Water Wars: The impact of India stopping Pakistani water

[Vinod2070]

Well, As far as I know there is no neutral source confirming that there is any deliberate move on India's part to stop the water. I can't trust the likes of Ahmed Quraishis and take their word as the truth.

Regarding the PM's word, I am sure he is an honest man and means what he says. Much more than the assurances by the Pakistani leaders through the 90s and 2000s that Pakistan had no hand in terror activities in India and that terrorist Dawood was not in Pakistan! How would you describe that hypocrisy when the collection boxes of the likes of LET and JEM were in every market in Pakistani cities.

I can also generalize those things like you did with your Bania statement but that won't serve any purpose.

We didn't go to war and cause millions of deaths when we had every reason to do that. We faced the problem head on and defeated the coward terrorists in Kashmir and elsewhere and now they are on the run everywhere.

Anyway I think too much is being made of this issue to put India on the defensive when the WB arbitration award has been adhered to. Lets wait for the facts. As of now I don't see any facts to back up this storm in a tea cup.

Kalabagh is also an issue, no one is denying that either, but that is our personal matter

I think you meant internal matter. But if internal matters are so difficult to sort out, international matters are a different matter altogether.

 

[SmashJ]

Your idea of being powerful mean more in numbers eh? Can you please ask your powerful government to fix their missiles first? I am glad, it wasnt loaded with atomic warhead.


YouTube - FAILED MISSILE TEST BY INDIA

Stop faking you liar, i am pasting the complete and unadulterated video

 

[muse]

Some insight into the "Water Problem" and why symptoms should not be confused with the disease itself:


Editorial: Politics of pressure-building

The President of Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PMLQ), Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, said on Sunday that the matter of Pakistan’s share of water from India was “extremely dangerous” and could result in an Indo-Pakistan war. He said “the issue may become more serious than terrorism” because “the Indus Water Treaty of 1962 still needed ratification by the governments of India and Pakistan”. He then went on to describe the Kashmir situation in India, saying, “the mujahideen in Kashmir are in fact fighting for Pakistan” and that Kashmir was “a lifeline for Pakistan because all rivers flowing into Pakistan originated in Kashmir”.

A senior politician has spoken about an important issue in a statement that smacks of a device of pressure-building on the ruling government in Pakistan, and, to a much less degree, on the government of India. If you judge it on a scale of who will get upset more, the unavoidable conclusion is that it will upset Islamabad more than New Delhi. In fact, the hawks in New Delhi who wish to have no truck with the process of normalisation with Pakistan may actually be pleased. So it should come as no surprise if the Indian press were to react by dubbing Mr Hussain’s statement a threat inspired by certain dubious quarters that they connect with terrorism in India.

President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani have already communicated their concern about the Chenab waters to the leadership in India and received a positive response. The two countries, whether or not they have ratified an old waters treaty that the world admires for its effectiveness, have taken care of their disputes through third-party arbitration and have so far behaved reasonably. The case in point, that of the Baglihar Dam, was sorted out last year through recourse to the World Bank as per the 1962 Treaty. The two countries are exchanging inspection teams, and the Indian team is expected to visit Pakistan soon to confirm the shortage pointed out by Pakistan.

The process however is slow. India seems to be playing it slow because it has other ends to pursue with Pakistan. It has tried the composite dialogue and wants to now mount pressure on Pakistan by clubbing other outstanding issues with the waters issue. The Indian External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, clearly sent a message to Pakistan when he said on Sunday that India “has been pursuing a policy of ‘positive and substantial’ engagement with Pakistan, and that it wished to address all issues that have affected bilateral ties”. What are these issues that India wants to discuss together with the waters issue?

Adding some acidity to the more benign and friendly attitude taken by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Foreign Minister Mukherjee states: “India wants to make progress towards enhancing ‘physical connectivity’ and ‘upgrading economic ties’, as it wants to see peace, stability and development in Pakistan”. After that there is a negative attachment: “Terrorism is a major problem for the region as well as the world”. The reference clearly is to the July attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul.

