QUETTA, Pakistan — A suicide bomber blew himself up outside a stadium Tuesday night as supporters of a nationalist party were leaving a rally in insurgency-hit southwest Pakistan, killing at least 13 people and wounding 30 others, police and hospital officials said Wednesday.
Local police chief Majeed Qaisrani said the blast occurred near a graveyard close to the stadium on the outskirts of Quetta, the capital of Balochistan province. The body parts of the attacker were recovered, he said.
Waseem Baig, a spokesman for a government hospital, said it had received 13 bodies and dozens of wounded, some in critical condition.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.
The rally was held to mark the anniversary of the death of Sardar Ataullah Mengal, a veteran nationalist leader and former provincial chief minister.
The leader of the Balochistan National Party, Akhtar Mengal, was unharmed in the attack but some of his supporters were among the dead and wounded, senior police officer Usama Ameen said. Mengal is a vocal critic of the government and often holds rallies to demand the release of missing Baloch nationalists.
Balochistan Chief Minister Sarfraz Bugti condemned the bombing as a “cowardly act of the enemies of humanity,” ordering the best possible medical care for the wounded and a high-level probe to bring the perpetrators to justice.
In Islamabad, Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi also denounced the attack, blaming “India-backed terrorists and their facilitators” for trying to destabilize the country by targeting civilians. He offered no evidence to back up the allegation.
Pakistan’s government and Bugti in recent months have frequently accused India of backing both the Pakistani Taliban and Baloch separatists, a charge New Delhi denies.
Balochistan has long been the scene of a low-level insurgency, with groups such as the Balochistan Liberation Army demanding independence from the central government. The separatists have largely targeted security forces and workers from Pakistan’s Punjab province.
Although authorities say the insurgency has been subdued, violence in the region continues.
In July, gunmen abducted and killed nine people after stopping two passenger buses on a highway in Balochistan as the buses traveled from Quetta to Punjab province. Most such previous attacks have been claimed by the outlawed BLA group.
Pakistan has also witnessed a surge in militant attacks in the northwest.
On Wednesday, gunmen opened fire on a vehicle in Kurram, a district in the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, killing five people, local police official Hameed Hussain said. The attackers quickly fled to the nearby mountains and the dead were Sunni Muslims, he added.
Kurram has been the scene of sectarian violence in recent years.
A day earlier, militants tried to storm the headquarters of the paramilitary Federal Constabulary in the province’s Bannu district, triggering a gunbattle in which six soldiers and five attackers were killed, according to local police and the military.
___
Associated Press writers Riaz Khan and Rasool Dawar in Peshawar, Pakistan, and Javed Hussain in Kurram, Pakistan, contributed to this story.
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), brokered by the World Bank in 1960, has been a cornerstone of transboundary water cooperation between India and Pakistan for over six decades. However, India’s recent decision to unilaterally suspend the treaty following the Pahalgam attack (June 2025) marks a dangerous escalation in the use of water as a geopolitical weapon.
From Pakistan’s perspective, this move is not only legally untenable but also a grave threat to its food security, economy, and regional stability. This document outlines Pakistan’s legal recourse, strategic countermeasures, and the broader implications of India’s actions under international law.
Can India Legally Stop Water Flows to Pakistan? An International Legal Perspective
1. India’s Legal Capacity to Halt Water Flows Under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)
The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) explicitly governs water distribution between India and Pakistan, allocating:
Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej): Full control to India (with limited non-consumptive use for Pakistan).
Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab): Guaranteed flow to Pakistan, with India permitted limited storage and hydroelectric use.
2. Can India Legally Stop Western Rivers’ Water?
No unilateral stoppage allowed: The IWT does not grant India the right to completely block water to Pakistan.
Permitted uses only: India can build run-of-the-river hydro projects (no large storage) and use water for non-consumptive purposes (e.g., electricity generation).
Violation if India diverts or blocks: Any attempt to cut off or excessively store Western Rivers’ water breaches Article III (Pakistan’s unrestricted use) and Annexure D (storage limits).
3. International Law on Water Suspension: Key Principles
Even if India claims “abeyance” (temporary suspension), international law imposes strict limits:
A. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)
Article 60 (Termination/Suspension): Only valid if Pakistan commits a “material breach” (e.g., repudiating the treaty or violating essential terms). Pakistan has not done so—using arbitration (Kishenganga/Ratle cases) is permitted under IWT dispute mechanisms. Article 62 (Fundamental Change of Circumstances): Does not apply—political tensions (e.g., terrorism) do not alter the treaty’s water-sharing purpose (ICJ ruling in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case).
