War or Peace on the Indus?

War or peace on the Indus?

Saturday, April 03, 2010

John Briscoe

Anyone foolish enough to write on war or peace in the Indus needs to first banish a set of immediate suspicions. I am neither Indian nor Pakistani. I am a South African who has worked on water issues in the subcontinent for 35 years and who has lived in Bangladesh (in the 1970s) and Delhi (in the 2000s). In 2006 I published, with fine Indian colleagues, an Oxford University Press book titled India’s Water Economy: Facing a Turbulent Future and, with fine Pakistani  colleagues, one titled Pakistan’s Water Economy: Running Dry. I was the Senior Water Advisor for the World Bank who dealt with the appointment of the Neutral Expert on the Baglihar case. My last assignment at the World Bank (relevant, as described later) was as Country Director for Brazil. I am now a mere university professor, and speak in the name of no one but myself.

I have deep affection for the people of both India and Pakistan, and am dismayed by what I see as a looming train wreck on the Indus, with disastrous consequences for both countries. I will outline why there is no objective conflict of interests between the countries over the waters of the Indus Basin, make some observations of the need for a change in public discourse, and  suggest how the drivers of the train can put on the brakes before it is too late.

 

Is there an inherent conflict between India and Pakistan?

The simple answer is no. The Indus Waters Treaty allocates the water of the three western rivers to Pakistan, but allows India to tap the considerable hydropower potential of the Chenab and  Jhelum before the rivers enter Pakistan.

The qualification is that this use of hydropower is not to affect either the quantity of water reaching Pakistan or to interfere with the natural timing of those flows. Since hydropower does not consume water, the only issue is timing. And timing is a very big issue, because agriculture in the Pakistani plains depends not only on how much water comes, but that it comes in critical periods during the planting season.

The reality is that India could tap virtually all of the available power without negatively affecting the timing of flows to which Pakistan is entitled.

Is the Indus Treaty a stable basis for cooperation?

If Pakistan and India had normal, trustful relations, there would be a mutually-verified monitoring process which would assure that there is no change in the flows going into Pakistan. (In an even more ideal world, India could increase low-flows during the critical planting season, with significant benefit to Pakistani farmers and with very small impacts on power generation in India.) Because the relationship was not normal when the treaty was negotiated, Pakistan would agree only if limitations on India’s capacity to manipulate the timing of flows was hardwired into the treaty. This was done by limiting the amount of “live storage” (the storage that matters for changing the timing of flows) in each and every hydropower dam that India would construct on the two rivers.

While this made sense given knowledge in 1960, over time it became clear that this restriction gave rise to a major problem. The physical restrictions meant that gates for flushing silt out of the dams could not be built, thus ensuring that any dam in India would rapidly fill with the silt pouring off the young Himalayas.

This was a critical issue at stake in the Baglihar case. Pakistan  (reasonably) said that the gates being installed were in violation of the specifications of the treaty. India (equally reasonably) argued that it would be wrong to build a dam knowing it would soon fill with silt.

The finding of the Neutral Expert was essentially a reinterpretation of the Treaty, saying that the physical limitations no longer made sense. While the finding was reasonable in the case of Baglihar, it left Pakistan without the mechanism – limited live storage – which was its only (albeit weak) protection against upstream manipulation of flows in India. This vulnerability was driven home when India chose to fill Baglihar exactly at the time when it would impose  maximum harm on farmers in downstream Pakistan.

If Baglihar was the only dam being built by India on the Chenab and Jhelum, this would be a limited problem. But following Baglihar is a veritable caravan of Indian projects – Kishanganga, Sawalkot, Pakuldul, Bursar, Dal Huste, Gyspa… The cumulative live storage will be large, giving India an unquestioned capacity to have major impact on the timing of flows into Pakistan. (Using Baglihar as a reference, simple back-of-the- envelope calculations, suggest that once it has constructed all of the planned hydropower plants on the Chenab, India will have an ability to effect major damage on Pakistan. First, there is the one-time effect of filling the new dams. If done during the wet season this would have little effect on Pakistan. But if done during the critical low-flow period, there would be a large one-time effect (as was the case when India filled Baglihar). Second, there is the permanent threat which would be a consequence of substantial cumulative  live storage which could store about one month’s worth of low-season flow on the Chenab. If, God forbid, India so chose, it could use this cumulative live storage to impose major reductions on water availability in Pakistan during the critical planting season.

Views on “the water problem” from both sides of the border and the role of the press.

Living in Delhi and working in both India and Pakistan, I was struck by a paradox. One country was a vigorous democracy, the other a military regime. But whereas an important part of the Pakistani press regularly reported India’s views on the water issue in an objective way, the Indian press never did the same. I never saw a report which gave Indian readers a factual description of the enormous vulnerability of Pakistan, of the way in which India had socked it to  Pakistan when filling Baglihar. How could this be, I asked? Because, a journalist colleague in Delhi told me, “when it comes to Kashmir – and the Indus Treaty is considered an integral part of Kashmir — the ministry of external affairs instructs newspapers on what they can and cannot say, and often tells them explicitly what it is they are to say.”

This apparently remains the case. In the context of the recent talks between India and Pakistan I read, in Boston, the electronic reports on the disagreement about “the water issue” in The Times of India, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Economic Times. (1)

Taken together, these reports make astounding reading. Not only was the message the same in each case (“no real issue, just Pakistani shenanigans” ), but the arguments were the same, the numbers were the same and the phrases were the same. And in all cases the source was “analysts” and “experts” — in not one case was the reader informed that this was reporting an official position of the Government of India.

 Equally depressing is my repeated experience – most recently at a major international meeting of strategic security institutions in Delhi – that even the most liberal and enlightened of Indian analysts (many of whom are friends who I greatly respect) seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the great vulnerability and legitimate concern of Pakistan (which is obvious and objective to an outsider).

 

A way forward

This is a very uneven playing field. The regional hegemon is the upperriparian and has all the cards in its hands. This asymmetry means thatit is India that is driving the train, and that change must start inIndia. In my view, four things need to be done. First, there must be some courageous and open-minded Indians – in government or out – who will stand up and explain to the public why this is not just an issue for Pakistan, but why it is an existential issue for Pakistan.

Second, there must be leadership from the Government of India. Here I am struck by the stark difference between the behaviour of India and that of its fellow BRIC – Brazil, the regional hegemon in Latin America.

Brazil and Paraguay have a binding agreement on their rights and responsibilities on the massive Itaipu Binacional Hydropower Project. The proceeds, which are of enormous importance to small Paraguay, played a politicised, polemical anti-Brazilian part in the recent presidential election in Paraguay. Similarly, Brazil’s and Bolivia’s binding agreement on gas also became part of an anti-Brazil presidential campaign theme.

The public and press in Brazil bayed for blood and insisted that Bolivia and Paraguay be made to pay. So what did President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva do? “Look,” he said to his irate countrymen, “these are poor countries, and these are huge issues for them. They are our brothers. Yes, we are in our legal rights to be harsh with them, but we are going to show understanding and  generosity, and so I am unilaterally doubling (in the case of Paraguay) and tripling (in the case of Bolivia) the payments we make to them. Brazil is a big country and a relatively rich one, so this will do a lot for them and won’t harm us much.” India could, and should, in my view, similarly make the effort to see it from its neighbour’s point of view, and should show the generosity of spirit which is an integral part of being a truly great power and good neighbour.

Third, this should translate into an invitation to Pakistan to explore ways in which the principles of the Indus Waters Treaty could be respected, while providing a win for Pakistan (assurance on their flows) and a win for India (reducing the chronic legal uncertainty which vexes every Indian project on the Chenab or Jhelum). With good will there are multiple ways in which the treaty could be maintained but reinterpreted so that both countries could win.

Fourth, discussions on the Indus waters should be de-linked from both historic grievances and from the other Kashmir-related issues. Again, it is a sign of statesmanship, not weakness, to acknowledge the past and then move beyond it. This is personal for me, as someone of Irish origin. Conor Cruise O’Brien once remarked, “Santayana said that those who did not learn their history would be condemned to repeat it; in the case of Ireland we have learned our history so well that we are condemned to repeat it, again and again.”

And finally, as a South African I am acutely aware that Nelson Mandela, after 27 years in prison, chose not to settle scores but to look forward and construct a better future, for all the people of his country and mine. Who will be the Indian Mandela who will do this – for the benefit of Pakistanis and Indians – on the Indus?

The writer is the Gordon McKay Professor of Environmental Engineering, Harvard University. Email: jbriscoe@seas. harvard.edu

(1)

Respectively, http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/india/Water-Pakistans- diversionary- tactic-/articles how/5609099. cms, http://beta. thehindu. com/news/ national/ article112388. ece, http://www.hindusta ntimes.com/ News-Feed/ india/River- waters-The- next-testing- ground/Article1- 512190.aspx, http://www.indianex press.com/ news/Pak- heats-up- water-sharing/ 583733, http://economictime s.indiatimes. com/news/ politics/ nation/Pak-takes-water- route-to- attack-India/ articleshow/ 5665516.cms

136 Comments

Filed under India, Pakistan, Punjab, strategy

136 responses to “War or Peace on the Indus?

  1. Hayyer

    The writer has shied away from the real issue. He hinted but did not elaborate upon it in his solution.
    Given that the Indian Press takes its lead from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs it does not follow that merely informing the Indian public of Pakistan’s fears would solve anything.
    Also, so far as I am aware, Baglihar was not filled in the low season. It was filled in the monsoon season.
    The writer is correct in saying that creating live storage on all those dams will cause a certain amount of water shortage, cumulatively, but this accumulated shortage is going to be spread over 30 years or more, the time it will take at the minimum, to build those dams. Remember, it has taken India 50 years to build the three relatively large projects on the Chenab, Dul Hasti, Baglihar and Salal. It has managed to put only one large project on the Jehlum in that period, the Uri project. Any threat of a water shortage to Pakistan on account of these proposed dams can be discounted for that reason alone.
    Let us also further remember that the Indus Waters Treaty allots 80% of the combined Indus waters to Pakistan. India gets only 20% and even that is not yet fully exploited either for irrigation, drinking or power.
    The solution at which the author hinted (and I wish he had devoted more space to it) is to develop dead storage on the rivers allotted to Pakistan, not just live storage. This would benefit India and Pakistan. India would increase its capacity to generate power and Pakistan would gain by more lean season flows when they are needed and less flooding at the wrong time. India has been suggesting such a solution to Pakistan but to no effect. The opportunity to build upstream regulation will be lost forever once all the dams planned in India are built. The time is now. It will be impossible to tear down the structures and rebuild new ones in some idyllic future where India and Pakistan are friends, or where Pakistan has defeated India and won Jammu and Kashmir for itself. Already the sites of Salal, Baglihar, Dul Hasti and Uri have been lost, but upstream regulation of water is still possible, if India and Pakistan can come to an agreement.
    And this where the question of trust arises. Does threatening India with war over water help anyone?
    Kashmir is one permanent casus belli, now we have a second one in the making.
    The goodwill that Professor Briscoe talks about, which is so essential to resolving the waters issue let alone Kashmir, cannot be conjured out of thin air. Those confidence building measures were proposed nearly a decade now and we haven’t moved one inch. How does Professor Briscoe expect the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to react to the threats from the likes of Hafiz Saeed, or the references to India as Pakistan’s main enemy by the PA Chief except with anger. It is naive of the Professor to expect the Indian government to sympathize with Pakistan’s water shortage, or, in the face of the unremitting hostility to coach its citizens to be sensitive to Pakistan’s needs. Why would it do that? It has an active political opposition to counter, and eventually, voters to face. Besides Indian sensitivity by itself solves nothing.
    India’s states are at each others throats over water, including its own share of Indus waters. Pakistan can help itself and India by modifying its attitudes over the Indus waters, if not over Kashmir. In friendship and trust all sorts of things become possible. In the case of the Indus Waters though, it wont always be so. The window is now.

  2. Majumdar

    Hayyer mian,

    There is one more issue- almost all of Pak’s three western rivers get much of their water from glacier melt unlike Gangetic rivers which also get a lot of their hydrology from rainfalls and not just snowmelt. Thus Indus rivers will be more vulnerable to receding glaciers- most of Indus and Jhelum glaicers will be gone in another generation of so, if I understand correct. My impression as a Delhi-ite for almost 30 years is that it rains a lot less in winter and there is far less frequent snowfall in Western Himalayas. Even if we co-operate on dams there may not be much water to capture anyways.

    Regards

  3. Ganpat Ram

    BRISCOE:

    When an outsider, especially a white chap, starts by proclaming his love for the Subcontinent, we Indians know what is coming. It is a whine on behalf of Islamist Pakistan, demanding that a country which the Pakistanis have steadily targeted for terror attacks should hand over something.

    No sale.

    Take your shoddy goods somwehere else, will you?

    We Indians don’t need your great love.

