PM Nawaz urges Ban Ki-moon for plebiscite in Kashmir

[Rank]

.................and what did Ban Ki-Moon say.......................

He said acha iskay baray may baad may baat karengay pehlay ye tu bata kay sugar ka business karna hey UN may ?

 

[Knight Rider]

Someone should gift me a Ferrari too, while the wishful thinking season is open

not only in j&k all over pakistan .As if you don't recognise J&K then why we should recognise Pakistan ?

You cant Bully The UN if they decide to do Referendum in Kashmir.

Kashmir and the politics of water

THE GEOGRAPHY

The Indus River originates in the Tibetan plateau, making its 3,200km journey southwards along the entire length of Pakistan, before emptying into the Arabian Sea. The river basin is divided between Pakistan, which has about 60 per cent of the catchment area, India with about 20 per cent, Afghanistan with 5 per cent and around 15 per cent in Tibet. The two major riparians, Pakistan and India have extensively dammed the Indus River to provide for irrigation and hydro-electricity. [A riparian zone is defined as the area of interface between land and a river or stream.]

The Indus has five main tributaries. The Jhelum, the largest of these, originates in the Valley of Kashmir. The Chenab, a second tributary, flows through the Jammu region of the state of Jammu and Kashmir before entering the Indian state of Punjab. The remaining three tributaries (Ravi, Sutlej and Beas) either originate or flow through India's state of Himachal before entering Indian Punjab.

As a result, if the Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, were to move from being a defacto to a recognised international border, India would permanently become the upper riparian and Pakistan the lower riparian of the Indus River and all of its tributaries.

The Indus is a river system that sustains communities in both India and Pakistan. In Pakistan, it is the only river system supporting the country, where more than 92 per cent of the land is arid or semi-arid. In India, it is one of two main river systems supporting the country's northwest: Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan (generally considered to be water deficient areas).

Given that over half of Pakistan's population is employed in the agricultural sector and that Punjab produces more than 20 per cent of India's wheat and is known as the "bread basket" of the Republic of India, the importance of the Indus River to the well-being and economy of both countries cannot be overemphasised.

THE POLITICAL HISTORY
In arbitrating the border between India and Pakistan in 1947, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, the chairman of the bodies set up to demarcate the borders, was unable to decide what to do with the Indus River system, given that it was likely to be vital to both states.

The biggest problem, of course, lay with the partitioning of the state of Punjab, as it contained a complex irrigation system built by the British to be run under a single administration. The task was eventually delegated to the Chief Engineers of East Punjab (India) and West Punjab (Pakistan) who agreed to allow the existing water sharing systems to continue until the following year. This Standstill Agreement between India and Pakistan expired on March 31, 1948. On the following day Indian Punjab cut off water flow to Pakistan.

The conflict in Kashmir overlapped with the water disputes, and by January 1948 India had taken the Kashmir issue to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). On April 21, 1948, a resolution calling for a ceasefire and withdrawal of all troops was passed.

The Kashmir dispute and disputes over the sharing of water resources are intertwined. From independence to the present day, they remain the two biggest challenges when it comes to normalising relations between the states of India and Pakistan.

Later in 1948, Eugene Black, then president of the World Bank, offered the services of his organisation to help negotiate a solution to the water-sharing dispute between the two countries. Although India was not eager to allow third-party involvement, both countries eventually agreed to this proposal.

Evidence and records from the time suggest that in 1948, when the Kashmir issue was taken to the UNSC and the canal dispute between East and West Punjab first arose (in April of that year), they were treated as distinctly separate political and economic issues.

In the early days of independence, the fact that India was able to shut off the Central Bari Doab Canals at the time of the sowing season, causing significant damage to Pakistan's crops, exposed a central weakness and vulnerability in the newly created state that was desperately trying to establish its independence.

As noted by one British general on a visit to the area in 1948, the dispute centres around the "water insecur[ity]" of Pakistan, as all of its rivers either originate in or pass through India.

Experts agreed, saying that resolving water disputes under the auspices of the World Bank was "one way to reduce hostility" over Kashmir.

Nevertheless, military and political clashes over Kashmir in the early years of independence appear to be more about ideology and sovereignity, rather than sharing water resources. A communique from the British High Commissioner's office in Karachi, then capital of Pakistan, from November 1951 seems to suggest otherwise, however:

"But one assumption they have refused to entertain: that India should have control over Kashmir. By having such control India could ruin Pakistan, simply by refusing to operate Mangla at the headworks. It is almost certain therefore that Pakistan would reject any solution of the Kashmir problem which would give these powers; she would rather embark on a war which she fully understood to be suicidal."

Indian ministers at the time were also issuing statements, saying that controlling the entire flow of the Indus river would be impossible, "even if India controlled Kashmir".

It would appear that somewhere along the ideological path, as negotiations on water were being held, politicians worked out that a resolution to the water dispute may well directly influence the Kashmir problem.

Indeed some experts have suggested that Pakistan thought that it could solve the Kashmir dispute through solving canal-related issues, but India completely denied this route of resolution.

