from the eastern rivers,” the official said. “It still allows 3 maf to flow into Pakistan. Though the treaty even allows India to compensate for this 3 million maf with water from the western rivers, Delhi hasn’t thought in this direction”, the official said.
“Pakistan is doing all this to divert attention from many factors, including its mismanagement of water resources."
Pakistan's views come at the time when both countries are about to restart their political engagement. The foreign ministers of two countries are set to meet on July 16 in Islamabad to address the post-Mumbai trust deficit and work out the modalities for the future dialogue and to discuss "all issues of mutual concern".
In the past, Pakistan has protested over the Baglihar hydro power project on the Chenab river in Jammu and Kashmir, and has been pushing India to renegotiate the Indus Water treaty.
Pakistan also said India has raised “objections against the construction of Bhasha dam and its funding by the World Bank in Indus river,” which along with two other western rivers, Jhelum and Chenab, are awarded to Pakistan under the 1960 treaty.