Wednesday, 17 August 2011

The waters that haunts the India and Pakistan

What is the basic problem?


The highlights of the issue..


1.  Concern is growing in Pakistan that India is controlling the water flow of rivers that flow from India into Pakistan, especially the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers that pass through India’s Jammu & Kashmir state.
2.  Pakistan has raised objections to Indian water projects, but a World Bank-appointed neutral expert rejected most of the Pakistani objections, especially with regard to the Baglihar Dam on Chenab river, while also advising India to make some changes to the dam’s height.
3.  Pakistani commentators, pressure groups and religious leaders think that India is controlling the river waters to strangulate Pakistani agriculture, which could affect Pakistani exports and increase its dependency on food imports. Pakistani commentators fear future war with India may break out over water disputes.
4. Public debate on the issue in Pakistan is often framed in terms of an international conspiracy involving the Jews, the Israel and the United States, though the issue itself is of bilateral nature with India. The water issue is seen as a defense security concern. Senior Pakistani editor Majeed Nizami, considered close to the military establishment, has threatened nuclear war against India.
5.  There is a realization in Pakistan that the 1960 Indus Water Treaty that establishes legal framework for use of river waters has been to the advantage of India. However, Pakistani authorities are raising the issue of water sharing between the two nuclear neighbors. Bilateral talks on India’s water projects are continuing.

 Introduction



Pakistani columnists, religious leaders, and policymakers are increasingly articulating their concern over the water dispute in terms of a traditional rivalry against India and in terms of anti-Israel sentiment that has been fostered by the country's establishment over the years. In one such recent case, Ayaz Amir, a renowned Pakistani columnist, warned: "Insisting on our water rights with regard to India must be one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy. The disputes of the future will be about water." Hamid Gul, former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), charged: "India has stopped our water." Pakistan's Indus Basin Water Council (IBWC), a pressure group that appears deceivingly authoritative as an organization whose central purpose is to address Pakistani water concerns, currently maintains near hegemony over the public debate of the issue. IBWC Chairman Zahoorul Hassan Dahir claimed that "India, working in conjunction with the Jewish lobby" is using most of the river waters, causing a shortage of food, water and electricity in Pakistan. 
Concern is growing in Pakistan that India is pursuing policies in an attempt to strangulate Pakistan by exercising control over the water flow of Pakistan's rivers. The concern is most related to Pakistan’s agricultural sector, which would be greatly affected by the building of dams and by the external control of the waters of several rivers that flow into Pakistan.The issue has a layered complexity, as three of the rivers flow into Pakistan through the Indian portion of Jammu & Kashmir, the territory over which the two countries have waged multiple wars.
The Pakistani concern involves six rivers that flow into Pakistan through northern India, including the disputed state of Jammu & Kashmir and the state of Punjab, both of which have been ideologically divided between India and Pakistan since 1947. After the creation of Pakistan in 1947, disagreements began to arise over sharing of river waters, leading to the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, an attempt at a resolution brokered by the World Bank.Though the treaty is perhaps the most enduring pact between the two nuclear powers, it is coming under increasing strain.
Understanding the Indus River System
The Indus Water Treaty sets out the legal framework for the sharing of the waters of six rivers: the Indus River and its five tributaries. All six rivers - Indus, Chenab, Jhelum, Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi - flow through northern India into Pakistan. Under the pact, the waters of three rivers - the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum, which pass through Jammu & Kashmir - are to be used by Pakistan, while India has rights to the waters of the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi before these three enter Pakistani territory. The Chenab is the key tributary, as it carries the waters of the rest four rivers into the Indus.
The complicated origins of the Indus river system plays a key role in the water debates, as the rivers originate in and pass through a number of countries. According to the Indus Water Treaty, the following three rivers are for use by Pakistan:
The Indus River: originates in Chinese-controlled Tibet and flows through Jammu & Kashmir.
The Chenab: originates in India’s Himachal Pradesh state, travels through Jammu & Kashmir.
The Jhelum: rises in Jammu & Kashmir and flows into Pakistan, finally joining Chenab.
The Treaty affords India use of the following three rivers:
The Sutlej: originates in Tibet, flows through Himachal Pradesh and Punjab before joining the Chenab.
The Beas and the Ravi: originate in Himachal Pradesh state and flow into Pakistan, emptying into the Chenab.
Taking into account the flow of the rivers, the importance of the Chenab and the Indus becomes clear. The Chenab combines the waters of four rivers, the Jhelum, the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi, to form a single water system which then joins the Indus in Pakistan. The Indus River is considered to be the lifeline of Pakistani economy and livestock.
Pakistani Concern and Baglihar Dam
Pakistani concern regarding the water from the rivers started in the 1990s after India began constructing a hydroelectric power project on the Chenab River in the Doda district of Jammu & Kashmir. Since the Chenab is the key tributary of the Indus, Pakistani policymakers, religious and political parties, and political commentators feared that India could exert control over the waters. Such control could be used to injure the Pakistani economy and livestock, or could be used to cause floods in Pakistan by the release of water during times of war. Discussions of Pakistan's concerns are most often centralized around the Baglihar dam, though it is only one of the several water projects being developed by India in its part of Jammu & Kashmir.
The first phase of the Baglihar dam, a 450-MW hydroelectric power project initiated in the 1990s, was completed on October 10, 2008. Inaugurating the project, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh noted: "It is a matter of satisfaction that the reconstruction program... [entailing] 67 projects is well under way with 19 projects completed, one of which is the Baglihar project that I inaugurated today."The fact that the Baglihar dam is one of 67 development projects underway in Jammu & Kashmir raises further concerns among many Pakistanis who believe that Kashmir, having a Muslim majority, rightfully belongs to the Islamic state of Pakistan. The extensive building of infrastructure by India is therefore a cause of further Pakistani displeasure and contention.
While Pakistan's domestic behaviour in terms of water usage is partly responsible for the depletion of the water table, the construction of Baglihar dam by India has multiplied Pakistani concerns. Pakistani writers warn that the dam will deprive Pakistan of 321,000 acres’ feet of water during the agricultural season, greatly affecting wheat production in the Punjab province and leading to crop failures.There are some warnings that the dam will adversely affect 13 million acres of irrigated land around the Chenab and Ravi rivers, forcing Pakistani farmers to change crops, and in the face of starvation, deepening Pakistan’s dependence on food imports and burdening the country's national exchequer.In an editorial published in June 2009, Pakistan's mass-circulation Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jang said India "is nursing an unpious dream of turning the entirety of Pakistan into a desert." 
The discussion of water easily ignites popular passion because Pakistan is increasingly confronted by an impending water crisis. In early 2009, it was estimated that Pakistan is on the brink of a water disaster, as the availability of water in Pakistan has been declining over the past few decades, from 5,000 cubic meters per capita 60 years ago to 1,200 cubic meters per capita in 2009. By 2020, the availability of water is estimated to fall to about 800 cubic meters per capita.M. Yusuf Sarwar, a member of the Indus Basin Water Council, has warned that the lessening flow of water in rivers and shortage of water generally could cause Pakistan to be declared a disaster-affected nation by 2013.Dr. Muhammad Yar Khawar, a scientist at the University of Sindh, released research last year based on sample surveys that warns that less than 20 percent of below-surface water in the Sindh province, previously thought to be a viable water source, is acceptable for drinking.

