Indian false flag and current Indo-Pak stand-off updates

[r3alist]

View attachment 114097

lets look at overall statistics rather than individual cases then. the numbers speak for themselves and they do not support your narrative.

You go from focusing on one, to avoiding the most important resolutions that stop killing....then carve out another selective context

And ignoring the arms sales ....actual arms sales

Repeat ignore arms sales

Noooo ... then Gaza support was just a propoganda stunt for Iranians like you and national rivalry with Turks or arabs more important to you....always.

 

[Rollno21]

Govt agrees to halt construction of new canals until CCI consensus amid IWT suspension uncertainty

Govt agrees to halt construction of new canals until CCI consensus amid IWT suspension uncertainty

PM Shehbaz says PML-N and PPP considered the country's situation in detail amid India's announcements; CCI summoned on May 2.

www.dawn.com

Wise decision, they saved some money on time.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

New Delhi: Can India unilaterally keep the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance? According to experts, it can.

Senior advocate Mohan V. Katarki, an expert on transboundary water disputes, told ThePrint that the treaty does not have a provision to keep it “in abeyance”.

“It does not permit, but it does not prohibit, also. With no prohibition imposed on the parties from keeping the treaty in abeyance, general international law governs them (the parties),” he explained.

Katarki pointed out that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties governs the treaties signed after 1969, the year of the convention’s adoption. The convention has provisions regulating the right of withdrawal.

The Vienna Convention’s Article 4 clarifies that the convention applies only to treaties “concluded by States after entry into force of the convention”, he said.

“But, if the Vienna Convention does not cover a treaty, signed pre-1969, you have all the freedom,” he asserted. ( As india didn't sign)

India can keep the Indus Waters Treaty 'in abeyance', unilaterally. Here's why

After the Pahalgam terror attack, India said the treaty would be kept in abeyance with immediate effect 'until Pakistan credibly & irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'.

theprint.in

 

[Rollno21]

We already have suspended the treaty, which in itself if violation of the treaty.

Lets see what you can do.

They did suspending Simla agreement.

 

[Rollno21]

New Delhi: Can India unilaterally keep the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance? According to experts, it can.

Senior advocate Mohan V. Katarki, an expert on transboundary water disputes, told ThePrint that the treaty does not have a provision to keep it “in abeyance”.

“It does not permit, but it does not prohibit, also. With no prohibition imposed on the parties from keeping the treaty in abeyance, general international law governs them (the parties),” he explained.

India can keep the Indus Waters Treaty 'in abeyance', unilaterally. Here's why

After the Pahalgam terror attack, India said the treaty would be kept in abeyance with immediate effect 'until Pakistan credibly & irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'.

theprint.in

Good now no one can blame use for violating the IWT treaty.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Good now no one can blame use for violating the IWT treaty.

Yeah - that's what they did it - I guess now.

Since there is a loophole in the treaty.

 

[Rollno21]

Since you’re not aware—I believe it’s important to clarify.

Yes, there could be sanctions or minor reputational damage—but then what?

Anyway, I’m not advocating for any of that or need to move from treaty, because Everyone has a right to water, and I’m simply saying that things aren't as settled as some people might think.

If pushed to the extreme, India could consider moving away from the treaty, citing terrorism and national security as reasons. Let’s be honest—organizations like the World Bank and the UN are largely ineffective in such situations. All India would need is support from one veto-wielding member, and nothing substantial would happen against it. Even if the World Bank imposed sanctions, the impact would likely be minimal.

I'm just giving an example—nothing is off the table when it comes to international politics & own national interests

Every one has right to water, wrong.
Every one has right to fair share of water.

 

[Pradotlc]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Sharma Ji]

Wise decision, they saved some money on time.

Should the treaty ko full kaput (it is suspended for now), Pak could always invest in sea water desalination plants.

They'll need to invest significantly in infra that will get it up to Punjab, but it could be done. The Saudis have greened several areas along their red sea coast.

Gooble AI sez:

Saudi Arabia has several desalination plants along the Red Sea coast, with a focus on sustainable practices and renewable energy integration. Some of these include Shuqaiq 3, which uses reverse osmosis technology and is powered by a mix of conventional and renewable sources, and the AlKhafji Desalination Plant, which is fully solar-powered. The Red Sea Project, a large-scale tourism development, also incorporates desalination plants and renewable energy sources to ensure sustainability, including plans for a facility that will be 100% powered by renewable energy.

 

[Pradotlc]

Thank you india for doing a false flag ops that could lead to Asim’s eviction …

 

[r3alist]

IWT will be existential if the current lumber 1 duffers deem it to be, in the past they've compromised on every red line with India, latest being surrendering Kashmir to Modi under Bajwa's exceptional vision...

There's no reason the current lot won't do the same given the right payoff...

No it's existential because it's existential



If you find other agendas then Darwin's natural selection becomes a valid theory with you.

 

[Rollno21]

Should the treaty ko full kaput (it is suspended for now), Pak could always invest in sea water desalination plants.

They'll need to invest significantly in infra that will get it up to Punjab, but it could be done. The Saudis have greened several areas along their red sea coast.

Gooble AI sez:

Saudi Arabia has several desalination plants along the Red Sea coast, with a focus on sustainable practices and renewable energy integration. Some of these include Shuqaiq 3, which uses reverse osmosis technology and is powered by a mix of conventional and renewable sources, and the AlKhafji Desalination Plant, which is fully solar-powered. The Red Sea Project, a large-scale tourism development, also incorporates desalination plants and renewable energy sources to ensure sustainability, including plans for a facility that will be 100% powered by renewable energy.

Yes, they have lot of options, they can do rain water harvesting, they can recycle used water, but as you said sea water is good option but costly.

 

[Dalit]

All this AI generated crap amounts to nothing..welcome to realpolitiks.

Realpolitik can also mean that Pakistan strikes at your dams.

 

[Dalit]

Yes, they have lot of options, they can do rain water harvesting, they can recycle used water, but as you said sea water is good option but costly.

No. We want our share of the water.

 

[Dalit]

Since you’re not aware—I believe it’s important to clarify.

Yes, there could be sanctions or minor reputational damage—but then what?

Anyway, I’m not advocating for any of that or need to move from treaty, because Everyone has a right to water, and I’m simply saying that things aren't as settled as some people might think.

If pushed to the extreme, India could consider moving away from the treaty, citing terrorism and national security as reasons. Let’s be honest—organizations like the World Bank and the UN are largely ineffective in such situations. All India would need is support from one veto-wielding member, and nothing substantial would happen against it. Even if the World Bank imposed sanctions, the impact would likely be minimal.

I'm just giving an example—nothing is off the table when it comes to international politics & own national interests

You are violator of an internationally brokered and signed treaty buddy. I don't need lengthy sermons from you.

There is no rocket science involved. You are simply violating a treaty brokered by the WB. You signed the treaty and are now unilaterally walking away. It is not that straightforward. Of course there are going to be penalties.

In worst case scenario, there will be WAR.