Latest news with #Treaty
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Jaishankar says Indus Waters Treaty was ‘appeasement': The exact terms of treaty, and what Nehru said
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Wednesday (July 30) attacked former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in the Rajya Sabha, claiming the Indus Waters Treaty was signed 'for appeasement'. 'The Indus Waters Treaty, in many ways, is a very unique agreement. I cannot think of any agreement in the world where a country has allowed its major rivers to flow to the next country without having rights on that,' Jaishankar said. He then cited a speech made by Nehru in Parliament on November 30, 1960, to claim that the former PM was more concerned about Pakistan's welfare than India's. Claims that the Indus Waters Treaty was unfair to India are as old as complaints in Pakistan that they got a bad deal. What is the rationale behind the claim that 'Pakistan got 80% of water' under the deal? What exactly did Nehru say in the speech Jaishankar cited? We explain. The Union Minister said he would mention three observations by Nehru. 'First, he [Nehru] says, I would like to know, is this House now to judge the quantum of supply of water or the quantum of money to be given?.. So the Prime Minister of India then is telling the Parliament, you cannot be a judge of the quantum of water, you should not be looking at how much money we are giving to Pakistan….The Prime Minister then goes on… honourable members have been saying that there was a partition, what has happened is none of our lookout, we should not give them anything… If we follow that approach, it would mean turning a great part of West Punjab into almost a wilderness…So the Prime Minister is saying… should put the interests of Pakistani Punjab. Sir, not a word about the interests of the Kisan of Kashmir, of the people of Punjab.' Jaishankar then further quoted Nehru to say, '…people are saying, you are paying money. We felt that in the circumstances, this is the right payment, and we purchased a settlement, if you like, we purchased peace, and it is good for both countries. In 1960, sir, he says he purchased peace. We did not purchase peace, sir. It was a purchase of appeasement.' The Indus Waters Treaty was negotiated for almost 10 years, with the World Bank acting as a neutral facilitator. The treaty was negotiated not by politicians and diplomats, but by civil engineers. It was the engineers who decided to bifurcate the Indus rivers system into eastern (Sutel, Beas, Ravi) and western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) so as to make the division easier. Otherwise, the six rivers would have needed six agreements, making the negotiations stretch yet longer. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Senior Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, who has written two books on the treaty, had earlier told The Indian Express that it was Pakistan's President Ayub Khan who started the claim that his country got 80 per cent of the water under the Treaty, to claim credit for himself. 'Under the treaty, Pakistan got a higher volume of water. The average annual flow of water in the 'western rivers' (135.6 million acre feet) is more than four times that of the eastern rivers (32.6 maf). But India needed the exclusive use of the eastern rivers, which the treaty secured for us. India has since built dams and other water projects on these rivers, including the Bhakra Nangal dam and the Rajasthan canal project now called the Indira Gandhi Canal, which have helped irrigate Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan,' Sinha said. 'In return, Pakistan got a much larger portion of the flow of water from the three western rivers but India was entitled to certain use on these rivers such as domestic use, non-consumptive use, agriculture use and generation of hydro-electric power,' he added. Under the treaty, ' non-consumptive use' means 'any control or use of water for navigation, floating of timber or other property, flood protection or flood control, fishing or fish culture, wild life or other like beneficial purposes, provided that, exclusive of seepage and evaporation of water incidental to the control or use, the water (undiminished in volume within the practical range of measurement) remains in, or is returned to, the same river or its Tributaries.' Apart from the division of the waters, India also agreed to pay Pounds Sterling 62,060,000 (around Rs 83 crore) in 10 instalments to Pakistan to build canals and irrigation works, which after Partition had come to India. This was a portion of the whole amount needed by Pakistan, and around 60% of this amount came in grants from other countries, including West Germany, the US, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and the World Bank. In a long speech, Nehru largely said that the figures arrived at had come after long discussions, and it was difficult to pass opinions on them off-hand in Parliament. He said if all papers related to the treaty had to be presented in the House, a truck would be needed to carry them, and that he would like to congratulate the engineers who fought for India's interests. 