Amidst this shortage of water, Pakistan is also confronted with a number of internal factors that amount to further strain. One columnist warned that with Pakistan's population set to jump to 250 million in just a few years' time, a shortage of water, along with that of oil, sugar, and wheat, will become a major problem.Pakistan is also estimated to be losing 13 million cusecs [approximately 368,119 cubic meters/second] of water every year from its rivers into the sea, as it does not have enough reservoirs or dams to store water.Further tensions arise from allegations of inequitable distribution of water between various Pakistani provinces. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA), which allocates water to provinces, averted a major political controversy between provinces in June 2009 by declaring that there would be no cuts in their water supply.
Pakistan-Indian Talks
Under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, India is not permitted to build dams for the purpose of water storage on the Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum rivers, but it is allowed to make limited use of their waters, including developing run-of-the-river hydroelectric power projects. India is required to provide Pakistan with the technical details of any water project it wants to develop on these rivers before building begins.Pakistan has formally raised objections on the technical specifications of the Baglihar dam, including design, size, gated spillways, and water capacity.Over the past decade, India and Pakistan held a series of talks on the issue of the Baglihar dam but could not resolve the matter within the framework of the 1960 treaty.
In 2003, Pakistan formally served a final notice to the Indian government, urging it to resolve the Baglihar issue by December 31, 2003, a process that failed to yield results.In 2005, Pakistan approached the World Bank for mediation. The World Bank noted that it was "not a guarantor of the treaty," but had the authority to appoint a neutral expert.In 2007, the appointed neutral expert Professor Raymond Lafitte of Switzerland delivered a verdict rejecting most of the Pakistani objections.However, Professor Lafitte did require India to make some minor changes, including reducing the dam's height by 1.5m.Significantly, Professor Lafitte's judgment classified Pakistani objections as "differences" and not a serious "dispute," which could have paved the way for the issue to be taken to a Court of Arbitration as envisaged in the treaty.
To this day, Pakistan remains dissatisfied over the Lafitte verdict. Though India has facilitated visits by Pakistani officials to the dam site and Indian delegations have visited Pakistan to examine Pakistani claims of a water shortage in the Chenab river, the countries remain at an impasse.Bilateral talks between the two countries are now increasingly focused on water disputes. Pakistan has accused India several times of completely stopping Pakistan's water from the Chenab River. In March 2008, Hafiz Zahoorul Hassan Dahir, the IBWC chairman, charged that India "completely shut down the Chenab river from the 1st to the 26th of January 2008, with not even a drop of water moving."India was also accused of curtailing the water supply from the Chenab River during September-October, 2008. Due to a precedent set in the 1978 case of the Salal dam construction by India in Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan has requested the payment of compensation for any water shortfall.In June 2009, the Pakistani government declared that India had rejected its demand for monetary compensation for the loss of water from the Chenab River. Pakistan alleged that the waters of the Chenab had been stopped by India during August 2008; however India refuted these claims, citing unreliable Pakistani statistics regarding water stoppage and loss.In an editorial, the Urdu-language Pakistani newspaper Roznama Express noted: "If India continues to build dams on our rivers and stop our water, then the day is not far when our lands will become barren and this nation, that has a spectacular history of agricultural production, will be forced to import food."The daily observed that during a meeting with President Asif Zardari, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assured the President that he was looking into the matter, but no action was taken. In October 2008, President Zardari took "serious notice" of the issue and warned of "damage to bilateral relations" if Pakistani concerns were not addressed.A few days before President Zardari’s statement, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh inaugurated the Baglihar dam project, stating that "Pakistan's concerns about the project had been addressed." 
On June 6, 2009, two years after the Lafitte verdict, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi accused India of violating the Indus Water Treaty. Qureshi further warned that any failure to resolve the water disputes "could lead to conflict in the region."Sentiment is now emerging in Pakistan that the 1960 Indus Water Treaty has proven to function to the sole advantage of India. Ayub Mayo, the president of the farmers' lobby group Pakistan Muttahida Kisan Mahaz, declared that the 1960 pact is simply "a conspiracy to deprive Pakistan of its due share of water."While the talks between the two nations regarding water-related issues are continuing into the second half of 2009, public debate in Pakistan on the subject continues to be vigorous and sentimental, raising complicated concerns of national security, traditional rivalry with India, as well as historical anti-Semitism.
The Perceived Threat
During the past two years, the debate in Pakistan about the Indian water projects in Jammu & Kashmir has gained a bitter momentum, as Pakistani leaders have begun to describe India as their eternal enemy and accuse India of trying to suffocate the Pakistani economy. Speeches by leaders often carry an element of anti-Semitism, blaming India for acting under an international conspiracy led by Israel, the U.S. and India against the Islamic state of Pakistan.
