| |
JERRY
4.144
|
Main reason behind Pakis demand for Kashmir is WATER
Posted :
Nov 06 2:42 PM
|
|
|
But having brought Kashmir on to the negotiating table, where do we go from here?
Here's where the aces come in.
In a brilliant exposition of the India-Pakistan crisis titled The final Settlement -- Restructuring India Pakistan Relations -- the Strategic Foresight Group, a Mumbai based think tank, asserts that the main reason behind Pakistan's demand for Kashmir has very little to do with sympathy for a political cause, and a lot more to do with water.
'In order to prevent a conflict between Punjab and Sindh, and to prevent a possible secession of Sindh and Balochistan, Pakistan needs physical control over the Chenab catchment region in Jammu and Kashmir. It needs sites to build dams, to store, divert and regulate water flows. It also needs additional fertile land. Thus, Jammu and Kashmir is a source of Pakistan's water and food security. It is a real estate dispute for strategic reasons,' it says.
The Indus System of Rivers comprises three Eastern Rivers --the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi-- and three Western Rivers (the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab).
Under the Indus waters treaty -- signed at Karachi by then prime ministers, Mohammad Ayub Khan and Jawaharlal Nehru, and W A B Illif of the World Bank on?September 19, 1960 -- the waters of the eastern rivers were allocated to India and those of western rivers largely to Pakistan.
But though the treaty has survived all the wars since then, the fact remains that India controls the headwaters.
'The thought of the 'big brother' in control of our vital water resources has never been comforting,' the book quotes former ISI chief Asad Durrani as saying in the Indian Express, July 10, 2003.
Using water as a weapon is a totally repugnant notion, which no civilised country should endorse.
Besides, unlike in April 1948, when India stopped the supply of water to Pakistan from every canal flowing into Pakistan for a month, the Geneva Conventions and the Indus Water Treaty make such an action illegal
|
|
Jerry
4.144
|
Re:
Posted :
Nov 06 2:44 PM
|
|
|
The Neelam Plan???
Even if it didn't, apart from international condemnation, such a step would draw howls of protest from our other neighbours like Bangladesh and Nepal, who have longstanding water treaties with us.
But that is obviously not enough for Pakistan, which needs to have physical control over these headwaters to ease its fears about India's potential ability to turn a huge chunk of its land into desert.
For Pakistan, the fact that the treaty has withstood three wars and periods when all diplomatic and other ties were severed, is not a guarantee that it will endure forever.
Which is why Pakistan is opposed to the Line of Control becoming the formal border, because then the headwaters would continue to remain with India.
Pak MPs want to buy water from India???
Of course, we cannot just stop the flow of water into Pakistan overnight, and both sides know this. Nor can we suddenly divert water from these rivers without building the necessary infrastructure.
Pakistan's belligerent position on the Baglihar project in Kashmir should perhaps be seen from this perspective. They believe that it could be the thin end of the wedge.
Which brings me back to the original question: after making it the main issue for so many years, should we have agreed that terrorist acts will not disrupt the peace process?
Should we believe that Musharraf indeed has no control over these jihadis, who think that violence will eventually force India to concede Kashmir? Conversely, if Musharraf indeed has no control, why are we negotiating with him over Kashmir?
Should we play upon Pakistan's intense insecurity on this issue of water, and leverage it to our advantage? If so, how?
The Indus Water Treaty
Here's a chilling paragraph from the book mentioned above:
'...At a seminar in Karachi in the last week of December 2001 (after India had severed all ties with Pakistan following the attack on its Parliament) attended by the International Centre for Peac
|
|
JERRY
4.144
|
Re:
Posted :
Nov 06 2:45 PM
|
|
|
...At a seminar in Karachi in the last week of December 2001 (after India had severed all ties with Pakistan following the attack on its Parliament) attended by the International Centre for Peace Initiatives, the only occasion when tension arose was when someone alleged that that the Indian government had plans to use the water weapon. A participant warned that any conflict over water would lead to Pakistan using nuclear weapons on a first strike basis against India.
'A month and a half later, on February 8, 2002, the editorial of Jang, a moderate Urdu daily, said that Pakistan's water scarcity could threaten relations between provinces and lead to a nuclear war against India?'
I think it's time someone called their bluff.
|
|
teep
1.222
|
Re:
Posted :
Nov 06 5:07 PM
|
|
|
Zopaq - Is a Paki newspaper
It represents Paki point of view
|
|
vivek
4.252
|
Re:
Posted :
Nov 06 7:04 PM
|
|
|
This confirms the fact that Jerry is actually a namak harami paki who posts from paki websites and newspapers.
|
|
teep
8.211
|
Re:
Posted :
Nov 07 8:39 AM
|
|
|
pakistan ka koi namak haram nahi ho sakta
namak amrika se bheek me milti hai
unke politician use churakar swiss bank mein rakhte hai
baki hindustan par rokar aasuon se nikla namak hai
|
|