IWT.

[Jaeger]

No idea what "obstufucation" or "aborogate" mean. Are these trendy hinglish words that can only be understood if I bobble my head?

I already said, yes, let's have a new treaty in line with the UN convention's stipulations, or simply just try to adhere to the convention!

Have you actually read it yet though?

Start with Art 6 and 7, but read all of it when you have a chance, then let me know if India is even willing to adhere to it:

"Article 6
Factors relevant to equitable and reasonable utilization
1.Utilization of an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner within the
meaning of article 5 requires taking into account all relevant factors and circumstances, including:
(a) Geographic, hydrographic, hydrological, climatic, ecological and other factors of a natural
character;
(b) The social and economic needs of the watercourse States concerned;
(c) The population dependent on the watercourse in each watercourse State;
(d) The effects of the use or uses of the watercourses in one watercourse State on other watercourse
States;
(e) Existing and potential uses of the watercourse;
(f) Conservation, protection, development and economy of use of the water resources of the
watercourse and the costs of measures taken to that effect;
(g) The availability of alternatives, of comparable value, to a particular planned or existing use.
2.In the application of article 5 or paragraph 1 of this article, watercourse States concerned shall,
when the need arises, enter into consultations in a spirit of cooperation.
3.The weight to be given to each factor is to be determined by its importance in comparison with
that of other relevant factors. In determining what is a reasonable and equitable use , all relevant factors
are to be considered together and a conclusion reached on the basis of the whole.
Article 7
Obligation not to cause significant harm
1.Watercourse States shall, in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories, take all
appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse States.
2.Where significant harm nevertheless is caused to another watercourse State, the States whose
use causes such harm shall, in the absence of agreement to such use, take all appropriate measures,
having due regard for the provisions of articles 5 and 6, in consultation with the affected State, to
eliminate or mitigate such harm and, where appropriate, to discuss the question of compensation."

That's a lot of stuff that Hindustan cannot and/or will not deliver on.

Why have a new treaty ? We are not interested entering in any new treaties with you people.

Lets just mutually abrogate this IWT treaty ( which has been so unfair to you) and be done with it ?

 

[Master Chief]

Why have a new treaty ? We are not interested entering in any new treaties with you people.

Lets just mutually abrogate this IWT treaty ( which has been so unfair to you) and be done with it ?

Are you really not aware that India just broke the treaty herself? You have in fact already broken numerous treaties and accords with us - IWT is just the latest one (it stands broken by Delhi, as no such term as "abeyance" exists for this treaty, by the terms of the treaty itself).

Do refer to the ruling by the court of arbitration that I linked you to earlier.

But here is the relevant analysis of the contractual terms, since you are clearly here to simply dodge facts:

"Unilateral Suspension Rejected: The PCA ruled India's unilateral declaration to put the IWT in "abeyance" (after a 2025 terror attack) has no legal effect and doesn't stop the arbitration process.
Treaty Remains Binding: The Court reaffirmed that the IWT, a treaty between India and Pakistan, remains in force and cannot be unilaterally suspended.
Hydroelectric Projects: India must design and operate run-of-river plants (like Kishanganga & Ratle) strictly according to the treaty's technical specifications, not its own engineering "best practices".
"Let Flow" Principle: The ruling emphasized that waters of the Western Rivers must flow to Pakistan for unrestricted use, except as permitted by the treaty. "

Now you will have to admit that the Secular Republic of Hindustan has already broken this contract, so we can then move forward with this conversation with the established knowledge that your nation breaks treaties.

Then we shall certainly discuss steps that can be taken hereafter to safeguard the interests of the nation who was simply lied to by the nation who broke a treaty.

Gosh you are an entertaining little fellow.

 

[Jaeger]

Are you really not aware that India just broke the treaty herself? You have in fact already broken numerous treaties and accords with us - IWT is just the latest one (it stands broken by Delhi, as no such term as "abeyance" exists for this treaty, by the terms of the treaty itself).

Do refer to the ruling by the court of arbitration that I linked you to earlier.

But here is the relevant analysis of the contractual terms, since you are clearly here to simply dodge facts:

"Unilateral Suspension Rejected: The PCA ruled India's unilateral declaration to put the IWT in "abeyance" (after a 2025 terror attack) has no legal effect and doesn't stop the arbitration process.
Treaty Remains Binding: The Court reaffirmed that the IWT, a treaty between India and Pakistan, remains in force and cannot be unilaterally suspended.
Hydroelectric Projects: India must design and operate run-of-river plants (like Kishanganga & Ratle) strictly according to the treaty's technical specifications, not its own engineering "best practices".
"Let Flow" Principle: The ruling emphasized that waters of the Western Rivers must flow to Pakistan for unrestricted use, except as permitted by the treaty. "

Now you will have to admit that the Secular Republic of Hindustan has already broken this contract, so we can then move forward with this conversation with the established knowledge that your nation breaks treaties.

Then we shall certainly discuss steps that can be taken hereafter to safeguard the interests of the nation who was simply lied to by the nation who broke a treaty.

