Does this actually mean anything because the Indians are just going to go back to their original position that they don’t recognize the jurisdiction of this court over the presiding treaty.
Fine, Thank you very much says GoI. IIRC they have already said that the treaty is terminated and a new one can be discussed after PakGov ends terrrorism as state policy.
It’s very convenient that you just read the sentence that supports your position and then stopped.
The very next sentence says: “The Court examined the potential grounds upon which India could suspend or terminate the treaty, including the grounds cited by India in its public statements. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that none of these grounds could justify suspension or termination of the treaty”.
This is a Pakistani victory no matter how you try to spin it.
girmit
4 hours ago
Is there any credible argument that the infra that India is building is intentionally malicious? As far as I understand, India’s utilisation of the western rivers is a trivial fraction of its allotment, and whatever they are doing is for silt management to extend the longevity of the dam infra. Could it theoretically be weaponized? People are saying yes, but that’s kind of trivial in so far as bad faith can be imputed anywhere arbitrarily.
The powers that be don’t want India to have even the appearance of any counter vailing non kinetic leverage against cross border terrorism. Rest is poetry.
Treaties cannot exist in perpetuity. The court can provide any ruling it wishes. Water management will remain a marginal issue on the international stage. If a richer country like Egypt couldn’t get Ethiopia sanctioned India is surely not going to be affected. At its worst it could cause issues with international lines of credit for financing dams.
Does this actually mean anything because the Indians are just going to go back to their original position that they don’t recognize the jurisdiction of this court over the presiding treaty.
‘can only be either suspended or terminated’.
Fine, Thank you very much says GoI. IIRC they have already said that the treaty is terminated and a new one can be discussed after PakGov ends terrrorism as state policy.
It’s very convenient that you just read the sentence that supports your position and then stopped.
The very next sentence says: “The Court examined the potential grounds upon which India could suspend or terminate the treaty, including the grounds cited by India in its public statements. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that none of these grounds could justify suspension or termination of the treaty”.
This is a Pakistani victory no matter how you try to spin it.
Is there any credible argument that the infra that India is building is intentionally malicious? As far as I understand, India’s utilisation of the western rivers is a trivial fraction of its allotment, and whatever they are doing is for silt management to extend the longevity of the dam infra. Could it theoretically be weaponized? People are saying yes, but that’s kind of trivial in so far as bad faith can be imputed anywhere arbitrarily.
The powers that be don’t want India to have even the appearance of any counter vailing non kinetic leverage against cross border terrorism. Rest is poetry.
The western rivers are Pakistan’s lifeline.
Your ruling party’s politicians constantly talk about “cutting off water to Pakistan”.
Forgive us if we don’t trust your motivations.
Your country was created on the idea that Hindus cannot be trusted. Your lies are meaningless.
Let’s not litigate the TNT again.
The Court of Arbitration is not a Pakistani court.
Your politicians constantly speaking about “cutting off Pakistan’s waters” are not helping themselves.
Pakistan has made it clear for years that any attempt to cut off our water will be taken as an act of war.
Why aren’t you going to war then? Why all this talk and no action?
We are seeing the stage being set up for the world to apply sanctions on India.
And all of its India’s own doing.
Inshallah
Lol
https://stratnewsglobal.com/india/indus-waters-treaty-to-remain-in-abeyance-india-rejects-arbitration-award/
Treaties cannot exist in perpetuity. The court can provide any ruling it wishes. Water management will remain a marginal issue on the international stage. If a richer country like Egypt couldn’t get Ethiopia sanctioned India is surely not going to be affected. At its worst it could cause issues with international lines of credit for financing dams.