Thursday, October 24, 2013

Definition of Liberal: Post # 51

What is meant by Liberal?

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal : of or belonging to the liberal political party in countries like Canada and the United Kingdom
: not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted


 capitalized :  of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism;especially :  of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

 a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically :  such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)
a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard

often capitalized :  a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government. Liberalism originated as a defensive reaction to the horrors of the European wars of religion of the 16th century (see Thirty Years' War). Its basic ideas were given formal expression in works by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both of whom argued that the power of the sovereign is ultimately justified by the consent of the governed, given in a hypothetical social contract rather than by divine right (see divine kingship). In the economic realm, liberals in the 19th century urged the end of state interference in the economic life of society. Following Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity than those that are partly state-controlled. In response to the great inequalities of wealth and other social problems created by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated limited state intervention in the market and the creation of state-funded social services, such as free public education and health insurance. In the U.S. the New Deal program undertaken by Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt typified modern liberalism in its vast expansion of the scope of governmental activities and its increased regulation of business. After World War II a further expansion of social welfare programs occurred in Britain, Scandinavia, and the U.S. Economic stagnation beginning in the late 1970s led to a revival of classical liberal positions favouring free markets, especially among political conservatives in Britain and the U.S. Contemporary liberalism remains committed to social reform, including reducing inequality and expanding individual rights. See alsoconservatism; individualism

adjective
1.     relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
2.     relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
3.     giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
4.     tolerant of other people
5.     abundant; lavish  a liberal helping of cream
6.     not strict; free  a liberal translation
7.     of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability
noun

Definition of a Liberal or What God thinks of liberals

God himself gave the definition of a liberal when he said in an Old Testament prophecy, “The vile person shall be no more called liberal.” He was speaking of a time to come when vile people will no longer be allowed to hide behind the label of liberal--thinking themselves sophisticated and modern and open minded. But they will be shown for what they really are--vile.

Isaiah 32:5-8
5. The vile person shall be no more called
 liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. 6. For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail  7. The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. 8. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
The word Liberal by itself when looked up in dictionaries has mostly a desirable definition. But the scripture is clear that vile people are being referred to as liberal.  God said there would come a time when the vile would no more be called liberal. This shows that right now vile people are being called liberal and God says he will stop this practice some time in the future.  He also said the churl (rude and stingy) are being called bountiful.
There is another scripture in Isaiah 5:20 that addresses this.  It says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
In Isaiah 32:8 (quoted above) it says  "But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand."  He is saying that the truly liberal or noble person will do truly noble things and stand.  You only have to examine the behavior of the liberals today to see that they are not noble or princely.  They are the people who want abortion on demand which is gruesome and horrid--not noble.  So we know the scripture is true that vile people are being called liberal.
Some English Definitions:

Liberal - marked by generosity; given or provided in a generous and openhanded way; broadminded; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.  Also: lacking moral restraint, licentious 
 
Vile - Morally base, shamefully wicked, despicable, vicious, loathsome, disgusting.

Villainy - Conduct characteristic of a villain.


From Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries by James Strong

H5081  Liberal
áéã›ðˆ
naòdŒòyb
naw-deeb'
From H5068; properly voluntary, that is, generous; hence, magnanimous; as noun, a grandee (sometimes a tyrant):—translated to English as--free,liberal (things), noble, prince, willing ([hearted]).

H5036  Vile
ìá˜ðˆ
naòbaòl
naw-bawl'
From H5034; stupid; wicked (especially impious):—translated to English as--fool, foolish, foolish man, foolish woman, vile person.


The next time you hear anyone is a liberal, show them Isaiah 32:5 and tell them, "This is what God thinks of liberals."

Do not think that this page is an endorsement of the deeds of the so called "conservatives."  I am not playing politics here.   Politics has descended to the level of gang warfare with political parties being the gangs involved.

I keep hearing the word freedom, but there seems to be less freedom.  Democracy in some nations has become nothing more than the slaves getting to choose and vote for their slave masters.



