Pakistan misleading people on Indus Water Treaty

[ajtr]

Following is the 10 page pdf file details of pakistan's canal irrigation system on indus river and losses and gains of water in detailed tabulated.Gives lot of known and unknows details of water loses and mismanagement by pakistan.Its a must read.

An Analysis of Loses And Gains in Indus River system in Pakistan

 

[ajtr]

These 5 parts series of An Enemy Imagined? by dawn news give the correct perspective of how pakistani army,media,politicians,jehadis invent issues out of thin air to have a perpetual enmity with india coz pakistan's survival depends on constant enmity with india.Indus water issue is just one of the many issues created by pakistani establishment to carry this enmity.

An Enemy Imagined? Episode 5 Part One

The Indus Water Treaty sorted the division of water resources between India and Pakistan. This episodes look into downstream politics between the two countries, and if in the future water can becom..

 

[ajtr]

Here in his article in toda's daily times,Munir Attaullah also concedes that india is not stealing pakistani share of indus waters but pakistan's own inability to make a proper and full use of our share of the resources?read in full to know about pakistani insinuating tactics against india

Indian matters —Munir Attaullah

While our political leaders, having not a clearly worked out policy to guide them, flounder and take refuge in vague generalisations and platitudes, the army, through a considered, clear-cut, and well enunciated policy, long ago seized complete charge of our foreign policy

Why do I feel the need to write another short column on a subject as simple as what our policy towards India should be? Why should I reiterate views that I have so often expressed before in these columns?

It is because most of the statements made by our officials, politicians and media pundits, before and after the recent visit of our foreign secretary to India, tell me that our mainstream thinking on this vital subject largely remains as stale and outmoded as ever.

That is, therefore, a good enough reason to look again at matters in a logical and clear-headed manner, rather than through spectacles whose lenses are clouded by a wishful or ideological tint. To enlist a colourful expression, we need to wake up and smell the coffee.

I am not that arrogant to assume I am a one-man think tank. I have my views, yes, but it is a great pity there is no formal forum or mechanism where their validity and utility can be publicly tested through intensive debate. The absence of such institutionalised, detailed policy input that should guide the political constituency is a crippling shortcoming of our fragile democracy.

Why? Because, while our political leaders, having not a clearly worked out policy to guide them, flounder and take refuge in vague generalisations and platitudes, the army, through a considered, clear-cut, and well enunciated policy, long ago seized complete charge of our foreign policy. As long as that situation persists (and it still does), the principle of civilian control over the armed forces — the bedrock of democracy — will remain in abeyance.

And the common experience of mankind tells us there is a wide gulf between the mindset of an army and that of a political leader. Normally, a country’s foreign policy is firmly rooted in its domestic political compulsions. We seem to have got it the other way round: our foreign policy has been the convenient excuse for seizing and maintaining control of the levers of power, and driving domestic policy.

The ugly and devastating consequences of those adventuresome policies are now writ large for all to see. And yet, even now, we remain hesitant to make a clean break from the past and think in modern terms. Thus, we still believe in the need to continue investing huge sums in our defence capabilities. We continue to reiterate the mantra of Kashmir being the ‘core’ issue that must be resolved first before any headway can be made in any other direction. And we have now given a new twist to this mantra by linking it to the issue of water. Finally, we are alarmed at the diplomatic headway India has made in Afghanistan at our expense. Is Afghanistan not supposed to be our legitimate sphere of influence?

In my opinion, all these basic assumptions are fundamentally fallacious and need to be reconsidered. Start with defence expenditure. Only those who live in their own mad ideological world now believe that India is still not reconciled to the existential fact that is Pakistan. Did not even Mr Vajpayee, the head of a BJP government, declare as much at the Minar-e-Pakistan? There is no possibility whatsoever of India attacking us, unless severely provoked by us first.

So why do we need to continue pouring billions into defence? Especially when we are simultaneously told that our nuclear capabilities now make our defence ‘impregnable’? The latest plausible-sounding answer is that “threat perceptions are based not on intent but on capability”. If so, then should not the doctrine equally apply vis-à-vis our neighbour, China (and even the US). Does it?

The fact is, perceived intentions are all important. And wars are started by those powers intent on shaking up the status quo (Pakistan) rather than those (like India) quite content with not disturbing it. It may be an unpalatable truth for us to swallow, but the fact is we are now little more than a bloody nuisance as far as India is concerned. All India really wants from us are security assurances and little more. We, on the other hand, have much to gain on all sorts of fronts from peace.

But we do not want to leave India alone and let it live in peace. Not unless the Kashmir problem is solved to our satisfaction. However, is it not time we understood that all such attempts to ‘force’ India to the negotiating table and do our bidding have failed, and have little chance of succeeding in the future either? For, the reality today is not that solving the Kashmir problem is the prerequisite to peace and normalisation between India and Pakistan. It is the other way round. Once we have accepted that the old territorial basis of the dispute is now so much history, and that the real issue is the welfare of the Kashmiri people, then that will best be achieved slowly after we stop our cold war.

The latest twist to keeping the cold war going is to insinuate that India is somehow responsible for our water shortages. The fact is that, for better or worse, the rights (and duties) of both countries to the waters of the Indus and its tributaries are governed in detail by the Indus Water Treaty. As far as I know, whatever India has done in 50 years, or plans to do, is not in serious violation of the terms of the treaty in any significant way. If we foresee a serious shortage ahead, is the real reason not that India is stealing our water but our own inability to make a proper and full use of our share of the resources?

To adopt a hardline posture and to insist that there is little point in talks unless there is a formal agenda of a full and composite dialogue is a self-defeating exercise. Even talking for the sake of talking is worth pursuing. For, the onus is on us to break the logjam. And it is Pakistan far more than India who has real future possible gains at stake. So let us not continue to deceive ourselves that we hold some powerful cards (apart from the threat of mayhem) that will ensure our wishes will eventually bear fruit.

The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com

 

[ajtr]

Steps urged to counter Indian designs on Chenab

LAHORE, March 10: Pakistan should build Mangla-Marala link canal on a priority basis to counter Indian designs on Chenab and strengthen its line of defence vis-à-vis India, Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said here on Wednesday.

He was speaking at a seminar on water shortage at a hotel. Mr Shah said India had planned several water projects on Chenab River, which would prove harmful for Pakistan. (The Dams india is constructing on chenab are all run off the river dam.which totally are permissible under IWT.And Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah has also concedes this again in the Dawn news video on 1st page of this thread.but he still like to harp against india in this article here thereby misleading his own fellow pakistanis.)

It was important to pre-empt that situation even if it was a mere possibility, he said. “The implementation of the Indus Basin Water Treaty is being monitored to safeguard interests of Pakistan. But there is no harm in taking parallel steps to minimise the possible negative impact.” (see how cleverly he twists it as if india is harming)

He said the government would constitute a think tank to create a pool of experts so that the treaty could be kept on track and ensure its implementation in letter and spirit.

It would also allow Pakistan to take up treaty issues with India effectively, he added. (when there is no voilation of the treaty itself by india in building the dams then whats are issues he wants pakistan to talk to india under IWT)

Mr Shah dispelled an impression that Pakistan was wasting its water and said the country had “unutilised water” for which dams were being built.

The water commissioner called for judicious distribution of water among the provinces, besides revamping the irrigation system to ensure optimum use of available water. He said new technologies were the need of the hour because they could help reduce water demand up to 15 million acres feet.(and this is the crux of the issue-the inter provincial fighting over water.for which pakistan media,its Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah,its politicians and its army and jehadis by putting blame on india of water stealing wants to wash off their own hands )

**comments in red r mine

 

[ajtr]

Another misleading article by pakistani media.

