Pakistan And India-Water Disputes-News And Updates

[sonicboom]

Pakistan bid to escalate water war worries PM Manmohan

R Jagannathan / DNA

Mumbai: Prime minister Manmohan Singh’s biggest concerns about Pakistan’s intentions are not limited to terror and infiltration in Jammu and Kashmir. They now extend to water. In recent months, Singh has, with growing dismay, watched Pakistani politicians ratcheting up the rhetoric on the Indus Water Treaty of 1960.

Ever since the Baglihar dam was built to run a hydro-electric project on the Chenab in 2008, Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari, prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and several opposition politicians have raised the decibel count on the sharing of waters under the treaty.

An advisor to Gilani went to the extent of saying that the issue could trigger a nuclear war. In January this year, Pakistani foreign secretary Salman Bashir sent a demarche to Delhi on the issue. To cap it all, Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed, a key conspirator in the 26/11 attacks, has threatened mayhem over the Indus treaty.

Singh, who has staked a lot of political capital in reviving the stalled dialogue with Pakistan, is concerned about this issue being dragged into an already complicated bilateral relationship. “The Indus treaty has stood the test of time,” he says, pointing out that even during the three wars we fought with Pakistan, the flow of water was not disturbed.

When Gen Pervez Musharraf was in power, he had raised concerns about the Baglihar dam. To reassure him, Singh agreed to have a Swiss expert play the role of arbitrator.

His ruling more or less upheld the Indian view. “I have satisfied myself that Pakistan has nothing to fear on this front,” says Singh.
Under the Indus treaty, Pakistan gets all the water from the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, while India gets to use the Sutlej, Ravi and Beas waters.

India, however, is entitled to irrigate 1.3 million acres and store 3.6 million acre feet of water for flood control and hydel generation within the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The addition of the water dispute to the usual rhetoric on Kashmir has worsened the climate for a successful dialogue. “I am clear that without a peaceful neighbourhood, India cannot aspire to be a world leader,” Singh told a group of senior editors at an informal interaction in Mumbai on Friday. But, “it needs two hands to clap”.

On the domestic front, Singh answered several queries on the economy. If he had his way, oil pricing reform would be one of his top priorities. “Due to wrong pricing, we have created an incentive for overuse of diesel. We have dieselised the economy to our detriment. We cannot afford to subsidise people forever. I am told that if we do not reform, the under-recoveries of oil companies will be over Rs 80,000 crore this year. This is simply unsustainable.”

So what should we expect? Says Singh: “I hope there will be a national consensus on reforming fuel pricing. If we don’t, it will upset the budgetary finances.” That means stoking inflationary pressures once again. If the oil pricing challenge is a big headache, it is still not Singh’s No 1 sleep-wrecker domestically. It is infrastructure. He believes that India has many things going for it, and double-digit growth is within reach. But if infrastructure - roads, airports, power stations, et al - is not improved dramatically, it will hold us back.

Isn’t agriculture a bigger problem than just infrastructure? Especially when we have just witnessed a year of high food price inflation after a monsoon failure? But Singh sticks to his guns. The other day he told a meeting organised by the Planning Commission that India needs $1 trillion (about Rs 45,00,000 crore) over the next plan period (2012-17) just for infrastructure.

That’s more than twice as big as what we may be spending in 2007-12. “If we get infrastructure right, agricultural productivity will also improve,” he says. While farm technology and improved agro-practices are important, rural road connectivity and investments in storage and transport are critical.

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report...ies-pm_1366798

 

[Zaheerul Hassan]

Indian Water quest really creating problem for the region. UNO should interfere to resolve the issue for the peace.

 

[Omar1984]

Govt urged to take steps to stop Indian water aggression

LAHORE - Pakistan Water Movement and Muthida Kissan Mahaz Tuesday demanded of the government to take concrete steps to stop Indian water aggression on Pakistan.

Convener of the Movement Hafiz Saifullah Mansoor and head of the Mahaz, Muhammad Ayub Mao during a meeting agreed to continue step up movement against the India move of choking water flow to Pakistan and also involve the masses in their protest. They called upon the Government to take practical steps against the construction of Indian dams on Pakistani rivers.

They said water problem is a matter of life and death for Pakistanis as India is bent upon destroying Pakistani agriculture through it. They said water is also essential for defence purpose of the country.

Hafiz Saifullah said that Indian water terrorism is not only making lands of Pakistan barren, but India also wanted to weaken Pakistan defence through this means. He stressed the need of forging unity of all political and religious parties as well as people from all walks of life to stand up against India on the water issue with full force. Ayub Mao asked everyone to take part in the movement.


Govt urged to take steps to stop Indian water aggression | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

 

[Hutchroy]

Govt urged to take steps to stop Indian water aggression

LAHORE - Pakistan Water Movement and Muthida Kissan Mahaz Tuesday demanded of the government to take concrete steps to stop Indian water aggression on Pakistan.