  4. Ganpat Ram

    BRISCOE:

    You have zero credibility if you say you know India and think the Indian press can’t say what it likes about any issue, including Kashmir or water.

    Out of your tiny mind, man.

  5. Ganpat Ram

    A white who claims to be of Irish origin is going to be particularly patronising.

  6. YLH

    I never saw a report which gave Indian readers a factual description of the enormous vulnerability of Pakistan, of the way in which India had socked it to Pakistan when filling Baglihar. How could this be, I asked? Because, a journalist colleague in Delhi told me, “when it comes to Kashmir – and the Indus Treaty is considered an integral part of Kashmir — the ministry of external affairs instructs newspapers on what they can and cannot say, and often tells them explicitly what it is they are to say.

  7. Majumdar

    The moot point is that actually India has never been found guilty of any breach of treaty on IWT. It was merely asked to reduce its dam height by a couple of meters in Baglihar (???).

    I have a query though. What if India does not actually create any dam on western rivers but creates an elaborate network of ground water harvesting channels which cause excess rain/snow water to percolate into the ground rather than run off into rivers. Wud that be a violation of IWT?

    Regards

  8. Majumdar

    As far as timing issue is concerned, I believe IWT has a 24 hour deadline- i.e whatever water enters the dam must leave within the same day, so if water is being used for hydel generation, I dont see how it can be used for delaying Pak requirements beyond a few hours.

    Btw, didnt some Pak minister too say recently that the water thing was more about Pak mismanagement than Indian kanjoosi.

    Regards

  9. Ganpat Ram

    YLH:

    How often does the Pakistani press publish objective reports about the Pakistani export of terror to India?

    Is it not amusing that our Irish fellow allegedly filled with love for us all does not mention the tens of thousands of Indian victims of Pakistan-supported terrorism? His great love does not include THEM, it seems.

    Pakistan has been given plenty of access to water by India for decades. What has Pakistan given in reutrn, except terrorism?

    As for the threat of war on the Indus: wake up professor….War has been going on here non-stop for decades !

    Pakistan can have water or the right to export terror to India. It can’t have both.

  10. Ganpat Ram

    Is it not in fact amazing Briscoe asks for NOTHING from Pakistan – not even the ending of terror attacks?

  11. Ganpat Ram

    YLH:

    Why should India not “sock it to Pakistan” over water – if Pakistan keeps socking it to India over terrorism?

  12. Ganpat Ram

    If water is an existential issue for Pakistan, as our Irish “lover of the Subcontinent” weeps, Pakistan supported terrorism is an existential issue for India.

  13. D_a_n

    sniff….

    I smell brain farts….lots of them…!

    ganpaaaaaat???🙂

    lay off the burrito’s will you please?

  14. Ganpat Ram

    By the way, the worthy Professor failed to note one big difference between the situations of India and Brazil: Paraguay and Bolivia do not export bloody terrorism to Brazil, as Pakistan does to India.

  15. Sharmishtha

    Delurking momentarily just to say this: I find Ganpat Ram to be a burst of fresh air in otherwise tepid discussions. But could the moderators not ration his outpourings? Maybe three comments per post? Ganpat, nothing personal. I mostly enjoy your comments, just that there’s too many of them. We all need a burst of fresh air, not a blast. Jus’ saying.

  16. Hayyer

    YLH:
    India did not fill Baglihar in the low season. The professor is quite wrong. Nor did Pakistan object when India filled Salal or Uri. There was no need to because it was all perfectly legal. But by the time Baglihar came up the discourse of cheating by India had begun to take hold in Pakistan.
    Take the case of Salal. The dam is silting up, but Pakistan will not allow silt ejection gates to be built in any project. The Tulbal navigation project in Kashmir on the Wular would raise the lake by about three metres and enable better flood control in the valley as in Pakistan, plus raise the power potential of down stream dams without taking any water away from Pakistan. Yet it is stuck for the last 30 years.
    The point is that Professor Briscoe does not elaborate the real solution that he hinted at in the very beginning. He merely castigates India for not being friendly with Pakistan, and the MEA, not for being untruthful or cheating but for being insensitive about Pakistan. Given the state of relations between our two countries that is nothing startling or immoral. If India and Pakistan were friends they could help each other in many ways-as enemies they both lose something.
    Where there are interstate water disputes in India the states concerned don’t have sympathy for each other, nor does Delhi; it looks on neutrally or intervenes in favour of one state or the other depending on which party is in power. To expect the Indian government to build up sympathy for Pakistan is unrealistic, and what would it serve-the solution won’t come through sympathy.

    Majumdar:
    The last 13 years have seen not only reduced snowfall but also reduced monsoons in the North. The wettest months in Kashmir used to be March and April, but now it seems to get only a few showers in that period.
    Thought the Himalyan glaciers are not melting as fast as feared they are retreating. Underground water levels in the Punjab and Haryana have dropped by 50 feet and more. Underground water reservoirs are no longer being charged at the same rate, and water is being mined from deeper aquifers by submersible pumps in both states.
    It is not possible to siphon off water through underground channels that harvest water. What comes into the rivers is the run off after ground absorption. The rivers are the harvest. Besides the water that does go underground into aquifers need not end up in a desired area. With the present state of technology who can say what aquifer is fed by which run off. The bore wells along the Indo- Pak border probably tap into the same aquifers.

  17. Mustafa Shaban

    I agree with Briscoes analysis. He has written a good report.

  18. Ganpat Ram

    SHARMISHTHA:

    Thanks for the high compliment about being a burst of fresh air in otherwise tepid discussions.

    That is exactly what I try to be.

    I apologise for posting in short spurts rather than one long piece, usually. I post as thoughts occur to me.

    In Indian websites generally they do not care if you post often. They don’t care if you are a Pakistani. They care only if you use vulgar abuse.

    With Pakistani websites, I find, my right to post is immediately challenged unless I am an Islamosycophant.

  19. Hayyer

    Sharmistha:
    You should be able to distinguish between fresh air and noisy repeaters. One refreshes the other is a nuisance.

  20. Ganpat Ram

    Mustafa Shaban

    I am sure Hafiz Saeed and the Lashkar-e-Tayyba also agree with Briscoe’s analysis.

  21. Prasad

    Ganpat,

    You are not being the same detail oriented blogger anymore. You are just being an accuser. We should stop it. It is not fair to be generalist when one has so much wonderful insights and knowledge as you have ( i mean this)

    Rgds

  22. PMA

    Hayyer: Sir, you and I have discussed this contentious issue of water sharing between Hindustan and Pakistan, or should we say water stealing by Hindustan, in the past. This time around I am contended to listen to the others. However I will like to bring your attention to the April issue of National Geographic. The entire issue is devoted to the subject of potable water and lack of it worldwide. There are few very telling pictures and stories of water situation in the Capital city of Delhi, particularly in the Slums of Nehru Camp. Hindustan and Pakistan are two countries among many worldwide that are identified as most likely to go to war over the issue of water. I will like to remind many here that denial of drinking water by the enemy is deeply ingrained into the Muslim psyche. Even after 1500 years thousands come out in streets to commemorate the incident. Let there not be another Karbala. Stealing is bad. Stealing water is unacceptable in our culture.

  23. dk

    It is not clear how much John was paid by terrorist sponsors next door! LOL!

    He compares Paraguay- Brazil relationship with terroristcountry-India relationship. This is hilarious. Reinforces the idea he is a paid whiner on behalf of the terroristcountry.

    For starters Paraguay doesn’t run terrorist training camps to bomb buses, hotels and trains in Brazil. Never heard of Paraguayans visiting Brazil train stations to mow down unarmed passengers standing on platforms.

    Thus terrorist lover Briscoe will have zero impact on Indian readers.

  24. Ganpat Ram

    Come to thionk of it, I can’t recall when was the last time Bolivian or Paraguayan trained terrorists turned up in Rio de Janeiro and massacred people in the famous hotels of the city.

    That privilege has been reserved for Mumbai.

    I suppose Briscoe was not in the Taj hotel when the Pakistani terrorists called. That is why he does not think Pak-supported terrorism should affect India’s attitude.

    PMA:

    I will like to remind many here that terrorism by the enemy is deeply ingrained into the Hindu psyche. Even after 1000 years thousands come out in streets to commemorate the incident. Let there not be another Somnath, etc. Stealing is bad. Stealing innocent life is unacceptable in our culture.

  25. AZW

    The water problem is here, staring at us in our faces and is not going to go away even as we cite deep distrust and animosity between the two nations.

    Both sides have valid arguments in their defence. But passions run high as water is what defines life in the universe. With our growing populations as well as the rapidly melting glaciers, both countries will face a likely water catastrophe in the future if they do not join heads together and work at the problem now.

    If I take one thing from this article by John Briscoe, it will be that solution is not as complicated as we make it out in our minds. The major issue of timing the flows for hydropower by India, as well as accommodating Pakistani concerns on the hydro projects upstream in the three rivers is by no means an impossible task for two nations to agree on.

    As Hayyer points out, the underwater aquifers are shared by both India and Pakistan. Sometime later they will start appearing on the water radar screen between the two nations as acquifer levels keep dropping. The dead storage idea for water to be used in lean seasons is also a possible solution to combat the water problem.

    The cross border terrorism has been condemned at the PTH in relevant threads. When Hafiz Saeed or his cohorts raise water issues, be assured that their blood thirst and religious paranoia require any issue that can be taken off the shelf and used for their bloody objectives. But here, we are talking about joining heads and working at the problem together with India. This is no place to air the communal grievances even as a side argument Please don’t use this thread to air your deep seated hatred towards each other. Bringing out every grievance occurred from the past 1,000 years will not help the rapidly growing problem for most basic of the commodities, water.

  26. Israr

    Hand Indians abide by the UN resolutions and their promise of holding plebicit in Kashmir, I dont think there would be any Lashkr and Hafiz Saeed. I give equal credit to Indians for the creation of these miscreants.

  27. Ganpat Ram

    AZW:

    You are avoiding the simple point that unless Pakistan stops exporting terrorism to India, there will be zero good will in India to settle mutual problems.

    No amount of pushing ugly issues under some carpet will help.

    Pakistan can have cooperation with India over water or it can have export of terror. It is not going to have both.

  28. Hayyer

    PMA:
    Sir, let us discuss facts in evidence. Accusations without evidence are just slander.
    I have not read the National Geographic issue. Does it say that India has stolen water. Does it give evidence of the stealing?
    Even Professor Briscoe does not say that water has been stolen. He only argues that India should educate its public about the distress in Pakistan and be sensitive to it. That would be quite in order if India were able to do anything about Pakistan’s distress. As matters stand India is distressed itself and it is not the cause of distress in Pakistan.
    Water distress in the Indus basin can be remedied to some extent by cooperation between India and Pakistan. I just do not understand these war cries. How will war solve the crisis?

  29. Ganpat Ram

    All this goofy talk by the tearful Irishman, Briscoe, about Nelson Mandela, Father Christmas, etc, is worthless. It will cut zero ice in India. It won’t wash, Briscoe.

    Briscoe is just inviting Pakistanis to live in a rosy, cosy little world where they are free to train and send terrorists to spill blood like water in India while good ole goofy India does all it can to make sure Pakistan has all the water it needs.

    Ain’t gonna happen.

    Even Nelson Mandela only forgave his oppressors AFTER they stopped oppressing.

  30. pHaze

    “Equally depressing is my repeated experience – most recently at a major international meeting of strategic security institutions in Delhi – that even the most liberal and enlightened of Indian analysts (many of whom are friends who I greatly respect) seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the great vulnerability and legitimate concern of Pakistan (which is obvious and objective to an outsider).”

    Why should Indians give a shit about Pakistan when there is no respect from across the border. What about the thosands of Indians killed
    in terror attacks, the billions Indians have to spend for security and policing, and economic and financial losses. I’m not claiming Indian govt
    officials are angels, but its simply not worth doing any kind of honest buisness with Pakistan. If most Pakistanis pray for the destruction of India (i.e. kafirs), and want to see the ‘flag of Islam’ fly on new Delhi, then an eye-for-an-eye policy would be highly appropriate.

    @Israr
    I’m surprised at the attitude of many muslims – everything is looked at from the angle of Islam. What if Kashmir was a Buddhist majority
    state?. If the worldwide population of Hindus/Sikhs/Jains/Buddhists/others go by this intolerant expansionist logic, then they have to “recapture” Pakistan and Afghanistan and kill its innocent(??) citizens and plant the flag of back.

  31. Ganpat Ram

    AZW:

    Who told you cross-border terrorism by Pakistan has nothing to do with water to be supplied by India?

    So you think it is a bargain for Pakistan to get water and give terrorism in return?

    You cut no ice.

  32. Ganpat Ram

    AZW:

    Let’s turn this one around.

    If India were sending terrorists into Pakistan to cause havoc and spill blood in all directions, would PAKISTAN be happy to supply it with water?

