Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has defended his proposal for direct talks with Karnataka over the Cauvery water dispute, saying he is prepared to face "humiliation" if dialogue helps safeguard Tamil Nadu's interests.

The remarks came during a heated exchange in the Tamil Nadu Assembly with Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin over the contentious Mekedatu dam project. Udhayanidhi questioned Vijay's decision to engage directly with Karnataka Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar and asked whether an all-party meeting would be convened on the issue.

Vijay responded by asserting that his government would never compromise on Tamil Nadu's rights over Cauvery waters and urged political parties not to politicize the long-standing interstate dispute. The confrontation marks the first direct face-off between the two leaders since Udhayanidhi Stalin's arrest over his controversial remarks against actor Trisha.

Tamil Nadu CM Vijay Defends Karnataka Talks Over Cauvery Dispute, Clashes With Udhayanidhi Stalin

The Cauvery water dispute has taken a fresh political turn after Karnataka Chief Minister DK Shivakumar urged Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay to postpone their proposed meeting scheduled for August 3.

The development follows a directive from the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) ordering Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu. Karnataka has argued that deficient rainfall, drought conditions, and concerns over drinking water supplies make it difficult to comply with the order.

The issue has triggered political reactions in both states. Karnataka has called an all-party meeting to discuss its next legal and political strategy, while protests have intensified over the water-sharing dispute. In Tamil Nadu, political parties have also stepped up pressure over the handling of the Cauvery issue.

Cauvery Water Dispute Escalates: Karnataka Urges Tamil Nadu CM Vijay to Postpone Talks

<p>The Cauvery River, which flows through the southern Indian states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and the Union Territory of Puducherry, has been a focal point of one of the most contentious water disputes. This long-standing conflict, known as the Cauvery water dispute, has its roots in historical agreements and differing demands.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Cauvery River, often referred to as the "Ganges of the South," is a vital water resource for the southern states.&nbsp;Its waters are used primarily for irrigation, providing sustenance to millions of farmers.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The dispute dates back to the colonial era when the British government established agreements to allocate the river's waters among the princely states of Mysore and Madras presidency (now Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, respectively).&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-report-shows-how-indians-struggle-to-control-their-blood-pressure-639723">WHO report shows how Indians struggle to control their Blood Pressure</a></p>

<p>These pacts, known as the 1892 and 1924 agreements, laid the foundation for the dispute that would continue for over a century.</p>

<h2><strong>1892 agreement</strong></h2>

<p>The 1892 Agreement between&nbsp;the then State of Mysore and&nbsp;Madras was on taking up new irrigation works across the rivers.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But this agreement was not as significant as the one in 1924, which went on to become the real origin of the dispute.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>1924 agreement&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>In 1910, Mysore proposed constructing the Kanambadi dam on the Cauvery River. Around the same time, Madras also proposed an irrigation project on the same river. Madras raised objections to the second phase of the Kanambadi project, prompting the Indian government's intervention.</p>

<p>Initially, the government hoped that the two states could reach a mutual agreement, but when this proved unattainable, a Court of Arbitration, led by Sir Henry Griffin, was appointed to address the issue.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Under Griffin's oversight, an agreement was crafted on February 18, 1924, which was intended to remain in effect for the next 50 years.</p>

<p>Comprising 10 clauses, the 1924 agreement stipulated that, for at least the subsequent five decades, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry would receive 75 per cent of the Cauvery water allocation, while 23 percent would be allocated to Mysore, with the remainder flowing into Kerala or what was then known as Travancore.</p>

<h2><strong>Post India's independence</strong></h2>

<p>After state reorganisation in 1956, Tamil Nadu received 75 per cent of Cauvery water and expanded its irrigated areas.&nbsp;But the issues persisted.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was constituted in 1990 to adjudicate the water sharing issue. The tribunal's final order was issued in 2007.</p>

<p>As per this, 30 tmc (thousand million cubic feet) was alloted to Kerala, 270 tmc to Karnataka, 419 tmc to Tamil Nadu, and 7 tmc to Puducherry.</p>

<p>Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/manipur-govt-ensures-swift-action-after-photos-of-bodies-of-two-missing-students-go-viral-639684">Manipur govt ensures 'swift action' after photos of bodies of two missing students go viral</a></p>

<p>On February 16, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous judgment which led to a decrease in Karnataka’s annual water releases from 192 TMC to 177.25 TMC. It also reduced Tamil Nadu's share of water.&nbsp;</p>

