Pakistan And India-Water Disputes-News And Updates

[VivasvatManu]

BD may well blame India for starting it , but they would know who controls the levers for it.As far as the Sutlej & Ghaggra goes , you're assuming China would do it to spite India. they won't.They would do it only if they can derive any economic or social benefit from damming either rivers.besides the Ghaggar has to cross Nepal too before it enters India which brings me to another point .Both these rivers gain most of their waters once they enter India & Nepal as far as the Sutlej & Ghaggra is concerned .

Coming back to the 30-40 million people , the waters from the now reduced Brahmaputra would suffice for the 30-40 million in India not for the entire population of the lower Brahmaputra Meghna basin.

BD cannot possibly blame India for the actions of China

Chinese actions go on chinese books, not Indian books.

 

[ito]

No problem, I respect yours, that's why we converse here a great deal.
Back to the point, you would be going beyond the whole "overt" enemy thing with Pakistan, and be looking to hurt the country. China won't play nice after that, and it doesn't care about making India an enemy if you play hardball with water. The economic stuff means little, when Chinese interests are at stake, one of which is not to let it's most closest ally be starved of water, even if it is by a little.



That's fair, I can't say anything about that and it does say that in the treaty.

India will not go back on Indus. It is final. I can say that in spite of what is appearing on some media. Times are turbulent and everyone gets carried away. Depriving water to another is not human and majority of Indians will never support such an act. India's enemy is Pakistan's establishment and not its people.

 

[Indiran Chandiran]

You seem to be certain that China would stick it's neck out for Pakistan every time Pakistan is up against India.I wouldn't be too sure about it. @waz

After all 1971 is a good case in point.The Chinese just stood & watched.

India will not go back on Indus. It is final. I can say that in spite of what is appearing on some media. Times are turbulent and everyone gets carried away. Depriving water to another is not human and majority of Indians will never support such an act. India's enemy is Pakistan's establishment and not its people.

I don't entirely agree with you.The most certainly won't do it now.But with another 26/11 , I'd say all bets are off .

 

[Soumitra]

Stopping water is what a coward enemy does best.
What else can they do anyway, except blow up schools or markets....

Threatening to use nukes at a drop of a hat is what a coward enemy does best

What else can they do except blow trains and attack hotels

 

[ito]

You seem to be certain that China would stick it's neck out for Pakistan every time Pakistan is up against India.I wouldn't be too sure about it. @waz

After all 1971 is a good case in point.The Chinese just stood & watched.




I don't entirely agree with you.The most certainly won't do it now.But with another 26/11 , I'd say all bets are off .

So, would you want innocent people to die because you have deprived them of water? I would certainly not want that.

 

[VivasvatManu]

So, would you want innocent people to die because you have deprived them of water? I would certainly not want that.

LOL....... you think India can magically stop the entire water of the Indus by sheer will alone ?

IF we do take action, it will REDUCE the water of the Indus, not drain it dry

 

[waz]

BD may well blame India for starting it , but they would know who controls the levers for it.As far as the Sutlej & Ghaggra goes , you're assuming China would do it to spite India. they won't.They would do it only if they can derive any economic or social benefit from damming either rivers.besides the Ghaggar has to cross Nepal too before it enters India which brings me to another point .Both these rivers gain most of their waters once they enter India & Nepal as far as the Sutlej & Ghaggra is concerned .

Coming back to the 30-40 million people , the waters from the now reduced Brahmaputra would suffice for the 30-40 million in India not for the entire population of the lower Brahmaputra Meghna basin.

Yes, they'll also know who can end it all i.e. India. They won't be too bothered about China doing what it has to.
I'm not assuming anything, your own strategists have written about the Sutlej & Ghaggra being potential targets if things go down south with Pakistan over water issues. Of course China will derive benefit from it; it helps its closest ally, it hurts India and uses the water for its own domestic consumption.
As for crossing Nepal, again you would have started all this, besides flow can be reduced to hurt India, whilst Nepal still gets by. As for the rivers gathering most of their waters in India, I'd like to see how that would work with the loss of the Sutlej's source, as for the Ghaggra, most of it's strength is gathered in Nepal, with whom arrangements can be worked out, after all India is the one denying water to others.

