The Jamaatud Dawa newspaper, Jarrar (March 5, 2010), reported that the people of Pakistan thought that Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner, Jamaat Ali Shah, was bodily a Pakistani but his tongue spoke the language of Hindus. He had not stopped making the strange statement that India had not stolen Pakistan’s water. Jamaat Ali Shah was getting his salary from Pakistan but was working for India.
Before this, the Jamaatud Dawa had taken out a procession on Lahore’s central mall in February 2010. Provocative speeches were made. Then, the army chief and the prime minister also raised “the issue of waters” in their statements.
Reported in the Nawa-i-Waqt (June 3, 2010) a seminar held by the Nawa-i-Waqt group of newspapers decided that Jamaat Ali Shah defended India’s stealing of river waters through 62 dams. Speakers included retired ambassadors and army officers, who said that India was stealing 14 million acre feet of water and that India’s water aggression could lead to an Indo-Pak war that would soon turn into a nuclear world war.
The Nawa-i-Waqt further accused Jamaat Ali Shah of stating that Pakistan was getting its share of waters under the Indus Treaty and that building a dam was the right of India. He said less water in Pakistani rivers was because of lack of rain, not because India had stolen it. The statement was a shock to many who thought India was waging a water war against Pakistan.
Reported in the Nawa-i-Waqt (December 16, 2010) Jamaat Ali Shah was made officer on special duty by the prime minister. He was commissioner in 1993 and was on the job till 2010, while India changed four commissioners during this period. Zahurul Hasan Dahir of the anti-India lobby said Shah had “accepted Indian influence” and had allowed Indian dams to be built on rivers belonging to Pakistan.
Reported in Jang (January 5, 2012), Indus Waters ex-commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah facilitated the building of India’s illegal Nimoo-Bazgo dam so that Leh could get electricity, which meant that Indian soldiers at Siachen would get the benefit of more comfort through the use of electricity.
Dawn (April 16, 2011) reported: Intelligence agencies seized the record of at least two federal ministries to investigate an alleged institutional lapse of not raising objections over Indian aggression on the country’s water rights. A preliminary report maintained that the commissioner had remained silent over the Nimoo Bazgo hydropower project (built by India during 2002-2009) and did not raise any objections during the meetings. There were rumours that Shah had fled the country.
The Express Tribune (January 3, 2012) reported: The latest case under dispute is the construction of the controversial 45-MW Nimoo-Bazgo hydropower project on the Indus River by India; (then) Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani approved challenging the project in the International Court of Arbitration (ICA).
After six months, the Daily Times (July 18, 2012) reported that the federal government had decided not to file a lawsuit in the ICA, in The Hague, regarding the controversial 45-MW Nimoo-Bazgo hydroelectric power project. The fear was that Pakistan might lose again as it did over the Baglihar Dam.
Annexure C of the Indus Waters Treaty allows India to take some water from the Western Rivers given to Pakistan. Annexure E says there is no bar on India building water storage dams for electricity generation on the Western Rivers.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 2nd, 2012.
COMMENTS (25)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@tariq:
Cheers!
Please Sir, do not spread misinformation. There is no truth in what you say. It is not in the best interests of Pakistan to do such things; not expected of a patriotic Pakistani.
Indus water treaty has resulted in deserting Pakistan year by year....no water from eastern rivers...and then stealing, diverting waters of western rivers. India is similarly giving trouble to Bangladesh by building dams and enjoying monopoly of sitting on high water grounds.
@gp65: @BruteForce: My observation is India has not exploited IWT even in war times and has let the treaty work smoothly and that is something I appriciate.As I have in my previous posts some months ago said that some elements are using water issue to sabotage relatons with India.To me its more of a politicle issue than actual issue.There might be some complaints and missunderstanding but not to the extant of making it a politicle one As for as share of water is concerned let me humbly state that agreements between states are not done on emotions but on the basis of protection of just intrests of both the parties.Indian representative therefore must have protected their intrests.IWT treaty was signed according to international laws on water rights.Keeping in view of India's unfair role on the distribution of punjab boundaries,for example,it is highly unlikely that in case of IWT India would have shown generousty nor it was needed.Of course I admitt that everybody needs water Indians as well as pakistanis-Therefor we have IWS and it must work smoothly
@BruteForce Puting me in the catagory of the like of HS shows lack of argument either you come up with some better argument or you show some respect and keep silent.I therefore will not put you in the catagory of right wingers without any solid reasons.If you keep on reading my posts I'm sure you will reconsider your remarks on me.