In early 2008, an editorial in the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Ausafaccused India of planning a "Water Bomb" strategy to strangle Pakistan economically. The article quoted the officials of the IBWC pressure group as saying that India wants to achieve through a "water bomb" what it could not achieve through the three wars waged over the past six decades.Noting that India is planning "50 dams to raid the waters of the rivers" flowing into Pakistan, the IBWC warned: "If this is not foiled, Pakistan will face the worst famine and economic disaster." 
In April 2008, IBWC Chairman Hafiz Zahoorul Hassan Dahir stated that India plans to construct 10 more dams on rivers streaming into Pakistan in addition to the ongoing construction of 52 new dams. "We believe that if India succeeded in constructing the proposed dams," Dahir disclosed, "Pakistan would join the list of the countries facing a severe water crisis. If we are to save Pakistan, we have to protect our waters and review our policies in Kashmir." 
One month later, Dahir accused India of using 80 percent of the water of the Chenab and Jhelum rivers and 60 percent of the water of the Indus, stating: "We can do nothing about what India is doing but we are concerned about the role of our government. If continued, this distribution of water would not only affect our energy but also agricultural production. We wonder as to why we are leading toward collective suicide." In May 2009, Dahir described "India's water terrorism as a bigger threat than Talibani terrorism," and then added: "The day is not far when circumstances like those in Somalia, Ethiopia and Chad will emerge inside Pakistan... Between India and Pakistan, there is an extremely dreadful dispute. In an aggressive manner, India has readied a weapon for use against Pakistan that is more dangerous and destructive than an atomic bomb." Dahir warned that by 2012, India will acquire the capability to completely stop the waters of the Jhelum and the Chenab. 
One month after the inauguration of first phase of the Baglihar project by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner and liaison between the countries within the framework of the 1960 treaty, warned that India plans to make Pakistan barren by 2014 by stopping its water. At a seminar in Lahore, Shah contended that India is permitted to generate electricity from the waters of the rivers but not to stop Pakistan's water as it has on several occasions, most notably from August 19 to September 5, 2008, a suspension presumably necessary to fill up the Baglihar dam.Pakistani leaders estimate that during the 36 day hiatus from September-October 2008, India deprived Pakistan of more than 1.2 million cusecs of water.
Defense Security Concerns
Within a week of the dam's October 2008 inauguration, Major General Athar Abbas, a spokesman for the Pakistan Army, expressed concern over the Baglihar dam, describing it as a "defense security concern."Abbas stated that a number of canals, drains and artificial distributaries used for irrigation purposes are crucial during times of war.The strategic importance of the Indian water projects in Kashmir is so significant that officials from the Pakistani Army headquarters attended a government meeting on the issue in February 2009 "to discuss the impact of the said dams on Pakistan's water and defense interests... The armed forces became alarmed when they learned the projects could wreak havoc... if the said dams were to collapse or malfunction." 
Retired General Zulfiqar Ali, former chairman of Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority expressed that by building dams on rivers in Kashmir, India has achieved military, economic and political supremacy vis-a-vis Pakistan.In an editorial, the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Khabrain accused India of using water as a weapon, proclaiming: "In order to establish its hegemony over the region [of South Asia], India is even using water as a weapon." Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad, a senior Pakistani politician and former Minister of Railways, has warned that Pakistan and India may go to war on the issue of water, adding: "India wants to make Pakistan a Somalia by stopping its water."Addressing a seminar in late-2008, Javed Iqbal, an eminent retired justice in Pakistan, said, "the government of Pakistan should pressure the Indian government to resolve this issue; and if it does not agree, then a threat be issued that we are ready for a war." 
A number of Pakistani commentators warned that the water issues may incite nuclear war between the two countries. At the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a convener of the Pakistani chapter of the Kashmiri secessionist organizations’ alliance, Syed Yousaf Naseem stated that Pakistan is facing a water crisis and that the Indian efforts to effect cuts in its water share from the rivers flowing into Pakistan could compel Pakistan to use unconventional weapons against India. Naseem added that: "The Kashmir issue is cardinal to Pakistan-India relations. Unless this issue is resolved, the Damocles' sword of a nuclear clash will remain hanging over the region. Kashmir is very important for Pakistan and a delay in the resolution of this issue will jeopardize the peace of the region." 
The warning of nuclear war between the two neighbors has been reiterated by multiple sources, including veteran Pakistani editor Majeed Nizami.Even former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, a center-right politician who was responsible for conducting the 1998 nuclear tests, warned in May 2009 that "the issues of water and Kashmir must be resolved as early as possible so that the clouds of war between Pakistan and India can be eliminated forever." A similar linking between water issues and Kashmiri emancipation has been articulated by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of jihadist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba. In an address to a group of farmers in Lahore last year, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed warned that the "water problem cannot be resolved without liberating Kashmir from India." Syed Salahuddin, the chairman of the Muttahida Jihad Council, a network bringing together nearly two dozen Pakistan-based militant organizations, warned in October 2008 that jihad against India in Jammu & Kashmir will continue until the territory is liberated.
Blaming the Jews
Though a few Kashmiri secessionist organizations maintain their own opinions on the water matters, Pakistan's water rows with India are essentially bilateral in nature.However, religious and political commentators in Pakistan often frame the issue in terms of an international conspiracy involving the Jews and Israel.
