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?
Uh! Treaty itself rendered useless now, we shouldn't be worrying about what the treaty says. This is not following the treaty at all, this is us breaking the treaty. So the legality of this goes out of the window. This blatantly violates the treaty I agree with your assertions.
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.
What? Do you think the current government is not democratic? They didn't drop from the sky, we elected them, whatever they do is the will of the people. The money given by India to you has nothing to do with India, it was given to facilitate canal constructions in your country. So please don't make claims like facilitate India control yada yada yada, we didn't pay you to construct canal in India did we?
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?
Still no answer to the question, one good reason for India to sign IWT? All I get is rhetoric or why Pakistan need that water.
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.
All I read are what you need and what you deserve. We already controlled the eastern rivers. You got a treaty that shares 80% of the water (India blocked a small percentage of the water, you didn't have canals for the western rivers which we paid for in 1960 IWT)
Alternatively, are you suggesting you were somehow deceived at the point of signing?
I repeat, I'm not saying we got decieved I'm simply saying we shouldn't have signed this treaty in the first place. We hoped for something when we signed the treaty and we didn't get it.
Have you taken up this concern via the appropriate channels, as specified in the treaty itself?
Well that's irrelevant now since the treaty itself is in abeyance. Indus Water commission is irrelevant in resolving disputes like militancy right?
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?
It's been a year, why haven't you? Hague ruling works if other party respects it. Hague ruled against China in the 9 dash lines problem and they simply laughed it off. So countries can ignore hague ruling eh?
World Bank is not a dispute resolution mechanism or an authority that controls anything, they are a broker, a bank we are not subservient to a banks ruling one which is especially controlled by the US.
Why not in 1965 or 1971, when war was not merely threatened but active? Could it be that this treaty was designed to nullify the risk of weaponisation of water by India during wartime (or even during peacetime, as illustrated by the events of April 1948)?
The only reason India signed the treaty was so that Pakistanis don't start war because their largest concern of water was now gone. Nehru see Jammu and Kashmir as a barren land and snow capped mountainous region not worth much of his time. But I'm not saying his thought process was wrong, he did his best with what he had at the time.
We don't care about your "regrets", deep or otherwise. Please speak to me about the terms of the treaty itself or not at all. Do Indians have any cognisance of contractual law?
You should. Because of you don't address the concerns we could end up without a treaty.
Similarly to your regrets, we don't care about your "gains". Did you sign the treaty or not? Did you object to its terms at the time if you had genuine "regrets"?
We also don't care about the treaty we signed. Not the first time a country breaks off a treaty.
We don't care what mechanism was deployed by you to initiate water based aggression. It was aggression, and hence the treaty was required.
And because of your aggressions the treaty was out in abeyance.
IQ and/or cognitive abilities of Indian parties to the treaty ratification process are not my concern. If there was concern over their capacity to rationally assess the proposed terms, this should have been raised with a medical professional at the time and a "compus mentis" party should have been sent in their place.
Interesting take, according to the common law, an agreement signed by mentally incapable people are deemed void.
Partially true but incomplete. As per the terms of the Treaty itself, if face to face dispute resolution between the Indus Commissioners of the two parties is not possible, there are two further steps that must be taken for arbitration (a neutral expert agreed upon either by the disputing parties or by the world bank; then an internationally recognised court of arbitration).
Treaty is signed in good faith after all these wars and troubles under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which in principle allows a state to suspend or withdraw from a treaty if the circumstances under which the treaty was originally signed have changed radically and unpredictably.
The treaty was built on a preamble of "goodwill, friendship, and cooperation". Do you see Goodwill, Friendship and Cooperation between India and Pakistan? The preamble in itself is a joke.
India is bound by the terms of the Treaty, regardless of whether India "accepts" The Hague PCA or not.
Again, your are misunderstanding simple contractual law repeatedly throughout your monologue.
Your opinions, feelings, emotions, acceptance or refusal are all irrelevant. You either adhere to the stipulated terms or you break the contract.
Nobody is bound by any rules, rules are just guidelines the world is not perfect, or it would've sanctioned you to stoneage in an ideal world. India is a sovereign state. As long as there exist no mechanism to force India to the table we won't.
Waving Hague as if it's some kryptonite will not get you anywhere. You think we haven't thought about all this? We planned for a war when we began strikes. IWT is the least of our concerns.
