Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by Sajjadgul in India's River Water Hegemony on March 7th, 2017
Pakistan is facing acute shortage of water, as being on lower riparian in connection with the rivers emanating from the Indian-Occupied Kashmir. Since its inception, India has never missed an opportunity to victimize Pakistan by creating deliberate water scarcity with the aim to damage the latter agriculturally.
Historically, India has been trying to establish her hegemony in the region by controlling water sources and damaging agricultural economies of her neighbouring states. New Delhi has water disputes with Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Indian extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi who has given the concerned departments to continue construction of dams has ordered diverting water of Chenab River to Beas, which is a serious violation of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960. Therefore Pak-India water issue has accelerated.
Taking cognizance of India’s diplomacy against Pakistan, a seminar on the subject “Hydro-Politics around Pakistan: Reassessing: The Efficacy of Indus Water Treaty (IWT)” was organized by the National Defence University (NDU), Islamabad on January 17, 2017. Gen. Rizwan Akhtar (Former DG ISI), the President NDU, including other experts on the subject highlighted the significance of IWT and the need for deliberations on the subject to find out a viable solution to the problem.
Gen Muzammil Hussain (R), (Chairman WAPDA) said that the subject of IWT is very important for the country. He, however, was unhappy to find out that not a single representative had come from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and even from WAPDA to attend this important seminar. Dr. Zaigham Habib, while talking on “Hydro-Hegemony in South Asia and Implications for Pakistan” regarded India as a Hydro-Hegemon stated, “neighbours view India with suspicion; it is difficult to conduct a discussion on common-interest issues with her in good faith. India’s insistence on secrecy about hydrological data contributes to the distrust within the region. Timely and adequate information is never fully given to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and others on water data and on National River Linking Projects.”
Mirza Asif Baig, Pakistan’s Commissioner for Indus Waters, dilated on the “Efficacy of The Indus Waters Treaty”. He mostly talked on the technicalities of the treaty and did not show any concern about the violations of the treaty already being carried out by India.
Suleman Najib Khan regarded Indus Waters Treaty signed at Karachi a seriously flawed treaty, which did not serve Pakistan’s interests. He was very critical of the role and efficacy of Indus Water Commission. He was of the view that all the chairmen’s have failed to guard the interests of Pakistan, they neither have the expertise nor the will to contribute positively. He highlighted the urgent need of making reservoirs on River Indus, including Kala Bagh Dam (KBD), to save the country from starvation in the near future. He, however, was opposed to Bhasha dam on purely technical grounds. He informed the audience that Kabul River contributes around 20-25 % to Indus River water, especially in winters. India is pursuing Afghanistan to build multiple dams on Kabul River which would further deprive Pakistan of much-needed water. He was of the view that Pakistan should also get into some treaty with Afghanistan regarding the continuous flow of River Kabul water. He further stated that propaganda against KBD was deliberately launched to create conviction in the locals that the natural drainages of Peshawar & Kohat valleys, which will be blocked as a result of back pressure from the KBD reservoir. Similarly, propaganda was also launched that the KBD reservoir will create water logging in Mardan, Charsada, Swabi, Pabbi, and Nowshera, despite all of them being higher than 915 feet from sea level. In Sindh, the propaganda was launched that KBD would restrict water supply to Sindh resulting into vanishing of Mangroves and intrusion of sea water. As a matter of fact, Sindh uses five times more irrigation water than Punjab. Flood irrigation on a 14 km wide strip keeps both the Pirs and Waderas happy and prosperous that’s why they do not want this water to be regulated.
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Advocate Supreme Court, President Research Society of International Law, Former Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and President WWF Pakistan spoke on “IWT and International Law: Options for Pakistan”. The main points of his discourse were as follows:-
The IWT cannot be unilaterally terminated, according to Article 12 (4) of IWT; only a new treaty drafted and mutually ratified by both India and Pakistan can only replace existing treaty.
There is no provision which expressly authorizes India to construct a certain number of dams. Neither is there one which prohibits India from making dams beyond a certain number. Clearly, therefore, the number of dams that India wishes to construct on the Western Rivers is an issue outside the scope of the treaty.
