news details |
|
|
| India rejects Pak claims | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 24: Armed with hydrological data on water discharge, Indian government has firmly rejected Pakistan demand of compensation against use of Chenab water, particularly the dam storage of Baglihar hydel project.
Raising allegations of reduced water discharge, a team of Pakistan’s Central Indus Water Commission had recently visited the Baglihar project site on Chenab to make an assessment.
On way back the team had a meeting with Indian officials. Rejecting Pakistan's charge that it had blocked Chenab river water flow, India on Friday turned down the neighbouring country's demand for compensation, asserting that there was no wrong-doing by it.
At the meeting of Indus Water Commissioners here in the backdrop of Pakistan's allegations, the Indian side furnished data related to outflow of water in river Chenab from this country to show that it had released sufficient quantity despite low availability, sources said.
After two days of deliberations, the meeting remained inconclusive with the two sides failing to reach any kind of settlement on the controversy.
The Indian side was led by G Ranganathan while Syed Jamaat Ali Shah headed the Pakistan side.
At the meeting, Pakistan alleged that India released only 35,000 cusecs of water instead of 55,000 cusecs, which was the understanding, leading to loss in crop. It demanded compensation for the same.
India categorically rejected Pakistan's demand for compensation as it furnished hydrological data to prove that the quantity of water was actually 55,000 cusecs and that Islamabad had no case.
Pakistan wanted India to share data of Baglihar Dam water at an hourly basis, which also was rejected by New Delhi.
The Indian side made it clear it will share with Pakistan data only under the requirements of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty and nothing beyond that.
"Pakistan is using arithmetical gymnastics to prove that India breached the provisions of the treaty," a source said, adding Islamabad was trying to "politicize" the matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