India urged to keep its word on water

TERMING the Indus Waters Treaty an unhappy marriage between Pakistan and India, Indus Waters Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah has said obligations should be fulfilled in letter and spirit by India besides enjoying certain rights over water of western rivers under the bilateral arrangements.(Sure india-Pakistan must re-negotiate the IWT.As it is discriminatory for india.Paskistan uses almost 70% of the water from indus river system while india's share is only 30% under IWT.According to helinski river water sharing rule as negotiated among member Of UNO countries water sharing must be equitable among countries from trans-border river systems.ie 50-50)

Addressing a seminar organised by the Insan Welfare Society here at a local hotel on Wednesday, Jamaat Ali Shah said Pakistan fully owned Indus Water Treaty and wanted its implementation in due spirit by India. He said Pakistan did succeed in highlighting successive violations of the treaty(pakistani highlighting of india's violation of IWT is like providing evidences of indias involvement in terror against pak.ie photo of uncircumcised terrorists.medicines made in india and latest being Polypropylene from reliance industry gujrat..Pakistani media high lights that how come it came into pakistan but thet dont tell their gullible public that pakistan itself imports 1000s of ton of Polypropylene from reliance industry via karachi port every month.) in past and that was why India could not construct Wuller Barrage on Jhelum river and had to change design of Salaal Hydropower Project on Chenab river.

On the other hand, he added, Pakistan’s three objections over Baglihar Hydropower Project were also upheld out of four points by World Bank’s appointed arbitrator.

About initial filling of Baglihar project, he said India had violated provision of the treaty and virtually blocked waters of Chenab in August 2008. He stressed that India should compensate that amount of water, saying that this important issue had been highlighted at various meetings of the commission.

“We cannot ignore this important issue as India is in process of building dozens of dams on Chenam and it could deprive Pakistan of its due share during filling of these reservoirs,” Jamaat Ali Shah said. He said conflict resolution process under Indus Water Treaty should also be time-bound as dillydallying was a source of concern.

He said, “We should also focus ‘spirit’ of the treaty apart from implementing its various clauses. A think tank is being established by the federal government to review decisions made under Indus Waters Treaty, he said. Besides technical experts, he maintained, legal and technical professionals would jointly work under this initiative to highlight spirit of the treaty. The Pakistan Commissioner also underlined the need to equally share shortage of water in flows of western rivers. Owing to various factors, he observed, water availability is seemed to have reduced in Chenab River, which should be shared by both India and Pakistan. “Why Pakistan suffers shortages alone,” he said, adding that those circles who facilitated Indus Waters Treaty should also press India to reduce its water usage as per overall shortages in inflows of western rivers.(

Similarly, Shah said, India should play its role in curbing deforestation in catchments area of Jhelum and Chenab rivers because it directly linked with fluctuations in river flows. “We want India to have effective watershed management in the area as it is indispensable for sustained flows of rivers,” he observed.

About countering any dip in flow of Chenab, Syed Jamaat Ali said, Head Marala should be linked to Mangla Dam through a canal in order to ensure supply of water in defence related structures along eastern border with India. He also supported conservation of water at various levels, saying one after other dams should be built where deemed feasible. “We should also improve irrigation techniques,” he stressed.

Earlier, speaking on the occasion, former Punjab Minister for Irrigation Sardar Arif Rasheed, irrigation expert Eng Mazhar Ali, former LCCI Senior Vice President Suhail Lashari, Eng M Khurshid, Ashraf Ejaz Gill and PPP local leader Mian Tariq Aziz said water shortage was a serious issue for a country like Pakistan. They said water resources of the country were not being fully utilized as huge quantity of water was going downstream Kotri into sea. They observed that water was also being polluted unabated. They stressed the need to build dams for storing surplus water. They said steps should be taken on priority basis to address shortage of water in Chenab River. They said continuation of democratic system in the country was a must for development of water sector projects.

**comments in red are mine

 

[ajtr]

Nothing but pussyfooting by GOI by pandering to the Jehadi diktat there by legitimizing them.I wonder if they should even bother clarifying. Are we going to answer any and every wild allegation the pakistanis - whose value to the world is basically nuisance.Shows how far GOI is from reality?


Water row: India to put facts before world

Days after Lashkar-e-Toiba chief Hafiz Saeed accused India of waging a water war on Pakistan, India says its planning to lay the facts before the international community and call Islamabad’s bluff over water-sharing. Sources have told The Indian Express that it is “important to bring out the facts in the public domain”, and added, “we want to share this information with friendly countries”.
The water-sharing issue was raised during the recent Foreign Secretary-level talks on February 25 in which New Delhi had emphasised on resolving it within the 50-year-old Permanent Indus Commission — which was in effect even during the wars between the two countries in 1965 and 1971.

Even after 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, sources said the Indus water commissioners met twice in the last 15 months (in May 2009 and Feb 2010) and are planning to meet again by May 2010. There have been 103 meetings and 111 tours in the last five decades — averaging two meetings per year.

What has India concerned is that Pakistan’s establishment and political leaders began upping the ante only in the recent months — even putting it on the same level as the Kashmir issue — although New Delhi says it’s underutilising the water entitled to itself as per the treaty.

According to New Delhi’s assessment, Pakistan’s water troubles are an outcome of its own “poor water management” although Indus, Jhelum and Chenab (rivers belonging to Pakistan) have four times more water than Ravi, Beas and Sutlej (rivers belonging to India).

There are two bases, according to sources, to establish this. First, Pakistan government’s documents, accessed by sources in New Delhi, show that about 20 per cent of water received from the six rivers are available as “surplus”. Secondly, about 28 per cent of water available from Pakistan’s rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — flow unchecked into the sea and are wasted. Going by these documents, Pakistan has not built enough water storage capacity and is, therefore, leaving surplus water go completely unutilised. This is, therefore, giving rise to water scarcity in the face of a rapidly growing population in Pakistan.

 

[ajtr]

‘Pakistan getting more water than it’s entitled to’

* Indian home secretary calls charges of water terrorism ‘absurd’

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Dismissing demands by some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that Delhi provide more water to Pakistan, Indian Home Secretary GK Pillai on Wednesday said Pakistan was getting more water than it was entitled to under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).

Calling the charges of water terrorism against Islamabad “absurd”, the home secretary said, “There have been 200 joint inspections since Independence, to which Pakistan too has signed and has had no
complaints. They are getting more water than they are entitled to.”

Speaking at a seminar, he called for a more pro-active approach to apprise the public and the world about “the reality of the water issue”.

“We have not put up our side across. We should put out a paper on what is happening. With Pakistan, the communication is more one-way and they do not want to listen,” he said.

Also speaking at the occasion, former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal said Islamabad wanted the water issue to be on the agenda of any talks and that India would lose out on strategy by agreeing to do so. “We have lost half the battle by allowing Pakistan to raise the issue. There is actually no issue. Hafiz Saeed and Pakistan are hammering away on the issue of water. There is a treaty and if there are any issues, there is a mechanism in the treaty to address them,” he said.

 

[Phenom]

Here in his article in toda's daily times,Munir Attaullah also concedes that india is not stealing pakistani share of indus waters but pakistan's own inability to make a proper and full use of our share of the resources?read in full to know about pakistani insinuating tactics against india

A very reasonable article, so far I have seen very few articles like this from Pakistani Liberals, telling truth to their people. While Indian liberals are always writing about how we should compromise with Pakistan, there has been very few articles like that from the Pakistani side.

 

[ajtr]

A very reasonable article, so far I have seen very few articles like this from Pakistani Liberals, telling truth to their people. While Indian liberals are always writing about how we should compromise with Pakistan, there has been very few articles like that from the Pakistani side.

please also read read Getting ready for a ‘water war’? by khaled ahmed published in friday times i've linked this article on first page of this thread too.

 

[ajtr]

Indus water shortage has affected both India, Pakistan

"Pakistan and India are facing water scarcity due to lesser rainfall in the region. India has been affected as much as Pakistan due to water shortage in Indus," India's Indus Waters Commissioner G. Ranganathan told reporters here.

He was speaking after signing a memorandum with his Pakistani counterpart Jamat Ali Shah for inspection of barrages - on both sides of the border - on rivers flowing into this country from India.

He said a delegation of Pakistani water officials would visit India in March to continue discussions on issues related to river waters.

