Pakistan And India-Water Disputes-News And Updates

[ajtr]

World Bank refuses to fund Diamar-Basha Dam because of disputed status of Balawaristan

{Prior text Snipped} WAPDA official informed the committee that due to objections raised by India over the legal reforms introduced in Gilgit-Baltistan, the World Bank had refused to finance the project.

Editorial in the Nation on the report that the World bank has declined to finance the Diamer Bhasha Dam owing to Indian objections

India conspires again[/quote]

Controversy over Bhasha dam
Leading Pakistan newspaper alleges that following Indian objections over it, the World Bank has refused to extend loan to Pakistan for the construction of Diamer Bhasha Dam, saying the region is a disputed territory. This was disclosed during the meeting of National Assembly Standing Committee on Inter Provincial Coordination on Friday. Pakistan claims that India has expressed objections over the construction of the dam, after which World Bank has refused to extend loan for its construction.

According to sources, the World Bank, sensing complexities in the constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistan, has refused to release funds for the construction of Diamer Bhasha Dam. The World Bank has offered a loan of Rs 900 billion to Pakistan. Meanwhile, sources confirm that Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has not objected to the World Bank about construction of the dam but objected to fact that large parts of Jammu and Kashmir are occupied by Pakistan. Finance Ministry which deals with World Bank has also not objected to the dam.

 

[ajtr]

Pak to India: Name neutral umpires​

Sparring between India and Pakistan over the 330 MW Kishanganga hydro-electric project in Jammu and Kashmir continues with Pakistan playing hardball over the constitution of a seven-member bench of International Court of Arbitration.
In an indication of it, Pakistan has sidelined India’s invitation to sit across the table in Delhi to finalise the names of three neutral umpires for the arbitration bench. Last Friday, it in turn asked India to first suggest the three names for the neutral umpires, evading direct response to India’s invitation for a meeting this week.

Last month, India had invited Pakistan for a meeting in Delhi to finalise the names of three neutral umpires for the bench, which include two arbitrators each already nominated by the two countries.

India, to its displeasure now, finds Pakistan’s request for three names for neutral umpires unreasonable as the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 clearly specifies that the Chairman of the Court of Arbitration should be finalised first among the three neutral umpires. Paragraph 8 of Annexure G, which deals with the constitution of the court of arbitration under the treaty, clearly specifies, “In selecting the umpires pursuant to Paragraph 7, the Chairman shall be selected first, unless the parties otherwise agree.”Though India is still preparing its response to Pakistan’s demand for India to come forward with the suggestions for all three neutral umpires, sources said India was likely to remind Pakistan about the provision of selection of the Chairman for the court of arbitration bench as the first priority as against its demand for all three neutral umpires at one go.

However, given the hardball being played by Pakistan, it appears that both countries are headed for a drawing of lots for the selection of all the remaining three neutral umpires for the arbitration bench.

According to the provisions of the Treaty, the arbitration process began since Pakistan nominated its two arbitrators on May 17. The provisions require that both sides should complete the constitution of the seven-member arbitration bench within 60 days of the start of arbitration process. India nominated its two arbitrators on June 15. Both sides now have time till July 15 to finalise the three neutral umpires.

If disagreements over umpires persist beyond July 15, the selection of the umpires will have to rely on a draw of lots.

 

[ajtr]

Pak to India: Name neutral umpires​

5. The Parties shall endeavour to nominate and maintain a Standing Panel of umpires (hereinafter called the Panel) in the following manner :
(a) The Panel shall consist of four persons in each of the three categories specified in Paragraph 4(b) .
(b) The Panel will be selected, as soon as possible after the Effective Date, by agreement between the Parties
and with the consent of the persons whose names are included in the Panel .

7. The umpires shall be appointed as follows :
(a) If a Panel has been nominated in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 5, each umpire shall be selected as follows from the Panel, from his appropriate category, provided that the category has, at that time, at least three names on the Panel :
The Parties shall endeavour to agree to place the names of the persons in each category in the order in which they shall be invited to serve on the Court. If such agreement cannot be reached within 30 days of the date on which the proceeding is instituted, the Parties shall promptly establish such an order by drawing lots . If, in any category , the person whose name is placed first in the order so established, on receipt of an invitation to serve on the Court, declines to do so, the person whose name is next on the list shall be invited . The process shall be repeated until the invitation is accepted or all names in the category are exhausted.