A Liberal Definition By JFK

http://www.liberalparty.org/images/JFK1.gifAcceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health,their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I’m proud to say I’m a "Liberal."
But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
In short, having set forth my view — I hope for all time — two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.
Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world’s history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.
Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.
Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children’s development. They went tonight schools; they built their own future, their union’s future, and their country’s future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children’s time, suburb by suburb.
Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn’t make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.
In Winston Churchill’s words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist." And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.
This is an important election — in many ways as important as any this century — and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.
I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.
Some pundits are saying it’s 1928 all over again. I say it’s 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Indian View Point on Indus Water Treaty: Post # 50

Speech by Mr. Sharat Sabharwal, High Commissioner of India on Indus Waters Treaty, delivered at the function organized by the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations and Pakistan-India Citizens Friendship Forum on 3 April 2010
(Updated in December 2012)


Global water resources, taken for granted by mankind, are getting increasingly scarce and coming under added stress because of growing population. Water supplies are getting adversely affected by factors such as climate change. Because water is a precious resource, its depletion is a matter of serious concern and arouses public anxiety. But precisely because water is precious, public discourse on its growing scarcity ought to be well informed, so that it leads us to the right approach in ensuring the water security of our own and coming generations.

2.       Ladies and Gentlemen, the issue of water sharing that arose between our countries in 1947, was settled with the coming into force of The Indus Waters Treaty in 1960. This treaty was the result of 8 years of painstaking negotiations carried out by India and Pakistan with the good offices of the World Bank. The Treaty was voluntarily accepted by the two sides as fair and equitable. The thoroughness with which it deals with various aspects of water sharing is a testimony to the hard work put in by the negotiators of both sides to produce an enduring framework. It laid down the rights and obligations of both sides in relation to the use of waters of the Indus system of rivers. It also laid down a framework for resolution, in a co-operative spirit, of the questions, differences or disputes that might arise in implementation of the Treaty, through bilateral means or use, if necessary, of the services of a neutral expert or a Court of Arbitration.

3.       Those who question the fairness of the Indus Waters Treaty to Pakistan need to note that it assigned 80% share of water of the Indus system of rivers to Pakistan. The Treaty gave the   use of Eastern Rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi) - with a mean flow of 33 MAF - to India, while giving the use of the Western Rivers, viz. Indus, Jhelum and Chenab – with a mean flow of 136 MAF - to Pakistan. Since Pakistan was dependent on water supplies from the Eastern Rivers until the 15th of August 1947, India also agreed to pay a sum of 62 million Pounds Sterling to Pakistan to build replacement canals from the Western Rivers and other sources. These were clearly not the gestures of an upper riparian bent upon depriving the lower riparian of water, as is alleged by some today. The Treaty also permitted limited use of water of Western Rivers by India as follows: -
a)      Domestic use: - This includes use for drinking, washing, bathing and sanitation etc.
b)      Non consumptive use: - This covers any control or use of water for navigation, floating of timber or other property, flood control and fishing etc.
c)      Agricultural use: - India can draw water from the Western Rivers in terms of maximum permissible Irrigated Crop Area. The total area permitted to be irrigated by India is 1.34 million acres.
d)      Generation of Hydroelectric Power :- India can use water from the Western Rivers for run -of- the river hydroelectric projects as well as for hydroelectric projects incorporated in a storage work, but only to the extent permitted in the provisions regulating storage of water by India from the Western Rivers.
e)      Storage of water by India on the Western Rivers: - The Indus Waters Treaty allows India storage capacity on Western Rivers to the tune of 3.6 MAF, in addition to the storage that already existed on these rivers before the coming into force of the Treaty. Out of this, 1.25 MAF is general storage. The remaining quantity is split between 1.6 MAF for generation of hydroelectricity and 0.75 MAF for flood control. In terms of rivers, 0.4 MAF storage is allowed on the Indus, 1.5 on Jhelum and 1.7 on Chenab.
4.       This limited use of water from Western Rivers by India is subject to the conditions laid down in the Treaty to protect the interests of both countries. However, India is yet to use fully its entitlement to the waters of Western Rivers. As against its storage entitlement of 3.6 MAF, India has built no storage so far. Out of the area of 1.34 million acres, permitted for irrigation, we are currently irrigating only 0.79 million acres. This includes 0.642 million acres which was already irrigated as on 1.4.1960, the date on which the Treaty became effective. We have exploited only a fraction of the hydroelectric potential available to us on these rivers. Out of a total potential of 18,653 MW, projects worth 2456 MW have been commissioned and those for about 2000MW are under implementation. In any case, even after India starts using its full entitlement of water from the Western Rivers under the Treaty, it will amount to no more than 3% of the mean flow in these rivers.