  33. Blacky

    Oy Ganpat….chal daru la!

  34. PMA

    Hayyer (April 12, 2010 at 8:05 pm):

    Sir, war cries are not coming from here. They are coming from the international media and the experts on these subjects. With population explosion both in Hindustan and Pakistan the issue of water is becoming dangerous by the days. Unlined-reservoir storage of water, legal or illegal, ‘live’ or ‘dead’, peak season or dry season, results in loss of water downstream. It is that simple. Any loss of water or slowing down of water flow or untimely flow is detrimental to the the users down stream. In time of active hostilities flow or blockage of water could be used as a weapon, both offensive and defensive. Both Hindustan and Pakistan have done so in their previous conflicts. In time of ‘peace’ potential threat of use of water as weapon means blackmail. Rivers provide natural defence lines of Punjab. Control of flow of water by Hindustan is very very dangerous for the safety and security of Pakistan and hence world peace. The water issue has its implication far beyond economics and politics.

    The Indus Basin Treaty wrongly considers River Indus as one of the components of the water sharing agreement between Hindustan and Pakistan. The Indus has two very separate and distinct watershed areas. One is comprised of Kashmir-Punjab shared by Hindustan and Pakistan and the other by the rest of the land mass shared by Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hindustan is not party to the second watershed explained above. Therefore the treaty must consider only the waters of the five rivers of the Punjab-Kashmir and not Indus itself. How much water flows down Indus at all points above Panjnad is not any business of Hindustan. But in the Indus Basin Treaty it is the accumulative flow of the Indus plus the five rivers of Punjab-Kashmir which was considered as basis in developing the water sharing formula. A clear act of theft on part of Hindustan. In reality Hindustani Punjab only deserves waters of Satluj and Beas while Pakistani Punjab must have Ravi, Chenab and Jhelum. But by wrongly including Indus in the calculations the ‘Treaty’ awards waters of Ravi to Hindustan as well. Not fair. Now Hindustan is blocking the flow in Chenab, Jhelum and their tributaries. Not an act of a peace loving neighbor.

  35. Ganpat Ram

    PMA:

    India is not a peace loving neighbour, you complain.

    Well, we do try but it is given only to the purest and finest and most virtuous – like Pakistan – to be really peace loving neighbours. Poor India can’t expect to make that angelic grade.

    Just ask the Lashkar-e-Tayyba.

  36. Sameet

    Wonder how large hearted Lula would have been if one from Brazil’s wonderful neighbours had sailed down the Amazon and decided to have a free for all with his AK-47 in Rio or San Paulo? Me thinks Lula wouldn’t have been so generous with his water resources.

  37. AZW

    Ganpat Ram:

    I don’t need to respond to any of your shallow musings. You can’t think beyond the Hindu Muslim divide that has encircled you. It is not my responsibility to engage you in any discussions if you have shown little inclination to think outside your feel good little world.

    One of these days, you ought to meet fellas named Kashifiat and Dr. Jawwad. They are your alter egos in Pakistan who have rarely ventured beyond their Islamic boundaries that have constricted their minds. You and Kashifiat have beaten each other time and again in terms of shallow thinking and empty hatred that both of you try to mask behind a pseudo-intellectual comments. All both of you have to do is to open your mouths.

  38. AZW

    A perpective on the wasteful canal based irrigation system and a possible modern solution from today’s The News. I am posting the excerpts below. Please click the link for the whole article.

    Once again, clear out the empty nationalist rhetoric and we will find decent Indian and Pakistani professionals looking at the problem itself, suggesting sensible solutions without ever invoking centuries of baggage to settle scores now over the water row.

    http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=234001

    Checking the Induswaters dispute

    Tuesday, April 13, 2010
    Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar

    Politicians and Islamic outfits in Pakistan accuse India of stealing upstream Indus system waters, threatening Pakistan’s very existence. More sober Pakistanis complain that numerous new Indian projects on the Jhelum and Chenab will create substantial live storage even in run-of-the-river hydel dams. This will enable India to drastically reduce flows to Pakistan during the crucial sowing season, something that actually happened for a couple of days when the Baglihar reservoir was filled by India after dam completion.

    India accuses Pakistan of hysteria, saying there is really no issue since India has always observed the Indus Waters Treaty dividing the waters of the Indus and Punjab rivers between the two countries. Pakistan may suffer from water scarcity but so does India.

    Inter-state fights over water in India are humungous — Punjab vs Haryana, Karnataka vs Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh vs Maharashtra. Water raises passions, and farmers in all states claim they are being robbed of water, without going into the rather complex facts. Pakistan is no different, say Indian experts, so let’s shrug aside Pakistani rhetoric.

    What this debate misses is that dam-based canal irrigation is an obsolete, wasteful 19th century technology that cannot meet 21st century needs. It must be replaced by sprinkler and drip irrigation, distributed through pressurised plastic pipes. This approach has enabled Israel to irrigate the desert. It can enable India and Pakistan to triple the irrigated area with their existing water resources, escaping water scarcity. Drip and sprinkler irrigation systems are expensive. They use a lot of power for pumping. But they greatly improve yields too. Israel’s agriculture is highly competitive.

    Canals are hugely wasteful of both land and water, something well-captured in Tushaar Shah’s book ‘Taming the Anarchy’. Up to 7 per cent of the command area of a conventional irrigation project is taken up by canals, and this no longer makes sense when land is worth lakhs per acre. In the Narmada command area, farmers have refused to give up their land to build distributaries from the main Narmada canal, so only a small portion of the irrigation potential is actually used today.

    Instead of canals, we can transport water through underground pipes that leave the land above free for cultivation. Indeed, the downhill flow of water through massive pipes can run turbines, generating electricity for pumping the water to the surface where required.

    Gujarat has shown the way out of this water crisis. It has gone in a big way for drip and sprinkler irrigation. It has been rewarded with an astounding agricultural growth rate of 9 per cent despite being a semi-arid state. Jain Irrigation has become one of the biggest producers of drip and sprinkler equipment in the world, and other corporate rivals are coming up fast.

    Like Gujarat, India and Pakistan need to replace canal-based irrigation with pipe-based irrigation. India has world-class technology and equipment that it can share with Pakistan. Such co-operation cannot end controversies over Indus water sharing. But it can take the sting out of them.

    The writer is consulting editor for the Economic Times. Email: swamiaiyar@yahoo.com

  39. ashu

    Do Pakistani media and public really believe that India can be intimidated or forced by use of military to agree to the Paksitani position? Does the past use of military by Pakistan validate this belief?
    If not, then why even talk of war?

  40. Majumdar

    Adnan bhai,

    Apart from technology like drip and sprinkler, there is also need to look at changing cultivation technique – SRI/SSI for growing paddy/cane etc and changing crop patterns altogether- growing crops which provide more nutrition per litre of water applied.

    Regards

  41. Hayyer

    PMA:
    “Therefore the treaty must consider only the waters of the five rivers of the Punjab-Kashmir and not Indus itself. How much water flows down Indus at all points above Panjnad is not any business of Hindustan. But in the Indus Basin Treaty it is the accumulative flow of the Indus plus the five rivers of Punjab-Kashmir which was considered as basis in developing the water sharing formula. A clear act of theft on part of Hindustan. In reality Hindustani Punjab only deserves waters of Satluj and Beas while Pakistani Punjab must have Ravi, Chenab and Jhelum. But by wrongly including Indus in the calculations the ‘Treaty’ awards waters of Ravi to Hindustan as well. Not fair. Now Hindustan is blocking the flow in Chenab, Jhelum and their tributaries. Not an act of a peace loving neighbor.”
    The Indus arises in the Tibetan plateau and flows through Ladakh and Baltistan where various rivers join it such as the Shyok and Zanskar rivers before flowing into Pakistan controlled territory. The Chenab and the Ravi arise in Himachal Pradesh. It is only the Jehlum which arises in Kashmir. Your premise that Pakistan is entitled to all the waters originating in Kashmir is in any case a mistaken one. Because regardless of the status of Jammu and Kashmir, that state is entitled to the waters of the rivers that flow through it. The Indus Waters Treaty has deprived the people of that state of their full potential. Punjab, Haryana , Delhi and Rajasthan are not entitled to the water of the Indus, Jehlum, and do not get any of it, but nor does J&K because of the treaty. J&K’s power potential is also limited because it cannot store water. Your assumption that Pakistani Punjab and Sindh have an automatic right to all the water of these rivers is mistaken ab initio. Its right arises from the IWT. That treaty discriminates against J&K, not Pakistan.
    The Indus Waters Treaty is a negotiated one under the auspices of the World Bank. To call India’s share theft is to undermine the treaty. In these water stressed times there are too many voices in this part of the world who would be happy to call it off altogether.
    India has never blocked water to Pakistan even in 1965 and 1971.
    The Ravi is the border between J&K and Punjab, flowing down from Himachal. Pakistan claims all the waters of Indus including the Hindu Kush tributaries. This is not contested, nor has Pakistan been deprived of the waters of the Chenab and the Jehlum. Your argument therefore does not stand. India has not blocked the flow of the Chenab and the Jehlum. Let us argue on facts not assumptions.
    Theft implies criminality. It is an inappropriate word to describe the terms of a treaty fifty years after it was signed by your country. The Upper Bari Doab Canal taking off from the Ravi and irrigating Gurdaspur and Amritsar districts now used earlier to flow into Pakistan. Its diversion to Indian North Punjab was part of the IWT under which Pakistan received World Bank aid to build its own dams and canals. It was perfectly legitimate and equitable.

  42. Hayyer

    Please read ‘Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and Rajasthan are not entitled to the waters of the Indus, Jehlum and Chenab’ instead of
    ‘Punjab, Haryana , Delhi and Rajasthan are not entitled to the water of the Indus, Jehlum,’ above.
    Neither, in fact as I mentioned above is J&K except for a limited quantity from the tributaries.

  43. Ganpat Ram

    AZW:

    Your musings, unlike mine, must be very profound indeed if they can expect Indians to cooperate with Pakistan in providing Pakistan with water while Pakistan cooperates with Lashkar-e-Tayyba is gunning down innocent Indians.

    Very profound you must be.

  44. Prasad

    @PMA

    your post has nothing but pure rhetoric. Dont use the word steal etc. The real issue here is whether an amendment to IWT is required and if yes how do we achieve it. Hague is not a solution for sure

    Now if you club various other issues such as Kashmir, Muslim, partition, Jinnah, Gandhi, 1971, 1000 years, terrorism etc, I dont think you will go anywhere

    @ Israr

    You are hugely mistaken if Kashmir would have solved Hafiz Saeed and his core team of Alquaeeda operatives. Elimination of all other ‘Kafirs’ ( like me) is the prime objective of these folks ( whether you accept or otherwise). They would have still fought citing Junagadh, Hyderabad Nizam’s ill treatment, Assam so on and so forth.. there is no dearth of reason for these guys to wage jihad

    India like any other sovereign country will have to put in the right kind of ‘check’ mechanism and keep these jokers ( ref Batman series who strikes at will at Gotham with no purpose other than eliminating Batman himself) at bay

  45. Ganpat Ram

    PMA:

    The Kashmir issue as an excuse for bloodthirsty terrorism has always been utterly contemptible.

    The Kashmiri Muslims in India have every normal right of free speech and free politics. They do not have the right to secede from India, but have every other right a democracy can afford.

    The military presence is uncomfortable but is the result of terrorism fed from Pakistan.

    If Hindus in Pakistan had anything like as good rights as Kashmiri Muslims in India, I would be very happy.

    So quit that feeble whine about Kashmir excusing Pakistani terrorism.

  46. sreekumar kv

    A link from the comments section of another site with the same article.
    http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/14582.pdf

    It provides an indian perspective to the water issue.

  47. Hayyer

    Majumdar:
    Both India and Pakistan would have adequate water from the Indus system rivers if both the Punjabs (including Haryana) stopped their paddy growing programmes. Remember these areas grew traditionally grew maize or coarse grains, with Basmati grown in some tracts fortunate to have surplus water.
    The damage to underground water levels is because against all agronomic sense Punjab and Haryana insist on producing huge quantities of paddy to feed government buffer stocks. Punjab produces over 10 million tonnes and Haryana over 6 million, most of it from tubewell irrigation, but also from canals.
    The food surpluses should come from the more fertile tracts of farm land in Bihar, Bengal and UP which receive more rain, not the arid plains of Punjab and Haryana but because of lopsided development priorities that has not happened.
    Basmati does not use that much water, and this was the main rice grown in both the Punjabs before 47′. Unfortunately the newer techniques of growing Basmati without flood irrigation don’t produce economic yields. High yielding paddy also requires more water. Punjab and Haryana produce yields comparable to the world’s highest. If we could duplicate that in UP, Bihar and Bengal everyone would be better off.
    Water stress occurs in summer and it occurs over paddy. Maize, jowar bajra and the lentils don’t cause the problem.
    Drip irrigation is costly, requiring investment in fixed capital of tens of thousands of rupees per acre. It cannot be a solution to India’s food needs though it should be used in Rajasthan, where flooding irrigation from the canals have produced their own ecological problems.
    Let us remember that though it is possible to use water sparingly in drip systems the cost of the grain produced has to be borne by the consumer. With the focus on the aam admi’s budget and subsidies being phased out drip irrigation is a long way coming.

