Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in India on April 11th, 2012
|
Water Conflicts and Hydroelectricity in South Asia
The Indus Water Treaty. A Review article
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
March 21, 2012
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Transboundary river water distribution agreements tethering neighboring countries are overstretched, at least between Pakistan and India. Tens of hydropower dam on the Western Indus Basin rivers have been transformed into a real threat to “lower riparian”.
Underground water pumping in excess of natural recharge rates has reached a stage of continued free fall in the Indus Basin. The energy crisis, the economic meltdown, global warming and climate change scenarios require fine-tuned transboundary laws to share the international rivers. This work points out dire need of new global water laws to sort out real transboundary river conflicts transforming into water wars. “A Business as usual approach” may transform water skirmishes into full fledged armed conflict. Water is life affects the underlying geopolitical realities. 1. Water and Power Nexus Hydroelectricity is the prevalent most economic source of white energy. There is little chance of inventing a genius innovatory energy source anytime soon that will not engage nations to water conflicts to produce electric power. Hydroelectricity is derived from gravitational force (potential energy) of the flowing or falling waters. A hydropower house may take the form of a run-of-river (flowing) or dam (falling). Hydroelectric power plants use water turbines instead of water wheel. The Water turbine has a swirling component for force to pass on kinetic energy to spinning rotor. French engineer, Bernard Forest de Belidor, conceived the idea of water power in the 1770s. Different types of turbines such as Francis (1849), Pelton (1879) and Kaplan (1913) are considered suitable for10-350, 50-1300 and 2-40m heads whereas waterwheels are used for 0.2-4m falls. Typical capacities of pico, micro, small, medium and large dams are <5 kW, 5 to 100 kW, 100 to 10 MW, 10 to 10,000 MW and >10 GW. There only three large dams worldwide namely Three Gorges Dam (22.5 GW), Itaipu Dam (14 GW) and Guri Dam (10.2 GW). Global small scale hydropower capacity is 85 GW out of which 65 GW in China, 3.5 GW in Japan, 3 GW in USA and 2 GW in India. Norway, Brazil, Venezuela, Canada, andSweden produce 98.25, 85.56, 67.17, 61.12 and 44.34% of their national power demands by hydro power plants. Hydropower is considered the cleanest white energy.
The World’s first DC hydropower house, Cragside in Northumberland, was operated in England (UK) in 1878. Thomas Edison invented the first long life incandescent lamp in 1879 before which carbon filament based short lived lamps were available. The first US Niagara hydropower station started delivering DC electricity in 1881. Nicolas Tesla invented the first three phase AC generator used in the Niagara Falls hydro station. Most European countries got hydropower stations from 1880 to 1890 simultaneously. The British brought this technology to India in the early 1900s. The Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) was established in Pakistan in 1959. The British government had already developed large barrages and canals systems for irrigation. WAPDA engineers constructed 1000 MW Mangla dam in 1867, 3500 MW Tarbella dam in 1976 and 2000 run-of-river Chashma power house in 2004. World’s largest hydropower producers are China, Canada, USA, Brazil, Russia, India, Norway and Japan which have total installed capacities of 196.79, 88.974, 79.511, 69.08, 45.00, 33.60, 27.528 and 27.229GW. Famous Chinese three gorges dam since 1994 produces 22,500 MW electricity and proposed Congo Grand Inga dam will produce 39,000 MW by 2014. A 50,000 MW dam is under proposal on the Red Sea. China’s installed hydropower capacity is more than the total combined hydropower capacities of USA, Canada and Japan. Chinese hydropower generation capacity is about six times more than that of India and 33 times more than Pakistan’s hydropower generation. India’s hydropower generation capacity is about 5-6 times more than Pakistan’s, yet it is building dozens of dams on rivers which were given to Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty in 1960. India had 300 dams in 1947. This number increased to 4000 by 2000. About 70% of new dams were built during the 1971-1989 period.
2. Transboundary Rivers Conflicts
In view of widespread water scarcity, due to climate change, it is time to fine tune the clauses of international rivers sharing laws. The United Nations adopted existing European and US agreements in light of Helsinki rules in 1997 as an international water law which has failed to protect downstream “riparian rights” (Pakistan) when the “upstream riparian” country (India) started building multiple dams on the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab without permission. World Bank Vice president, Ismail Serageldin, said in 1995 that the next century wars would be fought over water and not over oil (World Bank, 1998). If there has not been any exclusive war on waters in past that does not mean it can not be in future (Star, 1991). European countries share 4 river basins under 175 treaties, 4-5 African countries share 12 river basins under 34 treaties, 4-5 Asian countries share 5 river basins under 31 treaties. There are 48 joint river commissions in Europe, 23 in the Americas, 10 in Africa and 9 in Asia. European and American states had disagreements over water quality in Rhine and Coloradorivers but African, Middle East and Asian countries have water quantity disputes on Zambezi, Mekong, Nile, Euphrates, Tigris, Indus and Ganges. We love or hate each other we have to share the water, air and sun. Oil and water do not mix but can entangle to develop water, watts and war trinity. Some social scientists are covertly producing amphoteric solutions of oil and water in blood geopolitically.
Upper riparian India has started diverting and holding off shared rivers waters under its innovatory dam policies which is starving lower riparian Pakistan (Ben and Sing, 2000). India has embarked on diverting western rivers waters through connecting canals from Jehlum to Chenab through an 80km long tunnel, Chenab to Ravi through the Marhu tunnel, interconnection of Beas to Sutlej and Sutlej to the Gangesthrough a proposed express link canal which is in blatant violation of the Indus Water Teaty. IPCC experts believe that global warming caused the August 2010 flash flood in Pakistan which affected 20-25 million people (IPCC, 2010). Climate change experts speculate that under rapidly rising global warming, water distribution conflicts could potentially lead to armed conflicts among nations in future (Clionadh, 2007). Transboundary river conflicts include water shortages as well as geopolitical issues (Nils, 2006). Water conflict between Pakistan and India is building up due to the fast melting of the glaciers. Middle Eastern countries take water availability as a strategic weapon (Alees, 1994). Palestinians per capita water consumption is 60 liters per day in the West Bank whereas Israelis use 330 liters per day (5 times more) (Stephen, 2008). Fair water distribution is one of the key issues in Israel-Palestinian agreement today (David and Julie, 2010). Arab-Israel conflict is getting aggravated by water conflicts (Mustafa, 1994). Israel is also trying to secure access to Nile, Euphrates and Ceyhan in Turkey. Global research observers blame Israel for stealing Arab waters (Sawsan, 2010). People have been occupying waters since antiquity but the water flows today and they have gone the same is going to happen with present and future generations.
Historic wrecks are often the source of conflict as well as consensus (Paul and Craig, 2000). Transboundary water conflicts cannot be resolved using game theory geopolitics bearing undercurrents (Kaveh, 2010). Fair rules must be developed by United Nations in the name of International Rivers Water Sharing Laws. Shared river waters conflicts are both of the inter and intra state types (Hans et al, 2000) that require global laws to safeguard lower riparian (Paul et al, 2006). Without UN backed water laws, the long held agreements may break leading to political confrontations (Eran, 2000). Water distribution experts have already proposed several models (Irene et al, 1986; Marc et al, 1987; Giordano et al, 2007, Joseph et al, 2004) that facilitate the UN to formulate transboundary water sharing and conflict resolution laws. Mass migrations and water conflicts intensification has been noted in Tanzania since last one decade (Milline, 2005) and Pakistan during August 2010 floods. The developed countries sustain dilemmas in developing countries that lead to talent migration causing serious blows to economies of developing countries (Schon and Ian, 2009).
The Water situation is getting worse in the USA and China. It is extremely critical in Brazil, and in India and Pakistan where the underground water table is falling at rate of 3-5cm per year. India is building several dozen dams and diversion canals on shared rivers; Indian hydro tactics have caused droughts and flash floods horrors in Pakistan. India is constructing 24-25 dams on river Chenab that feeds to central Punjab housing 90-100 million people. India relates it to her growing power needs but Pakistan takes it aqua bomb capable of causing droughts and flash floods. The Recent flash flood due to monsoons rains and timed injection of Indian dam waters has inflicted 25000 lives, 1-2 billion crops and 5-7 billion property losses. The United Nations have no global law on transboundary water distribution. Due to natural scarcity of freshwaters, concerned experts have long been warning of water wars (Swain, 2001; Richard and Robert, 1996; Grayling, 2008; Michael and Glen, 2008, Kay, 2009). European and Americans water agreements under Helsinki Rules and the International Law Commission Convention on Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Water courses have been universalized for global water treaties which have no consensus across the board. Despite 2 dams on Beas, 4 on Sutlej, 6 on Ravi, 7 on Indus, 8 on Jhelum and 24 on Chenab India assumes full right on all six rivers falling down to Pakistan and blames colonial period water laws creating schism that locks the water sector into a developmental catharsis (Radha, 2002).
In response to a satellite research on ground water depletion in Punjab (Matthew and Isabella et al, 2009) reporting underground water table declining rate of 3-5cm/yr, an Indian water expert tried to justify multiple dams policy on western Pakistani rivers as a sensible measure to mitigate their water depletion crisis (Saumitra, 2009). Pakistan, being downstream riparian, supports Radha’s demand for international legislature on transboundary water sharing laws to avoid water conflicts but does not support Saumitra’s innovatory policy to steal others waters to solve own problems. Pakistan proposes United Nations to frame laws governing distribution of international river waters including construction of dams in high hazards seismic areas. In view of multiple river basins shared by two or more countries it has become imperative to formulate global river water distribution laws acceptable to upper and lower riparian, déjà vu, water fracas and frays might escalate to dismal water wars in forthcoming decades. Several water experts have pointed out Indian ingenuity based maneuvers to hoodwink lower riparian (Swain, 2001).
3. Breach of Indus Water Treaty
India and Pakistan used to share the River Indus and its five contributories Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej under British rule. The Pakistani areas had no dam to store water, therefore 80% of the water from six rivers would eventually fall into the Arabian Sea. When water conflicts started intensifying after the division of British India in 1948, the World Bank’s President Eugene Black acted in an arbitration procedure between Pakistan and India which resulted in 1960 in the Indus Water Treaty. Under this agreement three eastern rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej were given to India and three western rivers the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum were given to Pakistan. It was “water division” rather than ‘water sharing”.Pakistan also agreed to allow India to use some of western rivers’ waters for local agriculture around rivers in India and produce run-of-river style hydroelectricity provided tyhe water flow did not fall below 55,000 cusecs at Marala and other interface barrages that went below 20,000 in 2009. The Indus Water Treaty worked well up to the 1980s before the Indian Government decided to build dams in Shiwaliks (Himalchal, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir) on the western rivers (Jindal, 1990). Geotechnical studies were carried out in Ballowal, Takarla and Karoan areas from 1984 to 1995. Generally pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon rain fall in Kashmir valley (Handwara) used to be 305, 161.8 and 89mm from 1903 to 1982 (Kumar, 2010) which increased to 1117 to 1249mm in 1990s (Jindal, 1990) that prompted India to go for multiple dams on western rivers without seeking permission of lower river riparian.
Building dams on active faults in Zone-V (<7<Meq<9) was in violation of the Indus Water Treaty. The Indian Government conducted several more studies on geotechnical and hydrological parameters for the design of small earth filled dams in the 1990s (Sur, 1999). Initially, the small dams construction experience using local expertise led to micro-earthquakes around Thien Dam in Himalayas in 1980s ( Bhattacharya et al, 1986) which forced them to seek international assistance on dams. Feasibility studies on 400 MW Hasti Dul (400 MW) and other dams were carried out in Kashmir valley and the adjacent provinces of Himachal and Punjab in the 1990s (Winter et al, 1994). Uri-I (240 MW) dam on river Jhelum and Nathpa (1650 MW) dam on river Sutlej were carried out to test geological and geotechnical responses which hardly complied (Behrestaghi et al, 1996). If the Indian dams were to fail for technical reasons or as a result of earthquakes the people who would suffer would be Kashmiri or Pakistanis. Building tens of dams without consulting lower riparian renders the Indus Water Treaty virtually defunct. Under the Indus Treaty of 1960, India is supposed to inform at least six months before launching any hydropower project. India did not comply in this regard. India has several dam projects including water diversion tunnels and canals. India had allocated RS.33 billion for the 330 MW Krishanganga project and Rs. 18 billion for the 240 MW Uri-II hydropower dam on River Jhelum, Rs.51 billion for 1000 MW Pak Dul and 1200 MW Sawalkot dams projects on Chenab. The Sawalkot dam is 646-feet height which is more than the 485-feet height Tarbela and 453 feet height Mangla in Pakistan. These dams are 160 km away from Kangra where a 8.0 Richter scale earthquake occurred in 1905 on record (Kiani, 2010).