5.       In order to ensure that implementation of the Treaty received constant attention, a Permanent Indus Commission was created, with a senior and widely experienced Commissioner for Indus Waters from each side. The Commission is charged with the responsibility to establish and maintain co-operative arrangements for implementation of the Treaty, to promote co-operation between the Parties in the development of the waters of the Rivers and to settle promptly any questions arising between the Parties. Each Commissioner for Indus Waters serves as a regular channel of communication in all matters relating to implementation of the Treaty. The Commission undertakes a general tour of inspection of the rivers once in five years and special tours in the interim. The Commission meets regularly at least once a year and in the interim as required. It has so far undertaken a total of  114 tours, both in India and Pakistan, and has held  107 meetings. The Commission has shown tremendous potential in ensuring smooth functioning of the Treaty. In the 105th meeting held in 2010, the Commission amicably resolved outstanding issues of Chutak HEP in Indus sub-basin and Uri II HEP on river Jhelum, besides the issues raised on the initial filling of the Baglihar HEP on river Chenab. In the 50 years of the Treaty, only once was an issue, viz. Baglihar, referred to a neutral expert. Now the issues of Kishenganga HEP have been raised before a Court of Arbitration. In these cases, India has not shied away from its obligations under the Treaty to cooperate. We believe that the potential of the Permanent Indus Commission can and ought to be used more effectively. In fact, we could even have the Commission sit in the nature of a consultative dispute avoidance body and take the views of experts – national and international – with a view to bringing up-to - date technology to the notice of the Commission to help it reach correct and acceptable solutions.

6.       Ladies and Gentlemen, public discourse in Pakistan has of late increasingly focused on certain alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of India as being responsible for water scarcity in Pakistan. “Water issue” between India and Pakistan is spoken of as an issue whose resolution is essential to build peace between our two countries. Preposterous and completely unwarranted allegations of “stealing water” and waging a “water war” are being made against India. It is alleged that we are hindering water flows into Pakistan and developing the infrastructure to stop and divert these flows to serve our own needs. Such accusations bear no relation whatsoever to the reality on the ground. The fact is that India has been scrupulously providing Pakistan the waters in keeping with the Indus Waters Treaty.  We have never hindered water flows to which Pakistan is entitled, not even during the wars of 1965 and 1971 as well as other periods of tense relations and we have no intention of doing so. Those, who allege that India is acquiring the capacity to withhold water from flowing to Pakistan, completely ignore the fact that this would require a storage and diversion canals network on a large scale. Such a network simply does not exist and figures nowhere in our plans.

7.       I shall now deal with the apprehensions, misconceptions, misinformation and allegations pertaining to India that characterize the debate on water scarcity in Pakistan.

8.       The Indus Waters Treaty does not require India to deliver any stipulated quantities of water to Pakistan in the Western Rivers. Instead, it requires us to let flow to Pakistan the water available in these rivers, excluding the limited use permitted to India by the Treaty, for which we do not need prior agreement of Pakistan.  Reduced flows into Pakistan from time to time are not the result of violation of Indus Waters Treaty by India or any action on our part to divert such flows or to use more than our assigned  uses of water from Western Rivers. Water flows in rivers depend, inter alia, on melting of snow and quantum of rainfall.  The quantum of water flow in Western Rivers, as indeed in any other river, varies from year to year, dipping in certain years and recovering in some subsequent years. Permit me to illustrate this point by using the flows data in respect of the three rivers.
9.       Let us start with the river Chenab by using the average flows data for the month of September over a period of ten years since 1999 at six recording points, beginning deep on the Indian side at Udaipur and moving westwards to Marala, where Chenab enters Pakistan. The flows (Discharge in Cusecs) are as follows:-
Year
Above Marala
Akhnoor
Salal HEP
Dhamkund
Premnagar
Udaipur
2011
51002
37122
41429
38458
30794
14021
2010
50814
36917
37709
32753
26116
14416
2009
27167
21829
23331
20062
20665
7220
2008
22991
18453
17306
18001
15611
8271
2007
32568
28765
27250
28653
22686
10195
2006
68901
55345
41943
37548
27285
11149
2005
43157
32364
30079
34597
31006
10358
2004
31978
25492
24955
31115
24450
11500
2003
45062
31690
30127
37558
27920
11484
2002
36954
24123
23864
26056
20446
10720
2001
29027
21798
20696
24171
20248
10624
2000
37583
29280
29650
34363
26232
12265
1999
48242
33004
35349
46498
33258
14313

10.     It will be seen from the above table that increase or decrease of flows at Marala is reflected in the flows at all the points on the Indian side. This shows that when Pakistan receives reduced flows, it is because of reduced flows available on the Indian side and not because of any diversion of water by India. Increased or reduced flows at Udaipur get reflected at all the subsequent points. This point is also illustrated by the following table of the annual flow in Chenab (MAF) from 2000-01 to 2011-12:-



2000-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
11-12
Merala

18.72
19.96
25.39
24.96
21.81
22.22*
28.18
19.32
19.65
18.17
27.0703
20.8843
Akhnoor
+Jammu Tawi
15.70
16.42
19.20
21.06
17.96
22.13
24.24
17.83
18.03
17.8402
24.85
18.08
*Does not include data for June, 2005.