<p>On the court’s direction, the Centre on June 1, 2018, established the Cauvery Water Management Authority to implement the judgement.</p>

<p>On August 14, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court, requesting its intervention in compelling Karnataka to immediately release 24,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) of water from its reservoirs.</p>

<p>Tamil Nadu urged the Court to instruct Karnataka to adhere to the release of 36.76 TMC of water, as mandated for September 2023 by the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) in 2007.</p>

<p>Karnataka contended that lower rainfall in the Cauvery catchment area, encompassing regions in Kerala, had led to inadequate inflow into its reservoirs.</p>

<p>Chief Minister Siddaramaiah explained that historically, whenever there was excess water in the reservoirs, Karnataka willingly supplied it to Tamil Nadu. However, this year, unfavourable conditions have left Karnataka unable to do so.</p>

<p>Once the matter reached the court, the Supreme Court declined to intervene with the orders of the Cauvery Water Management Authority and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.</p>

<p><strong>Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/78th-unga-meet-eam-s-jaishankar-to-address-unga-meet-amid-mounting-india-canada-diplomatic-tensions-639734">78th UNGA Meet: EAM S Jaishankar to address UNGA meet amid mounting India-Canada diplomatic tensions</a></strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/78th-unga-meet-eam-s-jaishankar-to-address-unga-meet-amid-mounting-india-canada-diplomatic-tensions-639734/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>These orders had directed Karnataka to release 5,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu.</p>

<p>On September 18, the Cauvery Water Management Authority reiterated the requirement for Karnataka to continue releasing 5,000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) of water to Tamil Nadu for a duration of 15 days, upholding the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee's previous order issued on September 12.</p>

<h2><strong>What are the contentions?&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>The Karnataka government contends that since the 1924 agreement had a 50-year expiration date, its terms should not be applicable to today's water distribution.</p>

<p>Karnataka also argues that at the time the agreement was reached, Tamil Nadu was a British province, and Karnataka was a princely state, which may have limited its ability to assert its interests effectively.</p>

<p>Conversely, Tamil Nadu asserts that altering the fundamental nature of 1924 agreement would be detrimental to both regions.</p>

<p>Tamil Nadu claims that when the agreement was originally negotiated, it was understood that its clauses would be reviewed after 50 years, rather than entirely overhauled.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The Cauvery River, which flows through the southern Indian states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and the Union Territory of Puducherry, has been a focal point of one of the most contentious water disputes.

