What's new

India's violation of IWT would set a dangerous precedent: Aizaz

Dawood Ibrahim

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
3,475
Reaction score
3
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said India's violation of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) would set a dangerous precedent for other countries to behave similarly, but remained hopeful that India would refrain from such actions.

"Contravention of the treaty or its unilateral abrogation by India will not only violate the IWT, but also set a precedent providing other countries a possible justification to undertake similar actions," Chaudhry said while speaking to Russian news agency Sputnik.

The IWT was signed in 1960 and allocated the three eastern rivers of the Indus basin — the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej — to India, while 80 per cent of the three western ones — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — were allotted to Pakistan.

It was reported earlier this week that India is stepping up efforts to maximise its use of the western rivers of the Indus basin, a move that involves building large storage facilities and canals.

India has maintained that it has not fully utilised its 20pc share of the Indus waters and that the proposed water projects would not be in violation of the treaty. Pakistan has disputed these claims.

Chaudhry said that issues such as extremism have damaged the relationship between India and Pakistan. He reiterated the need for both countries to hold bilateral talks focused on these important issues.

“Relations between Pakistan and India have not been very good and the reason is that Pakistan and India are not having any dialogue," he said.

He added that lack of such dialogue had allowed the relationship between the two countries to deteriorate.

"We also believe that it is for the [best for] our two counties to sit at the table and share each other's perspectives,” Chaudhry said.

However, he added that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group dominated by Russia and China, was not the correct platform to hold bilateral dialogue.

Pakistan and India's full membership to the powerful SCO was approved by its Council of Heads of State at its 15th Summit last year. In July, Pakistan signed the Memorandum of Obligations (MoO) with the objective of obtaining full membership of the organisation.

Chaudhry described the SCO as "a good forum to work for maintenance of regional peace, security and stability, economy and trade."

UN's role in Kashmir
Chaudhry said the role of the UN Monitoring Observer Group in India and Pakistan was critical to peace between Pakistan and India.

"The Group can also independently monitor ceasefire violations," Chaudhry said, alleging that India had violated the ceasefire agreement 310 times since September.

He said the international community, too, should play its role in ensuring that India respects its international obligations and commitments.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1304964/indias-violation-of-iwt-would-set-a-dangerous-precedent-aizaz

@war&peace @Khafee @SherDil007 @I S I
 
Last edited:
. .
Some would argue that sending terrorists across LOC was also equivalent to 'setting a dangerous precedent' which has now lead India to retaliate






We are as clean as ganga river :D While on other hand You have celebrate Terrorist called Modi :enjoy: who kills your people so he can get sympathy ;)

By the way did you drink chai with chai wala :partay:
 
.
Seems pakistan has realized now that India means business. First of all IWT is an unfair treaty which gives 80% of water to pakistan. Second there is no such thing as treaty being inviolable, if the terms are unfair then either break or renegotiate a new one which is fair for both the parties. Pakistan simply ends up crowing that IWT agreement cannot be broken which is total nonsense, how can it be a agreement when one of the parties does not agree with the terms ?

Does pakistan agree with status on kashmir ? if they dont then they are better of not agreeing on IWT too.
Some would argue that sending terrorists across LOC was also equivalent to 'setting a dangerous precedent' which has now lead India to retaliate
pakistan signed shimla agreement but never followed it. Taking India for granted has to stop.
 
.
Some would argue that sending terrorists across LOC was also equivalent to 'setting a dangerous precedent' which has now lead India to retaliate
But then some would also argue that Killing and blinding kashmiris was also equivalent to 'setting a dangerous precedent' which has now lead mujahideen to retaliate.
 
.
We are as clean as ganga river :D While on other hand You have celebrate Terrorist called Modi :enjoy: who kills your people so he can get sympathy ;)

By the way did you drink chai with chai wala :partay:

We are also just trying to use water allocated to us under the treaty, no plan to control water flowing in to Pakistan ;) :D :partay:
 
. .
But then some would also argue that Killing and blinding kashmiris was also equivalent to 'setting a dangerous precedent' which has now lead mujahideen to retaliate.

Why weren't we killing and blinding kashmiris till '89? They picked up gun and they got what they deserved. The onus here lies on you if you are free to do what you want to harm us then we are free to do what we want to harm you.
 
.
The onus here lies on you if you are free to do what you want to harm us then we are free to do what we want to harm you.
exactly , all this bravado nonsense talk of mujahideen,alaudin,9/11...etc retaliating is well & good. Those days of keeping quit is over. India shall return the favor in kind . Whats the point in having agreement who disagrees and tries to kill you?
 
.
India is mindful of its role in the world - image is everything. It will not break any Treaty. If the IWT has survived 4 Wars - it will survive this thaw in relations. Modi is just psychologically screwing with the Pak leadership - he needs to do it as much for Pakistan as he needs to do it for his domestic audience. But under him, I am sure India will try and utilize the waters allocated to it fair and square - if it is 20% - he will not settle for even 19.9%.
 
.
India has maintained that it has not fully utilised its 20pc share of the Indus waters and that the proposed water projects would not be in violation of the treaty. Pakistan has disputed these claims.

I wonder how each side can objectively determine whether India is using less than 20% water or not? It would be extremely beneficial if we could analyze the text of counter-claims made by our government. If someone can point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
 
.
Why weren't we killing and blinding kashmiris till '89? They picked up gun and they got what they deserved. The onus here lies on you if you are free to do what you want to harm us then we are free to do what we want to harm you.
Yes, political movement for freedom is like picking guns for you. Or stone throwing childrens are like firing cruise missile on india.
In a 1993 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Indian security forces "assaulted civilians during search operations, tortured and summarily executed detainees in custody and murdered civilians in reprisal attacks"; according to the report, militants had also targeted civilians, but to a lesser extent than security forces.
 
.
Why weren't we killing and blinding kashmiris till '89? They picked up gun and they got what they deserved. The onus here lies on you if you are free to do what you want to harm us then we are free to do what we want to harm you.
Right of self determination was undermined my dearest friend...
 
.
Yes, political movement for freedom is like picking guns for you. Or stone throwing childrens are like firing cruise missile on india.
In a 1993 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Indian security forces "assaulted civilians during search operations, tortured and summarily executed detainees in custody and murdered civilians in reprisal attacks"; according to the report, militants had also targeted civilians, but to a lesser extent than security forces.
pakistan has no business preaching to us. Pakistan itself uses jet to bomb in KP & FATA. Instead of crying hoarse why does not pakistan settle it with war? Bcos it is easier preach hard to follow the same.
 
.
pakistan has no business preaching to us. Pakistan itself uses jet to bomb in KP & FATA. Instead of crying hoarse why does not pakistan settle it with war? Bcos it is easier preach hard to follow the same.

When did pakistan bombed KPK ? Any evidence or its usual indian varbel diarrhea
 
.
Back
Top Bottom