IWC does not possess lawyers to contest its case at international level. He suggested that IWC must have a pool of good and qualified lawyers, specialized in international laws. He even offered to pay the salaries of such lawyers for a year, to start with.
Pakistan is the signatory of Paris Agreement, which demands to move away from fossil fuel based energy generation and shifting from non-renewable to renewable sources of energy ie going for Hydro-electric Power Generation. This agreement can also be utilized for strengthening our case for resolving water disputes with India.
Shams Ul Mulk, former Chairman WAPDA, was of the view that Pakistan’s hydel policies have throughout been formulated by our enemy’s agents. India has succeeded in placing their agent’s at all important places of decision making in this sector. Various military and civilian rulers have also been tricked by these agents in getting decisions which, in the long term, have proved detrimental for the country. About IWT, India has been violating the treaty throughout and keeping Pakistan in the dark about various projects which she has been making on western rivers. He also indicated the need and urgency of building more water reservoirs including Bhasha and Kalabagh Dams. He very strongly recommended the revival WAPDA with all power generation and distribution companies/agencies, working under it.
Nevertheless, more dams/reservoirs on Indus River be made, including KBD, at priority basis. The government must create consensus among all the provinces and thwart any negative propaganda by our enemies in this regard. And the violations of IWT by India be contested through aggressive diplomatic maneuver, legally, internationally. Otherwise, India will continue victimizing Pakistan by creating water shortage.
Additional Readings
Copyright © www.www.examrace.com
Location of Indus River India and Pakistan water-distribution treaty, brokered by the World Bank (then the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development). Deals with sharing of water of six rivers — Beas, Ravi, Sutlej, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum between the two countries Signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960 by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President of Pakistan Ayub Khan. Ravi, Beas and Sutlej eastern rivers came under the control of India and Indus, Jhelum and Chenab the western rivers went under the control of Pakistan. India can only use 20% of the water of Indus River. Indus flows through India first. Most disputes were started by legal procedures, provided for within the framework of the treaty. The treaty has survived India-Pakistan wars of 1965, 1971, and the 1999 Kargil standoff as well Kashmir insurgency since 1990. It is the most successful water treaty in the world.
Read more at: https://www.examrace.com/Current-Affairs/NEWS-India-Suspend-Talks-on-Indus-Waters-Treaty-Important.htm
Copyright © www.www.examrace.com
Posted by admin in Pakistan-A Nation of Hope on April 4th, 2014
Implications of War on Terror
Asif Haroon Raja
Unlike late Hakimullah Mehsud who disfavored talks, his deputy Waliur Rahman favored dialogue and had convinced sizeable number of TTP Shura members to make an offer of dialogue to the government. His group suggested Maulana Fazlur Rahman, Munawar Hassan, Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan to act as guarantors to preclude possibility of backtracking from the agreement. The offer was not taken seriously by the PPP led regime and it made it conditional to renunciation of violence.
Talks offer was renewed once rightist PML-N and PTI were voted to power after May 11 elections. Offer of talks created division in TTP as well as in the society. A stage was set for a big breakthrough when Waliur Rahman who was the moving force behind peace talks was killed by a drone on May 29, 2013. Jundul Hafsa took revenge by killing ten foreigners at base camp of Nanga Parbat on June 23, 2013.
It was generally expected that the TTP leading militancy in the northwest and in Punjab would tone down its acts of terror particularly against civilian targets once PML-N and PTI formed governments in the centre and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) respectively. As a result of their soft approach the TTP had spared these two parties and targeted liberal political parties during election campaign. ANP suffered the most in terms of human losses and in elections.
Contrary to high expectations, the Taliban accelerated their terror strikes after the new government took over in early June 2013. Bulk of attacks took place in KP and PTI lost three sitting MPAs. This surge occurred in spite of APC called by the government on September 9, 2013 in which it was agreed by all the participants belonging to different parties and religious groups as well as the Army to enter into dialogue with the militants without pre-conditions and give peace a chance.
The government stuck to its standpoint despite lot of noise made by the liberals. Anti-peace talks lobbies supported by foreign powers and backed by liberals and segment of media launched a concerted campaign to sabotage proposed peace talks and kept picking fault lines in the resolution passed by the APC. Drone strikes also continued.