The Cauvery River, which flows through the southern Indian states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and the Union Territory of Puducherry, has been a focal point of one of the most contentious water disputes. This long-standing conflict, known as the Cauvery water dispute, has its roots in historical agreements and differing demands. The Cauvery River, often referred to as the "Ganges of the South," is a vital water resource for the southern states. Its waters are used primarily for irrigation, providing sustenance to millions of farmers. The dispute dates back to the colonial era when the British government established agreements to allocate the river's waters among the princely states of Mysore and Madras presidency (now Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, respectively). Also Read | WHO report shows how Indians struggle to control their Blood Pressure These pacts, known as the 1892 and 1924 agreements, laid the foundation for the dispute that would continue for over a century. 1892 agreement The 1892 Agreement between the then State of Mysore and Madras was on taking up new irrigation works across the rivers. But this agreement was not as significant as the one in 1924, which went on to become the real origin of the dispute. 1924 agreement In 1910, Mysore proposed constructing the Kanambadi dam on the Cauvery River. Around the same time, Madras also proposed an irrigation project on the same river. Madras raised objections to the second phase of the Kanambadi project, prompting the Indian government's intervention. Initially, the government hoped that the two states could reach a mutual agreement, but when this proved unattainable, a Court of Arbitration, led by Sir Henry Griffin, was appointed to address the issue. Under Griffin's oversight, an agreement was crafted on February 18, 1924, which was intended to remain in effect for the next 50 years. Comprising 10 clauses, the 1924 agreement stipulated that, for at least the subsequent five decades, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry would receive 75 per cent of the Cauvery water allocation, while 23 percent would be allocated to Mysore, with the remainder flowing into Kerala or what was then known as Travancore. Post India's independence After state reorganisation in 1956, Tamil Nadu received 75 per cent of Cauvery water and expanded its irrigated areas. But the issues persisted. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was constituted in 1990 to adjudicate the water sharing issue. The tribunal's final order was issued in 2007. As per this, 30 tmc (thousand million cubic feet) was alloted to Kerala, 270 tmc to Karnataka, 419 tmc to Tamil Nadu, and 7 tmc to Puducherry. Also Read | Manipur govt ensures 'swift action' after photos of bodies of two missing students go viral On February 16, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous judgment which led to a decrease in Karnataka’s annual water releases from 192 TMC to 177.25 TMC. It also reduced Tamil Nadu's share of water. On the court’s direction, the Centre on June 1, 2018, established the Cauvery Water Management Authority to implement the judgement. On August 14, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court, requesting its intervention in compelling Karnataka to immediately release 24,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) of water from its reservoirs. Tamil Nadu urged the Court to instruct Karnataka to adhere to the release of 36.76 TMC of water, as mandated for September 2023 by the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) in 2007. Karnataka contended that lower rainfall in the Cauvery catchment area, encompassing regions in Kerala, had led to inadequate inflow into its reservoirs. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah explained that historically, whenever there was excess water in the reservoirs, Karnataka willingly supplied it to Tamil Nadu. However, this year, unfavourable conditions have left Karnataka unable to do so. Once the matter reached the court, the Supreme Court declined to intervene with the orders of the Cauvery Water Management Authority and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee. Watch | 78th UNGA Meet: EAM S Jaishankar to address UNGA meet amid mounting India-Canada diplomatic tensions × These orders had directed Karnataka to release 5,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu. On September 18, the Cauvery Water Management Authority reiterated the requirement for Karnataka to continue releasing 5,000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) of water to Tamil Nadu for a duration of 15 days, upholding the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee's previous order issued on September 12. What are the contentions? The Karnataka government contends that since the 1924 agreement had a 50-year expiration date, its terms should not be applicable to today's water distribution. Karnataka also argues that at the time the agreement was reached, Tamil Nadu was a British province, and Karnataka was a princely state, which may have limited its ability to assert its interests effectively. Conversely, Tamil Nadu asserts that altering the fundamental nature of 1924 agreement would be detrimental to both regions. Tamil Nadu claims that when the agreement was originally negotiated, it was understood that its clauses would be reviewed after 50 years, rather than entirely overhauled. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. ×

Explained: What is Cauvery water dispute between Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka?

Taliban fighters and Iranian border guards exchanged heavy gunfire on 27th of May. The deadly clashes on the Islamic Republic's border with Afghanistan sharply escalated tensions. At least two Iranian guards and a Taliban fighter were reportedly killed, raising fears of a new conflict between the neighbors amid a dispute over water rights. Both sides have accused each other of provoking the shooting though they later issued measured statements in an effort to de-escalate the tense situation.

Decades-long water dispute flares up again

A new border dispute is brewing in Asia and this is between the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and Iran. Now what started off as a water dispute is now affecting diplomacy and beyond. Watch to know more in this news report.

Afghan-Iran ties: Who does Helmand belong to?

<p>Protests and sloganeering marked the day&#39;s proceedings in the Lok Sabha Thursday.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Opposition MPs could be heard chanting &quot;We want justice&quot; in the background, even as Speaker Sumitra Mahajan tried to conduct the day&#39;s business.&nbsp;</p>

<p>As the protests grew louder, she said, &quot;Nobody wants to listen, nobody wants to run the House.&quot; She then adjourned the Lok Sabha till 12 pm.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A little after the house reconvened, it was adjourned for the day.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This is the 14thd day now that the Lok Sabha has been disrupted.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Similar scenes were witness in the Rajya Sabha which&nbsp;was adjourned till Friday.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Rajya Sabha adjourned till tomorrow after TDP MPs walked up to the Well with placards, raising slogans, demanding special status for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AndhraPradesh?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AndhraPradesh</a> <a href="https://t.co/JCGRkIOFhk">pic.twitter.com/JCGRkIOFhk</a></p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/976697542254780417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


As the protests grew louder, she said, "Nobody wants to listen, nobody wants to run the House." She then adjourned the Lok Sabha till 12 pm.