The Indian delegation, accompanied by Pakistani water authorities, had earlier visited the Balloki and Sadhnai barrages on the Ravi river.

On its part, Pakistan, while expressing reservations over the shortage of water in the Indus, as also the Chenab and Jhelum rivers, has sought the record from India on the outflow of waters into the rivers, Online news agency reported.

The World Bank had brokered the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty on the sharing of the rivers that flow into Pakistan from India.

This is the one treaty that remained in place in spite of the various hiccups in the Pakistan-India relations that have seen them fighting two full-blown wars in 1965 and 1971 and engage militarily in 1999 in Kargil in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Indian delegation's visit was part of the mechanism to inspect infrastructure and ensure implementation of the treaty, as also to redress concerns and narrow down any differences.

 

[ajtr]

INDIA/PAKISTAN: Indus Water Treaty Agitates Kashmiris

SRINAGAR, Oct 15, 2008 (IPS) - As Pakistan and India wrangle over the waters of the Chenab, Kashmiris - through whose homeland the river and four other tributaries of the mighty Indus flow - have reason to be agitated.

Soon after Indian Prime Minister inaugurated the 450 Mw Baglihar hydro-electric dam project across the Chenab, during a visit to Jammu & Kashmir state last week, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari warned that disrupting the flow of the river could reverse recent improvements in ties between the two neighbours.

"Pakistan would be paying a very high price for India's move to block Pakistan's water supply from the Chenab River," the official Associated Press of Pakistan quoted Zardari as saying on Sunday.

Zardari made reference to the World Bank-mediated 1960 Indus Water Treaty which allows the two countries share the Indus river and its five tributaries - the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej - and provides mechanisms for dispute settlement.

Under the treaty, Pakistan received exclusive use of waters from the Indus and its westward flowing tributaries, the Jhelum and Chenab, while the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers were allocated for India's use.

India, which has a right to ‘’run-of-the-river’’ projects has rejected Pakistan's contention that the Baglihar dam reduces the flow of water and says the project is crucial for power-starved Kashmir.

In 2005 Pakistan had sought the World Bank's intervention to stop construction of the Baglihar dam and the hydroelectricity power project, but Bank-appointed experts cleared the project while asking India to restrict the overall height of the dam.

Earlier India had to stop construction of Tulbul Navigation Project on the River Jhelum on account of objections raised by Pakistan. While India maintained that the project was designed to improve navigation, especially during the winter when the water level recedes, Pakistan said that the Wullar Barrage [as Islamabad calls the project] is a storage project which will affect the flow of water. Work on the project has remained stalled for 20 years.

Under the treaty, Pakistan is to receive 55,000 cusecs of water, but authorities there complain that this year Pakistan's share was drastically reduced, causing damage to crops. "Pakistan received between 13,000 cusecs during the winter and a maximum of 29,000 cusecs during summer. This averages around 22,000 to 25,000 cusecs - less than half of Pakistan's share,’’ newspapers in Pakistan, citing authorities, say.

India and Pakistan may be talking to each other to settle their disputes over the Indus water, but the people in Indian Kashmir say that the two countries are actually reaping the benefits of what are their resources. Thanks to the Indus Water Treaty, only 40 percent of the cultivatable land in the state can be irrigated and 10 percent of the hydroelectric potential harnessed.

"Who represented Kashmir then [1960] at the table? What was the ‘locus standi’ of the two countries to abuse waters of a region that had independent identity till 1947, and on which they disputed each other's claim afterwards?" asks human rights activist, Shayik Nazir.

"The issue that remains at the center of Indus water treaty is that the treaty was signed at a time when Jammu & Kashmir was passing through a phase of both economic and political innocence. There was a political leadership in the state which was working in what one can say as national interest [of India] at that point of time", says political analyst Gul Mohammad Wani.

"The popular political leadership; the legitimate political leadership [in Jammu & Kashmir] was out of the political scene. We had a government which had absolutely no legitimacy and no credibility in the estimation of the people of the state and it was during those times the treaty was signed."

Srinagar-based economic expert Arjimand Hussain Talib says that the treaty drastically limits the economic benefits to Kashmir. "And then the power houses which are being built on these are generally owned by the Indian government without taking into consideration the fact that they basically flow through Jammu and Kashmir", Arjimand told IPS.

"They don't share the profits and the resources which are generated through these (rivers) with the Jammu & Kashmir state except for the 12 percent royalty on power that it gets,’’ he added.

Shakeel Qalandhar, president of the Kashmir Industries and Commerce Federation, says that Kashmir's economy would have greatly progressed, but for the 1960 treaty. "Through these three main rivers, we could have generated hydroelectric power not less than 30,000 Mw, but we are generating just over 300 Mw in the state sector and 1,600 Mw in the central sector. In all it is less than 2,000 Mw whereas we require 2,500 Mw of electricity for our own consumption - domestic and industrial.’’

According to Qalandar, every year Jammu & Kashmir purchases power [from the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation] worth billions of dollars. "It is a tragedy that despite having the potential of generating 30,000 Mw of power, 25 percent of our population is without electricity and 55 percent is without safe drinking, despite huge water resources in the state."

Over the last few years, the state government of Jammu & Kashmir and industrial groups in the state have been demanding compensation from the central government for the losses incurred by the state because of the Indus Water Treaty.

Motions were moved in the state assembly on three different occasions by the legislators asking the federal government to review the treaty and pay compensation to the state. "Our state is suffering due to the wrong decision of the then leaders and we are losing billions of dollars annually", contended legislator, Depinder Kour, while moving a resolution in the assembly a few years ago.

"Ours is a land-locked state. We don't have industries and other economic resources except the water. But because of the treaty, India and Pakistan benefit while Jammu & Kashmir suffers huge economic losses. That is why we are seeking compensation,'' says Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami, state secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI).

 

[Singh]

Pakistan water cry against India: Charade or Real? ​

Kashmir issue which has remained a main rallying point to galvanize support across the social, political and military spectrum of Pakistan for decades seems to be loosing its magical formulae of stoking anti India sentiments.

After all over 5000 Pakistanis are killed in the terrorist violence, civil society of Pakistan have understood the repercussions of Pakistan state policy of espousing terrorism.

Pakistan and its proxies have realized that they have exhausted the Kashmir issue and there are very few takers left therefore they have come up with latest catchphrase replacing the 'K' word with water.

Recently Lashkar-e -Toiba chief Hafeez Saeed accused India of waging water wars on Pakistan, Infact, Saeed has decided to launch a nationwide movement against India on the issue. He alleged India of constructing illegal dams and diverting water from Pakistani rivers.imilar sentiments are expressed by Islamabad and the issue also came up at Indo-Pak Foreign Secretary level talks.

Sources have told ANI that Pakistan intentionally took up complex technical issues pertaining to the ongoing hydel projects in Jammu and Kashmir during the talks.

Hafeez Saeed and Pakistan Government raising similar bogey and taking common stand on water issue demonstrates and substantiates the calibrated strategy on one hand and also shows the unholy collusion between the two, the point India has been making to the International community for quite some time .

India sees the latest rhetoric on water aired by Pakistani state and its proxies as a coordinated effort to create anti India hysteria, which can capture popular imagination and have a positive resonance within Pakistan.

According to the Indus Water Treaty, India does have a right on three western rivers the Chenab, the Jhelum and the Indus for domestic use including for drinking water, navigation, limited agricultural use and for generation of hydro electric power by construction of run of the river power projects. But keeping Pakistani sensitivities in mind India has so far not exploited its legitimate right entitled by the Indus Water treaty.

Treaty clearly says that India is allowed maximum storage on the western river of 3.6 MAF storage, but contrary to Pakistani propaganda that India is guzzling all the water, so far India has not done a single unit of storage.

No storage capacity has been created so far. IWT also entitles India to irrigate crops from waters of the western rivers i.e. 1.34347 MAF , this is the area India can irrigate , till 2008-2009 India has irrigated only 0.7924 MAF , less than two third of the entitled capacity is being used.

