Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
^Thats one of the reasons Pakistan needs Kashmir so bad, because all the water comes from there...
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
Please elaborate how…everything I have read seems to point to complete loss for Pakistan mitigated by only a few ‘face saving’ adjustments. Less than face saving in fact. Consider this from DailyTimes:
While there is no harm in claiming victory — which purports to convey to the people of Pakistan that India has been once again defeated — it would be a mistake not to learn all the lessons embedded in the water dispute and its final denouement. While the matter was given in the hands of specialists, no estimate was made of the psychological orientation of the Pakistani bureaucrat going to India and accepting the Baglihar Dam design. In other words, even a Pakistani expert — usually a bureaucrat — is affected by the lower riparian alarmism of the nation.
The Indian union minister for water resources, Prof Saifuddin Soz, a Kashmiri, said there would be no loss of power generation from the reduction in the dam’s height. He said India had offered to make this change before Pakistan had approached the World Bank. He said Pakistan’s biggest objection, the installation of the sluice spillway gates, had been rejected.
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
Dude..read the post carefully…I have quoted the views of a person, who has spent most of his time in researching about Kashmir problem and attitude of both Indian and Pakitsani leaderships…and did I mentioned India looking out for Kashmiris best interest??..
My point was regarding the Pakitsani people’s assumption that their government is the only one looking for the best interests of Kashmiris.
Your bet regarding distribution of electricity, just wait till the project is operational, if you are interested to realize the facts or else keep spreading your thoughts!!
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
More sober, balanced and factual reports on the outcome.
Verdict on Baglihar dam
PAKISTAN has reasons to believe that the World Bank expert’s landmark decision has vindicated its position on the Baglihar dam, India’s own victory claim notwithstanding. Calling the verdict a “great victory”, Water and Power Minister Liaquat Ali Jatoi said that India now had a “moral, legal and political obligation” to accept and implement the expert’s judgment. **By accepting three of Pakistan’s four objections to the dam built by India on the Chenab in occupied Kashmir, the World Bank expert’s decision holds New Delhi responsible for violating the 1960 Indus water treaty, because the Indian design of the dam was incorrect. **The expert did not uphold Pakistan’s argument with regard to the spillway, but Mr Jatoi said Islamabad reserved its right to appeal against this part of the verdict. Now India must abide by the judgment and reduce the dam’s height by 1.5 metres. This will mean additional problems for India when it goes about reducing the dam’s height and undertakes new construction. The entire process has some lessons for the two countries. When India began constructing the dam on the Chenab in the 1990s, Pakistan exercised considerable restraint and took up the issue bilaterally as provided for in the 1960 treaty. However, bilateral talks proved infructuous and India continued with the construction of the dam in disregard of the 1960 treaty provisions, forcing Pakistan to go to the World Bank in 2005. Monday’s decision not only partially upholds Pakistan’s position on the Baglihar hydroelectric plant, it also emphasises that solutions to Indo-Pakistan problems can be found by peaceful means. **India has welcomed the verdict, claiming that the dam structure will remain intact, the alterations will be minor and the power-generation capacity will remain unchanged. This is a strange reading and interpretation of an otherwise simply worded and forthright verdict. **
The Baglihar decision is expected to have a positive effect on the controversial dam India is building on the Neelum river. The Indian cabinet has already decided not to proceed with its construction further without vetting the dam’s design. That’s the right approach. The Indus waters treaty is a monumental accord. By giving Pakistan the exclusive rights to the three western rivers, the treaty removed a major source of conflict between Pakistan and India. The follow-up to the treaty had a positive impact on Pakistan’s economy, for massive construction projects were undertaken in the form of the Tarbela dam — the world’s biggest earth-filled dam — and the link canals. The two projects brought vast tracts of land under the plough and phenomenally increased the quantum of power-generation. Pakistan, therefore, naturally wants a continued adherence to the treaty, because 90 per cent of agriculture in Pakistan — unlike that of India — is dependent on the three western rivers for irrigation. This should make India realise why Pakistan attaches so much importance to this treaty and how any violation of it is bound to seriously undermine relations between the two countries. The verdict of the World Bank expert has shown that Indo-Pakistan disputes, howsoever intricate, can be resolved by peaceful means and sometimes by recourse to arbitration. Let us also note that the Rann of Kutch dispute, which led to heavy fighting between the two countries in 1965, was settled through arbitration. With the Baglihar issue out of the way, it is time the two governments concentrated on moving the normalisation process forward with a view to seeking a solution of the Kashmir dispute.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/02/14/ed.htm
Who wins on Baglihar?
