Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians

Chin-AAR wrote:

First of all what have you done in the Past 60 years to us other than kill us and subjugate us. However when you talk about security and economics.....nothing can be worse than what you have done to us and continue to do.....I mean what other brutalities can CHINA or PAKISTAN shower on us that you haven't already served to us poor folks.SO DO so stop lecturing on economics and security.

First of all "You" don't represent all of J&K population. Certainly not the Buddhist is Laddhak and certainly not the Hindus in Jammu. Both of these groups are quite happy with India. In most likely hood your so called "freedom struggle" does not even involve Shia Muslims in the state of J&K. So your base as far as I can see is Sunni Muslim Kashmir population in Urban centers of Kashmir valley. Not sure how much the pastoral population cares for your so called "Azadi".

Regarding your comments on China. If J&K was in China your internet access, which you so vociferously use, would have been blocked, any criticism of government and its policies would not be tolerate, there would be no such thing as "local Kashmiri news", there would have been no such thing as article 370, and there would have been an official Chinese policy to settle Han Chinese people into Kashmir. Further, there would have been no such thing as separatist leadership since all of them would have simply been eliminated. Your properly, although private, would have been subject to Will of State. There would be no elections.

Pakistan is your best friend, so there is not much I need to say there besides the fact that its a total anarchy and terrorist state and recognized as such throughout the world.

Quote :

Our population base may be small viz a viz India but if Bhutan with a population of 682,321 (2005 census) can exist as a country sandwiched between two giants…. so can we with a population more than 15 times that of Bhutan.

Bhutan is a protectorate of India. Its territories are subject to frequent Chinese encroachments which are repulsed by Indian troops. I certainly don't see and independent Kashmir becoming a protectorate of India, otherwise whats the use of freedom?

Furthermore, China does not like the idea of Tibetan population centers outside of its control since it impinges on its control of Tibet. If given a free hand, China would encroach on Laddhak, areas of Himachal pradesh, Sikkim, and Arunachal pradesh.

Quote :

5) It’s not just mature intellectuals or politicians of today but the suffering of Kashmiris over a period of 400 years at the hands of Invaders from the South (READ INDIANS) that makes us yearn for our right to self determination today.

Certainly Kashmir has not been subjected to any more or less invasions from the so called "south" than any other Indian state. Kashmir has always been under indian sphere of influence so the question of invasion does not arise. One could argue that it was infarct the "Islamic invasion" that changed things. Certainly the Buddhist and Hindu areas of J&K don't want the so called "freedom" that the Sunni Muslims of Kashmir valley are fighting for.

Quote :

6) If India today can have problems with Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma and Sri-lanka over various issues but still co- exist then why can’t India let J&K exist as an entity.

Because it will encourage other groups that have grievances to seek separations as well and we certainly have quite a few groups. Your world view may be limited to Kashmir valley, ours certainly is not.

Quote :

7) East Timor has no army of its own but under the UN mandate the Australian army protects it. We will get China or some other international force to protect us till we are able to stand up on our own.

China has expansionist goals and wants to take over Laddhak, do you understand that or not?

Quote :

Canada is a secular democracy in every sense of the word, If India was even 0.0000000000000001 % of what Canada is then I would have accepted your argument.

Ever heard of "American Indians". When European settlers moved into North America, entire tribes of American Indians were wiped out. Official racist policies continued in Canada and US until 1960s. European colonization of the Americas reduced American Indians to an insignificant minority who no longer have any voice in either Canada or USA.

Quote :

9) Agreed that Indians are not politically mature enough to let Kashmir go,

Neither are the Chinese or the Pakistanis or the Taliban politically mature to leave Kashmir alone if Kashmir becomes free. A free Kashmir that is not under Indian protection like Nepal and Bhutan becomes an extremely attractive target for China and Pakistan and Taliban and anyone else who wants to carry out any Anti India activities. Unfortunately for you J&K security is irrevocably linked with India for a long long time to come.

Quote :

10) One day the pseudo-democratic India will have to answer for its crimes in Kashmir. We sir will take you to The Hague or any international tribunal to answer for your crimes against our women, children and people.

Just because you refer to India as "pseudo-democratic" doesn't mean it becomes one. The world recognizes India as a democracy. And yes, democracies do have the right to maintain their territorial integrity against internal or external threats.

@ Liberal marathi

Hotel California is a good example but bro we never checked in.....In other words we are yet to decide whether to check in or stay out.

Nepal or Bhutan are recognised as independent states by the world community and just like every nation they are interdependent on other nations too. Anyways, the way Nepal is going, very soon it will quash all its agreements with India and support China ( THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT IN NEPAL IS WORKING TOWARDS THAT). So there goes your notion of India being a better option.

So my advice to you is....there is nothing new in whatever you are telling us.....bottomline is you have to let us decide where we want to go and of course this includes POK too.