'Naturally, one can always say that instead of Rs. 80 crores if we pay Rs.50 crores we will be gainers by Rs 30 crores and if we do not pay anything at all we will be gainers by Rs 80 crores…The decision that we get a free supply of water after that ten-year period and fairly free supply before that within certain limits is a tremendous gain… the mere fact that this has taken twelve years would at least convince the House that nothing, not a comma, not a full stop has been accepted without the longest argument and the closest attention to each detail… I have to congratulate those who had to deal with it, specially our engineers who were there and who fought for India's interests strenuously. They knew—they were experts in this matter—how much water is necessary..,' he said. Nehru also said that despite the Partition, letting a section of Pakistan become a wilderness was hardly desirable, and that in the absence of a Treaty, India too would not be able to benefit from these waters. 'Some hon. Members have been saying that there was partition, what has happened is none of our lookout, we should not give them anything. That is neither a strictly legal, constitutional nor just approach to this problem. If we follow that approach it would mean turning a great part of West Punjab into almost a wilderness…What is more important is not being able to profit ourselves by it, because we cannot build up all these things, if all these remain in a spirit of uncertainty and lack of decision,' he said. Even today, India is not in the position to 'stop water from flowing into Pakistan', because we do not have the dams to hold all that water. Building all such dams will also submerge a large section of India's land. Yashee is an Assistant Editor with the where she is a member of the Explained team. She is a journalist with over 10 years of experience, starting her career with the Mumbai edition of Hindustan Times. She has also worked with India Today, where she wrote opinion and analysis pieces for DailyO. Her articles break down complex issues for readers with context and insight. Yashee has a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from Presidency College, Kolkata, and a postgraduate diploma in journalism from Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, one of the premier media institutes in the countr ... Read More
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
No third-party intervention in Indo-Pak ceasefire: Jaishankar in Rajya Sabha
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) categorically said there was no third-party intervention in bringing about a ceasefire with Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, asserting that the halting of the military action was also not linked to trade as claimed by U.S. President Donald Trump. Intervening in the special discussion on Operation Sindoor in the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Jaishankar said Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the U.S. President did not have any phone calls between April 22, when the Pahalgam terror attack took place, and June 16. The Opposition has been attacking the government on claims made by Mr. Trump on mediation in halting hostilities between India and Pakistan by using the threat of trade. He said India will not tolerate any cross-border terrorism and has responded to Pakistan by carrying out Operation Sindoor and will continue to do so. Noting that the Pahalgam terror attack was absolutely unacceptable, he said a red line was crossed by Pakistan, and there had to be accountability and justice. 'Blood and water will not flow together,' he said, providing reasons for India's decision to suspend the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan. Mr. Jaishankar said the Modi Government has corrected the wrongs of Nehru's policies by suspending the Treaty. The Treaty signed by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was not to buy peace, but for appeasement, he added. The External Affairs Minister said terrorism is now on the global agenda only because of the efforts of the Modi government. He said India exerted huge pressure on Pakistan through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) process and also despite not being a member of the U.N. Security Council, India was able to get U.N. recognition that The Resistance Front (TRF) is a proxy of Pakistan-based LeT. The TRF had claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack. 