Delhi has the right to generate hydroelectricity ,In a first India has called on Pakistan to enter intergovernmental negotiations within 90days

[Krptonite]

lol. Needing the world and wanting their "approval" are two very different things. And dictating to the world is a whole different thing. You are mixing all three and seem to think its all the same. Its NOT.

Pragmatism is acting Pragmatic i.e. dealing with problems in a practical way rather than by following ideas or principles,

Practical means actually doing something, not thinking or talking about it.

I think we're going in circles now, i would like to suggest a thought experiment.

Can you elaborate what you think will or will not happen if the GoI decides to unilaterally suspend a treaty.

Here's what I think will happen:
1. Loss of prestige. Nationstates breaching international contracts risk being seen as untrustworthy. If for any reason GoI can breach its obligations with one country what stops it from doing it to another on whatever pretext. This translates to delays or additional hurdles for all future agreements.

2. Increased leverage for GoC. Polity is about leverage and how you use it to further interests. China would be alarmed at such developments and would likely use it as a pretext to dam its own water sources and weaponise them.

3. It would be inimical to long term peace. To contest China we need our borders to be secure without investing disproportionate resources into safeguarding them. Water weaponisation could escalte quickly. Nation states pushed to the brink herald destruction, especially one volatile such as Pakistan. In this case their unpredictability allows them to punch above their weight.

 

[hussain0216]

staying independent is an achievement. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Maldives are all independent

Not really, they just like Pakistan are the shadow of a much larger state. A state that has a hindutva extremist agenda that can't be ignored

 

[Faceless]

I don't want to be too chauvinistic here, but just for general information: you don't need to use lubrication to masturbate if your foreskin is still intact. In fact, in America circumcision was started to discourage masturbation in boys, many protestants still use it for that reason, others just for conformity.

No Lux will be harmed due to his posts.

Damn Bro, BURN

 

[Faceless]

India should never forget we have a bunker buster for every one of those dams and more. By the time likes of Abhinandans chase us out, it'd already be too late.

good luck with that, try that and you will die by your own hands, lets say you bomb a dam on indus river and it broke, just imagine the devastation pakistan would feel, because as we all know most of indus flows through pakistan.

you are the living example of how hatred impairs critical thinking.

 

[Path-Finder]

you are the living example of how hatred impairs critical thinking.

you say that and at the same time your fascist modi gormint is saying that it will do away with a treaty that benefits india the most.

Blocking water to cause a downstream country to suffer is seen as an act of war and doing this shenanigan now because you can due to instability in Pakistan.

As already pointed out that China ultimately holds the water in the subcontinent which will affect india massively.

You have no options. 30% is a rough estimate but still massive, where is the rest going to come from? Certainly not the rains. It's not just about the Brahmaputra, haven't you been paying attention? Your projects rely on water flow hahaha.
No idea why you mentioned the rest of those countries. Is Bhutan going to give you drinking water? Nepal relies on China and it's relations with India are poor, they blame you for border disputes.

a simple google search brings this up. China's hold on water of South Asia is matter only indian trolls can laugh it off.

chinese dams on indian rivers - Recherche Google

www.google.com

 

[Pranaayam]

@walterbibikow post that crap again please.

By the way what you posted is because of Pakistani mismanagement.
I can't argue with you, that's right because when you destroy someone post by post it's no longer an argument but murder, and you're the victim.
Like I said your nation is being held hostage by China and you pay them lots of money so they don't take your water away. Yet you are here telling us how you will hurt Pakistan, you really are a joke.

Seems like you are a cheerleader to China and are coping hard for being Pakistani. Haha.

 

[walterbibikow]

As already pointed out that China ultimately holds the water in the subcontinent which will affect india massively.


a simple google search brings this up. China's hold on water of South Asia is matter only indian trolls can laugh it off.

chinese dams on indian rivers - Recherche Google

www.google.com

The Water Wars Myth: India, China and the Brahmaputra

South Asia’s Brahmaputra has been cited as one of the basins most at risk for interstate water conflict. While violent conflict has occurred between China and India within the Brahmaputra’s basin boundaries, the risks of conflict over water are in fact low. This is in part because China...

defence.pk

 

[Hecig]

I don't want to be too chauvinistic here, but just for general information: you don't need to use lubrication to masturbate if your foreskin is still intact. In fact, in America circumcision was started to discourage masturbation in boys, many protestants still use it for that reason, others just for conformity.