(b) If a Panel has not been nominated in accordance with Paragraph 5, or if there should be less than three names on the Panel in any category or if n o person in a category accepts the invitation referred to in Paragraph 7(a), the umpires, or the remaining umpires or umpire, as the case may be, shall be appointed as follows :

(i) By agreement between the Parties .

(ii) Should the Parties be unable to agree on the selection of any or all of the three umpires, they shall agree on one or more persons to help them in making the necessary selection by agreement ; but if one or more umpires remain to be appointed 60 days after the date on which the proceeding is instituted,or 30 days after the completion of the process described in sub-paragraph (a) above, as the case may be, then the Parties shall determine by lot for each umpire remaining to be appointed, a person from the appropriate list set out in the Appendix to this Annexure, who shall then be requested to make the necessary selection.

8. In selecting umpires pursuant to Paragraph 7, the Chairman shall be selected first, unless the Parties otherwise agree.

9. Should either Party fail to participate in the drawing of lots as provided in Paragraphs 7 and 10, the other Party may request the President of the Bank to nominate a person to draw the lots, and the person so nominated shall do so after giving due notice to the Parties and inviting them to be represented at the drawing of the lots .

Well first of all, both the parties have to come to an agreement on four names for each categories of umpires( Para 5(a) of Ann G). That means 12 persons. Probably India had asked Pakistan to discuss this issue and settle the matter of preparation of panel of standing umpires without much fuss. Now that Pakistan has asked India to nominate three names, clearly the whole thing is heading towards Para 7(b). para 7(b)(i) will not be possible as there can be no agreement between India and Pakistan. So matter will move to the stage at para 7(b)(ii).
Most likely Pakistan will not agree to get help from one or more persons to help them (by agreement, so ruled out) in making the necessary selection by agreement.So matter would drag on till 15th July/17th July. Thereafter, it would be a draw of lots to select the person from the list appended to annexure G. For each category one person would be selected to make the selection of three umpires.

In any of the process above , Chairman has to be selected first as per para 8.

Now if any of the parties fail to participate in draw of lots at any stage, the other party can request may request the President of the Bank to nominate a person to draw the lots. It will come to this sometime after July 15th.

India can not expect Pakistan to be reasonable and settle this matter by negotiation. India should not delay execution of the project and rather speed up the work, since funding may not be a problem in view of its strategic importance.India should endeavour to stop any interim order detrimental to the project.

This points to one important factor. India is perhaps ready to believe in faith and trust deposed in Pakistan despite all actions of Pakistan contrary to it but there is a trust deficit primarily on the side of Pakistan, it can not believe any action taken by India. Pakistan should have learnt its lessons well long ago, Kishenganga is a fait accompli.

 

[RescueRanger]

Let’s be sensible about this. The time for war has passed. Let’s now consider more amicable ways of resolving our disputes, perhaps India could charge Pakistan a tax or fee for the supply of water or perhaps a quota system.

Must we all follow down the path of vengeance? It is the 21st Century after all, and one act of kindness may change public perceptions in both nations.

 

[Hutchroy]

Let’s be sensible about this. The time for war has passed. Let’s now consider more amicable ways of resolving our disputes, perhaps India could charge Pakistan a tax or fee for the supply of water or perhaps a quota system.

Must we all follow down the path of vengeance? It is the 21st Century after all, and one act of kindness may change public perceptions in both nations.

Pakistan’s Population in 1951 was 33,740,167. The per capita water availability was 5,500 Cubic Metres.

Pakistan’s Population now is 173.51 Million. The per capita water availability was 1,500 Cubic Metres.

Thus the Population has increased over FIVE TIMES and the Water per capita availability is OVER TWENTY FIVE PER CENT when it should correspondingly be TWENTY PERCENT!

As such which “one act of kindness may change public perceptions in both nations” do you wish to take place and by whom?

I trust you are aware that Pakistan is this year going to Export Five Million Tons of Wheat and a similar quantity of Rice.

Where does Pakistan get the Water for all this grain production?

What is going to happen when Pakistan's Population Doubles in the next, say, Twenty to Thirty Years?

 

[RescueRanger]

Pakistan’s Population in 1951 was 33,740,167. The per capita water availability was 5,500 Cubic Metres.

Pakistan’s Population now is 173.51 Million. The per capita water availability was 1,500 Cubic Metres.

Thus the Population has increased over FIVE TIMES and the Water per capita availability is OVER TWENTY FIVE PER CENT when it should correspondingly be TWENTY PERCENT!