B. UN Watercourses Convention (1997)
Equitable & Reasonable Utilization (Article 5): India cannot disproportionately harm Pakistan’s water rights. No Significant Harm Rule (Article 7): Cutting off water violates Pakistan’s right to livelihood, agriculture, and drinking water.
C. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
If India weaponizes water, it could amount to: Collective punishment (prohibited under Geneva Conventions). Crime against humanity (via mass starvation, per Rome Statute).
Is “Abeyance” a Valid Legal Concept in International Law?
1. Definition of Abeyance
Temporary suspension of treaty obligations (not termination).
No explicit recognition in the Vienna Convention but sometimes used in state practice.
2. Legal Validity of India’s “Abeyance” Claim
No Basis in the IWT: The treaty does not allow temporary suspension for political reasons.
ICJ Precedent Against It:
In Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, Hungary tried suspending a water treaty—ICJ ruled unilateral suspension illegal.
Only mutual agreement or UNSC sanctions can justify suspension.
Risk of Illegal Countermeasure:
Under customary international law, countermeasures must be:
Proportionate (India’s total suspension is excessive).
Reversible (long-term harm to Pakistan makes this doubtful).
3. Consequences of Invalid Abeyance
Pakistan can challenge in ICJ/World Bank for treaty violation.
World Bank (IWT guarantor) may freeze funding for Indian projects.
UNSC could intervene if framed as a threat to peace (though veto risks exist).
Conclusion: India Cannot Legally Stop Water to Pakistan
IWT binds India to let Western Rivers flow—no legal right to block.
“Abeyance” has no standing—only mutual agreement or UNSC order can suspend treaties.
Pakistan’s recourse:
World Bank arbitration (compel India to restore flows).
ICJ case (for breach of UN Watercourses Convention).
Diplomatic pressure (OIC, UN, China-backed resolutions).
India’s move is a dangerous precedent in “water wars”—but international law firmly sides with Pakistan’s rights.
Legal Analysis: India’s Suspension and Violations of International Law
1. Invalidity of India’s Claims Under the Vienna Convention
India justifies its suspension of the IWT by invoking Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), alleging a “material breach” by Pakistan. However, We can categorically rejects this argument for the following reasons:
No Material Breach by Pakistan:
The IWT is a technical water-sharing agreement, not a counter-terrorism pact. India’s attempt to link Pakistan’s alleged support for militants to the treaty is legally irrelevant.
Pakistan has not repudiated the treaty nor violated its “essential provisions.” Dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g., Kishenganga arbitration) are permissible under the IWT and do not constitute a breach.
Precedent from the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case (1997):
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that political tensions or unilateral grievances (e.g., terrorism allegations) do not justify treaty termination.
The ICJ’s strict interpretation of Article 62 (fundamental change of circumstances) further undermines India’s position.
2. Violation of Customary International Law
India’s suspension of water flows could constitute:
Collective Punishment: Depriving millions of civilians of water violates international humanitarian law and the UN Watercourses Convention (1997), which mandates equitable and reasonable utilization.
Disproportionate Countermeasure: Under the UN Charter (Article 51), any response must be proportional. India’s actions far exceed this threshold.
Pakistan’s Legal Recourse
Pakistan can challenge India’s actions through multiple forums:
1. World Bank Arbitration (Article IX of IWT)
The IWT mandates neutral expert intervention for disputes. Pakistan can demand urgent arbitration to enforce India’s compliance.
Precedent: The 2013 Kishenganga ruling forced India to modify its dam design.
2. International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Pakistan can file a case citing:
Breach of the UN Watercourses Convention (equitable utilization).
Violation of the IWT’s core provisions (e.g., unrestricted flow of Western Rivers).
3. United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
Pakistan, with support from allies like China, can table a resolution condemning India’s actions as a threat to regional peace.
Risk: Potential veto by Russia or other powers.
Strategic Countermeasures for Pakistan
1. Hydrological Resilience
Accelerate Dam Projects: Fast-track completion of Diamer-Bhasha Dam (2026) to enhance water storage.
Cloud Seeding: Invest in technology to augment rainfall and glacier replenishment.