India has already built 60 MW Madekheda dam on Indus river and is constructing 130 MW Chuttak, 600 MW Monpreet n Randeep, 44 MW Dumkhar and 60 MW Nimo Bazgo dams on river Indus. After completion of 330 MW Wular barrage and 240 MW Uri-I dam India is further constructing 330 MW Krishanganga and 240 MW Uri-II dams on the river Jhelum. India completed 450 MW Baglihar, 345 MW Salal-I and 345 MW Salal-II on river Chenab on which Pakistan objected seriously. India has diverted Jhelum river water to Chenab through a 80km long tunnel which is clear breach of Indus Water Treaty. India is constructing another 1200 MW Bursar dam on this tunnel. Instead of respecting Indus Water Treaty India has started construction of 400 MW Hasti Dul, 460 MW Rattle, 400 MW Gyspa, 100 MW Pakdul, 800 MW Karthai, 180 MW Raoli, 725 MW Seli, 1200 MW Sawalkot, 90 MW Tangat, 50 MW Pattan, 50 MW Teling, 100 MW Tandi, 180 MW Sach Khas, 300 MW Dueli/Dugli, 100 MW Rashal, 100 MW Myar, 190 MW Gondhala, 240 MW Dogar, 100 MW Shatru, 110 MW Dang, 20 MW Thai Rot and Chenai dams (Wikipedia, 2010; Arashad, 2010). After completion of so many dams all the western rivers will become dry. Bhutan has a hydropower potential of 23,000 MW out of which 4,484 MW is expected to be harnessed by constructing six dams by 2024. Pakistan has 50,000 MW hydro potential which is under threat due to 39,000 MW power Indian dams on western rivers. Pakistan is generating 71.9% thermal, 25.2% hydel and 2.9% nuclear power. Our energy mix consists of 43.5% oil, 41.5% gas, 0.3% LPG, 4.5% coal, 9.2% hydropower and 1.1% nuclear electricity (Nayyer, 2004). Pakistan has over 40,000 MW wind, 30,000 MW solar and 800 MW geothermal potential.
India has already contributed to the drying up of the eastern rivers Ravi, Sulej and Beas. Water only flows in these rivers when India has significant dam overflows. India is digging a Sulej-Ganges Link canal to divert waters to the southern Indian states on which Indian riparian have taken stay from the Indian court. India has built 390 MW Pong, 360 MW Pandoh and 126 MW Larji dams on river Beas, 1000 MW Bhakra, 1650 MW Nathpa and 800 MW Kol, 1000 MW Karcham Wang and 77 MW Nangal dams on river Sutlej, 1200 MW Baira Siul, 540 MW Chamera and 600 MW Ranjeet Agar, 120 MW Sewa-II and 70 MW Budhil dams on river Ravi. Indian dam mania is causing drought to both eastern and western riparian farmers. Pakistan has only two dams which usually stay partially filled throughout the year except monsoon months Wikipedia, 2010). Unfortunately, 95% Indian dams in Himachal, Jammu and Kashmir regions are located on dangerous earthquake faults zones. Recently India has launched another dams construction drive in Himachal Pardesh (En.Wikipedia, 2010) to build 300 MW Baspa, 231 MW Holi, 70 MW Dhamwar, 2050 MW Parbati, 192 MW Allian, 162 MW Swara, 370 MW Sham Not, 560 MW Rattle, 430 MW Kiru, 320 MW Kawar and 35 MW Bichlari dams (Ramanathan, 2007). United Nations water experts must formulate global water legislation to avoid water wars especially between India and Pakistan which may engulf many others. When Pakistan came to know of water shortages in rivers India had completed 70% of 48 dams. Indus river system is spread over 944,473 km2 out of which 553,416 km2 lies in Pakistan. Pakistan declared failure of Indus Commission in 2005 referring the case to neutral expert. India has 34 large dams out of which 10 are in Kashmir. Indian links between Neelum, Jhelum, Chenab through Tavi river uplift canal, Ravi, Beas, Sutlej and Yamana transfer western rivers water to Indian highlands as shown in Fig.1
There is no dam on Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers on the Pakistani side. However, India is building over three dozens dams on Western rivers which are viewed as a matter of grave concern by Pakistan. Science news and global warming observations conclude that the Himalaya region will be affected in the near future. Dams worth 150,000 MW have been proposed in India, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan. International Rivers point it out that these projects are environmentally determinental (ie from a global warming perspective). Melting glaciers, like Dig Tsho Glof in Nepal in 1985, may lead to glacial lake bursts causing flash floods. Bhutan noted 25 dangerous glacial lakes in 2009. Over one billion people rely on Himalaya waters. Upstream countries should not store waters in dams to starve lower riparian. India must focus on other sources of energy instead of blocking the flow of water to Pakistan. United Nations and Indian scientists and engineers must advise the Indian Government to curtail dam construction in fault zones on western rivers under 1960 Indus Treaty to discourage water war for long term regional security. We have long history of using waters amicably but energy crisis is driving the conflicts. Global irrigation potentials exists 68% in Asia, 17% in Americas, 9% in Europe and 1% in Oceania. Indus Basin western rivers contribute to 15-20% of Asian food cycle. Transboundary rivers are not local rather global assets which need due attention on merits. Indus water treaty went well for last 50 years but recent Indian dam drive is worsening the scenario.
Salaman’s (Salman, 2010) claim the lower riparian (Pakistan) can harm upper riparian (India) is not a valid argument as Pakistan and India have divided rivers instead of sharing them. Eastern rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were chosen by India and Western rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab were left for Pakistan due to geographical locations. Eastern rivers had annual water capacity of 41 billion cubic meters (33 MAF) whereas western rivers had capacity of 188 billion cubic meters (135 MAF). Uri dams have storage capacity of 3.07 MAF in 1999 which increased to 6.37 MAF in 2002. Sutlej-Yamana (SYL) can transfer 3.5MAF water. India is transferring this water from western rivers into eastern rivers through Tavi-Ravi 31 meter high uplift link canal. India stopped Neelum River to divert water to Wular Barrage through 27 km long tunnel which is further diverted from Jhelum to Chenab through 77 km long tunnel. Asia Times called it race to death over Kashmir waters (Asia Times, 2009).