Indus Water Treaty had cut across Indus Basin, Eastern rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were given to India and western rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus were allocated to Pakistan. Western rivers combined which have gone to Pakistan carry almost four times the water of the three eastern rivers.

According to experts, the flow of rivers is fluctuating because of fluctuating amount of snow melt, fluctuation of rainfall and that impacts the flow in the rivers, it impacts the quantum of waters in the rivers.

However Indus River, which carries 65 percent of the total water is an exception, data shows that since 2000 flow of the river Indus is increasing.

New Delhi also feels that Pakistan is trying to deflect its domestic water problems and inter provincial grievances by creating the India bogey, what is actually happening is that river flows into Punjab which does not provide adequate amount of water to the southern provinces Balochistan and Sindh and it is convenient to say that India is playing mischief.

According to Pak's own admission a great deal of wastage is taking place and is going unchecked into the sea i.e. 38 MAF is wasted. There is also Permanent Indus Commission in place, commissioners from both sides have been meeting regularly and so far there have been 111 tours and 103 meetings of the commission and despite the rhetoric the commissioners are expected to meet again in May.

Certain sections of Pakistan media is also producing misplaced reports, Hafeez Saeed was quoted by a Pakistani national daily that India has built 62 dams whereas only 33 hydro electric projects are under the works and India has already provided the information to Pakistan.

India believes that all the major projects which Pakistan is objecting to are mainly located in Jammu and Kashmir and If Pakistan have objections they are denying the people there legitimate rights as far as water is concerned under the IWT.

Three western rivers are actually in Kashmir Tulbul on Jhelum, Baghlihar on Chenab and there are other projects on the western river for the benefits of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. By Naveen Kapoor (ANI)

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2010/03/pakistan-water-cry-against-india.html

 

[ajtr]

Hard hitting article exposing pakistan's paranoia and charade.With singhji's permission would like to highlight main points in this article.

Pakistan water cry against India: Charade or Real? ​

Kashmir issue which has remained a main rallying point to galvanize support across the social, political and military spectrum of Pakistan for decades seems to be loosing its magical formulae of stoking anti India sentiments.

After all over 5000 Pakistanis are killed in the terrorist violence, civil society of Pakistan have understood the repercussions of Pakistan state policy of espousing terrorism.

Pakistan and its proxies have realized that they have exhausted the Kashmir issue and there are very few takers left therefore they have come up with latest catchphrase replacing the 'K' word with water.

Recently Lashkar-e -Toiba chief Hafeez Saeed accused India of waging water wars on Pakistan, Infact, Saeed has decided to launch a nationwide movement against India on the issue. He alleged India of constructing illegal dams and diverting water from Pakistani rivers.imilar sentiments are expressed by Islamabad and the issue also came up at Indo-Pak Foreign Secretary level talks.

Sources have told ANI that Pakistan intentionally took up complex technical issues pertaining to the ongoing hydel projects in Jammu and Kashmir during the talks.

Hafeez Saeed and Pakistan Government raising similar bogey and taking common stand on water issue demonstrates and substantiates the calibrated strategy on one hand and also shows the unholy collusion between the two, the point India has been making to the International community for quite some time .

India sees the latest rhetoric on water aired by Pakistani state and its proxies as a coordinated effort to create anti India hysteria, which can capture popular imagination and have a positive resonance within Pakistan.

According to the Indus Water Treaty, India does have a right on three western rivers the Chenab, the Jhelum and the Indus for domestic use including for drinking water, navigation, limited agricultural use and for generation of hydro electric power by construction of run of the river power projects. But keeping Pakistani sensitivities in mind India has so far not exploited its legitimate right entitled by the Indus Water treaty.

Treaty clearly says that India is allowed maximum storage on the western river of 3.6 MAF storage, but contrary to Pakistani propaganda that India is guzzling all the water, so far India has not done a single unit of storage.

No storage capacity has been created so far. IWT also entitles India to irrigate crops from waters of the western rivers i.e. 1.34347 MAF , this is the area India can irrigate , till 2008-2009 India has irrigated only 0.7924 MAF , less than two third of the entitled capacity is being used.

Indus Water Treaty had cut across Indus Basin, Eastern rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were given to India and western rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus were allocated to Pakistan. Western rivers combined which have gone to Pakistan carry almost four times the water of the three eastern rivers.

According to experts, the flow of rivers is fluctuating because of fluctuating amount of snow melt, fluctuation of rainfall and that impacts the flow in the rivers, it impacts the quantum of waters in the rivers.

However Indus River, which carries 65 percent of the total water is an exception, data shows that since 2000 flow of the river Indus is increasing.

New Delhi also feels that Pakistan is trying to deflect its domestic water problems and inter provincial grievances by creating the India bogey, what is actually happening is that river flows into Punjab which does not provide adequate amount of water to the southern provinces Balochistan and Sindh and it is convenient to say that India is playing mischief.

According to Pak's own admission a great deal of wastage is taking place and is going unchecked into the sea i.e. 38 MAF is wasted. There is also Permanent Indus Commission in place, commissioners from both sides have been meeting regularly and so far there have been 111 tours and 103 meetings of the commission and despite the rhetoric the commissioners are expected to meet again in May.

Certain sections of Pakistan media is also producing misplaced reports, Hafeez Saeed was quoted by a Pakistani national daily that India has built 62 dams whereas only 33 hydro electric projects are under the works and India has already provided the information to Pakistan.

India believes that all the major projects which Pakistan is objecting to are mainly located in Jammu and Kashmir and If Pakistan have objections they are denying the people there legitimate rights as far as water is concerned under the IWT.

Three western rivers are actually in Kashmir Tulbul on Jhelum, Baghlihar on Chenab and there are other projects on the western river for the benefits of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. By Naveen Kapoor (ANI)

 

[ajtr]

India urged to keep its word on water

The Pakistan Commissioner also underlined the need to equally share shortage of water in flows of western rivers. Owing to various factors, he observed, water availability is seemed to have reduced in Chenab River, which should be shared by both India and Pakistan. “Why Pakistan suffers shortages alone,” he said, adding that those circles who facilitated Indus Waters Treaty should also press India to reduce its water usage as per overall shortages in inflows of western rivers.(The PPIC is saying several things above.
(First, he accepts that there is a natural reduction in flow of water.

Next, he is saying that India must share Pakistan's pain. What usages are allowed for India on Chenab ? These are domestic Use, Limited Agricultural Use (exact acreage mentioned), and non-consumptive use such as run-of-river hydroelectric projects (with one-time filling up of dead storage). So, what the PPIC is saying is that India should not build any more dams (which may need a one-time filling up and thus impounding of water however small it may be), and it should reduce its agricultural use and Indian Kashmiris should not use the Chenab waters. Kashmiris should take note of all these three restrictions that Pakistan wants to impose. This is what a country that day-in and day-out shouts from roof-tops that it stands-by the suffering Kashmiris on the Indian side.

Now, the IWT does not specify what quantum of water must flow down to Pakistan on these western rivers. It simply allocates the entire Western rivers to Pakistan and the entire Eastern rivers to India, subject to some provisions and rights for each other.

Pakistan should introspect why its water availability has come down from 5300 Cu. m per person annually in 1951 to less than 1000 Cu. m. today. There is no five-times reduction in the water flow of these rivers during this period.

He is then asking for a change to the IWT that would introduce a pro-rata definition. India cannot be held accountable for the follies of Pakistan. The treaty is unfair in the sense that it fixed the acreage for India while there was no such fixation for Pakistan. Pakistan had rapidly and disproportionately expanded its agriculture use due to its unchecked explosion of population. It must have employed prudent policies in plant, water and population management which it failed to do.)

Similarly, Shah said, India should play its role in curbing deforestation in catchments area of Jhelum and Chenab rivers because it directly linked with fluctuations in river flows. “We want India to have effective watershed management in the area as it is indispensable for sustained flows of rivers,” he observed.
(All that I could find was this:
(6) Each Party will use its best endeavours to maintain the natural channels of the Rivers, as on the Effective Date, in such condition as will avoid, as far as practicable, any obstruction to the flow in these channels likely to cause material damage to the other Party.)


