Pakistan And India-Water Disputes-News And Updates

[I M Sikander]

Delhi decides to suspend Indus Water Commission talks
THE NEWSPAPER'S CORRESPONDENT — UPDATED ABOUT AN HOUR AGO
WHATSAPP
15 COMMENTS
PRINT
NEW DELHI: India has decided to suspend Indus Water Commission talks until “Pakistan-sponsored terror” in India ends, The Hindu said on Monday.

It quoted sources as saying the decision was taken at a meeting presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday to review the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan amid heightened tension between the two countries.

National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar, the water resources secretary and senior officials were present at the meeting, the paper said.

According to a former commissioner for the IWT, India’s decision to suspend talks on the treaty means that there will be no meetings, as described in the agreement, between the commissioners of the two countries in future. “If they (India) have decided to do so, there will be no meeting between the commissioners of the two countries that is mandatory to be held once in a year. Similarly, the meetings that are held time to time under the treaty on any issue either on the request of Pakistan or India will not be held now,” Syed Jamat Ali Shah told Dawn.

Sources told The Hindu that while the treaty was not reviewed in the meeting, steps to utilise India’s western rivers in a better way were discussed.

It was also decided to suspend the 1987 Tulbul navigation project and review it. Mr Modi was briefed about the dams under construction in Jammu and Kashmir, who wanted work on them to be expedited.

Mr Modi said that “blood and water can’t flow together”.

The review is being undertaken as India weighs options to respond to Pakistan following the Uri attack that left 18 soldiers dead.

There have been previous calls in India that the government scrap the water distribution pact to mount pressure on Pakistan in the aftermath of earlier terror attacks.

Under the treaty, which was signed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President Ayub Khan in Sept 1960, water of six rivers — Beas, Ravi, Sutlej, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum — are to be shared between the two countries.

Pakistan has been complaining of not receiving enough water and gone for international arbitration in a couple of cases.

Khalid Hasnain in Lahore contributed to this report

Published in Dawn, September 27th, 2016


WHATSAPP
15 COMMENTS
PRINT

When you fail to satisfy your common people and do nothing after tall claims after Urri attack, measures like this are expected.
Don't worry Indians, keep continue with your idiotic steps, we are enjoying.

 

[coffee_cup]

Is there a smiley for big YAWN?

We need to use it quite often for Indian threats.....

 

[ranjeet]

Yeah wait till the Chinese regulate water and get their "legal share". It is not a question of China supporting Pakistan on Kashmir but a question of Pakistan's survival and Chinese stakes in Pakistan are high. Only time will tell but I do not think that Modi Sarkaar has the gall to create any problems for Pakistan.

Like you said only time will tell. Lets wait for things to unfold ... latest update

https://twitter.com/x/status/780652389556625408

Can be done over 20% of water volume...Shiri Moo Dhoye Jee!

Wheat sowing season is coming up, if india regulates water flow during this season it might pose a serious threat.

 

[Bouncer]

Even elites are getting hyper these days. Just relax, why don you just shun the policy of terrorism for your own benefit at least this will improve your image and world will listen to you.
A person carrying pakistani passport is synonym of terrorist at all international airports.Have seen myself how green passport holders are singled out and humiliated on account of search and purpose of visit. Disposing policy of terrorism will be a great favor to your own countrymen.

So Indians have gone from an all out attack on Pakistan to surgical strikes to isolating Pakistan to scrapping the IWT. My prediction is that the final "action" will be done by Indians in a Bollywood movie lol

World Bank is a signatory to the IWT. You scrap it unilaterally and you'll every single case related to it in International courts. Go ahead. We double dare you.

 

[barbarosa]

Modi should d

So Indians have gone from an all out attack on Pakistan to surgical strikes to isolating Pakistan to scrapping the IWT. My prediction is that the final "action" will be done by Indians in a Bollywood movie lol

World Bank is a signatory to the IWT. You scrap it unilaterally and you'll every single case related to it in International courts. Go ahead. We double dare you.