  48. PMA

    Majumdar (April 13, 2010 at 8:51 am):

    The question is not how wasteful are the irrigation and the cultivation practices of a certain country. That is a separate subject and must be examined independently.

    Here the subject under discussion is the fair and adequate sharing of the international waters. The Indus Basin Water Treaty wrongly includes the Indus River in the mix. Indus, even though originates in Tibet and for a short distance travels through Ladakh, is primarily a Pakistani River. The watershed areas of Indus and all of its tributaries above Panjnad lie in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I have written an article titled “When Kabul comes to Attock” on that subject. You are welcome to ‘google’ it up.

    India can not have any claim on the waters of that river. But the treaty treats Indus as one of the many India-Pakistan rivers. This is a point not registered by your fellow Indian gentleman blogging under ‘Hayyer’. In the final award of share of waters including Indus wrongly favors India.

    Half a century ago when there was enough water to go around for the population in general, the water issue was not that grave. But now with bulging populations in India and Pakistan, water has become a ticking bomb for the governments in Pakistan. Perhaps by placing numerous dams and blocking the flow of water to Pakistani Punjab and ultimately to Sindh, India is hoping to create social and political unrest in Pakistan and collapse of Pakistani state. India has ambitions to be a world power. But this is a wrong way to go about. Such tactics could backfire.

  49. karun

    Perhaps by placing numerous dams and blocking the flow of water to Pakistani Punjab and ultimately to Sindh, India is hoping to create social and political unrest in Pakistan and collapse of Pakistani state.

    are u on drugs?

  50. lal

    @PMA
    Is it your position that IWT has to be renegotiated.I have little understanding about the nuances of water sharing agreement,but it is my understanding that any revision of treaty wont be as favourable to pakistan.I hope hayyer will elaborate as he is the authority on this.There was an article in southasiaanalysis by Dr.S.Chandresekharan regarding how it will harm pakistan if they attempt to renegotiate a treaty that has stood 3 wars,kargil,mumbai and 20 years of terrorism

  51. swapnavasavdutta

    lal, why do you think India stuck to the treaty
    inspite of chances to not abide by it despite of
    multiple provocations over the years?

  52. lal

    No idea,as i said i m no expert on these things…some one better should answer these questions…actually after reading briscoe,one thing i agree with him is, in general there is hardly any discussion on Indo-pak water issue in the main stream Indian media…May be we are sensible and believe pakistan should get its fare share of water and it is inhuman to divert water used for irrigation(ok…i know we are no saints..)..may be the restrictions imposed by the international monitoring….or we are afraid of doing somthing like that loosing the moral high ground altogether…I dont kno y there is so much talk about balochistan and water these days…in the end it myt complicate the situation….or it myt end up beneficial,as there is a better chance of coming into an agreement on these issues when compared to kashmir….and the ignorance of indian public will give the necessary leeway to government to give concessions away from media frency….

  53. Hayyer

    PMA:
    The Indus Sir is all yours anyway. There is no dispute over it. Except for a small 1.5 MW power plant near Leh there is no barrier to flow of the water. A small canal takes off irrigating a few hundred acres but that’s it. Similarly no structure over the Jehlum or Chenab diverts water for irrigation even within J&K. A canal built from Akhnur some decades before 1947 is the only structure that continues to use the Chenab for irrigation.
    All the rivers that flow through J&K into Pakistan are reserved for Pakistan. No water except as allowed by the treaty is held up. That hold up is temporary, except the one time dam fillings, but even that is being lost as silting occurs.
    What then is the problem? The IWT deprives J&K the state through which the Indus, Jehlum and Chenab flow, of their waters. That is reserved for Pakistan under the IWT depriving J&K, not the rest of India.
    You claim the Ravi also? On what basis, and how do you call it theft? Why should India not have the right to the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej?
    “Perhaps by placing numerous dams and blocking the flow of water to Pakistani Punjab and ultimately to Sindh, India is hoping to create social and political unrest in Pakistan and collapse of Pakistani state. India has ambitions to be a world power. But this is a wrong way to go about. Such tactics could backfire.”
    That is called jumping to conclusions. The right to generate power from the rivers flowing through it belongs to J&K. The Govt. of J&K has involved the National Hydro Power Corporation to construct some of the projects. Some it has taken up on its own. North India is not only water stressed. It is power stressed. J&K hopes not only to meet its own power needs but also sell the surplus in summer. There is no surplus in winter.
    You want J&K not to exercise its right to generate 15000 MW of power? On what basis do you make such a demand. How do India’s world power ambitions, such as they are, enter the discussion? Creating power potential in north India causes political and social problems in Pakistan? Get serious. The only problems over the waters are the ones created for itself by Pakistan. If Sindh is in a crisis it must be because of mismanagement within Pakistan. Don’t blame India.
    J&K, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and Western Rajasthan are all part of the Indus system. Bikaner was fed by canals from the Punjab before 47 which is why the Maharaja considered joining Pakistan. Our rights and your rights are defined by the IWT. Our population and your population is going up, we are both stressed. There is a call for revising the treaty in J&K. India has faced serious secession problems in its Punjab over division of river waters with Haryana and Rajasthan. Shouldn’t Professor Briscoe advise the Pakistan government to generate sympathy among Pakistanis for India’s stressed situation?

  54. Bin Ismail

    Honourable “Both sides of the border”:

    For as long as we have a treaty in place, it would only be befitting to abide by the treaty in a dignified and gentlemanly way. In all sincerity, let us both try together, not to become the laughing stock of the world.

    Best wishes to all.

  55. Hayyer

    Precisely what I would suggest.

  56. PMA

    Hayyer (April 14, 2010 at 2:03 pm):

    Sir, you are sidestepping the main point of my argument – inclusion of Indus in the fifty year old water sharing formula under ‘Indus Basin Water Treaty’. There are two major criteria in international water sharing agreements. First, the watershed area(s) contributed by a country towards any given river. And second, the length a river flows through a country. So what is the problem you ask.

    The problem with the ‘treaty’ is that it treats the entire ‘Indus Basin’, including Indus as one river system. True, topographically, hydrologically it is one system. That is how it is taught in schools. But politically the system is spread over three or possibly five countries.

    My contention is that when Indus has very little to nothing to do with India under both criteria stated above, why it should be included in the India-Pakistan water sharing formula? This formula favors Indian Punjab at the cost of Pakistani Punjab, Sindh as well as the disputed region of Kashmir.

    A fair distribution is to take Indus out of the calculations and treat the other five rivers as one system, because these are the only rivers shared by India and Pakistan. Let us calculate the watershed as well as the length of these five rivers in each country and then assign shares. What is so complicated about that. Unless India is afraid of the out come of such calculations.

    My second point is that any qualitative as well as time-sensitive quantitative blockage of flow of water by any means and for any purpose results in loss of water through seepage and other factors. You sir do not agree to that. Unfortunate for me. I can not teach you ground water hydrology here at PTH.

    And about social and political unrest within Pakistan caused by the water issue. I am sure you are aware of the fifty years old Kalabagh Dam political issue within Pakistan. Water sharing is a big political and ecological issue in Pakistan. It is no stretch. But thank you for educating us on the rivers in India. Similarly I will invite to read my articles on the subject ‘When Kabul comes to Attock’ and ‘Rivers and Link Canals of Punjab’. Unlike many from your country India, when it comes to discussions, you are sir a gentleman. And I appreciate that. Thanks for taking part.

  57. stuka

    PMA: You are doing RR over Indus being included – why did your government of the time include it then? The fact remains the treaty was negotiated and agreed to by both countries. Who knows – if the Pakistanis had not agreed to the point, there would have been no treaty? If you want to blame anyone, blame your leaders who signed on the dotted line.

  58. vajra

    @stuka

    Silly boy.

    “What is mine is mine. What is yours is negotiable.”

  59. Hayyer

    PMA:
    I have been arguing about the legality of the IWT and India’s adherence to it, not seeking lessons in hydrology. I feel fairly certain that those experts who negotiated the treaty half a century ago with the help of World Bank experts would have had adequate training in hydrology.
    I have noted your views on the Indus. I can assure you that the Ladakh highland desert extending over thousands of square kilometres is extremely water stressed. Today, if the treaty were to be renegotiated, Ladakhis would insist that their needs not be overlooked as happened in 1960. The Indus with its tributaries the Nubra, Shyok and Zanskar rivers flow through mainly Buddhist territory in the upper reaches. Another tributary, the Suru flowing through Shia Kargil before joining the Indus near Skardu. These residents of Ladakh would claim water to which you think India is not entitled. It is a very substantial flow that the Shyok and Zanskar bring to the Indus. Your notions of fairness are not shared by Ladakhis both of Leh and Kargil who think of the Indus as their river.
    Similarly if the Indus waters are renegotiated you might find claims of hydrology as well as of equity coming up which may work against Pakistan. I don’t think we need another reason for animosity. Kashmir is enough. If Pakistan wishes to reopen the treaty it should weigh the pros and cons carefully.
    You have not cared to counter my question about the needs of J&K through which the rivers flow, nor have you given any evidence of your charge that India has set about deliberately to create unrest in Pakistan by exploiting its right to generate power. What the negotiators did in 1960 was the best possible. Neither side was satisfied but the treaty worked for over 40 years. It is best to leave unopened this particular can of worms. No good can come of setting up a new set of claims and counter claims between two nations that cannot today negotiate their way out of simple matters like Sir Creek and Siachen.

  60. PMA

    stuka (April 14, 2010 at 6:47 pm):

    “If you want to blame anyone, blame your leaders who signed on the dotted line.”

    Yes I do. That is why I say that the treaty agreement is not fair. You may or may not know that prior to this agreement another agreement existed between the governments of then united Punjab and Sind under which all waters of Indus were allocated to Sind and all waters of the five rivers of united Punjab were allocated to the Punjab. The water sharing must be within the two Punjabs only with Kashmir and Himachal, as Hayyer has pointed out, as partners. Even if we consider the treaty fair, the agreement allows India to harness hydroelectric power and not storage of water. That is a clear violation of the terms of the agreement.

  61. stuka

    “Even if we consider the treaty fair, the agreement allows India to harness hydroelectric power and not storage of water. That is a clear violation of the terms of the agreement”

    OK, I am no water expert and have no fixed opinion. I do know that all the arbitration has ended up favoring India’s position AS “ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE AGREEMENT”. Why is that?

  62. PMA

    Hayyer (April 14, 2010 at 7:30 pm):

    I was trying to avoid a discussion over Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan even though the water issue and Kashmir issue are interlinked. That tells us how important it is for India and Pakistan to resolve the land dispute; resolution of water dispute can follow. I am a firm believer that only future for India and Pakistan is of peaceful coexistence. There must a peace agreement between the two nations. India has the capacity to resolve disputes with her neighbors. Does she have the will?

  63. Voldemort

    PMA:

    Larger than the water dispute between India and Pakistan, the issue lies with the Pakistani psyche. The IWT was negotiated by the two countries and brokered by international arbitrators. Yet, you guys aren’t satisfied with a treaty that has stood the test of time and numerous wars between us. And now you say that in order for the two countries to live in peace, Kashmir must be solved. How exactly, may I ask? Because nothing short of India completely giving up Kashmir – so that your water woes are solved once and for all – will satisfy you.

  64. PMA

    stuka (April 14, 2010 at 8:42 pm):

    Because one clause says that India can harness hydroelectric power of the ‘three western rivers’.

    But another clause says that India shall not store or block the free flow of water in these three rivers.

    Hydroelectric power can be generated without ‘storage’ of water where possible. But India has chosen to ‘store’ the waters. A clear violation of the treaty.

    Why the arbitrators have ignored the second clause and sanction the first? The answer lies in the way international politics works.

  65. PMA

    Voldemort (April 14, 2010 at 9:03 pm)”

    “And now you say that in order for the two countries to live in peace, Kashmir must be solved. How exactly, may I ask?”

    Yes. The resolution of the Kashmir dispute between the two countries is a prerequisite for the peaceful coexistence. We have tried every thing else. Why not to try negotiations without preconditions. Lets resolve our disputes and live like good neighbors.

  66. Ganpat Ram

    PMA:

    You can get what you want by one method only: fighting.

    Don’t whine and beg. Fight and see where you get.

    I think the Muslims will suffer most. Just a guess.

  67. Ganpat Ram

    PMA:

    You say negotiate without preconditons?

    A lie.

    Beacuse you set one condition: discussing Kashmir.

  68. Gabban

    What is to resolve about Kashmir ?