Gosh you are an entertaining little fellow.

We did it because, we knew how much you were suffering because of this treaty. As this treaty has been so unfair to you.

That is why we have put this abeyance for the time being.

But since you have already suffered so much because of this treaty. Lets just mutually abrogate this treaty once and for all and no new treaties between us.

Will that do ?

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Yes Einstein, the Himalayan source region is of little agricultural value. That is why the IWT always permitted the use of these rivers for Indian hydro-electricity but not for additional resource capture (and even worse, for uninformed storage and release).

There is no point denying that Delhi has decided to weaponise water flow and hydrology data withholding to harm Pakistani civilians. There is no other explanation for the witholding of data other than to make it impossible for us to predict water flow changes.

This is quite independent from the presently instututed threatened theft of actual water volume.

You can squeal "bullshit" if you wish but you are only covering yourself in it.

Lol! Says who? Value of J&K produce is upto PKR 900k/acre. I looked up what is for your Punjab it's PKR 500k/acre at max. Apple orchards grown in the region gives PKR 1.8 million / acre on average. Not even going to talk about Saffron. There is no argument about "agricultural value" of Himalayas. Give them more water they will be more happy and wealthy.

Pakistan decided to play fast and loose for too long. Imagine signing a treaty for sharing water from a land and than you decided to invade and capture those lands, then mess around with that country with policies like "bleed by thousand cuts". People hail the IWT for surviving all these. But it was just Indian leaders inability and also dependency on World Bank money. As the Indian economy grew this power dynamics between WB and India changed.

In my opinion India is still not going to cut the water off and it cannot, but it can use water as a way to get you to accept certain things. How fast and loose India wants to use this water card I have no idea. There is no morality argument in this, we all played these games with each other we are finding more ways to be enemies.

 

[RAJPUT]

I quote because you are funny

I think you would need to do more than build a dam noone has heard of on a tributary no one has heard of to disrupt the ganges




Well it will be an annoying and unnecessary disruption you don't prepare

This role playing where you are going to use nukes or China is going to do this or that is simply not going to happen

What is going to happen is that chenab flows are going to change

So build your own dams

Switch from super water intensive crops like sugar cane

Share water better between states (i heard punjab is being very naughty with the flows into sindh)


Etc.

Why do you consider this a role-play? Do you actually think that if you endanger millions of lives by altering the flow of the rivers, the one who is endangered wouldn’t lash out and snatch your faces off? I know you are repeating the same thing again and again as rage bait but it isn’t working.
And again, why do you care what we do? You will see what we do when the time comes for it. You have nothing to worry about until then.

 

[Master Chief]

We did it because, we knew how much you were suffering because of this treaty. As this treaty has been so unfair to you.

That is why we have put this abeyance for the time being.

But since you have already suffered so much because of this treaty. Lets just mutually abrogate this treaty once and for all and no new treaties between us.

Will that do ?

And let Hindustanis off the hook for breaking yet another treaty? Why would we do that?

An example should be made of your kind such that our civilians are never again threatened by the filth that squats in Delhi.

The IWT certainly needs reworking though, to safeguard Pakistani interests that are evidently vulnerable when left down to simple trust.

 

[Master Chief]

Lol! Says who? Value of J&K produce is upto PKR 900k/acre. I looked up what is for your Punjab it's PKR 500k/acre at max. Apple orchards grown in the region gives PKR 1.8 million / acre on average. Not even going to talk about Saffron. There is no argument about "agricultural value" of Himalayas. Give them more water they will be more happy and wealthy.

Pakistan decided to play fast and loose for too long. Imagine signing a treaty for sharing water from a land and than you decided to invade and capture those lands, then mess around with that country with policies like "bleed by thousand cuts". People hail the IWT for surviving all these. But it was just Indian leaders inability and also dependency on World Bank money. As the Indian economy grew this power dynamics between WB and India changed.

In my opinion India is still not going to cut the water off and it cannot, but it can use water as a way to get you to accept certain things. How fast and loose India wants to use this water card I have no idea. There is no morality argument in this, we all played these games with each other we are finding more ways to be enemies.

Yes, let's ignore Sindh altogether.

Let's also ignore the percentage GDP of our nations that is influenced by the Indus.

As usual, you genius mathematicians ignore denominators.

If you bothered reading the
Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of
International Watercourses you would note that livelihoods and relative economic value of natural features require due consideration.

You know exactly what you are doing.

My question is - why pretend otherwise? Why feign interest in rules based order or - as your ilk so often put it - "saar we want you to develop peacefully and that is all"?

If you wish to directly harm our development through sabotage of a natural civilian resource, own this policy with pride.

 

[Watandar]

We did it because, we knew how much you were suffering because of this treaty. As this treaty has been so unfair to you.

That is why we have put this abeyance for the time being.

But since you have already suffered so much because of this treaty. Lets just mutually abrogate this treaty once and for all and no new treaties between us.

Will that do ?