Majeed Nizami, editor-in-chief of Pakistan’s influential Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Nawa-i-Waqt, inserted anti-Israel sentiments in an article that primarily described India as the "eternal enemy of Pakistan."Nizami aaccused India of blocking water from the Chenab River and further proclaimed that India wants to destroy Pakistan, saying: "Our crops are not getting water. If this situation continues, Pakistan will become Sudan and Somalia." Nizami elaborated on the international threats faced by Pakistan, proclaiming that Pakistan's fight is with the "Three Satans": India, the U.S. and Israel. Nizami accused these satanic nations of being united against Pakistan because Pakistan is the only Islamic power with nuclear capability. He added:"If, in order to resolve our [water and other] problems, we have to wage a nuclear war with India, we will." 
At a seminar organized by Nazaria-e-Pakistan Foundation in April 2008 entitled "Water Crisis - Challenges Faced by the Nation and Their Solutions," Majeed Nizami went to the extent of declaring that "the Hindus [of India] had decided to make Pakistan barren even before 1947," i.e. before Pakistan was created. Presiding over the seminar was Gen. (ret) Hamid Gul, former ISI chief, who addressed the Indian dams on rivers from Jammu & Kashmir by warning: "The nation needs to be determined. If necessary, India's dams will be blown up." Though the subject of the seminar was water crisis in Pakistan, Gul went on to add: "Two states came into existence in 1947 and 1948: one, Pakistan; two, Israel. The two are threats to each other. Ultimately, only one of them will survive…. Pakistan can be saved by making a role model of the Prophet [Muhammad]." Alluding to Samuel P. Huntington's Clash-of-Civilizations thesis, Gul went on to note: "At this point, the matter is not of a war between civilizations, but that of a clash between systems. Islam is a humanity-loving religion. The West is fighting the last battle for its survival."
Hafiz Zahoorul Hassan Dahir too has repeatedly accused India of working "in cooperation with the Jewish lobby" on its power projects on the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers in order to stifle the Pakistani economy.In an article, Dahir accused India of working on a "mega plan of water aggression against Pakistan," observing that, "the practical objective of this plan is to ensure that Pakistan is reduced to being a colony of India….. A consortium has been set up in cooperation with the Jewish lobby, three other nations, two multinational firms, one trans-national NGO, secret agencies of three countries, including the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) of India, are involved."In another public statement, Dahir said that "with the cooperation of the Jewish lobby, India has opened a battlefront of water war aimed at making Pakistan’s fertile lands barren." 
In an editorial concerning the water issues, the Urdu-language newspaperRoznama Ausaf also attacked Israel. Accusing the Pakistani government of not developing a counter-strategy to confront India's "dangerous ambitions," the article alluded to external supporters of India's anti-Pakistani policy, claiming that, "India was given easy rides which helped it complete most work on Baglihar dam." The Roznama Ausaf editorial added that "with the aid of Israel, India also managed to build a fence on the working boundary and on the Line of Control [in Kashmir]. It was with Israeli help that India installed sensitive equipment on the working boundary and Line of Control to monitor the movement of Kashmiri freedom fighters." 
The International Conspiracy
In April 2009, former member of Pakistani parliament and Emir of Jamaat-e-Islami in the Sindh province Maulana Asadullah Bhutto said: "India is Pakistan’s eternal enemy and from day one until now has been engaged in destroying Pakistan. It first occupied Kashmir through a conspiracy, thereafter cut off our eastern arm [creating Bangladesh] and for the past several years now has been stealing Pakistan’s share of water... India is using Pakistan’s water and is engaged in efforts to make our lands barren." 
The Pakistan-India water dispute was discussed by the Majlis-e-Shura (executive council) of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan in May 2009. In a resolution adopted at the end of the meeting, the Jamaat-e-Islami condemned "water aggression" by India and described it as "a dreadful international conspiracy to make Pakistan face a situation like [the drought-stuck] Ethiopia by making Pakistan’s fertile lands barren." 
At another meeting organized by the Jamaat-e-Islami in Lahore, Syed Salahuddin, a jihadist commander based in Pakistani Kashmir, explained: "An attempt is being made to change the character of the population of Kashmir by inhabiting it with Hindus [from other parts of India] depriving Pakistan of water. Until now, India has not accepted the existence of Pakistan. The 160 million people of Pakistan support the Kashmiri mujahideen [militants fighting against India in Kashmir], making this fight the essence of Pakistan’s national interest. The Israeli and Brahman [elite Hindu caste] imperialism can only be defeated by jihad and the use of force. Jihad will continue to liberate every corner of Kashmir from the Indian occupation." 
Conclusion
Although bitter feelings and heated public debates are likely to persist in the years ahead, the people and leadership of Pakistan generally accept that there is nothing that Pakistan can do, especially in light of the judgment delivered in February 2007 by the World Bank-appointed neutral expert Professor Raymond Lafitte. In an editorial, the Pakistani daily The Newsobserved: "The only way to avoid problems arising is for the 1960 accord to be respected. India has, on more than one occasion, attempted to violate its spirit if not its letter, by seeking loopholes and technical flaws that can be used to its advantage. But in all this, there is also another message. The interests of the two countries are so closely linked, that they can be protected only by establishing closer ties. A failure to do so will bring only more episodes of discord, over river water, over dams, over toxic dumping in drains and over illegal border crossings...." 