The Indus Waters Treaty 1960 Annexure D Part 2 (8, 9, 13, 15, 16 and 18) allows India to build even new run-of-river power plants without interfering with the water flow and diversion. The Indian decision to build large dams instead of run-of-river power stations is clear violation of above subsections. Part 2 section 15 restricts India to deliver volume of water varying from 30% to 130% of river water. India can divert water from one to other tributary of the same river but not the other rivers like Jhelum to Chenab and build 1200 MW dam on the tunnel. It must be run-of-river design not the dam capable holding waters for months. India has the right to stop water flow to Pakistan when dead storage of run-of-river powerhouse is being filled not several MAF dam which exceeds her permitted 3.6 MAF limit. Treaty section 18 (a, c) permit India to use 300 cusecs discharge turbines along with storage capacity 20 feet above mean bed level of tributary but the new 33 dams have been raised up to several tens of meters which contradicts the agreement. Part 4 (24) also allows India to build hydropower plants on any irrigation channel taking off western rivers without storage other than the poundage but is required under Part 5 (1-3) to supply location, hydrodynamic, design details such as spill ways, head tail etc to Pakistan 6 moths before starting construction work that has been covertly violated in last two decades. Indus Waters Treaty 1960 Annexure E related to water reservoir, dead, live, flood, surcharge, conservation and power storage capacities restricts India to values shown in Table 2.
The Indus Water Treaty Annexure E allows India to enjoy general, power and flood storage limits of 1.25, 1.60 and 0.75 MAF which is consistent with 3.6 MAF restriction of Part 2 section 15 as discussed above. Ground reality is the India has already build 14 power houses and working on the construction of another 33 medium size dams with storage capacities exceeding several tens of MAF instead of allowed 3.6 MAF. Pakistan used to get over 156 MAF earlier which despite fast snowmelts and monsoon runoff has reduced to just 134 MAF per year. Indus Waters Treaty 1960 Annex E (10) restricts India to not exceed storage beyond 10,000 acre feet above 3.6 MAF during even emergency and do not release it all of sudden to cause difficulty for Pakistan. Annexure E (18) restricts India to not let the water flow go bellow 55,000 cusecs it has been going bellow 20,000 in routine since many years.
4. Water, Power and Energy Confluence
Population growth, industrial expansion and the consumer economy have increased electricity demand from 17PWh in 2000 to 20PWh in 2010. Demand is esitamted to increase to 24 PWH by 2020 and 30PWh by 2030. About 2.5 billion people out of global 6.8 billion population lived with severe water conditions in 2005 which are likely to increase to 3.95 billions out of 8.5 billions population by 2030. The IEEE believes trading water for watts is start of hard choices era. Hydroelectric, solar, nuclear and wind power plants consume 5.4, 2.5-2.8, 1.5 and 0 liters water per kWh but produce no carbon. Coal and gas fired power plants consume 1.1-1.8 and 0.5-1.8 liters per kWh energy producing 0.43 to 0.96 kg/kWh carbon. P hotovoltaic power generation uses 0.1 liter/kWh water producing 0.02 kg/kWh carbon. Wind power is the cleanest form energy which neither uses water nor produces carbon (IEEE Staff, 2010). Pakistan is among least coal burning countries but global warming is hitting hard on it since 1998. A recent temperature rise to 54°C in Mohenjo Daru followed by 1200,000 cusecs flash floods has affected over 2 to 2.5 million people across Pakistan. The climatologists say it makes no difference whether a single country increases or decreases greenhouse gases emissions at global scale. A country injecting thousands miles away can affect you through the common atmosphere. Recent industrialization in China and India has led to accumulation of green gases over Pakistan that has changed monsoon flow patterns from Bangladesh to India to Southern Punjab to northern mountains exacerbating glacier melting.
World power demand is 17 PWh whereas thousands of dams installed electric power capacity is 777 GWe that supplies just 2.9 PWh which is 18% of total demand. The remaining 82% demand is met with fossil fuels which are likely to be deplete after 2050. 5. Dams Hazards & Drawbacks
A large dam may fail during earthquake and flash flood. Dam failures may lead to serious consequences. It causes flash flood causing catastrophes. The Chinese Banqiao dam failure killed 26,000 by drowning in flood water and 145,000 people by subsequent epidemics in addition to billions dollars property losses. Vajont Dam failure by geological reasons killed 2000 people in Italy in 1963. Kelly Barnes Dam failed due to flash flood killing 27 people in 1957. It is very dangerous to construct dams on geological fault lines. Dam construction devastates lots of fertile land and causes the evacuation of rural populations. It is estimated that 50-80 million peoples have been displaced worldwide due to dam construction. 7. Concluding Remarks
Freshwater drives irrigation and industrial processes which support life. Even if natural freshwater does not decline significantly due to global warming, the pressure of growing population and industrial production are important factors to bear in mind in relaiton to the debate on “Peak Water”. (Peak water, 2010) To prevent water conflicts between nations, it is necessary to develop under international auspices, workable global laws which govern international rivers.
References
Airtricity (2008) ‘Airtricity’, World Future Energy Summit, Dubai, January 2008
Alees, S. (1994) ‘Conflict over water in the Middle East: From a security and strategic point of view’, Studies in Environmental Science, Vol. 58, pp.505-514
Arshad, H. A. (2010) ‘Climate change and transboundary water issues’, UNDP consultant for Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan.
Asia Times (2009) ‘Race to death over Kashmir water’, 13 January 2009.
Basharat, H.Q. (2010) ‘How India betrayed Pakistan’, The Nation, September 18, 2010.
Behrestaghi, M.H.N. and Rao, K.S, Ramamurthy, T. (1996) ‘Engineering geological and geotechnical responses of schistose rocks from dam project areas in India’, Engineering Geology, Vol.44, pp.183-201.
Ben, C. and Nirvikar, S. (2000) ‘Impediments and Innovation in International Rivers: The Waters of South Asia’, World Development, Vol. 28, pp.1907-1925
Bentley, R.W (2002) ‘Global oil and gas depletion: a review’, Energy policy, Vol.30, pp.189-205
Clionadh, R. and Henrik, U. (2007) ‘Climate change, environmental degradation and armed conflict Political Geography’, Vol.26, pp.674-694.