No Lux will be harmed due to his posts.

Damn man. I never got that joke.

It never occurred to me that Mutilated genitalia needed an artificial lubricant to masturbate.

I assumed he was talking about washing hands After the act.

No wonder these guys walk around angry and frustrated. Horrible child abuse in the name of religion. And no one even blinks an eye.

 

[Hecig]

I think we're going in circles now, i would like to suggest a thought experiment.

Can you elaborate what you think will or will not happen if the GoI decides to unilaterally suspend a treaty.

Here's what I think will happen:
1. Loss of prestige. Nationstates breaching international contracts risk being seen as untrustworthy. If for any reason GoI can breach its obligations with one country what stops it from doing it to another on whatever pretext. This translates to delays or additional hurdles for all future agreements.

LOL. What is "prestige" ? India continued to advocate for china's seat in the Permanent security council EVEN AFTER THEY ATTACKED us in 1962. They finally became permanent in 1971.

You think the world thinks of us as "worthy of prestige" ? You think that raised our world standing ? or made us a Lauging stock of the world ?

All "contracts" and "Agreements" comes with an Expiry Date. Nothing in this world is "Permanent".

Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, there are provisions to sever and withdraw from the treaties.

One of the important factor is "Change in circumstances" and TERRORISM definitely qualifies as one. Especially after 9/11.

2. Increased leverage for GoC. Polity is about leverage and how you use it to further interests. China would be alarmed at such developments and would likely use it as a pretext to dam its own water sources and weaponise them.

Only a FOOL would think china will look at IWT before considering it own Strategic interests.

China will continue to do what is in its best interest IRRESPECTIVE of IWT, Simla agreement or various India-China border agreements.

Same with EVERY OTHER SELF RESPECTING nation on the planet.

Only Nehruvian Indians live in this fantasy world where Nations give second thought to "agreements" over their National interests.

3. It would be inimical to long term peace. To contest China we need our borders to be secure without investing disproportionate resources into safeguarding them. Water weaponisation could escalte quickly. Nation states pushed to the brink herald destruction, especially one volatile such as Pakistan. In this case their unpredictability allows them to punch above their weight.

This is the Funniest point ever.

India has been in a state of WAR with pakistan from 1980's. Almost every day there is a new attack and every months there are deaths.

And you have the audacity to talk about "long term peace", when even short term peace is impossible and India is seeking to dismember pakistan for its own safety.

Pakistan won't get into a war with India on behalf of China because its generals stands to gain NOTHING from this. Their children still study in the west and they park their retirement fund in the west. China means nothing to them, just a balloon they wave in front of their own population, India and US.

Pakistani establishment ONLY concern is its own safety and survival and they will gladly and wil (has) happily sacrifice pakistan for that. Only somebody Naïve and ignorant of pakistani reality will claim otherwise.

 

[Krptonite]

LOL. What is "prestige" ? India continued to advocate for china's seat in the Permanent security council EVEN AFTER THEY ATTACKED us in 1962. They finally became permanent in 1971.

You think the world thinks of us as "worthy of prestige" ? You think that raised our world standing ? or made us a Lauging stock of the world ?

All "contracts" and "Agreements" comes with an Expiry Date. Nothing in this world is "Permanent".

Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, there are provisions to sever and withdraw from the treaties.

One of the important factor is "Change in circumstances" and TERRORISM definitely qualifies as one. Especially after 9/11.




Only a FOOL would think china will look at IWT before considering it own Strategic interests.

China will continue to do what is in its best interest IRRESPECTIVE of IWT, Simla agreement or various India-China border agreements.

Same with EVERY OTHER SELF RESPECTING nation on the planet.

Only Nehruvian Indians live in this fantasy world where Nations give second thought to "agreements" over their National interests.




This is the Funniest point ever.

India has been in a state of WAR with pakistan from 1980's. Almost every day there is a new attack and every months there are deaths.

And you have the audacity to talk about "long term peace", when even short term peace is impossible and India is seeking to dismember pakistan for its own safety.

Pakistan won't get into a war with India on behalf of China because its generals stands to gain NOTHING from this. Their children still study in the west and they park their retirement fund in the west. China means nothing to them, just a balloon they wave in front of their own population, India and US.

