What's new

India wins crucial hearing on Kishenganga Hydro-electric Project

The court’s partial decision is clear in this regard that it permits India to divert water for power generation but will determine limits and parameters of the diversion. The court will define a minimum flow regime and thus India will be unable to divert permanently complete winter flows over a period of six to eight months in a year.

India had been claiming that even before start of the trial..that India will be only using the power for Power generation and not for any other use....The court only reiterated what India's position...

This is nothing but a ploy by the Pakistan gov to cover its sorry @$$ after losing the case....
 
.
India had been claiming that even before start of the trial..that India will be only using the power for Power generation and not for any other use....The court only reiterated what India's position...

This is nothing but a ploy by the Pakistan gov to cover its sorry @$$ after losing the case....


Dammmmmmmmmmmm !!!

Now India can go ahead and build all those "567 dams" for power generation in "occupied" K !!!


:P

Now slowly the reality is sinking in after the initial "Partial Award" consolation !!!

What in hell is the partial award !!!


http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-8...t:-Pakistan-losses-case-at-The-Hague-court---


Kishanganga project: Pakistan losses case at The Hague court


February 19, 2013 - Updated 70 PKT
From Web Edition


KARACHI: The International Court of Arbitration at The Hague upheld India's right to divert water from the Kishanganga hydroelectric project in Kashmir, Geo News reported Tuesday.



Islamabad had proposed the establishment of a Court of Arbitration and the appointment of a neutral expert to resolve the dispute in November 2009.



Pakistan objected to the construction of the project on the Kishanganga, which is called Neelum upon entering Pakistan.
 
.
Look at how the story is playing in Pakistan:


India can divert only minimum water from Kishanganga: tribunal
From the Newspaper | Mubarak Zeb Khan

ISLAMABAD: In a partial award announced in the Kishanganga dispute, the Hague-based Court of Arbitration allowed India on Monday to divert only a minimum flow of water from Neelum/Kishanganga River for power generation.

The Indian government had sought full diversion of the river water, but the court determined that India was under an obligation to construct and operate the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant (HEP) in such a way as to maintain a minimum flow of water in the river at a rate to be determined by the court in its final award.


The court’s partial decision is clear in this regard that it permits India to divert water for power generation but will determine limits and parameters of the diversion. The court will define a minimum flow regime and thus India will be unable to divert permanently complete winter flows over a period of six to eight months in a year.


Its very interesting how what India has always promised is being taken as something that has been obtained from this verdict.

India argued that the provisions of the Treaty, including its Article IV(6), provide no basis for incorporating any international environmental obligations into the Treaty; the alleged breach of such obligations is therefore not a proper subject for determination by the Court of Arbitration. In any event, India submitted that it has complied with Article IV(6) of the Treaty, domestic Indian environmental regulations, any environmental customary international law obligations India may have, and the international standards applicable to engineers in the design and operation of hydro-electric projects. India argued that it had commissioned a comprehensive environmental impact assessment in 2000 which has shown that the KHEP will not have any significant adverse environmental impact on the Kishenganga/Neelum. India maintains that a minimum “environmental 3 flow” of at least 3.9 m /s will be released at all times below the KHEP dam.
 
.
Well certainly spin is not just played in India media, however, the issue and note how issue 1 is handled:


Pakistan had put two questions, which were legal in nature, before the tribunal — whether India’s proposed diversion of the Neelum/Kishanganga River into another tributary breaches India’s legal obligations owed to Pakistan under the treaty and whether under the treaty, India may deplete or bring the reservoir level of a run-of-river plant below the dead storage level in any circumstances except in the case of an unforeseen emergency.

On the second question, the court determined that except in the case of an unforeseen emergency, the treaty did not permit reduction below the dead storage level of the water level in the reservoirs of run-of-river plants on the western rivers.

It further said the accumulation of sediment in the reservoir of a run-of-river plant on the western rivers did not constitute an unforeseen emergency that would permit depletion of the reservoir below the dead storage level for drawdown flushing purposes. Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the Kishanganga hydroelectric plant to an extent that will entail depletion of the reservoir below dead storage level.

A senior official who is familiar with the development told Dawn that the court’s decision had endorsed Pakistan’s view that the neutral expert’s decision in the Baglihar case regarding drawdown flushing below the dead storage level was wrong and in gross violation of the parameters defined by the Indus Waters Treaty. Henceforth, designs and operations of run-of-river plants on western rivers would be determined by this decision and not that of the neutral expert.

By obtaining this award, Pakistan has taken the issue of Indus waters with India on a new basis. The years of inconclusive discussions and delays in the Indus Waters Commission during which Pakistan was constantly frustrated by the apparent inability of the commission to oversee the water regime effectively have been brought to an end.

Experts said the award had clearly and conclusively established that there were procedures set out in the Indus Waters Treaty that India must follow and the commission must secure and that India’s compliance with these obligations could and would be reviewed by international courts.
 