Protests and sloganeering marked the day's proceedings in the Lok Sabha Thursday. Opposition MPs could be heard chanting "We want justice" in the background, even as Speaker Sumitra Mahajan tried to conduct the day's business. As the protests grew louder, she said, "Nobody wants to listen, nobody wants to run the House." She then adjourned the Lok Sabha till 12 pm. A little after the house reconvened, it was adjourned for the day. This is the 14thd day now that the Lok Sabha has been disrupted. Similar scenes were witness in the Rajya Sabha which was adjourned till Friday. Rajya Sabha adjourned till tomorrow after TDP MPs walked up to the Well with placards, raising slogans, demanding special status for #AndhraPradesh pic.twitter.com/JCGRkIOFhk — ANI (@ANI) March 22, 2018 ×

Both houses of Parliament adjourned again, no-trust motion not taken up

<p>The Lok Sabha proceedings were disrupted today for the 13th day after members from the AIADMK and TRS continued with their noisy protests, stalling the taking up of two notices of no-confidence motion against the council of ministers for the fourth day.</p>

<p>Amid the din, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan said that she cannot do a headcount of 50 members supporting the move, a prerequisite for taking up the notices for the trust vote.</p>

<p>She then adjourned the House for the day.</p>

<p>Minutes after the House met this morning, the Speaker adjourned the proceedings for an hour due to protests by parties from Andhra, Telangana and Tamil Nadu. When the House reassembled at 12 noon, members from the AIADMK, TDP and the TRS were seen raising slogans and holding placards in the Well.</p>

<p>While the AIADMK wants early establishment of the Cauvery river board to settle the water dispute with neighbouring states, the TRS is demanding hiked quota for Telangana. The TDP is demanding special status for Andhra Pradesh.</p>

<p>Expelled RJD member Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav was seen holding a placard demanding special status for Bihar. The members from Congress, TMC and the Left were standing at their seats.</p>

<p>After the laying of papers by ministers, when the protests continued, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar urged the members to return to their seats so that legislative business could be taken up.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Ruckus in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RajyaSabha?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RajyaSabha</a>, TDP MPs storm the well of the House over demand of special status to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AndhraPradesh?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AndhraPradesh</a>, opposition members say, &#39;it is also the duty of the govt to facilitate proceedings of the House.&#39; Chairman adjourns the House till 11 am, tomorrow. <a href="https://t.co/fI0KOvGgsE">pic.twitter.com/fI0KOvGgsE</a></p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/976332059349168128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>He said the government is willing to discuss any issue, including the no-confidence motion. &quot;We have the confidence of the House as well as of the entire country,&quot; he said.<br />
<br />
When the Speaker took up the two notices of the trust vote given by the TDP and YSRC, the AIADMK members raised the pitch of their slogans. TRS members were also seen in the Well.</p>

<p>Mahajan said while she is duty-bound to take up the notices, she cannot move ahead due to the ruckus.</p>

<p>She noted that she is not in a position to count the 50 members supporting the move as she can&#39;t see anything from the chair. Placards were apparently blocking her view.</p>

<p>Members from the Congress, TMC and the Left raised their hands to indicate to the Speaker that they were supporting the motion.</p>

<p>But Mahajan said as the House is not in order, she cannot move ahead with the issue and adjourned the Lok Sabha for the day.</p>

<p>At least 50 members have to support the motion before it is moved for which a headcount is done. However, it is difficult to carry out the exercise when there are disruptions and several members are standing, former top LS officials explained.&nbsp;</p>


Even before Speaker Sumitra Mahajan took up the Question Hour, MPs from the TDP, YSR Congress, TRS and AIADMK, trooped into the well of the house holding placards