@sabi: "Exactly both parties are given that fifty% right on water therefore Three rivers, ravi,sutluj and bias are totaly given to india and pakistan had accepted that right.This assertion Pakistan not being generous and India generousity is totaly wrong."
Just saying 3 rivers each side does not make it equal does it? Surely the size of teh rives does count? Ravi, Beas and Sutlej are small rivers. Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are comparatively very, very big rivers.
As @Bruteforce indicates, 80% of the actual water DOES go to Pakistan and despite this Pakistan instead of being thankful spreads falsehoods about India. Do you think that is fair?
@sabi:
Excellent! Ravi, Sutlej and Bias are very small rivers. Especially when compared to the other 3 that flow into Pakistan.
With this in mind I endorse Hafiz Saeed when he says IWT should be renegotiated and water should be shared with 50-50.
You guys can't even admit India has been honourable. Cutting off the nose to spite the face!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSN84Zkj0ek
@sabi:
Expected retort. Ravi, Beas and Sutlej are small rivers. Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are comparatively very, very big rivers.
I am calling for re-negotiation with this above fact in mind. India is a water starved country. 50-50 basis should be acceptable.
India is giving more water than it is taking!!!
IWT is the only thing which stands in the way. The good thing is even the Jihadis want a renegotiation of IWT! On this issue I support them. Go Hafiz Saeed!
The funny thing is the Jihadis who accused India of stealing water were accusing it of releasing excess water 2 years ago when there were floods.
You guys can't even admit India has been honourable. Cutting off the nose to spite the face!
Let there be renegotiations of IWT...
@BruteForce: " Not only India has been not guilty of water theft, but also been very generous! Upper riparian and lower riparian states must share 50% of the water from the rivers. Now, India has given much more than 80% of the waters to Pakistan. There are many in India who are calling for re-nogotiation of IWT. Pakistan not only accuses India, but fails to note its generosity. I don’t see why India should be so kind"
Exactly both parties are given that fifty% right on water therefore Three rivers, ravi,sutluj and bias are totaly given to india and pakistan had accepted that right.This assertion Pakistan not being generous and India generousity is totaly wrong.
@Usman S.: Actually Usman Bhai, the original agreement negotiated in 1960 is very generous to Pakistan. Please see the comment by @BruteForce. The reason for the fuss - 49 years after the treaty was signed and which India homoured even during the wars it had with Pakistan - is explained very succinctly by @Feroz. Hate India campaign is a way to divert the issue and keep the people from questioning the army and ISI's inefficiency in protecting and keeping Pakistanis safe from terror.
in this case nawa i waqt remain immature
Not only India has been not guilty of water theft, but also been very generous!
Upper riparian and lower riparian states must share 50% of the water from the rivers. Now, India has given much more than 80% of the waters to Pakistan.
There are many in India who are calling for re-nogotiation of IWT. Pakistan not only accuses India, but fails to note its generosity. I don't see why India should be so kind.
@sabi: "...“some water” that means amount of water remains undefined." No, it does not. That "some water" is the water used by locals for their day to day living needs. That is common sense, isn't it?. ":Second which party is given the right to interpret the agreement." Each party can and will interpret it for itself. If there is no agreement on the interpretation, the mechanism for arbitration is there to take care of it. Pakistan is the only party that has made it a habit to run to World Bank for arbitration. In every case, the arbitrator turned down its claims and pronounced against it. Mr. Jamaat Ali Shah probably got so fed up of being made to cry wolf that he decided it was not worth it. And, he resigned because he is cursed with a good conscience!
A more detailed version of this article has been published in The Friday Times as 'Water war', Pakistani style. Those interested can reach it with this link:
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta3/tft/article.php?issue=20121130&page=3
@MSS:
"Also arrange for enhanced security for Khaled Ahmed Sahib."