Earlier, speaking on the occasion, former Punjab Minister for Irrigation Sardar Arif Rasheed, irrigation expert Eng Mazhar Ali, former LCCI Senior Vice President Suhail Lashari, Eng M Khurshid, Ashraf Ejaz Gill and PPP local leader Mian Tariq Aziz said water shortage was a serious issue for a country like Pakistan. They said water resources of the country were not being fully utilized as huge quantity of water was going downstream Kotri into sea. They observed that water was also being polluted unabated. They stressed the need to build dams for storing surplus water. They said steps should be taken on priority basis to address shortage of water in Chenab River. They said continuation of democratic system in the country was a must for development of water sector projects

Note:comments in Blue on the above quotes in the article are from Subrahmanyam Sridhar.

 

[ajtr]

"We will have to look beyond the Indus Water Treaty."

At the recent foreign secretary-level talks between India and Pakistan in New Delhi, Pakistan’s foreign office team presented a paper on water issues to India prepared by Pakistan’s Indus Water Commission. Although water is not a core issue for the resumption of talks between the two nuclear neighbours, differences over the use of rivers assigned according to the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty have undercut peace-making efforts. As Pakistan and India’s populations grow, water for agriculture and electricity generation is in short supply. Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah talks to Dawn.com about the urgent need to resolve water-sharing disputes.

Q. India says the Kishenganga project does not violate the Indus Waters Treaty. What is Pakistan’s position?

A. The Kishenganga River runs through Kashmir, and becomes the Neelum River. Water flows through Azad Jammu and Kashmir for 165 km before joining the Jhelum at Muzaffarabad. Now 70-80 kilometres of this river also run through Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. So the water re-routed by the Kishenganga power project reduces the flow of water going to Muzaffarabad. And then, Pakistan also has one project on the Jhelum River – the Neelum-Jhelum hyrdro-electric power project.

What are the adverse impacts of this one project according to the Indus Water Treaty? One, it reduces our annual energy generation. Two, the Kishenganga project also has an environmental impact because the depth of the water is reduced and this has an impact on the flora and fauna in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through which the Neelum flows. Three, there are technical problems in the design of the Kishenganga project such as the height of the gates and so on.

Q. But India contends that that it started its Kishenganga project earlier than Pakistan’s Neelum-Jhelum project. According to the Indus Water Treaty, India may construct a power plant on the rivers given to Pakistan provided it does not interfere with existing hydro-electric use by Pakistan. Is this true?

A. Yes. But the Jhelum waters were given to Pakistan. And going by the spirit of the treaty, while the waters are Pakistan’s to use, both countries can accrue benefits. When India made its plans known to Pakistan, that did not mean Pakistan did not have the intention [of constructing a plant]. In 1989, we told India that we are constructing a project there. India wanted to inspect the site. At the time, it was only a small exploration tunnel. Now the intention has been shown, with the Chinese being given the project. So we have a legal case.

Moreover, while the total quantity of water has not been changed, there are no guarantees that India will not store or divert water into the Wullar barrage. Certainly, re-routing will impact the flow-time and therefore reduce the quantum of water [to Pakistan].


Q. Where are talks between India and Pakistan on the Kishenganga project now?

A. In 1988, we came to know about Kishenganga and we asked for details. We were told that India was just conducting investigations. India is obliged by the treaty only to give detailed plans six months prior to construction.

In 1992 or 1993, India asked to conduct its first inspection of the site of the Neelum-Jhleum project in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. That was when there was just an underground tunnel. India told us unofficially that the tunnel was an eye-wash.

Then in 1994, we were officially informed about Kishenganga, which was to be a 330 watt storage work. Now in a storage work, there is no mention of diversion.

The commission held five meetings between 1994 and 2006 and the storage height of the dam was ultimately reduced by 40 metres. But by 2006, Kishenganga became a run-off project. Pakistan’s position was that this is a new project, the run-off was not in the 1994 project, and the 1994 project should be considered abandoned.

In June 2006, we raised objections. Between 2006 and 2008 the commission held three meetings. In 2008, Pakistan informed India that it intends to seek the opinion of a neutral expert appointed by the World Bank. India said Pakistan has no case and that there is no controversy since the Kishenganga project does not harm Pakistan’s usage. India wanted to resolve the issue at the level of the commission. So the government of Pakistan agreed to meet representatives of the government of India, but the meeting proved inconclusive.

So India and Pakistan agreed to negotiations, and in March 2009, Pakistan proposed two names of negotiators. But the Indian stance remained the same. According to the treaty, if negotiations reach a deadlock than a court of arbitration can be constituted with seven experts: two from the government of Pakistan, two from the government of India and three jointly named umpires. If these names are not jointly agreed upon, then the World Bank would help.

Pakistan’s point of view is that the direction of flow and environmental impact of the dam should be addressed by the court of arbitration, while the matter of design would be decided by the neutral expert.

Now, the Pakistan Indus Water Commission has shortlisted several names and these are with the foreign office and the law and justice ministry who have to finalise Pakistan’s two names.

Q. Will Pakistan be taking up other Indian projects with the World Bank?

A. As I said, India is planning two more power projects on the River Indus. But those of concern are the ones on the Chenab because we don’t have any storage site there. So the Chenab is more vulnerable. After constructing three, including Baglihar, India intends to construct 10 to 12 more dams on the Chenab and its tributaries.

Certainly, the treaty gives India the right, but the designs should be compliant. Already, India constructed the Wullar barrage unilaterally without informing Pakistan.

Q. It is said that the Baglihar dam issue was settled by the World Bank in India’s favour because Pakistan did not raise the objections in time. Do you agree with that?

A. Both parties had different points of view. When we approached the World Bank, India blocked us because it did not want a neutral expert. So the fact that a neutral expert was appointed was a small victory. The expert asked for documentation from us, which we provided. India believed that Pakistan was maligning them, but the fact is that the neutral expert settled three points in favour of Pakistan and one in India’s favour. And both parties bore the cost of the proceedings.

Both India and Pakistan need these waters and there is a need for candidness and transparency. Political considerations should not shadow the technical aspects. Unfortunately, the technical side is subordinate to the political side.

For example, India did not provide us updated flow data. In August 2008, India violated the treaty by not providing accurate data on the initial filling of the Baglihar dam. The treaty says the initial filling should not reduce the water flowing into Pakistan. So the initial filling of the Baglihar reduced Pakistan’s water and India should compensate for the lost water.

Q. What impact has the construction of Indian power projects had on Pakistan’s waters? We are, after all, facing shortages for agricultural use and electricity generation.

A. Apart from the Baglihar dam, neither Pakistan nor India has had problems with the Indus Water Treaty. But looking to the future, I foresee problems, especially given climate changes. India has already constructed 50-60, medium-sized projects and it plans more than a hundred. One hundred and fifty will be in the small catchment areas in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This is human intervention: imagine how many trees will be cut, and the resulting environmental impact? They will also impact Pakistan’s water, given the environmental degradation and increased sediment flow.

I think we will now have to look beyond the treaty for solutions. India is allowed run-off hydro-electric projects according to the treaty, but two or three is different from more than a hundred.

In 1960, Pakistan did not want to give three of its rivers to India, but it did. But clearly the World Bank had not factored in climate change and the impact of human intervention. I think the World Bank treaty is likely to be jeopardised. Already, we are facing a shortage in the western rivers, how can we then compensate for the lack of water in the eastern rivers?

Q. Do you think it is time to expand the scope of the treaty?

A. There are some issues with that. Right now, we need to protect and implement the treaty in its full spirit without re-visiting it. But both governments should initiate talks along with expert stakeholders.

Q. Would this be in India’s interest?

A. Yes, because we are neighbours. The Indus Water Treaty was not a happy marriage but we accepted it. But Pakistan should take action at the appropriate time: what happens to the state of Bahawalpur where the rivers Sutlej and Ravi are dry?