Convener of the Movement Hafiz Saifullah Mansoor and head of the Mahaz, Muhammad Ayub Mao during a meeting agreed to continue step up movement against the India move of choking water flow to Pakistan and also involve the masses in their protest. They called upon the Government to take practical steps against the construction of Indian dams on Pakistani rivers.

They said water problem is a matter of life and death for Pakistanis as India is bent upon destroying Pakistani agriculture through it. They said water is also essential for defence purpose of the country.

Hafiz Saifullah said that Indian water terrorism is not only making lands of Pakistan barren, but India also wanted to weaken Pakistan defence through this means. He stressed the need of forging unity of all political and religious parties as well as people from all walks of life to stand up against India on the water issue with full force. Ayub Mao asked everyone to take part in the movement.

Govt urged to take steps to stop Indian water aggression | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

Well here is the unadultrated Truth :

Going 'down the drain' - Urban/urbane - Ahmad Rafay Alam

Water is the pre-eminent political issue in Pakistan. Nothing else compares in complexity. It affects life, society, politics, the economy, food security, our foreign policy, and even has security repercussions. Yet, most of the time you speak to someone about it, the debate is littered with non-sequiturs. India, apparently, is "stealing" water and the water table in Lahore is falling rapidly. There needs to be clarity, forgive the pun, in our analysis of water.

Pakistan's water resource, the Indus Basin, consists primarily of glacial melt and, a far, far, second, rainwater. Over 90 per cent of our water resource is employed in irrigation. Less than five per cent is employed for domestic purposes--that is, drinking and sanitation. Even less is employed in industrial processes.

Before Partition, the governments of Sindh (then Sind) and Punjab agreed to share the waters of the Indus and the rivers of Punjab. This is known as the Sind-Punjab Water Agreement of 1945. In a sentence (so please forgive any inaccuracy), the agreement set out that the waters of the Indus were to be used, primarily, by Sindh and that the waters of the rivers of Punjab would be used, primarily, by Punjab.

At Partition, the Sind-Punjab Water Agreement seems to have fallen by the wayside, presumably because Partition was the basis of a fresh new history. And if it wasn't for that reason, then the effect that Partition had on the Indus Basin – it made India the upper riparian – must have been enough of a distraction to water managers in Pakistan. It's interesting how few have commented on the arbitrary nature of the political line Cyril Radcliffe drew through the middle of one of the oldest fluvial civilisations on the planet.

The problems of managing the waters of the Indus Basin were settled in 1960 when the World Bank got India and Pakistan to sign the Indus Water Treaty. Basically, the treaty states that India will have control over the waters of the three eastern rivers of the Indus Basin (the Ravi, the Sutlej and the Beas) and that Pakistan will have control over the waters of the three western rivers (the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum). However, the treaty does stipulate that India may use the waters of the western rivers for, domestic consumption, non-consumptive purposes, limited agricultural and for hydroelectric purposes.

Because of the treaty, the Government of Pakistan augmented the irrigation network in Punjab in order to compensate for the loss of water from the eastern rivers. A vast network of dams, barrages and irrigation canals were built to provide the waters of the eastern rivers to the areas where the western rivers used to irrigate the fertile land of Punjab. The augmentation of the irrigation network under the Indus Water Treaty was also against the terms of the Sind-Punjab Water Agreement.

The treaty was executed when Ayub Khan's One Unit experiment was in place. There was no province of Sindh at the time and no voice representing the people of that province. Sindhis have good reason to dislike the Indus Water Treaty. Why were we not consulted, they say, about the unilateral decision to divert the waters of the Indus to the fields of Punjab. It's interesting that few have commented on this inherent tension on the Pakistani side of the Indus Water Treaty.

The Indus Water Treaty sets up the office of the Permanent Indus Commission. India and Pakistan both have the permanent post of Commissioner of Indus Waters, whose job it is to be "the representative of his Government for all matters arising out of this Treaty, and will serve as the regular channel of communication on all matters relating to the implementation of the Treaty. . . ." This includes furnishing and exchanging information or data relating to the flow of the rivers.

What is interesting is that, other than the 10 days India took the waters of the Chenab to fill the reservoir for the Baglihar Dam, Pakistan's Permanent Commissioner of Indus Waters has never said that India has consumed the waters of the western rivers in a manner that violates the Indus Water Treaty. Also, historical data of flows of the western rivers will show anyone that, other than seasonal and other naturally occurring variations, the Indus Water Treaty and India's exercise of rights under it have not affected the amount of water Pakistan gets.