Yes Sir, absolutely. At this rate we will soon need a force larger than our army just to provide security to all those who need it. We are lucky Allah saved Hamid Mir, but there must be thousands more from Najam Sethi to Malala.
@Wonderer, Also arrange for enhanced security for Khaled Ahmed Sahib.
@Usman S.:
You are right Sir, in what you say. But we have a tendency to overlook where we may have failed in taking care of our water resources. We also have a habit of blaming others, specially by the more rabid gentry, for every ill that befalls us. We should never ignore this aspect.
Climate change is now being observed almost daily. We have to take that into account. Conservation of water resources is an important issue for all nations. We cannot ignore the fact that we are even now not taking care of this aspect.
@gp65:
You are, as always right, Madam. My comment was so moderated as to remove an essential part of what I wanted to say. It concerned the attempts to vitiate the relations between India and Pakistan, using this issue. The general public in Pakistan feels there is a dispute with India over water, and that India intentionally takes away what is not its share.
I remember what a farmer in Sind, whose fields were devastated during the 2010 floods, tell a TV presenter. He was pleading, "give away Kashmir to India, otherwise they will start releasing so much water every year and ruin us". It was natural for people to blame India for those unprecedented floods. Such misconceptions need to be removed.
India has for years been saying that they have never violated the "Indus Water Treaty" even in war time. Even when they were dragged to international tribunal for arbitration, the facts were very clear. This bogey of India stealing water is hardly three years old as usual a creative invention of the Establishment and its cronies in the Media. Diverting attention from pressing domestic problems and failures is the time tested practice in support of the Security Doctrine. Lots of honorable characters like Jamaat Ali Shah have paid the price for not toeing the official line.
@wonderer: "Will someone please send a copy of this excellent piece, along with an Urdu translation, to Hafiz Saeed and Gen. Hamid Gul of the Difa-e-Pakistan Council fame? These two gentlemen have been spreading a lot of misinformation." Sir, not just these 2. As per Khaled saab there were 2 others also "Then, the army chief and the prime minister also raised “the issue of waters” in their statements". So then who all should receive the copies of Urdu translation?
Good facts in the article and as they have been published in the paper, I am sure they must have been checked against the source.
However, after reading all of it, it seems that the author is trying to exonerate Jamaat Ali Shah. But this exoneration is implicit not explicit, and keeping in view the lack of any depth among people of land of the pure, will go unnoticed. So it would have been much better if the author concluded explicitly that Jamaat Ali Shah has been made target without any substance.
Had it not been for Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan would have lost all its water. Mullahs opposed Pakistan. Their real agenda is now to end Pakistan. Of this have no doubt.
"Annexure C of the Indus Waters Treaty allows India to take some water from the Western Rivers given to Pakistan. Annexure E says there is no bar on India building water storage dams for electricity generation on the Western Rivers."
"some water" that means amount of water remains undefined.This great flaw in the agreement may be the cause of all dispute over water.Second which party is given the right to interpret the agreement.If India is given the right of interpretation then there is nothing left for Pakistan to argue.If none of the party is given the right of interpretation but the mediater i.e world bank, then there is less chance of India stealing water.Pakistan reluctance to go into international forum shows there is less issue involve than more politics.One hopes India hasn't stolen water ,if that is the case, then Jamaat Ali Shah discloser should come as a great relief for Pakistan.
Wait a moment. If India did everything by the book then why all the fuss? It appears the Pakistanis gave away too many concessions to India at the negotiating table back then. what must br brought out in the public now is whether it was blatant negligence on willful collusions on part of the Pakistani officials involved in the negotiation process.
Pakistanis seek to comfort themselves for their collective failures by blaming one person, or one country, or one hand (both visible and invisible).
The problem is that, most of the Pakistanis are illiterate. Those few who are literate in Pakistan, don't have patience to read any document fully. They will jump to the conclusion and brainwash the illiterate. And then when the literates, read the document fully and realize the mistake, the illiterates would have proved their "Innocence...".
An Israeli here An American there An Indian everywhere But not for them.., Pakistan would be land of grandeur
Thank you sir, once again. Putting the records straight as usual without fear or favour.