Where in the IWT is it stipulated that conflict between India and Pakistan renders the terms null and void or that one party may unilaterally declare the treaty null and void?
Every treaty goes out of the window when we are threatened with war. At least it should have. When people boast how this treaty survived wars, I cringe. It shouldn't have. Finally someone put the treaty in Abeyance something Indian leadership should've done long back.
These terms were agreed to by your democratically elected representatives. The moneys spent by Hindustan at the onset have done nothing charitable for Pakistan. On the contrary, these moneys have facilitated Indian control over the eastern rivers, as per the treaty's terms.
Something we deeply regret. The money was given in installment to Pakistan state (even during 1965) was in fact as part of the agreement for a treaty that shouldn't have existed in the first place. No country has such water sharing agreement especially when the other is an enemy.
The IWT is also not your "largesse", contrary to whatever mythologies you sing yourself to sleep with. What kind of statement even is this? Have you been learning to speak with your own set of laser eyes borrowed from the Jaishankar school of diplomacy?
Blah blah blah. Give me one good reason we should've signed this bumfuck water sharing treaty? What did we gain?
In 1948, Hindustan halted water ingress into Pakistani Punjab, as a hostile act. The IWT was deemed necessary as a consequence of this act to limit your species' natural inclination towards genocidal acts against civilians and livestock. The World Bank brokered this treaty as a means to mitigate potential harm applied from Hindustan towards Pakistani civilians and their livelihoods. It was signed and ratified accordingly. You didn't complain at the time. What "suits" India now doesn't matter. What matters is the terms of the treaty.
We simply activated our canal systems in the river that's already there to control the eastern rivers in 1948. Buyers regret is not our problem. Inherited bunch of arid land and rocky mountains from India but gib water.
You know what I would've done if I were Pakistan, after signing IWT getting 80% of share of water, I would shut up make peace with India, enjoy good agriculture, build more dams, hydropower plants, store that 80% of the water I got from my neighbour. But no, I got greedy, I got water now I want the land the water flowing through. Never learning a lesson, decides to do the tried and tested Afghan Muj vs Soviet theory in India, make neighbours midows a valley of death, not enough decide to send my soldiers cosplaying as "freedom" fighters, losses, send my people to attack neighbour's cities kill them in hundreds celebrate it. And now I wonder why my neighbour decides to withhold the treaty that gave me 80% of the water.
And you're telling me we have genocidal mentality towards you?
Alternatively, are you suggesting you were somehow deceived at the point of signing?
Not at all, I'm saying Indian leaders were not smart enough to see through the treachery. This treaty is basically India giving x amount of water and y amount of money in return for a peace of mind which we didn't get lmao.
Have you taken up this concern via the appropriate channels, as specified in the treaty itself?
Yeah, this is the appropriate channel. Face to face. I hope India bargains something big for getting the treaty back.
I understand that the Permanent Court of Arbitration based at The Hague, Netherlands, can be approached in this regard. Alternatively, the World Bank itself should be considered a viable route for further negotiation, as a co-signatory and the named broker of this agreement. Has either option been availed?
Why? India does not accept Hague court as a arbitrator, besides there is nothing to argue about. This is us withholding the treaty because of your actions, it's you who can change things. If I were negotiating this, I would ask for the LOC to be border in return for IWT. But I'm hopelessly optimistic.