The terrorist blasts in a number of states in India also figure in the strategic thinking of India vis-à-vis Pakistan. Prime Minister Singh, as he arrived in Assam in the wake of bombings that killed scores of people there, pointed to the possibility of a “foreign hand” and said: “The issue will be raised at the government level if the government of any country is found involved in the blasts”. The Indian press has interpreted the statement as a reference to Pakistan and Bangladesh. The police in Assam have disclosed the culprits as belonging to a Muslim organisation, but the innuendos are all directed at Harkat al-Jihad Islami (HUJI), supposed to be active in Bangladesh.

Let us first be clear about one thing. There is not going to be another war between India and Pakistan no matter what the cause. The two nuclear powers are forbidden to even talk about the possibility. India subliminally says that if Pakistan is vulnerable to waters, India is vulnerable to terrorism and Kashmir. Both issues can be discussed but not on the basis of the “differences” that persist between the two on the nature of disturbances in Kashmir, as highlighted by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s very undiplomatic “mujahideen” statement. The suspected HUJI also tried to kill the PMLQ’s patron, President Pervez Musharraf, and is now aligned with Al Qaeda; and the late Ms Bhutto also accused it of planning to kill her.

Pakistan and India have problems with each other which can be resolved if they cooperate. The road of cooperation in trade and contacts under a better visa regime is open, and the Gilani government has adopted the right position on it and needs to move quickly without quibbling over a precise measurement of the Indian quid pro quo. The waters issue can be sorted out while more accelerated progress is made on the other issues that the two countries have resolved to at least defuse if not resolve.

 

[nitesh]

So finally it is getting accepted what is the real reason for kashmir problem:

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Water crisis may lead to Indo-Pak war: Shujaat

Staff Report

ISLAMABAD: The water situation can become ‘extremely dangerous’ unless the ongoing water crisis is resolved under the Indus Water Treaty, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain said on Sunday.

The issue may become more serious than terrorism and can result in a war between Pakistan and India, Shujaat said in a statement. He said the Indus Water Treaty of 1962 needed ratification by the governments of India and Pakistan. The water from the rivers of Ravi, Bias and Sutlej had already been blocked, he said, adding that the construction of Baglihar Dam by India on the River Chenab had further reduced the water flow to Pakistan.

He said the “mujahideen in Kashmir are in fact fighting for Pakistan”. He described Kashmir as the lifeline for Pakistan because all rivers flowing in to Pakistan originate in Kashmir. He said the Indo-Pak confidence-building measures would not serve the cause until the ongoing water crisis was addressed.

The PML-Q leader said the water crisis had particularly affected southern Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. “This may lead to a food crisis in the country,” he added. He said the country was already facing a flour crisis and it might face famine if the water shortage was not addressed. He said the country was not financially capable of importing wheat.

 

[bhangra12345]

Can any one tell me exactly which point in what article is Pakistan accusing India of violating.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOUTHASIA/Resources/223497-1105737253588/IWT_Article_VI.pdf

From the indus water treaty regarding exchange of data, it says

These data shall be transmitted monthly by each Partyto the other as soon as the data for a calendar month havebeen collected and tabulated, but not later than threemonths after the end of the month to which they relate

with some exceptions, when the other party requests and pays the extra charges for the cost and transfer of data more quickly.

and then annexure e, India can fill the dam

18 f the site is on The Chenab, between 21st June and31st August at such rate as not to reduce, on ac -count of this filling, the flow in the Chenab Mainabove Merala to less than 55,000 cusecs

so if august 31st, India has until november to furnish the required data. but then according to this report, India has released the quantity.

The Hindu News Update Service

India categorically rejected Pakistan's demand for compensation as it furnished hydrological data to prove that the quantity of water was actually 55,000 cusecs and that Islamabad had no case.

India's obligations of Indus water to Pakistan start and end with IWT. Tough luck for Pakistan, god speed to neutral arbiter if Pakistan thinks India violated the treaty. Note the charges for the arbitration are normally borne by the loser.

 

[muse]

Baglihar is back
Ijaz Hussain



After the neutral expert’s verdict on Baglihar Dam, if we thought we were done with the issue, we were sadly mistaken. This time, the issue is in the shape of water — about 200,000 acre feet of it — that Pakistan has accused India of ‘stealing’ while filling the Baglihar reservoir. The matter is so serious from Pakistan’s perspective that President Asif Zardari took it up with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in September.