When the TTP offered to talk and welcomed the initiative taken by the APC, it was taken as a sign that the road had been cleared for negotiations. KP government felt so confident that it announced phased withdrawal of troops from Buner, Shangla, Dir, Chitral and Malakand districts starting mid October 2013 and handing over responsibility to civil administration. While the ground was being smoothened for the meeting, an unexpected incident took place. On September 15, Maj Gen Sanaullah Niazi and two were martyred at Upper Dir on account of IED planted by Fazlullah’s militants.
We’ve been talking about the financial cost of the War on Terror, and this graphic from our colleague Molly Zisk draws from different studies and sums up the toll in blood and treasure rather concisely, if rather grimly:
Peace process got a big jolt when TTP claimed responsibility and vowed to continue hitting military targets. This hostile act in response to Government’s policy of appeasement was regrettable. It angered the rank and file of the Army and put the Federal and KP governments in awkward position but gave a strong handle to the anti-peace lobbies to beat the peace makers with and make fun of them. As the debate between pro-peace and anti-peace lobbies intensified, another gruesome act of terror took place on September 22 in Peshawar where a church was struck by two suicide bombers soon after Sunday prayers killing 84 people and injuring 175.
While TTP denied involvement, Jundullah Hafsa, a faction of TTP comprising Punjabi Taliban and led by Asmatullah Muawia claimed responsibility of church attack. In the wake of widespread denunciation inside and outside the country over the dastardly attack on church and condemnation by Ulemas of all schools of thoughts terming the act against the teachings of Quran and Sunnah, TTP Shura urged Muawia to disown the act. Soon after his disownment, another group Jundullah led by Ahmed Marwat based in NW claimed responsibility. In reaction to series of terrorist attacks, precision guided air attacks were carried out on militant’s hideouts in FATA which caused casualties and compelled the militants to declare unilateral ceasefire on March 1 for one month.
Some of the implications of war are listed here-under:-
The war has halted investments and economic activity has almost come to a grinding halt due to energy crisis and disturbed law and order situation.
War has made Pakistan more dependent upon USA, forcing our rulers to continue clinging to the aprons of USA despite its biased behavior.
Infighting among the Muslims suits the US designs; hence it would like the war to continue.
While the US caught up in a blind alley in Afghanistan is clueless how to exit safely, Pakistan too had no strategy to end the futile war till the start of talks with TTP.
Paradoxically, the key to peace is with hardnosed Taliban.
Eleven-year war has not only given tremendous experience of fighting guerrilla war to both Pak Army and militants but also has removed inhibitions and fears of each other. Militants fear air power and drones only.
The militants could not have continued fighting for so long without external support and safe sanctuaries across the border. They are more dangerous in cities where they operate as faceless enemies.
Once NATO exits from Afghanistan, TTP will be left with no justifiable cause to continue spilling blood of Muslim brethren. Once external support dries up, their vigor will wane rapidly and sooner than later they may give up fighting.
The other view is that TTP may become stronger if Taliban government get re-installed in Kabul after 2014 and may then disagree to ceasefire unless all their demands are accepted unconditionally.
The low intensity conflict has caused substantial wear and tear to military’s weapons & equipment.
War has also fatigued the troops living in combat zone amid hazardous environment where life is cheap.
Situation will further worsen in coming months since militancy has spread to every nook and corner of the country.
Civil administration and law courts have not established rule of law in any of the areas recaptured by the Army thereby putting added burden on the Army to hold ground, provide security and carryout rehabilitation/development works.
Opinions on war on terror whether it is our war or someone else’s war, and whether talks should be held with militants or not are sharply divided. This division in perceptions is to the advantage of militants and disfavors security forces.
With so many grave internal and external threats, most of which were invented and thrust upon Pakistan by foreign powers and duly exacerbated by meek and self-serving political leadership, Army’s plate remain full.
War on terror poses a three dimensional threat when viewed in context with twin threat posed by India and Afghanistan.
In case of an Indo-Pakistan war, our current force structure is insufficient and ill-suited to confront three dimensional threats.
Peace is a key to Pakistan’s economic takeoff.
The writer is a retired Brig, defence analyst and columnist. asifharoonraja@gmail.com
© 2024, All Rights Reserved by Pakistan Think Tank.