Cyranoski, D. (2010 ‘Japan plans nuclear power expansion’, Nature, Vol. 464, pp.661.
Darley, J. (2005) ‘High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis’, Chelsea Green.
David, B. and Julie, T. (2010) ‘Confronting water in an Israeli–Palestinian peace agreement’, Journal of Hydrology, Vol.382, pp.103-114.
Eric, H. (2008) ‘Terms merge for dark energy mission’, Nature, Vol.455, pp.577.
Eran, F. (2000) ‘The ebb and flow of Arab–Israeli water conflicts: Are past confrontations likely to resurface?’, Water Policy, Vol.2, No. 4-5, pp. 343-363.
Franklin, W. (2002) ‘Water: Life force or instrument of war’, The Lancet, Vol. 360, 29-30.
Giordano, R., Passarella, G., Uricchio, V.F. and Vurro, M. (2007) ‘Integrating conflict analysis and consensus reaching in a decision support system for water resource management’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.84, pp.213-228.
Grayling, A. C. (2008) ‘Mind fields: We must avert the water wars’, The New Scientist, Vol. 198, No. 2660, pp. 52.
Guardian (2002) ‘War over water’, 3 June 2002.
Hans, P.W.T., Nils, P. G. and Håvard, H. (2000) ‘Shared rivers and interstate conflict’, Political Geography, Vol.19, pp.971-996.
Harper, F. (1999) ‘Ultimate hydrocarbon resources in the 21st century’, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Conference on Oil and Gas in 21st Century, Birmingham, UK.
Heinberg, R. (2005) ‘Party’s over: Oil, war and the fate of industrial societies’, New Society Publishers Limited, 2005.
Hugo, K. M. (1994) ‘Magneto-hydrodynamic power generation’, John Wiley, Chester. IEEE Staff (2010) ‘The coming clash between water and energy’, Spectrum, Vol. 610, pp. 22-23
Irene, L.M, J. and Eleonora, S. (1986) ‘International river basins: A policy model for conflict resolution’, Resources Policy, Vol.12, pp.133-144.
IWT (1960) ‘Indus water treaty 1960’, Annexure D & E.
IPCC (2010) ‘IPCC representative’s interview on CNN’, August 2010.
Jarunee, W. (2010) ‘Technological change of the energy innovation system: From oil based to bio-based energy’, Applied Energy, Vol.87, pp. 749-755.
Jindal, P.K, Rao, B.N. and Sur, H. S. (1991) ‘Performance evaluation of mini dams in Kandi area of Punjab state a Case study’, Symposium on Small Vs Large Dams, Delhi, 1991.
Joseph, E. M. (2004) ‘Causes and possible solutions to water resource conflicts in the Okavango River Basin: The case of Angola, Namibia and Botswana’, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Vol. 29, pp.1319-1326.
Kaveh, M. (2010) ‘Game theory and water resources’, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 381, pp.225-238. Kay, D. (2009) ‘Water management’, International Encyclopedia of human geography, pp. 207-214.
Khan, Z. A. (2010) ‘Indus Water Treaty 1960 in Doldrums’ Pakspectator.com 20/2/2010
Kees, V. D. E and Frederik, G. 2007) ‘Blue Energy’, http://www.leonardo-energy.org
Kiani, K. (2010) ‘Five dams being built in occupied Kashmir’, Dawn, February 3, 2010.
Kiani, K. (2010) ‘Drastic decline in Chenab water flow’, Dawn, 21 January, 2010.
Kumar, V. and Jain, S. K. (2010) ‘Trends in seasonal and annual rainfall and rainy days in Kashmir valley in last century’, Quarterly Journal, Vol. 212, pp. 64-69.
Marc, D. K., Keith, W. H. and Liping F (1987) ‘The graph model for conflicts’, Automatica, Vol.23, pp.41-55
Matthew, R., Isabella,V. and James, S.F. (2009) ‘Satellite based estimates of groundwater depletion in India’, Nature, Vol. 460, pp. 999-1001.
Michael, C. and Glen, L. (2008) ‘Accounting for war’, Accounting Forum, Vol. 32, pp. 313-326.
Milline, J. N. (2005) ‘Migration and intensification of water conflicts in the Pangani Basin, Tanzania’, Habitat International, Vol. 29, No.1, pp. 41-67.
Mirza, M.M.Q (2002) ‘The Ganges water sharing treaty: Risk analysis of the negotiated discharge’, International Journal of Water, Vol.2, pp. 57-74.
Mustafa, I. (1994) ‘The Arab-Israeli Conflict Over Water Resources’, Studies in Environmental Science, Vol.8, pp.123-133.
NDMA (2010) ‘National Disaster Management Authority’, http://ndma.gov.pk/
NAP (2005) ‘Controlling the Quantum World of Atoms, Molecules, and Photons’, National Academic Press, ISBN 0-309-65565-X
Nayyer, A.Z. and Zeeshan A.N (2004) ‘Prospects of renewable energy sources in Pakistan’, Proceedings of. Renewable Energy Technology & Sustainable Development Conference, COMSATS, 2004.
Nils, P. G., Kathryn, F., Håvard, H., Bethany, L. and Taylor, O. (2006) ‘Conflicts over shared rivers: Resource scarcity or fuzzy boundaries?’, Political Geography, Vol. 25, pp. 361-382
Noah, C.G., Robin, L.N., Burton, E., James, E., M, Girish, G. and Deborah, W. M. (2008) ‘The energy-water nexus and information exchange: Challenges and opportunities’, International Journal of Water, Vol. 4, pp. 5-24.
OGDC, Oil and Gas Development Authority (2009) ‘Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources’, www.mpnr.gov.pk.
Parkins, W.E. (2006) ‘Fusion power: will it ever come?’, Science, Vol. 311, pp.1380.
Paul, F. T., Craig, F. (2000) ‘Historic wreck in international waters: conflict or consensus?’, Marine Policy, Vol. 24, pp.1-10.
Paul, R. H., Sara, M. M. and Thomas, E. S. (2006) ‘Conflict management of riparian disputes’, Political Geography, Vol. 25, pp.383-411.
Peak water (2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water
Psatskin, O. B. (2008) ‘ Peak oil in the light of oil formation theories’, Energy Policy, Vol.36, pp.1826-1828.
Radha, D. (2002) ‘At the confluence of law and geography: contextualizing inter-state water disputes in India’, Geoforum, Vol.33, pp. 255-269.
