Pakistan And India-Water Disputes-News And Updates

[Archie]

If anyone ever read the IWT
It is clearly mentioned that India is allowed to store 3.6 Million Acre Feet of water of Indus-Jhelum-Chenab for its own use. It can also use 7 Lac Acre Feet of water of these rivers for irrigation purpose in Kashmir

Till date we have not utilized this 4.3 Million Acre Feet of water which we are entitled to.

If we start using this water, it will cut down the supply of water going to Pak by 37.5%
Enough to cause chaos without violating any binding agreement.
Thats because when the treaty was signed, people expected the population of Pak to stabilize around 160 Million by 2025,
while its at 201 Million now

 

[Soumitra]

am I getting this right? you are saying that Uri event was small thing?

Its not that big to bring nuclear weapons

 

[SwAggeR]

You are butt hurt, talking bs, your atrocities in IOK are well endorsed, using pellet guns, rapping women, killing kashmiri youth .....talking about welfare. Do whatever you want, Pakistan know how to tackle banya.

Again still you failed in your second attempt and didn't answer my questions about why you want to rob 15000 MWs from your poor Kashmiri brothers ??

First learn to quote properly before talking like loudmouth.

Does China and India have a treaty like that between India and Pakistan? If yes please state if no than there is simply no comparison between the two.
Moreover If you talk about China building infrastructures, than India isnt behind either and building similar dams on Pakistani rivers.
Also whether Pakistan reaps more benefits or not is a moot point because the treaty hasnt changed since its inception and India signed it willingly and not with a gun on her head. So raising this point again and again serves no counter argument.

Yes that's the point. Since there is no treaty between India and China none is required between us ie . between India and Pakistan.

Anyway now tell me how many of the following you upholded ??

1. Shimla
2.Lahore
3.Ufa

Did you put your ink on paper while India was holding gun on your head ??

 

[abrar khan]

IE="cerberus, post: 8740662, member: 163000"]Treaty not binding their please show me which clause where it say it's binding one
And show me which institution authorise it

You say world bank but it is broker rather enforcer. I don't need to tell you that treaty BTW two countries don't coun't anything atleast for Pakistan eg Simla agreement,lohore declaration[/QUOTE]
First you a

U ARE also part of Shimla treaty .. ! right !

Again still you failed in your second attempt and didn't answer my questions about why you want to rob 15000 MWs from your poor Kashmiri brothers ??

First learn to quote properly before talking like loudmouth.



Yes that's the point. Since there is no treaty between India and China none is required between us ie . between India and Pakistan.

Anyway now tell me how many of the following you upholded ??

1. Shimla
2.Lahore
3.Ufa

Did you put your ink on paper while India was holding gun on your head ??

LMAO, read the title of the thread, and try to understand what you monkey modi is going to reap after that.

 

[SwAggeR]

LMAO, read the title of the thread, and try to understand what you monkey modi is going to reap after that.

Seems you still haven't learnt to quote

and Failed yet again even in third attempt !! Now stop wasting my time and shedding crocodile tears for Kashmiries .

 

[Adhiri]

Sartaj Aziz do not have to fear. India has no intention of " declaring" a revocation of Indus treaty.

That would be a silly thing to do.

 

[IceCold]

Yes that's the point. Since there is no treaty between India and China none is required between us ie . between India and Pakistan.

Anyway now tell me how many of the following you upholded ??

1. Shimla
2.Lahore
3.Ufa

Did you put your ink on paper while India was holding gun on your head ??

And who said we are not upholding them? India? Please! Your accusations every time something happens in India doesn't mean Pakistan disregards them or not honour them. On the other hand it is India that does not uphold any of the above and on top of that now wants revocation the Indus water treaty as well. In all the above accords Kashmir is referred to as disputed territory that needs to be resolved but now India calls it an internal matter of India. So let me ask you who is not upholding them? When you fail to recognise a dispute and try to force your will, you cannot blame Pakistan of the after effects. Pakistan on its part have repeatedly asked India for a meaningful dialogue which includes all disputes including the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir but India imposes preconditions and only want to talk on issues of its choice and not the core issue itself.

 

[Adhiri]

And who said we are not upholding them? India? Please! Your accusations every time something happens in India doesn't mean Pakistan disregards them or not honour them. On the other hand it is India that does not uphold any of the above. In all the above accords Kashmir is referred to as disputed territory that needs to be resolved but now India calls it an internal matter of India. So let me ask you who is not upholding them? When you fail to recognise a dispute and try to force your will, you cannot blame Pakistan of the after effects. Pakistan on its part have repeatedly asked India for a meaningful dialogue which includes all disputes including the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir but India imposes preconditions and only want to talk on issues of its choice and not the core issue itself.

You are right, you say you are upholding the treaties so India too is upholding the treaty on paper.

The only thing we have done is suspended the Indus water commission till the time we are satisfied that terrorism has ended. Since you too are fighting terror, this should be welcomed by you.