At the same time, we are also told that Pakistan's water resources are falling fast. This is true (we've gone from 5,000 cubic feet of water per person per year to less than 1,500, and it is expected that we will fall to "water-scarce" levels in the near future), but it has to be seen in context. The water resource is not falling because of the Indus Water Treaty. It's falling because of our phenomenal population growth. If you double the people of Pakistan, you're halving the per-capita water resource. So the water scarcity issue has more to do with the way we breed than with India or the Indus Water Treaty.

The real story of water scarcity in Pakistan actually comes from how we deal with and manage our water resources. The apportionment of our water resource is determined by the Apportionment Accord signed by the four provinces in 1991 and by the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) set up to implement the Accord. Each province also has an irrigation department to manage the irrigation network in place.

Over and above seepage of water because of un-lined canals and evaporation, water resources are simply "stolen." Rumour is that some 40 per cent of the water used in irrigation goes to waste or is stolen. The question then is: How come, if there's a water shortage, no one is asking questions of IRSA or the irrigation departments as to what exactly is happening to the water resource in Pakistan? How come no one is asking questions about the water-intensive flood-irrigation techniques used so prevalently? How come no one is asking questions about the manner in which water is priced in Pakistan?

Which brings us to domestic consumption (drinking water and water for sanitation purposes). Many areas fed by canal water use this water for their domestic needs. Some urban areas (like Lahore) use their groundwater resources. Some urban areas (like Islamabad) rely on man-made water reservoirs. But the state of urban water resources is alarming: Karachiites haven't had adequate water resources for years, and the city is now under the control of various water-tanker mafias; Islamabad, because of rampant and unplanned urbanisation, has turned its water reservoirs into poison by using them for sewage and sanitation disposal; Quetta is out of water (will it go the way of Fatehpur Sikri?); Faisalabad's groundwater is turning brackish; and Lahore's water table has fallen to over 700 feet and scarcity is looming around the corner; in Kasur, the tanneries have poisoned the water table and water-related physical deformities (and other ailments) are rampant. In other words, most of our major urban areas are suffering from, or are beginning to suffer from, water-scarcity and water-quality issues.

In these circumstances, how come no one is asking questions of the urban elite who continue to maintain large lawns or who continue to have their fleet of automobiles washed in precious drinking water? How come no one is asking questions of the many tens of thousands of mosques where drinking water is used, religiously and untrammelled, five times a day for the purposes of wuzu (ablution)? How come there are no water-use legislations?

The pre-eminent political issue of water seems to be more about our own habits and our abuse and disregard of an existential and rapidly depleting resource. Yesterday, a newspaper reported that the irrigation department of the Government of Punjab has accused the Rangers and the army of theft of water from the canals in the Bahawlapur and Lahore Zones. How come no one is asking questions and how come, given these circumstances, there are people openly accusing India of being responsible for our water-related issues?

The writer is an advocate of the high court and a member of the adjunct faculty at LUMS. He has an interest in urban planning. Email: ralam@nexlinx.net.pk

 

[Hutchroy]

Drowned in rivers with no water | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

Drowned in rivers with no water

Samson Simon Sharaf

Somehow, I always had a feeling that Pakistan’s bureaucracy, technocrats and the military have lived in exclusive bubbles in chagrin to long-term strategic and economic interests of Pakistan. Bureaucracy and technocrats are eclipsed by the Harvard Models with their feet and heads in the air rather than sunk into the ground realities of Pakistan. The military’s focus has always been India centric from a military perspective. There never was awareness that what could not be lost on the battlefield could be easily conceded through bad planning? The imperatives of a broad policy spectrum with all encompassing instruments never formed the basis of any discussion forum. Inevitably, the bubbles burst.

After the coup of 1999, one of my biggest concerns was Pakistan’s spiralling debt with a declared foreign component of $32 billion. No one in the Ministry of Finance or State Bank could confidently tell the volume and breakdown of this debt to include country-country borrowing, multi-lateral loans, bonds and other encashment to provinces and autonomous bodies. After encountering many blank faces, I decided to get reports from all ministries, provinces and autonomous bodies to analyse the size and cash flows.

As volumes of reports and files continued to pour in, the figures collected cross checked and verified were startling. Pakistan’s debt was over $38 billion and continued to grow through the IMF borrowing and the sinking rupee. The single biggest recipient of loans was the water sector, accounting for approximately 70 percent of the loan component. The shocker was that 60 percent of it was already spent on feasibilities that included preliminary infrastructure for Kalabagh Dam. The shocker was that nearly half of Pakistan’s foreign debt had been eaten away by drawing boards, visits, lodgings and proposals. The study also vindicated international political economists who viewed IMF and World Bank as exploitative instruments of neo-imperialism. If mega projects were to be executed, further external financial assistance was imperative.

