'Indus Water Treaty Not feasible to maintain': India serves notice to Pakistan, seeks Modification.

[That_Guy]

You think India can not withstand the consequences of withdrawing from Indus water treaty?

Indus water treaty was signed, by overgnerous Nehru in a bid to allay Pakistan's water fears to avoid another war over Kashmir.

But it did not work, did it.

Pakistan nonetheless declared war in Kashmir a mere 5 years after signing the treaty.

Now India wants to renegotiate this treaty, based on today's needs and realities

If Pakistan will not negotiate, then fine, we will withdraw from treaty.

Then Pakistan can do what ever it wants.

You really think it's that easy to withdraw from the treaty when it's legally binding? Pakistan CAN and WILL force arbitration, and Pakistan WILL win

India knows this, which is why India hasn't unilaterally withdrawn already.

 

[That_Guy]

You think India can not withstand the consequences of withdrawing from Indus water treaty?

Indus water treaty was signed, by overgnerous Nehru in a bid to allay Pakistan's water fears to avoid another war over Kashmir.

But it did not work, did it.

Pakistan nonetheless declared war in Kashmir a mere 5 years after signing the treaty.

Now India wants to renegotiate this treaty, based on today's needs and realities

If Pakistan will not negotiate, then fine, we will withdraw from treaty.

Then Pakistan can do what ever it wants.

You really think it's that easy to withdraw from the treaty when it's legally binding? Pakistan CAN and WILL force arbitration, and Pakistan WILL win

India knows this, which

We will abrogate it legally, nothing to worry about. Our neighbours know about our special relationship with Pakistan, one of the reason why SAARC was disbanded.

Nobody in international relations builds treaties on trust etc their are built on mutual benefit unfortunately Pakistan doesn’t have much to offer.

SAARC was broken purely due to India trying to force the neighbors to not attend the meeting in Pakistan, which broke the group into 2 camps.

Your "specially relationship" with Pakistan isn't all that special, considering no one in South Asia actually likes or trusts India.

India won't do anything, if they could, they would have done so already.

 

[That_Guy]

You think India can not withstand the consequences of withdrawing from Indus water treaty?

Indus water treaty was signed, by overgnerous Nehru in a bid to allay Pakistan's water fears to avoid another war over Kashmir.

But it did not work, did it.

Pakistan nonetheless declared war in Kashmir a mere 5 years after signing the treaty.

Now India wants to renegotiate this treaty, based on today's needs and realities

If Pakistan will not negotiate, then fine, we will withdraw from treaty.

Then Pakistan can do what ever it wants.

You really think it's that easy to withdraw from the treaty when it's legally binding? Pakistan CAN and WILL force arbitration, and Pakistan WILL win

India knows this, which

View attachment 65895

Changing boundaries in this particular situation. Many were bragging Pakistan was almost at Sri Nagar or the valley but that changed the boundaries of the river. However unsuccessful it maybe, these incidents should've been used as for annulment. Or IWT at least should've been used as a pressure tactic to get a favorable deal.
These are all different scenarios not arguments to be used now.

I don't think this would apply to internationally recognized border disputes.

It's neither the letter nor the spirit of what is written.

 

[Jaeger]

You really think it's that easy to withdraw from the treaty when it's legally binding? Pakistan CAN and WILL force arbitration, and Pakistan WILL win

India knows this, which is why India hasn't unilaterally withdrawn already.

What will Pakistan win?

 

[That_Guy]

What will Pakistan win?

The enforcement of the treaty.

Stop being purposefully obtuse.

 

[That_Guy]

And how will court of arbitration enforce the treaty?

Holy shit, you're being obtuse.

If you don't want to have a serious talk and just troll, then you can stop right now, because I'm not interested.

 

[Jaeger]

Holy shit, you're being obtuse.

If you don't want to have a serious talk and just troll, then you can stop right now, because I'm not interested.

I am being dead serious right now.

Court of arbitration desicions are not enforcable unless both parties participate in the Court of arbitration and voluntarily agree of abide by it's desicions.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

You really think it's that easy to withdraw from the treaty when it's legally binding? Pakistan CAN and WILL force arbitration, and Pakistan WILL win

India knows this, which

Since we are playing scenarios. India is a sovereign state, any treaty is subject to our laws and parliament.
India is not duty bound to support any court ruling as such, and is well protected through ally vetoes against any UN sanctions.
What's the worse that could happen? India getting suspended from WB? Even that may not happen.

I don't think this would apply to internationally recognized border disputes.

It's neither the letter nor the spirit of what is written.

It's an argument we are not judges. What good is a treaty when the parties don't control the waters.

 

[That_Guy]

I am being dead serious right now.

