Another Indian move to turn Pak land barren
is pursuing a long- term strategy to paralyze Pakistan economi cally and as part of that it continues to construct dams on the western rivers in sheer violation of Indus Basin Treaty. India is investing heavily on construction of dams and plans to construct 155 hydropower projects on these rivers. In the recent move the Modi government has approved diverting the water of Chenab into its Bias River and ordered the completion of under construction Jaspa Dam on war footing. If completed it would make River Chenab dry from Marala Head to Trimo, render that part of the river completely dry or substantially reduce the water.
The history of Indian water aggression is very old but since the installation of Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister, it is missing no opportunity to hurt the interests of Pakistan on different fronts. The latest Indian decision to divert the water of Chenab is another manifestation of Modi’s anti Pakistan posture. The regrettable part is that our authorities on the other hand have always demonstrated lacklustre on these sinister designs which are meant to turn Pakistan into a deserted barren land. The dams constructed by India on the Jhelum and Chenab rivers have already created problems for our agriculture sector. Our fields are being affected and anxiety is rising amongst Provinces over the distribution of water. Since it is matter of our survival, our top leadership should emphatically raise the issue with the Indian side. The problem is that by being engaged in negotiations with Pakistan, India cunningly also secures sufficient time to continue the unnoticed construction of its controversial dams. For that reason India balks at the indulgence of third party in all water related issues between both the countries, and instead it insists on bilateral talks. Earlier, Pakistan had invoked article IX of 1960 Indus Basin Water Treaty due to inconclusive talks on Baglihar dam. The World Bank had nominated the arbitrator with the consent of both the countries, but the verdict was in favour of India. Given the Indian water aggression, our concerned authorities should shun slumber and devote all their energies to protect the country’s interests in line with IBT which prohibits alteration of water flows. Along with this we also expect other top leaders especially Imran Khan to add his strong voice on the matter and expose Indian designs against Pakistan at different forums.
THE junior Bush administration’s applied con troversial fashion— of techno warfare via military/ armed drones— has been deviously followed by Obama’s administration. For the most part, the U. S. government adopts a policy of legal escapism about the reported drone strikes that take place outside of ‘ hot’ battlefields or the zone of active hostilities/ combats, and it does not release lists of those targeted or killed. Obama administration’s officials have offered oblique accounts of the drone strike programme, but these have been at an extremely high level of generality, with few factual details or details relating to the administration’s ‘ legal analysis’. Given fair rule of international law, the legitimacy of Obama’s drone strikes largely remains in ‘ question’.
Despite the US military strategists’ ‘ advocated justification of precision theory’, the US drone strikes represent a significant challenge to the international rule of law. The strikes precisely defy straightforward legal ‘ categorization’. In fact, drone strikes or, more accurately, the post- 9/ 11 legal theories underlying such strikes— constitute a serious, sustained, and visible assault on the generally accepted meaning of certain core legal concepts, including ‘ self- defence,’ ‘ armed attack,’ ‘ imminence’, ‘ necessity,’ ‘ proportionality,’ ‘ combatant’, ’ civilian’, ‘ armed conflict’, and ‘ hostilities’— have created more ‘ legal ambiguities’. Even President Obama’s speech on drones, delivered at the National Defence University on May 23, 2013, did not serve to shed
HURMAT GROUP OF PUBLICATIONS