You seem to be certain that China would stick it's neck out for Pakistan every time Pakistan is up against India.I wouldn't be too sure about it. @waz

After all 1971 is a good case in point.The Chinese just stood & watched.

71 Soviets, context dear chap, context.

 

[Indiran Chandiran]

So, would you want innocent people to die because you have deprived them of water? I would certainly not want that.

I could turn around & ask you were those 200 odd people who died in 26/11 guilty ?

When you have a certain nation as a neighbour who has delusions of grandeur , a visceral hatred for anything that you stand for , determined to prosecute their ambitions through any format available at great cost to them , even risking their own annihilation, what are your choices ?

Since jehad & quotations from the Koran form part of the narrative , let me draw your attention to our own rich religious sources - the Mahabharata.After the Kurukshetra war, when Arjun asks Krishna , how justified were they in using unfair tactics in slaying all the Kaurava commanders , Krishna replied that in order to defeat the Kauravas , the Pandavas had to emulate the Kauravas.Otherwise victory wouldn't be guaranteed.

Yes, they'll also know who can end it all i.e. India. They won't be too bothered about China doing what it has to.
I'm not assuming anything, your own strategists have written about the Sutlej & Ghaggra being potential targets if things go down south with Pakistan over water issues. Of course China will derive benefit from it; it helps its closest ally, it hurts India and uses the water for its own domestic consumption.
As for crossing Nepal, again you would have started all this, besides flow can be reduced to hurt India, whilst Nepal still gets by. As for the rivers gathering most of their waters in India, I'd like to see how that would work with the loss of the Sutlej's source, as for the Ghaggra, most of it's strength is gathered in Nepal, with whom arrangements can be worked out, after all India is the one denying water to others.



71 Soviets, context dear chap, context.

I would leave Nepal out of the China Pakistan India triangle , Nepal is far too dependent on India & least interested in getting caught up in third party intrigues.

With BD , assuming PRC starts extensive damming , the flow through India would suffice only for our populace in the NE .BD could blame their fate.

Again , you seem to be assuming that just coz Pakistan is in trouble over the IWT, PRC would start damming rivers flowing to India.They could but they won't.

The Russian context is used by the Chinese just to justify their inaction.Kissinger cried hoarse urging the Chinese to intervene .Just a few divisions diverted to the India border would have jeopardised India's operations in BD.Are you trying to convince me or yourself that the Chinese couldn't even organise that much ? Please also refer to the 1999 Kargil war & check for Chinese reactions .

 

[waz]

I would leave Nepal out of the China Pakistan India triangle , Nepal is far too dependent on India & least interested in getting caught up in third party intrigues.

With BD , assuming PRC starts extensive damming , the flow through India would suffice only for our populace in the NE .BD could blame their fate.

Again , you seem to be assuming that just coz Pakistan is in trouble over the IWT, PRC would start damming rivers flowing to India.They could but they won't.

The Russian context is used by the Chinese just to justify their inaction.Kissinger cried hoarse urging the Chinese to intervene .Just a few divisions diverted to the India border would have jeopardised India's operations in BD.

You don't know that, and of recent times Nepal has been annoyed with India. But yes, they are dependent.
Bangladesh will put the blame on your doorstep.
I told you before I'm not assuming, I'm going on what many people are saying, and yes they would start damming those rivers pronto if India decides not to play fair. They've already earmarked rivers.
A few divisions would have invited many more turning up at the Russian/Chinese border.
Anyway, this whole discussion is going around in circles.

 

[Indiran Chandiran]

You don't know that, and of recent times Nepal has been annoyed with India. But yes, they are dependent.
Bangladesh will put the blame on your doorstep.
I told you before I'm not assuming, I'm going on what many people are saying, and yes they would start damming those rivers pronto if India decides not to play fair. They've already earmarked rivers.
A few divisions would have invited many more turning up at the Russian/Chinese border.
Anyway, this whole discussion is going around in circles.

As of now , nothing would happen.The future depends on Pakistan .Every such attack as has happened , reduces the room for the GoI to manoeuvre , hardening attitudes among the local populace .You may argue the same is happening in Pakistan .But there aren't any armed tanzeems openly operating within India at the neck & call of our intelligence agencies to prosecute war in furtherance of our objectives abroad.