The national security advisor of Pakistan also broached it with his Indian counterpart last month in New Delhi. Then Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani raised it with Singh in Beijing on the sidelines of the recently concluded Asia-Europe summit. And now President Zardari has decided to write to the Indian prime minister, asking him to redeem the promise made to him in New York to resolve the issue.

The controversy began when India allegedly filled the dam in contravention of the Indus Waters Treaty. According to Pakistan’s Indus commissioner, Jamaat Ali Shah, India released between 30,000 and 35,000 cusecs of water (and at one point, 23,000 cusecs) between August 19 and September 5. This was in violation of Article 18-C of Annexure E of the Treaty, which obligates India to undertake the filling of a dam on the Chenab between June 21 and August 31, and release at least 55,000 cusecs downstream at Marala headworks.

This was also in violation of the understanding that the Indus commissioners of the two countries had reached according to which India was to fill the dam during the rainy season. As far as reparation for the loss is concerned, Pakistan has refused to consider monetary compensation and insists on the ‘water for water’ formula. Jamaat Ali Shah cities the Sallal Dam precedent where India compensated Pakistan under this formula.

As expected, India’s official position on the matter is diametrically opposed to Pakistan’s. Its Indus commissioner, G Arangnathan, maintains that India filled the dam within the timeframe laid down in the Treaty, and is hence not in violation of it. He contends that Pakistan received less water than stipulated under the Treaty because there was less than normal rainfall this year. He has accused Pakistan of politicising a ‘technical’ issue and of playing ‘arithmetic gymnastics’.

During the meeting of the two commissioners in October in New Delhi, Arangnathan proposed a visit to the Marala headworks to which Jamaat Shah agreed.

Will this visit help resolve the issue, or is it simply a delaying tactic as believed by many Pakistanis? What options are available to Pakistan to get the matter resolved to its satisfaction?

It is not clear how the Indian commissioner’s visit will help resolve the conflict. He has explained the purpose of the visit as verification of the data regarding the water flow that Pakistan claims to have received at Marala during the period in question.

Jamaat Shah is justified in questioning the timing of the visit. In his opinion, it would be useless now as the right time for such an inspection was August-September when Pakistan made the charge about reduced water flow. In fact, undertaking a visit at this point in time looks like a delaying tactic. Besides, the idea behind the visit looks utterly dubious when the Indian commissioner concedes to Pakistan’s claim that water flow was reduced. Incidentally, if he is certain about his ‘reduced rainfall’ explanation, he should not have refused to share the hourly data of water flow in the period in question, which Shah had requested him to furnish during the commission meeting.

While India officially maintains that it never violated the Indus Waters Treaty, the Indian commissioner, during the recent commission meeting, reportedly confessed that India did violate the Treaty by filling the reservoir as charged. He, however, justified it on the ground that it was compelled to do so because of ‘unavoidable structural constraints’.

However, when Pakistan’s commissioner proposed that he commit to compensating Pakistan through the water-for-water formula (Shah wants water from the Sutlej for the next Rabi crop), based on Pakistan’s claim but without accepting the violation of the Treaty, the Indian commissioner refused to oblige. The two sides then agreed to refer the matter to their respective political leaderships for settlement.

What options are available to Pakistan to get compensation from India?

First and foremost is the continuation of the political dialogue at the highest level. It is pertinent to mention that the Pakistani commissioner’s recent visit to the dam site and the commission meeting in October were made possible due to the green signal from the top Indian leadership. This is a cause for concern rather than celebration because it means that instead of these being technical matters, any issue arising under the Indus Waters Treaty is dependent on Indian goodwill for its resolution.

Incidentally, this is a legacy of the BJP government, which turned the Baglihar Dam issue into a political dispute, instead of keeping it technical, as was the case in the past, by frustrating Pakistan’s repeated requests for on-site inspections and commission meetings.

The Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson has declared that a settlement of the water issue would be forthcoming ‘in a few days’. Given the absence of concrete evidence in the matter, and India’s past record on keeping its promises, we simply cannot share this optimism. It would be wise to tread with caution. Perhaps conscious of this reality, President Zardari has indicated that in case he fails to get the desired response from the Indian leadership, he would approach Muslim countries, the ‘Friends of Pakistan’ and the UK to put pressure on India. Perhaps he should also approach members of the UN Security Council currently not among the Friends of Pakistan.

