India Takes First Step Towards Indus Water Treaty Withdrawal

[ajtr]

US not to intervene in Indo-Pak water tussle: Blake

Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Robert Blake said Pakistan had frequently raised the controversial and contentious water issue with India [ Images ] during his recent trip to Islamabad [ Images ], but added that the US had no intention of intervening in the bilateral issue.

Pakistan should instead take it up with the Indus Waters Treaty's independent arbitration panel, he said.

The water issue has been portrayed in some segments of the Pakistani media as "water terrorism on the part of India".

Blake, during an interaction with the media at the Foreign Press Center, said, "This is a question that came up in virtually every single meeting I had in Pakistan, not only with civil society people, the press and everywhere.

"And, what I said to everybody there was that if Pakistan believes that India is violating the Indus Waters Treaty, then Pakistan should avail itself of the opportunity to submit whatever grievances it has to the independent arbitration panel that has been set up by the Indus Waters Treaty."

He said: "As many of you know, both countries have appealed to that panel many times in the past, most recently with respect to the Baglihar Dam. So this is a functioning mechanism that has worked well in the past.

"If there are serious issues that Pakistan believes need to be addressed, then that is the address to which it should make its claim," he said.

When pressed by a Pakistani reporter on US role in alleviating the tensions between India and Pakistan on this issue, Blake asserted that "we're not going to get involved in bilateral issues related to water, because I think the World Bank in the best mechanism for that."

"But I do believe that if asked, that the United States could help both sides with respect to water supply and again how to make better use of the existing water supply. How to make more efficient use of it, how to increase water storage, rainwater harvesting, a lot of those kind of techniques," he said.

"So, that's where we and other friends of both countries might be able to have a role."

As far as the US is concerned, he said both India and Pakistan nwere facing the water crisis due their rapidly expanding populations and rapidly expanding economies, and that both countries must look at conserving water and making efficient use of the available resources.

"In Pakistan, there's a particular urgency to looking at the agricultural sector, which accounts for more than half of water usage," he said.

Blake said there were "a great many practices that are inefficient," and cited the example of "the practice of flood irrigation, that is modified would make a significant difference to the amount of water that is used in Pakistan."

"That's the kind of thing we are working with Pakistan on. One of the things that we're doing now in Pakistan that's noteworthy is we have a tube-well initiative, where we are helping to make 10,000 tube wells more efficient by replacing the engines on them. And that's just one of the many --and, that's both an electricity and also a water issue," he said.

Blake reiterated that this was where "the real focus should be, as we try to figure out how to improve water storage but also water management and water efficiency," and disclosed that the US embassy in Islamabad was "looking at ways to do that with our friends in the government of Pakistan".

Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC

 

[ajtr]

Irsa agrees to Kharif water distribution mechanism

Thursday, April 01, 2010
By By Khalid Mustafa
ISLAMABAD: The water distribution among the four federating units during the 6-month Kharif season 2010, that starts from April 1 and will end on September 30, would be based upon para-2 of Water Apportionment Accord 1991.

This has been the long-standing demand of low riparian federating unit of the country — Sindh. After 2003, this is for the first time that the country’s water distribution mechanism would be exposed to water delivery to the provinces to cater to their irrigational requirements based on para-2 of the accord.

“This has been decided with consensus here on Wednesday in a meeting of Irsa advisory committee meeting. Irsa chairman headed the meeting while other four members of the water regulatory body, representatives of the Irrigation and Power Departments of four provinces and Wapda also attended the meeting,” spokesman of Irsa Idrees Rana Khalid told The News.

Under para-2, the sources said, Sindh would have 2.25 MAF more share than the share calculated keeping in view the 14-B of the accord.However, it is crystal clear when the system has 117 MAF, para-2 can be implemented, but astonishingly, the meeting decided the water distribution would be based on para-2 despite the fact that the system is estimated to have just 99.18 MAF water.

Shujaa Junejo, Secretary Sindh Irrigation and Power Department while talking to the media persons after the meeting confirmed that meeting participants had unanimously decided that this time water would be distributed as per para-2 of the Water Accord.Under the decision of the meeting, he said that country would be having total estimated water availability of 99.18 million acre feet in Kharif season at Rim stations.

Junejo also unveiled that during Kharif season, the water shortage would be shared equally by four federating units. It is pertinent to mention that under the Irsa Act the water shortages would be shared by Sindh and Punjab.

However, the country would brave anticipated water deficit of 12 per cent in next 6 months and early Kharif would face 18 per cent shortage. About 16 per cent MAF would be consumed in the system losses and 8 MAF water have been earmarked to release downstream Kotri to reduce impact of sea water intrusion.

The water availability of 65.81 MAF has been estimated in the meeting for provinces to irrigate their respective command areas.Under the estimated provincial shares worked out by the Irsa advisory committee meeting, Punjab would have 32.61 MAF water in Kharif season, Sindh 29.90 MAF, NWFP 0.82 MAF and Balochistan 2.48 MAF.

M H Siddiqui, consultant to Punjab government on water issues when contacted, told The News that distribution would be based on three-tier formula.However, the water availability and its distribution have been worked out keeping in view the para-2 of the accord. Siddiqui said that water distribution would be based on three-tier formula, and distribution on para-2 was possible only when country had 117 MAF in the system.

However, according to the inside sources of Irsa, the water will be distributed among the provinces both on historical basis as well as on para-2 of the accord.The sources said that the water distribution during four 10-dailies would be based on historical basis and fourteen 10-dailies on para-2 of the accord.

 

[ajtr]

Release of water downstream Kotri to save Indus delta: ‘8 MAF water ain’t enough’

By Amar Guriro

KARACHI: Environmenta- lists have termed the Indus River System Authority’s (IRSA) decision to allocate eight million acre feet (MAF) water for downstream Kotri during the current Kharif season as an ineffective effort for the survival of the rapidly dying Indus delta.

They demanded the government to ensure at least six percent of the total available water in the system for Indus delta on permanent basis to stop the ongoing destruction in the deltaic region.

The environmentalists’ demanded that IRSA must declare Indus delta as the fifth category after all four provinces get their share. Under the category, six percent of the total water must be allocated for Indus delta for the survival of the ecosystem.

During a meeting of the IRSA’s advisory committee on Wednesday, provinces were allowed for the first time in the last seven years to take water for the Kharif season in accordance with the share allotted in the 1991 Water Accord. The committee also claimed to have estimated 99.2 MAF water in the system for the Kharif season, out of which 16 percent would be the system’s losses, about 65.8 MAF would be available for irrigation and 8.062 MAF flow would be released downstream Kotri for the Indus delta.

“It’s not a big deal that IRSA has announced eight MAF for downstream Kotri, as rules already ensure at least 10 MAF for it, but IRSA has never bothered to release even that quantity of water, so who knows if IRSA would keep its word or not,” said eminent environmentalist and coastal ecosystem expert of IUCN Tahir Qureshi. He said Indus delta was dying and at least 35 MAF water flow was required downstream Kotri on permanent basis for its restoration, otherwise the delta would completely vanish and the sea would erode the coastal land.

“The 35 MAF release of water in downstream means it should be done 365 days a year and not that we release that quantity for a few days and then stop because then all the efforts would go to waste,” said Qureshi. He said that due to the continuous shortage, huge sand mounds have accumulated on the bed of Indus River at downstream Kotri and to wipe them out, a certain amount of water on permanent basis was required.

The world’s fifth biggest delta, the Indus delta is on the verge of destruction, and its biodiversity, ecosystem and mangrove forests are rapidly being destroyed due to water shortage.

The Sindh Board of Revenue’s official data reveals that around 1.22 million acres of fertile land was eroded by the sea till 2001 and in 2005 the number rose by two million acres only in eight coastal talukas of Thatta and Badin districts. An official of the Indus for All Programme of WWF-Pakistan Dr Ghulam Akbar demanded the government to declare Indus delta as a ‘Gift to Earth’ and take immediate measures for its restoration. “IRSA, the federal government and other authorities must declare Indus delta as the fifth category and the water share for this category must be separated from the share of provinces and for that a certain amount, which must be equal to six percent of the total available water in the system, should be allocated round the year on permanent basis, otherwise we would quickly lose this magnificent deltaic region,” said Dr Akbar.

He also demanded the government to declare the mangrove forest along with the Karachi coast as a natural reserve, so that it could be saved from further destruction.

 

[nitesh]

Here is the real thief the PA:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pakarmyiswaterthief/601390/

 

[ajtr]

Next Indo-Pak war could be fought over water: Hafiz Saeed

LAHORE: Lashker-e-Taiba founder Hafiz Muhammad Saeed claimed the next war between India and Pakistan could be fought over water if India does not stop what he described as "water terrorism".

Saeed, who currently heads the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, made the remarks while addressing a gathering at a mosque in Chowburji area of Lahore.

He claimed India was diverting the flow of rivers in Jammu and Kashmir by building dams and tunnels in a bid to turn Pakistan into a desert and to "spoil the regional situation".

Saeed, who remained out of the public eye for over a year following the 2008 Mumbai attacks carried out by the LeT, called on the people of Pakistan to stand united against India and to oppose the construction of dams that allegedly rob the country of its share of river waters.

The 180 million people of Pakistan should also take revenge against India for its role in the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, he said. Saeed further claimed that India and the US were facing "defeat" in Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan.

The US is searching for a "safe exit" from Afghanistan and India is worried about what would happen to it after the US withdrawal from the region, he said.

Over the past two months, the JuD and other militant groups like the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen have organised several gatherings and rallies in which they have backed calls for jehad against India and expressed support for militant groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir.

Saeed has openly called for jehad against India, saying the Pakistan government should prepare the people to counter the "war" imposed by India.

The Jud chief was placed under house arrest in Lahore in December 2008 after his group was declared a front for the LeT by the UN Security Council in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks.

He was freed after about six months on the orders of the Lahore High Court. The Pakistan government challenged Saeed's release in the Supreme Court but no hearing has been held for several months after the case was adjourned for various reasons.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

when will pak understand that they themselses are the biggest terrorists living in the earth and they and their country are biggest threat to human existence.

 

[ajtr]

Kashmir reels under impact of climate change

Early flowering, scant snowfall and swelling of rivers are some undesirable changes, writes Nusrat Ara

After the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted to a major mistake in its 2007 report, which asserted the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, sceptics went on the offensive, using the admission as proof that climate change is a fabrication. Though the 2035 deadline may no longer be valid, global warming is surely having an effect on the ground. Lying in the lap of the Himalayas, Kashmir is one such place which is now feeling the impact.

While the West was in the grip of a harsh winter with unprecedented snowfall, the hilly regions of Kashmir was still waiting for its share of the season’s snow. Now its absence virtually guarantees a drought in the coming summer.

“Unfortunately the people who are most impacted by climate change are those who are least responsible for it”, says Mr Usmaan Ahmad, the Kashmir mission director Mercy Corps, an international organisation working at the community-level to overcome crises and engender sustainable positive change.

Kashmir’s orchard owners were already nervous as their trees began to sprout buds well before time. An early flower means decreased production and a drought in summer would only worsen this bleak scenario. Just two decades ago, the Kashmir Valley would get heavy snowfall in early winter leaving a thick snow blanket which would cover the landscape until spring. Nowadays, snowfall is not only thin but also often late, implying that it will not stay for long.

Ghulam Mohiudin Bhat, a farmer in Pulwama district, has converted his paddy fields into apple orchards due to water scarcity. “We were facing water shortage for the last 10 to 15 years, so we switched to horticulture,” he says. Like Bhat, his neighbour Ghulam Rasool Ganai also abandoned paddy farming for apple farming this year.

Kashmir, one of the three places in world, besides Iran and Spain, famous for its saffron witnessed a 40 per cent drop in its production. Some of the saffron farmers, who traditionally relied on rainwater, are now looking at irrigation measures to save their rare and labour-intensive crop.

Mr Shakil Romshoo, an assistant professor at the Geology and Geophysics department of the University of Kashmir, attributed the increase in average temperature to the burning of fossil fuels and inefficient use of biomass that darken the glaciers and make them soak up more sunlight. Jennifer L Morgan, Director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute in Washington DC, told a leading daily that glaciers will not disappear by 2035 but water shortage will pose to India’s neighbours. Within India, too the falling groundwater is a source of concern while the demand for water is projected to double in the next 20 years.

Meanwhile, organisations like Mercy Corps have been involved with spreading awareness amongst farmers. Mr Ahmad says that local awareness will help the community survive the immediate future, the real solution lies in large-scale global coordination, which sadly the Copenhagen climate change summit fell short of. “There is no single solution for the problem of climate change”, he says. According to him, it requires a multi-stakeholder approach wherein the community, educational and research institutions, the Government and private sector will need to sit together to find a way out. It is not the job of Government alone.

The time is now, to ponder, to mobilise, to act, not just for Kashmir and the region but the colossal Himalayas which for centuries symbolised the harmony in the environment.

 

[ajtr]

According to report from International Water Management Institute , Pakistan's requirement is increasing ( mainly due to population) and existing reservoir storage capacity is depleting (due to sedimentation) whereas water availability remains same. Loss of Water in storage and conveyance facilities , seepage through irrigation conveyance facilities cause major water losses. Report goes on to mention that excessive Ground water recharge results in water logging and consequent soil management problems. The estimated loss due to seepage is counter balanced by recharge of ground water as per that report and claims that such loss may not be a great cause of concern.They are fully aware of their own shortcomings.

In essence what they want is for India to compensate for any additional water requirement due to their growing population and due to recharge of ground aquifers on account of seepage and consequently not available for irrigation. Certainly a weird concept. Pakistan's total water requirement from IBIS is claimed 185 BCM ( approximately 150 MAF, total water availability in Indus System plus Indian unused share from eastern rivers as well). Whereas if we take only 40% loss in IBIS that itself amounts to 60 MAF.
They want to ensure that unused waters of Eastern rivers be permanently allocated to them and India not to use waters on western rivers for any purposes. This would not be achieved under present IWT and hence they are raising the heat outside the IWT.

Water Shortage Calls for Second Look at Indus Treaty

ISLAMABAD, Apr 13, 2010 (IPS) - Climate change and the probability that a current water shortage would worsen may make constantly bickering neighbours, India and Pakistan, take a closer look at a 50-year-old treaty under which they share rivers originating from the Himalayas.

And while the latest official annual meeting regarding the treaty ended inconclusively in Lahore in March, experts say the two countries would do well to keep talking about the water resources they share.

Danish Mustafa, a water specialist and geography professor at King's College in London, even says that a review of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) may "be a conduit for encouraging greater trust and interaction in other spheres".

After all, since gaining independence from Britain 60 years ago, India and Pakistan have never seemed to run out of things to quarrel over.

At a Mar. 28-30 journalists' conference here in the Pakistani capital that focused on regional tensions from water resources, the need for cross- border dialogue to prevent water from becoming a flashpoint of conflict was also discussed.

Indeed, such concerns have once more brought to fore the IWT, which was brokered in 1960 by the World Bank that also acted as guarantor. Under the agreement, India would take the three eastern rivers – Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas – while Pakistan would have the western rivers – Jhelum, Chenab, and Sindh.

But the treaty also gives India, which is the upper riparian country, certain rights over the western rivers including domestic use, navigation, limited agriculture and generation of hydropower. Experts say, though, that it prohibits construction aimed at facilitating storage or diversion of the river by India.

At the media conference organised by LEAD Pakistan, a non-profit group working for environment and development, experts stressed that the worsening water shortage in Pakistan highlights the need for India and Pakistan to revisit the Indus water agreement.

"Pakistan has virtually reached the limits of surface water diversion and groundwater abstraction after a period of rapid expansion following Mangla and Tarbela dams, and installation of a million tube-wells and turbines," Syed Ayub Qutub, an Islamabad-based specialist on water management, said in an interview.

Water availability in Pakistan has plummeted from about 5,000 cubic metres per capita in the early 1950s to less than 1,500 per capita today.

"Pakistan is a largely arid or semi-arid country with less than seven percent of its land area receiving more than 500 millimetres of rain," he added. "The country relies on irrigation for more than 90 percent of its food and fibre production."

Daniyal Hashmi, a civil engineer in Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority, noted that when the IWT was negotiated, the three western rivers had sufficient water to support the country's irrigated agriculture. The cropping intensity then was about 70 percent, he told IPS.

"The Indus irrigation system was designed for this cropping intensity," he explained. "But over the years, cropping intensity increased to about 170 percent."

"At that time the phenomenon of climate change was not known," Hashmi added. "Similarly, minimum flows required for maintaining the ecology of the rivers was also not an issue."

Qutub confirmed this even as he said that the treaty's flaws included its failure to conform to major international water laws and conventions. He concurred with others at the conference who said that India's apparent inability to share with Pakistan accurate data about projects in the IWT rivers was a sore point in the arrangement.

"India failed to share data, developed new hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, constructing the Wullar Barrage and storage works on the Jhelum Main without informing Pakistan, and creating live storage capacities behind the barrage far in excess of the treaty allowance," said Qutub.

But he asked as well: "Why didn't Pakistan invoke the provisions of IWT for more than two decades?"

Qutub says that Pakistan knew as early as 1984 that India was not complying with some of its obligations under the Indus treaty. "The record may reveal negligence by the national leadership, both political and military, as well as bureaucratic buckpassing," he said.

"Pakistan wastes twice the amount of water each year in watercourses than could be stored at Tarbela dam (on the Indus) when it was built (in 1974)," Qutub pointed out. "We grow sugarcane and low-value rice, called Irri, with our precious water resources, when we could import these items at lower cost to the consumers. Head-end farmers steal much of the water of their downstream neighbours."

"First," said Qutub, "we should correct these mistakes."

He also disagreed with those who saw dark war clouds looming over Pakistan and India because of water. "Nations generally cooperate, not go to war, over water."

Water specialist Mustafa added: "There is no harm in reviewing the treaty in the light of climate change, but it needs creative thinking." The prospect of this happening is rather slim, Mustafa himself conceded. But on the off-chance that the treaty would be reviewed, he suggested that the two sides look into the base flow for the three eastern rivers.

"In a climate-change future, those base flows are going to be all the more critical for the health of the ecological systems in downstream Pakistan," said Mustafa. "In return, Pakistan could allow equivalent of base flows in eastern rivers from its three western rivers for India to use." (END)

 

[ajtr]

To substantiate the water losses point from their own sources.Whole pdf file from Project Management & Policy Implementation Unit (PMPIU) of the Ministry of Water & Power , PaKistan can be downloaded from the following link.

Report on Water Conservation, Present Situation and Future Strategy Seminar

Source=Project Management & Policy Implementation Unit (PMPIU) of the Ministry of Water & Power , PK

Proliferating population can put untold pressures on scarce resources

Water losses can cause loss of sanity and reason

The result of this is

The situation of Punjab is already alarming where 50% of total water use in agriculture is now contributed by the groundwater and farmers are suffering due to high electric tariff, poor quality of power supply and rise in prices of diesel fuel. The government has provided subsidy to the tune of 25% to all the tubewells in the three provinces excluding Balochistan, where there is 91% subsidy on electric tubewells.

Luckily none of the speaker talked about IWT or water war .Obviously they know what is best for them.

 

[ajtr]

IWT thread doesnt have important link to IWT doc.Actually this link shoud be on the 1st page of this thread.If mods can do it????
For People who are interested to read the full text of the treaty from the following link below:

THE INDUS WATER TREATY

 

[ajtr]

Indus treaty: Pakistan's options


IT is believed that if India starts the construction of any dam or reservoir on the rivers flowing into Pakistan, the only remedy Pakistan has is to resort to dispute-resolution mechanisms under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Actually, Pakistan has the right to protest outside the IWT whenever it feels that the construction of a dam or reservoir by India will threaten its strategic interests.

The IWT consists of only 12 articles and eight annexes. There is no provision in the treaty which expressly 'authorises' India to construct a certain number of dams. Neither is there one that prohibits India from making dams beyond a certain number. Clearly, therefore, the number of dams that India wishes to construct on the western rivers is an issue outside the scope of the treaty.

This means that the decision of how many dams India will construct is a one taken by India unilaterally, outside the treaty, on the basis of political and strategic considerations, without consulting Pakistan. Once the decision to construct a dam or reservoir has been taken by India, the matter enters the framework of the treaty, which only provides technical specifications for building such a dam or reservoir.

The treaty is a regulatory framework giving technical specifications. It is confined to these technicalities and does not address the substantive decision of the number of dams that the Indian government may wish to construct.

Therefore, Pakistan is free to contest such a political decision of India without entering into the dispute-resolution mechanism of the treaty. Pakistan is entitled to launch a diplomatic offensive outside the treaty if it feels threatened due to the excessive construction of dams, reservoirs etc.

Pakistan is well within its rights to argue before the international community that the construction of too many reservoirs and dams on the western rivers by India constitutes the misuse of the treaty's regulatory framework. Pakistan can raise this issue before any forum in the UN and take this issue to friends such as the US and the European Union. The IWT does not usurp or curtail the right of Pakistan to protest against the construction of too many dams by India.

So far, whenever Pakistan has tried to raise this issue outside the treaty, it has been advised to resort to the mechanism of the treaty. This puts Pakistan on the back foot because the mechanism does not offer the redressal that Pakistan seeks since the neutral expert has no legal competence to stop construction or direct the dismantling of the constructed work.

Whenever India starts construction on the western rivers, Pakistan, instead of protesting diplomatically, invokes the jurisdiction of the neutral expert. After months of neutral experts taking cognisance of the matter, no positive outcome is registered for Pakistan during which time the construction is completed. Pakistan in that sense has 'lost' cases before the neutral experts, whereas the fact is that neutral experts never had the legal competence to grant victory to Pakistan.

In other words, Pakistani officials have been invoking the wrong forum. There was no need to resort to the dispute resolution mechanism under the treaty since the decision being contested — the construction of a dam — was taken outside the treaty mechanism itself. Only when Pakistan has reservations on the technical aspects of a dam's construction should it invoke the IWT's dispute-resolution mechanisms.

 

[ajtr]

The point here is to expose the games played by Pakistan on water front. The fact that their official system actively discusses their problems and in public spread misinformation for their ulterior motives.Following document which has some interesting bits of information.

Part II: WATER
Chapter 6: The Secret

In 1990, a bright and ambitious Pakistani brigadier at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London was asked to prepare a dissertation as part of his one-year training programme. In September of that year, he presented his dissertation with the rather lengthy title: The Arms Race in the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent, Conflicts with the Pressing Requirements of Socio-economic Development. What are its Causes and Implications? Is there a Remedy? The paper provided a new analytical framework to define the security paradigm in South Asia. Despite its rather lengthy and cumbersome title, the paper was clear in its diagnosis of the South Asian security situation. The brigadier argued that the basic problem in the region was the divide between the Hindu and Muslim mindset. Since it was a psychological problem, nothing much could be done about it. He reasoned that there were two other core problems and since they were of practical nature it should be possible to resolve them. One of them was the issue of Jammu & Kashmir, which was known to the international community. The other was about the distribution of the Indus Rivers between India and Pakistan.

According to the brigadier, the two issues were interdependent if one were resolved the other would not exist.
In fact, he contended that it was essential to craft a lasting arrangement, ensuring fair distribution of river waters from the
Pakistani perspective, if there were to be any solution to the Jammu & Kashmir conflict. The argument differed from the public stance taken by the Pakistani government in the last fifty years. Successive Pakistani governments still insist that Jammu & Kashmir is the unfinished business of partition.

As a Muslim majority state, it should belong to Pakistan. India has argued that it belongs to India on the basis of instrument of accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, then ruler of the state, and the wish expressed by Shaikh Abdullah, leader of the people's movement. The public debate has always focussed on issues of terrorism, human rights and the legality of accession. It has never linked the conflict to the rivers of Jammu & Kashmir.

The brigadier was suggesting that the rivers hold the key to the solution. His theory implied that the Kashmiri people's aspirations were secondary. The brigadier returned to Pakistan to briskly climb the ladder of the army ranks. In 1998, he replaced General Jehangir Karamat as Chief of Army Staff.

Soon after General Pervez Musharraf's elevation, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief opened a track-two channel with the Government of India. The main thrust of the Pakistani proposal, mooted in early 1999, was that rivers should be used as the basis for resolving conflicts between India and Pakistan, including the issue of Jammu & Kashmir. It advocated using Chenab River as the border. The special envoy of Pakistani Prime Minister, made this proposal to his Indian interlocutor on March 29, 1999 in New Delhi. His visit to New Delhi was a secret known only to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

By a curious coincidence, on the same day when the envoy was in New Delhi, General Musharraf summoned Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief for a discussion at General Head Quarters. The General concluded that the only solution acceptable to Pakistan, to settle its conflicts with India, was the Chenab Formula. The envoy returned to Islamabad on April 1, 1999, oblivious of the meeting that had taken place between the army chief and the Prime Minister.

On the following day, the envoy was taken to the General Head Quarters for consultations with General Musharraf. This meeting was meant to last for 30 minutes. It went on for 3 hours, from 8 pm to 11 pm. Besides General Musharraf and the envoy, only the head of ISI was present in the room. The meeting concluded that the Chenab Formula should be the basis of discussion with India to resolve the Kashmir conflict.

In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf staged a coup against the elected government. He declared himself the Chief Executive. Western donors, especially the US, suspended cash flows to Pakistan.

In November 1999, on a cool afternoon in New York, a Pakistani head of an international political organisation, with very strong network in the Pakistani army and political parties, met a senior ICPI functionary. The meeting took place at the Manhattan office of the political organisation, a few blocks away from the UN office. The eminent Pakistani cited that finding a permanent solution to the India-Pakistan conflict would depend on ensuring Pakistan's water security beyond the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. Perhaps, Chenab River could be the border. Perhaps, some other formula could be worked out but the fundamental determinant should be water. There was no mention of self determination of the Kashmiri people.

The following week, the ICPI functionary was invited by a top Pakistani lobbyist, known for his strong network in the General Head Quarters in Rawalpindi, to dinner in a suburb of Washington DC. Once the formalities of the welcome drinks were over and before the dinner was served, the Pakistani lobbyist said that he had an idea for resolving the India-Pakistan conflict for good. A detailed proposal would need to be worked out by experts but its basis must be face-saving for both the countries, while the substance must ensure water security for Pakistan from the rivers of Kashmir.

In December 2001, when terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament, India blamed Pakistan and withdrew her High Commissioner, in protest. On the very next day, a high profile seminar was organised in Lahore on how to respond to the possibility of India using water as a weapon against Pakistan. New Delhi had not even alluded to water. It had snapped rail, road and air links but there was no reference to water. In Rawalpindi, Lahore and Karachi, there was little regret about the breaking down of rail, road and air links the greatest apprehension was water.

At a seminar in Karachi in the last week of December 2001, attended by ICPI, the only occasion when tensions rose, was when someone alleged that the Indian government had plans to use the water weapon. A participant warned that any conflict over water would lead to Pakistan using nuclear weapons on a first strike basis against India.

A month and half later, on February 8, 2002, the editorial of Jang, a moderate Urdu daily, said that Pakistan's water scarcity could threaten relations between provinces and lead to a nuclear war against India. Since then, a lively debate has ensued in the Pakistani press, which continues till date with the President, Prime Minister, senior army officers and leaders of various Kashmiri groups offering their views underlining the centrality of water in India-Pakistan relations.For instance, in June 2002, Syed Salahuddin, chairman of the United Jihad Council, entered the debate. UJC is an umbrella organisation responsible for coordinating the activities known as liberation movements in Pakistan of all jihadi groups.

This organisation has been placed on the US State Department's list of groups involved in terrorism. Syed Salahuddin is also the leader of Hizbul Mujahideen a member of UJC that has claimed responsibility for many acts of violence in Jammu & Kashmir. Salahuddin was quoted in Ausaf on June 18, 2002: "Kashmir is the source from where all of Pakistan's water resources originate. If Pakistan loses its battle against India, it will become a desert." Since then in most public meetings that Salahuddin has addressed, he has emphasised that Kashmiri freedom fighters were actually fighting for Pakistan to enable it to gain control over Kashmir's rivers.

A few months later, Sardar Mohammad Anwar Khan, President of Kashmir under Pakistani control, known as Azad Kashmir in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in India, joined the debate. He was quoted in most Urdu newspapers of October 21, 2002, saying: "Pakistanis who believe that they can survive without Kashmir are wrong. The Pakistani economy is dependent on agriculture and hence on water, and therefore on Kashmir."

Two weeks later, he explained in a public forum: "Kashmiris are fighting for the security, strength and prosperity of Pakistan. Building dams in Kashmir can irrigate Punjab and Sindh. Kashmir is important as Pakistan's water resources originate in Kashmir. Even peace between Punjab and Sindh depends on water, and therefore on Kashmir."

Sardar Sikandar Hayat, Prime Minister of Kashmir under Pakistani control, said in a seminar on March 6, 2003: "Without the rivers of Kashmir, Pakistan will become a desert. The freedom fighters of Kashmir are in reality fighting for Pakistan's water security and have prevented India from constructing a dam on the Wular barrage."

Finally, on March 27, 2003, a senior officer of the Pakistan army, Lt General Zarar Azim, the then Corps Commander of Lahore, was quoted in Khabrain, a newspaper known for its proximity to ISI, saying: "Kashmir is our lifeline and its importance increases in view of our water security."

Immediately after the announcement of peace initiatives by India and Pakistan in mid-2003, Sardar Sikander Hayatbegan advocating the Chenab Formula for resolving the Kashmir dispute. He argued that an autonomous Kashmir was not acceptable as it would be difficult to safeguard the freedom acquired. However, this suggestion evoked very strong criticism from all political and jihadi leaders of Pakistan as it meant bifurcation of Kashmir. Most leaders wanted him to quit as Prime Minister for having advocated such a formula. The jihadi leaders were clear they wanted a united Kashmir.

Little known is the fact that as per the Kashmir (Pakistan) charter, a person who does not uphold the vision of accession
to Pakistan cannot stand for elections or even aspire for a job in the government. While applying for a post in the government of Kashmir (Pakistan), the applicant has to sign an affidavit affirming their belief in the ideology of "Kashmir banega Pakistan" (Kashmir will become Pakistan). Sikander Hayat ostensibly has some powerful backing, for despite his differences with the President of Kashmir (Pakistan), he seems unrelenting. He definitely has some powerful backing in a country where the General Head Quarters has the monopoly of power.

In the summer of 2003, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the head of Jamiat-e-Ulema Islami (JUI (F)), visited India. On his return, he suggested in his press briefings that he had proposed a resolution to the Kashmir conflict on geographical basis. This was interpreted as subtle advocation of the Chenab Formula. It is important to note that Maulana Fazlur Rehman was then reportedly engaged in quiet negotiations with General Musharraf on power sharing and a role for himself in Islamabad.

In November 2003, Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali announced a ceasefire in preparation for the SAARC summit to be held in Islamabad in January 2004. Suddenly, since this announcement, the debate in Pakistan on the linkages between water and the Kashmir conflict almost disappeared. As frozen relations between India and Pakistan thawed, General Musharraf announced on December 18, 2003 that he was prepared to give up Pakistan's traditional insistence on the UN resolutions to address the Kashmir conflict. This provoked strong reactions from the leader of Jamaat-e-Islami AJK wing, Abdul Rashid Turabi, who stated: "If LoC is accepted as a permanent border, then the provinces of Punjab, Sindh and NWFP would be deprived of water resources which is irrigating their land and flowing from the other side of Kashmir."

On the eve of the SAARC summit in Islamabad beginning on January 3, 2004, General Musharraf was quoted saying that he was aware of a dozen options to resolve the Kashmir conflict. While he did not indicate preference for any particular formula, the media quoted so-called sources close to the General as advocating the Chenab Formula. It is difficult to state whether the media was indulging in speculation or whether it was indeed, given some serious indications.

The peace process initiated at Islamabad in January 2004 proved to be most sustainable. It continued despite the change of government in India when Dr. Manmohan Singh of the Congress Party replaced Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bhartiya Janata Party as the Prime Minister, in May 2004. This period saw new heights in people-to-people contacts such as a warm reception for the Indian cricket team, numerous political leaders visiting Pakistan, unprecedented sojourns of Pakistani journalists and pilgrims to Kashmir in India.

Amidst this new bonhomie between the two countries, General Pervez Musharraf announced on several different occasions in September-October 2004 that he had a new formula to resolve the Kashmir conflict. It was akin to the old Dixon plan rejected by India fifty years ago! The most striking element in the Musharraf/Dixon plan is to treat Jammu- Kashmir-Ladakh in the Indian side as a set of five, instead of three, regions. This would entail dividing Jammu into sub regions roughly along the Chenab River. The President of Pakistan did not refer to the river waters in his formula but the implications of the division of Jammu were obvious.

General Musharraf's proposal in the autumn of 2004 was the first time that a Pakistani leader came close to mentioning rivers in public, and even then he did not cross the line of convention. Otherwise, the reference to the role of rivers in India-Pakistan relations has been confined to secret talks and internal debate in Pakistan. Even academic seminars involving scholars from the two countries rarely debate on the issue.

A clause in the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, signed between Pakistan and India, explicitly prohibits linkage between the water issue and the general position of both parties on the Kashmir issue. Also, it is much more convenient to support the Kashmiris for their cause than openly admit the truth that Kashmiri youth are being sacrificed to safeguard Pakistan's lifeline.

There may be a possibility that Kargil war was an effort by Pakistan to open the question of IWT without Pakistan ever committing to any position. This could be the result of frustration of Pakistan as India is not violating IWT. Now Pakistan is taking peace for water route by hanging Damocles sword of jehad. Pakistan would be further squeezed if India fully utilizes its share of waters under IWT without violating it. And if war happens on any ostensible reason, India is unlikely to be the aggressor. Mostly Pakistan would be shown as aggressor denying legitimacy of their action and bringing pressure on them for not going Nuclear.

As long as India takes the high moral ground on the question of IWT and refuses to concede the jehadi blackmail tactics of Pakistan , the political space to maneuver would be denied to them.

Another point is that India would need more water for its fertile North and North-West region as it continues to bring areas under cultivation. This situation would arise by 2020. Since food supply would not match the requirement due to population pressure. Hence at some time India has to revisit the treaty to correct the disproportionate allocations under IWT which is in the ratio of 20:80:: Indiaakistan. But any revisit to treaty would be at a time and condition of our own choosing, not because Pakistan needs it. Being upper ripparian state would have some advantage accrued to us.

In fact India can start playing J&K card by talking about needs of more water for J&K to be drawn from three rivers allocated to Pakistan.People of J&K must be shown Pakistan for what it is.This may make Pakistan more desperate and itching for you know what-the nuke button?. And hopefully , India would be better prepared to respond at that time.

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan concerned at blockade of river waters
PALWASHA KHAN
ARTICLE (April 19 2010): Pakistanis are concerned at the blockade of Pakistan's river waters by India. As a member of the Parliament, desirous of lasting peace, I am compelled to view the future of the relations between Pakistan and India from the prism of the aqueous violence unleashed onto Pakistan by India, I see only devastation, worst than the holocaust.

Pining for peace between the neighbours, I represent a generation that has not been witness to the bitterest portions of the history between the two, neither the partition which claimed millions of lives nor wars that were fought between Pakistan and India. Hence, there is little room for unfounded biases except stark reality, which stares us in the face now; that of a parched Pakistan.

It cannot be denied that the lives of people in the world have been intimately intertwined with its rivers, so have been ours. The relationship between rivers in the sub-continent and her people is as old as the history of humanity. These rivers have also hosted once mighty civilisations along their banks and been a witness to their demise, inasmuch as, they are custodians of our history.

Flowing since time immemorial, our rivers have been close to our people's hearts and souls. Serving as holy waters in India to being the clavier of love and romance of the folk tales in Punjab, only love has flown through the rivers of the sub-continent. From dreamy eyed lovers yearning for the beloved on the banks of the great Chenab to the fabled Khagga fish of the river Ravi, people have connected to the rivers in folklore and songs since centuries. Unfortunately today, the ebb and flow of the waters of love has the potential to spin into hate and destruction between Pakistan and India.

The mighty Sindhu, figured in the Rig Vedas, identified as the father of rivers, sadly, today faces destruction at the hands of India, which derives her name from the Indus. Having, fathered the largest and one of the oldest civilisations of the world sprawling an area of 350,000 sqkm, Sindhu or the Indus is also the world's heritage. Today, it cries out to the world to save it from a bleak fate, the world should not remain silent.

Sadly today, with Indian water blitzkrieg, the mighty river beds of history lie exposed as sorry heaps of dust and soil. The Indian aggressive dam building threatens to mutilate not only the proud history and culture of the land, but also hits at the stomachs of the mostly poor 170 million Pakistanis. Our green fields, lush with the sweat of the toiling farmer, will wilt in face of water aggression unleashed by the Indian state, tantamounting to snatching food from the mouths of millions of Pakistanis.

Being the key water resource for the breadbasket of Punjab, the Indus signifies the existence of Pakistan. Hitting the agricultural base of Pakistan and subsequently, its economy, may seem an easy strategy to force her to her knees to some, yet, perhaps, the architects of this plot are blind to the fact that destruction will not end at the borders of Pakistan, but will overflow and cross it. For if, the very existence of Pakistan, of which water is the integral part, is put at stake, it will have no option but to seek recourse and retaliate. Retaliation, to ensure survival can be damning.

Sadly, however, the world remains blind to this simmering volcano in the most sensitive part of the globe. Access to Water, the elixir of life is bigger than any of the other human rights that the world preaches of. Depriving Pakistan and her 170 million people of this survival issue will lead to a carnage worst than any other the world has ever seen. Not only would the 170 million Pakistanis be at stake but as a major potential conflict, it will also put one billion Indians in harm's way. Surely, a treaty, signed by both Pakistan and India in 1960, still breathes on feverishly, but I argue that the treaty needs to be reviewed to allow more water access to Pakistan in the face of climate change, which in today's world accepts as a grave reality.

I fore see the water dispute between the nuclear-armed Pakistan and India possessing the seeds to germinate into one of the major horrors of our times, and we need no more.

As a potential and dangerous conflict in the making, I urge the United Nations and its member states to take notice. It is only too unfair to deprive Pakistan of its right to life, already when it is fighting terror to make the world a safer place. The Indian state also needs to realize that despite whatever prism they wish to view Pakistan from, it is here to stay and will neither be wished away nor will it allow itself to be starved to extinction.

The United Nations has chosen to call the decade from 2005-15 as the water for life decade. It is only pertinent that it plays its role to prevent this potential conflict between two nuclear armed nations from becoming a reality. In the post-World War II, the world ratified the UN charter to free the world from the possibility of war. The preamble of the UN stipulates the mission to prevent and resolve international conflict. Here is a nuclear conflict just waiting to happen. The United Nations, its member states and the members of the Security Council cannot remain oblivious to the future water war between the two countries with nuclear buttons close at hand. They have the responsibility to intervene and impress upon India to live and let live because it is only humanity across the border that will suffer in the event of a conflict.

Rivers know no political boundaries; they are magnanimous in quenching thirst of the lengths and breadths of the land they flow through. Let them flow unobstructed. Let rivers be ambassadors of peace.

 

[Rebelkid]

lol..their foreign minister said India was not stealing water but Pakistan was mismanaging its own water resources

 

[ajtr]

Please see this site:
http://www.southasianfloods.icimod.org/saf/reports/index_country.php?hcountry=PK

You can find daily flow figures for the Chenab at the Marala station until April 17, 2008.
There is no data after that. Why? If there was data, it would be very easy to see if India did indeed reduce the flow in the Chenab below the level set by the IWT when filling up the Baglihar (August 2008).

 

[ajtr]

Priority rights of Pakistans Neelum-Jhelum project vs india's kishanganga project.

Annexure {E},Paragraph 10 therein talks about "existing" Pakistan usage at the time India designs the project. India has already designed the project and started construction. Pakistan has nothing on the ground and so there is no question of Pakistan staking any claim. Even then, the IWT expects some effect on Pakistan and disallows only adverse effects.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 7, any Storage Work to be constructed on a Tributary of The Jhelum on which Pakistan has any Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use shall be so designed and operated as not to adversely affect the then existing Agricultural Use or hydroelectric use on that Tributary.

 

[ajtr]

Even if the projects would comply with IWT, Pakistan can only be expected to raise objections for the following reasons, among others:
1.Delay the projects as much as possible depriving economic benefits to India
2.Try to paint a bad image for India (remember that the TSP psyche is all about images onleee)
3.Increase the cost for India
4.Whip up hysteria among its people about evil kafir India
5.Divert attention from very pressing domestic issues
6.Continue to create an image that J&K is a disputed area and TSP is a legitimate claimant
7.Blame India conveniently for all its failures of managing water resources

 

[nandu]

Pak threatens to move WB over Kishenganga project

Pakistan has issued a fresh threat to move the World Bank for arbitration over Kishenganga power project in Jammu and Kashmir, which it alleges violates the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.

Pakistan has issued the threat in a recent letter to India, the third such communication in last one year, official sources said.

In the letter, Pakistan has said the Indus Water Treaty, which governs sharing of six common river waters, is being violated by the Kishenganga project and it has the "right" to move the World Bank for arbitration, they said.

Pakistan's fresh threat comes after several rounds of bilateral talks failed to end differences over the issue.

Under the Treaty, World Bank is an arbitrator in disputes between India and Pakistan over sharing of river water and it can be invoked by either country.

Pakistan has been opposing construction of the power project on Kishenganga, claiming it violates the Indus Water Treaty, a contention rejected by India.

Work on the 330-MW project, capacity of which can be raised to 990 MW, started in 1994 and Pakistan immediately protested, prompting talks between the two countries to resolve it.

Under the Indus Water Treaty, Pakistan has exclusive right over three of the common rivers -- Indus, Jhelum and Chenab -- while India has exclusive right over Sutlej, Ravi and Beas. Kishenganga is a tributary of Jhelum river.

Pakistan has been alleging the diversion of flow will adversely affect its agriculture and hydroelectric project on river Neelam -- as Jhelum is known across the border.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Pak-t...r-Kishenganga-project/H1-Article1-535454.aspx

 

[ajtr]

Pak threatens to move WB over Kishenganga project

Pakistan has issued a fresh threat to move the World Bank for arbitration over Kishenganga power project in Jammu and Kashmir, which it alleges violates the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.

Under the Treaty, World Bank is an arbitrator in disputes between India and Pakistan over sharing of river water and it can be invoked by either country.

Pakistan has been opposing construction of the power project on Kishenganga, claiming it violates the Indus Water Treaty, a contention rejected by India.

Work on the 330-MW project, capacity of which can be raised to 990 MW, started in 1994 and Pakistan immediately protested, prompting talks between the two countries to resolve it.

Pakistan has been alleging the diversion of flow will adversely affect its agriculture and hydroelectric project on river Neelam -- as Jhelum is known across the border.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Pak-t...r-Kishenganga-project/H1-Article1-535454.aspx

The kishenganga river which is also called as neelum on pakistani side is tributary of Jhelum.As the news report mentioned that india planned this project way back in 1994 since then pakistan has been raising objections to it.now the reason for pakistan taking this project to World Bank for arbitration just like baglihar project is to just delay it coz pakistan has also plan to construct neelum-Jhelum project also known as Diamer Basha dam on its side of kashmir. India has done well by starting the project, even for namesake, in 1994 and then calling Pakistan for talks after it objected. That would nail Pakistan completely because as per IWT, the country which starts the work first enjoys the rights in this particular case. The minutes of the meeting exchanged between the two Indus Commissioners in 1994 should be handy when this case finally goes for arbitration. It will surely go to World Bank, no doubt,but India is not obligated to stop the work if and when arbitration proceeding starts.some points to ponder about kishenganga are:

Current Status

The project parameters were revised a few years back to prevent submergence of the Gurez valley. Accordingly, the height of the reservoir and consequently the live storage etc were considerably revised down without impacting the power generation capacity of the project. The following is the status early 2009.

Kishanganga H.E. Project ( 330 MW), Jammu & Kashmir

Ø Project was cleared by CCEA in July 2007. CCEA clearance for revised Cost Estimate of Rs 3,642.04 crores with scheduled completion in 84 months (i.e. by January 2016) has been received vide letter dated 14.1.2009.
Ø The Project is proposed to be completed by January 2016.
Ø Letter of acceptance for award of the project has been issued on 22.1.2009 in favour of M/s Kishanganga Consortium (HCC-Halcrow) for turnkey execution.
Ø Mobilization and survey work has been started at site by contractor.
Ø 208m of Diversion tunnel stands excavated departmentally.

Q2. What is the definition of 'work started'

The IWT states in Paragraph 2, Article VII, entitled "Future Cooperation", the following:

(2) If either Party plans to construct any engineering work which would cause interference with the waters of any of the Rivers and which, in its opinion, would affect the other Party materially, it shall notify the other Party of its plans and shall supply such data relating to the work as may be available and as would enable the other Party to inform itself of the nature, magnitude and effect of the work. If a work would cause interference with the waters of any of the Rivers but would not, in the opinion of the Party planning it, affect the other Party materially, nevertheless the Party planning the work shall, on request, supply the other Party with such data: regarding the nature, magnitude and effect, if any, of the work as may be available.

The above is very important. It is the intention to start the project as conveyed with whatever data is available at that time that is important, IMO. In the case of Kishenganga, it was conveyed in the 1990s to Pakistan. That was why Pakistan demanded that if it were to allow the Tulbul Navigation Lock project (aka Wullar barrage in Pakistan), India must not execute the Kishenganga project. That objection was raised by Pakistan in february 1992 after the Tulbul Navigation project was agreed upon by both governments in 1991. Soon after that, Pakistan decided to develop its Neelum-Jhelum project and expected to complete it during 1994-1997. Obviously, without the Kishenganga project, the Tulbul Navigation project is a non-starter. Anyway, it means that Pakistan was aware of the Kishenganga project a long time back. Besides, it has regularly brought up the issue of the project in every PIC meeting.

Item d of Paragraph 2 of Article III vests India with the rights to generate hydroelectric power according to Annexure D.

Item 3 of Paragraph 15 of Part 3 of Annexure D entitled 'New Run-of-River Plants' states

where a Plant is located on a Tributary of The Jhelum on which Pakistan has any Agricultural use or hydroelectric use, the water released below the Plant may be delivered, if necessary, into another Tributary but only to the extent existing Agricultural Use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on the former Tributary would not be adversely affected.


Note that there is no *existing* hydroelectric use on this tributary. Pakistan may have an intent to build a plant in 2020, but that does not count according to the above. The *existing* agricultural use will be more than covered by the discharge from the plant anyway as such use is meagre according to the joint PIC survey already made. While completion of hydroelectric or agricultural projects is a must for Pakistan to claim relief according to IWT, it is not so for India. Otherwise it will be a contradiction of the IWT as Pakistan can simply stall any Indian project that India makes in good faith.

regarding agriculture usage by pakistan from kishenganga this is what India's Water Resources Minister Saifuddin Soz verified:

Indian cabinet okays Kishanganga project

India's Water Resources Minister Saifuddin Soz said a team of India-Pakistan Indus Commission had verified the agricultural usage across the border in August 2008.

"We verified their agricultural usages. They had claimed that over 0.1 million hectares of land was in agricultural use but the team found just a fraction of maize-growing land there which will not be affected by the diversion of Neelum," he said. {This is important because the IWT mandates India that its project should be without prejudice to existing agricultural use on the Pakistani side}

Except for some orchards and some maize & rice just upstream of Muzzafarabad (where Kishenganga/Neelum meets Jhelum), there is no agriculture. Also, the Indian diversion of water is through Wullar into Jhelum and so beyond Muzzafarabad, Pakistan will have the full flow of water. Pakistan itself is planning to tap Kishenganga/Neelum about 30 Kms upstream from Muzzaffarabad and tunnel the waters to get a good head up to Domel, which means that the rice and maize lands just above Muzzafarabad will be affected anyway. Besides, the Kishenganga is not going to dry out the flow beyond the storage point. Even Pakistan has claimed that there will be 21% reduction in water and its main objection is that the reduced water flow will affect its power production and might make the already very costly project unviable.



Q3. Funding issue

Pakistan will still implement its Neelum-Jhelum project but only thing would be reduced power generation and conseqently the price per unit to the customer would be on the higher side. Pakistan will have to then subsidize the consumers and incur a loss. It won't be a dead investment especially in a completely power-starved Pakistan. Besides, KSA's investment is meagre, USD 80 million only and we also don't know how much of it will come through eventually. Recently, Saudi Arab has not been giving cash directly to Pakistan (like the rest of the donors) and wants to fund only on project-basis and after a green signal from the IMF.


Last not the least

India, Pakistan race to finish hydel projects ----->This was last year

Saturday, September 19, 2009
* First project to be commissioned will receive top priority

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: India and Pakistan are racing to complete the 330MW Kishanganga and the 960MW Neelam-Jhelum power projects, respectively, as the Indus Water Treaty does not permit for both projects to operate simultaneously.

The plans made available to Daily Times reveal the Indian project would divert the River Neelam to Wullar Lake, leaving very little water for the Pakistani project, which is a mere 70 kilometres downstream from the Indian Kishanganga project. According to the Indus Water Treaty, the project commissioned first would be accorded top priority. In the case of Pakistan, this would likely mean that the Neelam-Jhelum project would have to be abandoned, as the Kishanganga project would leave very little water for Pakistan to use.

Currently, India's state-owned National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) has set 2016 as its deadline for the project, while Pakistan plans to complete its project in 2017. "We will complete our project by 2016 at an estimated cost of Rs 36.42 billion," Indian-held Kashmir junior Power Minister Shabir Ahmed Dar told journalists. He said the NHPC had been directed to expedite its project and commission it before Pakistan had a chance to complete the Neelam-Jhelum project. Pakistan had protested the construction of the Kishanganga project earlier this year, arguing it would adversely affect 133,209 hectares of agricultural land in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan and India race to complete dams in Kashmir ------->This update was last month .

Web posted at: 3/28/2010 1:42:21
Source ::: INTERNEWS
MUZAFARABAD: To complete the Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project in the Himalayan state of Kashmir before Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project being built by India, Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) has decided to use tunnel boring machine that will reduce the construction time by two years, official sources said here yesterday.

"It is vital for Pakistan to complete the 969 MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Electric Project (NJHEP) before India completes a similar project on the same rivers, so that Pakistan can claim its right to water use," a spokesman in Wapda, the state water and power giant said.

He said though India has seized the right of Pakistan on Neelum water by planning to divert it for the run of river 348 MW Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project, its completion before the NJHEP would give India the right to use the water for electricity generation.

Wapda officials said that the Kishanganga project would reduce the hydroelectric potential of the Neelum Jhelum Hydro Project. Originally Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project located in India-administered part of Kashmir and Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project being built in Pakistan-administered Kashmir were to be completed in 2016, the issue of right to use water has pitched both the countries in a race for the river.

Excavation of tunnelling network through tunnel boring machine (TBM) will reduce implementation period of the NJHEP by about two years, which would establish Pakistan's right over Neelum water and India would not be able to divert it for use in Kishanganga project.

Wapda sources said the completion of NJHEP earlier than the schedule is vital for Pakistan not only to cope with the increasing demand of electricity in the country but also to establish priority rights of water uses over the river Neelum against India.

The use of TBM has remained limited in the past due fear of impact of drilling on weak geological formations. However, in the past decade tremendous improvements in tunnelling technology have been achieved, removing the fears associated with use of TB.

 

[ajtr]

Legislator writes to UN over blockade of Pak water by India



Monday, April 26, 2010
News Desk

ISLAMABAD: Concerned over blockade of Pakistan's waters by India, MNA Palwasha Khan, Member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote an open letter to the United Nations Secretary General on Sunday. Following is the text of the letter:

"I have been compelled to write to you as an anguished Pakistani, concerned at a reality that horrifies me and the majority of this nation, resulting from the blockade of Pakistan's river waters by her neighbour, India. As a member of Parliament, desirous of lasting peace, forced to view the future of the relations of the two neighbours from the prism of the aqueous violence unleashed onto Pakistan by its neighbour India, unfortunately, only devastation looms on the horizon.

Pining for peace between the neighbours, I represent a generation that has not been witness to the bitterest portions of history between the two, neither partition which claimed millions of lives nor wars that were fought between India and Pakistan. Hence, there is little room for unfounded biases except stark reality which stares us in the face now that of a parched Pakistan.

It cannot be denied that the lives of people in the world have been intimately intertwined with its rivers, so have been ours. The relationship between rivers in the Subcontinent and her people is as old as the history of humanity. These rivers have also hosted once mighty civilizations along their banks and been a witness to their demise, inasmuch as they are custodians of our history.

Flowing since time immemorial, our rivers have been close to our people's hearts and souls. Serving as holy waters in India to being the claviger of love and romance of the folk tales in Punjab, only love has flown through the rivers of the Subcontinent. From dreamy eyed lovers yearning for the beloved on the banks of the great Chinab to the fabled khagga fish of the river Ravi, people have connected to the rivers in folklore and songs since centuries. Unfortunately today, the ebb and flow of the waters of love has the potential to spin into hate and destruction between India and Pakistan.

The mighty Sindhu, figured in the Rig Vedas, identified as the father of rivers, sadly, today faces destruction at the hands of India, which derives her name from the Indus. Having, fathered the largest and one of the oldest civilizations of the world sprawling an area of 350,000sqkm, Sindhu or the Indus is also the world's heritage. Today, it cries out to the world to save it from a bleak fate, the world should not remain silent."