In all honesty what you are telling me is to integrate with India. My friend like I said before, India has ruled over us for only 60 years but we have survived a millenia without it. what is 60 years when u think about a millenia.

Our trade routes etc are more in line with China (we fall on the silk route) and Pakistan...so why shouldn't we forge an economic alliance and integration with these nations rather than be with an entity which is geographically cut off from us and to even stay connected to it we have to spend billions of dollars on an unnatural difficult road link.

Even today 25% of your population is below poverty line. Even today you have problems with secularism, problems with internal strife, Naxalism, Farmers comitting suicides, Parties like BJP,VHP,RSS, Bajrang DAl, who are voted to power by an extremely un secular vote bank. Even your Supreme Court says that only God can save India.

Bro, if people start looking at minimum requirements then a lot of countries in Europe need to give up on their independence immediately. KOSOVO/ BOSNIA/ MOLDOVA/LUXEMBOURG/MONACO/ANDORRA/SAN-MARINO/MONTE-NEGRO/BHUTAN/NEPAL need to immediately give up their sovereignity and merge with their larger neighbours.

Again we have enormous potential as a nation and once if given a chance we will prove it. However I will end by quoting Sir Winston Churchill when he was once asked why Britain is not granting Independence to India and this is what his reply was:

QUOTE " We cannot give independence to Beggars and Snake-charmers". and this was in the 1940's when according to you you had all the minimum requirements to become an independent nation.

@Chin-aar

I realized that I didn't answer this in one of my other posts.

Quote :

4) The reason we can’t Make Electricity in winters is because of the Indus water treaty, another injustice done to us by the Indian government. We cannot build dams in J&K because of this treaty and that answers your query as to why we spend our winters in complete darkness.

Not sure how not having Indus Water Treaty would help thaw the rivers in Kashmir in winter. Further along, read the Indus Water Treaty. It doesn't prevent Kashmir from building dams on any of the rivers that flow through its territory. Build all the dams you want, use the water to power the turbines and the let the water flow back into the river. It is perfectly allowed by the Indus Water Treaty. Indus Water Treaty does not prevent building of dams for power generation, it only restricts drawing of water for irrigation. For J&K water is allowed to be drawn for irrigation only using three rivers. For the remaining three rivers, Pakistan has the right to use for irrigation. It is a standard treaty for upper and lower riparian states - you of course have a right to read mischief into it.

So (1) Indus Water Treaty does not prevent building of dams in Kashmir and (2) what Indus Water Treaty does or doesn't do about building dams, it certainly is not going to help thaw the rivers in Kashmir in winter. It is impossible to run a turbine with ice - hence no electricity can be generated in Kashmir in winter using hydroelectric plants. Sorry, can't argue with Physics. That's the way it is.

I think you have no idea about the Indus water treaty. Running water does not thaw easily, only the flow decreses and therefore the necessity of dams which we cannot build according to IWT (Indus water treaty).

Following is an excerpt from a news report on pakistans opposition to Baglihar hydro project (BHP):

Pakistan contends that the BHP would lead to a reduction in the downstream flow of water in the Indus as River Chenab is one of the important water source for Indus. Moreover, Pakistan is also opposed to the construction of the Wullar barrage which India is building on the River Jhelum. Both India and Pakistan are also planning to build a hydropower dam on the Neelum River (a tributary of River Jhelum). Pakistan says that the BHP would increase India's storage capacity (in J&K) to 1,64,000 acre feet which is much higher than that allowed under the IWT. The BHP will also allow India to control the flow of water to Pakistan's disadvantage. Pakistan further says that the construction of the controversial gate structure at Baglihar could deprive Pakistan of more than 7, 000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) of water a day from the Chenab. Clearly, the BHP has become the bone of contention between the two countries. Apart from the BHP, Pakistan is opposing India's other water projects on the Indus saying that these are in contravention of the IWT.

A three-member Pakistani team of water and power experts headed by Jamaat Ali Shah, Commissioner of the Permanent Commission on Indus Water (PCIW), had inspected the BHP in October 2003. Such annual inspections have been provided under the IWT. Following the inspection, the team presented a report to the Pakistani government saying that India was building the dam in contravention of the IWT clauses. Moreover, they also claimed that India had not redesigned the BHP in accordance with Pakistani conditions. In its report, the team stated that the BHP would deprive Pakistan of 26 to 28 per cent water in winter season thereby affecting Pakistan's irrigation water requirements especially during the Rabi crop season [The Nation, 25 November 2003].

And following is a report by Adam Nayyar on What Indus water treaty means:


INDIA has indicated that one of the sanctions it is considering against Pakistan is the abrogation of the Indus Waters Treaty. The treaty is more than 40 years old and to unilaterally abrogate it is to bring about the uncertainty that followed the partition of India. To understand what the abrogation would mean for Pakistan, it is important to see how this treaty evolved and what it entails.

A Standstill Agreement was signed on December 18, 1947 which provided that the pre-partition allocation of water in the Indus Basin irrigation system would be maintained. This agreement was to terminate on March 31, 1948.

