Talk:Indus Waters Treaty

Can anyone write the reasons for India paying 125 metric tonnes gold equivalent money to Pakistan. In 2023 its value is approx 8,375 million USD or approx 7 lakh crore INR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40D0:1D:3361:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

There is a neutrality dispute on the main page since May 2010. Nothing here indicating the problem. Please add something to the talk page if the tag is to be put back on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.10.156 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indus Waters Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070821023229/http://www.gee-21.org/publications/pdf%20files/Conflictsbetweencountriesvol.3Jan.2004.pdf to http://www.gee-21.org/publications/pdf%20files/Conflictsbetweencountriesvol.3Jan.2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

IWT with China

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To bring Pakistan to terms, India should try to enter IWT with China which is an upper riparian state to India in Indus river basin. China is contributing nearly 180 billion cubic meters water in the basin. Refer [1] for more data. Main Indus river water is the nearest water source available to China for the water starved vast Tarim river basin area. The inter basin water transfer from main Indus river and Shyok River is feasible with a 300 km long gravity tunnel without violating the IWT with Pakistan as the water is not used in India. In a reciprocal way for agreeing favourably to India in settling the various territorial issues, etc. India may agree with China for facilitating transfer of China's share of water (nearly 100 billion cubic meters) to Taklimakan desert area located in Tarim river basin. China would allow India total use of water generated in Sutlej river basin of China. Article 4, Section 13 of IWT between Pakistan and India does not limit the use of Indian river courses and its territory for facilitating transfer of Indus river water outside the basin area for use by China/third country. Allowing China to use Indian river courses and its territory for constructing engineering works to transfer outside the river basin to Tarim river basin in China is not voilation of IWT between India & Pakistan. It would be a severe blow to Pakistan's food security and its loss of last dependable ally China. Already Pakistan lost its big brother USA for encouraging terrorist activities to the detriment of USA interests. India is a major importer of Chinese goods with a trade deficit of nearly 40 billion US$ and can induce China in merchandise and services trade better than Pakistan. Vast Taklimakan desert plateau is facing severe water shortage and located at 1400 m MSL far away from its water surplus areas. Indus river water available at 2800 m MSL is the best source of water which can be transferred by gravity to irrigate most of the Taklimakan desert plateau in addition to generating hydro power from the transferred Indus river water. China can build storage dams in its territory to impound Indus river water for regulating inter basin water transfer and hydro power generation. China may build a 300 km long road cum rail tunnel parallel to water transport tunnel to have shorter multi mode access from its eastern most area to Gujarat coastal area in lieu of long tortuous and unsafe Karakoram road link from Pakistan. Reciprocally, China would permit laying of oil and gas pipelines in its territory for the use by India to transport/ import oil & gas from central Asian countries and Russia.183.82.199.109 (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether IWT is valid treaty?

The 'preamble' (first page) of the The Indus Water Treaty (IWT), says that the treaty is signed between both countries having full powers to enter in to treaty and having found them in good and due form by other party. Pakistan's assessment of India's legal ability to sign the treaty without prior approval by the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly, is incorrect. J&K is the only state in India which enjoys special autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India according to which, no law enacted by the Parliament of India, except for those in the field of defence, communication and foreign policy, will be extendible in J&K unless it is ratified by the state legislature of J&K. The Instrument of Accession, 1956 for J&K state says that External Affairs means the implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries (i.e. it does not include making new treaties without prior consent of J&K state when its interest is involved). IWT is restricting the use of J&K state river waters in that state for the benefit of Pakistan. This is different for other states of India in the Indian Union. Refer [2], [3] for more data.

Pakistan made mistake by judging union government of India has full powers to decide on Indus, Jhelum & Chenab rivers which are entering from J&K state in to Pakistan (excluding PoK). The IWT clauses applicable to J&K state can be declared by Supreme court of India as unconstitutional and union government of India may go for new treaty with Pakistan after taking J&K state's approval. J&K can go ahead to build the projects for optimum benefits without caring IWT restrictions. President of India is the common head of Indian union comprising governments of Indian states and union /central government of India. Prime Minister of India is only the head of union government who has no control on states particularly Jammu & Kashmir state. The IWT signed by the Prime Minister of India is not valid/binding as per the constitution of India. Had IWT been signed by the President of India, IWT would have been binding for the purpose of Pakistan though president has not complied the Indian constitutional requirements. 183.82.199.109 (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Internet forums are not reliable sources. Please cite a reliable source to make such claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indus Waters Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511030104/http://archives.dawn.com/2002/01/10/op.htm to http://archives.dawn.com/2002/01/10/op.htm#2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indus Waters Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719175147/http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/files/jia/167-182_ali.pdf to http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/files/jia/167-182_ali.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Does wikipedia care about political neutrality of articles?

Apparently there are many articles on Wikipedia that are not politically neutral. This article is one of them. I tried to edit this article to update the contents and make it politically neutral, but my changes got revert. I still couldn't get any reply when I asked Wikipedia about it. Apparently not everybody in allowed to change the articles, but I would still suggest Wikipedia to take a better look for citations that are used to generate biased articles. Possible disputes that can cause after such negligence. Please better look at the world bank documents rather than new articles from any of the disputed countries. here are some documents to help:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOUTHASIA/Resources/223497-1105737253588/IndusWatersTreaty1960.pdf http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/09/15/world-bank-statement-on-the-indus-waters-treaty-meetings https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37521897 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/12/12/world-bank-declares-pause-protect-indus-water-treaty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.13.7 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Sydney Herald Newspaper 1960.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sir we regret to inform you that gigalitres are a metric unit they are not the same as gallons

Can someone please convert the moon-unit 'million acre-feet' to metric? India and Pakistan are both metric countries!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.245.154 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

IWT disputes: a guide to the uninitated

As the Indus Water Treaty dispute heats up, most editors are probably perplexed. The issues are expressed in a mountain of jargon and the issues aren't clear. I am writing a little note here to help editors participate, based on my previous editing of some of the Indus projects.

The IWT divides the six rivers of the Indus river system between Pakistan and India. The three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) are allocated to Pakistan and the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) are allocated to India. However, India can also use the waters of the western rivers for local use (within the regions they flow in) and for non-consumptive use like power generation and navigation. So the three western rivers are shared between the two countries in a subtle fashion (which is not the case with the eastern rivers).

Pakistan has the worry that any dams that India builds on the western rivers give India the ability to "manipulate" the flows of the rivers, which affect it downstream. To safeguard against that risk, a number of constraints on India have been written into the treaty. These constraints provide a bad deal for India. One of the problems is siltation, which is a major concern with Himalayan rivers. The Salal Dam, the first project to be built under the IWT regime, is almost entirely silted up. So, the Indian engineers try to find avenues to solve the problems and Pakistan pretty much objects to every one of them.

The treaty also specifies how to resolve disputes. Technical issues are supposed to be referred to a "Neutral Expert" (NE). Issues that have to do with the larger interpretations of the treaty have to go to an Arbitation Court. In the past, the Baglihar Dam had a dispute that went to a Neutal Expert, and the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project went to an Arbitration Court. At the moment, it seems that Pakistan wants to invoke both the mechanisms in parallel. India finds it problematic: if the two mechanisms provide conflicting resolutions, it would lead to a deadlock.

Pakistan's worries are understandable. Its economy is almost entirely agrarian and the agriculture is fed almost entirely by these three rivers. The result is that Pakistan goes into a panic mode with every issue, however minor, and the allegations go thick and fast. For instance, when the Baglihar Dam was initially filled, the Pakistanis allege that it destroyed an entire season of crops for them. But Indians say the filling was delayed by less than a week, and that couldn't have had such a major effect. We don't have an independent verification of either claim.

Recently, India has asked for a renegotiation of the treaty. Experts say it is almost impossible to negotiate anything in the present climate. So, look forward to months and years of drama. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrong map displayed

How can the map that is displayed demarcate PoK as part of Pakistan? Not acceptable at all 171.76.83.54 (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)