In late June 2009, Pakistani Water and Power Minister Raja Parvez Ashraf observed that India does have a right to build dams, but that it cannot stop the flow of water into Pakistan in order to fill the dams. In fact, Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner, gave a rare candid interview in April 2008, stating that the Indian water projects currently undertaken do not contravene the provisions of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty. Noting that India can construct dams within the technical specifications outlined in the treaty, Shah acknowledged: "In compliance with the Indus Water Treaty, India has so far not constructed any storage dam on the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum rivers. The hydroelectric projects India is developing are on the run-of-the-river waters of these rivers, projects which India is permitted to pursue according to the treaty."
Thank you www.henryjacksonsociety.org for this valuable matter...

Siachen Glacier....The place of wild roses


Conflict Zone

The glacier is located in the disputed Kashmir region and is claimed by India and Pakistan. In spite of the severe climate, the word `Siachen` ironically means `the place of wild roses`, a reference some people attribute to the abundance of Himalayan wildflowers found in the valleys below the glacier, but specifically refers to the thorny wild plants which grow on the rocky outcrops. The glacier is also the highest battleground on Earth, where India and Pakistan have fought intermittently since 1984. Both countries maintain permanent military personnel on the glacier at a height of over 7,000 metres. The site is a prime example of mountain warfare. The glacier`s melting waters are the main source of the Nubra River, which falls into the Shyok River. The Shyok in turn joins the Indus River, crucial to both India and Pakistan.The roots of the conflict over Siachen lie in the non-demarcation of the cease-fire line on the map beyond a map coordinate known as NJ9842. The 1949 Karachi agreement and the 1972 Simla Agreement presumed that it was not feasible for human habitation to survive north of NJ9842. Prior to 1984 neither India nor Pakistan had any permanent presence in the area.

Fighting

In the 1970s and early 1980s Pakistan permitted several mountaineering expeditions to climb high peaks on this glacier. This was to reinforce their claim on the area as these expeditions arrived on the glacier with a permit obtained from the Government of Pakistan. Once having become aware of this in about 1978, Colonel N. Kumar of the Indian Army mounted an Army expedition to Teram Kangri peaks as a counter-exercise. The first public mention of a possible conflict situation was an article by Joydeep Sircar in The Telegraph newspaper of Calcutta in 1982, reprinted as “Oropolitics” in the Alpine Journal, London,in 1984. India launched Operation Meghdoot (named after the divine cloud messenger in a Sanskrit play) on 13 April 1984 when the Kumaon Regiment of the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force went into the Glacier. Pakistan, which had also gotten wind of it quickly responded with troop deployments and what followed was literally a race to the top. Within a few days, the Indians were in control over most of the glacier as Pakistan were beaten by just a week. The two passes due to Indian military pre-emption – Sia La and Bilfond La were secured by India while the Gyong La pass remained under Pakistan control. Since then both sides have launched several attempts to displace each others forces, but with little success.

Current situation

The Indian Army controls a few of the top-most heights, holding on to the tactical advantage of high ground, however with Pakistani forces in control of Gyong La pass, Indian access to K-2 and other surrounding peaks has been blocked effectively and mountaineering expeditions to these peaks continue to go through with the approval of the Government of Pakistan. The situation is as such that Pakistanis cannot get up to the glacier, while the Indians cannot come down. Presently India holds two-thirds of the glacier and commands two of the three passes including the highest motorable pass – Khardungla Pass. Pakistan controls Gyong La pass that overlooks the Shyok and Nubra river Valley and India`s access to Leh district. The battle zone comprised an inverted triangle resting on NJ 9842 with Indira Col and the Karakoram Highway as the other two extremities. Every year more soldiers are killed because of severe weather than enemy firing. The two sides have lost close to 4,000 personnel primarily due to frostbites, avalanches and other complications. Both nations have 150 manned mirroring outposts along the glacier, with some 3,000 troops each. Official figures for maintaining these outposts are put at ~$300 and ~$100 million for India and Pakistan respectively. The Indians rely on helicopters made indigenously, which are probably the only choppers that can reach such heights, whereas Pakistan has simplified the logistical nightmare by building roads and paths to all of its positions across the glacier. India has also built the world`s highest helipad on this glacier at a place called Sonam, which is 21,000 feet above the sea level, to serve the area and ensure that her troops are kept supplied via helicopter support (adding to considerable cost).During her tenure as Prime Minister of Pakistan, Ms Benazir Bhutto, visited Gyong La pass making her the first premier from either side to vist the glacier. On June 12, 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit the glacier calling for a peaceful resolution of the problem. In the previous year, the President of India, Abdul Kalam became the first head of state to visit the area. India based Jet Airways plans to open a chartered service to the glacier`s nearest airlink, the Thoise airbase, mainly to fly the soldiers. Pakistan`s PIA flies tourists and trekkers daily to Skardu, which is the jumping off point for K2, although bad weather frequently grounds these scheduled flights.The glacier`s melting waters are the source of the river Indus, a vital water source for both India and Pakistan. Global warming has had its worst impact here in the Himalayas with the Glacier melting at an unprecedented rate.On average, one Pakistani soldier is killed every fourth day, while one Indian soldier is killed every other day. Over 1,300 Pakistani soldiers have died on Siachen between 1984 and 1999. According to Indian estimates, this operation had cost India over Rs. 50 billion and almost 2,000 personnel casualties till 1997. Almost all of the casualties on both sides have been due to extreme weather conditions.