Alleging that Pakistan had failed to renew the Standstill Agreement, India on April 1, 1948 shut off water supplies from the Ferozepur Headworks to the Dipalpur Canal and to the Pakistani portions of the Lahore and the main branches of the Upper Bari Doab Canal (UBDC)

This sudden closure came as a rude shock to Pakistan. With this unilateral action, India was asserting the doctrine of upstream riparian propriety rights, completely ignoring the principle of equitable distribution. From the Indian point of view, Pakistan could not prevent India from any of a set of schemes to divert the natural flow of water from the Himalaya-Karakorum into the Indus Valley:

* Beas water into the Sutlej

* Ravi water into the Beas at Madhopur

* Chenab water into the Ravi (through the Marhu Tunnel)

* Worse, the Wullar Lake scheme commands the Jehlum just before it enters Azad Kashmir.

Pakistan’s position was dismal and India held all the cards in its hand. War appeared to be the only recourse to free the captive waters, but that could have seriously harmed Pakistan.

Pakistan therefore sent a ministerial delegation to Delhi to negotiate for the restoration of water and the Indians struck a very hard bargain. They wanted recognition of their rights to all the waters in the eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi). They also wanted Pakistan to pay for any water supplied by India until Pakistan could find replacement from the other (western) rivers. Consequently, the Inter-Dominion Agreement was signed in New Delhi on May 4, 1948, under which Pakistan was required “to deposit immediately in the Reserve Bank (of India) such ad hoc sum as may be specified by the prime minister of India” (Article 5 of the agreement).

This unequal agreement almost amounted to a blackmail and nothing concrete was settled by it. Put in a feeble bargaining position, Pakistan had no other choice but to acquiesce in order to extract a constricted breathing space until 1960, when the Indus Waters Treaty was signed.

Indian intentions became clearer when they started work on the Harike Barrage in 1948 at the confluence of the Beas and Sutlej, creating the capacity to cut off the whole pre-partition Sutlej Valley Project, now in Pakistan.

After the nasty jolt of the Indian water shut-off and alarmed at the construction of the Harike Barrage, Pakistan’s immediate response was the design of the now famous Bambanwala-Ravi-Bedian Link Canal (BRBL), taking off from the Upper Chenab Canal, passing under the Ravi river in a siphon and feeding the Lahore UBDC near Batapur on the Lahore-Wagah road. The BRBL was completed in 1958 as an emergency measure. As the 1965 war was to prove, this canal was also an important water obstacle against an Indian invasion. In addition, it remains — in a modified form — a vital link in the Indus Basin Project to this day.

India’s actions and its assertion of propriety rights were a clear indication of its position. Pakistan’s case of prior allocation and equitable distribution was asserted, but with no ability to enforce it, even by war. Pakistan attempted to bring the case to the International Court of Justice in June 1949, but India refused to go along, maintaining that the inter-dominion agreement should now be made permanent. Pakistan was to continue to pay for the water from India and the agreement continued to hang over Pakistan’s head like the Damocles’ sword.

Finally, in September 1949 Pakistan refused to devalue its currency along with the rest of the Sterling bloc. India’s reaction was to refuse to recognize the Pakistani rupee at the old value and to impose an economic blockade on Pakistan until the end of 1950. The tactic of economic blockade threatened by India today is therefore not new.

With prodding from the World Bank, both India and Pakistan agreed to the Indus Waters Treaty, which was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960. In brief, India received exclusive rights over the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi), while Pakistan got the three western rivers (Indus, Jehlum and Chenab).

Unilateral abrogation by India is not new. As early as 1958, Pakistan’s eminent geographer Kazi S Ahmad wrote:

“The Council of the Institute of International Law in 1911 (Madrid) decided that a state is forbidden to stop or divert the flow of a river which runs from its own to a neighbouring state, but likewise to make such use of the water of the river as either causes danger to the neighbouring states or prevents it from making proper use of the flow of the river on its part. (The) Barcelona Convention (1921) to which India was a signatory provides regulations with regard to the utilization of flow of the rivers: “No state is allowed to alter the natural conditions of its own territory to the disadvantage of the natural conditions of the territory of a neighbouring state.” However, the convention was unilaterally abrogated by India in April, 1956.” (Kazi S. Ahmad “Canal Water Problems”)

India’s unilateral abrogation clearly showed that not only did it consider the disputed territory of Kashmir as a part of India, but that it also had the intention to interfere with the flow of the western rivers four years prior to the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty.

If India were to abrogate the treaty, the central issue for Pakistan would be Article III of the treaty, the provisions regarding western rivers, whereby Paragraph 1 is relevant:.

“(1) Pakistan shall receive for unrestricted use all those waters of the western rivers which India is under obligation to let flow under the provisions of Paragraph (2).”