Consequently, the Indus Water Treaty was signed by both countries in September 1960, giving exclusive rights over the three western rivers of the Indus river system (Jhelum, Chenab and Indus) to Pakistan, and over the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Ravi and Beas) to India.

The signing of the treaty and the financing of various water storage projects to benefit Pakistan and India meant that tensions were minimal and to a great degree much of Kashmir's water importance was forgotten for the next couple of decades.

As the populations of both countries increased exponentially, however, water resources came under increasing stress. With India preparing ambitious irrigation project plans, it was possible to see how, by the 1990s, Kashmir's hydrological importance had once again become a serious issue.

PAKISTAN'S POSITION

The fact that, unlike India, all of Pakistan is wholly dependent upon the Indus River system is a geographical reality.

Another reality that compounds this one is the fact that, as the upstream riparian on all five of the main Indus tributaries that flow into Pakistan, India has the strategically advantageous position with regards to control and flow of water.

John Briscoe, a subcontinental water expert, former World Bank senior water expert and currently a professor at Harvard University, recognised Pakistan's unhappy position in the following words: "This is a very uneven playing field. The regional hegemon is the upper riparian and has all the cards in its hands."

Pakistan is all too aware of its vulnerable position vis-a-vis water and the fact that more than half of independent Pakistan's time has been spent under military rule has not helped to de-escalate or 'de-securitise' the water discourse in the country.

Over the years, water has been raised as an issue directly linked to Kashmir. Pakistan's political leaders and military elites have emphasised that if they are forced to let go of their claim to Kashmir, that will mean letting go of the source of Jhelum and Chenab as well and being at the mercy of India for water.

Though it is unrealistic to assume that India could readily and easily violate the terms of the Indus Water Treaty, Briscoe emphasises that Pakistan and India do not have "normal, trustful relations". The trust deficit along with the fact that India once blocked water flows to Pakistan has the military establishment convinced that they must hold on to their claim to Kashmir in an effort to maintain the country's water security.

Interestingly enough, another Pakistani organisation that has been vociferous in defending Pakistan's rights over Kashmir and criticising India's "aggression" against Pakistan through reduced water flows is the 'charity' Jammat-ud-Dawa (JuD).

It is worth noting that the JuD has publicly declared India's "occupation" of Kashmir unacceptable and has also termed its policy of blocking water to Pakistan a justification to wage jihad. In most public statements, however, the JuD tends not to link water and Kashmir, in contrast to the Pakistani military's position on the argument.

INDIA'S POSITION

India has consistently and emphatically maintained that it has never meddled with Pakistan's share of the Indus waters.

Even as the Indus Water Treaty was being negotiated, with the Indian government assuring Pakistan and the World Bank that water was not being blocked, Chintamanrao Deshmukh, the then Indian finance minister, stated in a 1953 parliamentary address that the serious food shortage in Pakistan was not a result of India blocking river flows.

"Even if it were assumed that some mistakes were made at some short period, which in any case did not exceed one or two weeks," he said.

Throughout the history of the dispute, India has rarely, if ever, acknowledged that it has tampered with the supply of water flowing into Pakistan. Since there is also a large amount of secrecy that surrounds the governance of the Indus waters and data is not readily shared, there is no definitive way to prove whether India has just got caught up in Pakistani sensationalism or whether the seeds of resentment and securitisation of water were sowed and are being maintained by the Indian side.

In negotiations and meetings with Pakistani counterparts on the wider Indo-Pak relationship, India does not deal with water and Kashmir as the same issue. In fact, it has often been suggested by analysts that a more consolidated agreement on water might perhaps be a more readily achievable goal in India-Pakistan composite dialogue as compared to Kashmir.

Briscoe finds that the Indian press seems to have a uniform view on water issues, in relation to Pakistan. He says that it was explained to him as follows: "When it comes to Kashmir - and the Indus Treaty is considered an integral part of Kashmir" - the ministry of external affairs (India's foreign ministry) instructs the media about what they are allowed to say. In certain cases, India is happy to conflate the Kashmir and water issues, whereas in negotiations with Pakistan it would like to deal with them as distinct and separate.

Currently, India is in the process of building a number of dams on the Jhelum and Chenab Rivers (both of which originate in Kashmir), such as the Kishenganga, Dal Huste, Sawalkot etc. The Indus Water Treaty allows India to harness the hydropower potential of the Jhelum and Chenab Rivers, as long as it does not reduce or delay the supply to Pakistan. India therefore maintains that its projects are in compliance with the treaty and sees no conflict with Pakistan on these issues.

KASHMIR'S POSITION

The region of Kashmir sees itself losing considerably from the Indus Water Treaty because it is not allowed to fully exploit the hydropower potential of its own rivers.

In June 2011, a Chinese news agency reported that the state government of Kashmir was looking for reputed multi-national consultancies to calculate the exact loss to Kashmir from the Indus Water Treaty so that the government will have a number it can take to the Indian federal government.

Given that both Pakistan and India are dangerously energy and water starved and nowhere close to an agreement on Kashmir, teamed with the impact of climate change and population pressures, the prognosis on the Indo-Pak water problem involving Kashmir is anything but positive.