The second option available to Pakistan is invoking Article 9 of the Indus Waters Treaty on conflict resolution. After the debacle Pakistan suffered in the verdict on Baglihar Dam, many Pakistanis may be wary of invoking this clause. This may be more so keeping in mind that the option is very expensive, tedious and protractive.

However, we cannot afford to take this attitude for two reasons: First, we need to remember that if we lost the Baglihar case, it was because we did not argue it well. Second, we should not be haunted by the above-mentioned incubi when it comes to affirming that the waters of the western rivers belong exclusively to us. We need to remember that Article 9 is the ultimate guarantor of our rights under the Indus Waters Treaty.

The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com

 

[baajey]

it seems , after seeing so many posts from our pak frens here is that, india has got no business but to irritate pakistan no end.
But on the other hand, if the "decreased" amount of water released to pak is NOT due to less rainfall, then india should immediately resume the "agreed upon" water passage.

i always thought indian leaders are more busy in stashing govt money for themselves, but if the conspiracy theories are true, then i m impressed. is that too sinister ?????

 

[Screambowl]

serving water to the enemy or any one is the biggest goodness for us. we may reduce the flow for some projects but we never stop.

 

[peace lover]

guys specially pakistanis plz watch this vedio before making baseless claims.

 

[Screambowl]

Those who are living near to the Indus in Pakistan, try jumping into it, if you drown, then your claims are wrong but if you survive then, we will see what is the problem.

Water can only be stopped, by diverting its flow and India has not diverted any river. may be due to the construction of dams, the water is being regulated temporarily or to control floods but we are not communists, that we will divert the river.

and this is for Jahils....Even when the water is regulated, average flow is maintained to sustain the ecosystem.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Indus water treaty is in place with even a third party to over see the implementation of the same, if Pakistan believes India isn't following the same they are free to approach WB, IMF or international court of justice, which I believe they did and failed miserably..so once again what is Pakistan crying about?

 

[kṣamā]

I agree 100 percent with that, metal falcon. it will happen.

Pakistan should send some PAF to bomb these dams into oblivion. They've got our jugular, so to speak. lets do something before they squeeze it.

Respected Sir,

I would ask, moreover advise, you to "hold your horses" before one comments. One would expect "sensibility" from an educated man, which I am sure u are. As on the text for comments I would like to u know few facts about the aforementioned treaty

Jawaharlal Nehru ignored the interests of Jammu and Kashmir and, to a lesser extent, Punjab when he signed the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, under which India bigheartedly agreed to the exclusive reservation of the largest three of the six Indus-system rivers for downstream Pakistan.

In effect, India signed an extraordinary treaty indefinitely setting aside 80.52% of the Indus-system waters for Pakistan - the most generous water-sharing pact thus far in modern world history.

In fact, the volume of waters earmarked for Pakistan from India under the Indus treaty is more than 90 times greater than what the US is required to release for Mexico under the 1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty, which stipulates a minimum transboundary delivery of 1.85 billion cubic metres of the Colorado River waters yearly.

Despite Clinton's advocacy of a Teesta treaty, the fact is that the waters of the once-mighty Colorado River are siphoned by seven American states, leaving only a trickle for Mexico.

Also for your comment on sending in PAF then i would say you might have also imagined nuking the dams and rest of India. Pls be sensible.

Regards

 

[CZAR]

The the level of desperation in Pakistan is astonishing. It think its time for the country to rid itself of martial race obsession. Its irritating to debate with some of our pakistani friends here. The slightest hint of a difficult issue and the response almost always is - NUKE EM!!!

I don't think these guys understand the fallout of killing hundreds of crores of innocent civilians. Even the china factor will not be able to insulate them from the backlash, and I don't just mean india's retalliation

 

[Dr. NooB NinjA]

^^^"We need to remember that Article 9 is the ultimate guarantor of our rights under the Indus Waters Treaty."

What is article 9 of the treaty??

Anyone who has appropriate knowledge on the matter please reply... Others; keep mum for the sake of greater good..!!

 

[VCheng]

^^^"We need to remember that Article 9 is the ultimate guarantor of our rights under the Indus Waters Treaty."

What is article 9 of the treaty??

Anyone who has appropriate knowledge on the matter please reply... Others; keep mum for the sake of greater good..!!

Article 9 of the Indus Water Treaty: