Nothing can be done about this.People on the upstream will continue to build dams,thats the reality of geography.
Nothing can be done about this.People on the upstream will continue to build dams,thats the reality of geography.
Source : DawnSetback in the water dispute
PAKISTAN has failed to secure a stay order from the International Court of Arbitration in its August 25 meeting in The Hague against India’s construction of the Kishanganga hydroelectric project.
Its legal team was unable to convince the jury about the harm the Indian dam will cause to a similar thrice bigger, Pakistani project in the Neelam valley.
This setback for Pakistan means a decisive gain for India in the battle for dams and, barring some miracle, Pakistan, for all practical purposes, is poised to lose the case. One unforgivable reason for this loss was an internal tussle just before the ICA hearing between the top official Kamal Majidullah and water commissioner Sheraz Memon over the choice of lawyers. As a result, Memon was dropped from the team. Majidullah had earlier sacked the most experienced and seasoned Indus water commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah for similar reasons.
At the hearing, the Indian lawyers wondered why the Pakistani delegation did not ask for a stay order in the January 2011 hearing which was the first meeting of the court. Later, the court, constituted under the Indus Water Treaty on Pakistan’s request and headed by Stephen Schwebel, a former chief justice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), asked India to submit a report on the environmental impact of the dam, on September 7 which it did. Pakistan has also submitted a similar report to the ICA. The court, in the light of these reports, is likely to come up with interim measures before announcing a final verdict.
What the ICA has to determine is, which country is ahead on its respective project. The country which finishes its project first would get ‘’priority rights’’ to the use of the river’s waters under the Indus Water Treaty. This simple methodology provided in the IWT, though lacking merit, places India in an advantageous position as more than 40 per cent of construction work of its project has been completed. Besides, it is originally scheduled to be completed by 2014 while Pakistan’s Neelum project is to be ready by 2016.
In 2005, Pakistan had lost the Baglihar case to India and the only relief it got from the arbitrator was certain modifications in the project design. An earlier dispute over the Salal dam project was resolved in the 1970s by the two foreign secretaries.
Pakistan, as such, has not benefited from the IWT mechanism of resolving disputes while India has. Maybe, because it fails to prepare a good legal defence, as is obvious in the current case, whereas India takes the challenge seriously.
Some observers point out that Pakistan is feeling alienated from the IWT after repeated failures to get redress of its grievances and, hence, would like to replace it with a new treaty. But it is not easy to agree on a new pact in the present circumstances. It is Pakistan’s misfortune that rivers which irrigate its agricultural lands and help establish power stations have their origins in India and this hard fact cannot be changed.
The IWT took eight years of negotiations to finalise a draft acceptable to both sides. A pragmatic approach would be to amend and update the treaty to remove the lacuna it suffers from.
For instance, there is no provision in the treaty which allows India to construct a certain number of dams. Nor is there one that prohibits India from making dams beyond a certain number. So, the number of dams on the western rivers, allotted to Pakistan, is an issue outside the scope of the treaty. But once the decision to construct a dam or reservoir is taken by India, the matter enters the framework of the treaty, which only provides technical specifications for building such a dam or reservoir. A Pakistani lawyer, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, argues that Pakistan has the right to protest outside the IWT if it is convinced that the construction of an Indian dam or reservoir would threaten its strategic interests. It can raise the issue before a UN forum or with the US and the European Union. The IWT is not against such an option. But instead of moving diplomatically, Islamabad invokes the jurisdiction of a neutral expert or arbitration court. During the time the case takes, the construction is completed and Pakistan in that sense ‘loses’ the cases. According to Soofi, the fact is that neutral experts never had the legal competence to grant victory to Pakistan.
Ramaswamy R. Iyer, a former Indian secretary of water resources is of the view that the Indus Treaty need not be scraped for it is the only instance of conflict resolution that has survived three wars. But, he points out, a new and disturbing development is that water issue has ‘started to loom large’ in Indo-Pakistan relations. Speaking at a seminar on August 31 in Delhi Mr Iyer said: “Even if tomorrow Kashmir is resolved, water will remain a core issue”.
Siddharth Varadarajan of The Hindu says: “As India and Pakistan move towards the welcome resumption of dialogue, New Delhi needs to factor in a new reality: More than Kashmir, it is the accusation that India is stealing water that is rapidly becoming the ‘core issue’ in the Pakistani establishment’s narrative about bilateral problems.” In Pakistan, he observes in a recent article, per capita water availability has been falling considerably over the past few decades and is expected to fall below 700 cubic metres by 2025 — the international marker for water scarcity.
In most years, the Indus River had hardly gone beyond the Kotri barrage in Sindh. The fact that river flows from India to Pakistan have slowly declined is borne out by data on both sides. Above Marala on the Chenab, for example, the average monthly flows for September have nearly halved between 1999 and 2009. But he attributes this decline to reduced rainfall and snowmelt and not the diversion of water.
According to a WikiLeaks report, Washington had feared in 2005 that the water-related disputes between Pakistan and India would cast a long shadow over their ‘composite dialogue’ process. “Even if India and Pakistan could resolve the Baghliar and Kishanganga projects,” wrote US Ambassador to New Delhi, David Mulford in a confidential cable dated February 25, 2005, “there are several more hydroelectric dams planned for Kashmir that might be questioned under the Indus Water Treaty.”
Good Morning Navtrek
I have just browsed through your in-depth article on the water issue between India and Pakistan and wish to write to you directly. Could I have your email please?
China is an all weather and time tested friend of Pakistan; both value eachother's friendship, and nothing will change that --though under present govt. the mutual gains cannot be fully realized due to a culture of graft and corruption plus poor leadership that is prevailing thus far......
but the friendship is one of mutual respect....and it suits both, as we are neighbour countries and we seek to have good relations with all the countries in the region
Pakistan gets due share of Indus water'
“Pakistan is getting its due share of river water under the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960,” Pakistan's Water and Power Minister Syed Naveed Qamar said on Friday.
In a written reply submitted in the National Assembly, he said the treaty allocated waters of the eastern rivers — Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — to India and those of the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — to Pakistan, except for certain specified uses.
In the past, Islamabad had said its share was being diverted by dams in Jammu and Kashmir, though New Delhi has denied the charge.
India plans to build 9 more dams on Indus River
Friday, January 13, 2012
India has prepared a master plan to construct nine more large dams in Laddakh region in occupied Kashmir in addition to Nimoo-Bazgo and Chuttak hydropower projects on the Indus River. These 9 dams will generate 1055 MW of electricity.
India is already set to complete the Nimoo-Bazgo and Chuttak hydropower projects. The two projects can store water up to 120,000,000 cubic meters. This means that in total India is to build 11 hydropower projects with large reservoirs on the Indus River in an attempt to make Pakistan a barren country.
According to a letter written to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani by Arshd H Abbasi, an expert on water and energy, India is to build: i) Ulitopp hydro electric project (HEP) with 132 feet dam height and capacity to generate of 85 MW of electricity; ii) 99 MW Khaltsi HEP with 66 feet dam height; iii) 70 MW of Dumkhar HEP with dam of 66 feet height; iv) 220MW Achinathang-Sanjak HEP with reservoir of 132 feet height; v) 295 MW Sunit HEP with dam of 66 feet height.
India will construct four projects on Drass-Suru river including i) 100 MW Parkachik-Panikher HEP with 198 feet high dam; ii) 100 MW Kirkit with 99 feet height; iii) 35 MW Drass-Suru HEP-I with 82 feet high reservoir; and iv) 60 MW Drass- Suru HEP - II with 66 feet high reservoir.
The letter disclosed that these projects have been offered to the private sector for which modalities are being worked out. This work by the Indian side has been initiated without due diligence on the project in the framework of the Indus Water Treaty (Illustrated in annex-D and annex-E of the treaty).
The letter also says that the work on 990 MW Kirthai Dam and 690-MW Ratle projects on the Chenab River in Kishtwar district of *** started last year. It mentioned that unfortunately, neither the Ministry of Water Power (MoWP), nor the Ministry of Foreign affairs (MoFA) has taken up the case with the Government of India (GoI). It says the above-mentioned projects on Chenab and Indus are classified as run-of-river projects. However, it is pertinent to note here that if the treaty is not adhered to in letter and spirit, these projects will have serious consequences for downstream areas both individually and accumulatively.
“In a detailed meeting with Adviser MoWP and the then Additional Secretary MoWP in 2009, I elaborated the terms of the Treaty that explicitly bound both countries to exchange all information and data related to the proposed projects to be installed on the Indus River System in *** under Article VI,” Mr Abbasi mentioned in the letter.
“Besides the parameters defined in the Indus Treaty, India and Pakistan are also bound to exchange such information/data under the obligation of the Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). According to the ICOLD, dams having height more than 15 meters are defined as Large Dams therefore all such dams are to be registered with the commission for dam safety. The judgment passed over Baglihar dam was based on the latest ICOLD bulletin of the Commission on large dams while deciding the design of the spillways. India has been planning to start more than 67dams for hydropower generation since long and all these dams fall under the category of large dams. Unfortunately, dam failure record of India has been worst, as nine of its dams have so far collapsed. The J& K area is earthquake-prone hence a minor failure can result into a catastrophe for the downstream areas. Therefore it is mandatory and important to set up dam safety measures in consultation with Government of Pakistan (GoP).”
The letter says: “Despite my repeated requests to the then Adviser MoWP, for the Environmental Impact Assessment Report of hydropower and other development projects being completed or to be executed within watershed of Jhelum, Chenab and Indus in *** and Himachal Pradesh, no data or relevant information has been shared or provided to me till to date.”
The report holds immense importance as it quantifies trans-boundary impacts of such projects, in line with the verdict given by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as in the case of Gabcikovo-Nagymaros dam dispute between Slovakia and Hungary on the Danube River and paper mill decision between Argentina and Uruguay. In Baglihar Dam case, India in support of the dam’s design, annexed Gabcikovo-Nagymaros dam decision in its counter memorial. Therefore, India is bound by law to share EIA of all hydropower projects with Pakistan before physical executions.
i do think the future wars will be fought over water resources
I would agree to a certain extent that though India has NOT violated any of the Indus Water Treaty specifics until now, the treaty may have to be ratified over the next few years (maybe decades) to come. Of course, Pakistan has to bring some huge bargaining chips on the table to resolve such disputes.
Pakistani Foreign Policy is short-term, parochial, and narrow in outlook. It has debased itself to continue its festering hatred for India, that it could have been the biggest geopolitical jigsaw piece of South Asia by being a trade and an energy route but instead has become a problem piece for South Asia to solve. Pakistan can use its position in this trade and energy route as the biggest bargaining chip to renegotiate the Water Treaty as a whole. Once the IWC is resolved, Kashmir would automatically stop being a bone of contention. And yes, India needs to be sensible to accommodate concerns which can work in the long run for Asia.
75% of the water in terms of volume goes tot eh rivers assigned to pakistan. What would you have india do? give it all up? Hold up all developmental plans such as run of the river systems just becos pak wants to make hold up india's economy?
Are you sure you are indian?
11 dams in Kashmir..That is some serious sh!t going on over there.
Well done..J&K has massive potential for hydroelectric power and every last MW of it must be tapped.
Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If Pakistan go for war with India, international community will support India only and war is for winning territory what it has to take with Kashmir Dam.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)