Kashmir and the politics of water - Al Jazeera English

Major Water War between Pakistan and India Coming up in the near Future.

 

[Jzaib]

finallly nawaz woke up. he has not mentioned kashmir in few visits to india. We should not forget our kashmir brothers

 

[VCheng]

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Sunday met UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on the sidelines of the 70th UNGA Session in New York, where he urged for a plebiscite in Kashmir, stressing on the need for implementation of the United Nation’s Security Council resolution in this regard.

In his reply, the UNSC requested the PM to read the Simla Agreement once again.

 

[Hussain Farooqui]

In short, make Kashmir an independent state to let live Kashmirs live peacefully and comfortably.

 

[karan.1970]

You cant Bully The UN if they decide to do Referendum in Kashmir.

Its a huge IF. And btw, Kashmir has not been discussed as an Issue in UNSC since over 40-50 years. And Ifs have no meaning really. Its like saying, IF your aunt had a mustache, she would be your uncle..

 

[alpha q]

"Dehati aurat kuch naya bol"

Or maybe chalo baba aage jao dhande ke time pe time khoti mat karo...

India and agreeing to a plebiscite in Kashmir-that would be surprising. Why is it that only we raise voice for Kashmir and not India.

Maybe because India is satisfied with what it holds???

We should bring Azaad Kashmir's leaders in front so that they can raise their voice for the occupied Kashmir.

Do one thong bring up whole of pakistani awaam in UN then cry kashmir maybe then anyone could listen.

 

[WAJsal]

India is keeping just enough to control law and order considering the neighbor state twice attempt of invasion. Pakistan was supposed to cut down their count to zero.

And before that, there is supposed to be a formal agreement.

Anyways we accepted UN resolution for a peaceful resolution. 65 and 99 war tells us that the objective has not been achieved, thus we ignore those resolutions now.

You still lay claims on Pakistan side of Kashmir, back away from that officially, then it would make more sense. Quite clear the solution lies in letting the people decide, why fear, right?

Maybe because India is satisfied with what it holds???

Then it shouldn't lay claims on our side. Let's face it India is scared of a referendum and understandably so. No point in denying.

 

[ThaniOruvan]

Ban Ki-Moon didn't boo at Nawaz right ?
Thank god Mr.Nawaz found a place of respect.....

 

[alpha q]

Please tell your leadership to stop laying claims on Pakistan side of Kashmir then, you lay claims yet you avoid the issue. Make things clear, India has agreed to UN resolutions, best thing would be to let the locals decide. It should be India engaging Pakistan for talks, not the other way around. The frustration on Indian side is quite amusing.

India doesnot raise kashmir issue on international forums because it obliges shimla agreement which clearly states all issues would be sorted out bilaterally. And India is happy with the status quo why should India would be dying to talk? India agreed to UN resolution of plebiscite on condition that pakistan removes its forces from kashmir which is not possible as you gifted your beloved kashmir to China. Tell us one thing only if you care for kashmir this much why you gifted kashmir's part to China???

 

[WAJsal]

Agreement with whom?

Between the two governments, thus the reason for talks. We can't take a step without a formal understanding between the two states, please do not act like you don't know understand something.

 

[alpha q]

This is exactly what Bharatis are scared of.

Yup we are scared now go cry in UN again...

 

[WAJsal]

Now here - once Ind and Pak agreed upon a framework, UN becomes the executioner of agreed upon method. UN asked pakistan to back off, since this was the pre-requisite to move to next step, and again mind you, mutually agreed upon steps. Did pakistan responded? No, thus deviating from mutually agreed upon resolution.

Aray bhai, formal agreement between the two states, as in Pakistan and India agreeing to move on with the resolution, we agreed on the resolution. When the time came to implement them, there the problem lied. Again it is quite a basic thing you know. You don't expect us to withdraw our forces and turns out India taking advantage of our weak position, has to be bilateral agreement first, ever wondered the emphasis on the talks. Plus, India too has to withdraw it's forces, mostly....

I do, perhaps you dont. I will try to make you understand it.

bhai app ney mera demagh kha liya.

 

[karan.1970]

Aray bhai, formal agreement between the two states, as in Pakistan and India agreeing to move on with the resolution, we agreed on the resolution. When the time came to implement them, there the problem lied. Again it is quite a basic thing you know. You don't expect us to withdraw our forces and turns out India taking advantage of our weak position, has to be bilateral agreement first, ever wondered the emphasis on the talks. Plus, India too has to withdraw it's forces, mostly....

Dude, you can either handle it bilaterally or thru UN. If thru UN, then you have to comply to UN methodology which asks Pakistan to remove its forces (without India having to do the same).

If you dont want to go that way, and want to handle it bilaterally, then you will have to go by the discussion timetable suited to both India and Pakistan. You will say Kashmir, we will say Terrorism and the story will go on for next 50 years

There is no end to this and thats why UNSC does not want to touch it with a 10 foot pole even

 

[$@rJen]

a referendum should take place in jammu and Kashmir with the help of UN.

For that you should co-operate with UN by removing your forces from Pakistan held Kashmir