Ramanathan, K. and Abeygunawardena, P. (2007) ‘Hydropower development in India’, Asian Development Bank.
Richard, A. E. and Robert, J.C. (1996) ‘Sunbelt water war: The El Paso-New Mexico water conflict’, Vol.33, pp. 359-379.
Rogner, H.H. (1997) ‘An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources’, Annul Rev Energy Environ, Vol. 22, pp. 217-62.
Rossi, G. and Anxarani, A. (2002) ‘Innovations in water legislation in Italy: Ecosystem protection and stakeholder’s participation’, International Journal of Water, Vol. 2, pp.17-34.
Salman, M.A.S. (2010) ‘Downstream riparian can also harm upstream riparian: The concept of foreclosure of future uses’, International Journal of Water, Vol. 35, pp. 350-364.
Saumitra, M (2009 ‘Sensible measures to guard India’s groundwater supply’, Nature, Vol. 462, pp. 296.
Sawsan, R. (2010) ‘Israel stealing Palestinian and Arab waters’, Global Research.
Schon, B. and Ian, C.W (2009) ‘The global “war for talent”’, Journal of International Management, Vol.15, pp.273-285
Smil, V. (2006) ‘Energy at cross roads’, Global Science Forum Conference on Scientific Challenges for Energy Research, Paris, May 17-18, 2006
Starr, J.R. (1991) ‘Water wars’, Foreign Policy, pp. 82.
Stephen, L. (2008) ‘Drought and Israeli policy threaten West Bank Water security’, Global Research, January 2008, pp.1-6.
Swain, A. (2001) ‘Water wars: facts or fiction’, Futures, Vol. 23, pp. 769-781.
Sur, H. S., Anil, B. and Jindal, P.K. (1999) ‘Some hydrological parameters for the design and operation of small earthen dams in lower Shiwaliks of Northern India’, Agriculture Water Management, Vol.1479, pp. 111-121.
Tertzakian, P. (2006) Thousands barrels a second: The coming oil break point and the challenges facing an energy dependent world, McGraw-Hill Companies USA.
Walling, M.Y. and Mohanty, W. K. (2009) ‘An overview on the seismic zonation and microzonation studies in India’, Earth Science Reviews, Vol. 96, pp. 67-91.
Winter, T., Binquet, J., Szendroi, A., Colombet, G., Armjo, R. and Tapponnier, P. (1994) ‘From plate tectonics to the design of the Dul Hasti hydroelectric project in Kashmir (India)’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 31, pp. 252.
Winter, T., Binquet, J., Szendroi, A., Colombet, G., Armjo, R., Tapponnier, P. (1994) ‘From plate tectonics to the design of the Dul Hasti hydroelectric project in Kashmir (India)’, Engineering Geology, Vol. 36, pp. 211-241.
World Bank Technical Paper No.414, Washington, World Bank, 1998.
Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_Indiann_dams_in_Jammu&Kashmir
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Himachal
Table 1 Historic floods induced losses in Pakistan
Table 2 Indus Water Treaty 1960 water allocations (IWT, 1960)
X* limited to 300 acre feet including agriculture and power use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in India on April 11th, 2012
By John Daly, 04 April 201
A peaceful and stable Pakistan is integral to western efforts to pacify Afghanistan, but Islamabad’s obsessions with its giant eastern neighbor may render such issues moot.
Since partition in 1947, Pakistan and India have fought four armed conflicts, in 1947, 1965, 1971 (which led to the establishment of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan) and the 1999 Kargil clash. With the exception of the 1971 conflict, which involved rising tensions in East Pakistan, the others have all involved issues arising from control of Kashmir.
But now a rising new element of discord threatens to precipitate a new armed clash between southern Asia’s two nuclear powers – water. Lahore’s “The Nation’ newspaper on Sunday published an editorial entitled, “War with India inevitable: Nizami,” the newspaper’s Editor-in-Chief and Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust Chairman, Majid Nizami, asked his fellow citizens to prepare for a war with India over water issues. Nizami told those attending the “Pakistan-India relations; Our rulers- new wishes” session at Aiwan-e-Karkunan Tehrik-e-Pakistan, which he chaired, “Indian hostilities and conspiracies against the country will never end until she is taught a lesson.”
While The Nation is a conservative daily, part of the Nawa-i-Waqt publishing group, with a circulation of roughly 20,000, it has a website, and what’s more, close ties to Pakistan’s highest military circles, so Nizami’s comments should hardly be rejected out of hand. Furthermore, Niazmi’s audience included some high ranking Pakistani officials, including Nazaria-i-Pakistan Vice Chairman Dr Rafique Ahmed; Pakistan Movement Workers-Trust Chairman, retired Colonel Jamshed Ahmed Tareen; former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed Khan; Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan Secretary General Qari Zawar Bahadur; retired Air Marshall Khurished Anwar Mirza; retired Brigadier Hamid Saeed Akhtar and Jamaat-e-Islami Lahore Chief Ameer-ul-Azeem, among others.
At issue are Pakistan’s concerns over India’s ongoing construction of two hydroelectric dams on the upper reaches of the Indus River. Islamabad is concerned that the 45 megawatt, 190-foot tall Nimoo-Bazgo concrete dam 44 megawatt Chutak hydroelectric power project will reduce the Indus River’s flow towards Pakistan, as they are capable of storing up to 4.23 billion cubic feet of water, violating the terms of the bilateral 1960 Indus Water Treaty. The Indus, which begins in Indian-controlled Kashmir, is crucial to both India and Pakistan, but is currently experiencing water flows down 30 percent from its normal levels. The Indus is Pakistan’s primary freshwater source, on which 90 percent of its agriculture depends. According to a number of Pakistani agriculture and water experts, the nation is heading towards a massive water shortage in the next couple of years due to insufficient water management practices and storage capacity, which will be exacerbated by the twin Indian hydroelectric projects, as they will further diminish the Indus’ flow.
So, if push comes to shove, who’s got Pakistan’s back?
China.
During the Boao Forum for Asia, on China’s southern Hainan island on 1 April, Pakistan and China agreed to support each other “in all circumstances” and vowed to uphold their sovereignty and territorial integrity at all costs. Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani told Chinese Executive Vice Premier Li Keqiang, “China’s friend is our friend, and China’s enemy is ours,” adding Pakistan considers China’s security as its own security and supports China’s position on Taiwan, Tibet and Xinqiang. Li replied that China would support Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in every situation, telling Gilani, “No matter what changes take place at international level, we will uphold Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
It might be noted here that in October 1962, coinciding with the Cuban missile crisis, India and China fought a brief but bitter war along their disputed Himalayan border.