Paragraph 2 outlines peripheral “non-consumptive” use by India and Pakistan’s right to use these waters even if they flow into the eastern rivers.

Were India to abrogate the treaty, it would mean dangerous interference with the upper reaches of the western rivers. India would go ahead with the construction of at least two large dams:

—Khapala Dam on the Shyok River in Indian Occupied Kashmir (a tributary of the Indus entering Baltistan). This would seriously affect flows in the Indus and proportionally increase the effective silt load from the Gilgit River into the Indus downstream of the Rondu Gorge. This would create a very detrimental impact on the current design of the proposed Basha Dam on the transverse course of the Indus in Diamer District of the Northern Areas.

—Wullar Barrage on the Jehlum River, which would inundate more land than could be commanded upstream of the point where the Jehlum enters Azad Kashmir. This barrage can easily submerge Srinagar, thus ensuring a “final solution” of the Kashmir issue from the Indian point of view. This is an effective lever to intimidate Pakistan.

India would thus be free not only to starve Pakistan of water, but also to open sluice gates at will to generate devastating floods in the country.

India’s threat to abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty would destabilize the current status quo that both countries have learned to live with. Though both nations were far from satisfied with the treaty, it provides to this day a modus vivendi for them to live in peace with each other. The abrogation would mean the stirring up of resentments, fears and angers that have settled in the silt of 42 years. Even more crucial, it is a recipe to subject innocent people in Pakistan to hunger, famine and poverty.

You need a lesson in Physics bro and on ice formations....I as a Kashmiri can teach you a lot from practicalities of life that I have come across.....so before we go into physics just one Question:

How do the fishes living in the rivers and Lakes of Kashmir survive the winter.......surely they can't survive in Ice i.e freeze in winters and then melt up in spring. So u need to refurbish your knowledge on cold climates and how nature and physics are dealt with in cold climates.

Bootom line: The upper crust of a lake freezes but geothermal heat emanating from the earth keeps the lake liquid after the upper 4 to 9 inches of ice. I have seen this happenning and observed it closely.

@Chin-aar

Quote :

Hotel California is a good example but bro we never checked in.....In other words we are yet to decide whether to check in or stay out.

YOU may not have checked in but unfortunately your Maharaja did. You can dispute the veracity of the Maharaja's accession all you want but nothing is going to change now. The accession was ratified by the Kashmir Assembly and you can dispute that too and call those Kashmiri assemblymen and women traitors and bought-entities. The illegal raid of Pakistan was what India protested against in the UN in 1948 in a world that still saw the UN as a neutral arbiter of disputes. The UN lost its early neutrality and idealism very quickly and became a political tool of the big powers of the time - the US and the Soviet Union and later the P5. That is where we stand today. UN is no longer the idealistic band-aid for all the problems of the world that it was seen to be at its founding and the early years of its existence. It is now simply a tool in the hands of the powerful few. Its resolutions are meaningless without cooperation from all parties concerned.

So like it or not, the accession by the Maharaja (duly ratified by the Kashmir constituent assembly) was the last legitimate transfer of power from one state to another. And now with the Indian constitution what it is - it is indeed impossible to check out (without an epic struggle, that is). It is unfortunate that it has happen this way but there is hardly any country that has not had its share of unfortunate events in its existence.

It is a myth to imagine an India as a monolithic state. Everyone (I repeat everyone) in India is in a minority of one sort or the other. If every group of 2-3 million people started demanding 'azadi' based on their own parochial and narrowly defined notions of homogeneity, India truly will have no meaning and will cease to exist and should cease to exist in such a case. But most people are smarter than you give them credit for (they are not as smart as Kashmiris of course). They can clearly see the advantage of banding together and forging an identity that truly reflects their unity in diversity and reap the benefits of being one large country than a million small ones. Trash them all you want about their poverty and their flawed democracy but that is not going to diminish their love for their country - with all its warts and mountain sized problems and all.

Bhutan and Nepal have already given up a part of their sovereignty (see my previous posts) so whether they can still be called Independent or not is meaningless. I won't comment about other small countries in Europe that you mentioned. Barring the extremely tiny principalities, every one of those countries has lost its sovereignty in the recent past - to Nazi occupation or to Soviet occupation. They exist clearly because of the political maturity that exists in their neighbourhood.
Political maturity like that unfortunately does not exist in the neighbourhood of Kashmir and/or in Kashmir today.

If Kashmir is so impregnable as you think it is and so well connected to Pakistan and China along the trade route as you insist, why do you think Kashmir keeps 'losing' its sovereignty to invasions from the South (along a supposedly impregnable mountain range with an unnatural difficult road link as you put it) ?

@Chin-aar,

There is nothing in the text you enclosed that rebuts anything I said before. Indus Water Treaty allows for dam construction as long as water is not held back for irrigation. All you pointed out in the long text was that during dam construction some water is allowed to be held back as storage for the dam which suits me (and J&K) even better. So thank you for pointing that out.