Court of arbitration desicions are not enforcable unless both parties participate in the Court of arbitration and voluntarily agree of abide by it's desicions.

Not true. First thing would be established is if it has jurisdiction on the matter, and similar cases in the past have shown it does. Second, you don't have to accept its authority to be a party in the proceedings.

Finally, go ahead and try to get out of the treaty unilaterally. See what happens.

 

[That_Guy]

Since we are playing scenarios. India is a sovereign state, any treaty is subject to our laws and parliament.
India is not duty bound to support any court ruling as such, and is well protected through ally vetoes against any UN sanctions.
What's the worse that could happen? India getting suspended from WB? Even that may not happen.

A poor argument. International laws exist for a reason.

It's an argument we are not judges. What good is a treaty when the parties don't control the waters.

Again, international laws exist for a reason.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

A poor argument. International laws exist for a reason.


Again, international laws exist for a reason.

Oh yeah, while you're preaching those international laws. China claimed nine dash lines as their own despite a court ruling against it violating provisions of UNCLOS. The Chinese claimed territories passes through EEZ or even internationally recognised boundaries, islands of different countries.

Now I'm not saying India is China..... Yet

 

[Waz]

How many times do we have to tell you that majority of water in Indian rivers comes from the rain/glaciers within Indian territory. We even had to open some dams during monsoon to get rid of excess water.

How many times do you deny basic facts? We've had this debate dozens of times here showing you clear evidence your monsoon rains have more rain on less days i.e. they are massively impacted by global warming. The melt waters from Tibet contribute to a great deal of the flow of your rivers. You open up dams in some areas.


Goswami’s concerns are shared by millions of paddy farmers in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) of north India, where several states have so far received deficient rainfall in the first half (June, July and half of August) of the monsoon season. The southwest monsoon season stretches from June 1 to September 30, when the country receives around 76% of its annual rainfall. The initial two months are crucial when the sowing of kharif crops (primarily paddy) takes place and water for irrigation is needed. In these two months, some states in the IGP reported departures in monsoon rainfall.

Punjab, one of the top five rice-producing states in the country, reported a rainfall deficit of -34% between June 1 and August 13, as per IMD’s rainfall data. Bihar reported a deficit of -23%, Uttar Pradesh reported -8%, and Jharkhand -14% during the same period. West Bengal had a rainfall deficit of -21% until August 8.
But a declining trend of monsoon rainfall over the Indo-Gangetic Plains is a concern and policy makers need to take it into account,” K.S. Hosalikar, head of Climate Research and Services, IMD Pune, tells Mongabay India.

Deficient monsoon rainfall hits paddy farmers in parts of north India

Halfway through the monsoon season, deficient rainfall in the Indo-Gangetic Plains threatens India's agricultural output, with scientists warning of a scary future.

india.mongabay.com

But that is far from being the case, as is evident from common experience too. There have been large variations in the distribution of rainfall, in spatial as well as temporal terms. While some days produced very heavy rainfall, prolonged periods went extremely dry. Similarly, a majority of the districts received very little rainfall during most of the season. This rainfall variability only seems to be increasing, possibly because of climate change.

Why a ‘normal’ monsoon isn’t normal anymore for India

This is the eighth year in a row that monsoon rainfall in India has been broadly in the normal range. But behind this figure lie sharp regional as well as daily variations. Climate change is one reason behind this

indianexpress.com

 

[That_Guy]

Oh yeah, while you're preaching those international laws. China claimed nine dash lines as their own despite a court ruling against it violating provisions of UNCLOS. The Chinese claimed territories passes through EEZ or even internationally recognised boundaries, islands of different countries.

Now I'm not saying India is China..... Yet

You're right that India is not China, nor will it ever be.

China is one of the few nations that can ignore international law, India is not one of them.

 

[lightning f57]

They do not.

I dont get how some people think its so easy to just to withdraw from a treaty over 60 years old. Modi has barked about withdrawal for a decade now he didn't do it because he knows the consequences of unilaterally building dams and stopping water on the three western rivers allocated to Pak will be an act of war.

The real question is what value is India trying to attain what is it losing by the current treaty and is it worth the risk of war or increase tensions and violence on its western border?

If India is genuine about ensuring its villages and cities along the three western rivers get the right allocation of water than they need to behave in a conducive manner to bring Pak to the table, threatening will only harden Paks stance.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

You're right that India is not China, nor will it ever be.

China is one of the few nations that can ignore international law, India is not one of them.

Basically your whole UN, Vienna convention, respect of laws and whatever BS you just blurt out in the past went out of the window as soon as you heard China. LMFAO.

We all hear this argument you'll never be this or that, India is not trying to be China anyway. We have our own position of power to fill. Not today, not tomorrow maybe it won't even happen in our life time.