Naresh ji,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What are the chances of the Neutral Expert deeming Pakistan's latest take from the following Article Baglihar: Pak may go to Court of Arbitration :<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, my apologies for a rather lengthy append.
TSP has this predeliction to now and then drop names like ICA (International Court of Arbitration) or ICJ etc. All such TSP endeavours earlier have been truly disastrous for them and yet they refuse to learn the lesson. The case of Atlantique comes troublingly to memory. But, who are we, mere short, dark rice-eating small penised <i>Kaffirs</i>, before the mighty warrior, meat eating, peach-bottomed, small & tight orificed and long penised Believers from the Land of the Pure ? So, Allahspeed to them.
However, let us, the evil Hunud Kafirs contemplate a few things.
It was TSP that took the Baglihar matter to the WB and asked for the services of a Neutral Expert even as India agreed to a reduction in freeboard (coincidentally by the same amount that the NE finally awarded), offered a raising of the cill of the power intakes after listening to TSP's arguments, and pleaded for another week of discussion to consider other issues and generally give one last chance for discussions to succeed. All these happened in the last few rounds of the IWC meetings in 2005. Yet, TSP summarily rejected all these concessions,madein good faith and with the sole intent of amicably resolving the bilateral issue thorugh talks, as falling short of TSP's objections. Possibly, TSP felt that the <i>Kafirs</i> were cowards and in a true Ayub-like fashion, a few well-directed blows in the form of WB, NE and arbitration would knock them down. TSP demanded that India stopped all activities forthwith, dismantled the low-level sluice gates and reduced the pondage size to one sixth.
Now, IWT allows for two levels of contention between the two states in the interpretation of the IWT. One, a "difference" and the other, a "dispute". While a "difference" should be settled by a NE, the "dispute" needs a Court of Arbitration. The IWC has in its Annexure stated which are the "likely differences" that a NE can resolve. All of the TSP objections for Baglihar clearly fall under that NE category. In any case, the TSP Commissioner of the IWC determined that the Baglihar issue was a "difference" and demanded the WB to set up the resolution mechanism under a NE. It was, therefore, TSP who dragged a reluctant India to the WB and the NE in spite of visible progress being made in the rounds of IWC discussions. The terms of reference to the NE were set by TSP. The NE also felt, after due diligence, that the contention constituted only a "difference" and he was competent enough to settle it, which he then promptly proceded to do with great alacrity. Unfortunately for the TSPians, Allah and his Messenger (PBUH) were once again cruel to them, as they always have been, and the NE determined that the Indian design, methodology, approach and calculations were right on target barring a few minor changes. These were the same calculations that had earlier been presented to the TSP IWC by the <i>kafirs</i> at the Hydrology Institute, Roorkee along with a working model to explain the Indian design decisions. Unsurprisingly, all those were termed as "too complex" by the other side, which was natural considering their lack of general awareness of anything other than <i>djinn</i> power and its ways of working, and hence rejected !!
The acceptance by the NE of the rights of India to build such run-of-river hydroelectric projects, installation of low-level silt-control sluice gates and the size of the pondage were death-knell to the Believers. Now, they have to put up a brave face in front of the <i>Ummah</i> and therefore, ICA or similar bravado comes naturally handy.
There is a healthy competition between Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee on driving nails into the TSP coffin, and it will probably be the turn of the latter the next time around. Soli, that way, would be twice lucky (blessed, perhaps ?) if that happens, having tasted the Atlantique blood quite sometime back.
But, there would possibly be very little chance of that happening. There is no provision within IWT to refer the same issue first as a difference and after its comprehensive settlement by a NE, as a dispute. The verdict of the NE is final and binding within the ambit of the IWT. TSP cannot ask for the constitution of a Court of Arbitration now, to try the same "crime" a second time. It can take the matter to its favourite ICJ, though, which is quite independent. However, as the Atlantique case clearly demonstrated, the ICJ refuses to intervene in bilateral treaties. Soli may yet have his fun, who knows, with TSP leaders around ?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What are the chances of the Neutral Expert deeming Pakistan's latest take from the following Article Baglihar: Pak may go to Court of Arbitration :<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, my apologies for a rather lengthy append.