 

[ajtr]

"We will have to look beyond the Indus Water Treaty."

Q. India says the Kishenganga project does not violate the Indus Waters Treaty. What is Pakistan’s position?

A.One, it reduces our annual energy generation. Two, the Kishenganga project also has an environmental impact because the depth of the water is reduced and this has an impact on the flora and fauna in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through which the Neelum flows. Three, there are technical problems in the design of the Kishenganga project such as the height of the gates and so on.

Reduction in energy generation is notional as pakistani project on Neelam-Jhelum is not yet online.
Any Dam project would have some environmental impact but they are still built. If they are so conerned this argument should be applied to all dams built in pk first especially Neelam-Jhelum for which contract is awarded now only to chinese.
Technical problems can be dealt by both PIC or by NE . It is not a dispute but difference to be sorted out on best practices as in Baglihar.

Q. But India contends that that it started its Kishenganga project earlier than Pakistan’s Neelum-Jhelum project. According to the Indus Water Treaty, India may construct a power plant on the rivers given to Pakistan provided it does not interfere with existing hydro-electric use by Pakistan. Is this true?

Yes. But the Jhelum waters were given to Pakistan. And going by the spirit of the treaty, while the waters are Pakistan’s to use, both countries can accrue benefits. When India made its plans known to Pakistan, that did not mean Pakistan did not have the intention [of constructing a plant]. In 1989, we told India that we are constructing a project there. India wanted to inspect the site. At the time, it was only a small exploration tunnel. Now the intention has been shown, with the Chinese being given the project. So we have a legal case.

while the total quantity of water has not been changed, there are no guarantees that India will not store or divert water into the Wullar barrage.

PPIC concedes the point but says in 1989 they told India of their intentions. He also says water quantity bs not changes so bogey of reduced flow is punctured by PPIC himself. Then he says he has a case.

see this

Q. Where are talks between India and Pakistan on the Kishenganga project now?

A. In 1988, we came to know about Kishenganga and we asked for details. We were told that India was just conducting investigations. India is obliged by the treaty only to give detailed plans six months prior to construction.

So India had told of its intentions to build dam a full year earlier. Where does this claim of first intention by pk stand. drowned in neelum.

Q. Will Pakistan be taking up other Indian projects with the World Bank?

A. As I said, India is planning two more power projects on the River Indus. But those of concern are the ones on the Chenab because we don’t have any storage site there. So the Chenab is more vulnerable. After constructing three, including Baglihar, India intends to construct 10 to 12 more dams on the Chenab and its tributaries.

Certainly, the treaty gives India the right, but the designs should be compliant. Already, India constructed the Wullar barrage unilaterally without informing Pakistan.

Well now we have notified at least 17 dams incliding Baghlihar . Intentions are clear and present so only questions of designs or difference in designs should be discussed as and when it arises. PPIC clearly says India has rights as per IWT, so on 11.3.2010 he talks of pre-emptive actions and to look beyond IWT.
It was important to pre-empt that situation even if it was a mere possibility, he said. “The implementation of the Indus Basin Water Treaty is being monitored to safeguard interests of Pakistan. But there is no harm in taking parallel steps to minimise the possible negative impact.”
if Pauper pakistan has money do take pre-emptive actions under IWT.India does not intend to stop pakistan.

Q. It is said that the Baglihar dam issue was settled by the World Bank in India’s favour because Pakistan did not raise the objections in time. Do you agree with that?

So the fact that a neutral expert was appointed was a small victory. The expert asked for documentation from us, which we provided. India believed that Pakistan was maligning them, but the fact is that the neutral expert settled three points in favour of Pakistan and one in India’s favour. And both parties bore the cost of the proceedings.

well there were six determinations on Baglihar :-
(i) maximum design flood, NE agreed by Indian values which is higher 16500m3/s against pk 14900 m3/s

(ii) spillway, ungated or gated, Agreed with India for gated spillway.

(iii) spillway, level of the gates,Agreed with Indian design but for reduced the outlets 8 mts lower for upstream flood protection.PaKistan wanted it higher. India had stated that it has designed for highest outlet level.NE decided in view of latest design practices not as per those prevailing while signing IWT.
So this goes in India's favour.

(iv) artificial raising of the water level,
844.5 m above sea level (asl), to dam crest elevation of 843.0 m asl. Great victory to pakistan amen. They should be happy.

(v) pondage, NE fixed his own pondage value at slightly lower value than those suggested by India and pakistan.

(vi) level of the power intake NE agreed with pakistani estimate and lowered power intake to 821 m asl. , 3 mts higher. Again great victory for pakistan.

oh btw Dam stands in full glory for India. thanks to great victories earned by pakistan.

People who are interested in great victories of Pkaistan on Baglihar dam issue must read this article.......Baglihar And Other Chestnuts I'Ve posted the same on page 3 of this thread.

Q. What impact has the construction of Indian power projects had on Pakistan’s waters? We are, after all, facing shortages for agricultural use and electricity generation.

A. Apart from the Baglihar dam,neither Pakistan nor India has had problems with the Indus Water Treaty.( so why they are crying ) But looking to the future, I foresee problems, especially given climate changes. India has already constructed 50-60, medium-sized projects and it plans more than a hundred. One hundred and fifty will be in the small catchment areas in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This is human intervention: imagine how many trees will be cut, and the resulting environmental impact? They will also impact Pakistan’s water, given the environmental degradation and increased sediment flow.

I think we will now have to look beyond the treaty for solutions. India is allowed run-off hydro-electric projects according to the treaty, but two or three is different from more than a hundred. ( look they want more)

All dams are human interventions. So what he is talking about. He feels that 150 is too much for India. SO pk would now decide what is too much for India, and his tears for trees and climate change.

when there is no problem why he sees ghost in future.

Q. Do you think it is time to expand the scope of the treaty?

A. There are some issues with that. Right now, we need to protect and implement the treaty in its full spirit without re-visiting it. But both governments should initiate talks along with expert stakeholders.

So he develops cold feet, Without IWT umbrella pk has no option but to fight and perish.

Q. Would this be in India’s interest?

Quote:
A. Yes, because we are neighbours. The Indus Water Treaty was not a happy marriage but we accepted it. But Pakistan should take action at the appropriate time: what happens to the state of Bahawalpur where the rivers Sutlej and Ravi are dry?

He answers this in another seminar.

Mr Shah dispelled an impression that Pakistan was wasting its water and said the country had “unutilised water” ( another word for wasted) for which dams were being built.

The water commissioner called for judicious distribution of water among the provinces, besides revamping the irrigation system to ensure optimum use of available water. He said new technologies were a need of the hour because they could help reduce water demand up to 15 million acres feet.

So they have problem at home, looking for solutions abroad. So we are neighbours and pakistan can make our life hell ( as if they have left any stone unturned.) therefore we should think beyond IWT because pakistan is unable to manage its waters.

Well it is obvious that India is in full compliance with IWT ( as per PPIC) and has taken actions consistent with IWT. Pakistan has unutilised waters and Indus river had no water problems. They are not making judicious use of available water and not doing fair appropriations among provinces. They conveniently forget J&K and POK.

PPIC himself shoots in his foot. if this is the standard of Pakistan's eminent engineer then even allah would not save that wretched country.


As far as IWT is concerned India is no enemy of pakistan. It has taken all steps consistent with the letter and spirit of the treaty.In fact, it has not fully utilised its allocated quota of water from western rivers. It has not made any storage reservoir on Indus as per treaty, only run of the river hydro projects. India has provided hydrological data to pk in a timely fashion and data did not yield any support to imaginative noises of ill-informed idiots from pk.

What pakistan is talking about are factors other than those covered under the treaty. The treaty is functional and not political treaty. It talks about engineering best practices as prevalent or modern best practices in hydro engineering for Indus basin management. PIC can decide any questions that may arise within IWT. If difference of opinion is persisting then then it has to be dealt with by NE. Disputes go to Arbitration court. pakistan has never had any case against India and that is why it had to accept NE award on Baghlihar which made some minor design changes. In fact, pakistan argument also did not question the dam itself but design aspect and its negative impact on pakistan . And pakistan choose not to go to arbitration as yet.

pakistan should thank its stars that there is IWT else they would have been dried out within 20 years and wiped out in 25 years if gone to war on water then.