Besides , Pakistan is more deeply involved in Afghanistan than it is in India.The NDS have far more reason to be supporting anti Pak groups than India.Whether India has outsourced & financed such operations to the NDS, I doubt if anyone can say with any degree of certainty .

I'm not too optimistic about things returning back to normal after such attacks in the future.After all , one of the reasons he was elected apart from improving the economic lot of Indians , is that he promised decisive action against Pak sponsored terrorists where the previous UPA led government was widely perceived as supine.

Gauging from the way Modi operates , I doubt he'd like to be seen as a carbon copy of the UPA.No sir , he's not the kind to sit back & let bygones be bygones.What exactly does he have planned is something time will tell.

 

[waz]

As of now , nothing would happen.The future depends on Pakistan .Every such attack as has happened , reduces the room for the GoI to manoeuvre , hardening attitudes among the local populace .You may argue the same is happening in Pakistan .But there aren't any armed tanzeems openly operating within India at the neck & call of our intelligence agencies to prosecute war in furtherance of our objectives abroad.

Besides , Pakistan is more deeply involved in Afghanistan than it is in India.The NDS have far more reason to be supporting anti Pak groups than India.Whether India has outsourced & financed such operations to the NDS, I doubt if anyone can say with any degree of certainty .

I'm not too optimistic about things returning back to normal after such attacks in the future.After all , one of the reasons he was elected apart from improving the economic lot of Indians , is that he promised decisive action against Pak sponsored terrorists where the previous UPA led government was widely perceived as supine.

Gauging from the way Modi operates , I doubt he'd like to be seen as a carbon copy of the UPA.No sir , he's not the kind to sit back & let bygones be bygones.What exactly does he have planned is something time will tell.

Fair post.

 

[wiseone2]

What about brahmaputra? Guys this will surely start a new domain of conflicts.

look at the map. brahmaputra has a short valley in Assam and Bangladesh. The impact on Assam will be minimal. I cannot say what the impact on Bangladesh is.

 

[ThaniOruvan]

Fair play mate, I'm with you.



Major tributaries that give strength to the ganges come from Tibet, their strength does not come from India, but China, Nepal and then India.
The Indus springs from China, you tighten the taps there, a quick discussion and it will be shut off to you. I've discussed what happens next.
China has actually held back its full plans for the Brahmaputra.
As for the rest, do what you can, come back here to this thread when something happens.

I'll let you read this, the latest from the India media.



While raising Indus, India must not forget China
By Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, ET Bureau | Sep 24, 2016, 06.36 AM IST
Post a Comment

NEW DELHI: Calls for the abrogation of the 50-year-old Indus Water Treaty (IWT) may be a naive and irrational reaction given that the treaty has many stakeholders besides India and Pakistan and any unilateral tinkering could have implications to water sharing arrangement with China, Nepal and Bangladesh too.

Delhi has proposed a similar water sharing pact with China where the northern neighbour is the upper riparian state with and India the lower riparian state.
The biggest impediment for scrapping IWT is that India -- a lower riparian state wants to conclude water sharing pact with China - therefore cannot be viewed as acting in a unilateral fashion against lower riparian state Pakistan, indicated sources familiar with the matter.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) publicly stated that IWT cannot be "one-sided affair" in the aftermath of the Uri attack. Policy makers in South Block are not enthusiastic about scrapping the treaty that has stood the test of time including wars of 1965, 1971 and the 1999 Kargil standoff besides the Kashmir insurgency since 1990.

China maintains an advantageous position as the upstream riparian of the Brahmaputra. It can, theoretically, choose to withhold hydrological information and can build infrastructure to intentionally prevent water from flowing downstream. Fear has been created in India because of previous tendencies where the Chinese have been unwilling to provide details of its hydro-projects, and when it did, gave contradictory information.

Beijing and New Delhi signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 'Strengthening Cooperation on Trans-Border Rivers' in 2013, recognising that trans-boundary rivers are an important asset to the development of all riparian regions. Both countries agreed to strengthen communication and strategic trust. China agreed to provide more hydrological information to India at the start of the flood season. In 2015 India and China also renewed MoU for five years of hydrological information of Sutlej or or Langqen Zangbo.