TSP has this predeliction to now and then drop names like ICA (International Court of Arbitration) or ICJ etc. All such TSP endeavours earlier have been truly disastrous for them and yet they refuse to learn the lesson. The case of Atlantique comes troublingly to memory. But, who are we, mere short, dark rice-eating small penised <i>Kaffirs</i>, before the mighty warrior, meat eating, peach-bottomed, small & tight orificed and long penised Believers from the Land of the Pure ? So, Allahspeed to them.
However, let us, the evil Hunud Kafirs contemplate a few things.
It was TSP that took the Baglihar matter to the WB and asked for the services of a Neutral Expert even as India agreed to a reduction in freeboard (coincidentally by the same amount that the NE finally awarded), offered a raising of the cill of the power intakes after listening to TSP's arguments, and pleaded for another week of discussion to consider other issues and generally give one last chance for discussions to succeed. All these happened in the last few rounds of the IWC meetings in 2005. Yet, TSP summarily rejected all these concessions,madein good faith and with the sole intent of amicably resolving the bilateral issue thorugh talks, as falling short of TSP's objections. Possibly, TSP felt that the <i>Kafirs</i> were cowards and in a true Ayub-like fashion, a few well-directed blows in the form of WB, NE and arbitration would knock them down. TSP demanded that India stopped all activities forthwith, dismantled the low-level sluice gates and reduced the pondage size to one sixth.
Now, IWT allows for two levels of contention between the two states in the interpretation of the IWT. One, a "difference" and the other, a "dispute". While a "difference" should be settled by a NE, the "dispute" needs a Court of Arbitration. The IWC has in its Annexure stated which are the "likely differences" that a NE can resolve. All of the TSP objections for Baglihar clearly fall under that NE category. In any case, the TSP Commissioner of the IWC determined that the Baglihar issue was a "difference" and demanded the WB to set up the resolution mechanism under a NE. It was, therefore, TSP who dragged a reluctant India to the WB and the NE in spite of visible progress being made in the rounds of IWC discussions. The terms of reference to the NE were set by TSP. The NE also felt, after due diligence, that the contention constituted only a "difference" and he was competent enough to settle it, which he then promptly proceded to do with great alacrity. Unfortunately for the TSPians, Allah and his Messenger (PBUH) were once again cruel to them, as they always have been, and the NE determined that the Indian design, methodology, approach and calculations were right on target barring a few minor changes. These were the same calculations that had earlier been presented to the TSP IWC by the <i>kafirs</i> at the Hydrology Institute, Roorkee along with a working model to explain the Indian design decisions. Unsurprisingly, all those were termed as "too complex" by the other side, which was natural considering their lack of general awareness of anything other than <i>djinn</i> power and its ways of working, and hence rejected !!
The acceptance by the NE of the rights of India to build such run-of-river hydroelectric projects, installation of low-level silt-control sluice gates and the size of the pondage were death-knell to the Believers. Now, they have to put up a brave face in front of the <i>Ummah</i> and therefore, ICA or similar bravado comes naturally handy.
There is a healthy competition between Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee on driving nails into the TSP coffin, and it will probably be the turn of the latter the next time around. Soli, that way, would be twice lucky (blessed, perhaps ?) if that happens, having tasted the Atlantique blood quite sometime back.
But, there would possibly be very little chance of that happening. There is no provision within IWT to refer the same issue first as a difference and after its comprehensive settlement by a NE, as a dispute. The verdict of the NE is final and binding within the ambit of the IWT. TSP cannot ask for the constitution of a Court of Arbitration now, to try the same "crime" a second time. It can take the matter to its favourite ICJ, though, which is quite independent. However, as the Atlantique case clearly demonstrated, the ICJ refuses to intervene in bilateral treaties. Soli may yet have his fun, who knows, with TSP leaders around ?