02-18-2007, 01:58 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-SSridhar+Feb 17 2007, 06:24 PM-->QUOTE(SSridhar @ Feb 17 2007, 06:24 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Naresh ji,
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SSridhar Ji :
What do you think about India relegating the IWT to the dust bin?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's watch the same space for possibly tomorrow ? <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]64550[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See this
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No alarmism, please
Sir: Apropos the letter by Aamir Ilyas titled âDam disputesâ (February 17, Daily Times) regarding the water dispute between Pakistan and India, whatever the drawbacks perceived by both the countries in the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) it certainly has served its purpose well and has provided a framework to settle the disputes, as being witnessed now in the Baglihar Hydro Electric Project (BHEP) issue. IWT allows India to build run-of-the-river systems on the three Western rivers of the Indus system. One of the âdifferencesâ between the two Indus Water Commissions (IWC) was whether BHEP was a run-of-the-river system at all and this matter has now been resolved by neutral experts within the ambit of IWT. Paragraph 18 of Annexure E of the IWT lays down clear parameters as to how and when the Dead Storage Level can be built up in such run-of-river projects. It also states that water impounded in such a project has to be let back into the downstream within seven days. The document also stipulates the minimum and maximum quantum of water to be let downstream within the window period, precisely to allay the fears of the lower riparian state regarding drying-up or flooding. It is therefore quite clear that the height of the dam is immaterial so long as the parameters are adhered to.
Mr Ilyas fears that India will alter the watersheds etc, a fear which I am unable to understand. May be he can explain how India will do this. Otherwise, this has to be taken as another example of the usual unfounded alarmism that exists between these two countries. As to the fear that India, being a more powerful nation, can discard the IWT, I can only quote Paragraph 4 of Article XII of the IWT itself which says that âThe provisions of this Treaty, or the provisions of this Treaty as modified under the provisions of Paragraph (3), shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two governmentsâ.
India can therefore consign IWT to the dustbin only at its own peril of inviting international condemnation. Only an integrated approach to the management of the Indus system of rivers and the basin would allow the two countries to exploit the true potential of these great rivers, shorn of mistrust, especially as the two countries are water-stressed. Until that time, it is better not to indulge in rumour- or fear-mongering and simply go by hard facts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that either the author or the Editor forgot to mention this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Indian design of Baglihar was to impound apprx 15 Million Cubic Meter (MCM) in its dead storage while the annual mean flow of Chenab as measured at the rim station in Pakistan is 30.78 Billion Cubic Meter (BCM).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SSridhar Ji :
What do you think about India relegating the IWT to the dust bin?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's watch the same space for possibly tomorrow ? <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->[right][snapback]64550[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See this
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No alarmism, please
Sir: Apropos the letter by Aamir Ilyas titled âDam disputesâ (February 17, Daily Times) regarding the water dispute between Pakistan and India, whatever the drawbacks perceived by both the countries in the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) it certainly has served its purpose well and has provided a framework to settle the disputes, as being witnessed now in the Baglihar Hydro Electric Project (BHEP) issue. IWT allows India to build run-of-the-river systems on the three Western rivers of the Indus system. One of the âdifferencesâ between the two Indus Water Commissions (IWC) was whether BHEP was a run-of-the-river system at all and this matter has now been resolved by neutral experts within the ambit of IWT. Paragraph 18 of Annexure E of the IWT lays down clear parameters as to how and when the Dead Storage Level can be built up in such run-of-river projects. It also states that water impounded in such a project has to be let back into the downstream within seven days. The document also stipulates the minimum and maximum quantum of water to be let downstream within the window period, precisely to allay the fears of the lower riparian state regarding drying-up or flooding. It is therefore quite clear that the height of the dam is immaterial so long as the parameters are adhered to.
Mr Ilyas fears that India will alter the watersheds etc, a fear which I am unable to understand. May be he can explain how India will do this. Otherwise, this has to be taken as another example of the usual unfounded alarmism that exists between these two countries. As to the fear that India, being a more powerful nation, can discard the IWT, I can only quote Paragraph 4 of Article XII of the IWT itself which says that âThe provisions of this Treaty, or the provisions of this Treaty as modified under the provisions of Paragraph (3), shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two governmentsâ.
India can therefore consign IWT to the dustbin only at its own peril of inviting international condemnation. Only an integrated approach to the management of the Indus system of rivers and the basin would allow the two countries to exploit the true potential of these great rivers, shorn of mistrust, especially as the two countries are water-stressed. Until that time, it is better not to indulge in rumour- or fear-mongering and simply go by hard facts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that either the author or the Editor forgot to mention this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Indian design of Baglihar was to impound apprx 15 Million Cubic Meter (MCM) in its dead storage while the annual mean flow of Chenab as measured at the rim station in Pakistan is 30.78 Billion Cubic Meter (BCM).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->