With India and Pakistan both claiming victory on a ruling given by a World Bank-appointed arbitrator, it is unclear at first as to who is actually correct. A closer look at the ruling shows that both countries do have some cause to be content with what has happened. Pakistan has said that three of its four objections have been accepted by the expert while India has said that Pakistan’s main objection to the structure – the inclusion of sluiced spillways – was accepted by the expert. India has further said that much of what Pakistan gained as a result of the neutral expert’s ruling is what India had already agreed to implement in the past. Of course, both governments may well be playing politics over the issue too, particularly because it relates to a region –-- Kashmir – that is disputed and an issue – sharing the waters of the Indus – that is hotly contested. However, one thing that can be said for sure from the ruling is that the sounding of the victory bugle, simultaneously in Islamabad and New Delhi, at least typifies the communication gap between the two neighbours. Insofar as the arbitrator ruled that the design of the project was in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, Pakistan can claim a moral victory of sorts. But it does seem that at least one of its primary objections – India building sluiced spillways – has not been accepted. Besides, there seems to be a perception that Pakistan may be prone to claiming a bigger victory than what it actually is – for the simple reason that it may be on the defensive with many thinking that it has adopted a somewhat overly flexible and/or conciliatory stand in talks with India on resolving the Kashmir dispute. There is one distinct positive thing to have emerged from this whole affair – and that is the fact that for a change the two countries have managed to settle a dispute between them without going to war against each other and in a relatively short period of time (it took six years for this to reach a conclusion but Kashmir has been there for sixty years). This willingness to resolve issues instead of continued hostility and confrontation should be shown in other areas of dispute as well. India has also been asked to reduce the height of the proposed dam and that may seem a victory for Pakistan since one of its main concerns was that building a dam on the Chenab would obviously reduce the flow of the river into Pakistan. In principle, Islamabad was correct in its stand because the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 had handed the Chenab to Pakistan and it saw Baglihar in clear violation of that. Moreover, the design seemed far more imposing than the size and dimensions required to produce 450MW of electricity as India claimed was the reason for the project. This made Pakistan suspicious of India’s intent and given that the dam’s construction began in 1999 – a time when bilateral ties were not exactly at their best – it led to much worry. In addition to that Pakistan had already looked the other way whenever India constructed small hydroelectric projects on the western tributaries of the Indus, which went to Pakistan.
**India’s statement that it was prepared to do all this even without the matter going to an arbitrator needs to be closely examined because if that were the case, why would Islamabad have gone to the World Bank to seek a ruling? Also, what prevented New Delhi from acceding to the Pakistani objections earlier, since it is quite clear that Islamabad took this route after finding the Indians were not budging from their stance to go ahead with the dam in its original and unaltered design? **Both countries could have taken a somewhat middle ground and one can only wonder why they didn’t do so earlier. The answer to that probably lies in the fact that even if there were a middle ground, the two – India particularly
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
^ ^ ^
arrrrey.....boss...you forgot one thing....guess what??
pressing "Ctrl c" and "Ctrl p" one more time!
No, not for the above news, I am talking about the news from Indian media, which you often keep googling.
Pleaz..do it now for your own sake..it will help in satisfying your quest for win and loss :D
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
^
In case you missed it, it was an Indian who posted this thread about "win and loss" months before the actual verdict was announced. It's good to see one more Indian on this Pakistan site - welcome. :)
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
Bahi, if we won so clearly how come India is accepting the decision while we are moving for arbitration again? The fact is that allowing gated spillways in Western rivers is a disaster for us and it legalizes Indian dam building in areas that were previously Pakistan's sole rights. This whole verdict is a disaster.
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
^
Unlike the Indian posters I am not saying it was a clear "victory" for either side, rather quite a balanced ruling. We got three of our points accepted, and reserve the right to appeal on the last point, while India has halted full scale construction of the project for now - especially as it is costing nearly double than what they initially allotted for it. It is also not likely to produce any of the original intended returns for India.
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
^ ^ ^
You know it's surprising...between all these arguements and media claims, how come the plight of Kashmiris never got any mention??
and Lo! we "occupiers" have started constructing dam for development in the region! shame on us- isn't it?
I am sure, you guyz will continue to "feel" the problems faced by Kashmiris in the same way and will always help in improving the conditions in Kashmir!!
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
You know it's surprising...between all these arguements and media claims, how come the plight of Kashmiris never got any mention??
and Lo! we "occupiers" have started constructing dam for development in the region! shame on us- isn't it?
I am sure, you guyz will continue to "feel" the problems faced by Kashmiris in the same way and will always help in improving the conditions in Kashmir!!
uhmmmm, devlopments means sh!t all if all the electricity is going to go other indian states, if anything, this is just plain robbery of kashmiri sources. We'll see how much electricty is actualy for kashmri and how much for other indian states. remember the dam can go down as easily as it went up!
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
^ may be a trust building measure the electricity can be supplied to all of Kashmir? hm, no way..... that would be a constructive thing.
let's try this then. Kashmir should convert to a different voltage and frequency and this project should only generate and supply that! I'm sure that ought to make you happy?
Re: Pak losing its case on Baglihar dam
the interruption/control of the flow of water into pakistan has potential terrorist(used as weapon) and economic implications for pakistan. this isnt just about electricity.