Comments on: Pakistan’s cry for water

By: harisx32

harisx32 — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:04:34 +0000

i read your blog post regularly.you write very well.i want to inform if any one want study abroad then very good information.keep posting... regards from

By: tehseenhasan

tehseenhasan — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:01:13 +0000

Thanks for this nice post. you are improving day by day
regards
india university

admission

By: Radios

Radios — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:13:39 +0000

Well! Pakistan is great country not not cry for water and very nice information about Pakistan Cry's For Water Regards, Free Online Radio Stations

By: Nazim Shahzad Warraich

Nazim Shahzad Warraich — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:04:42 +0000

It is the matter of our survival

By: bulletfish

bulletfish — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:30:58 +0000

Water may not be the only problem facing Pakistan and SE Asian regions.Pakistan to lend 700,000 acres farmland to Arab states (Dawn, 03/09/2009).If these lands are used to grow food, then this food will be shipped off to the Arab states and not to Pakistan. Where will the water come from to irrigate the soil? Will the Arabs bring bottled water?I know that Qatar has ‘bought’ a HUGE, fertile region of Kenya that has rivers. This will displace the indigenous people of that region. However, will these people benefit from this sale of land on which their ancestors have farmed for generations?

By: rajeev

rajeev — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:18:01 +0000

@Shutting off the tap on Pakistan is not an option; neither from a political stand point, nor from a moral one. Politically, India would lose it’s reputation & the goodwill, which it has gained in the world comity over the years. It would simply be an act of war.-posted by Mortal–How about reducing to trickle/shutting off water in case of Pakistan imposes war on India?

By: Mortal

Mortal — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:32:48 +0000

“I think its about time our politicians grew a spine and cancelled the IWT.What are the Pakis gonna do?” – Posted by sameerShutting off the tap on Pakistan is not an option; neither from a political stand point, nor from a moral one. Politically, India would lose it’s reputation & the goodwill, which it has gained in the world comity over the years. It would simply be an act of war. Morally, it just won’t be right to punish 170 million for the crimes & sins of a few. Having said that, I can also say with utmost certainty that if the shoe was on the other foot & Pakistan was in control of the rivers flowing through India, it would’ve turned off the tap on numerous occasions & that’s exactly why India shouldn’t do it because it should never act belligerently or recklessly like Pakistan. I am a strong believer in Karma. Today, India, as a nation is reaping the fruits of it’s past Karma & Pakistan is paying the price for it’s own actions. It’s probably the oldest cliche out there but what goes around, eventually does come around.

By: Aamir Ali

Aamir Ali — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:53:56 +0000

@SameerIt isn’t Pakistan’s fault that India is overpopulated and needs to grow food for its enormous and still growing population. Pakistan needs its water.

By: sameer

sameer — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:45:25 +0000

I think its about time our politicians grew a spine and cancelled the IWT.What are the Pakis gonna do?Let me guess NUKES! This is becoming a bit like the boy who cried wolf besides Pakis won’t commit national suicide over a bit less water and they have given the NUKE blank threat so many times its more funny than scary now.There can a be a agreement that states that India is obliged to give Pakistan x,y,z quantity of food in lieu of the less water post IWT cancellation this is because Indian agricultural productivity is 3 times that of Pakistan per unit hectare i.e for the same amount of precious water our farms can produce at least twice the quantity of wheat,rice etc(plz check FAO website)this is because of better seeds,fertilizers,soil management,mechanization and pre and post harvest infrastructure.

By: rajeev

rajeev — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:20:59 +0000

“A special place in climate hell is being reserved for India and China. That is, they will suffer more from global warming than, for instance, Western Europe.”http://www.newsweek.com/id/21396 7″Standing on principle is laudable, not to mention catnip for domestic audiences who resent being told by SUV-driving Americans to cut CO2 emissions. But the stance has one little downside. A special place in climate hell is being reserved for India and China. That is, they will suffer more from global warming than, for instance, Western Europe. In part, that reflects the fact that nature always batters the poor more than the rich, as Hurricane Katrina showed. The rich can afford to move, build sea walls, turn on the AC, and buy more expensive food; the poor starve, drown in typhoons, see their shanties swept away in tidal surges, and die in the heat waves and disease outbreaks that will become more common in a mercury-rising world.But India and China are also in line to suffer disproportionately because of how climate change is affecting different geographic regions. For instance, more of China and India—especially in the north—will broil (by which I mean experience median temperature increases of 8 or 9 degrees Fahrenheit) than Western Europe will, according to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As patterns of rainfall shift to more deluges as well as more droughts due to the when-it-rains-it-pours phenomenon that global warming causes, both countries will also suffer more floods. Indeed, China’s south and west are already experiencing a sevenfold increase in deluges compared with the 1950s. And both countries will need to increase irrigation more than the world average of 1 to 3 percent by the 2020s—up to 15 percent in China and 5 percent in India. Pacific cyclones are expected to become more severe, with stronger winds and Noachian rainfall.”