The above table shows that increase or decrease of flow entering Pakistan is accompanied by corresponding increase or shortage in India.

11.     The following table illustrates flows in Jhelum (MAF) at Uri during the period 2007-08 to 2011-12:-

2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Annual
4.8933
6.0266
5.682
8.7049
4.8532
October-March
1.4328
1.961
1.4159
2.1392
1.3653


12.     The annual flow in Jhelum at Uri, which was 4.89 MAF in 2007-08, recovered to 6.03 MAF in 2008-09, but rose subsequently to register figures of 8.705 MAF in 2010-11, then again dipped to  4.853 MAF in 2011-12. The October to March flow (lean season) in Jhelum at Uri shows the same pattern.

13.     Combined annual flows (MAF) for January-December period in Indus at Nimoo and Chutak for the years 2002 to 2010  are no exception to the above trend as will be seen in the following table:-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
8.96
11.30
6.51
9.41
10.58
8.41
9.95
9.93
12.3

It will be seen from the above table that the combined flows rose from 6.51 MAF in 2004 to 10.58 MAF in 2006, again dipped to 8.41 MAF in 2007. The flows have been steadier in recent years, registering 9.95 in 2008 and 9.93 MAF in 2009. It again rose to 12.3 MAF in 2010.

14.     The data that I have provided in respect of flows in all the three Western Rivers clearly demonstrates that these flows have followed a curve moving up and down, depending upon climatic factors from year to year, rather than showing progressive decline, which would be the case if there were any truth in the allegations of India building infrastructure to progressively deprive Pakistan of its share of water.

15.     A complaint has often been made that India has not been providing data of water flows regularly. In accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty, India and Pakistan exchange daily data on about 600 Gauge and Discharge sites on a monthly basis. India has been fulfilling its obligation in providing this data. However, if for some reason, data for particular points is not available, it is so indicated and such information, when received, is provided as supplementary data. I am told that this practice is followed by both sides. India has also supplied in the past, as a gesture of goodwill, data on floods to enable Pakistan take timely action for preventing damage as a result of floods.

16.     One also hears the accusation that India is building hundreds of dams/ hydroelectric projects to deny Pakistan its share of water. This does not correspond to the reality on the ground. There are no quantitative limits on the hydroelectricity that India can produce using the Western Rivers. There is also no limit to the number of run-of- the river projects that India can build. However, India has so far undertaken a limited number of projects. We have provided information to Pakistan, as per the Treaty, in respect of  48 projects. Out of these,  23 are in operation,  18 are under construction,  remaining are still under consideration. Out of these  48 projects, as many as  32 have a capacity of 10 MW or less. Projects identified for implementation in the coming years number 15. This certainly does not make for hundreds of dams/ hydroelectric projects.

17.     The Indus Waters Treaty requires India to provide certain specified technical information to Pakistan at least six months before the commencement of construction of river works for a hydroelectric or storage project (the period is two months for a Small Plant), in order to enable Pakistan to satisfy itself that the design of a plant conforms to the provisions of the Treaty. If Pakistan raises any objection, it has to be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. India has been meeting its obligation to provide the specified information as necessary. In all the cases in the past, India has responded to all queries from Pakistan about such projects, even if these were not strictly in keeping with the Treaty, in order to address Pakistan’s concerns. This has resulted in endless delays and cost overruns. The Tulbul Navigation project is a case in point. India provided information to Pakistan on this project as a matter of goodwill. As a further gesture of goodwill, works on the project were unilaterally stopped by India in October, 1986 and remain suspended to this day. However, infinite queries from Pakistan could amount to a virtual veto on Indian projects. This is not the intention of the Treaty in requiring India to provide information in advance of the river works. India is within its rights to proceed with the construction of a plant at the end of the period of advance notice, even if Pakistan raises objections, subject to any subsequent changes in design or any other consequences that may flow from resolution of the matter under Article IX of the Treaty.

18.     India had communicated information concerning Baglihar project on Chenab to Pakistan as early as in 1992. Pakistan’s objections were referred to a neutral expert in 2005 at the request of Pakistan. The expert upheld India’s design approach and suggested only minor changes in the scope of construction. Pakistan subsequently objected to the initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir. However, this was done by us in keeping with the Treaty provisions. In fact, the Pakistan Indus Commissioner was invited to India at his request in July, 2008 to be briefed about the procedure of initial filling. The actual filling was done in August the same year within the time window specified in the Treaty. As already mentioned, the issue was resolved by the Commission in its meeting held in 2010.

19.     The Kishanganga hydroelectric project on a tributary of river Jhelum has also been objected to by Pakistan, inter alia, on the ground that Pakistan has existing uses on the waters of Kishanganga (Neelum). The water used by KHEP for power generation is less than 1% of the annual flows in the Western Rivers. And that too will flow down to Pakistan after power generation. The matter was  discussed in Commission from 2004 till 2009. India held the view  that the matter should be resolved at the Commission level, keeping in mind the provisions of the Treaty and the findings of the neutral expert in the Baglihar case. In August 2009, we also informed Pakistan that in case technical experts were unable to resolve the issue, efforts could be made to take it up at government level. However, the matter is now before a Court of Arbitration constituted on Pakistan’s request.

20.     Ladies and Gentlemen, India has all along adhered to the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty and will continue to do so. However, it is natural for questions and issues to arise in the course of implementation of any treaty. We believe that the Permanent Indus Commission is the best forum to resolve all such matters. However, for any issues that cannot be resolved in the Commission, Article IX of the Treaty provides a mechanism for settlement of differences and disputes, which can be resorted to by the aggrieved party. India has never deterred Pakistan from invoking these provisions, although it has always been India’s point that the issues are better resolved bilaterally. Since the Indus Waters Treaty provides an elaborate framework for distribution of water and resolving any questions, differences or disputes, we fail to understand attempts by some quarters in Pakistan to inflame public passions on the subject. Angry statements targeting India can neither increase the quantity of available water, nor can such statements become a substitute for the mechanism in the Treaty to resolve differences regarding its implementation.

21.     Concerns have also been expressed about some Indian projects on Western Rivers from the environmental point of view. I would like to assure you that we have strict norms for such projects under our Environmental Protection Act and Forests Protection Act. These norms include Catchment Area Treatment Plans and Compensatory afforestation.

22.     We have often heard the bizarre allegation that India wants to deprive Pakistan of water to dry up its canals and drains etc, which besides serving as irrigation channels, can also serve as defensive features in times of war. Prima facie, it is India’s belief that the strict provisions in the Treaty which India has to comply with, were not crafted to address the war scenario but to assure Pakistan against any concern in its  peaceful use of water. The Chenab Canal network is mentioned in particular in this connection. There is no truth in this allegation. It is clear from what I have mentioned so far that India has not taken any action to deprive Pakistan of its share of water and consequently to dry up its canals.

23.     Another allegation being leveled is that the hydropower projects of India could have a cumulative impact on the waters flowing to Pakistan at some critical time when Pakistan needs waters the most. Such allegations perhaps, are oblivious of the provisions in the Treaty and the background of its formulation.  The Treaty restricts the Pondage which can be availed by India in its hydropower projects. It has laid down provisions to ensure due releases from such Pondages. Depending on the location of the plant, the Treaty requires India to release all the waters received upstream of the plant in any seven day period within the same period of seven days, or the water received in any one period of 24 hours within the same period of 24 hours. The Treaty also requires India to provide a  regulating basin if a project on Chenab were closer to the border.   The factual position has already been stated earlier. Out of 48 projects, 32 have a capacity of 10 MW or less. In respect of river Chenab, out of 15 projects in operation/ implementation, 12 have no or negligible pondage. Baglihar has a pondage as determined by the Neutral Expert and Dulhasti has a much smaller pondage. As India also has some irrigation uses downstream of these projects, it is difficult to presume that such allegations could be true. 

24.     Another piece of misinformation being spread by certain circles is that a dam/hydroelectric project is being built by the Government of Afghanistan on the Kabul River with India’s assistance and this would adversely affect the flows of this river to Pakistan. I would like to inform you that there is no truth in this allegation. Those who make it ought to know that a dam or hydroelectric project is not something that can be built surreptitiously. It is highly undesirable to mislead people by making such baseless allegations on issues, which are easily verifiable on the ground.