 

[cerberus]

Does China and India have a treaty like that between India and Pakistan? If yes please state if no than there is simply no comparison between the two.
Moreover If you talk about China building infrastructures, than India isnt behind either and building similar dams on Pakistani rivers.
Also whether Pakistan reaps more benefits or not is a moot point because the treaty hasnt changed since its inception and India signed it willingly and not with a gun on her head. So raising this point again and again serves no counter argument.

This not international treaty but a bilateral one and it's not binding because it is not recognised. World bank is broker not enforcement

And Pakistan has no benefit its India which not taken it share the treaty states water 50:50 but we let river flow 83% of the he water into Pakistan

Secondly Bilateral treaty BTW two countries like in past we do signed many such treaty
Simla agreement ,Lahore agreement
Agra agreement

But did Pakistan following any treaty so
why they expect generosity from India

So there is no harm for India to end this bilateral agreement since it's not binding
And there is not international Law for transactionally flowing river bodies enforcement read treaty my friend

 

[SwAggeR]

And who said we are not upholding them? India? Please! Your accusations every time something happens in India doesn't mean Pakistan disregards them or not honour them. On the other hand it is India that does not uphold any of the above and on top of that now wants revocation the Indus water treaty as well. In all the above accords Kashmir is referred to as disputed territory that needs to be resolved but now India calls it an internal matter of India. So let me ask you who is not upholding them? When you fail to recognise a dispute and try to force your will, you cannot blame Pakistan of the after effects. Pakistan on its part have repeatedly asked India for a meaningful dialogue which includes all disputes including the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir but India imposes preconditions and only want to talk on issues of its choice and not the core issue itself.

Don't delude yourself. Read the Shimla agreement which clearly states Kashmir as bilateral issue but what your PM has been doing in various international forums is not called upholding it.

Lahore declaration was followed by Kargil and you call it upholding ??

Ufa has no K-word. It was about terrorism and you upholded it by doing Pathankot ?? Even US has given proofs of your involvement in that Pathankot air base terrorist attack.

Try again !!

 

[X-2.]

Funny thing is the treaty was signed for the benefit of both sides but one side reaping benefits all these years.
India obligation to the treaty cannot be mediated by third party, besides India can play another card, suspend the meetings related to treaty. We can afford to wait, can Pakistan?

India build many small and couple of big dams as well on other side of loc so they benefiting much more then they should by law so what else they want
rest of water belongs to Pakistan and they can't do legally otherwise it will provoke tensions between pak Indo more higher

Koi tau ko samjaho, umar ho gayi hai, abb jyada tension na le, isse BP or heart problems badti hai.
Is ummar mein khuda ki ibadat mein maan lagaye, yeh war, raw, dossiers etc ka kaam next generation ko de...
Is age aapke ghar mein aapki koi sunta nahi aur bahar wale to aapko phele se hi sunna band kar diya hai , to kyo aapna aur hamara time kharab karte hai ....

Comment mature kiddo or go out and play with dog

 

[The Accountant]

Beca

That sounds dangerous.

Here are a few targets for you so that you can press that button.

If you observe There is also a Huge KHEP Tunnel which is used to drain the water.

Why has pakistan not taken any action so far ?

Because it ultimatley coming back to pakistan ... And it was rules by proper arbitratipn ... Its just a diversion for power consumption and not stoppage or consumption ... I suggest you to check your facts first ...

 

[Awan68]

Asshole use ur common sense for once, the assets we used would be old men right now, amost 40 yrs have passed, they didnt disturb us before 9/11???, atleast have some respect for ur own inteligence if u have any, the asets we used are called afghan taliban who were under mullah omer, they fought and are still fighting nato occupation forces in afghanistan and that is by our support, ttp is a group largely composed of uzbik fighters belonging to the minority northern alliance that is in office in afghanistan and puppit of usa, why do u people like to live in a fools paradise, those uzbek fighters infiltrated our northern areas, killed off the maliks of local tribes, kidnapped young boys, brainwashed them using drug and fake jihadi literature branding pak as kaffir state,thats how ttp was formed, just because those dimwitts smartly choose the name taliban doesnt make them taliban just as if i start calling myself an indiian i wont automaticly become ugly, short and skinny, ttp and afghan taliban have nothing in common, moreover if moreover one man cant decide the fate of millions can he??, the hindu ruler of kashmir cessed to india not the 10 mil muslims there, u r an illegal occupier in kasmir, why do u think there is a curfew in kahmir forthe past month?? M

No we did not snatch. We have an instrument of accession and J&K joined Indian union.
Those TTP dogs are also your own pet snakes. Enjoy your own fruits of strategic assets. You might lie to us, but you know that you supported those assets with money, training, equipment and people.

Such treaties can be scrapped, there are many precedences, and we can scrap it.