Pakistani establishment ONLY concern is its own safety and survival and they will gladly and wil (has) happily sacrifice pakistan for that. Only somebody Naïve and ignorant of pakistani reality will claim otherwise.

Me thinks you're not really here to discuss but rather to troll. Have you read the convention and are you up to date on how international relations work?

You mirror other zealots of greener shade found here, you've made India to be a bigger than what it is. This bluster and dogmatic approach kills critical thinking. May i ask for any of your sources for a reading, it would be immensely helpfull to have reading material to contrast my views with.

I also see that you've not put forth your views on what will happen if india unilaterally breaks a treaty, but rather focused on countering mine with what your feelings on the topic are.

My views come from experience in foreign affairs, may i ask the source of yours? Or better yet to simply silence me all I'll ask is what you think would happen if India breaks a treaty.

From the vienna convention on law on treaties, for your perusal:
Article 65
Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity,
termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the
operation of a treaty
1. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its
consent to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it,
withdrawing from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. The
notification shall indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons
therefor.
2. If, after the expiry of a period which, except in cases of special urgency, shall not be less than
three months after the receipt of the notification, no party has raised any objection, the party making the
notification may carry out in the manner provided in article 67 the measure which it has proposed.
3. If, however, objection has been raised by any other party, the parties shall seek a solution
through the means indicated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.
4. Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall affect the rights or obligations of the parties under
any provisions in force binding the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes.
5. Without prejudice to article 45, the fact that a State has not previously made the notification
prescribed in paragraph 1 shall not prevent it from making such notification in answer to another party
claiming performance of the treaty or alleging its violation.

Here you're claiming by invoking terrorism, we can suspend the treaty.

Kindly consider me an five year old moron with low intelligence and explain in simple terms how with respect to the statute you're quoting how India would go about using terrorism to break treaties and why if it can it hasn't already done so.

 

[Hecig]

Me thinks you're not really here to discuss but rather to troll. Have you read the convention and are you up to date on how international relations work?

You mirror other zealots of greener shade found here, you've made India to be a bigger than what it is. This bluster and dogmatic approach kills critical thinking. May i ask for any of your sources for a reading, it would be immensely helpfull to have reading material to contrast my views with.

I also see that you've not put forth your views on what will happen if india unilaterally breaks a treaty, but rather focused on countering mine with what your feelings on the topic are.

My views come from experience in foreign affairs, may i ask the source of yours? Or better yet to simply silence me all I'll ask is what you think would happen if India breaks a treaty.

From the vienna convention on law on treaties, for your perusal:
Article 65
Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity,
termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the
operation of a treaty
1. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its
consent to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it,
withdrawing from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. The
notification shall indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons
therefor.
2. If, after the expiry of a period which, except in cases of special urgency, shall not be less than
three months after the receipt of the notification, no party has raised any objection, the party making the
notification may carry out in the manner provided in article 67 the measure which it has proposed.
3. If, however, objection has been raised by any other party, the parties shall seek a solution
through the means indicated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.
4. Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall affect the rights or obligations of the parties under
any provisions in force binding the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes.
5. Without prejudice to article 45, the fact that a State has not previously made the notification
prescribed in paragraph 1 shall not prevent it from making such notification in answer to another party
claiming performance of the treaty or alleging its violation.

Here you're claiming by invoking terrorism, we can suspend the treaty.

Kindly consider me an inbred five year old moron with low intelligence and explain in simple terms how with respect to the statute you're quoting how India would go about using terrorism to break treaties and why if it can it hasn't already done so.

I am considering you an inbred five year old moron when I am replying to you. So please put that doubt out of your mind.

Section 1 of Article 65 satisfies the condition for withdrawal.

Any Treaty is interpreted and practiced on good faith. Any actions contrary to the principle of natural justice will make any contract invalid.

pakistani sponsored Terrorism that affects Kashmir and in effect prevents India from executing the treaty makes it valid grounds for renegotiation and if that fails, to abrogate it considering its in-executable status.

Indian needs to go around and present its case, like it did during the 1972 war of Bangladesh Independence. You think that increased or decreased our international prestige and Credibility ?

