Pakistan not to accept alteration in Indus Waters Treaty

[GR!FF!N]

india was 7 times bigger when it signed the treaty.
so stop saying that you have right over pakistani water as india is bigger.

stop saying "Pakistani Water". Its "Pakistan's share of Indus Water",which will see their share will reduce dramatically in near future.

we will react in a way that this indo pak problem will be solved forever.

so Pakitan will join "Akhanda Bharat"??

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

That is a very wrong concept. Its no more "Your Water" if India objects.You're on India's mercy here.

no we are not at indian mercy. we would be when we don't have the capability to evaporate you with your mercy.

stop saying "Pakistani Water". Its "Pakistan's share of Indus Water",which will see their share will reduce dramatically in near future.



so Pakitan will join "Akhanda Bharat"??

akhand bharat ruled by muslims from Pakistan.

 

[GR!FF!N]

no we are not at indian mercy. we would be when we don't have the capability to evaporate you with your mercy.


akhand bharat ruled by muslims from Pakistan.

Sure sure,power sharing is also the concept of "Akhanda Bharat".

As we say,"Mile sur mera tumhara,to sur bane hamara".

 

[newb3e]

That is a very wrong concept. Its no more "Your Water" if India objects.You're on India's mercy here.

Hahahaha you ppl have objecting of our exsistince since 1947 and does anyone care about what mighty banyas think!

 

[Tamilnadu]

india was 7 times bigger when it signed the treaty.
so stop saying that you have right over pakistani water as india is bigger.

See inspite of we being bigger ,we shared equally but you guys think we want to dominate and destroy you..and what did you give us in return ,terrorists.

Now we need more water for peaceful develpment.

 

[randomradio]

The Indus Waters Treaty was signed when the relations between India and Pak were good. That's why a one-sided treaty was made favouring Pakistan, the only reason why it has survived for so long. (Note @Oscar. More proof of India's arrogance.)

Now it simply doesn't make sense. If India reneges on the treaty, nobody has the capacity to go against that. We are more than willing to negotiate a new treaty under UN rules which will favour both countries.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

See inspite of we being bigger ,we shared equally but you guys think we want to dominate and destroy you..and what did you give us in return ,terrorists.

Now we need more water for peaceful develpment.

you gave us more terrorists than total terrorists in the whole world.
once you call those terrorists as mujahideen and rebels.

 

[!eon]

make your brotherin understand that,that is how good it is for Pakistan.

Baby, I already mentioned, and that's what you can't get

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

The Indus Waters Treaty was signed when the relations between India and Pak were good. That's why a one-sided treaty was made favouring Pakistan, the only reason why it has survived for so long. (Note @Oscar. More proof of India's arrogance.)

Now it simply doesn't make sense. If India reneges on the treaty, nobody has the capacity to go against that. We are more than willing to negotiate a new treaty under UN rules which will favour both countries.

it was signed when for few consecutive years india used water as a weapon. flood us sometimes, stop water the other times. Pakistan was preparing for a war and Indian army at that time was weaker as compared to Pakistan who was an ally of US.
Treaty was signed to stop both nations from going to war.
India interfered with the water of river on first April 1948 by cutting across Ravi and Sutlej links only after six month of the independence.
Pakistan was facing acute threat of shortage of water and agriculture ruin. Pakistani delegation was sent to India to quell the problem, but the situation aggravated day by day rather than improving because of cutting across of Indus River which is considered a livelihood for the state of Pakistan.
India rejected the proposal of Pakistani delegation due to her chauvinist behavior, Pakistan also gave proposal to solve the problem through the world bank, but it was also not acceptable for Indian leaders because Pakistan was trying to solve the problem on the table, but opponent was in the mood of fighting, to compel the newly born country for the reunification.
A former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority wrote in an article “No armies with bombs and shell fire could divested a land so thoroughly as Pakistan could be devastated by the simple expedient of India’s permanently shutting up the source of water that keep the field and the people of Pakistan green”

 

[randomradio]

it was signed when for few consecutive years india used water as a weapon. flood us sometimes, stop water the other times. Pakistan was preparing for a war and Indian army at that time was weaker as compared to Pakistan who was an ally of US.
Treaty was signed to stop both nations from going to war.
India interfered with the water of river on first April 1948 by cutting across Ravi and Sutlej links only after six month of the independence.
Pakistan was facing acute threat of shortage of water and agriculture ruin. Pakistani delegation was sent to India to quell the problem, but the situation aggravated day by day rather than improving because of cutting across of Indus River which is considered a livelihood for the state of Pakistan.
India rejected the proposal of Pakistani delegation due to her chauvinist behavior, Pakistan also gave proposal to solve the problem through the world bank, but it was also not acceptable for Indian leaders because Pakistan was trying to solve the problem on the table, but opponent was in the mood of fighting, to compel the newly born country for the reunification.
A former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority wrote in an article “No armies with bombs and shell fire could divested a land so thoroughly as Pakistan could be devastated by the simple expedient of India’s permanently shutting up the source of water that keep the field and the people of Pakistan green”

You are making it appear as though India was blocking water flow. It was 1948, so wartime. A war you started. So the conditions were different compared to a decade later when India had made a lot of effort to ensure peace.