Baglihar was in dispute about the amount of the storage water that was allowed (governed by the height of the dam). The text you enclosed is perhaps old ? The issue ultimately went to World Bank arbitration (as per the Indus Water Treaty) on the insistence of Pakistan. The arbitration went on for nearly two years and finally on Feb 12, 2008, the WB administrator submitted his verdict in Berne, Switzerland, in favour of India (read Jammu and Kashmir) and gave the green light to the project. There is no reduction in the wattage capacity of the plant (900MW) and nearly all objections from Pakistan were overruled. The arbitration result is binding on both countries.

So I suppose you should have no complaints now for India not properly preserving Kashmiri rights to Himalayan rivers. It was and is still okay to build dams on all six major rivers that flow through Kashmir. Now we move on to the ice formation .

@Chin-aar

Quote :

You need a lesson in Physics bro and on ice formations....I as a Kashmiri can teach you a lot from practicalities of life that I have come across.....so before we go into physics just one Question:

How do the fishes living in the rivers and Lakes of Kashmir survive the winter.......surely they can't survive in Ice i.e freeze in winters and then melt up in spring. So u need to refurbish your knowledge on cold climates and how nature and physics are dealt with in cold climates.

Bootom line: The upper crust of a lake freezes but geothermal heat emanating from the earth keeps the lake liquid after the upper 4 to 9 inches of ice. I have seen this happenning and observed it closely.

I have no desire to get into an argument with you about Ice Formation in water and how that impacts dams and their design heights. You are clearly a lot smarter person than I am. In fact, after reading several other comments on this forum, I am far more inclined to believe that with its unique place in the world, Kashmir even has unique rules of Physics that only apply there and nowhere else. So I will go with the Physics I know and you go with the Physics you know. Peace ?

If your theory on dams is true then why was work on the wullar barrage stopped and of course why is it that we can't or are not allowed to build a single dam in entire J&K. I repeat entire J&K. Now you again may refute all I have said but a pro-Indian kashmiri Professor Saifuddin Soz who was minister of water resources for the Union Government of India has gone on record many times to say that Indus water treaty is completely biased against J&K.

So yet again I highlight my point that here too India has miserably failed the Kashmiris. The Invaders from the south were airlifted into Kashmir in 1948 on the 27th of October and that is how they overcame the natural barrier. As their natural route through Pakistan was no longer possible to tread upon.

Instrument of accession has been declared null and void by the UN after it was proven that rulers of states like Junagadh (Gujarat) and Hyderabad wanted to sign their affinity towards Pakistan....so its an illegal piece of document...u can debate as long as u want but the truth is that NOT EVEN A SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD EITHER RATIFIES THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION OR RECOGNISES J&K AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDIA.

Physics is the same the world over and whether nations like Bhutan or Nepal exist because of political maturity or not ......the fact of the matter is that they do exist and therefore your assertions are plain old talk.

To generate electricity on a big scale, dams need to have a certain minimum amount of water, this is not allowed under IWT in J&K....however India with its nefarious designs signed the pact which allowed it to build dams like Bhakra Nangal and Hirakkud in Punjab while Pakistan could build dams on waters from the Indus basin western rivers.

Go through this News item n perhaps u will concede that u r completely wrong:

J&K wants Centre to annul Indus Treaty
14 April 2002
The Asian Age

Srinagar: Pushed back to the wall by what it sees as Centre’s laid-back attitude on an issue of vital importance, the Farooq Abdullah government will soon make one last attempt, within the parameters of Centre-state relationship, to seek unilateral abrogation of the Indus Water Treaty before fighting it out in public. Prior to taking up the demand with the Centre formally, the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly is likely to pass a resolution asking at least for review of the treaty given the consensus that has emerged among the members irrespective of party affiliations during the just-concluded Budget Session. In the past, such requests made out to the Centre went unheeded. J&K state works minister Ali Muhammad Sagar said, “Our patience is running out.” Cancellation of the treaty was one of the few hard moves in India’s consideration to hit back at Pakistan in the wake of the terrorist attack on the Parliament House last year. It was believed in New Delhi that the move would actually catch Islamabad bending. But for the international implications of such a harsh move and the possibility of Pakistan moving to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, the idea was shelved and instead other measures including closing of India’s airspace to the neighbouring country were taken. But Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah and his party felt hurt at the Centre’s insensitive attitude towards problems created by the treaty for Jammu and Kashmir. He has all along been against what he believed was an “illogical and discriminatory” pact between the two neighbouring countries. Some time back, the state government had planned the Tulbul navigational lock project in the Wular lake in the north-western part of the Valley to stabilise the two major hydroelectric powerhouses on river Jhelum. It was also exploring the possibilities of a few more projects on the Kashmir’s main river which originates from the Verinag spring, about 85 km south-east of Srinagar, and goes down to Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir through the Valley. But the project did not see the light of the day in the face of stiff resistance by Islamabad saying it went against the Indus Water Treaty signed between the then Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, and Pakistan President Field Marshal Ayub Khan, on September 19, 1960 at Karachi. The treaty awarded the three eastern rivers — Ravi, Sutlej and Beas — exclusively to India and the three western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — exclusively to Pakistan except for limited uses by India in the upstream areas of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. As per the treaty, the construction of storage dams in upstream Jhelum within the Kashmir Valley is not allowed. That is why the hydroelectric projects on the Jhelum have to be in the run-of-the- river schemes. A series of meetings between visiting Pakistan delegations and their Indian hosts held during the past six years failed to make any breakthrough on this issue. The state government has, time and again, pleaded with the Centre either to seek abrogation of the treaty or, at least, compensate the state for the losses that it suffers due to the pact. Experts feel the abrogation of the treaty will definitely hit Pakistan’s agricultural production as the three rivers on which it has got exclusive right on both sides of the border irrigate vast areas of its Punjab and Sindh provinces besides the PoK. Also, some of the hydroelectric projects of the neighbouring country, including the one set up at Mangla with the help of the American engineers in the 1960s, will be hit hard. If the treaty is abrogated, India can store water of these rivers for generating more hydroelectricity. At present, almost all such projects are run-off-the-river ones and several new proposals with the Jammu and Kashmir government are gathering dust. Nevertheless, the move has far-reaching implications of international importance. The outside world may not see the abrogation of the treaty in good light. Pakistan can well move the International Court of Justice to seek injunction against India. “It will also certainly approach other world organisations to plead its case and there are chances of our move not being seen in its true perspective by the outside world,” a top official of the state irrigation department said. The implications over the treaty’s fallout on Jammu and Kashmir economy was echoed by the legislators on Wednesday when most of them wanted the Centre to realise the aspirations of the people and keep the promises made out to them from time to time. “The treaty has badly hit our economy,” complained CPI(M) member Muhammad Yusuf Tarigami. He said had Sheikh Abdullah not been dismissed and detained in August 1953, the treaty could have been prevented. Endorsing his views, Mr Sagar urged the Centre to safeguard the economic interests of the state as it had to bear a recurring loss of Rs 6,500 crores annually due to the Indus Water Treaty. He confirmed that the state government has, time and again, apprised the Centre of its concerns regarding the colossal losses on account of the treaty; thus badly affecting the socio-economic development of all the three regions of the state. In this connection, Mr. Sagar referred to the agreement reached between Sheikh Abdullah and the then Punjab chief minister, Mr Prakash Singh Badal, in 1979 on raising the Shahpur Kandi barrage under which Jammu and Kashmir had to get about 11, 000 cusecs of water discharge from Ravi to irrigate its own over one lakh hectares of land particularly in Jammu region. However, despite the construction of 90-km long Ravi-Tawi canal by the Sheikh government, the Shahpur Kandi Barrage project is gathering the dust even after 23 years. According to Mr. Sagar, Jammu and Kashmir has been deprived of all opportunities to harness its 15, 000 MW power generation potential as a consequence of the Indus Water Treaty. “Concerted efforts have been made to persuade the Centre to compensate these losses but no solid cooperation is forthcoming from it,” he complained. He also confirmed reports that the legal opinion on how to proceed in this matter has been sought. But he sounded highly agitated over certain elements at the Centre being inimical to the interests of the state and its people. “In fact, the successive governments in New Delhi right from 1953 have tried to infringe and erode the socio-economic and political rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and for this puppet state governments were used,” he charged. He admitted that Indus Water Treaty is an international commitment made by India, but it should compensate losses incurred to Jammu and Kashmir on this account.

Now that you might have been convinced about IWT..... sit down and just calculate how much India owes to the people of J&K for making Punjab the food basket of India. In other words J&K had to pay with its blood and gore for the Green revolution of India. My friend the losses amount to trillions and trillions of dollars and if you do start paying then 50% of your population will have to go below poverty line.

So save all your rhetoric for some of our pro-India ignorant politicians and then tell them the economic stories. CHOR KE DAADI MEIN TINKA

One day though India will have to answer for all the wrongs it has committed on the people of J&K. Wrongs can sustain themselves foe some time but not forever.

I rest my case bro.

@Chin-aar

Quote :

If your theory on dams is true then why was work on the wullar barrage stopped and of course why is it that we can't or are not allowed to build a single dam in entire J&K. I repeat entire J&K. Now you again may refute all I have said but a pro-Indian kashmiri Professor Saifuddin Soz who was minister of water resources for the Union Government of India has gone on record many times to say that Indus water treaty is completely biased against J&K.

No dams in entire J&K ? now come on, where is Salal dam, where is Baglihar dam, and where is Kishenganga dam ?

There is always a give and take in all water sharing treaties between lower and upper riparian states. River water sharing disputes are common throughout the world. So there is really no need to paint India so negatively at all. By all neutral accounts, the Indus Waters Treaty is a fair treaty between two countries.