International prestige and Credibility comes from the Execution of Self preservation and Self interest, not following one sided treaties blindly like an accountant. It comes from being Rule Makers and not Rule followers.

But when common sense goes missing, the Bureaucrat seeks it in the rule books.

India is what it is and every nation understands national interest and self preservation. As long as India can be a net giver and not a net taker, International community will accommodate India.

There is no need to "break" any treaty, just to treat it as invalid. Seek to re-negotiate it as per the provisions of article XII of IWT.

And that is exactly what India is doing.

India already knows pakistan will refuse to re-negotiate and that is when the Fun starts. This is only the beginning of the end of the IWT.

Only you are too blind by your own hubris to see it.

 

[Faceless]

you say that and at the same time your fascist modi gormint is saying that it will do away with a treaty that benefits india the most.

yeah what kind of monster allows a downstream nation (pakistan) to use nearly 80% of the water even after having 4 wars and multiple terror attacks originating from the said downstream nation.
heck we dont even properly use the 20% of water share we got, these new dams will solve that.
We showed you generosity and you took that for granted and are now hyperventilating because we aren't showing you generosity anymore,

Blocking water to cause a downstream country to suffer is seen as an act of war and doing this shenanigan now because you can due to instability in Pakistan.

its not our fault that you manage your water so inefficiently and are so dependent on our generosity that you will go on a war for that.
The Indus system of rivers carries nearly 260 billion m3 average annual flows, of which India is able to utilize nearly 38 billion m3 (15% of the total insted of the allocated 20%l) from the three eastern rivers
Document showing India does not utilise it's full share of allocated water

As already pointed out that China ultimately holds the water in the subcontinent which will affect india massively.

China doesn't hold shit, only rivers that flow from china to india are

• Satluj (this river gets enough rainwater in india that it can fulfil india's need, the best the chinese can do is cause a flooding, which can be dealt with, but these actions of your daddy china will hurt you more than they will hurt india, and if china ever tries that we will just build more dams to negate the chinese threat)
• Jadh Ganga (The valley of Jadh Ganga is claimed by China,[1] though the whole extent of Jadh Ganga is administered by India.)
• Ghaghara (most of its water orignates in nepal and uttarakhand, its basin is in india and nepal, due to its geography for the most part it can not be dammed in tibet)
• Koshi (again same case, most of its water orignates in nepal from small tributries and due to its geography, for the most part this river can not be dammed in tibet)
• Indus ( the best the chinese can do is cause a flash flooding, in kashmir, but these actions of your daddy china will hurt you more than they will hurt india, and if china ever tries that we will just build more dams to negate the chinese threat)
• Torsa (not a very major river, flows from tibet to bhutan to india then to bangladesh, can be easily dammed in both bhutan and india to deal with any chinese misadventure)
• Gandaki (due to its geography, for the most part it can not be dammed in tibet)
• Brahmaputra (70% of its water orignates in india's arunanchal pradesh and assam, best china can do here is cause a flasf flood, and we are builing dams to deal with it,)

Conclusion out of 8 major rivers only 3 (bramhaputra, indus, satulaj) can be weaponised against india, and that too not very effectively due to geographical constrains.

 

[waz]

Seems like you are a cheerleader to China and are coping hard for being Pakistani. Haha.

Well I'm not going to use the word 'seems' here. You are a coward who just resorts to one liners. It's not about cheerleading, it's all about friends helping you out.
Now regarding coping, how do you feel working on your rikshaw every day, all those long hours, so your taxes can be used by your Modi sarkar to hand over money to the Chinese so you can drink water?

 

[El Sidd]

You guys have resorted to violence without any pretext and now have the gumption to say it is nefarious Indian agenda.

Pakistan has every right to exhaust every option available to preemptively deter all and every nefarious Indian designs for Pakistan.

It would be a foolish misadventure to threaten Pakistan's water security. India's economic blackmail swings the pendulum between regional hegemony and downright colonialism.

 

[my2cents]

Pakistan has every right to exhaust every option available to preemptively deter all and every nefarious Indian designs for Pakistan.

It would be a foolish misadventure to threaten Pakistan's water security. India's economic blackmail swings the pendulum between regional hegemony and downright colonialism.

Being a smaller country you will be always feel threatened even when there is no threat. Being upper riparian we have been more than generous in allocating 3 western rivers.