As such which “one act of kindness may change public perceptions in both nations” do you wish to take place and by whom?

I trust you are aware that Pakistan is this year going to Export Five Million Tons of Wheat and a similar quantity of Rice.

Where does Pakistan get the Water for all this grain production?

What is going to happen when Pakistan's Population Doubles in the next, say, Twenty to Thirty Years?

As such which “one act of kindness may change public perceptions in both nations” do you wish to take place and by whom?

That was directed at both sides... Or would you prefer a war!

I trust you are aware that Pakistan is this year going to Export Five Million Tons of Wheat and a similar quantity of Rice.

Buddy of course im aware, far more than you think.

- Your point being? Nations don't need water?

Where does Pakistan get the Water for all this grain production?

Pakistan has one of the world's largest network of Canals for agriculture... Duh (River Indus)...

What is going to happen when Pakistan's Population Doubles in the next, say, Twenty to Thirty Years?

We are working on water reclamation, desalination and mega dams... That should be enough for "future" planning, in the meantime parts of Pakistan are facing droughts.

 

[Hutchroy]

That was directed at both sides... Or would you prefer a war! .

Temper, Temper, Temper!

Well since India is evidently not stealing any of the Waters and Pakistan's per capita water availability is higher as compared to the population (in both cases since 1951) would Pakistan show "one act of kindness which may change public perceptions in both nations" to India and stop accusing India of "Water Theft" as well as informing the peace loving Pakistanis that there is no "Stealing of Pakistani Share of River Waters" by India?

Buddy of course im aware, far more than you think..

Proves Pakistan is getting all its share of River Waters.

- Your point being? Nations don't need water? .

Good Show. My point is that Pakistan is surely getting all of its share of the River Waters.

Pakistan has one of the world's largest network of Canals for agriculture... Duh (River Indus)....

This again proves that Pakistan is get all the waters it is entitled to!

We are working on water reclamation, desalination and mega dams... That should be enough for "future" planning, in the meantime parts of Pakistan are facing droughts.

Thank you - as this is most necessary for not only Pakistan but all the other "Water Stressed" Nations and hopefully Pakistan will lead the way in showing others what is to be done for counteracting "Water Stress".

 

[RescueRanger]

Well since India is evidently not stealing any of the Waters and Pakistan's per capita water availability is higher as compared to the population (in both cases since 1951) would Pakistan show "one act of kindness which may change public perceptions in both nations" to India and stop accusing India of "Water Theft" as well as informing the peace loving Pakistanis that there is no "Stealing of Pakistani Share of River Waters" by India?




Thank you - as this is most necessary for not only Pakistan but all the other "Water Stressed" Nations and hopefully Pakistan will lead the way in showing others what is to be done for counteracting "Water Stress".

DAWN.COM | National | Govt ?apathy? over Indian water theft criticised

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/1-51.pdf

http://www.worldwater.org/conflictchronology.pdf

CJO - Abstract - Further Water Disputes between India and Pakistan

Thank you - as this is most necessary for not only Pakistan but all the other "Water Stressed" Nations and hopefully Pakistan will lead the way in showing others what is to be done for counteracting "Water Stress".[/

Your welcome!

 

[Hutchroy]

DAWN.COM | National | Govt ?apathy? over Indian water theft criticised

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/1-51.pdf

http://www.worldwater.org/conflictchronology.pdf

CJO - Abstract - Further Water Disputes between India and Pakistan

Your welcome!

I have proved that with the Per Capita Water Avialability being better when compared to the Population Growth and the Huge Grain Production - may it continue to increase - it is patently evident that India is not stealing Pakistan's Share of River Waters.

The Articles and Protests do not prove India stealing of Waters as the per capia availablity and the booming Grain Production point out to Pakistan getting its full quota of River Waters.

There can be no disagreement with my statement.

 

[RescueRanger]

There can be no disagreement with my statement.

Yes there can Hutch, you should learn to accept that people's opinions differ. And BTW the case regarding water theft is still in the UN, so lets not pass judgements so swiftly.

Till the final verdict i shall stick by my guns, because i have witnessed the water shortage first hand, i have also seen measures across the border and the impact that has had on our Agriculture.

Regards.

 

[Hutchroy]

Yes there can Hutch, you should learn to accept that people's opinions differ. And BTW the case regarding water theft is still in the UN, so lets not pass judgements so swiftly.