'When the Pahalgam attack happened on April 22, it was a shocking attack for a variety of manner in which people were killed in front of their families, the fact that their faith was asked before killing them, the intent of destroying the economy of Jammu and Kashmir, which had returned to normalcy and prosperity after the end of Article 370. All of this angered the country,' he said. The Minister said there was grief and shock across the world. There was solidarity and sympathy. 'But the question was, what after that? And the answers were two. One, such an attack was absolutely unacceptable. It crossed our red line. There had to be severe consequences. 'And two, there had to be accountability and justice. There had to be accountability of the perpetrators, and they and their supporters had to be brought to justice. Now, the first clear message, of India's anger, of our resolve, of our determination, was the decision taken by the Cabinet Committee on Security immediately the day after, from April 23,' he said. In his nearly hour-long speech, Mr. Jaishankar informed that on May 9, U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance informed Prime Minister Modi that Pakistan was planning a huge attack on India. To this, Prime Minister Modi told Mr. Vance that India's response would be appropriate, he said. Pakistan attacked, and India gave a fitting and appropriate response, Mr. Jaishankar told the House. The Minister also India sent a clear message that it is not open to any mediation and will not be deterred by nuclear blackmail. Mr. Jaishankar said Operation Sindoor also did a global service as India reduced to dust terror infrastructure in Pakistan, including in Bahawalpur and Muridke. He also chided certain opposition party leaders for mocking India's military action against Pakistan, if they have any doubts, they should watch videos of funerals of terrorists in Pakistan and destruction of airfields in the neighbouring country. He said Opposition Sindoor was a well-considered and thoughtful response to the barbaric Pahalgam attack and it has now become the basis of a new policy. He emphasised India will keep responding to each terror attack in the same way. Certain opposition party members had raised the issue of Mr. Jaishankar's recent visit to China. To this, the Minister said he visited China to discuss terrorism, de-escalation, and trade restrictions. 'I had no secret meeting,' he said, in a veiled attack on senior Congress party leadership. Relations with China will be developed on mutual interest, mutual sensitivity and mutual respect, he added. The Minister also thanked the multi-party parliamentary delegation to various countries post Operation Sindoor, delegations to various countries, says they have done great national service.
The Print
7 hours ago
- Politics
- The Print
No third-party intervention in Indo-Pak ceasefire: Jaishankar in RS
The Opposition has been attacking the government on claims made by Trump on mediation in halting hostilities between India and Pakistan by using the threat of trade. Intervening in the special discussion on Operation Sindoor in the Rajya Sabha, Jaishankar said Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the US President did not have any phone calls between April 22, when the Pahalgam terror attack took place, and June 16. New Delhi, Jul 30 (PTI) External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Wednesday categorically said there was no third-party intervention in bringing about a ceasefire with Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, asserting that the halting of the military action was also not linked to trade as claimed by US President Donald Trump. He said India will not tolerate any cross-border terrorism and has responded to Pakistan by carrying out Operation Sindoor and will continue to do so. Noting that the Pahalgam terror attack was absolutely unacceptable, he said a red line was crossed by Pakistan, and there had to be accountability and justice. 'Blood and water will not flow together,' he said, providing reasons for India's decision to suspend the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan. Jaishankar said the Modi government has corrected the wrongs of Nehru's policies by suspending the Treaty. The Treaty signed by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was not to buy peace, but for appeasement, he added. The External Affairs Minister said terrorism is now on the global agenda only because of the efforts of the Modi government. He said India exerted huge pressure on Pakistan through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) process and also despite not being a member of the UN Security Council, India was able to get UN recognition that The Resistance Front (TRF) is a proxy of Pakistan-based LeT. The TRF had claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack. 