    The Rajah of Kashmir joined India … the people, wanted to be with Pakistan.

    For the purpose, Pakistan has attempted twice to gain whole of Kashmir … it could not.

    Sixty years have gone by since … the time and resources spent is amazing …
    the country has gone Nuclear, is maintaining an army on unsubstantiated threat perception and strategies of a few, has stopped progessing for few lakhs of square kilometers of the Valley; the entire population of the country, now going on the second generation, is held hostage for few lakhs of muslims there … the lives of the people of Azad Kashmir are never spoken of … the progress in Azad Kashmir is retro … for what strategical purpose to Pakistan has a portion of Kashmir given to China … the people of main land Pakistan are disillusioned … this country has lost the right to Kashmir for whatever …

    First the muslims of Kashmir … now rivers of Kashmir …
    what will the army of Pakistan and its Man Friday, ISI, think of next of Kashmir but why not about well being of the muslims of Pakistan … why not the other existing resources of water and irrigation methods …
    why are the muslims of Kashmir prefered over people of Pakistan ?

    ( … wonder why the army and ISI have no indiginous strategies to overcome shortage of electricity, water, food grains … after all they aspire to lord over the country … make all people muslims more the religion itself and except themselves … wonder why the mullahs themselves do not want to go to heaven instead of mersmerizing the kids … )

    There is nothing to resolve about Kashmir … Pakistan has to first resolve the day to day lives of its own Balochis, Pathans, Sindhis, Punjabis, men women and children … then the muslims of Azad Kashmir … then languishing Pakistani muslims in Bangladesh. Before that no talk of more Kashmir and its muslims. Period.

  69. Majumdar

    I will like to remind many here that denial of drinking water by the enemy is deeply ingrained into the Muslim psyche. Even after 1500 years thousands come out in streets to commemorate the incident. Let there not be another Karbala.

    This must be the joke of the millenium. Followers of Yazid invoking the memory of Karbala.

    Regards

  70. Prasad

    Dear Ganpat,

    you are certainly getting silly by the post. looks like hydrology is not your domain. suggest refraining from rhetoric statements

  71. Hayyer

    PMA:
    I share your sentiments about peace between India and Pakistan. India wants peace but it seems to us that Pakistan does not. Perhaps that impression is wrong, but it is the message we get.
    As for storage of water on the rivers allotted to Pakistan, let me assure you that all the storage created in India is legal and within the parameters of the treaty. The IWT specifically allows one time filling of the run of the river projects, which are the only projects allowed to India on the Indus, Jehlum and Chenab. All water flowing in a 24 hour period must be let through to Pakistan, after the initial filling period. Even the Pakistan government does not dispute this, or the fact that India has not been holding up water.
    India is allowed to build storage dams on the tributaries. Thus it has a 1000 MW project at Bursar planned on a tributary of the Chenab which works on the storage principle. This, the Bursar project will double capacity of all the down stream run of the river projects. There is no irrigation component to this project.
    In fact creating more storage is the key to saving water in J&K for use by Pakistan in the low season. That is the element of trust. Your dams store water but sometimes fail to contain the flows that come down by heavy rain upstream. This happens occasionally. If storage were allowed upstream (upstream regulation as it is called) in J&K it would enable that water to be released to Pakistan when needed by you and it would add to our power capacity.

  72. Majumdar

    Hayyer mian,
    Re: April 13, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    Good observations. In addition, I suggest you do some google search on “System of Rice Intensification” and “System of Sugarcane Intensification”

    These practises have the potential of revolutionising Indian agriculture (esp these two notorious water guzzler) and I know for sure that some Indian sugar mills (with whom I am associated in a professional capacity) have already started promoting this on a large scale.

    As for storage of water on the rivers allotted to Pakistan, let me assure you that all the storage created in India is legal and within the parameters of the treaty.

    I think PMA sb has already conceded that and has instead moved the goal posts. Now he is questioning the validity of the IWT itself.

    Regards

  73. Mustafa Shaban

    @Majumdar: Who are you referring to as followers of Yazid in our present time?

  74. Majumdar

    Mustafa,

    The Pak establishment and its supporters, and it is pretty obvious who it is on PTH.

    Regards

  75. Ranger

    Amazing. This Bricoe chappie is actually appealing to our conscience !! He wants India to release water to Pakistan. Why ? Why would India want to do that ? Because Pakis would otherwise die of thirst ? Okaaay…… tell me how is that a bad thing ?

  76. Mustafa Shaban

    @Majumdar: I know very well the events of Karbala. You are hurling a huge acusation. The Pak establisment and government are not loyal to a certain sect, most of them are curropt and self serving people. I dont see the link between them and Yazid. I did not expect this from you. I sitll dont get your logic, there is no one in the muslim ummah who supports yazid’s action against Imam Hussain. The closest thing to that would be the behaviour of the Wahabi extremists, and none of the establishment abide by this ideology.

  77. PMA

    Majumdar. Not only you have very little to add to this discussion, you are making statements that you yourself don’t even understand. If you knew even a little about Muslim Civilization and religious affiliations of Muslims in general and this commenter in particular you will not be making these silly statements. Let me help you out. You are a Hindu from India. Right? You have plenty of Muslims in your country – few millions I believe. Take a few minutes off your comfortable seat and go speak to your compatriots. They should be able to relieve you of your ignorance.

  78. PMA

    Hayyer, you say “creating more storage [by India in Kashmir] is the key to saving water for use by Pakistan in the low season”. Now that is an interesting twist. Hell, let us ‘store’ all of our national assets in India. She would release them in the time of our distress. Here is how I see the entire water issue between India and Pakistan. Right after the independence India blocked the flow of water to Pakistan from all water heads located in India. The first act of political and economic blackmail. Pakistan under duress and without any ability to correct the situation on her own appealed to the international community – yes, yes it is the World Bank. Under duress in its most critical post-independence period, Pakistan accepted the unfair terms of the treaty. Now half a century later the present generations have to live with this unfair treaty – a treaty that the other party regularly breaks under the protection of legal loopholes and engineering technicalities. Dealing with India on all issues has been nothing but a long frustrating process for Pakistan. Water issue being just one of them.

  79. stuka

    Who is Yazid? Wasn’t Karbala the Shia Sunni fight? Not sure I get the connection to IWT / Water sharing etc?

  80. Ganpat Ram

    PRASAD:

    You opine,
    April 15, 2010 at 9:37 am:

    “Dear Ganpat,

    you are certainly getting silly by the post. looks like hydrology is not your domain. suggest refraining from rhetoric statements”

    You on the other hand, merely become more ungrammatical by the post.

  81. Luq

    Person A points out to B that his shirt is torn.

    Person B retorts, “So what if my shirt is torn? Your fly is open”

    Notable in this argument is that the open fly of person A will in no way mitigate or change the fact of B’s torn shirt. Person B speaks of the open fly as though the open fly somehow compensates for and justifies his torn shirt, and might successfully divert the subject of discussion away from the fact that his shirt remains torn.🙂

    Luq

  82. Prasad

    Ganpat

    forget the grammer. Pl dont bring in needless discussions. You have anything to contribute pl do. Else get on with life

  83. Hayyer

    PMA:
    “Hell, let us ’store’ all of our national assets in India. She would release them in the time of our distress. Here is how I see the entire water issue between India and Pakistan.”
    That sort of sarcasm is completely out of place in our discussion. I did mention the lack of trust between India and Pakistan which your comment confirms, nullifying thereby Professor Briscoe suggestions, naive as they were.

    “Right after the independence India blocked the flow of water to Pakistan from all water heads located in India. The first act of political and economic blackmail. Pakistan under duress and without any ability to correct the situation on her own appealed to the international community – yes, yes it is the World Bank. Under duress in its most critical post-independence period, Pakistan accepted the unfair terms of the treaty.”
    Your chronology is a bit off I think. I don’t have access to the books at present but the problem arose because partition left the controls and headworks of canals running into Pakistan in India. It particularly concerned the canals taking off from the Ravi in the Bari Doab Canal system. I do not recollect offhand how the irrigation system lower down at Hussainwala and into Bikaner worked. Water continued to flow in the canals into Pakistan territory right up to the date that Pakistan was able to build its dams and new canals fed from them. The treaty was signed in 1960, remember. From 1947 to 1960 and beyond, water continued to flow to Pakistan.
    You assume away, I don’t know how, India’s claim to water for its own Punjab (which included Haryana and present Himachal Pradesh) and Rajasthan. On what basis do you conclude that it was blackmail?
    The treaty was negotiated under the auspices of the World Bank, it was not bilateral. Of course Pakistan had a weak hand because the water originated in India, or if you like India controlled territory. But it does not follow that it was signed under duress. Your presumption that the treaty was extracted under duress from a helpless Pakistan, or that it was unfair has no basis other than failure to obtain satisfaction of maximal demands.

    “Now half a century later the present generations have to live with this unfair treaty”
    We live under it too. Our share of the river waters is just not enough for Punjab and Haryana, leave alone Rajasthan where only a handful of districts have derived any benefit. Chandigarh the capital city of the two states gets only two hours of water every morning and evening.
    I would remind you that India lost one Prime Minister, one Chief Minister, at least one other minister, sundry elected legislators and political leaders in violence that had its roots mostly in the water dispute between Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. Even Rajiv Gandhi narrowly escaped assassination at the hands of a disgruntled Punjabi because a gun failed to go off.
    The Supreme Court of India has wrestled unsuccessfully with the problem of water shortages between Punjab and Haryana. A former Congress Chief Minister of Punjab risked his entire career by defying the party high command over river waters division. H S Longowal the head of the Akali Dal lost his life because he appeared to be willing to accept an award of a Supreme Court Tribunal that seemed unfair to Punjab partisans.
    Our water problems have been far more stressful than yours, politically, socially and economically, but we don’t go about making an international issue out of it, and we try to abide by the treaty that gave us what share we have.
    ” – a treaty that the other party regularly breaks under the protection of legal loopholes and engineering technicalities.”
    Not true. There are no discretionary legal loopholes in the treaty; engineering technicalities are referred to arbitrators appointed by the World Bank as happened in the case of Baglihar.

    “Dealing with India on all issues has been nothing but a long frustrating process for Pakistan. Water issue being just one of them.”
    That sentiment I thought was copyrighted in Delhi to describe dealings with Pakistan. You have expressed succinctly what every Indian official negotiating with Pakistan is apt to say.

  84. ashu

    Hayyer,

    I fel priveleged just to read your comments. Your depth of knowledge of facts on this issue and your ability to express them lucidly and patiently, leaves me feeling like total novice. Perhaps after years of learning i may attain your level of wisdom🙂

    Regards,

    Ashu

  85. basanti

    India was filling Baglihar late August 2008 (Dawn article cited above complaining about India filling the Baglihar was August 23, 2008).

    Prof. John Briscoe of Harvard claims India filled Baglihar at the time when Pakistan was most vulnerable.

    Relief Web
    http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db9 … enDocument

    reports floods in Pakistan in early August 2008. The above report is from August 5:

    Quote:
    Monsoon rains across Pakistan have caused hill torrents and river bank overflows, leading to flood situations in various parts of the country. The Pakistan Meteorological Department has forecasted more rains over the next few days. The Indus river at Tarbela and Guddu, Chenab river at Khanki and Qadirabad, Ravi river at Balloki and Kabul river at Nowshera are at a low flood level, while all other major rivers are flowing below the low flood level.

    So much for the credibility of Professors from Harvard! What better time to fill a dam when the downstream area is suffering from floods?

  86. basanti

    Dear Professor Briscoe
    Even Indus Water Treaty (Annexure E, article 18) says

    Quote:
    India may carry out the filling as follows :
    (a) if the site is on The Indus, between 1st July and 20th August ;
    (b) if the site is on The Jhelum, between 21st June and 20th August ; and
    (c) if the site is on The Chenab, between 21st June and 31st August at such rate as not to reduce, on account of this filling, the flow in the Chenab Main above Merala to less than 55,000 cusecs.

    So the IWT itself stipulates when we can fill water for power generation (India has ~60 days per year and India has no flexibility in adjusting the dates during when India can fill up the dam) and he is talking out of his musharraf if he claims that India did it to cause maximum inconvenience. Maybe as a starting exercise our “expert” should read the IWT? The article by SSridhar ji could be a good start….

    And india filled bagalihar dam durin august during monsoon.
    so this proves you are no expert but just spreadinfg pakistani propaganda of water theft by india.

  87. PMA

    Hayyer. Since you do not have access to your books at the present, let me help you out.

    Independence came in August 1947. In spring 1948 all canals originating from India into Pakistan were shut down by India without any provocation in sheer spite and in violations of international laws and norms.

    In the Bari Doab three Ravi canals serving Pakistani cities of Lahore, Burki and Kasur were shut down by India. At Hussainiwala near Ferozepur three up-side Satluj canals serving Pakistani cities of Chunian, Dipalpur and Atari were shut down by India.