India cannot unilaterally abrogate the IWT nor can it hold it in balance. India's actions are illegal and show it is not a trustworthy country. We will not allow overpopulated dirty Indians to steal water.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Yes, let's ignore Sindh altogether.

Let's also ignore the percentage GDP of our nations that is influenced by the Indus.

As usual, you genius mathematicians ignore denominators.

If you bothered reading the
Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of
International Watercourses you would note that livelihoods and relative economic value of natural features require due consideration.

You know exactly what you are doing.

My question is - why pretend otherwise? Why feign interest in rules based order or - as your ilk so often put it - "saar we want you to develop peacefully and that is all"?

If you wish to directly harm our development through sabotage of a natural civilian resource, own this policy with pride.

You're repeating how illegal it is for India to play around with this. But the fact is India is fed up, we are throwing everything we can and see which one sticks, we don't want endless fights with Pakistan. The entire purpose of signing the IWT was that maybe if India signs the treaty Pakistan will finally stop asking for more land. But no, you started a war just five years later. So are you telling me we should excuse your behaviour? Give me one benefit for India from the whole Indus water treaty?

 

[Master Chief]

You're repeating how illegal it is for India to play around with this. But the fact is India is fed up, we are throwing everything we can and see which one sticks, we don't want endless fights with Pakistan. The entire purpose of signing the IWT was that maybe if India signs the treaty Pakistan will finally stop asking for more land. But no, you started a war just five years later. So are you telling me we should excuse your behaviour? Give me one benefit for India from the whole Indus water treaty?

You're digressing now. Shall we go further back and mention how Delhi interposed itself in a matter between two halves of our nation in 1971?

 

[Vikramaditya1]

You're digressing now. Shall we go further back and mention how Delhi interposed itself in a matter between two halves of our nation in 1971?

The progression of years is 1960, 61, 62 .... 65,.... 71. You tried the stunt in 65, we tried the same in 71, you failed we succeeded.

But give me some good reason for India to keep IWT signed in 1960 intact? What did we gain from signing the treaty we otherwise wouldn't have.

 

[Master Chief]

The progression of years is 1960, 61, 62 .... 65,.... 71. You tried the stunt in 65, we tried the same in 71, you failed we succeeded.

But give me some good reason for India to keep IWT signed in 1960 intact? What did we gain from signing the treaty we otherwise wouldn't have.

Still derailing with talk of historic timelines. We can go further back to 1947,48 and discuss which princely states were supposed to go where but we have addressed that ad nauseam on other threads.

As for "what India gained from the IWT", I will remind you of the fundamental provision of the treaty regarding the Indus and its tributaries -

- Pakistan gained downstream privilege over the 3 western rivers.

- India gained upstream privilege over all 6 rivers (including hydroelectric rights on our 3 rivers) and exclusive downstream privilege over the 3 eastern rivers.

This is a fundamentally bad deal for Pakistan, as we have just seen last year, with India now being able to manipulate our 3 rivers in terms of at least data sharing and undeclared capacitance/release (actually demonstrated last year), and at worst, potential resource capture.

Pakistan is clearly not protected by this treaty as India will simply disregard it altogether to impose a human cost on Pakistan. There are other reasons it is not a fair deal which have been touched by earlier in the thread.

I'm not even sure now that any treaty can help this situation. It has become the law of the jungle out there.

The problem for Delhi remains though, regardless of what goes on elsewhere and what the saffronist high council sitting in Delhi may think, India is neither Israel nor USA, and Pakistan is neither Palestine nor Venezuela. Moreover, India is situated in a potentially hostile riparian neighbourhood. It bears careful and due consideration by multiple parties but certainly, the current status quo simply cannot be sustained.

 

[Master Chief]

, I will remind you of the fundamental provision of the treaty regarding the Indus and its tributaries -

- Pakistan gained downstream privilege over the 3 western rivers.

- India gained upstream privilege over all 6 rivers (including hydroelectric rights on our 3 rivers) and exclusive downstream privilege over the 3 eastern rivers.

I am repeating this statement for the benefit of all forum goers who do not yet have an understanding of the IT'S mandate.

 

[Jaeger]

And let Hindustanis off the hook for breaking yet another treaty? Why would we do that?

An example should be made of your kind such that our civilians are never again threatened by the filth that squats in Delhi.

The IWT certainly needs reworking though, to safeguard Pakistani interests that are evidently vulnerable when left down to simple trust.

I guess you have been drinking your own koolaid.

Pray tell how will you make an example of India.

You had this treaty because of our benevolence.

We didn't cancel this treaty even after you launched multiple wars on us, repeatedly attacked us with your "non state actors".

But that was then, this is now. We are done playing nice with you people.

You want this treaty reinstated, modified etc.

Sure we can do that, but its going to be a comprehensive deal, which will involve somekind of final settlement on Kashmir based on current borders, negotiated through backchanels.

 

[Jaeger]

India cannot unilaterally abrogate the IWT nor can it hold it in balance. India's actions are illegal and show it is not a trustworthy country. We will not allow overpopulated dirty Indians to steal water.

Have you seen what's happening in the world around you ?