Next round of water talks with India in jeopardy

[SrNair]

The way things are moving sooner or later unfair IWT will just get submerged in Indus. World bank has no longer any locus standi on the matter. They were at the best brokers between two countries at that point of time. Pakistan should stop futile action of dragging in third parties into matter.


very true there is no need for us to honor the treaty when pakistan has broken shimla agreement and other treaties.

Yup.Now WB dont have much ibfluence on us .That time is already gone.

Gentlemen of India

A small reminder. You are not China and Pakistan can knock your teeth out.

Now after a reality check its better for both sides to share the water else there will be war. Does the subcontinent really need a war because of RSS policies.

Pakistan cant do a shit .

 

[Trango Towers]

So you'll knock off the teeth and then tell them to do the reality check for sharing .... What a logic ....

I think you need to learn English. I didn't say 'knock off the teeth', I said the following and I quote 'You are not China and Pakistan can knock your teeth out'

Huge difference. The word CAN should be the operative here. I hope this lesson in English will help you through India school

So what...Communists are China's government... but unlike Chines, Indians elected the leaders they want their country to lead...You can take your RSS rant and jump into the sea and see if the world cares.

Annoying little man
No one really cares about the world. But in our neighbourhood you will never be top dog.

 

[Tom M]

I think you need to learn English. I didn't say 'knock off the teeth', I said the following and I quote 'You are not China and Pakistan can knock your teeth out'

Huge difference. The word CAN should be the operative here. I hope this lesson in English will help you through India school



Annoying little man
No one really cares about the world. But in our neighbourhood you will never be top dog.

Before correcting others, I would suggest you better learn something from history (Kashmir is a classic example in that case). Do you think you can achieve your objectives through war that you couldn't through peaceful means ?? LOL

War will simply act as the final nail in IWT's coffin.

 

[Trango Towers]

Before correcting others, I would suggest you better learn something from history (Kashmir is a classic example in that case). Do you think you can achieve your objectives through war that you couldn't through peaceful means ?? LOL

War will simply act as the final nail in IWT's coffin.

Classic case of an Indian doing his dancing without reading. Had you read the exchange you would have known what I wrote about engagement through dialogue.
Here is the exact quote
'its better for both sides to share the water else there will be war. Does the subcontinent really need a war because of RSS policies.'
Now correct yourself

 

[Tom M]

Yup.Now WB dont have much ibfluence on us .That time is already gone.



Pakistan cant do a shit .

Some of our emotional neigbhours/friends doesn't understand the fact that the world bank has very limited to almost no role because they are just a broker in this case. It is clearly stated in their website.

How the Treaty works:

The Treaty sets out a mechanism for cooperation and information exchange between the two countries regarding their use of the rivers, known as the Permanent Indus Commission, which has a commissioner from each country. The Treaty also sets forth distinct procedures to handle issues which may arise: “questions” are handled by the Commission; “differences” are to be resolved by a Neutral Expert; and “disputes” are to be referred to a seven-member arbitral tribunal called the “Court of Arbitration.” The World Bank’s role in relation to “differences” and “disputes” is limited to the designation of people to fulfill certain roles when requested by either or both of the parties.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/...e-indus-waters-treaty-1960-and-the-world-bank

 

[Trango Towers]

Some of our emotional neigbhours/friends doesn't understand the fact that the world bank has very limited to almost no role because they are just a broker in this case. It is clearly stated in their website.

How the Treaty works:

The Treaty sets out a mechanism for cooperation and information exchange between the two countries regarding their use of the rivers, known as the Permanent Indus Commission, which has a commissioner from each country. The Treaty also sets forth distinct procedures to handle issues which may arise: “questions” are handled by the Commission; “differences” are to be resolved by a Neutral Expert; and “disputes” are to be referred to a seven-member arbitral tribunal called the “Court of Arbitration.” The World Bank’s role in relation to “differences” and “disputes” is limited to the designation of people to fulfill certain roles when requested by either or both of the parties.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/...e-indus-waters-treaty-1960-and-the-world-bank

Bro a commendable effort but talking to most Indian (not all) is about as useful as talking to a brick

 

[Tom M]

Classic case of an Indian doing his dancing without reading. Had you read the exchange you would have known what I wrote about engagement through dialogue.
Here is the exact quote
'its better for both sides to share the water else there will be war. Does the subcontinent really need a war because of RSS policies.'
Now correct yourself

Well I've read your earlier comments and still reiterates what I said. With a war are you sure that Pakistan will be able to secure her share of water (if ever India scraps IWT) ?? I can understand your emotions, but it doesn't work that way, suppose India scraps IWT, what can you do ? If you go into a war straight away without trying other legal options who will the world consider the aggressor ?? Just think about that. There is some reason why Pakistan lost their case in ICA.

Bro a commendable effort but talking to most Indian (not all) is about as useful as talking to a brick

Well it's all about national interest, you present you case and we present ours. Both India and Pakistan have their share of concerns and the whole world know, neither of us are saints.

 

[Trango Towers]

Well I've read your earlier comments and still reiterates what I said. With a war are you sure that Pakistan will be able to secure her share of water (if ever India scraps IWT) ?? I can understand your emotions, but it doesn't work that way, suppose India scraps IWT, what can you do ? If you go into a war straight away without trying other legal options who will the world consider the aggressor ?? Just think about that. There is some reason why Pakistan lost their case in ICA.