    Pakistan protested heavily against this Indian aggression. Liaqat Ali Khan personally picked up this issue with Nehru. In 1950 the two sides agreed to start the negotiation. India would not release the water unless the entire Indus Basin water system was brought on the table for negotiation.

    In desperation Pakistan devised a plan of her own to lift the waters from Chenab to feed into Ravi and Satluj dried up by India. Marala-Ravi Link Canal and B-R-B Link Canal were dug for that purpose. Since there was not enough water available for this earlier plan, Pakistan in 1952 decided to build reservoirs on Jhelum and Indus to feed the lower rivers and canals and approached international banks for loans.

    International banks refused to finance such plans unless there was an agreement in place between India and Pakistan since the upper watershed areas of all five rivers of Punjab were under Indian control and without an agreement between the two countries India could undermine any project envisioned by Pakistan.

    Cash strapped Pakistan agreed to negotiate the entire Indus Basin System with India even though India had nothing to do with the River Indus. Only half of the waters of the Indus Basin System come from the five rivers of the Punjab. But Pakistan had to agree to ‘share’ the waters of Indus by including it into the water allocation formula. She was forced to accept Indian and World Bank conditions to undo the negative impacts of the Indian illegal acts.

    The treaty as it stands gives too much advantage to India. India has three lower rivers of Punjab without giving anything to Pakistan in return. On the other hand the treaty gives India rights to build hydroelectric power structures on the two upper rivers supposedly belonging to Pakistan. Is India going to give royalty to Pakistan for such provision? No.

    The treaty calls for India not to ‘interfere’ in the flow of water to Pakistan. India is obligated to consult Pakistan before selecting the site, size, and type of such structures. India does it only after it becomes obvious to the other party that something is going on upstream! It goes to show that India is not an honest partner.

    During the 1965 and 1971 India used water system as a weapon of war against all international laws. She could and would use the storage facilities built on the two upper rivers of Punjab as well. The treaty as it is written is not fair to Pakistan. It must be renegotiated to accommodate the gained knowledge.

  88. jimbocru

    Folks — It is SIMPLE math ..

    In 1947 — The Pakistani Population was 40~50 Mill.

    Water available was 5000 cc per annum ..

    In 2010 — Population is ~180 Million ie Population increased 4 times …

    So water available will be 5000/4 ~ 1200 cc per annum ..

    For all the “terrorism” caused by Pakistan in India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh …

    I am in total favor of encouraging the Pakistanis, in becoming more like the Arab wannabe’s … !!

    We should have Politicos with cojones to build massive dams, to reduce the water flow to a trickle till the Pakistanis do a “lobotomy” and remove the “jihad” & “Kashmir” virus that is ingrained in their brains …

  89. Ganpat Ram

    On the water issue, as on all other issues, the prospects of agreement with the Pakistanis are nil.

    They live with a mindset where there is virtually zero introspection. The Hindu is always to blame.

    So India must simply gird up its loins and be ready for a long drawn out fight.

    Things could have been worse, much worse. Suppose Nehru had been stupid enough to accept the Cabinet Mission proposals for a “unified” India with a weak centre and Muslim control of all of Punjab, Bengal and Assam !…..That would have been a catastrophe for the Hindus.

    So we are not as badly off as we might be.

  90. Hayyer 48

    PMA
    this is from my phone. Am off the net. Water could not have been stopped in 65 and 71 because India had not built the structures to stop or divert water, and still has not.
    more when able on other aspects of your post

  91. Hayyer

    PMA:
    I have net access now though not to my sources of information. In the meanwhile here is an extract from an article by S Sridhar written for an Indian web site.

    “The Indus Water Treaty

    The India Independence Act enacted in 1947 by British Parliament and the subsequent British withdrawal from India left the subcontinent partitioned between two independent states marred by demarcation problems along their international boundaries, the peculiar circumstances leading to the division, and the accession of a number of princely states especially that of Jammu & Kashmir straddling India and Pakistan as well as the complex riverine systems of Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra. Of these three rivers, the Indus presented a complicated set of issues stemming from thousands of kilometres of man-made irrigation canals and headworks that regulated the flow of its waters. While all the rivers, except Indus and Sutlej , originated within Kashmir , the headworks located mostly in the Eastern Punjab were awarded to India . Aside from the Punjab Boundary Commission suggestion that the canal-headworks system be treated as a joint venture, a proposition rejected by both countries, it had not deliberated water sharing of Indus River Basin due to a hasty partition that was completed in a mere 73 days. Water sharing issues of Indus River System would later take over a decade to resolve. Further complicating this issue, Pakistan covertly and later overtly sought to grab Jammu & Kashmir for various reasons including the desire to control the waters of these rivers that succeeded in instilling only distrust among Indian minds.

    After the Partition, both the nations agreed to a “Standstill Agreement” on Dec. 30, 1947 freezing the existing water turn systems at the two headworks of Madhopur (on the Ravi ) and Ferozepur (on the Sutlej ) until March, 31, 1948 . Any dispute that could not be resolved by the Punjab Partition Committee was to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) which had been setup under Section Nine of the Indian Independence Act by the Governor General to sort out difficulties arising over the division of assets. However, on the expiry of the arrangement and after not receiving an encouraging response to a reminder for talks issued by the East Punjab Government on 29th March 1948, and in the absence of a new agreement, the then Indian Punjab Government promptly stopped the water supply through Madhopur on April, 1, 1948. By a coincidence, the Arbitral Tribunal’s term also expired on the same day. In the meanwhile, the AT had accepted India ’s claims regarding seigniorage charges for the waters and ordered payment of the same by Pakistan . At the invitation of East Punjab , the Engineers of the two divided-Punjab States met in Simla on Apr. 15, 1948 and signed two Standstill Agreements [5] regarding the Depalpur Canal and Central Bari Doab Canal to be in effect until Oct. 15, 1948 . The West Punjab Government agreed to pay: (1) seigniorage charges, (2) proportionate maintenance costs, and (3) interest on a proportionate amount of capital. In its defence, the GoI cited such charges levied by the Punjab on the Bikaner state under the British.

    However, the West Punjab Govt. refused to ratify the Agreement and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, then Liaqat Ali Khan, called for a meeting. The Finance Minister of Pakistan , Ghulam Mohammed, along with the Pakistani Punjab ministers, Shaukat Hayat Khan and Mumtaz Daulatana visited Delhi to work out an agreement [4] in the Inter-Dominion Conference held on May, 3-4, 1948. India agreed to resume release of water from the headworks, but made it clear that Pakistan could not lay claim to these waters as a matter of right and would levy seigniorage charges specified by the Prime Minister of India to be deposited in Reserve Bank of India , establishing Indian sovereignty over these rivers. The Indian side also made assurances that the waters would be diminished slowly giving enough time for West Punjab to develop alternate sources. The West Punjab Government, for its part, also recognized “the natural anxiety of the East Punjab Government to discharge the obligations to develop areas where water is scarce and which were underdeveloped in relation to parts of West Punjab .” Soon the Pakistani Government falsely accused that they were coerced into signing this Agreement and made futile appeals to the Governor General Lord Mountbatten. However, due to the hostilities between India and Pakistan on account of Kashmir and in the general environment of distrust and animosity, no further talks took place. Pakistan ’s suggestion in June 1949 to take the matter to the International Court of Justice at The Hague and widen the conflict across all rivers, was rejected by India . On November 1, 1949 , Pakistan unilaterally invalidated the Delhi Agreement and by July, 1950 stopped seigniorage payments into RBI. However, India continued to abide by the Agreement and supplied waters.

    In 1951, David Lilienthal, former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and a former Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission, USA visited the two countries ostensibly to write a series of articles for the Colliers magazine (since defunct). Having had access to both the Governments at the highest level, Lilientahl wrote in one of his articles, “I proposed that India and Pakistan work out a program jointly to develop and jointly to operate the Indus Basin river system, upon which both nations were dependent for irrigation water. With new dams and irrigation canals, the Indus and its tributaries could be made to yield the additional water each country needed for increased food production. In the article I had suggested that the World Bank might use its good offices to bring the parties to agreement, and help in the financing of an Indus Development program.” Inspired by this idea, Eugene R. Black, then President of the World Bank visited the two countries and proposed a Working Party of Indian, Pakistani and World Bank engineers to tackle the “functional”, rather than the “political” aspects of water sharing. The two countries accepted this mediation [5] (which also had the backing of President Truman who wanted to remove the “kind of unfriendliness” that existed then between the US and India ) offer in March 1952 and sent their technical teams to Washington for further discussions. Subsequent meetings took place in Karachi in Nov., 1952 and New Delhi in Jan. 1953. The World Bank suggested that each side submit its own plans, which they did on Oct. 6, 1953 . The two plans, while concurring on the available supply of water, differed widely on allocations. [6] The table below, shows the initial, negotiated and final positions of both the countries.

    Table 1: Indus River System Estimates and Allocations

    Plan

    India

    Pakistan

    Initial Estimate

    119 MAF

    118 MAF[v]

    Initial Indian

    29 MAF

    90 MAF

    Initial Pakistani

    15.5 MAF

    102.5 MAF

    Revised Indian

    All of the Eastern rivers + 7% of Western rivers

    None of the Eastern rivers plus 93% of the Western rivers

    Revised Pakistani

    30% of Eastern rivers and none of the Western rivers

    70% of the Eastern rivers + all of the Western rivers

    World Bank

    Entire flow of the Eastern Rivers

    Entire flow of the Western Rivers

    However, despite all efforts, the wide gaps in the stands of the two countries could not be bridged, mainly due to the intransigence of the Pakistani side as the revised and final allocations show clearly above. The World Bank felt that an ideal approach to joint development of an integrated plan for Indus Basin as proposed by David Lilienthal was now impossible. In order to resolve the dispute, it finally stepped in with its own “settlement” proposals on Feb. 5, 1954 offering the three Eastern rivers to India and the three Western rivers to Pakistan . India accepted the proposal in toto on Mar. 25, 1954 while Pakistan gave only a “qualified acceptance” on July 28, 1954 . The settlement offered by the World Bank was closer to the Indian position as it repudiated the claims of Pakistan based on “historic usage”. An angered Pakistan threatened to withdraw from further negotiations. The World Bank proposal was then transformed from a “settlement” to a “basis for further negotiations” and the talks eventually continued for the next six years. [7, 8] In the meanwhile, the two countries signed an Interim Agreement on June 21, 1955 . As no conclusive agreement could be reached, the World Bank announced on Apr. 30, 1956 that the negotiation deadline has been indefinitely extended. [9] As is its wont, Pakistan , through its then Prime Minister H.S.Suhrawardy, issued a direct threat of war with India over waters, escalating tensions.

    Under the World Bank plan, Pakistan was asked to construct barrages and canals to divert the Western river waters to compensate the loss of Eastern rivers on the Pakistani side. During the period needed to do this, called the Transition Period, India was required to maintain the “historic withdrawals” to Pakistan The World Bank then suggested a “financial liability” for India as replacement costs by Pakistan for the loss of the three Eastern rivers. In the 1958 meeting, the replacement works and the financial liability to India were considered. India rejected Pakistan ’s proposal, known as the “London Plan”, for two large dams on the Jhelum and the Indus and three smaller ones on Ravi and Sutlej and several canals, all in all totaling USD 1.2 Billion. India ’s alternate proposal, known as the “Marhu Tunnel Proposal”, was unacceptable to Pakistan as leaving too much leverage on water flows in Indian hands. In May, 1959, the Bank’s President visited both countries and suggested a way out which involved India paying a fixed amount of £ 62.060 Million to be paid in ten years in equal installments and the Bank assisting Pakistan with help from donor countries. The international consortium of donors pledged USD 900 Million for Pakistan and the drafting of the IWT began in Aug., 1959.

    The treaty was signed in Karachi by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Field Marshal Ayub Khan H.P., H.J. and Mr. W.A.B. Illif, President of the World Bank in a five-day summit meet starting Sep. 19, 1960 . However, it was deemed effective from Apr. 1, 1960 . The two governments ratified the same in January 1961 by exchanging documents in Delhi . Simultaneously an Indus Basin Development Fund was established with contributions from Australia , Canada , Germany , New Zealand , the UK and the US along with India ’s share of the cost. The Eisenhower Administration contributed roughly half the cost of the Fund, while the World Bank provided US$ 250 Million and the other donor countries together provided a similar amount. The Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) of Pakistan was entrusted with the task of completing these tasks. The fund was subsequently extinguished after the completion of the projects as per Article XI of the IWT. The May 4, 1948 accord stood annulled after the signing of IWT. The Indus Basin Project involved construction of two large dams, five barrages, one siphon and seven link canals as detailed below in Tables 2, 3,& 4, to transfer 14 MAF of water from the Western rivers. [10] There are three systems of link canals. Two of the systems, the Rasul-Qadirabad-Balloki-Suleimanki System (R.Q.B.S.) and the Trimmu-Sidhnai-Mailsi-Bahawal System (T.S.M.B) connect the Jhelum River through to the Sutlej and the third system Chashma-Jhelum System (C.J) connects the Indus with the Jhelum .”

