Pakistan And India-Water Disputes-News And Updates

[digitaltiger]

Water is an basic need of humanity and no one in the world should use it as a weapon against any one under any circumstances. There are other ways of dealing with Pakistan but water, no way. Think of poor and dependent people.

 

[Roybot]

I am Indian and hate the Pak deeds towards us but I am against cutting water to anyone. Life is more precious than that. The Muslims may think otherwise about life on earth but as a humanitarian I think life is more precious than the acrimony.

We don't even need to cut, we just need to use 100% share of our water a few months before Pak harvests its crops. That alone should do enough damage...

No one has said anything about cutting the water, abrogating the treaty doesn't mean blocking or diverting water. It will just give us the right to utiltize and harness the hydel power as and when we please, without Pakistan throwing a spanner in the works all the time. Why should we let an adversary have leverage over how and when we want to use or natural resources?

Why doesn't China have such a treaty with India or India with Bangladesh? What exactly are we getting by taking this sanctimonious approach? Terrorist attacks?

If Pakistan wants it water, it will have to learn to behave.

 

[Nilgiri]

I am Indian and hate the Pak deeds towards us but I am against cutting water to anyone. Life is more precious than that. The Muslims may think otherwise about life on earth but as a humanitarian I think life is more precious than the acrimony.

Abrogating/tearing/suspending the IWT does not equate cutting the water off.

 

[gayMo]

No one has said anything about cutting the water, abrogating the treaty doesn't mean blocking or diverting water. It will just give us the right to utiltize and harness the hydel power as and when we please, without Pakistan throwing a spanner in the works all the time. Why should we let an adversary have leverage over how and when we want to use or natural resources?

Why doesn't China have such a treaty with India or India with Bangladesh? What exactly are we getting by taking this sanctimonious approach? Terrorist attacks?

If Pakistan wants it water, it will have to learn to behave.

Your last statement says exactly about cutting supplies and I am against that.

Abrogating/tearing/suspending the IWT does not equate cutting the water off.

I hope you are correct. But this will give us the ability to do so. And that is wrong.pak is evil but cutting water supply is more so.

 

[ranjeet]

That was on the percent age of distribution where I have no expertise. But as far as sanctity of treaty and international obligations are concerned, I am pretty savvy to comment on that.

Kindly do explain.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

None of them were international treatise with international guarantees. Compare apple with apples.

Atleast you agree that Pakistan walked out of these treaties unilaterally. Second, treaties are based out of mutual trust. They don't hold any value if there is no trust in between the parties. Pakistan can go to WB or any other place if they feel threaten for international guarantees.
Anyways, India is not walking out of the treaty. We feel there is a need to revisit the treaty due to changing demands and situations (CLimate change is one of the major challenge). Hence, India is raising the issue of IWT.

 

[third eye]

Those who feel the treaty will be scrapped need to consider what India will do with so much water ( Indus & Jhelum) once existing storage sources are full. India has to either divert or store this water . The issue is where ? Can we cut through the mountains & divert this water to the plains ?

Or, can we divert this water into the Chenab and divert it inland from the plains of Akhnoor / Jammu before it flows into Marala HW in Pakistan.

A little known fact is that we not only gave them water , we also paid them to construct ( refer Article V - Financial Provisions) canals which were used against us.

We paid the 62060,000 pounds sterling in ten equal installments to construct water channels in W Pakistan. This was paid on the 1st of Nov each year - Even possibly during the years when we fought wars !!!

Thats not all, Pakistan used this money to create defense oriented canals whose western banks were higher than the Eastern ones ! In effect , we paid them to create defenses against us !!

Can there be a more ludicrous agreement.

@nair @Nair saab @MilSpec @Nilgiri @Roybot

 

[Roybot]

Your last statement says exactly about cutting supplies and I am against that.


I hope you are correct. But this will give us the ability to do so. And that is wrong.pak is evil but cutting water supply is more so.

If Pakistan can hold India hostage with its threats of nuclear weapons and MAD, India can too, by a much benign right to turn the tap off on Pakistan.

The treaty was signed in a spirit of goodwill and friendship, which as of now just doesn't exist in the present India-Pakistan context.

 

[graphican]

Kindly do explain.

What you want to be explained? International treaties and obligations of countries towards it?

 

[footmarks]

Letting 80% water flow through to another country, which country does that? that too for a country which is a sworn enemy? I am not in favor of using something as fundamental to life as water for war or settling scores. But sometimes, situations do warrant using means such s this to bring your adversary on sane terms.

We should not stop water from flowing to pakistan, but we should start building dams and reservoirs so that we CAN do that if situation ever comes to that.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

I am thinking, what if we create a holy place around Indus river like Ganga, and start and annual festival (like Kumbh) by having a dip in the Indus river. Will it cause any issue with the IWT?

 

[Roybot]

Those who feel the treaty will be scrapped need to consider what India will do with so much water ( Indus & Jhelum) once existing storage sources are full. India has to either divert or store this water . The issue is where ? Can we cut through the mountains & divert this water to the plains ?

Or, can we divert this water into the Chenab and divert it inland from the plains of Akhnoor / Jammu before it flows into Marala HW in Pakistan.

A little known fact is that we not only gave them water , we also paid them to construct ( refer Article V - Financial Provisions) canals which were used against us.

We paid the 62060,000 pounds sterling in ten equal installments to construct water channels in W Pakistan. This was paid on the 1st of Nov each year - Even possibly during the years when we fought wars !!!

Thats not all, Pakistan used this money to create defense oriented canals whose western banks were higher than the Eastern ones ! In effect , we paid them to create defenses against us !!

Can there be a more ludicrous agreement.

@nair @Nair saab @MilSpec @Nilgiri @Roybot

Scrapping the treaty doesn't automatically mean diverting the water. As for what we can do with the Indus waters, that we can plan and decide when the need arises. For starters we can build dams, both ROR and reservoir dams, without Pakistan stalling it, and without the IWT dictating how tall and big the dam can be. India is a growing economy, we need power, clean and green power, and what better way than hydel projects?

As for tunneling through the mountains and diverting the water to the plains, we can do that too, once we have the means, resources and the need to do that. If we want to do it in the future, we ll have that option, which with this IWT in place we won't.

 

[ranjeet]

What you want to be explained? International treaties and obligations of countries towards it?

Indus water treaty and India/Pakistan's obligations.

 

[Nilgiri]

I hope you are correct. But this will give us the ability to do so. And that is wrong.pak is evil but cutting water supply is more so.

And we hit the classic predicament that faces all societies in human history, right from the first cro-magnon picking up the first flint axe to strike an enemy down to save his own family.

The predicament of how much "evil" must be done to counter those that are "evil" for the greater good (as we see it)?

 

[gayMo]

And we hit the classic predicament that faces all societies in human history, right from the first cro-magnon picking up the first flint axe to strike an enemy down to save his own family.

The predicament of how much "evil" must be done to counter those that are "evil" for the greater good (as we see it)?

True, but we are far more evolved than that, although some peoples don't believe in evolution.
The thing is it will come back to bite you.