As lower riparian countries India and Bangladesh rely on the Brahmaputra for water, agriculture and livelihoods. Upstream, China holds an important strategic advantage over the river's flow. Chinese dam-building and water division plans along the Yarlung Zangbo (as the Brahmaputra in called in China) is a source of tension between the two neighbours, sources pointed out.

India is a lower-riparian state with regard to rivers flowing from Nepal (an upper riparian state) and has successful water sharing arrangement with Bangladesh (both share more than 50 rivers). The proposed Teesta Water-Sharing Pact, which has been a point of discord between Bangladesh and India, is yet to be concluded.
The other apprehension from abrogation of IWT is that it might help strength of Lashkar-e-Taebbya (LeT). Any abrogation of the treaty will impact Punjab, Pakistan's most prosperous province, strengthening the LeT. JuD Chief Hafiz Saeed in the past has accused India of withholding water to Pakistan and scrapping of IWT will give him a perfect opportunity to step up recruitment. Pakistan's Punjab is LeT's biggest support base.

Further, as the World Bank brokered IWT in 1960, there is an involvement of the third party and it is difficult to abrogate the treaty unilaterally by any of the three parties. India is negotiating other river project treaties with Pakistan with IWT as the basis. In the past India has got green signal for Baglihar Dam in J&K. Delhi has also won from Hague Court rights for diverting a minimum amount of water for power generation under Kishanganga Project. All these flow from successful successful implementation of IWT by all signatories, experts noted.
It may be recalled that since the ratification of the treaty in 1960, India and Pakistan have not engaged in any water wars. Most disagreements and disputes have been settled via legal procedures within the framework of the treaty. The treaty is considered to be one of the most successful water sharing endeavours in the world even though analysts acknowledge the need to update certain technical specifications and expand the scope of the document to include climate change.


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ust-not-forget-china/articleshow/54490210.cms

India is not dependent on Indus waters as we use just 20% or even less of the total water available. So if China decides to tighten the tap let it do it. It won't affect India much. Whereas if India tightens the tap majority of Pakistan's agriculture will be laid to waste. So stop tying china with everything. They won't collide with India always. How is it fair for Pakistan to expect everything to be normal after repeated irritants like Uri ? It is obvious that you cannot take Kashmir anymore, then why wasting time ?

 

[LOGICAL BOSSS]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...ty-tomorrow/story-FidEDvcAvhSjQzkbaKg60N.html

Under the treaty, the water of six river - Beas, Ravi, Sutlej, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum - was to be shared between India and Pakistan. (HT File Photo)

• Mutual trust must for treaties like on Indus water to work, says India
• 
  
• Under the treaty, which was signed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan president Ayub Khan, the water of six rivers — Beas, Ravi, Sutlej, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum — is shared between the two countries.
  
  The pact, brokered by the World Bank, survived three wars between the two countries and constant strain in their bilateral ties.

There is now a clamour to use the pact to bring the neighbour to mend its ways after the Uri attack proved Pakistan is both unable and unwilling to stop its territory from being used by terrorists against India The Indus agreement deals with six rivers — the three eastern rivers of Ravi, Beas, Sutlej and their tributaries and the three western rivers of Indus, Jhelum, Chenab and their tributaries. Water from the eastern rivers has been allocated to India, and New Delhi is obligated to let 80% water from the western rivers flow to Pakistan.

Read | Why Indus water treaty is a bad bargaining chip for India

The Indus water treaty gives the lower riparian Pakistan more “than four times” the water available to India. Despite such liberal terms, Pakistan and India have often sparred over the amount of water released.

Reviewing the treaty, however, will be a difficult proposition for India.

Pakistan’s all-weather ally China is the upper riparian state in the Brahmaputra, a river that flows into India’s northeast. Making any precedent in which an upper riparian state is overbearing can give hints to Beijing on the water-sharing issue, which doesn’t augur well for India.

 

[dray]

Scrap it and ask Pakistan for renegotiation, the flow of water should be inversely proportional to the flow of terrorists from there.