.
really welcome news...now its proven that India is doing nothing illegal.
 
. .
They raises same objection on baglihar dam....india won that in case also...faltu mein ye log shoor kharta hai..

I dont mind them raising issues like that..its their right to object to anything which they FEEL might harm their country...I thinks its the fanboys on these forum who make more noise than required and eventually end up facing dissapointment and embrassment.
 
.
Now when Pakistan has lost all Dam (dammn) cases in international court, It is clear that India is not diverting Pakistan's share of water.

Hence Pakistani members take this news as good news and njoy water.... :P
 
.
Now when Pakistan has lost all Dam (dammn) cases in international court, It is clear that India is not diverting Pakistan's share of water.

Hence Pakistani members take this news as good news and njoy water.... :P

no no..actually ICA has said India is well with in its right to divert water :P and Pakistanis should accept this!!!
 
.
@muse Sir does this mean the court by December will decide what is ''minimum flow'' and with that limitation the dam work will go on?

And I did not understand the comment on your posted by a Pakistani expert regarding the Baglihar dam.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Run of the river Dams are allowed . You have "exclusive rights" over water and you will get it . We are just using it to generate electricity .

Yeah it doesnt come as a surprise really. Have read a bit on international law regarding the flow of water, there is the famous case of lac lanoux between France and Spain in which France was allowed to build a dam on a river which flowed down into Spain but had to make sure that there was no pointless diversion of water. The court probably based their decision on this principle.

I dont mind them raising issues like that..its their right to object to anything which they FEEL might harm their country...I thinks its the fanboys on these forum who make more noise than required and eventually end up facing dissapointment and embrassment.

Exactly. Dont know why theres this pointless chest thumping going on. The matter went to court, one party won, good for you guys!
 
.
Not sure about the Partial or Full Award.If we can divert enough water to spin those 3 turbines than it's Mission Accomplished
 
.
@muse Sir does this mean the court by December will decide what is ''minimum flow'' and with that limitation the dam work will go on?

And I did not understand the comment on your posted by a Pakistani expert regarding the Baglihar dam.

Sir,

Being able to divert the minimum flow is not a limitation and not to mention not even necessary. For reasons best known to the newspapers/journalists involved in the above article- they're spinning the award as some kind of partial victory.

Among Pakistan's assertions-
1) was that the drawdown flushing method which requires waters to be brought down below the dead storage level wuld deplete the flow in the Neelam. On this contention the court awarded them a win- on the kishnganga project we will have to employ a different method for sediment management.

2) was the objection on KHEP's planned diversion of the waters of the Neelam/Kishenganga into anther tributary (Bonar Madmati Nallah) was in breach of the IWT. This was the major contention, this objection by its nature raised a red flag on the whole project . This is also the objection which led to the hoopla about INDIA WILL STEAL OUR WATER AND TURN OUR LANDS DRY!

India's PRIMARY stand is that the KHEP's diversion is legal and not in contravention to the tenets enshrined in the IWT. Which mind you has been granted to India. The judgement that India needed to get the project going is now in our hands. From the very beginning Pakistan screamed that India MAY divert and deplete its flows. Mind you it was a supposition based on their paranoia, even though almost all their water experts- even the lawyer who represented them stated clearly that India had never done such a thing (I'll have to dig up the "Sochta Pakistan" episode and "Defense and Diplomacy" episode for providing the proof).

To allay these fears India continuously stated that we would divert not more than levels acceptable- that is which would not lead to a change in the minimum flow. The article itself is crazily asserting that "India will be allowed to divert the minimum flow"- if we did that then that alone will very well screw over their ecology. What we will have in the last verdict which will come out this December is that collected statistics will be used to establish minimum flow requirement and accordingly India will set its limit for diversion. The diversion itself which is the sticking point HAS been allowed and this will set a precedent for the 50 or so more projects we've planned in the region. . What Pakistan has gotten is:- A) that India will not be able to use the drawdown flushing method for sediment management- which is no skin off our collective noses, we'll simply adopt a different method. B) The judgement will clearly state that India's diversion should not deplete the set minimum flow- which again is not an issue as far as India is concerned.

IF Pakistan measures its victories like this- by viewing a reassertion of something that India had already made clear it would adhere to then one no longer needs to be boggled about the severe and pathetic mess they've created for themselves when it comes to water storage and management. [U]To those who will take umbrage due to what I've stated- look up the following episode of Defense and Diplomacy hosted by S.M. Hali with Engineer Shams-ul-Mulk - Former Chairman WAPDA and Dr. Shaukat Hameed Khan - Energy Expert as the guests- on this very topic. [/U] - Defence and Diplomacy- Pak-India water issues - \YouTube
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Now Pakistan leave Kashmir issue, it is actually for the control of the river water and other natural resources.


Btw:- It is good to have dams at least it can save Pakistan from floods.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom