India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakistan

datguy79

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
702
Likes
945
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

India to help build dam in Afghanistan

India to help build dam in Afghanistan

New Delhi, Jan 19, 2013 (IANS)

India Thursday approved additional funds for the construction of Salma Dam in western Afghanistan at a revised cost of Rs.1,457.56 crore, said official sources.

The project will be executed by WAPCOS Ltd, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said after a cabinet meeting.

According to officials, the availability of power and water through the project will lead to overall economic development of Afghanistan's western region.

It will also address the issues of energy requirement and irrigation needs.

The project is expected to be completed in December 2014 or two years from the date of approval of the revised cost estimates. Forty percent of the dam has been built.

No water in the East or West thanks to India
Salma Dam is in the west.

We need India to fulfill promises made for dam construction in the east bordering Pakistan along the Kabul and Kunar rivers.
 

gokussj9

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
1,096
Likes
1,387
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

India can divert only minimum water from Kishanganga: tribunal | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

ISLAMABAD: In a partial award announced in the Kishanganga dispute, the Hague-based Court of Arbitration allowed India on Monday to divert only a minimum flow of water from Neelum/Kishanganga River for power generation.

The Indian government had sought full diversion of the river water, but the court determined that India was under an obligation to construct and operate the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant (HEP) in such a way as to maintain a minimum flow of water in the river at a rate to be determined by the court in its final award.

A copy of the judgment available with Dawn shows that the final award will be announced in December this year. The court asked India and Pakistan to provide data by June so that it could determine the minimum flow of water.

On May 17, 2010, Pakistan had instituted arbitral proceedings against India under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 and approached the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) against violation of the treaty. The ICA granted a stay and stopped India from constructing the 330MW Kishanganga hydroelectric project in occupied Kashmir.

Pakistan had put two questions, which were legal in nature, before the tribunal — whether India's proposed diversion of the Neelum/Kishanganga River into another tributary breaches India's legal obligations owed to Pakistan under the treaty and whether under the treaty, India may deplete or bring the reservoir level of a run-of-river plant below the dead storage level in any circumstances except in the case of an unforeseen emergency.

On the second question, the court determined that except in the case of an unforeseen emergency, the treaty did not permit reduction below the dead storage level of the water level in the reservoirs of run-of-river plants on the western rivers.

It further said the accumulation of sediment in the reservoir of a run-of-river plant on the western rivers did not constitute an unforeseen emergency that would permit depletion of the reservoir below the dead storage level for drawdown flushing purposes. Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the Kishanganga hydroelectric plant to an extent that will entail depletion of the reservoir below dead storage level.

A senior official who is familiar with the development told Dawn that the court's decision had endorsed Pakistan's view that the neutral expert's decision in the Baglihar case regarding drawdown flushing below the dead storage level was wrong and in gross violation of the parameters defined by the Indus Waters Treaty. Henceforth, designs and operations of run-of-river plants on western rivers would be determined by this decision and not that of the neutral expert.

By obtaining this award, Pakistan has taken the issue of Indus waters with India on a new basis. The years of inconclusive discussions and delays in the Indus Waters Commission during which Pakistan was constantly frustrated by the apparent inability of the commission to oversee the water regime effectively have been brought to an end.

Experts said the award had clearly and conclusively established that there were procedures set out in the Indus Waters Treaty that India must follow and the commission must secure and that India's compliance with these obligations could and would be reviewed by international courts.

India is constructing the 330MW hydroelectric project with a dam at Gurez from where it intends to divert the entire winter flow through a tunnel and deliver water into Bunar, Madhmati, Nallaat, Bandipora in occupied Kashmir.

The court's partial decision is clear in this regard that it permits India to divert water for power generation but will determine limits and parameters of the diversion. The court will define a minimum flow regime and thus India will be unable to divert permanently complete winter flows over a period of six to eight months in a year.

The Indus Waters Treaty denoted the conclusion of protracted and taxing negotiations ending the canal waters dispute which had erupted in 1948. Unlike other water treaties, it created an inimitable paradigm by allocating entire rivers dividing the Indus system of rivers between India and Pakistan. While largely perceived to be an exemplary accord having endured two wars and constant strain between the two governments, some experts question its efficacy. They consider this view to be a misnomer as India's disregard for the treaty began from its inception.

From its planned construction of Wullar Barrage in 1961, failures to release canal waters in 1965, Dul Hasti, Salal, Baglihar, Kishanganga, Nimoo Bazgo, Chutak, Uri-I to many other projects on the western rivers, India has ignored its treaty obligations and designed its projects as it saw fit.

The erroneous perception stems from Pakistan's omission to take timely action against illegalities. India proceeded with the construction of works not permitted under the treaty and kept Pakistan engaged in correspondence and negotiations for years while taking their projects to a stage of a fait accompli.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,876
Likes
48,557
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Nice spin by pak but india is providing the flow data so stay paranoid
The bottom line is diversion is in Indian hands and pakistan is helpless
Any complaints in court will take years and pakistan can show pictures
Of how it became a desert thanks to India before the case is settled.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Zaid on Water :

[video]http://www.icttf.org/videofeed/xUy6QcFvD3o[/video]
 

Defenceindia2010

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
449
Likes
324
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

India wins crucial hearing on Kishenganga Hydro-electric Project at international court

New Delhi: The International Court of Arbitration has accepted India's position on the Rs.3600-crore Kishenganga Hydro-electric Project (KHEP) in north Kashmir at The Hague today.

The arbitration court took the decision after Pakistan had filed an appeal that India was diverting the flow of the river and violating Indus Water Treaty between the two countries.

Reacting to the court's decision, the Ministry of External Affairs said, "The award of the Court of Arbitration at the Hague today reaffirms the validity of India's position regarding the Kishenganga Hydro-electric project (KHEP) by allowing diversion of water from the KHEP as envisaged by India. It highlights once again that India is adhering to all the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty."

In September last year, the arbitration court had asked India to stop permanent works on the 330 megawatt Kishenganga project on River Neelum in response to Pakistan's appeal for 'interim measures' against the dam.

India wins crucial hearing on Kishenganga Hydro-electric Project at international court | NDTV.com
:india::rock::first:
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Pakistan unlikely to make headway on water issue with India

NEW DELHI, February 24, 2010
SANDEEP DIKSHIT

India believes that Pakistan's bid to hoist the water issue on the bilateral agenda would be misplaced because the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) has stood the test of time in resolving differences. IWT Commissioners have met over a 100 times since the treaty was signed half a century ago to exchange information and iron out irritants, which means that the mechanism has been working well.

In fact, Islamabad's desire to bring the water issue on the table on the eve of this week's foreign secretary talks is a change from its stand in 2002, when the "Pakistan Water Sector Strategy" argued for thwarting any "attempt by India" to scrap the treaty. It anticipated an adverse impact on the river water flows if the treaty was scrapped and argued for building storage capacities to meet requirements in times of shortages, which Pakistan has failed to do adequately.

Experts say that instead of accusing India of reneging on the IWT provisions, Pakistan should pay attention to building storage capacities because climate change is impacting the quantum of water in the six rivers that flow from India to Pakistan.

Under the IWT, Pakistan has the right to utilise the upper three "western" rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — and India has the right to use the water of three "eastern" rivers — Ravi, Sutlej and Beas — as it thinks fit.

Under the treaty, India is allowed to store 3.6 million acreage feet (MAF) of water of the western rivers, but it has not built any such facility so far, allowing unimpeded flows into Pakistan. Since the water level in the Chenab varies wildly during winter and summer, a better strategy would be for both countries to build a joint storage project which would serve the farmers of both countries during the lean periods, some experts aver.

Silting at dams

Pakistan's water woes are compounded by silting at the Tarbela and Mangla dams, with an internal official assessment admitting that it has lost 32 per cent of its storage capacity due to the problem.

Islamabad should also not doubt India's plan to put up projects that do not impede water flows on the western rivers, because Article III of the IWT allows it the use of western river waters for domestic, non-consumptive and agriculture purposes, besides the generation of electricity.

Within Pakistan itself, there is a debate about the need for the government to improve its management of water.

While framing the IWT, the irrigable area of India and Pakistan was assessed at 26 million acres and 39 million acres respectively, while the waters available to them are 32.8 MAF and 135.6 MAF respectively. This means that only about 1.26 feet of water is available to India for its agriculture on eastern rivers, while about 3.5 feet of water is available to Pakistan for its agriculture.

Unused water

Pakistan has a large surplus of unused water. Its documents show about 30 MAF as "available surplus" with a very high escapage to the sea.

Pakistan's irrigation efficiency is also understood to be low, at an estimated 40 per cent. Virtually all of the municipal and industrial wastewater is returned to the rivers, nullahs and streams untreated, which results in deterioration of water quality.

The Pakistan document also suggests that canal capacities are not sufficient to provide the share of each province as per their allocation. The inefficient system aggravates the problems.

As a result of the IWT, Pakistan was assisted by India financially (£62.06 million) and by the IBRD fund to build replacement works, including link canals for transferring waters of the western rivers to eastern rivers. This network of link canals could be used by Pakistan to properly distribute the water.

The Hindu : News / National : Pakistan unlikely to make headway on water issue with India

Source: http://www.-----------/forums/strat...tan-india-water-disputes-3.html#ixzz2LKI0TPON
 

jamesvaikom

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
367
Likes
293
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Bhuttos's dream of pakistani's eating grass is finally coming true.
Lol. Now she is in hell thinking about her foolish statement. Her statement helped us to take appropriate steps to eliminate that option. Grass won't grow without water.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

------------------------------------------------------------------
The Indus Water Treaty- Its Dynamics and Reverberations

Paper no. 3676
19-Feb-2010

The Indus Water Treaty- Its Dynamics and Reverberations

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

As late as February 13 this year, many members of Pakistan National Assembly expressed great concern over the alleged violation of the Indus Water treaty by India in building dams across rivers meant for Pakistan and warned of a possible war between the two countries over this issue.

These threats of war are nothing new to India. Even before the treaty of 1960, late Suhrawardy as Prime Minister of Pakistan threatened that Pakistan will go to war on the sharing of waters of the Indus. These threats have been repeated periodically and so regularly by people at the political, military, bureaucratic and technical levels that these threats have lost their meaning now. At one point, one of the influential editors of the Urdu press Majeed Nizami of Pakistan went one step further and threatened that Pakistan will have to go for a nuclear war over the river waters issue.

It should be conceded that the Indus Water Treaty has survived despite wars, near wars, acts of terrorism and other conflicts that have bedevilled the relations between India and Pakistan. This has been, as much acknowledged by many of the saner voices from Pakistan too.

In April 2008, Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner, Jamaat Ali Shah in a frank interview conceded that the water projects undertaken by India do not contravene the provisions of the Indus water treaty of 1960. He said that "in compliance with IWT, India has not so far constructed any storage dam on the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum rivers ( rivers allotted to Pakistan for full use). The Hydro electric projects India is developing are the run of the river waters, projects which India is permitted to pursue according to the treaty."

Yet many in Pakistan at very senior levels have been whipping up frenzy among the people of Pakistan that "India is stealing the waters of Pakistan".

Since 2004-2005 when the opposition to Bagilhar Project came out into the open, there has been a continuous attempt on the part of Pakistan to push India to renegotiate the Indus Water treaty.

This would mean going back to sharing of waters during the lean season and other extraneous factors and also to ignore the enormous changes that have taken place on both sides of the border in the last fifty years. This would also mean rewarding Pakistan for its failure to manage its scarce and life giving waters to optimum use.

Unfortunately, some Indian scholars without understanding the past history of negotiations with Pakistan have supported the idea. One of the senior analysts of India is said to have opined that "in negotiating an Indus Water Treaty 2, would be a huge Confidence Building Measure as it would engage both countries in a regional economic integration process." A pious hope but an unrealistic one.

The Indus Water Treaty is unique in one respect. Unlike many of the international agreements which are based on the equitable distribution of waters of the rivers along with other conditions, the Indus Water Treaty is based on the distribution of the rivers and not the waters.

This unique division of rivers rather than the waters has eliminated the very hassles and conflict that would have followed had equitable distribution of water been based on current usage, historical use, past and potential use etc. People who advocate a revision of the treaty including some influential ones in India should realise the trap that India will be getting into.

Briefly, the Indus Water treaty, having discarded the joint development plan for developing the Indus Basin as suggested by some international bodies, allotted the three western rivers of the Indus basin- the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum to Pakistan and the three eastern rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi to India. The Treaty in its Annexures acknowledged certain rights and privileges for agricultural use of Pakistan drawing water from eastern rivers and similarly India drawing water for similar reasons from the three western rivers.

The treaty permitted India to draw water from the western rivers for irrigation up to 642,000 acres that is in addition to another entitlement to irrigate 701,000 acres. India has so far not made full use of its rights to draw this quantity of water from the western rivers. These allocations were made based on the water flows and usage as existed on April 1960.

While India is not permitted to build dams for water storage purposes (for consumptive uses) on the western rivers passing through India, it is allowed to make limited use of waters including run of the river hydroelectric power projects. The Bagilhar project, the Kishenganga project as well as Tulbull (Wular) that come in this category are all being opposed by Pakistan on the narrow definition as to what it means by storage.

Pakistan disputed the Indian contention that Bagilhar project was a run of the river project and that the storage called pondage was necessary to meet the fluctuations in the discharge of the turbines and claimed that the water will ultimately go to Pakistan. Since talks over a long period remained unsuccessful, the World Bank intervened though it made it clear that it was not a guarantor of the treaty.

A neutral expert was appointed by the World Bank. The neutral expert Professor Lafitte of Switzerland while delivering the verdict, rejected most of Pakistan's objections but did call for minor design changes including the reduction of the dam's height by 1.5 metres. The expert did not object to the right of India to construct dams for storage purposes purely for technical reasons for the efficiency of the turbines and did not even call the project as a dispute between the two countries but as "differences."

The Tulbul project similarly envisages a barrage to be built at the mouth of Wular lake to increase the flow of water in the Jhelum during the dry season to make it navigable. The other disputed project, is the dam across Kishenganga River to Wular lake for generation of hydro electric power. The contention of India has been that in both cases the waters will ultimately go to Pakistan.

In the case of Kishenganga Project, Pakistan also has objected to the storage of water on the Neelum river on the principle of "prior appropriation" though the project on the Pakistan side the Neelum- Jhelum power plant downstream had not then started.

In all the projects objected to, Pakistan has brought in a new dimension to the dispute on security and strategic considerations which are strictly outside the ambit of the Indus treaty. The reasoning goes thus- by regulating the waters of the Chenab and the Jhelum, India has the capability in times of war to regulate the flow of waters to its strategic advantage.

There is no doubt that Pakistan will be facing increasing water shortages in the days to come leading to prolonged drought in many of its regions. The reasons are many but some of these are Pakistan's own doing. The availability of water even now has reached critical proportions.

Global warming over a period of time has depleted the flow of water in the Indus (the major supplier) which depends mostly on glacial runoffs.

As in other Himalayan regions like the Kosi in Nepal, the rivers carry very heavy sediments that result in silting the dams and barrages thus reducing the availability of water for cultivation. Proper and periodic maintenance have ben lacking.

The canals that feed the irrigated lands are not lined resulting in seepage and loss of water.

There is mismanagement in use of water by using antiquated techniques and heavy cropping of water intensive varieties of farm products. Optimum crop rotations have not been done extensively as it should have been done to save water.

No serious effort has been made to improve the storage for intensive seasons like Kharif.

Dwindling water flow has also been affecting power generation.

The discharge of fresh water into the Arabian sea has dwindled considerably ( less than 10 MAF) which has resulted in the sea water pushing further into the estuaries and beyond, making water in those areas unfit for cultivation.

Just as in India, there are many water disputes among the four provinces in Pakistan, but there, it is one- Punjab against the other three and Punjab happens to be the upper riparian.

There is a larger political dimension to the whole problem of the river water distribution between Pakistan and India. To Pakistan the Kashmir issue is irrevocably linked to the Indus water treaty as the headwaters of all the rivers of Pakistan and meant for Pakistan flow through Kashmir and India happens to be the upper riparian state. The fear exists that India could manipulate the waters to starve Pakistan.

From the Indian point of view, Pakistan need not fear if the Indus Water treaty is implemented both in letter and spirit. What is needed is a constructive approach from Pakistan and India should also respond constructively on a crisis that is reaching a very critical stage in Pakistan. Some analysts feel that the "waters issue" may take precedence over Kashmir.

If one were to interpret the spirit of the Indus Water treaty and not the letter, there has to be some give and take from both sides. It needs a conducive environment and mutual trust that are scarce commodities in the relations between India and Pakistan.

---------------------------------------------

Source: http://www.-----------/forums/strat...tan-india-water-disputes-5.html#ixzz2LKQlaKr3
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

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?
DAWN.COM | World | Jamaat Shah interview

Source: http://www.-----------/forums/strat...tan-india-water-disputes-6.html#ixzz2LKdpi500
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

@Bhadra , please keep this thread to Kishenganga dispute. There is another thread called "Indus Water Treaty" for other posts.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,876
Likes
48,557
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Lol. Now she is in hell thinking about her foolish statement. Her statement helped us to take appropriate steps to eliminate that option. Grass won't grow without water.
This was her father's dream -Pakistan will eat grass but we will be nuclear.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,876
Likes
48,557
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

In the link i posted tunnel boring operations started some work 2 weeks ago so
the verdict was known beforehand?
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

I have read that pakistan is constructing dam on same river in PoK. And there is some clause in IWT which states that nation which completes dam construction first on river has first exclusive rights on its resources (eg electricity generation) . am i right?

Was this whole drama was to delay construction of DAM on indian side

Pakistan had awarded dam construction project to some chinese company on same river but then they had to canceled it with that company because it was company failed to reach milestone on time ,so they awared it to another bigger chinese company and wanted it to be completed before India completes construction of DAM, I donot have link to prove it but i have read it their one of their forum
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,876
Likes
48,557
Country flag
Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

I have read that pakistan is constructing dam on same river in PoK. And there is some clause in IWT which states that nation which completes dam construction first on river has first exclusive rights on its resources (eg electricity generation) . am i right?

Was this whole drama was to delay construction of DAM on indian side

Pakistan had awarded dam construction project to some chinese company on same river but then they had to canceled it with that company because it was company failed to reach milestone on time ,so they awared it to another bigger chinese company and wanted it to be completed before India completes construction of DAM, I donot have link to prove it but i have read it their one of their forum
If this were true why go to court??
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top