Kashmir..Paradise known for it's beauty and battles


The three rules of Partition and their uncleared explanation gave the chance for today's problems.
 India takes the Kashmir issue to the U.N. Security Council, which passes a resolution calling on Pakistan to do all it can "secure the withdrawal" of Pakistani citizens and "tribesmen" and asking that a plebiscite be held to determine the wishes of the people of Kashmir. Neither the force withdrawal nor the plebiscite has taken place.
British India is partitioned into India and Pakistan as part of the independence process. Majority Muslim areas in the West (now all of Pakistan) and East (the place now called Bangladesh) form Pakistan. The British also allow the nominal rulers of several hundred "princely states," who were tax collectors for the British and served at British pleasure, to decide whether they wanted to join India or Pakistan. Pakistan demands Kashmir accede to it. The Hindu ruler of Kashmir does not make a choice. Kashmir has three major ethnic areas: Ladakh in the northwest, which is majority Buddhist; the Kashmir Valley (controlled by India) and the part now controlled by Pakistan, which is majority Muslim, and Jammu (in the south), which is majority Hindu. The overall majority is Muslim.
After an year of the Indian Independenece..."Tribesmen" from Pakistan invade Kashmir with the support of the Pakistani government. The ruler of Kashmir asks India for help. India demands that Kashmir should accede to India first. The ruler agrees. India sends forces to Kashmir and the invasion is blocked. Kashmir is divided into a Pakistani controlled part and an Indian controlled part. This de facto partition continues to this date with the dividing line being known as the Line of Control.
1962: India and China fight a border war. China occupies a part of Ladakh.
1965: India and Pakistan fight a border war along the India-West Pakistan border and the Line of Control in Kashmir. U.N. brokered cease fire and withdrawal to pre-war lines affirmed by the leaders of the two countries at a 1966 summit meeting in Tashkent, USSR (now Toshkent, Uzbekistan).
1970-1971: An election in (East and West) Pakistan results in an overall majority for an East Pakistani party, which is ethnically mainly Bengali. The Pakistani military refuses to allow the Parliament to convene. East Pakistanis demand autonomy, then independence in the face of brutal repression by the Pakistani military. Guerilla warfare ensues. About ten million refugees stream into India from East Pakistan. India also provides sanctuary to Bangladeshi guerillas. Pakistan attacks airfields in India and Indian-controlled Kashmir. India strikes back in West Pakistan and also intervenes in the East on the side of the Bangladeshis. The U.S., in a "tilt" towards Pakistan, sends a nuclear-armed aircraft carrier, the Enterprise, and its battlegroup, to the region, in an implicit nuclear threat to India (which influences nuclear politics of India in favor of nuclear testing). Pakistan loses the war on both fronts and Bangladesh becomes independent.
1972: India and Pakistan sign a peace accord, known as the Simla (or Shimla) agreement, according to which both sides agree "to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them." Both countries agree that they will not unilaterally try to alter the Line of Control in Kashmir.
1974: India tests a nuclear device. Pakistan accelerates its nuclear weapons program.
1980s: U.S. supports Islamic resistance to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and also the dictatorship of Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, which promotes Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan.
Late 1980s: There is a state-level election in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir. There is evidence of fraud. Militancy rises in Kashmir. In 1989, the Soviets quit Afghanistan. Islamic militants from outside South Asia now become engaged in Kashmir, with the support of the Pakistani government. The violence in Kashmir becomes more dominated by foreign fighters and by religious fundamentalism. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Hindu fundamentalism begins to become more powerful as a political force in India.
1990s: Violence intensifies in Kashmir. Islamic militants carry out ethnic cleansing in the Kashmir Valley, terrorizing non-Muslims, mainly Kashmiri pundits, causing large numbers of people to flee, mainly to Jammu. Pakistan supports the cross border infiltration. The Indian military responds with repression to the terrorism, foreign infiltration, and the domestic insurgency, which are now all mixed up. There are serious human rights abuses on all sides.
1998: A coalition led by the Hindu-fundamentalist party, the BJP, comes to power in India. India and Pakistan carry out nuclear weapons tests and declare themselves nuclear weapon states. Pakistan announces that it may, under certain circumstances, use nuclear weapons first to neutralize India's conventional superiority, making reference to NATO's Cold War doctrine of potential first use in case of a European war with the Soviets. India says it will not use nuclear weapons first.
1999: Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, travels to Lahore, Pakistan for a peace meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. There is great hope for peace. Three months later Pakistan-based militants invade the Kargil area in Indian-controlled Kashmir, with the support of the military. A military confrontation, with the possibility of nuclear war, ensues. Nawaz Sharif travels to Washington and President Clinton convinces him to withdraw Pakistani forces from Kargil. Confrontation ends. Nawaz Sharif is overthrown in a military coup led by General Musharraf, one of the architects of the Kargil war. (Musharraf proclaims himself President of Pakistan in the year 2000.)
September 11, 2001: Well-known tragic events in the United States. Terrorist attacks kill about 3,000 people.
October 1, 2001: A terrorist attack on the Kashmir state legislature in Srinagar. 38 people are killed.
October 7, 2001: U.S. launches a war in Afghanistan, under the rubric of the War on Terrorism. President Musharraf becomes a U.S. ally and allows Pakistan to become a base of operations for the United States. Al Qaeda, Taliban, and their supporters in Pakistan feel severe pressure.
December 13, 2001: A terrorist attack on India's Parliament. Fourteen people (including five attackers, as well as security guards and two civilians) are killed.
Aftermath of December 13: India mobilizes and moves hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the border with Pakistan, including the Line of Control in Kashmir. The danger of conventional and nuclear war rises.
The effect of this till date:
A terrorist attack on families of Indian servicemen. More than 30 people killed. India threatens to retaliate. Pakistan makes implicit threats of nuclear weapons use in case of Indian attack. Peak of the conventional and nuclear confrontation reached in May-June 2002. Greatest threat of nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. U.S. troops and war strategy in the region imperiled. U.S. shuttle diplomacy defuses the immediate crisis as Pakistan promises to end cross border infiltration. India does not retaliate. Tensions remain high and the threat of war and nuclear weapons use persists.