Which water China can block that puts us in danger?

Feel free to attack India...



Sanctioned by Pakistan I guess........that's okay..

Huh scrapped lol, who the hell do u think u are, the precedents u talk about are of superpowers, u will scrap it just as u did surgical strikes, huh, dont bore me, bugg of..

 

[ashok321]

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Tuesday approached the International Court of Justice over implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty, with senior Pakistani officials taking up the matter with the World Bank.

A delegation led by the Attorney General for Pakistan, Ashtar Ausaf Ali, met senior officials of the World Bank at the World Bank Headquarters in Washington to discuss matters relating to Pakistan's recent Request for Arbitration given to India pursuant to Article IX of the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960, said Geo News.

On August 19, Pakistan formally requested India for settlement of outstanding disputes pertaining to India's construction of Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric plants on rivers Neelum and Chenab respectively, by referring the matters to the Court of Arbitration as provided in Article IX of the treaty. Under the treaty, the World Bank has an important role in establishment of the Court of Arbitration by facilitating the process of appointment of three judges, called Umpires, to the court, while each country appoints two arbitrators.

Pakistani officials met senior officials of the World Bank to insist on early appointment of the judges and empanelment the court.

The move comes as Prime Minister's Advisor on Foreign Affairs and Security, Sartaj Aziz said an attempt by India to block Pakistan's water could be seen as an act of war.


Speaking on the National Assembly floor, Sartaj Aziz said China would get justification to block Indian water if New Delhi did the same to Pakistan.

Sartaj Aziz briefed lawmakers on the Indus Water Treaty starting that international law prohibits Indian from unilaterally changing the treaty. He said the treaty was not even suspended during Kargil and Siachen wars.

On Monday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met officials to review provisions of the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan and to increase India's use of the river waters. During the meeting PM Modi was quoted as saying "water and blood can't flow at the same time".

The Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 was negotiated by India and Pakistan under the auspices of the World Bank, and gives India complete rights to usage of waters of the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Chenab, and Beas) and Pakistan rights over Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) with limited allowance of use of water by India from the western rivers for purposes of, among others, power generation.

The treaty provides specific design criteria for any hydro-electric power plants to be built by India. Pakistan has held the position the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric plants violate the design parameters of the treaty, said Geo News.

 

[Devil Soul]

Water wars
EDITORIAL — UPDATED ABOUT AN HOUR AGO
WHATSAPP
9 COMMENTS
PRINT
A day after urging a joint India-Pakistan war against poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and infant mortality, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi executed his latest about-turn by implicitly threatening to use water as a weapon against Pakistan — this in a region where great swathes of humanity eke out a subsistence living and are wholly dependent on agriculture and the agrarian chain for their livelihoods.

By suspending the biannual Indus water commissioners’ meeting, ordering that India expedite its hydro projects on the three western Indus system rivers designated for the exclusive use of Pakistan under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty and menacingly suggesting that “blood and water cannot flow together”, Mr Modi seems once again to be pandering to his domestic need to appear tough on Pakistan, while in reality making the region less secure through his actions.

The IWT has survived five and a half decades and three wars between India and Pakistan. The treaty’s durability, the two countries’ willingness to abide by its terms and the acceptance of international arbitration time and again are successes that no leader, Indian or Pakistani, should ever tamper with, let alone jeopardise.

Indeed, until the obnoxious and thoroughly illegal demand to unilaterally scrap the treaty was made recently in certain extremist quarters in India, the IWT was the obvious framework within which the next generation of climatic and water issues ought to have been addressed to the mutual benefit of India and Pakistan.

The reckless gamble by Mr Modi to use novel means to ostensibly put pressure on Pakistan has now introduced new uncertainties, and surely suspicions, in a region that is already water-stressed and that could be facing traumatic water-scarcity problems in the decades ahead. In trying to alarm Pakistan into taking action against militants as India desires, Mr Modi has unthinkingly accelerated what could become another, equally intractable dispute between the two countries.

For Pakistan, the reaction by policymakers should be a cautious and sensible one. As experts — international, Pakistani and Indian — have already explained, India has neither the means to immediately and artificially reduce water flows to Pakistan, nor can it do so in the medium term without causing great damage to its own agrarian economy.

A panicked, emotional response by Pakistani officials would only worsen the situation.

What Pakistan must do, however, is assemble a powerful team of water experts, skilled international arbiters and experienced World Bank interlocutors to ensure that it can quickly and emphatically respond to Indian manoeuvres.

The experience of the Kishanganga and Baglihar arbitrations suggests that poor policies, indecisive leadership and weak external representation have had a discernible impact on Pakistan’s ability to press for its maximum rights under the IWT.

If Mr Modi does want to wage a joint fight against poverty, Pakistan should welcome it. If he wants to threaten this country’s water resources, Pakistan should be prepared to defend itself legally and diplomatically.

Published in Dawn September 28th, 2016