Modi should do which he can uri accident is not Indian internal issue and nor Indian internal territory.
India will try its best how to show Uri as an Indian territory,do not wary of Indian acting.

 

[dray]

To begin with, we should play fair and give Pakistan a fair share of 50% of the total water in all the 6 rivers.......presently the treaty is very highly skewed towards Pakistan.

Then we will again review it if Pakistan continues to play unfair.

BTW, any Pakistani threatening a war is welcome to do so.

 

[Tshering22]

Fair enough. But he is realistic than your PM. Anyways. You can follow whoever you want to.

Okay. You say he is unrealistic.

Has PM Modi:

- Asked for war?

- Threatened for war?

- Done or warned of doing anything to harm the Pakistani population?

How exactly then, do you call him unrealistic?

 

[SirHatesALot]

To begin with, we should play fair and give Pakistan a fair share of 50% of the total water in all the 6 rivers.......presently the treaty is very highly skewed towards Pakistan.

Then we will again review it if Pakistan continues to play unfair.

BTW, any Pakistani threatening a war is welcome to do so.

Pakistan is only entitled to water from 3 rivers

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

How does blowing up Siachen flood HP?
The drainage of Siachen i.e. Shyok River is a tributary of Indus which ultimately will end up flooding Pakistan.
Moreover suspension of talks doesn't mean India will divert every last drop of water towards India.It means no additional clauses will be drafted onto IWT in the foreseeable future, talks of which were being conducted.

i knew someone will bring this up. There's something called "back water flooding" and you should know how vulnerable nubar-shyok joint or south end of shyok is . And HP is actually far off for any spillover but once the threshold is crossed by any spill it can go out of control basically it can go anywhere . highly disastrous.. but I admit I added that as a response for the Drown-down-Pakistan rhetoric and it's far fetched.

 

[Archie]

India can do whatever it wants, as long as it abides by the treaty.

Well if u read the entire speech of Modi,

The idea is not to break the treaty, but to use the full share of water allotted to us.

That alone will reduce the flow of water into pakistan

 

[kmc_chacko]

As Bhutto said: "So what if the whole of East Pakistan falls? So what if the whole of West Pakistan falls? We will build a new Pakistan. We will build a better Pakistan."

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was killed by peoples who were against his vision of "Building new Pakistan" then how can you think of realizing his dreams ?

 

[خره مينه لګته وي]

ISLAMABAD: In its anti-Pakistan rhetoric following Islamabad’s recent diplomatic effort to highlight the Kashmir issue, the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been whipping up ideas to scrap the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 to cause irreparable economic loss to the lower riparian.

While such a move could be labelled as a ‘hostile act’ and attract international criticism, India has the capability to increase the use of waters flowing into the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers. It can also build more reservoirs in India-occupied Kashmir as a double-edge weapon.

Signed by President Ayub Khan and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in Sept 1960 and brokered by the World Bank, the treaty set bilateral principles of water sharing between the two nations. Under the provisions of the treaty that also survived the 1965 and 1971 wars, the waters of the eastern rivers — the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — had been allocated to India and the western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — to Pakistan except for certain non-consumptive uses.

Dawn spoke to Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a former federal law minister, President Research Society of International Law and an advocate in the Supreme Court on the issue. Following is the Q&A of the session.

Former federal law minister Ahmer Bilal Soofi


Q: Can India unilaterally revoke IWT?

A: India has no legal competence under the treaty to revoke it per se on its own. Article 12(4) of the treaty entitles the termination of the treaty only if both India and Pakistan agree in writing. In other words, a termination treaty has to be drafted by both states and then ratified by both, to bring the IWT to an end. The treaty has no provision for unilateral “suspension”. It is of an indefinite duration and was never intended to be time-specific or event-specific.