Fifty years later, China and India have yet to resolve their border issues over Kashmir and China continues to claim most of India’s Arunachal Pradesh to the base of the Himalayas in the absence of any definitive treaty delineating the border. Kashmir remains the site of the world’s largest and most militarized territorial dispute with portions under the de facto administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir), and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas).
No guesses therefore as to whom Beijing might back should Pakistani-Indian tensions continue to rise. Accordingly, to keep the peace, one might paraphrase Ronald Reagan in Berlin – “Prime Minister Singh, tear down those dams!”
But don’t bet on it.
By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com
Readers’ comments
Nexus789 on April 06 2012 said: I guess that is why they wasted all the money on nukes…after a futile nuclear conflict there will be no demand for water.
Bob on April 06 2012 said: China too is building some controversial dams in their region to divert the mighty Brahmaputra which provides water to much of North-East of India. This can be seen as the first step to help Pakistan against India. This is game being played between these three neighbours and there may be a flashpoint in the very near future that culminates into a skirmish. Time to take stock for all countries and resolve these issues prudently. On this note, China seems to be overplaying it’s part and therefore India and Pakistan must confront this issue separately. China doesn’t need Pakistan as much as the other way around and Pakistan must know their subservient position in this matter.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in India on April 9th, 2012
The foolishness of war
Oh, the foolishness of war –
will no-one ever see?
And fighting, stupid squabbles –
cannot all men be free?
Why, oh why, must human minds
be so locked constantly
in bitter conflict of views?
Will peace there never be?
My room, call it my studio apartment, is a typical bunker, built on self-help basis, thanks to our meagre resources. Carved out from a hillock, it is a classical one-window room of fourteen-by-ten feet. The ten-foot high ceiling had 70 girders. Trivial information, you say? I count them every night before I can sleep. No, I have not grown insomniac, but I dare not venture out to count stars in this part of the world.
On one side, the empty cartons have been arranged, covered by gunny bags, only to be topped by the prayer mat. I have a lot of time to pray and reflect, probably since I am the closest I could get to Him. The other wall supports the bed (an arrangement of empty cartons) upon which lies air mattress, along with our sleeping bags. Tastefully, the big-flower-print bed sheet does not permit the attention to drift to the poor structure of the bed. The dark toilet is an extension of the same room. An old cough syrup bottle has been modified with kerosene oil to serve the purpose of the lamp which practically lights up nothing. The empty ghee cans are our makeshift geysers. Basic instinct is the best aide when it comes to anatomy in the dark bathroom. The room décor is an artistic arrangement of the empty containers of food, fuel and fire. Food cartons serve as tables, fuel cans as stools and empty (fired) cartridges as bedside teapoy items. The most decorated table has boxes of chicken cubes, noodles, egg biscuits, brick-game and yes, our window to the world, the radio. Other inhabitants include a Fujika (a kerosene-lit heater), petromax, the books that you have sent and the military phone – this masterpiece of technology which connects me to you, remains silent. The weather, the snow, the wind, the electric power everything conspires against our probable communication. Reminds me how Shah Latif narrates the plight of Sassi after she had been robbed of Pannu:
“The camel (which carries Punno) is my enemy, the wind (which is erasing the foot prints of caravan) is my enemy, the sand is my enemy and so are the brothers of Punnu,
And most of all the sun is my enemy, for having risen so late and not waking me up”
Our high point of the day arrives when we sit down for dinner. Fresh vegetables are a luxury. We have to live on roasted onions and tomato puree, which is canned. The weather denies us the luxury of fresh vegetables, and much more. After getting over with dinner, we gather around the radio and switch it on. This really is the world on our finger tips. There is no FM here, only the BBC and loads of incomprehensible regional channels. The alternative to BBC is Radio Pakistan, which runs the night-time transmission. About the night-time transmission, it is the radio’s revenge from the television for morning shows.
Another day has gone. The vigilant sentries change over their duties. Far from home, away from gatherings, phone calls, SMS-es, these men, I think, are doing something which can never be monetised. Purposelessly, looking against the ravishing snowstorms, their biggest foe is the weather. You can never predict its move. It sulks within and you only realise how loosely you hang between a life and death when it hits you. A minor headache turns into cerebral edema and a man full of stories, intentions, commitments and emotions becomes, what they call, a ‘causality.’
The radio is tuned up and we start receiving our dose of military bashing. A whole lot of qualified individuals start describing us as a merry-making mob, with no clue about how one can party at 20,000 ft above the mean sea level. My mind races. Huge chunks of budget for tomato puree and canned vegetables. Power hungry for morally supporting everyone that we have, people who love us and people who are the reason we live to guard this piece of land. Luxurious lives in a make-shift room with empty cartons. I think the quotation on the wall is not so over-rated.
Hope to hear from you soon…
Yours faithfully,
H
The author, who wishes to remain anonymous, served his tenure at Siachen with the men who were trapped under an avalanche on Saturday. This letter is one of the several that he wrote to his wife during his time at the glacier.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in India on April 7th, 2012
Three years and four months after the horrendous terrorist strikes in
the western Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008, Washington has
dropped a diplomatic bombshell in New Delhi.
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, left, talks with the
Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh at the Nuclear Summit in Seoul,
South Korea, March, 27, 2012.
The visiting United States Undersecretary of State for Political
Affairs Wendy Sherman announced in Delhi on Monday Washington’s
decision to put a bounty of 10 million dollars on the chief of
Pakistan-based Islamist organization Jamaat-ud-Dawa, Hafiz Saeed, whom
New Delhi regards as the evil genius who masterminded the Mumbai
attacks that killed 170 people.
Welcome to the fantasyland of US-India-Pakistan triangle. Technically,
Washington has acted in pursuit of the fact that the 170 people killed
included six Americans. No doubt, Saeed has been on India’s list of
most-wanted terrorist and has been named a global terrorist in 2008.
But he has been roaming free inside Pakistan, often holding public
rallies and giving TV interviews.
Sherman’s announcement is a huge ‘PR scoop’ for the US public
diplomacy. The fact that she went public at an elite gathering of
Indian strategic gurus underscores that Washington sought the optimal
spin-off in the realm of US-India relationship, which has been lately
somewhat under the weather.