Till the final verdict i shall stick by my guns, because i have witnessed the water shortage first hand, i have also seen measures across the border and the impact that has had on our Agriculture.

Regards.

That, Sir, is your Democratic Right.

However, the Per Capita Water Availibility NOW does point out to Pakistan receiving its full share of River Waters as compared to the Per Capita Water Availibility in 1951 or so. In addition, the enhanced Grain Production is also a pointer to the same conclusion.

P.S. Should it be conclusively proved that despite the Favourable Per Capita Water Availibility and the Enhanced Grain Production India has "Stolen" Pakistan's share of River Waters the of course I would fully support a suitable action.

If, however, India has not stolen Pakistan's share of River Waters then what would be your position-stand?

Best Regards.

 

[ANG]

BBC News - Who's 'turning off' river flows in Pakistani Punjab?

 

[ANG]

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Water row key to India-Pakistan rivalry

 

[ajtr]

The conflict can be exemplified in the terms for the resumption of water delivery to Pakistan from the Indian headworks, worked out at an Inter-Dominican conference held in Delhi on 3-4 May 1948. India agreed to the resumption of flow, but maintained that Pakistan could not claim any share of those waters as a matter of right (Caponera, 1987, p. 511). This position was reinforced by the Indian claim that, since Pakistan had agreed to pay for water under the Standstill Agreement of 1947, Pakistan had recognized India's water rights. Pakistan countered that they had the rights of prior appropriation, and that payments to India were only to cover operation and maintenance costs (Biswas, 1992, p. 204).

the genesis of the water conflict and IWT. But on a serious note this idea needs to be pushed through more seriously.


1. If pakistan likes of the idea of making border irrelevant then there is a possiblity of diverting waters to various channel, existing and yet to the constructed/thought of and manage water more scientifically through future cooperation.
2.If under Article VII (1) (b) and (C) as well as VII(2) of IWT future cooperation takes place then there is provision for paying sums as may be requested by other paty for New drainage works.
3. Such engineering works are possible if pakistan cooperates .The water diverted from Chenab Formula will be delivered to Sindh Baluch without retaining it within India. Pakistan may pay transit charges to ensure that indians are in some way ethically bound not to harm water interest of pakistan.
4. IGC might need some rework as to its capacity to carry so much water and deliver it to Pakistan at Sukkur. Such headworks are not a new concept and in fact waters were sent to Pakistan through Headworks situated in India.Release at these places are also monitored in accordance with IWT.
5. So there should not be much difficulty in flow towards sukkur. In fact this was one of the grouse of Pakistan against IGC. If it is breached water will flow towards Pakistan side.
6. I have no objection to using Janta money ( IMF.WB.ADB USAID Japanese ODA etc) and using our money to make inroads into them. I like the idea and infact is being practiced in some ways by India.

 

[ajtr]

According to Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are for the use of Pakistan, and its waters (mostly) are not to be diverted for India's use. Can India decide what should be the point of entry into Pakistan for the waters of the Western Rivers? Can India change the flow of the river, or technically speaking the flow of the water in those rivers, so that the waters do not go through AK or Punjab, but rather e.g. through Sindh?

IWT has underlying tone of conflict management and hence restrictions on new constructions, especially of storage works, hydroelectric work, ROR plants, river works channels etc in such a way not to cause material damage to the other party ( primarily Pakistan). IWT annexure extensively cover these aspects. But point of entry of water is perhaps assumed to be in its natural course as otherwise it would be deemed to cause material damage.

IWT does not expressly prohibits new canal works . It is here " irrelevant borders" come into play. The trust deficit , that Pakistan and India often talk about could also be bridged by proposing such a diversion which would benefit a large water starved population of Paa'stan primarily due to stealing of waters by Pakistan's Punjab. Punjab almost wastes 30-40% of water due to various factors and less water becomes available to sindh and baluchistan. So if Pakistan reposes its trust in India and allows this proposal to come through IWT does not prohibit it. But if Pakistan says it would cause material damage to their interest then India might not propose such an idea. Theoretically , yes it is possible using recourse to Art VII of IWT.

But on second thought this idea can be worked out and put in Permanent Indus commission for deliberation and Pakistan can be asked to bridge trust deficit by actually showing faith in Good Indian Intentions. Pakistan must move forward and explore new avenues for cooperation, keep the good work done by home minister P. chidambram and SM Krishna with their visits to Pakistan, take the process forward in a demonstrable manner.