As far as your contention that Kashmir has been unfairly treated: here are the places where these rivers originate. This is just to show you that kashmir can have no special claims on these rivers. Barring one (Jhelum), kashmir is a lower riparian party for all others. Two rivers don't even flow through kashmir. Now you can decide for yourself whether kashmir has been unfairly treated.. fair enough ?

Ravi: originates in Himachal Pradesh
Chenab: originates in Himachal Pradesh
Beas: originates in Himachal Pradesh
Sutlej: originates in Tibet
Indus: originates in Tibet
Jhelum: originates in J&K

Wullar barrage work stoppage: any time a party raises serious objections at IW commission, the work has to stop before a decision can be taken in accordance with the IWT. Simply following the treaty.

@Chin-aar

Quote :

Invaders from the south were airlifted into Kashmir in 1948 on the 27th of October and that is how they overcame the natural barrier. As their natural route through Pakistan was no longer possible to tread upon.

I see. What about the earlier invaders from the south: the mughals, the sikhs, the dogras that robbed you of your sovereignty ? Surely they had no airplanes to overcome the natural barrier ? And if your sovereignty was so precious to you, how come you let all these 'uncivilized' folks rob it from you so repeatedly ? You have got to either protect it or accept its loss. No ?

Just to be very clear: India didn't go in there to rob you of your sovereignty. It offered you a chance to join a secular, democratic republic where you were offered a "more-than-equal" status. It didn't HAVE to do that but to its credit it did. It offered you a chance to enlarge your vision of sovereignty from that of the Valley to that of a large country. It allowed you to travel, and work, and enjoy a vast territory. But no, some of you and I repeat SOME of you, don't see the wisdom in expanding your definition of sovereignty. You just want to trash India at every moment and have your own parochial, narrow minded vision of a 'azad' Kashmiri sovereignty. That, sir, is entirely YOUR individual choice.

@liberalMarathi

You sir are contradicting your own governments Minister of Water resources so who am I to complain However because your knowledge is so miniscule on the subject I will refurbish your GK one last time.

Its not Baglihar Dam...its Baglihar Hydro Power project, its not Kishenganga DAm....its Kishenganga Hydro and same goes for others.

Under the IWT....NO DAMS CAN BE BUILT IN JAMMU & KASHMIR......only run of the river projects....so without altering the flow of the river...turbines are put up to harness energy....Anyways you will still come back with your theories.

Try n be logical....if Dams were built in Punjab why not J&K.....the answer is simple and although not to your liking I will go ahead and put it up for all to see.......India Bartered the use of rivers of J&K with PAkistan to get exclusive use of rivers in Punjab. In the process it side-lined and brutally subjugated the rights of Kashmiris.

Now you probably did not read the article from Asian age which was published in 2002.

Anyways...you guys are our MASTERS and we are your slaves.....so no matter how much we complain or suffer....In the end MIGHT is always right so if you say there are DAMS IN KASHMIR SO BE IT......THEY MUST BE SOMEWHERE cause you are an Indian and always speak nothing but the truth.

I think you are making irresponsible statements now with no proper research on your articles and therefore I will stop this debate here.

Thank you for your comments and do read a bit on the Indus Water treaty and its negative repurcussions on the state of J&K and benefits viz the state of PUNJAB.

Once again YOU ARE THE CULPRITS AND THE JUDGES.....so what can we poor people complain about but suffer in silence and pain.

@Chin-aar,

Quote :

Its not Baglihar Dam...its Baglihar Hydro Power project, its not Kishenganga DAm....its Kishenganga Hydro and same goes for others.

Under the IWT....NO DAMS CAN BE BUILT IN JAMMU & KASHMIR......only run of the river projects....so without altering the flow of the river...turbines are put up to harness energy....Anyways you will still come back with your theories.

Call it what you want. This is a picture of the Baglihar Hydel project (if you insist). This sure looks like a dam to me.

@Chin-aar,

Here is the url for the picture.

lh3.ggpht.com/_NLWcp1tCxJ8/SEfUc_U4wVI/AAAAAAAADFA/8FOjtPufHvE/mphoto+009.jpg

@Chin-aar,

Quote :

Try n be logical....if Dams were built in Punjab why not J&K.....the answer is simple and although not to your liking I will go ahead and put it up for all to see.......India Bartered the use of rivers of J&K with PAkistan to get exclusive use of rivers in Punjab. In the process it side-lined and brutally subjugated the rights of Kashmiris.

That is the way the geography is. You can't blame India for the alignment of the Himalayan ranges. Rivers of Kashmir ? I already showed you the facts as to where these rivers originate.

@Chin-aar,

Quote :

therefore I will stop this debate here

Suits me fine.

@Liberal Marathi.......One last time for the sake of convenience I have highlighted some salient points of IWT.