Well it's all about national interest, you present you case and we present ours. Both India and Pakistan have their share of concerns and the whole world know, neither of us are saints.

Actually, if you had read my original post you would realise I am against war and only dialogue will resolve issues. Both Indian and Pakistani people are stupid. The British left us in.this dilemma to.ensure we continue to fight for generations knowing full well that we will buy weapons from them and continue to kill each other

 

[Bloom 17]

there is literally nothing Pakistan can do to stop India from building dams. Even if it goes to ICJ India doesn't adhere its ruling ( read about past icj rullings on India). You try to bomb the infrastructure India with blow yours. And Pakistan will never go nuclear in a war it started on its own, because it cannot survive the aftermath

Read this you'll get an idea what will happen after the icj ruling even if it favors Pakistan

Has India ever taken as case to the ICJ?

Yes, once — even though it has been a party to a total five cases, three of them with Pakistan, at the ICJ. In 1971, India filed a case against the jurisdiction of International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to decide on Pakistan’s demand that India could not deny it overflight and landing rights. India had withdrawn Pakistan’s overflight rights after the January 1971 hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight to Lahore, and the gutting of the aircraft by the hijackers. The ICJ ruled against India, saying that ICAO had jurisdiction in this case.

In 1954, Portugal had filed a case against India over denial of passage to what were then the Portugese territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. ICJ decided in India’s favour in 1960, saying India’s refusal of passage was covered by its power of regulation and control of the right of passage of Portugal.

In 1973, Pakistan filed a case to stop the repatriation to Bangladesh of 195 Pakistani nationals in Indian custody after the 1971 War, to face trial on charges of genocide, but withdrew the case the next year. After 1974, Pakistan, a Commonwealth nation, can no longer take India to the ICJ.
What has the government said now?

Earlier this week, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said that if the Supreme Court gave permission, the government would approach the ICJ. “The Centre will be requesting the Supreme Court to pronounce a verdict on the legality of the stand, taking into account the exceptional circumstances. The Centre will be open to invoking the jurisdiction of the ICJ,” the MEA spokesperson added.

What does this position imply?

It is India’s own law, ratified by Parliament, which denies the ICJ jurisdiction over this matter. Even if the Supreme Court asks the government to move the ICJ, it is highly unlikely that Pakistan will accept the Court’s jurisdiction in this case. Also, going to the ICJ can theoretically open up all cases between India and Pakistan to multilateral jurisdiction, thus weakening New Delhi’s consistent stand that all issues with Islamabad would be resolved bilaterally. Once India has accepted ICJ’s jurisdiction over bilateral issues, Pakistan could well demand that the ICJ arbitrate on alleged human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, or military operations on the Line of Control, or any other issue.




This was the main reason India didn't appose China ignoring icj ruling in SCS officially,which China bragged it had Indian support

 

[Mrc]

War is coming

 

[Sam.]

Actually, if you had read my original post you would realise I am against war and only dialogue will resolve issues. Both Indian and Pakistani people are stupid. The British left us in.this dilemma to.ensure we continue to fight for generations knowing full well that we will buy weapons from them and continue to kill each other

How about make LOC a International border and stop what's coming?

I bet you won't and you can bet we won't either.

 

[egodoc222]

we have to fight a war due to bad intentions of neighbors. I donott understand why they think that they can do it and we won't do anything.
But still hopes they understand and honour the treaty by words and actions and we don't have to fight a nuclear war.


plz do it. Then don't call us aggressors next time. and plz don't beg chinese for water too. India east is water strained and will face more shortage in case you give chinese an excuse. More suicides by farmers.
But world bank is 193 countries. India can't run away.
Most of indian projects are well with in artillary range.
And plz don't threaten us with massive retaliation. We know your capabilities.

Yawn!!Please do!!
On the topic...the certain parts of agreement were drafted in ambiguous way...I mean the text...the then representatives from Pakistan are either not that bright or had some difficulty in reading and comprehending the ambiguous areas!!
Now you guys can't cry!!

 

[Sneaker]

India shouldn't pull out of IWT.

India has started tackling all Pakistan related issues in a unique manner.

If India continue to do what she is doing with the western rivers for a decade then IWT will die quietly.

I like this approach. Don't withdraw from IWT, but make sure is not worth the paper it is printed on.. divert all the water to fulfill country's need first..

 

[Trango Towers]

How about make LOC a International border and stop what's coming?

I bet you won't and you can bet we won't either.

I am happy with LOC being international border as long as people of Kashmir get the right to decide what future they want. Will you give them the right to vote on their destiny as per UN mandate

I like this approach. Don't withdraw from IWT, but make sure is not worth the paper it is printed on.. divert all the water to fulfill country's need first..

Nice logic.
Pakistan won't notice that they are getting no water and you plan will be. A great success.

PLEASE TELL ME HOW DUMB ARE YOU

 

[Sam.]

I am happy with LOC being international border as long as people of Kashmir get the right to decide what future they want. Will you give them the right to vote on their destiny as per UN mandate

Kashmir voted and elected PDP and BJP government and vote turnout was 60% +

You have a choice here do you want to take care of your country citizens or try to influence others?