Thursday, 4 August 2011

Influential Corruption

Today we are so concerned about one Suresh kalmadi,One Raja,One Dayanidhi Maran whom we say to be world's best corrupt people.But it's not only those at higher levels doing this,it all starts at a very primitive level.If someone has to bow down himself at one zero after one,we say he is corrupt.Say me who has no greed for money?Not all corruptions are related to guns.There are many which we can avoid.Black marketing and corruption is something which only proceeds when there is encouragement.
There is always a huge expectation  on our corrupt accounts in Swiss banks.We indirectly are giving away our money to develop them.Suppose that there such kind of bank in India???you recover much of that unclaimed.
Why would one billionaire desires to be a millionaire by giving away his income that he earned by some hook or crook.Punishment is not only the way to solve this.you can arrest Kanimozhi for her mistakes but you can't get back the money.there should be some method to restore the 'lost money'.There are organisations like CAG(Comptroller and Audit General of India) that see upon the budget allocations and their grants and output but they are simply watchdog but not blood hounds.what is the use of such people.?They just give information.They know the levels of corruption.But they don't care.Why can't there be a transparency in the system?If you go and file the tender application you have got to  bribe the clerk so that the tender file would be properly kept in the box.He is making no favor to you rather he is utilising his position.In India we can surely avoid this.We always prefer conventional methods to pursue the jobs.Why don't the technology take the position...The more the government degrades it's performance,the more there is involvement of unknown hands,the more is the corruption.Had the telecom sector in India is ruled under government service provider and then that sector is responsible for issue partnerships,there would have been no 2G scam.The elected representatives should be given only supervision powers and not the accession powers whereas the selected officials should have the accession powers.Then,the politicians would surely work to get the informational access to all developments in the country.For instance,the ruling coalition is busy in advertising it's achievements than providing awareness regarding governmental schemes.Had  they had only powers to supervise the governmental aides then surely they would get into the blood of the work.Hoping to see India in the hands strategical politicians rather than the aggressive ones....
Indian Sub continent evolves from the  Result of   invasion
It just not mis believe that “India Never invaded any country” but the birth of Today’s India is the outcome of series of invasion.  you can say , India not prepared any wars , only the Turks,Afgans, Arabs ,British, Spanish, Portuguese did . But the truth is before 2500 years ago India is the place of  Dravidian who are the descendants  of African   ethnicity. After some years the Aryans – who the people having the Europe as their home land , Invaded India massively and massacred Dravidians so Dravidians moved back and settled in the southern part of today’s India.    Then gradually Aryans mingled with “Dravidian” –The ancient people of India and produced new ethnicity
India has a great heritage but today culture in india is of only 2500 years old
My point is “India is not having 10,000 years even 5000 years of History”  , may the Aryans have 5000-10000 years of history but it is not considered as “Indian History “ because Aryans never landed or presence here in  India 5000 years before , even they doesn’t  know the land  (India)before .so  if you want to look at the history of India , look for the history of Dravidian not with Aryans
The foremost mistake did by every historian of India is by looking the history from “Aryans “ to “Dravidian” but it’s not the correct one because before 2500 years they are not Indians( may not belonging to Indian Soil)so the history should be look after from Dravidians to Aryans
One of the earliest civilization found on India is, Indus valley civilization is belonging to Dravidian ethnicity came to an end due to the invasion of “Aryans” from that you can conclude that “India has no history before 2500 years ago it should be called as “ Dravidian History “
“Aryans history is not considered as India’s history before they have invaded to India”
How did India Evolve:
Before Mugals captured India, India is the place of more than 300 independent nations fighting with each other to dominate one on another. So every nation has their own territory and their own king so before Mugal came no one (even Dreamed) spells the name India. When Mugals came they start capturing every places they could found, So India’s first successful integration ( I mean integration of most of the geographical area found today) was done by Mugals ( and yet they are not completely integrated the  little nations) The first complete mission was done by the British people who are the proud holders of this wonderful job , they have integrated the samstanas ( more than 300 independent nations ) under one roof then the India has born
How did South Asian Countries have south Indian Culture?
If India is considered be the country starts from Kashmir to kanya kumari ?Are you agree that the present parts of country is same as past previous years?
The Tamil king Raja Raja I (985 to 1014 CE) from Choza(chola)  dynasty invaded and successfully conquered the Andhra ,karntaka, orrisa,Bengal ( Not kerala because there is no kerala at that time it belongs to chera dynasty) and other countries like sri lanka, andoman nikobar,lakshadeep , Myanmar( Burma),Indonesia , Java and Sumatra  ,and other parts of south east Asia
For Instance..
Raja Raja I- Invaded  Most of South East Asia
The descendants of Raja Raja I expanded their territory also to Malaysia, Singapore, Kambodia, Thailand
If you any doubt in my words refer the Wikipedia reference given here and most of them you know that
Angkor Wat – The greatest temple complex of Cambodia which represents the Indian tradition and Hindu religion. Who build this temple? The answer is “Descendants of Choza dynasty (Tamil ethnicity)
These temples are build after the successful conquers of Invasion lead by Tamil kings