It was a very useful study that left everyone in the Musharraf Cabinet stunned and aghast, but this is where this revealing study ended. There was no follow up. Gradually, patriotic and concerned officials were shown the door. The study got lost in the sea of bureaucracy. The economic gurus trained by international financial institutions and banks have since left and were replaced by a new team that speaks the same language and expected to fare no better. I was convinced then, and sure now, that these economic managers and experts are all part of an international cartel that controls financial institutions and hence destinies of misgoverned countries like Pakistan. They come and go with regime changes and are never made accountable. These are non-state corporatists who transcend international borders and whose loyalties lie with their pay masters rather than their moorings. More than India or militants, they are the ones who have caused Pakistan major damage.

My mind goes back to two Pakistani delegations that went to India after 1997. At that time Baghliar Dam was well past its planning stages and into execution, yet despite briefs, the Pakistan delegations failed to raise the issue with India or World Bank. Belatedly in 2007, on grounds of gross neglect and technical deficiency, Pakistan lost the argument in international arbitration.

Having witnessed the apathy then, I am not sure if Pakistani experts were ever aware of the Indian plans to build scores of ‘run of the river’ projects over Jhelum, Chenab and Kishanganga? Now Pakistan’s farmers, people and energy sectors must face the music. Ironically, these water flows can also be manipulated for military purposes against the very military that allowed this to happen right under its nose.

But the apathy does not end here. Despite such huge investments on non-productive feasibilities, Pakistan remains short of water reservoirs. From 1999-2003, the Board of Investments and Finance Ministry consistently blocked attempts by private investors and consortiums to construct Neelam Hydel on build, operate, own and transfer basis. Rather the subject was inevitably diverted to export of surplus electricity to India and the inefficiency of the IPPs. They chose to ignore the cogent legal angle that while the Indian Kishanganga was still on the drawing boards it was urgent to begin the construction forthwith.

Come 2009-10. The biggest component of Pakistan’s debt has not performed. Rather, it is guilty of criminal negligence in safeguarding Pakistan’s interests under the Indus Basin Waters Treaty and rather squandered huge sums on non-productive studies by consortiums, IFIs and consultants. Kishanganga has rendered River Neelam to a trickle and all but obscured Neelam Hydel Project. India has been left free to decide when it fills its reservoirs and releases water into the rivers allocated to Pakistan. Technically, they have demonstrated its ability to reduce flows during sowing seasons and increase during monsoons. Today, there is no water, no dams and no electricity.

Pathetically, Pakistan’s entire water and energy interests were left in the hands of one commissioner, while the financial and technical experts remained busy in churning out expensive feasibility studies. Legal experts crucial to win arguments in international law were conspicuously absent.

Even the water management schemes and drainage projects are a showcase of neglect and institutional decay. Had it not been for extraordinary spells of droughts in areas from Sulemanki to Fort Abbas, much of the land would have become an impassable quicksand.

All along the international border, India dumps untreated waste and flood waters into Pakistan. Three conspicuous points are Hudiara, Sulemanki and Haroonabad. Hudiara drain runs through the entire length of Lahore and debouches into the Ravi near Mehmoodbooti causing irreparable environmental damage. Subsoil water quality samples all along this system are unfit for human consumption. The sewage, extremely high in chemical and biological oxygen demand and laden with toxins, micro-organisms and health hazards has never attracted the ire of Pakistani officials, nor have they ever raised the issue with India. Water aquifers of Central Punjab are dying being recharged with contaminated waste water.

During the monsoons, India regularly floods the area between Head Signai (near Haroonabad), across Fort Abbas to Mianwala Toba, destroying standing crops. By the time the water recedes, one crop is destroyed and the other cannot be sowed. Consequently, farmers have abandoned agriculture in the area.

The saddest part of this tragedy is that despite being confronted by a hyperactive neighbour, Pakistan has shown fragility to set its own house in order. It is like a *** stunned by a cobra.

Kalabagh, that hold the key to Pakistan’s future especially with the limited residual life of Tarbela has become too politicised to construct. Rather, preparations are in full swing to construct Basha on a fault line that pulverised the entire landscape from Balakot to Kashmir in 2005. In addition, Korakoram Highway will have to be realigned and the entire bed of the lake treated with concrete. The wall on this fault line will overhang like a predator. In case of a massive earthquake, it could wipe out infrastructures as far away as Kotri and Sukkur

The world’s largest irrigation network and natural river system is under threat of extinction.

The writer is a retired officer of Pakistan Army and a political economist.

Email: nicco1988@hotmail.com

 

[blueoval79]

Indus Water Treaty: Politicisation will only harm Pakistan


In the run up to the Foreign Secretary level talks in end February, many Pakistan news analysts went ballistic over the river waters issue relating the Indus Water Treaty of 1960.

The Pakistani Times of 27th February alleged that India is stealing twenty percent of water from Pakistani Rivers and that Chenab is the worst victim. It also said that India is building a hydro electric project on River Kabul using Pakistani waters!

Sajjad Shaukat of Pakistani Observer of 27th February accused India of practising "water terrorism" against Pakistan.

Amidst all this hysteria, the News International of Pakistan did point out that the political and military leadership as well as the conservative sections of the media raised enough hue and cry in trying to project water as the real bone of contention. It continued, that if indeed this trend continues, it will be no surprise that in due course Pakistan may push Kashmir into the background and project India’s water terrorism to counter India’s charges against Pakistan for supporting terrorism across the border as the primary issue.

The Special report of the News International had brought some sanity into the issue and had many valid points that have been lost in the rhetoric and irrational hysteria that have accompanied in analysing the Indus Water Treaty. The points made were

1. The Indus Water Treaty has worked both for Pakistan and India and has survived three wars and many incidents of terrorist violence and the hearty news was that the water commissioners of both countries of IWT met within six months of the most recent Mumbai attack.

2. As the agricultural and energy needs as well as population are on the rise and with water becoming scarce because of inefficient use, waste and climate change, a distinction was then drawn between the letter and spirit of the agreement

3. Whenever India started building a run of the river dam on one of the rivers meant for Pakistan and allowed under the treaty, Pakistan policy makers got "jittery"and feared that Indian control of Pakistan’s water would harm its economy.

4. Instead of building on the strength of the IWT and ensure net gains both sides have picked up water as a "dividing tool."

The points made are very valid. Instead of politicising the issue, there is a need to build up rather than seek a fresh agreement. Given the traditional and historic rivalries, the geographical position, greater dependence on irrigated agriculture, failure to make optimum use of a resource that is bound to progressively reduce and above all given the fact that despite wars India has stood by the Indus Water Treaty, there is an need for Pakistan to go for the spirit rather than the letter of the treaty. The more one politicises the issue in Pakistan the chances are that Pakistan will lose more in the bargain.

Some of the articles that followed in the News International show the concerns of Pakistan and right or wrong the concerns appear to be genuine I give below some of the concerns and my response.

1. Pakistan has never convincingly argued that not withstanding bilateral commitment under IWT, India has an obligation to preserve water in its catchment areas for the benefit of lower riparian usage under international laws.

The IWT follows the basic principle of equitable distribution of water between two users and it will be a different ball game if the IWT is to be ignored and other international agreements are to be followed. As said before, the IWT is a unique document that has stood the test of time. There is no doubt that there is a responsibility of the upper riparian to ensure the free flow of water from the catchment areas which means that the upper riparian is responsible for ensuring that there is no man made degradation of the catchment area. But if one were to improve and develop the catchment area for the benefit of the lower riparian, the costs will have to be borne by the lower riparian- here Pakistan.

2. So far Pakistan has put only the IWT on the table but it is necessary to put along the same table a stack of material. Legal references, conventions that place additional obligations of India so that the lower riparian is entitled to proper share of water.

It is true that proper study of the river water issues has not been made in Pakistan. It is good that other international agreements are studied in depth rather than complaining that "India is stealing the water." Only then will Pakistan understand the benefit that they are enjoying under the IWT. To me it looks that the IWT goes much beyond the conventional laws and regulations on trans boundary rivers. No where in the world, the entire river systems are allowed to flow freely into another country without using them for one’s own limited benefit.

3. In an interview the Indus Water Commissioner of Pakistan has made certain observations. He said that the Indus Water Treaty has to be implemented both in letter and spirit. India should provide all information on projects that are started on rivers that are allotted to Pakistan. The issue is technical in nature but the concerns have been raised by media, taken up by the parliament and thus ultimately becomes a political one.

There is no doubt that India has a responsibility to provide complete information on the projects that are being conceived and implemented on the rivers meant for Pakistan. But no where in the treaty is it mentioned that India should wait for consensus from Pakistan before starting a project. If one were to wait for consensus, it is very likely that no project can be started at all. Also there is a three-structured mechanism to resolve all differences even on projects objected to by either party. First is the regular meeting between the two Commissioners. Second is the use of a neutral expert as it happened in Bagilhar Project where India was allowed to continue the project with certain modifications suggested by the neutral expert and third is the arbitration.

　

4. In the same interview, the Indus Commissioner concedes that IWT allows the run of the river projects as well as the hydro electric projects, but there is no allowance for making power on Indus and selling it Mumbai.

This argument is very specious. So long as India is allowed under IWT to produce power on run of the river projects under the IWT, it should be of no concern to Pakistan, how and where the power is utilised. By the same argument India could question as to why all the power generated on the western rivers are used in Punjab and not any where else in Sind and Balochistan. Here again one sees the Politicisation of the issue!

5.Pakistan stands to lose much if the treaty is to be renegotiated. The agreement needs to be slightly altered rather than cancelled altogether. Also confronting the popular demand that India is stealing the water has been found to be incorrect because the waters have not been diverted. The issue that irks Pakistan government is the dams which must be set up according to certain designs that the waters continue to flow.

That Pakistan stands to lose much if the treaty of the sharing of Indus waters is to be renegotiated is also our position. More importantly it is unrealistic to expect both countries to look at the water development as a common project devoid of political issues as envisaged by the World Bank before the Indus Water Treaty was signed and re negotiate another treaty!

The Indus Water Treaty has worked well for both the countries. Differences and disputes will arise due to increasing needs on the waters on both sides of the border and the position will get critical sooner than later when the water resources are dwindling and not increasing and the demands are much more. As said in my earlier paper there has to be a give and take and this can happen only when it is implemented both in letter and spirit and to me it appears that Pakistan will gain if it looks at the spirit of the treaty rather than on the letter. There are already many saner counsels in Pakistan and it is hoped that the Indus Water Treaty is seen more as a unique experiment in international laws on non navigational waters that needs to be implemented for mutual benefit and not renegotiated as such.

Indus Water Treaty- Politicisation will only Harm Pakistan

 

[notsuperstitious]

This is Indian Islamabad mission's response to the lies being propagated in Pakistan, all verifiable data. This was published in response to an article, which like ALL (and i mean ALL) such articles in pakistani media is based on lies.

DAWN.COM | Letters to the Editor | Indus water: India?s version

THIS is apropos of Ahmer Bilal Soofi’s article ‘Indus treaty: Pakistan’s options’ (April 18). The article is not based on a careful reading of the Indus water treaty.

The treaty does not specify the number of hydroelectric or water storage projects that can be built by India on the western rivers.

However, Annexure ‘D’ gives detailed technical specifications of hydroelectric projects India can build to safeguard the interests of both the sides and to ensure that Pakistan is not deprived of its share of water from these rivers, despite the construction of such projects and the number thereof.

Similarly, Annexure ‘E’ of the treaty allows India storage capacity on western rivers to the maximum extent of 3.6 MAF, in addition to the storage that existed on these rivers before the treaty.

Since this limit is laid down by the treaty, the number of projects that may be constructed to achieve the above storage capacity is of no consequence.

Construction of hydroelectric or storage projects on western rivers by India flows from India’s development needs and its entitlement.

The writer wrongly claims that India’s decisions in this regard fall ‘outside the treaty’ and are based on ‘political and strategic considerations’.

India has so far exploited only a fraction of the hydroelectric potential available to it on the western rivers under the treaty. The treaty requires us to provide certain technical specifications to Pakistan two to six months in advance of the construction of river works. We have provided information in respect of 33 projects.

Further, as against our storage entitlement of 3.6 MAF, we have built no storage so far.

Out of the area of 1.34 million acres, permitted for irrigation by India from the western rivers, we are currently irrigating only 0.792 million acres. The writer states that Pakistan has “lost cases before neutral experts, whereas the fact is that neutral experts never had the legal competence to grant victory to Pakistan.”

In the 50 years of the treaty, only once an issue ( Baglihar)was referred to a neutral expert. Therefore, reference to ‘lost cases’ before ‘neutral experts’ does not square up with the reality.

India has all along adhered to the provisions of this treaty and will continue to do so.

Moreover, the permanent Indus commission, constituted under the treaty, is the best forum to resolve all such matters.

However, for any issue that cannot be resolved in the commission, Article IX of the treaty provides a mechanism for settlement of differences and disputes.

SIDHARTH ZUTSHI
First Secretary, Press & Information, High Commission of India
Islamabad

I hope the reasonable pakistanis see the making of the next cannon fodder factory in this water scam by whoever really runs pakistan.

 

[Prometheus]

This is apropos of Ahmer Bilal Soofi’s article ‘Indus treaty: Pakistan’s options’ (April 18). The article is not based on a careful reading of the Indus water treaty.

The treaty does not specify the number of hydroelectric or water storage projects that can be built by India on the western rivers.

However, Annexure ‘D’ gives detailed technical specifications of hydroelectric projects India can build to safeguard the interests of both the sides and to ensure that Pakistan is not deprived of its share of water from these rivers, despite the construction of such projects and the number thereof.

Similarly, Annexure ‘E’ of the treaty allows India storage capacity on western rivers to the maximum extent of 3.6 MAF, in addition to the storage that existed on these rivers before the treaty.

Since this limit is laid down by the treaty, the number of projects that may be constructed to achieve the above storage capacity is of no consequence.

Construction of hydroelectric or storage projects on western rivers by India flows from India’s development needs and its entitlement.

The writer wrongly claims that India’s decisions in this regard fall ‘outside the treaty’ and are based on ‘political and strategic considerations’.

India has so far exploited only a fraction of the hydroelectric potential available to it on the western rivers under the treaty. The treaty requires us to provide certain technical specifications to Pakistan two to six months in advance of the construction of river works. We have provided information in respect of 33 projects.

Further, as against our storage entitlement of 3.6 MAF, we have built no storage so far.

Out of the area of 1.34 million acres, permitted for irrigation by India from the western rivers, we are currently irrigating only 0.792 million acres.

The writer states that Pakistan has “lost cases before neutral experts, whereas the fact is that neutral experts never had the legal competence to grant victory to Pakistan.”

In the 50 years of the treaty, only once an issue ( Baglihar)was referred to a neutral expert. Therefore, reference to ‘lost cases’ before ‘neutral experts’ does not square up with the reality.

India has all along adhered to the provisions of this treaty and will continue to do so.

Moreover, the permanent Indus commission, constituted under the treaty, is the best forum to resolve all such matters.

However, for any issue that cannot be resolved in the commission, Article IX of the treaty provides a mechanism for settlement of differences and disputes.

SIDHARTH ZUTSHI
First Secretary, Press & Information, High Commission of India
Islamabad

DAWN.COM | Letters to the Editor | Indus water: India?s version

 

[notsuperstitious]

Dude, there's sticky on this disinformation campaign, and already posted there.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...istan-india-water-disputes-16.html#post815099

 

[blueoval79]

A catastrophe in the making


If there is one issue that has a greater chance of sparking a full-fledged war between India and Pakistan, other than the Kashmir issue, it is the issue of India blocking the waters of the western rivers against the spirit of the Indus Water Treaty.

Whether it is a perception, as claimed by India, or a reality, is irrelevant, as perceptions are always stronger than reality. When Jaswant Singh visited Lahore recently for his book launch, a Lahori pleaded with Mr Singh to ask the Indian government not to block Pakistan's water. While Jaswant Singh's answer was the usual stand of the Indian establishment that 'all matters should be sorted out as per the procedure laid down in the Indus Water Treaty', the huge round of applause that the questioner got reflected the feelings of the ordinary Pakistani. And these were the urbane, book-loving, literate Pakistanis and not the 70 per cent not-so-educated Pakistani farmers whose livelihood is directly related to the availability of water and who are not so rational with their emotions.

Emotions that water generates are far more intense than emotions generated by many other issues, as reflected by the numerous enmities and murders in our rural areas caused by disputes over water. While Kashmir is an issue which has the maximum emotive appeal in Punjab, shortage of water is one issue which directly hits most farmers not only in Punjab but in Sindh, NWFP and partly in Balochistan as well. The position on the ground is that India plans to produce around 16,000MW electricity from the hydel-power potentials of Kashmir, most of which are based on the western rivers, which are allocated to Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty. This is about 80 per cent of Pakistan's total installed capacity and much more than what Pakistan currently produces. India, last month, contracted out a 690MW hydel project in Drabshalla (Kishtwar district) on BOT basis to a private company, to be built on river Chenab. The tender for the project was floated in 2008. A newspaper report said that Pakistan's Indus Water commissioner, when queried on the issue, said that information on the project had not yet been received by him.

What kind of attitude is that? If the tender was floated in 2008, is it not the duty of Pakistan's commissioner to know what is happening on the Indian side? When you hear the commissioner on TV you get the impression that everything is fine, all the correspondence is up to date and there is nothing to be alarmed about.

If that is the case, let the government of Pakistan clearly state that India is legitimately taking advantage of the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty. When I downloaded the treaty and tried to go through the voluminous document, the essence I got was that it was very restrictive of India using the water, except to produce electricity without changing the geography of the area by diversions and big reservoirs. In any case, if India is acting as per the provisions of the treaty, the facts of the treaty should be clearly explained to the public.

On the other hand, the lethargy and indecisiveness of our government should also be highlighted. Apparently there are 30 potential locations in Kashmir and Gilgit- Baltistan from where almost 40000MW of electricity can be generated. Some of these sites are Phandar, Basho, Kohala, Kalgh, Bhasha, Buni, Dasu, Lower Spat Gah, Palas Valley, Akhori, Pattan, Thakot, Dhudhial, Yulbo, Tungas, Skardu, Yugo, Keyal Kjhawar, Lawi and Harpo. While there is a political logjam on Kalabagh, why have we not seen any power-generation project even on one of these potential sites so far?

It would be a travesty of justice if, after reluctantly giving up its three eastern rivers to get the treaty, Pakistan also loses most of the water from its three western rivers because of its own indecisiveness and lethargy. The reaction of the masses will not be confined to the Pakistan's water commissioner's files but will result in an unimaginable catastrophe in the subcontinent.

A catastrophe in the making

 

[asq]

Water is not free. India should regulate and ration water to pakistan. 1m gallan or so water should release for each terrorist handed over to india.

since when u own the water, it belongs to where ever the river take it, so stop being water terrorists and let the rivers flow where they may.

These rivers been flowing for centuries through Punjab and to stop them is same as to starve people of the areas where they flowed.

This water belongs to Punjab first as it flows to it first and doen not belong to anyother state in India. By diverting it u r commiting water terrorism.

 

[Hutchroy]

since when u own the water, it belongs to where ever the river take it, so stop being water terrorists and let the rivers flow where they may.

These rivers been flowing for centuries through Punjab and to stop them is same as to starve people of the areas where they flowed.

This water belongs to Punjab first as it flows to it first and doen not belong to anyother state in India. By diverting it u r commiting water terrorism.

Qureshi denies India stealing Pakistan's water ​

Updated at: 2007 PST, Friday, April 30, 2010

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Friday described the outcome of the latest Indo-Pak talks as more than expected and a step in the right direction, and said efforts will be made to build on it to bridge the trust deficit between the two countries.

Responding to a question, he said, India was not stealing Pakistan's share of water and it is being wasted due to mismanagement.

A day after Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani met his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh in Bhutan and broke the ice, Qureshi said he intends to establish contact with External Affairs Minister S M Krishna as soon as the Indian Parliament's budgetary session concludes on May 7.

He said there was no need to accord any nomenclature like 'composite dialogue' to the talks that would be held shortly, but the intent is to discuss all outstanding issues like Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek and water sharing.

"If all issues are to be discussed, whether you call it comprehensive dialogue, composite dialogue or whatever you want, that is not important. The spirit behind that is important, the spirit is right," he said at a press conference here.

Referring to the meeting between Singh and Gilani, Qureshi said the outcome has been "more than expected... it is a step in the right direction, a concrete development and we will build on it".

He pointed out that there has been a trust deficit between India and Pakistan and "we have to bridge it through confidence-building measures".

Acknowledging that the trust deficit cannot be bridged overnight, Qureshi said: "we have to be realistic and pragmatic. It will not happen in a day, it is a process. If we allow the process to continue, obviously with passage of time, the deficit will be narrowed down".

The two Foreign Ministers have been entrusted with the task of reducing the trust deficit, he said.

Responding to a question, he said he could find many faults in India's approach and vice versa but the two sides needed to prevent further deterioration in ties.

 

[jit onet]

Call me a dove, call me a hawk - whatever, I am an Indian. My culture which includes my religion, teaches me and I fully believe that I will not be happy if we all are flourishing and healthy while our neighbors, even if some of them hate us, are dying of thirst and famine.

IF we had 100% of water we need and Pakistan had 0, I will have no problem keeping only 70 and giving them 30 (numbers are just examples to make a point).

I do think some people with affluence in Pakistan are making up the water-stolen-by-India issue for other ulterior motives. Such tactics may backfire and turn people like me to change our minds. Attacks such as Mumbai have made us 'doves' position hard enough, don't make it even more difficult

 

[intelarpit]

Pakistani authorities have a tendency to "pass the buck" and exaggerate differences with India over the sharing of river waters though mismanagement within the country is resulting in the loss of 34 million acre feet of water, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Quereshi said on Friday.

Qureshi made the remarks when he was asked at a news conference whether Pakistan had taken up the issue of India trying to block the flow of rivers by building dams during a meeting on Thursday between Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh.

Pakistan had taken up the issue during the meeting on the sidelines of a SAARC summit in Bhutan but Pakistani authorities have a "tendency to exaggerate" and "pass the buck" in this regard, Qureshi said.

The average supply of water that reaches Pakistan is 104 million acre feet while the water that is consumed is 70 million acre feet, he pointed out.

"Where is the 34 million acre feet of water going? Is India stealing that water from you? No, it is not. Please do not fool yourselves and do not misguide the nation. We are mismanaging that water," the foreign minister said.

Pakistan "must understand" actions made by India, including the construction of dams and water projects, if they comply with the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, he said.

Pakistan has to see if new structures being built in the Indian side of Kashmir are "in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty or in violation of it", he added.

"We should examine the Indus Waters Treaty and its annexures which are binding. If there are any violations, we must take them up and will do it without any compromise as water is a matter of life and death for us. Pakistan's progress and economy (is) dependent on water and there will be no compromise on it," he said.

Qureshi also hinted that the Foreign Office had not received any information from the concerned ministry about violations of the treaty by India for almost 20 years but did not give details.

Differences over the sharing of river waters have emerged as a major irritant in bilateral ties in recent years. Pakistani politicians have accused India of trying to turn the country into a desert by building a large number of dams and power projects on rivers in Jammu and Kashmir.

India has denied the charges and said the flow in the rivers has been affected by climate change and low rainfall.

Pak, not India, mismanaging Indus water: Qureshi: Rediff.com India News

___________________________________________________

Comments Awaited!!

 

[Imran Khan]

then we have no problim if its true .if you are not stealing why water is short anyway?