The Lok Sabha proceedings were disrupted today for the 13th day after members from the AIADMK and TRS continued with their noisy protests, stalling the taking up of two notices of no-confidence motion against the council of ministers for the fourth day. Amid the din, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan said that she cannot do a headcount of 50 members supporting the move, a prerequisite for taking up the notices for the trust vote. She then adjourned the House for the day. Minutes after the House met this morning, the Speaker adjourned the proceedings for an hour due to protests by parties from Andhra, Telangana and Tamil Nadu. When the House reassembled at 12 noon, members from the AIADMK, TDP and the TRS were seen raising slogans and holding placards in the Well. While the AIADMK wants early establishment of the Cauvery river board to settle the water dispute with neighbouring states, the TRS is demanding hiked quota for Telangana. The TDP is demanding special status for Andhra Pradesh. Expelled RJD member Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav was seen holding a placard demanding special status for Bihar. The members from Congress, TMC and the Left were standing at their seats. After the laying of papers by ministers, when the protests continued, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar urged the members to return to their seats so that legislative business could be taken up. Ruckus in #RajyaSabha, TDP MPs storm the well of the House over demand of special status to #AndhraPradesh, opposition members say, 'it is also the duty of the govt to facilitate proceedings of the House.' Chairman adjourns the House till 11 am, tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/fI0KOvGgsE — ANI (@ANI) March 21, 2018 × He said the government is willing to discuss any issue, including the no-confidence motion. "We have the confidence of the House as well as of the entire country," he said. When the Speaker took up the two notices of the trust vote given by the TDP and YSRC, the AIADMK members raised the pitch of their slogans. TRS members were also seen in the Well. Mahajan said while she is duty-bound to take up the notices, she cannot move ahead due to the ruckus. She noted that she is not in a position to count the 50 members supporting the move as she can't see anything from the chair. Placards were apparently blocking her view. Members from the Congress, TMC and the Left raised their hands to indicate to the Speaker that they were supporting the motion. But Mahajan said as the House is not in order, she cannot move ahead with the issue and adjourned the Lok Sabha for the day. At least 50 members have to support the motion before it is moved for which a headcount is done. However, it is difficult to carry out the exercise when there are disruptions and several members are standing, former top LS officials explained.

Lok Sabha disrupted for 13th day, no-confidence motion not taken up again

Pakistan will move the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) to restrain India from building two major hydropower projects on Jhelum and Chenab, the two rivers assigned to Islamabad under the 1960s Indus Waters Treaty.<br />
<br />
&quot;Pakistan to move international court of arbitration,&quot; tweeted federal minister for water and power Khwaja Mohammad Asif, who also holds the portfolio of federal minister for defence.<br />
<br />
An eight-member delegation led by secretary water and power Mohammad Younas Dagha is presently in New Delhi for final talks on resolving the dispute bilaterally or to seek arbitration, Dawn reported.<br />
<br />
Asif said the talks for two and a half years with India on the resolution of Pakistan&#39;s objections regarding Kishanganga and Ratle Hydroelectric projects have failed.<br />
<br />
&quot;Pakistan with consent of stakeholders decided to take it to full court of arbitration,&quot; he said adding that India has invited Pakistan to discuss points of dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty.<br />
<br />
Under the treaty, in case the parties fail to resolve water disputes through bilateral means, the aggrieved party has the option to invoke the jurisdiction of the ICA or the neutral expert under the auspices of the World Bank.<br />
<br />
An official said Pakistan feels its water rights are being violated by India on two rivers, the Chenab and Jhelum, through a faulty design of 850 megawatt Ratle Hydropower Project, and 330 megawatt Kishanganga Hydropower, respectively.<br />
<br />
Pakistan believes the Indian design of the Ratle project would reduce Chenab water flow by 40 per cent at Head Marala and cause irrigation loss to crops.<br />
<br />
(ANI)

Pakistan feels Indian water projects would reduce the flow of its river, causing damage to crops

Pakistan will move the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) to restrain India from building two major hydropower projects on Jhelum and Chenab, the two rivers assigned to Islamabad under the 1960s Indus Waters Treaty. "Pakistan to move international court of arbitration," tweeted federal minister for water and power Khwaja Mohammad Asif, who also holds the portfolio of federal minister for defence. An eight-member delegation led by secretary water and power Mohammad Younas Dagha is presently in New Delhi for final talks on resolving the dispute bilaterally or to seek arbitration, Dawn reported. Asif said the talks for two and a half years with India on the resolution of Pakistan's objections regarding Kishanganga and Ratle Hydroelectric projects have failed. "Pakistan with consent of stakeholders decided to take it to full court of arbitration," he said adding that India has invited Pakistan to discuss points of dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty. Under the treaty, in case the parties fail to resolve water disputes through bilateral means, the aggrieved party has the option to invoke the jurisdiction of the ICA or the neutral expert under the auspices of the World Bank. An official said Pakistan feels its water rights are being violated by India on two rivers, the Chenab and Jhelum, through a faulty design of 850 megawatt Ratle Hydropower Project, and 330 megawatt Kishanganga Hydropower, respectively. Pakistan believes the Indian design of the Ratle project would reduce Chenab water flow by 40 per cent at Head Marala and cause irrigation loss to crops. (ANI)

Pakistan to seek arbitration with India over water dispute

water-dispute

Water Dispute, News on Water Dispute, stories on Water Dispute, articles on Water Dispute, Water Dispute stories at Wion, Water Dispute news, Water Dispute latest news