The IWT is not regime-specific — but rather state-specific. It will not expire with regime change. It is binding on both the states equally and offers no exit provision. Walking away from a treaty is in effect its breach. If India unilaterally stops following the treaty by giving any justification such as “revocation”, “suspension”, “withdrawal” or “annulment” etc. then it really means that it has decided to interrupt the water flow into Pakistan. In other words what India will call “revocation or withdrawal”, Pakistan will refer to as a “breach”.

Q: Is there any arbitration clause that can be set in motion should India go to that extreme?

A: There is an arbitration clause in the IWT. It is article IX and annexes F and G which contain detailed procedures about the taking of the grievance by either party under the IWT first to the commission, then to a neutral expert and later to the forum of arbitrators. Under the IWT, if India thinks that Pakistan’s conduct constitutes a dispute under article IX, then it must commence the procedure prescribed under Annexes F and G. India cannot itself conclude that Pakistan has breached the treaty on any grounds, including mistrust.

In case India “revokes” the treaty, it literally means it has shunned it. The dispute resolution mechanism under article IX and Annexes F and G of the IWT will be of no use and assistance to Pakistan.

It is limited to a dispute under the treaty and not meant to provide for specific performance of the treaty itself.

Since there is no provision in the IWT about its duration or suspension, there is no avenue that Pakistan can approach for “revival” of the treaty. Nor can Pakistan approach the International Court of Justice seeking specific performance to implement the treaty because of the Indian reservation given under IC J statute that bars filing of case by Pakistan against India.

In other words, Pakistan will not be left with any peaceful mechanism for seeking performance of the treaty by India.

Q: What if India stops Pakistani waters downstream and could this set a precedent for China upstream? Indian acts as a precedence for China?

A: Even if there were no IWT, an upper riparian, under the International Water Law, has no right to stop the water flow to a lower riparian. In case India tries to interrupt water flow into Pakistan as an upper riparian, it is setting up a regional state practice which under international law can serve as a precedence and equip China with an argument to consider suspension of the waters of Brahmaputra river.

India may have already damaged itself by even considering the suspension of water flow as an upper riparian and the Chinese government must be watching Indian moves with interest.

Q: How did IWT survive the 1965 and 1971 conflicts?

A: The treaty survived the two wars as well as other Pakistan-India conflicts because none of them were termed a war under international law. They were armed conflicts short of the legal status of “war”.

In the event of a war, states are entitled to suspend treaties, including diplomatic relations. In fact, if India considers revoking the treaty, it is itself signalling the same to be an act of war or a hostile act against Pakistan. This will equip Pakistan with the right under international law to take up any other coercive or non-coercive measure as an act of reprisal.

Treaties are state-specific obligations, and not regime- specific. These are not contingent upon deterioration of political atmosphere. It is much better that the states implement treaties through mutual trust, but even if there is deterioration of trust on account of extraneous events then that, per se, cannot be the sole reason to consider revocation of the treaty.

Published in Dawn, September 27th, 2016

 

[Ahmad Masood]

We expect you to cross the border and dare to attack us

The probability of this instance is pretty low.

 

[shah1398]

This move is entirely meant to calm down the media frenzy people who were invoked by the Indian media for asking to go for all out war with Pakistan. Nonetheless suspensions of "meetings" does not mean suspension of IWT so actually India has gievn Pakistan a golden chance to take all previous and unsolved issues related of IWT to the guaranteers and brokers of the treaty. Guess what who has indirectly led to two countries to ask for foreign entities intervention here?

 

[cerberus]

This move is entirely meant to calm down the media frenzy people who were invoked by the Indian media for asking to go for all out war with Pakistan. Nonetheless suspensions of "meetings" does not mean suspension of IWT so actually India has gievn Pakistan a golden chance to take all previous and unsolved issues related of IWT to the guaranteers and brokers of the treaty. Guess what who has indirectly led to two countries to ask for foreign entities intervention here?

Meeting cancelled means now we have no scope resolution and one party will do whatever we want

Example

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishanganga_Hydroelectric_Plant