The US-India relationship is in a state of drift, meandering
aimlessly. The fizz has gone out of the US-India nuclear deal of
2008. There is no possibility that in a near future American companies
would secure any ‘nuclear business’ in India by selling reactors. The
American companies won’t enter the Indian market unless New Delhi
amends the Nuclear Liability Law to suit their interests but the
likelihood of the Indian government complying is also virtually zero
in the present climate of political fluidity in India.
Meanwhile, the last thing the two capitals would have wanted was a
ruckus over Iran, but one is threatening. India stubbornly refuses to
seek exemption from the US’ sanctions against Iran and is insisting
that it only abides by the sanctions imposed by the United Nations.
Whereas Washington makes threatening noises now and then and New Delhi
seems to take them in its stride and carry on with the business of its
relationship with Tehran. All that Washington could claim is that it
has to some extent retarded the India-Iran economic cooperation.
One main objective of Sherman’s visit was to harmonize India’s Iran
policy. She acknowledged publicly that US did not intend to jeopardize
India’s energy security, but then went on to imply that Washington
expected New Delhi to join the West’s attempts to pressure Iran.
Only last week India joined the other BRICS countries to warn the US
and its allies about the “disastrous consequences” of a conflict with
Iran and opposing fresh sanctions against Iran by stating that US
domestic laws should not lead to volatility in oil process that may
adversely affect the growth of developing countries.
Thus, by playing the ‘Saeed card’, Washington would have hoped to
generate a ‘feel-good’ ambience to the US-India partnership. Indeed,
the 2008 Mumbai attacks strike a painful chord in the Indian psyche
and the US decision to put Saeed on par with the most dreaded
terrorists on Washington’s watch list – alongside Taliban supremo
Mullah Omar, al-Qaeda’s Iraq hand Abu Du’a and its Iran-based
‘facilitator’ Yasin al Suri – will go down well in the Indian opinion.
However, the timing of the US announcement on Saeed will raise
eyebrows. It comes hardly five days before a likely meeting on April 8
between the Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and the Pakistani
president Asif Zardari who is visiting India on a ‘private visit’.
There is much excitement already in the diplomatic circles that
India-Pakistan dialogue might get a boost during the forthcoming
meeting between the two leaders – even paving the way for a
long-awaited visit by the Indian prime minister to Pakistan in a near
future. Indeed, the climate of India-Pakistan ties has distinctly
improved in the most recent years, bringing hope that a new phase in
the relationship may be commencing.
Equally, there is peace and calm on the India-Pakistan border and the
graph of violence in Jammu & Kashmir is dropping visibly. Pakistan’s
threat perceptions are increasingly from the US and a sure sign of it
is the bold decision that Islamabad took to accord Most-Favored Nation
status to India to expand the trade ties. Economic cooperation is not
only the guarantee of peace but it is also the strongest signal in the
India-Pakistan context of a genuine willingness to leave the past
behind and move forward in the relationship. On the crucial issue of
Afghanistan, neither India nor Pakistan is exacerbating the mutual
suspicions regarding each other’s intentions.
Suffice to say, Sherman’s surprise announcement takes India back to
one of the darkest chapters of its troubled relationship with
Pakistan. The big question is what is the US’ game plan in
resurrecting at this very point the images from a gory past?
Put plainly, India-Pakistan relationship is steadily acquiring a
momentum that stands in sharp contrast with the chill in US-Pakistan
ties. If Washington always claimed to be the godfather of
India-Pakistan dialogue, that claim is patently unsustainable today.
New Delhi and Islamabad are crafting their dialogue on their own and
incrementally giving substance to it without any third party
facilitating the process. Indeed, with the huge debris of the Afghan
war swarming the US-Pakistan relationship, Washington cannot even
pretend that is capable of fostering amity between Pakistan and India.
Not only that, the normalization of India-Pakistan relations would
give Islamabad greater leverage to drive a hard bargain with
Washington in the upcoming reset of the US-Pakistan relationship. The
heart of the matter is that the US is running out of levers to
pressure Pakistan. The growing ‘strategic autonomy’ that Pakistan is
showing vis-à-vis the US is an altogether startling new phenomenon in
the US-Pakistan relationship. And it is hurting like hell at this
juncture when Pakistan’s optimal cooperation is a dire necessity for
Washington while navigating through the Afghan endgame, especially
during the tricky US troop pullout.
Simply put, Sherman has put a spanner in the works of the
India-Pakistan wheel just when it is showing promising signs of new
dynamics. It is not an isolated act, either. In the recent months,
almost in direct proportion to the breakdown of Washington’s equations
with Islamabad through the past year and more, the US officials are
leaving no stone unturned to inveighle India into the snake pit of the
US-Pakistan relationship.
Curiously, even as Sherman was speaking in New Delhi about Saeed, US
defence secretary Leon Panetta told the CBC TV in an interview that
although in many ways US and Pakistan have a common cause in fighting
terrorism, “the problem is that they [Pakistanis] view their position
in that part of the world as one that is threatened by India,…how
they’re going to be viewed in that region, what kind of position are
they going to have for the future. And as result of that, sometimes we
get very mixed messages from Pakistan as to just exactly where they’re
going to be.”
What Panetta meant was that unfortunately, a core issue impeding the
US-Pakistan relationship is Islamabad’s threat perceptions of India,
and but for the India-Pakistan tensions – and Saeed is incidentally a
key element here – Washington would have had a far easier time
persuading the Pakistani military leadership to cooperate in the war
on terrorism.
If Panetta is right, logically, Sherman shouldn’t have done on Monday
what she ably did, namely, subtly queered the pitch of India-Pakistan
discord by conveying the message to New Delhi that screwing up the
Pakistani deep state is in the common interests of the two countries
and it could even be a fruitful US-India joint enterprise – and that
too just as India-Pakistan ties are looking up and the leaderships of
the two countries are mulling over how to give fresh impetus to the
bilateral relationship.
You can’t have it both ways. Either Panetta is right or Sherman is
right – not both.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in India on April 6th, 2012
PLEASE VOTE NO WAY AND SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS TO MAKE IT A SUCCESS. ONLY 2 DAYS LEFT, SO ACT NOW!
Please share with your friends and family if you can.
© 2025, All Rights Reserved by Pakistan Think Tank.