Wednesday, 3 August 2011

Sir creek issue


SIR CREEK ISSUE
The Sir Creek is a 96 km (60 mile) strip of water disputed between India and  Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch marshlands. The creek, which opens up into the  Arabian Sea, divides the Kutch region of the Indian state of Gujarat with the Sindh province of Pakistan. It is located at approximately 23°58′N 68°48′E.The Sir Creek dispute hinges in the actual demarcation "from the mouth of Sir Creek to the top of Sir Creek, and from the top of Sir Creek eastward to a point on the line designated on the Western Terminus". From this point onwards, the boundary is unambigiously fixed as defined by the Tribunal Award of 1968.Sir Creek is named after the British representative who was requested to mediate in a dispute between the ruler of Sindh and the Rao of Kutch over a pile of firewood
lying on the banks of the nearby Kori Creek.The creek itself is located in the uninhabited marshlands. During the monsoon season between June and September, the creek floods its banks and envelops the
low-lying salty mudflats around it. During the winter season, the area is home to flamingoes and other migratory birds.
Dispute
The Sir Creek area. The Green Line is the boundary as claimed by Pakistan, the red line is the boundary as claimed by India. The black line is the undisputed section.The dispute lies in the interpretation of the boundary line between Kutch and Sindh as depicted in a 1914 and 1925 map. At that time, the region was a part of Bombay Presidency of undivided India. After India's independence in 1947, Sindh became a part of Pakistan while Kutch remained a part of India.Pakistan lays claim to the entire creek as per paras 9 and 10 of the Bombay Government Resolution of 1914 signed between then the Government of Sindh and Rao Maharaj of Kutch.The resolution, which demarcated the boundaries between the two territories,included the creek as part of Sindh, thus setting the boundary as the eastern flank of the creek. The boundary line, known as the "Green Line", is disputed by India which maintains that it is an "indicative line", known as a "ribbon line" in technical jargon.India sticks to its position that the boundary lies mid-channel as depicted in another map drawn in 1925, and implemented by the installation of mid-channel pillars back in 1924.India supports its stance by citing the Thalweg Doctrine in International Law. The law states that river boundaries between two states are divided by the mid-channel.Though Pakistan does not dispute the 1925 map, it maintains that the Doctrine is not applicable in this case as it only applies to bodies of water that are navigable, which the Sir Creek is supposedly not. India rejects the Pakistani stance by maintaining the fact that the creek is navigable in high tide, and that fishing trawlers use it to go out to sea. Several cartographic surveys conducted have upheld the Indian claim.Another point that irks Pakistan is that Sir Creek has changed its course considerably over the years. If the boundary line is damarcated according to the Thalweg principle, Pakistan stands to lose a considerable portion of the territory that was historically part of the province of Sindh. Agreeing to India's contention would also result in the shifting of the land/sea terminus point several kilometres to the detriment of Pakistan, leading in turn to a loss of several thousand square kilometres of its Exclusive Economic Zone under the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea.In April 1965, a dispute there contributed to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, when fighting broke out between India and Pakistan. Later the same year, British Prime
Minister Harold Wilson successfully persuaded both countries to end hostilities and set up a tribunal to resolve the dispute. A verdict was reached in 1968 which saw Pakistan getting 10% of its claim of 9,000 km² (3,500 sq. miles). The majority of the area thus remained with India.
The disputed region was at the center of international attention in 1999 after Mig-21 fighter planes of the Indian Air Force shot down a Pakistani Navy Breguet Atlantique surveillance aircraft over the Sir Creek on August 10, 1999, killing all 16 on board.India claimed that the plane had strayed into its airspace, which was disputed by the Pakistani navy Economic reasons Though the creek has little military value, it holds immense economic gain. Much of the region is rich in oil and gas below the sea bed, and control over the creek would have a huge bearing on the energy potential of each nation. Also once the boundaries are defined, it would help in the determination of the maritime boundaries which are drawn as an extension of onshore reference points. Maritime boundaries also help in determining the limits of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelves. EEZs extend to 200 nautical miles (370 km) and can be subjected to commercial exploitation.The demarcation would also prevent the inadvertent crossing over of fishermen of both nations into each others' territories.
Dispute resolution
Since 1969, there have been eight rounds of talks between the two nations, without a breakthrough. Steps to resolve the dispute include:
1. Allocation
2. Delimitation
3. Demarcation
4. Administration
Since neither side has conceded ground, India has proposed that the maritime boundary could be demarcated first, as per the provisions of Technical Aspects of Law of Sea (TALOS).However, Pakistan has staunchly refused the proposal on the grounds that the dispute should be resolved first. Pakistan has also proposed that the two sides go in for international arbitration, which India has flatly refused. India maintains that all bilateral disputes should be resolved without the intervention of
third-parties.
So, keeping the above discussion in mind, we can say that the problem is not so complex to be tackled. Therefore, Pakistan and India should come forward to resolve the issue as soon as possible. Because, once the issue is settled it will be beneficial for both the countries economically as well as militarily.