'When the Pahalgam attack happened on April 22, it was a shocking attack for a variety of reasons…The manner in which people were killed in front of their families, the fact that their faith was asked before killing them, the intent of destroying the economy of Jammu and Kashmir, which had returned to normalcy and prosperity after the end of Article 370. All of this angered the country,' he said. The Minister said there was grief and shock across the world. There was solidarity and sympathy. 'But the question was, what after that? And the answers were two. One, such an attack was absolutely unacceptable. It crossed our red line. There had to be severe consequences. 'And two, there had to be accountability and justice. There had to be accountability of the perpetrators, and they and their supporters had to be brought to justice. Now, the first clear message, of India's anger, of our resolve, of our determination, was the decision taken by the Cabinet Committee on Security immediately the day after, from April 23,' he said. In his nearly hour-long speech, Jaishankar informed that on May 9, US Vice President J D Vance informed Prime Minister Modi that Pakistan was planning a huge attack on India. To this, Prime Minister Modi told Vance that India's response would be appropriate, he said. Pakistan attacked, and India gave a fitting and appropriate response, Jaishankar told the House. The Minister also India sent a clear message that it is not open to any mediation and will not be deterred by nuclear blackmail. Jaishankar said Operation Sindoor also did a global service as India reduced to dust terror infrastructure in Pakistan, including in Bahawalpur and Muridke. He also chided certain opposition party leaders for mocking India's military action against Pakistan, if they have any doubts, they should watch videos of funerals of terrorists in Pakistan and destruction of airfields in the neighbouring country. He said Opposition Sindoor was a well-considered and thoughtful response to the barbaric Pahalgam attack and it has now become the basis of a new policy. He emphasised India will keep responding to each terror attack in the same way. Certain opposition party members had raised the issue of Jaishankar's recent visit to China. To this, the Minister said he visited China to discuss terrorism, de-escalation, and trade restrictions. 'I had no secret meeting,' he said, in a veiled attack on senior Congress party leadership. Relations with China will be developed on mutual interest, mutual sensitivity and mutual respect, he added. The Minister also thanked the multi-party parliamentary delegation to various countries post Operation Sindoor, delegations to various countries, says they have done great national service. PTI NKD MJH SKC CS MR This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
No third party intervention in ceasefire with Pak during Op Sindoor: EAM
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Wednesday made it clear that there was no third party intervention in bringing about a ceasefire with Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, asserting that the halting of the Operation was not linked to trade. Intervening in the special discussion on Operation Sindoor in the Rajya Sabha, Jaishankar said Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump did not have any phone calls between April 22 and June 16. The Opposition has been attacking the government on claims made by Trump on mediation in halting of hostilities between India and Pakistan by using the threat of trade. He said India will not tolerate any cross-border terrorism and has responded to Pakistan by carrying out Operation Sindoor and will continue to do so whenever the neighbouring country attacked again. Noting that the Pahalgam terror attack was absolutely unacceptable, he said a redline was crossed by Pakistan and there had to be accountability and justice. "Blood and water will not flow together," he said, justifying India's suspension of the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan. Jaishankar said the Modi government has corrected wrongs of Nehru's policies by suspending the Treaty. The Treaty signed by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was not to buy peace, but for appeasement. The External Affairs Minister said terrorism is now on the global agenda only because of the efforts of the Modi government. He said India exerted huge pressure on Pakistan through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) process and also despite not being a member of the UN Security Council, India was able to get UN recognition that The Resistance Front (TRF) is proxy of Pakistan-based LeT. The TRF had claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack.
Irish Times
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
The Root of All Evil by Cormac Moore: An insightful guide to how the Border came to be where it is
The Root of All Evil: The Irish Boundary Commission Author : Cormac Moore ISBN-13 : 978-1788551779 Publisher : Irish Academic Press Guideline Price : €19.99 Arriving from Belfast at my in-laws' house in Warrenpoint, overlooking Carlingford Lough and therefore the Border, I invariably receive a text message saying: 'welcome to Ireland' (a bizarre experience to northerners who thought they had been there all along). Sometimes a second message appears, a moment later, welcoming me back to the UK. These messages from mobile providers usually have exclamation marks and other excitable punctuation to alert travellers to changes in contractual terms as a result of a border drawn quickly and often arbitrarily a century ago. Understanding why the Border exists has generated a universe of narrative history covering the Ulster Plantation onwards, but as Cormac Moore's crisp and insightful new book The Root of All Evil shows, understanding how diplomatic manoeuvring and bureaucratic inertia created and sustained the Border is essential too. The Boundary Commission is a critical part of that story. The commission has its centenary this year, and it is oddly fitting that it will pass with minimal commemoration. It was an anticlimactic coda to a revolutionary decade. But it was supposed to be a big deal, and was certainly understood as being so by the signatories who agreed its fatally vague terms in article 12 of the 1921 Treaty. READ MORE The principle of 'temporary exclusion' from Home Rule for Ulster was conceded by John Redmond before the first World War. Fast forward through revolution and the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 later created two devolved entities: Northern and Southern Ireland. By the time of the Treaty talks only the first of these was functioning per the terms of the Act, with James Craig ensconced as prime minister and determined to turn Northern Ireland into 'a new impregnable pale'. But the treaty talks were not just between the imperial British government and the 26 counties, but all of Ireland – represented by the plenipotentiaries of the provisional government. Knowing the North would be an area of contention, the British split the Sinn Féin delegation by seeking secret agreement from Arthur Griffith (technically the lead Irish participant) that his delegation would, if pressed, accept continued exclusion of the six counties on the basis that a commission would be appointed to determine the wishes of local inhabitants and adjust the Border. The Machiavellian Lloyd George appears to have given private assurances (or intimations) to Griffith that the commission would transfer vast swathes of the nationalist North, and at a minimum Tyrone and Fermanagh, into the South. These assurances were either lies or artfully constructed so as to be overinterpreted. However, it was not Griffith alone, but the entire Irish delegation who agreed the obviously flawed (from a nationalist perspective) article 12, which qualified the commitment to local wishes being respected by adding the crucial words: 'so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions'. Moore's book expertly explains how these 11 words served to 'nullify' the entire claimed purpose of the commission – to respect the wishes of local inhabitants. The maximum claim prepared by the Free State officials in the North Eastern Boundary Bureau would have moved the Border as far north as my hometown of Downpatrick in east Down. Not only did that not happen, but no major areas of Tyrone or Fermanagh were transferred, nor were Derry or Newry. As Moore's book shows, the fallout from the commission reinforced the Border rather than adjusting or undermining it. And if Griffith gets blamed for his naivety, it pales when set against the 'appalling ineptitude' of Eoin MacNeill , the Free State appointee to the commission. Of the three-man commission, MacNeill was working alongside a South African judge, ostensibly impartial but in reality steeped in imperial influence, and Joseph Fisher, Belfast publisher of the unionist Northern Whig newspaper. [ Micheál Martin talks about Cormac Moore's book The Root of All Evil Opens in new window ] Whereas Fisher constantly and strategically leaked inner deliberations of the commission to the unionist government and ultimately the press, MacNeill treated his role with chaste propriety, believing himself not to be 'a representative of a Government nor ... an advocate for a particular point of view'. In fact, MacNeill was literally a representative of the Free State government, and was chosen because his northern nationalist background would better enable him to articulate their views. His failure to competently perform either of these tasks culminated in his agreeing a boundary with minimal changes, and then resigning in ignominy when the recommendations were leaked to a newspaper to the humiliation of WT Cosgrave's government. The report itself then was buried for half a century. Moore's book succeeds because he tells a story that is both very particular, with close reading of archive material and chronological detail but also, to use the cliche, mindful of the big picture. It wasn't just the mistakes of Griffith or MacNeill, or the canniness of Lloyd George, or the obduracy of Craig, that shaped the Boundary Commission. It was 'facts on the ground', including the construction of Silent Valley reservoir in the Mournes as a source of Belfast's water, and therefore an 'economic circumstance' allowing the wishes of south Down residents to move into the Free State to be overridden. But there was also the erection of customs posts by a Free State government desperate to demonstrate its newly won fiscal independence, and in doing so 'unwittingly aiding' the unionist northern government in creating a sense of permanency around the Border. As we consider the future of the Border in Ireland, and indeed an Ireland without a border, this book is a useful guide to some of how we got here and how we might avoid some of the same mistakes again.