25.     Ladies and Gentlemen, the issue of water scarcity in Pakistan cannot be analyzed fully without looking at the picture in the large part of the Indus basin – around 65% - that lies in Pakistan’s territory or territory controlled by Pakistan. A preponderant portion of the water of the Western Rivers flowing through Pakistan is generated in the catchment area within Pakistan or territory under Pakistan’s control. This share of water is completely controlled by Pakistan. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the excessive and, in many cases, exclusive focus of the public discourse on water scarcity in Pakistan on flows from India. Moreover, as water gets increasingly scarce, the issues of water management and avoidance of wastage of water assume greater significance.

26.     According to WAPDA, the per capita availability of water in Pakistan was 1038 cubic metres in 2010 with a population of 172 million. This has reduced from 5260 cubic metres in 1951 when population was 34 million. Thus despite the change in the climatic factors, the total available water in 2010 in Pakistan practically remained the same in last 60 years. Speaking of the availability and use of water in Pakistan, the Pakistan Water Sector Strategy issued by the Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan, in 2002 stated the following: “The Indus River and its tributaries on average bring about 152 million acre feet of water annually. This includes 143 MAF from the three Western rivers and 8.4 MAF from the Eastern Rivers. Most of the inflow, about 104 MAF, is diverted for irrigation, with 38 MAF flowing to the sea and about 10 MAF consumed by system losses.” The same report stated that out of the 38 MAF flowing to the sea, 93.7% flow is during the Kharif season and for several months during winter, there is no flow to the sea. The report further stated that a part of this water could be effectively used for supplementing the irrigation water, hydropower generation and meeting the agreed environmental needs through storage in multipurpose reservoirs which could carry water over the winter season to ensure a good start to the Kharif cropping season. As per a more latest report of WAPDA of 2011, an annual average of over 35.2 MAF escapes below Kotri (near Hyderabad), while requirement at Kotri is 8.6 MAF. These statements do not signal shortage of water, but the urgent need for a closer look at the management of available water resources.

27.     According to the report “Pakistan’s Water Economy” issued by the World Bank in 2005, salinity also remains a major problem in Pakistan. According to the same report, much of the water infrastructure in Pakistan is in a state of disrepair. Water loss between canal heads and farms is reported to be significant, as high as 30%.  The report further states that Pakistan has only 150 cubic meters water storage capacity per capita as against 5000 cubic meters in the US and Australia and 2200 cubic meters in China. Pakistan can store barely 30 days of water in the Indus basin. The report points out that “Relative to other arid countries, Pakistan has very little storage capacity. If no new storage is built, canal diversions will remain stagnant at about 104 MAF and the shortfall will increase by about 12% over the next decade.” The Pakistan Water Strategy calculates that Pakistan needs to raise storage capacity by 18 MAF (6 MAF for replacement of storage lost to siltation and 12 MAF of new storage) by 2025 in order to meet the projected water requirements of 134 MAF. Water productivity in Pakistan also remains low. According to the above report, crop yields, both per hectare and per cubic meter of water, are much lower than international benchmarks. Improved irrigation efficiency, through techniques such as sprinkler irrigation and drip irrigation, is the answer to this problem. According to a World Bank Publication, titled, “Pakistan’s Water Economy:  Running Dry” published in October 2008, “Pakistan has done little in recent years to build and maintain the knowledge base and the accompanying institutional and human systems required to manage the massive and highly complex Indus basin.  Much of the water infrastructure is in poor repair, and there are no modern Asset Management Plans for any of the major infrastructure”.  It identified four major challenges for Pakistan, viz., building a knowledge based capacity; maintaining, rehabilitating and expanding infrastructure; creation of a modern institutional framework and mechanism to motivate sustainability, flexibility and productivity; and adoption of a principled and pragmatic path.  India has nothing to do with these issues of water management that are internal to Pakistan, but which nevertheless ought to be integral to any discourse on water scarcity. Only Pakistan can seek solutions to these matters.

28. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Indus Waters Treaty is an example of mutually beneficial co-operation between India and Pakistan for the last 50 years. It has withstood the test of time. Article VII of the Treaty, which deals with future co-operation, recognizes the common interest of both sides in the optimum development of the rivers and lists out the avenues of future co-operation. We need to adhere to the spirit of co-operation, inherent in the Treaty, in ensuring its implementation and to identify further areas of co-operation within its framework. Let me end with the hope that the Indus Waters Treaty, which has completed its first fifty years successfully, will continue to guide us on water sharing in the future.

(Courtesy of: Dr. Dr. Arif Alwi)