    It should be amply clear that
    1. India has not stolen Pakistani water.
    2. India has not coerced Pakistan into signing the IWT
    3. India has not culpably blocked water to Pakistan in 1948.
    4. India has not blocked water in 1965 and 1971.
    5. India has not violated any of the provisions of the IWT.

    There was talk in 1965 of blocking water to prevent Pakistan from filling the anti tank canals it had built on the Indo-Pak border. It wasn’t done though if I remember rightly.
    Before 1947 the British built canal colonies had made Pakistani Punjab the most prosperous part of the province. You seem to imply that it was criminal for India to do the same for its Punjab and Rajasthan.
    Nor do you, even now, concede anything to the rights of J&K.
    After this round of discussions I am beginning to believe that if your views are representative of the Pakistani establishment then no amount of gratuitous goodwill exhibited by India, as Professor Briscoe advises, will ever achieve anything. And, you seem to want India to reduce its demand even of the eastern rivers, without conceding anything in the western rivers.
    Sometime ago on another thread you implied that India must forget its history to enable Pakistan to create its own. Now you suggest that India must destroy itself to enable Pakistan to prosper.
    That is not just unrealistic, it is impossible.

  92. Hayyer

    The format of the figures did not map properly. This is what it should have read
    Plan

    India

    Pakistan

    Initial Estimate

    India 119 MAF

    Pakistan 118 MAF[v]

    Initial Indian estimate)

    29 MAF

    90 MAF d

    Initial Pakistani (estimate)

    15.5 MAF

    102.5 MAF

    Revised Indian

    All of the Eastern rivers + 7% of Western rivers( for India)

    None of the Eastern rivers plus 93% of the Western rivers (for Pakistan)

    Revised Pakistani

    30% of Eastern rivers and none of the Western rivers (for India)

    70% of the Eastern rivers + all of the Western rivers
    (for Pakistan)
    World Bank

    Entire flow of the Eastern Rivers for India

    Entire flow of the Western Rivers for Pakistan

  93. Ganpat Ram

    No amount of proofs citing cusecs will settle this problem.

    For Pakistan, the existence of India is the problem.

  94. PMA

    Hayyer: Since you have made your concluding remarks, please allow me to make mine. India has poisoned the relations between the two countries from the day one. Water issue is just one of the many issues that proves it. There has not been any goodwill towards Pakistan in any field, what so ever. On the contrary India has tried every weapon in her arsenal to bring Pakistan to her knees. The list of such grievances is too long to repeat here considering that I do not wish to deviate from the subject at hand – the water issue. You sir have sighted an article on the India-Pakistan Punjab water issue from Indian sources. The article for the most part agrees with my position than yours. Pakistani Punjab receives less waters from the five rivers of the Punjab than it did on August 14, 1947. The internationally agreed water sharing formula does not give India any right over the waters of the Indus, yet the treaty wrongly includes that river in the system. The treaty gives India exclusive rights over the lower three rivers and none to Pakistan. The treaty gives India too much control over the two rivers belonging to Pakistan. And the list goes on. The treaty was written as a ‘goodwill agreement’ between the two parties. None exists. With the advancement of technology India is finding newer and more ways to steal water from the entire system. But my views are my views and nobody else’s. They are based upon my study of the subject and reinforced by India’s intransigent bellicose arrogant attitude towards her neighbors in general and Pakistan in particular. And the end I will like to thank you for taking part in this civilized discussion. It goes to your credit that we can discuss issues here at PTH without exchanging personal insults. Thank you again.

  95. Bin Ismail

    @ Silk Router

    To quote you: “An imperialist ideology from Arabia has planted this poison way back in 710 AD. Why do muslims (followers fo this arab ideology) shorten causal chains as per their whims/needs?”

    Fine. Let us, instead of shortening, extend the “causal chains as per [your] whims/needs” and attempt to rationally examine the debate. Following your “extended causal chain logic”, I suppose, we could come up with a number of possible explanations:

    1. The dispute between Abel and Cain planted this poison way back in the days of Adam.

    2. The serpent who caused the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise, planted this poison.

    3. The earliest Rishis left no explicit guidance on sharing the waters of our rivers. Their fault.

    4. Vishnu and Shiva, somehow could not sort out, in the beginning, whom to preserve and whom to destroy.

    If none of the above, earn your worthy approval, then may I humbly suggest that disagreements between nations are not best resolved by bringing in religious biases, but rather by rationally and dispassionately evaluating the issues with a resolve to solve them.

  96. Prasad

    @ Bin Ismail

    I fully agree with your views. There can be no second thought. Full credit to Hayyer for being completely objective in putting his version across. PMA ,while very learned that he is on this matter, still somewhere mixes emotions with objective narration. Kudos for a good discussion however.

  97. Majumdar

    With the advancement of technology India is finding newer and more ways to steal water from the entire system.

    Whew!!!

    Regards

  98. vajra

    @Bin Ismail

    That was an ace job. I laughed myself into stitches reading your riposte. It isn’t always easy to retain one’s sense of humour while reading the kind of venom that comes out of some comments. All the more credit to you for keeping calm and using ridicule as your main weapon.

    @Majumdar

    It was said about the Bourbons that they had forgotten nothing, and had learnt nothing.

  99. silk router

    To bin ismail

    You have responded to a part of my posting. I am eagerly waiting for the whole to be riposted by you. Actually PMA should have responded – but may be has to take some rest for now. Debates in deed are tiring (and may be even useless – but we all have a lot of free time, seems to me – we are the privileged class).

    Selective history-writing-reading – whoever does it – causes too many vapid debates. So I objected to PMA choosing 14th August 1947 as “day one” for the creation of the universe. If you have any accurate (not merely mythological) info about cain, abel, adam, eve, serpent, rishis etc. then do publish it here. Pakistanis are led (or forced?) to believe that no one was good in the Indus valley (that is no hindu was ever good enough) till some very-very peaceful arabs made some hindu women pregnant here.

  100. Bin Ismail

    @silk router

    You’ve said:”….some very-very peaceful arabs made some hindu women pregnant here.”

    Are we discussing the Indus Waters Treaty or unwanted pregnancies?

    On a more serious note, the discussion between PMA and Hayyer was intellectually very rewarding. The bottomline is “peaceful dialogue”.

  101. s menon

    dear guys,
    ur own foreign minister querishi says, that india has not stolen, water but pakistan has wasted it. what more is there to argue?
    co operate to live better.

  102. silk router

    To bin ismail

    Whatever water falls on India is India’s and whatever water falls on Pakistan is Pakistan’s.

    If India cannot build dams then neither can Pakistan. What right does Pakistan have to deprive the Indian Ocean of its share of incoming fresh water? So many lives depend on this non-salty water mixing in the ocean on the coast of Sindh.

    Once you decide to separate then you should not try to snatch or covet anything from the other’s territory.

    BTW: by talking about unwanted pregnancies (I did not use the word “unwanted”) you have admitted something unconsciously, which you, as a pakistani muslim, would otherwise ferociously deny.

    So read my sentnece again: “Pakistanis are led (or forced?) to believe that no one was good in the Indus valley (that is no hindu was ever good enough) till some very-very peaceful arabs made some hindu women pregnant here.”

    That you called them unwanted pregnancies reveals that in your sub-conscious mind you, in spite of all the heavy pakistani indoctrination, know that it was arab imperialism, racism, machoism and rape.

    Hindu = (originally) one who lives in the Sindhu (later called Indus) river basin. But the later meanings inflicted upon this word have caused havoc.

  103. Bin Ismail

    @ silk router

    You’ve said: “That you called them unwanted pregnancies reveals that in your sub-conscious mind you, in spite of all the heavy pakistani indoctrination, know that it was arab imperialism, racism, machoism and rape.”

    Actually, I do not know that it was Arab imperialism etc, etc. What I do know is that while mentioning those pregnancies, you could not exactly conceal your resentment of them, noticing which, I logically conclude that they must have been unwanted. After all, desired pregnancies are not normally spoken of with such inconcealable rancour.

    However, in view of your assertion “I did not use the word “unwanted”, I now feel obliged to rephrase my query, which yet remains unanswered: Are we discussing the Indus Waters Treaty or not-unwanted pregnancies?

    My friend, in discussing the Indus waters, you were amazingly able to bring in the subjects of Islam, Arab imperialism etc. I would have to exercise over-stretched optimism to infer that you think and write without prejudice.

  104. silk router

    to bin ismail

    I did discuss the indus water dispute too.

    so I repeat what I wrote:

    “Whatever water falls on India is India’s and whatever water falls on Pakistan is Pakistan’s.

    If India cannot build dams then neither can Pakistan. What right does Pakistan have to deprive the Indian Ocean of its share of incoming fresh water? So many lives depend on this non-salty water mixing in the ocean on the coast of Sindh.

    Once you decide to separate then you should not try to snatch or covet anything from the other’s territory.”

    —————————-

    I don’t hate arabs, but I justifiably fear their primitive imperialism and their ‘more-arab-than-arabs’ quislings in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. They also bring in their monotheistic totalitarianism, which has done a lot of mischief and damage already. If it had not been arabs but someone else then I would have feared such as them too.

    The subjects of islam and arab imperialism come in everywhere of their choice – and not by my choice. Islamic and arabic interference is growing and it is this that determines life in the indian subcontinent more and more – the violence that they use or emit or threaten makes it impossible to ignore them. Many problems in the indian subcontinent would not have existed if islam had not come here and many would have been solved more peacefully if islam’s agents and quislings had not had the violent power (of money, guns, armies, bombs, terror groups, street gangs etc.) which they have today.

    Thus I have removed your prejudice about my supposed prejudice.

  105. Luq

    A humble request to the moderators – to check if silk router is twisting and steering all discussions towards his favorite crap about “arab imperialism”.

    Luq

  106. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Mr Luq:

    Silk Router can not answer what I already asked: Is India Secular?

    It is only just bogus and for boast of Hindus. It is not a real Secular.

    I am seeing in Kochi (Kerala) how Hindu girls behaving. Not well. Mussalman girls covaring with Islam clothes everthing. But Hindu girls? Showing everything.

    For Mussalmans this is not Sharia.

    Some Hindus (very few) talk well aboutIslam and Pakistan. But most only make the baddest attack. It is hurtful for us.

    We need Respect of Islam, Respect of Pakistan. From Hindus. Like Mr vajra is showing.

    We need attack on Hindus, attack on India bogus Secular. Like Mr Vajra is doing.

  107. Prasad

    Abdullah, you are a great Indian. I am deeply appreciative and proud to come across great Indians like you. We should have your ilk in more numbers in India to make her a better nation.

  108. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Mr Prasad

    It is the Respect only of Islam and Pakistan. Please learn that. It is so simple.

    Like I said to Silk Router: you say Mussulmans 17 % of India? Then give 17 % of India to the Mussalmans. It is only fair. 17 % for 17 %. To have an Islam land for the faithful Mussalmans.

    Then we can have full Sharia. Not like in India, where Hindu girls are showing fully for boast when Mussalman girls fully covared with Islam clothes.

  109. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Silk Router

    Mr Prasad is giving fine praise to me, as a Good Mussalman of India. But it is not only Mussalmans who are Good. Here we can see that so clearly. Also there the Good Hindus. Mr Prasad and Mr Vajra. Both fully give Respect to Islam and Pakistan. Mr Vajra accuses India and Hindus very well.

    So they are respected by Islam and Pakistan.

    But you? You show only attacks, attacks. Very bad. SO Luq is asking Moderation of you. You must not continue here if you can not fully show Respect of Islam and Pakistan. This is a place for that only.

  110. Luq

    >I am seeing in Kochi (Kerala) how Hindu girls
    >behaving. Not well. Mussalman girls covaring with
    >Islam clothes everthing. But Hindu girls? Showing
    >everything.

    Your line of thought can at best be classified medieval, backward and retarded.
    Not worthy of comment.

    Luq

  111. Prasad

    OK. I am learning…well not as fast as you divine Sir…..Now I am convinced, you are Abdullah=mighty intelligent+ Simple+Kochi+madarsa+puritanical+Mr 17%.

    Hazrat, you rock!!

  112. Prasad

    Whoa, This is another fantastic gem from Hazrat!!

    Hohoho you are just too good man, not sure if Uthapa can belt better than you today. I dont think he can!!

  113. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Mr Respected Luq

    Backwards? How backwards?

    Have you seen the Hindu girls of Kochi? You should come see. They are showing everything – even the belly fully. It is too much. It is not like our Mussalman girls, covaring fully.