"The treaty awarded the three eastern rivers — Ravi, Sutlej and Beas — exclusively to India and the three western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — exclusively to Pakistan except for limited uses by India in the upstream areas of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh".

"As per the treaty, the construction of storage dams in upstream Jhelum within the Kashmir Valley is not allowed."

“The treaty has badly hit our economy,” complained CPI(M) member Muhammad Yusuf Tarigami

Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah and his party felt hurt at the Centre’s insensitive attitude towards problems created by the treaty for Jammu and Kashmir. He has all along been against what he believed was an “illogical and discriminatory” pact between the two neighbouring countries. Some time back, the state government had planned the Tulbul navigational lock project in the Wular lake in the north-western part of the Valley to stabilise the two major hydroelectric powerhouses on river Jhelum. It was also exploring the possibilities of a few more projects on the Kashmir’s main river which originates from the Verinag spring, about 85 km south-east of Srinagar, and goes down to Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir through the Valley. But the project did not see the light of the day in the face of stiff resistance by Islamabad saying it went against the Indus Water Treaty signed between the then Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, and Pakistan President Field Marshal Ayub Khan, on September 19, 1960 at Karachi.

In you Mr.Marathi I thought that at last I had met an Indian who was a little bit logical but alas " you all seem to be just the same"

Now that you have seen the picture of Baglihar...try n see the pictures of proper dams like Hirakud or Bhakra Nangal.

The level of the water at Baglihar has to be raised a little to give the turbines a minimal set of water and if the level is raised above a critical point, then Pakistan can take India to an International court of law. These type of Power plants are called RUN OF THE RIVER HYDRO-POWER PLANTS AND NOT DAMS.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT GET THE INFO INTO YOUR HEAD then its my failure to make you understand and I sir apologise for that. However I had to try my level best as a true Kashmiri.

Good bye and may GOD show you Indians the path of truth and justice

@Chin-aar,

Sure. Thanks for enlightening this uneducated Indian.

I started this conversation (see all my earlier posts), in a spirit of goodwill and friendship. A constant barrage of India-this and India-that and Indians-this and Indians-that have left me (an ordinary Indian with a lot of goodwill towards Kashmiris) with an extremely bad taste in the mouth. I will continue to be a liberal person with a liberal attitude to problems including that of Kashmir. Don't expect me, however to fall in line with YOUR world views. I don't share your views, I don't share your hatred, and I sure am not here to earn your respect.

Thanks.

Chin-aar wrote:

The level of the water at Baglihar has to be raised a little to give the turbines a minimal set of water and if the level is raised above a critical point, then Pakistan can take India to an International court of law. These type of Power plants are called RUN OF THE RIVER HYDRO-POWER PLANTS AND NOT DAMS.

Now this is getting boring. If this is actually such a major sore point, please do us all a favor and take over the water ministry in Delhi as quickly as you can and then you, your accountants, and all the dam people can get together and renegotiate the Indus water agreement with Pakistan to your hearts content. I would rather watch bollywood item girls than the height of some dam (oh sorry hyrdo-power plants).

i am sure till now u must have realized that its no point in having a meaningful discussion with hated-in..its a waste of time..get out of it brother..

And, a meaningful discussion is where everyone shall fall in line with the undisputable viewpoint of some of our kashmir brothers, or endure personal attacks on the indian nation and all indians in general.

Quote :

Here you see an ungrateful Kashmir against a bountiful India. So Sangvi’s argument of leaving Kashmir to Kashmiris is characterized by condescension. If India grants funds to Kashmir that is not the largesse you throw at them, that is the price you pay for enslaving a piece of land. Funds are not alms you dole out to needy and you don’t run a charity in Kashmir. Leave it and keep money with you. And yes add to your figures the ex gratia you pay as a compensation after having a Kashmiri killed. Add more. The perks, promotions and arrears you grant to how many Parihars who sell human bodies against cash that comes from New Delhi. How much for each nameless grave. How much does it burden your budget when you plant an army of seven lakh people jamming Kashmir to the last inch. Take them home, you will save all this money for your country. Add more. How handsomely are paid those brokers who defend India against Kashmir on intellectual, political or social front. This all makes Kashmir a white elephant for you. Why keep it?
Of course Kashmir will have its own set of problems once it’s done with India. Well, those are birth pangs every new born nation, like a new born baby faces. A huge challenge though, but one wonders as to what makes Vir Sanghvi so sure that once seceded from India, they will last for about 15 minutes without the billions that India has showered on them. Sardar Patel had the same dream about an unborn Pakistan that he thought would come knocking back at the doors begging for a reunification. Lious Mountbatton had conceded that Pakistan be given a chance to fail on its own demerits. No doubt, the country stands infested with ailments, but the fact remains. Sixty one years since, fifteen minutes are not yet over.

dear brother anon,
i hope u read my post regarding the all-famous packages and grants that india has been showering upon J&K state...

brother, yes I've read that hurriedly. I will get back on that after some study.
rgds