So Indians can proudly say that we have acted in best neighborly interest and all matters should be resolved within IWT . of course pakistan is free to abrogate the treaty if they want. There can be no pro-rata allocation of waters as rivers are divided in a manner for best management.Neither terror or international opinion nor opinion of people of pakistan matter or even that of indian people unless working of treaty is proved to be flawed from engineering point of view. So engineers would have to decide and not any politician.



**comments in red are mine

**thanks chanakaya of BR for his comments in blue

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan's Neelum - Jhelum Project.

The plan is to construct a dam at Nauseri on the Neelum / Kishenganga close to the LOC and build a 32.5 Km long tunnel, to divert the water to the Jhelum via a powerhouse that will produce 969 MW of electricity. The treaty allows the country which builds a dam on the Neelum / Kishenganga first to keep the water. In any case, India's Kishenganga tunnel is nearly ready. A chinese company was building the tunnel for the pakistani project recently. Pakistan has been showing Indian inspectors a rudimentary tunnel with no work going on since 1989. Now that India's project is nearly ready, pakistan has just woken up to reality. Because pakistan was showing India the rudimentary tunnel all these years, India delayed its project for 18 year.

Externalizing an internal problem is part of pakistan's history of strategic blunders brilliance, that they have grown so adept in the past.


Already there are voices in pakistan are saying:
1. The real issue has always been that of water. All the river heads are located in kashmir, blah blah, but we still stand for supporting whatever wishes the kashmiris have.
2. People like Najam Sethi are now openly saying that the kashmiris don't want to be part of Pakistan.(check his youtube video here)


It is possible that grounds are being prepared for making the issue of water the new core issue. But the end result is still going to be that of using that as a bogey to raise passions within for the next gen of pakis against India.

What we are witnessing in pakistan is once again a white lie being created by over simplifying complex issues, and giving it wide coverage until it becomes the truth. This over simplifying issues for the pakistani awam has precedence - remember the two nation theory? Homeland for the muslims etc. Whereas the truth is that the first thing that Jinnah says when he reaches pakistan is that he wants a secular nation there.

courtesy gagan at BR

 

[ajtr]

Pak muddies waters: ‘don’t build any power plant in J&K’

In a move that’s angered officials here, Islamabad has sought to ratchet up what it calls the “water controversy” by asking New Delhi to undertake “no construction of power generation works” on its western rivers.
This, essentially, means no projects in Jammu and Kashmir.

Sources said this message came for Pakistan in a “non-paper” during the Foreign Secretary-level talks a fortnight ago.

The non-paper comes after Islamabad’s objections to the Kishenganga hydro-electric project and its earlier effort to scuttle the Baglihar project which the World Bank-appointed neutral observer settled in India’s favour in 2007.

It may be noted that this was done in accordance with the dispute-resolution mechanism spelt out in the Indus Waters Treaty. In fact, Pakistan’s documented set of concerns in the recently concluded talks do not go beyond regular complaints about delays in sharing data.

Still, the issue, which has now turned into an anti-India campaign — championed by none other than the likes of Hafiz Mohammed Saeed and leaders of the banned Jamaat-ud- Dawa — prompted the Pak government to make specific suggestions. The key ones:

* Full and timely communication of design information and data by India to Pakistan on new power-generation plants and irrigation works on western rivers.

New Delhi has provided information on all 33 hydro-power projects on western rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus. As for irrigation, India has underutilized its rights — using water to irrigate just about 0.8 million acres as against the permissible limit of about 1.35 million acres.

Officials say India can build as many as run-of-the river hydro-power projects and needs to provide information six months before work begins.

* Communication of data of all existing G&D (gauges and discharges) stations including the data of flow at the newly constructed, under construction and planned plants/works. Officials say India is sharing data with Pakistan every month. In fact, at the time of FS talks, India had already shared data until October 2009. India has also not build any storage on western rivers so far despite that fact that the treaty allows India to do so.

* No construction of power generation works may be undertaken on western rivers until objections are amicable resolved by the two countries

Officials feel Pakistan has used provisions under the Indus Treaty to seek information for endlessly delaying the projects. They point out that India has suffered as it has been able to harness only about 2324 MW as against the estimated potential of 18,653 MW from 106 schemes on these rivers.

* Joint watershed management and joint commissioning of environmental studies to address environmental concerns including deforestation, water pollution and climate change

Indian officials feel New Delhi remains concerned about these issues on its own does not need Pakistan to intervene.

* Cooperation in resolution of issues relating to Wullar Barrage Storage Project, Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant, reported construction of new plants such as Chutak and construcion of storage sites as well as issue relating to reduction of water flow Pakistan contests the project on Wullar as a storage project with a barrage but Indian officials maintain that it’s a control structure for regulated release, which is permitted under the Treaty, and not a storage project. Both countries are still negotiating.

As for Kishanganga, India says it has already revised its project to be a run-of-the river, which is allowed under the Treaty.

Pakistan objects to this project saying that it has existing uses of the water of Kishanganga river, called Neelum in Pakistan. But Islamabad has so far not given details of its existing usage to substantiate its claims.

Incidentally, Pakistan has not built any storage projects on its western rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, which account for an average water flow of 135 million acre feet — this despite the fact that the treaty allows India to utilise 3.6 million acre feet for storage projects. In contrast, of the 33 million acre feet of unrestricted use of water from the eastern rivers, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, India has not been able to harness the entire potential leaving 3 million acre feet water flowing into Pakistan.

 

[ajtr]

Do Pakistan’s claims over the Indus hold water?

Pakistan has, since 2009, virtually inscribed Indus waters as the “core issue”. Witness the Pakistan foreign secretary, Salman Bashir’s recent demarche in Delhi meshing with the heady jihadi rhetoric of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa/LeT chief, Hafiz Saeed.
The Indus Waters Treaty has worked well in a harsh environment of recurrent war and recrimination under the watchful eye of the Indus Commission, headed by empowered engineers fortified with a concurrent conflict management and resolution mechanism. A neutral expert was only summoned once, over Baglihar two years ago, a court of arbitration never. For the rest, the Indus commissioners have overseen current operations and future plans by means of a reasonably transparent and accountable process.

The treaty allocates the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) wholly to Pakistan, but entitled India to irrigate 1.3 million acres and store 3.60 million acre feet of water for conservation, flood moderation and hydel generation within Jammu and Kashmir. India, in turn, was allocated the entire flows of the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi), barring minor irrigation uses for Pakistan from four nullahs that join the Ravi. In the final reckoning Pakistan got 80 per cent of the overall flows of the Indus and India 20 per cent.

The treaty mandates broad Pakistani approval for Indian works on the western rivers in J&K. This led to considerable delays in progressing Sallal, Uri, Dul Hasti, and Baglihar, all run-of-river hydel schemes with diurnal peaking “pondage” to drive the turbines, but no “storage”. The Tulbul flood detention barrage across the Jhelum has been stymied for 18 years! The design objections to Baglihar, finally cleared in India’s favour with minor modifications by the neutral expert two years ago, as in the case of Sallal was that sudden pondage or release of such impoundments could dry up the lower course of the Chenab, or cause floods that would render Pakistan economically and strategically vulnerable. The argument is bizarre and ignores simple facts of valley geometry and prior hazards that India would face before any damage to Pakistan 110 kms down river.

Objection has been taken to the proposed upper Chenab Sawalkote and Pakul Dul projects and the re-designed Kishenganga project, all run-of-river schemes. Uri-II and Baglihar-II will merely utilise seasonal flush flows to generate secondary power as permitted by the treaty. The Kishenganga project entails diverting this Jhelum tributary (known as Neelum in Pakistan), into the Wular lake through which it is returned to the Jhelum, in accordance with the treaty. Pakistan claims that the Kishenganga diversion will leave insufficient water for its Neelum-Jhelum irrigation-cum-hydro project above Muzaffarabad. India has, however, assured it certain ecological releases which, with other stream flows, should suffice to protect Pakistan’s “existing uses” at the time India first submitted its Kishengaga proposals, as required.

In any event, recourse may be had to IWT mechanisms for resolving “differences” and “disputes”. India has so far not fully utilised its irrigation quota on the three western rivers nor invested in its storage entitlement. “Surplus” Indian waters continue to flow to Pakistan from the western and even the eastern rivers, as the Rajasthan Canal command, under development, is yet to draw fully from Ravi-Beas waters.

Both Pakistan and India face water stress, which will be accentuated by climate change. Aberrant weather and melting Tibetan permafrost and glacial ice could enhance sedimentation and debris dam and glacial lake hazards. Cooperation is essential, not only between India and Pakistan but with China. Meanwhile, even as Indian utilisation of its water entitlements in J&K encounters Pakistani objections, the latter has no control over the upper catchments of the three western rivers. If these waters are to be optimally utilised, the key lies in chapter VII of the treaty, “Future Cooperation”, that envisages joint studies and engineering works in the upper Indus catchment on both sides of the LOC.

Rather than seek conflict resolution or future cooperation under the aegis of the IWT, Pakistan seems inclined to up the ante. J&K is being emotionally resurrected as a “lifeline” issue even as its territorial claims on Kashmir are undermined by jihadi terror. Hafiz Saeed has addressed rallies in Muzaffarabad and Lahore. As recently as March 7, he denounced India’s “theft” of waters through “illegal dams” that could trigger nuclear war. Banners proclaimed “water or war”, “water flows or blood”, “Liberate Kashmir to secure water”, and “No peace with Indian water aggression”.

A carefully constructed and longstanding water framework is being crudely altered from technical to political. Reason is yielding to emotion, accepted principles to ideological hysteria. The locus is shifting from the Indus Commission to the mob and non-state actors. Undermining the IWT can do no good. We need cooperation, not confrontation.

 

[ajtr]

Water: a pre-eminent political issue

Urban/urbane

Friday, March 12, 2010
Ahmad Rafay Alam

The word "riparian" has been appearing in the media far too frequently for my liking. It's usually preceded by the adjective "lower" and usually followed by an irrational rant about how the "upper riparian" is taking advantage. This is unsettling because, as one knows, when the word "riparian" becomes part of one's day-to-day vocabulary, it means water has become a major issue. And it should be. As has been foretold, water is becoming, if not already is, the mother of all political issues.

At Partition, we are told that Pakistan had water resources in the region of 5,000 cubic meters per person. Now, we are told this resource has fallen to close to 1,200 cubic meters per person, a figure the UN warns is close to when a country is said to be "water scarce". That may sound alarming but, as someone once said, there are lies, damn, lies and then there are statistics

Nevertheless, the fact is that Pakistan's water resources are fast dwindling. But before someone panics, they need to understand that, more than other things, we are becoming water scarce because of the remarkable job we've done at breeding: it's the increasing population that's one of the reasons our per capita water resource statistics are falling.

There are other reasons why Pakistan's water resources are falling. There is, for example, the remarkably outdated and inefficient irrigation system we currently have in operation. Over 90 per cent of Pakistan's water resources are used in irrigation (with somewhere near 3 to 5 per cent servicing drinking water requirements and the remainders servicing specific industrial purposes), and over 40 per cent of irrigation water is said to be "lost" because of evaporation and theft. Then there's the world famous Pakistani work ethic: in today's day and age, farming is a science and economical yields simply can't be achieved if sowing and harvest dates are left subservient to the whims of lazy farmers (with due apologies to the many hard-working members of the agricultural sector).

Pakistan's water resources aren't just threatened by inefficient irrigation and farming techniques. There is also the spectre of climate change. Almost all of Pakistan's water resources originate from glacial melt off of Himalayan glaciers. Increases in global temperatures resulting from climate change are expected to affect the rate of glacial melt: At first there will be widespread flooding and then, as the glaciers melt away, there will be no water resource. This is expected to happen within the next century.

The 2003 Government of Pakistan Initial Communication on Climate Change indicates that global warming will affect every one of Pakistan's cash crops. This will affect our agriculture -- the current backbone of the national economy -- and rural livelihood. As things stand, poverty in Pakistan -- and nearly 30 per cent of the population hovers near the poverty line -- is a rural phenomenon. The economic effects of a shortage of water will affect rural livelihood and only exacerbate the conditions of poverty that increasing numbers of children will be forced to experience.

Water shortages have affected inter-provincial relations. The waters of the Indus Basin are regulated within Pakistan by the Indus River System Authority (IRSA), which itself was created by the inter-provincial Water Accord of 1991. Sindh regularly accuses Punjab of not providing it with its share of water. Punjab, on the other hand, claims nothing more than its rightful share of water under the Water Accord. With crop productivity affected in both provinces due to water shortages, IRSA hasn't been much successful in resolving the increasingly antagonistic positions being taken by these opposing provinces. This has the potential to affect inter-provincial harmony and, by extension, the balance of power in government.

If these factors don't qualify water to be a pre-eminent political issue in this country, then surely the international repercussions of water will.

Just as the lower riparian Sindhi is a vicious critic of the upper riparian Punjabi, the lower riparian Pakistani holds a deep amount of scepticism of his upper riparian Indian. The flow of water in the Indus Basin is regulated by an agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan: the Indus Basin Treaty, 1960. Under the treaty, the rights over the water of the three Eastern rivers (Sutlej, Bias and Ravi) are given to India and the use of the waters of the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) is given to Pakistan. Recently, and there has been further proof that water is an pre-eminent political issue of our time--India has been accused of "stealing" Pakistan's share of water. Even if Pakistan had the latest means to accurately measure the flows of water--and thereby substantiate its claims--this accusation cleverly hides the fact that, on account of climate change, there are circumstances of drought along the Indian side of the western rivers under Pakistan's control.

Pakistan and India need to sit down to examine the issue of the management of their shared resource of the Indus Basin. Pakistan can only do this if it has a strong opening bargaining position vis-à-vis India, else it stands to lose even the precarious ground it holds under the Indus Water Treaty. This is a point that the proponents of "revisiting" the treaty on the grounds that it does not envision the impact of climate change must keep in mind.

Water also has security repercussions. It is my understanding (and I stand to be corrected here) that one of the reasons the Pakistan Army maintains the troop levels it does on the eastern border (when the fighting is so obviously along the western border) is because water is considered a security issue. If India gains control of the western rivers of the Indus Basin, it will have the advantage to literally shut off Pakistan's water resources. In addition, since the canal irrigation system also provides security against a ground attack, Pakistan's ability to charge these canals will determine some of its defence capabilities. Unlike other political issues in Pakistan, water is not just one- or two-dimensional. Water is multi-dimensional. No other political issue affects the Pakistani economy and society, creates internal migration, is directly linked to climate change, places stress on inter-provincial relations, has security repercussions and involves negotiations with India all at the same time.

At the moment, the types of voices that are filling the debate are unsettling. Over and above the clichéd upper and lower riparian antagonism, the debate is often fuelled by anti-Indian sentiment. One senior journalist has gone as far as offering himself as a human bomb against Indian dams. For once, I wish he would carry out his threat to prove to others who share his worldview: This is not how things are resolved.

In water, the mother of all political issues, Pakistani politics faces a great challenge. For better or worse, the full attention of the Pakistani people is soon going to focus on water-related issues. This is the time for forward and out-of-the box thinking on never-before- encountered problems. Solutions to water-related issues are hot topics globally and all eyes are fixed on how a democratic Pakistan is dealing with the issues water is throwing at it. We must not let the debate and our actions on water be hijacked by unproductive jingoism. In today's world, Pakistan must constructively deal with its problems. If this can be done, water can be an issue on which Pakistan can be an example to the world.



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: [email protected]