    It is to hurt the Mussalmans that Hindu women do like this. It is to show India is not Secular. Why is there no complete Sharia for everyone? Mr Nehru promised full Respect for Mussalmans in India but we have not got it.

    This is very backwards.

  114. Prasad

    Backwards? How backwards? This is very backwards

    Hmmm very serious indeed. 1000 A.D may be?

  115. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Moderator

    Please stop Silk Router to attack so much Islam and Pakistan. It is very hurtful.

    I am not saying you stop Hindus coming here. Some Hindus are very good. They are suppoprting Islam and Pakistan and they also accusing India and Hindus very well. Those are the good Hindus. But there is no place here for others.

    You please do the job.

  116. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Moderator

    Proper debate is spoilt with Silk Router.

  117. Prasad

    Moderator, Moderator
    Where are you??

    Divine Abdullah’s debate needs to continue

    Phew, I am not able to track his divineness Abdullah’s pace. I give up

  118. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Mr Prasad

    I am happy you are supporting me like this. It is your goodness. Even a Hindu can be good, to support Islam and Pakistan.

    Please understand very well Why I am asking Moderator please remove Silk Router. It is not because he is Hindu. If Hindus are same like Mr Vajra, no problem. Only if no full Respect for Pakistan and Islam is the Problem. Then, the debate here can not continue peacefully.

  119. Prasad

    Sir Abdullah ( His divineness)

    I am glad you are very happy with my goodness!! why do you ask the moderator, you have enlightened him with your divine interpretations already. I am not sure if he has any energy to react ( i m losing mine for the day)

    Moderator, Moderator ( pschchch, pschchch) where are you – pls take over now. I got to go for my 3 (4??)pegs in my kufr land and enjoy IPL. Thank god it is happening in M’bai. Blr is pouring man

  120. Luq

    Viola!!! Thanks moderators.

    Ok, another one.

    I suspect this Ganpat fella is back again posing as Abdulla Paniky.

    His repeated mentioning of Vajra proves it (almost a dead giveaway).

    Vajra, looks like you have driven Ganpat really really crazy. Something must have really hurt. Did you administer a kick in delicate areas? Wonder why he is not picking on Gorki and Hayyer. Has he been sent to PTH by his buddies Tathagata and G Vishwas?🙂

    Luq

  121. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Mr Luq

    Please show a Seriousness. It is a important matter.

    In India, Mussalmans are living very bad life. Can you come please to see? Then you will learn.

    Hindus say so much India is Secular. But not for we Mussalmans. Here is no full Sharia. Nothing honest for us.

    That is what I am writing. It is not to say Hindus can not be good. Some are.

    Will you now understand?

  122. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Mr Luq

    It is Agony in India. Without Sharia the Hindu girls can not behave well. Many in Kochi are showing the full belly. It is not in Gita for them to do this. Only to insult the Mussalmans.

    I write to say this all. Sincerely. Then you talk some nonsense I can not even understand. Mr Vajra hurting someone? But he is a good man.

    Why?

  123. Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Mr Luq

    You also abused my fair name. It is not Abdulla Paniky. It is Abdullah Pannikkaran.

    I respect your name. I can not say Lok or Luk. So give respect to my name.

  124. Luq

    >You also abused my fair name.
    >It is not Abdulla Paniky. It is Abdullah Pannikkaran

    Oh no it is not. From the information you yourself have given on PTH, a simple search on google reveals your real name to be a certain K.Nayar

    Luq

  125. Bin Ismail

    @ silk router

    “….Whatever water falls on India is India’s and whatever water falls on Pakistan is Pakistan’s….”

    I just had to quote this quotable quote of yours. May I respectfully point out that we are not talking about “rain-water”, which could “fall” on India or Pakistan. I believe we were discussing “river-water”, which is widely known not to fall on, but to flow through.

    By the way, your love for Islam, Muslims and Arabs is becoming more conspicuous by the hour.

  126. silk router

    To bin ismail

    it is rain water (also as snow) that then becomes flowing water in rivers. so your attempt to separate the two is itself an unwarranted dam.

    I also talked about Pakistan not having the right to build dams that prevent water flowing into the indian ocean. If water has the right to flow then the indian ocean has the right to get its share like always since millions of years. The coastal life-forms need it.

    Important thing is to learn to live modestly, in harmony with nature and not produce too many children. This is valid for India and for Pakistan.

    As regards my love for islam, muslims and arabs is concerned – in deed, one who criticises is the true friend. The one who praises or flatters is actually an enemy. An honest critic is better than a flatterer who has ulterior intentions. No wonder arabs detest those pakistanis who try to be more arab than arabs.

    Islam teaches muslims to become flatterers of arabs and thus causes them to become their destroyers. A god who rewards flatterers and punishes the critics/rejecters ends up empowering those human beings, who create (wish to create) a fascist state on the earth.

    See how various themes are related in the socio-political-theological mega-field?

  127. Hayyer

    Silk Router:
    Your logic dictates that the waters if the Indus Brahmputra and Sutlej should be retained in Tibet, and it would ensure perpetual civil war between states of the Indian Union and Pakistan as well.
    Show us also, if you will, similar expressions of love for other religions including your own.

  128. silk router

    To Hayyer

    Retaining water wherever feasible while also taking care of the eco-impact of dams, canals etc. is a must. In Tibet, yes, why not? If China builds a dam in Tibet on the Brahmaputra – it will NOT affect India (or Bangladesh) badly. I do not understand why some indians come up with some foolish arguments against it.

    Retained water has to be surface-distributed in such a way as not to cause overflooding or salination. Here huge mistakes have been made in the past everywhere (also in India). An elderly soil scientist (father of a friend of mine) was aghast at how much water indian farmers have and misuse. We have to look to Israel (unfortunately much hated in Pakistan) how it can be done. Actually we in the indian subcontinent have TOO much water (believe me on that) and if we retain it properly (on the surface) we will have rains all year round. This will press salination back into the underground. It will also re-increase flow back into ocean after some years and re-enliven marine life in the deltas and on the coasts. Important thing is not to use chemical fertilizers, pesticides etc. Organic fertilizer is sufficiently available.

    Pakistan should actually request India to build more dams. But since dams being built in India can be used for raising hatred against India … you know how Pakistani mentality is. Water crosses borders not only in the rivers but also through the air. Who can stop that?

    Civil wars between states and provinces? – that is because islam wants it that way. Islam wins by heating up hatred against non-muslims on the slightest pretext, however irrational. This whole water-rivers-dams-canals damned thing is a good illustration of this.

    As regards showing harsh love (through harsh criticism) not only for islam – what use is writing criticism of hindu religions on a pakistani forum? In Pakistan hardly 2% are hindu and that too dwindling away. You could have come upon this simple, fair and true explanation yourself if you had been open-minded. Islam is the harsh-ruling ideology in Pakistan and hence criticising only islam only makes sense on a pakistani forum.

  129. Bin Ismail

    @ silk router

    1. “….If water has the right to flow then the indian ocean has the right to get its share like always since millions of years….”

    Your concerns for the global ecological status and your desire to restore it to its pre-historic format is outstanding. Surely, you must yearn to have the pre-historic demographics restored as well – Aryans vacating India alongwith their alien religion and leaving the holy land to the indiginous people, yourself primarily included, alongwith their religion – bearing in mind of course that the earlier Rishis lived in Tibet, which makes their religion, too, imported with respect to India.

    I’m sure you are also aware of the fact that the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific oceans, are not separated from each other by dams. Therefore, all rivers flowing into these oceans do eventually affect the birthrights of the entire waterbody of our planet. Indeed you must already have expressed your grave concern to all countries containing these rivers.

    2.”….An honest critic is better than a flatterer who has ulterior intentions….”

    Your ability to scan intentions and pass judgments on them makes you exceptional. Your lexicon too, is exceptional in that one who does not insult is defined as a flatterer, and one who manages to show courtesy is defined as a sycophant.

    3. “….Islam teaches muslims to become flatterers of arabs….”

    You may, I suppose, like to give a specific reference from the text of the Quran, in this respect.

    4. “….Islam is the harsh-ruling ideology in Pakistan….”

    You do not seem to distinguish, or do not want to distinguish, between “Islam” and a fanatical clergy that claims to represent Islam or should I say claims proprietorship over Islam. Do you, if I may ask, also consider the pundits to be Sanatan Dharm personified? If so, you may consider taking some elementary lessons in theology.

    I wish you every success in your pursuit of knowledge of both Ecology and Theology.

  130. Majumdar

    Silk route,

    You have written very well on water and soil issues. I wud humbly suggest that you write more on these issues than on India-Pak or Hindoo-Muslim issues on PTH at least. For those issues, I cordially invite you to chowk.com. We discuss these issues more freely and frankly on chowk.com than here.

    Regards

  131. Vajra

    @Majumdar

    This may well be our old friend, G. Vishvas. Note his reference to Muslims who are sick of Islam. G. Vishvas too had his ‘secret’ correspondents who informed him in strict confidence how tired they were of Islam and its fascism (his words). If this is not Vishvas, another South Indian Brahmin presently in Pune, then he has an uncanny knack of picking up the identical phrases and tropes – if his obtuse blundering about the lexicon qualifies as a trope.

  132. Bin Ismail

    @ silk router

    On a lighter note, and please don’t feel offended, you have a the perfect temperament needed for a successful career as a cleric.

    Now on a more serious note:

    1. I have the deepest respect for all religions, including Hinduism and its founders. The comments I’ve made with reference to Hinduism were only meant to demonstrate to you the flaws of your logic. You have a tendency of applying one logic to Islam and another to Hinduism. In order to allow a rational discussion to proceed, it is imperative to maintain the measure of the yard.

    2. You have a tendency to employ amusing categorizations such as imported faith or alien religion, in your detouring narratives. No religion is truly region-specific or region-bound. A religion basically gives you a certain understanding of the spiritual world. This understanding, like any other thought process, may or may not spread to other minds. Geographical boundaries cannot confine religions. Not only do you tend to mix up “religion” and “clergy”, you also mix up “religion” and “geography”.

    It is even more amusing when on one hand you complain that, “..Pakistanis typically misunderstand me when they think I want to undo immigration..”, while on the other demand, “..Let everone live wherever he is born..”. Left to you, Krishna would never have been able to move out of Mathura.

    3. Unity and Monotheism have nothing to do with coercive behaviour. Coercive behaviour is a human trait, that has less to do with religion and more to do with attitude. It is a polytheistic faith that teaches that molten lead be poured into the ears of a Shudhra, if the recitation of the Vedas happen to fall into them. You may like to go through your text book of “India Studies”.

    4. True, Islam was completed and perfected within the lifespan of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The door to subsequent reflection and interpretation, was however, left open for ever.

    5. It may not be wise to underrate the negative potentials of the Hindu clergy. However, I admire your optimism.

    Now if you would graciously allow the discussion on the Indus continue.

  133. Bin Ismail

    Pradon me for my typographical errors.

  134. Bin Ismail

    Erratum:

    1. “…you have [-] the perfect temperament…”
    2. “…Now if you would graciously allow the discussion on the Indus [to] continue.
    3. “…Pardon [not Pradon] me…]

    Sorry, once again.

  135. Vajra

    @Silk Router

    I have read you fully, I do not agree with you or either the logic or the historical facts that you have deployed, and I shall not try to refute you.

    The reason for the last is that you are not the first of your kind to have blundered into this forum. There has been a long succession of nuisances of your sort, bigots with only one theme for every discussion, irrespective of what that discussion is, historical, political, social or cultural: that the Muslims are invaders, or autocthones in sycophantic thrall to an alien race and an alien religion, and that the existing population of Pakistan, irrespective of their racial origin, should humbly acknowledge their Hindu origin and revive Hindu practices. There is nothing new in what you are saying; if you have the patience or the courage to do so, you need only look up the archives and you will find that you are an exact image, a Teutonic copy of another bigot like yourself who gloried in the name and title of G. Vishvas. Looking up the archives requires courage because you will find that none of your arguments are original, they belong to a stereotyped and utterly obnoxious, illogical and hate-filled stream of poison inspired by Islamophobes in the Sangh Parivar. That you are a Tamil Brahmin is a matter of shame and embarrassment, considering the high moral values and intrinsic integrity that leaders of that group have displayed and continue to display. Unfortunately, every group has its dregs; you are among the dregs of both Indian society and of the intellectual thought-leaders that Iyers and Iyengars once were.

    The sooner you are banned and your nauseating filth ceases to trouble us, the better.

    To forestall your predictable defence, let me add that I have no greater opinion of Muslim bigots, and that this forum in general is harsh on both religious and nationalistic bigots irrespective of their origin. Do not waste your time, and, more importantly, ours in arguing that you are a victim of the gagging of free speech and the freedom to express your thoughts. Hate and vicious attacks on entire sections of human society are suppressed by law in many countries, including Heidelberg in Germany, and there is no reason why you should deserve any special consideration.

    ‘Stand not upon the order of thy going, but go!’