Pakistan feared India over nothing and started the water sharing treaty which India had no obligation to do but still did it. If we cancel the treaty unilaterally, who is going to stop us? We have valid reason today.

And we have no obligation to a new treaty. The people of Kashmir have been denied their own water all these decades and will support India if dams are built in Kashmir.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

You are making it appear as though India was blocking water flow. It was 1948, so wartime. A war you started. So the conditions were different compared to a decade later when India had made a lot of effort to ensure peace.

Pakistan feared India over nothing and started the water sharing treaty which India had no obligation to do but still did it. If we cancel the treaty unilaterally, who is going to stop us? We have valid reason today.

And we have no obligation to a new treaty. The people of Kashmir have been denied their own water all these decades and will support India if dams are built in Kashmir.

if you obligate the treaty unilaterally you will lose the case at world forums. and we will force to to give us our share or we both die.
instead of giving kashmir water to Indian occupied khalistan why don't you give it to kashmiris.

 

[randomradio]

if you obligate the treaty unilaterally you will lose the case at world forums.

You do realize that the courts cannot enforce anything. And our argument will be "terrorism". It's fair. We will tell the world that it is up to Pakistan whether the treaty has to continue or not.

We can call for negotiations on a new 'fair' treaty, which can take 10+ years. The current treaty gives Pakistan way too much water. Let's make it 50-50 as it should be.

and we will force to to give us our share or we both die.

Russia is not an existential threat to the US even though they have 5000 nukes. You are threatening us with a hundred? India won't die even if both Pak and China nuke us.

If Pak nukes India, India will takeover Pak. What makes another country an existential threat is the military force, not nukes.

You see, we have the money necessary to rebuild our cities, you don't. We are already building multiple cities everywhere, forget rebuilding existing cities after a nuclear strike.

https://www.theguardian.com/public-.../singapore-building-india-city-andhra-pradesh

http://zeenews.india.com/business/b...n-delhi-mumbai-industrial-corridor_71197.html

I don't get why you guys think of the nuclear option as some suicide decision. Even if the US or Russia nukes India, it won't kill India. We will simply rebuild.

In fact, India has more cities than Pak has nukes.

instead of giving kashmir water to Indian occupied khalistan why don't you give it to kashmiris.

Would suggest looking at the river map.

 

[Hephaestus]

india cannot take water from pakistani rivers but they are violating the treaty. it will someday force pakistan to bomb these projects.

aqal laga le ladke.... dam tute ga toh pani kahan jayega.....

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

You do realize that the courts cannot enforce anything. And our argument will be "terrorism". It's fair. We will tell the world that it is up to Pakistan whether the treaty has to continue or not.

We can call for negotiations on a new 'fair' treaty, which can take 10+ years. The current treaty gives Pakistan way too much water. Let's make it 50-50 as it should be.



Russia is not an existential threat to the US even though they have 5000 nukes. You are threatening us with a hundred? India won't die even if both Pak and China nuke us.

If Pak nukes India, India will takeover Pak. What makes another country an existential threat is the military force, not nukes.

You see, we have the money necessary to rebuild our cities, you don't. We are already building multiple cities everywhere, forget rebuilding existing cities after a nuclear strike.

https://www.theguardian.com/public-.../singapore-building-india-city-andhra-pradesh

http://zeenews.india.com/business/b...n-delhi-mumbai-industrial-corridor_71197.html

I don't get why you guys think of the nuclear option as some suicide decision. Even if the US or Russia nukes India, it won't kill India. We will simply rebuild.

In fact, India has more cities than Pak has nukes.



Would suggest looking at the river map.

but courts can give you moral victory and justification to use strategic weapons on targets inside india.
and we will do it. it's our red line. we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy india 5 times.
current treaty gave india 2 complete rivers and small share in pakistani rivers.
isn't it ironic that when you talk about 50-50 you refer to pakistani share only when same could be said about rivers given to india.

 

[H!TchHiker]

Lolz Only talks ..India should block all the water flows to Pakistan ..One thing has to flow either Blood or water....If not water then surely other...You do it and you will come to know who will stop you..In what La La land you indians live ? Why would Pakistan stand still and watching people die by Hunger ? Better to die at once then dying it like this

You do realize that the courts cannot enforce anything. And our argument will be "terrorism". It's fair. We will tell the world that it is up to Pakistan whether the treaty has to continue or not.

We can call for negotiations on a new 'fair' treaty, which can take 10+ years. The current treaty gives Pakistan way too much water. Let's make it 50-50 as it should be.



Russia is not an existential threat to the US even though they have 5000 nukes. You are threatening us with a hundred? India won't die even if both Pak and China nuke us.

If Pak nukes India, India will takeover Pak. What makes another country an existential threat is the military force, not nukes.

You see, we have the money necessary to rebuild our cities, you don't. We are already building multiple cities everywhere, forget rebuilding existing cities after a nuclear strike.

https://www.theguardian.com/public-.../singapore-building-india-city-andhra-pradesh

http://zeenews.india.com/business/b...n-delhi-mumbai-industrial-corridor_71197.html

I don't get why you guys think of the nuclear option as some suicide decision. Even if the US or Russia nukes India, it won't kill India. We will simply rebuild.

In fact, India has more cities than Pak has nukes.



Would suggest looking at the river map.