People referring to IWT read this.
1.Preamble to the IWT is not having any absolute terms. It mentions the possibility of challenging the terms of the treaty with respect to application of any provisions
2.Article 1(2) Defines what a tributary is and Article 1(3)(i) states categorically that the five rivers doesn't come under the scop of the term tributaries as given in Article 1(2) . Reading these two together can make the question itself absurd if we take this as a source.
3.It is written that Chenab SHALL be deemed to include panjnad. This apart from the geographical aspects of the confluence of the two rivers read with the Political boundaries has nothing to do with the hydrology. Also, SHALL is equivalent to MAY when it comes to interpretation of a statute.
4.Hydroelectric projects in Chenab tributaries are carried out by India and they are opposed by Pakistan. We are supposed to hold the ground which is favourable to India and Not Pakistan which enjoys the luxury of having the hydrological confluence of the rivers in her territory.
5.The answer is Sutlej. Take A SS and wait till the answer key next year
Brother/Sister/GenderFree Person,
Preamble signifies the philosophy of a treaty. Read it again and assess if it is a reliable source in this question first. That's what mentioned in the first point. Next comes the Tributary definition. Next comes the SHALL dilemma which I repeat is nothing but MAY for the purpose of this document (which was signed at Karachi). World Bank has nothing to do with the status of these rivers and India has openly stated it's opposition to the IWC.
Please don't tag me again.