2. Diplomatic Offensive
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Summit: Mobilize Muslim-majority nations to pressure India.
Leverage CPEC: Secure Chinese support for infrastructure and legal advocacy.
3. Economic and Humanitarian Safeguards
Diversify Agriculture: Shift to drought-resistant crops to mitigate losses.
International Aid Appeals: Highlight the humanitarian crisis to secure UN and donor assistance.
Global Implications and Precedents
India’s actions set a perilous precedent for transboundary water conflicts:
Türkiye could mimic similar tactics against Syria and Iraq over the Euphrates.
Ethiopia might harden its stance on the Nile Dam dispute, escalating tensions with Egypt and Sudan.
Climate Change Multiplier: Melting glaciers and water scarcity will exacerbate such conflicts, risking “21st-century water wars.”
Conclusion and Recommendations
India’s suspension of the IWT is a blatant violation of international law and an existential threat to Pakistan. While legal avenues offer some recourse, the urgency demands immediate action:
Exhaust All Legal Channels: File cases at the ICJ and World Bank to force India’s compliance.
Strengthen Water Infrastructure: Reduce dependency on Indian-controlled rivers through dams and alternative sources.
Global Coalition-Building: Rally international support to condemn hydrological warfare and uphold the IWT.
Indus crisis is not just a bilateral issue—it is a test of the world’s commitment to preventing resource-driven conflicts. Pakistan must act decisively to safeguard its survival and set a precedent against the weaponization of water.
Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Babar Sattar on Tuesday presented a charge sheet against Chief Justice Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar, highlighting the “judicial ills plaguing the high court” ahead of a full court meeting.
The new judicial year began in the IHC on Tuesday with Justice Dogar convening a full court meeting attended by all judges. Officials said the chief justice scheduled another full court session for 2pm today (Wednesday), issuing formal notices directing all IHC judges to attend.
Although the detailed agenda was not made public, such meetings are generally convened at the start of the judicial year to review the court’s performance, discuss administrative affairs, and set priorities for the coming months.
The full court meeting, to be chaired by Justice Dogar, will bring together all serving judges of the IHC for collective deliberations on judicial and administrative matters.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq also wrote a letter addressed to the IHC top judge, with copies sent to others, wherein he alleged that all his “brethren Judges have submissively reconciled to the concept of a Judiciary kowtowing to the executive”.
Sources said the judges sought a revision of the full court’s agenda, expressing strong reservations about the IHC’s state of affairs and suggesting remedial measures. The letters were also shared with other judges.
Justice Sattar’s letter, seen by Dawn.com, said the full court meeting was “long overdue but welcome step towards correcting the illegalities that have seeped into the administration of Islamabad High Court”, pointing out that the process had begun during the term of the previous top judge.
“I am writing to you in request inclusion of the matters listed below for discussion in the full court meeting. I have only included here brief explanations or questions to articulate their relevance, but I am sure you’ll get my drift.
“Some might counsel that this is an exercise in futility in view of the egregious disregard for judicial independence, institutional norms and the principle of comity amongst judges that has been witnessed in our midst since your transfer to Islamabad High Court. But one must never lose hope in the innate capacity of human beings to assume control of their agency and do the right and decent thing,” Justice Sattar wrote.
IHC’s diminishing role as a guardian of fundamental rights: Justice Sattar said the primary responsibility of the judiciary in a rule of law polity was to protect constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights against the abuse of power by the state.
He questioned whether IHC judges truly believed that the court was discharging that “pivotal constitutional duty” today and whether they believed that citizens perceived them as protectors and defenders of fundamental rights.
Failure to exercise supervision and control over subordinate judiciary: On this issue, Justice Sattar asked if the IHC was discharging its obligation to supervise and control courts subordinate to it in a manner so that judges manning such courts could discharge their judicial functions without fear, as required by Article 203 of the Constitution.
“Should the Islamabad District judiciary continue to look like a game of musical chairs played predominantly by deputationists or does IHC have the responsibility to develop district judiciary as an independent institution possessed of integrity and efficiency?”
Lack of transparency and logic in fixation of cases and preparation of rosters: About this issue, Justice Sattar said that as opposed to respecting institutional norms, Justice Dogar had created rosters excluding senior judges, including the senior puisne judge, from heading divisional benches.
“Should fixation of cases rest on the whims of the CJ or should there be transparency in who hears what case, while matching expertise of judges to the work they are asked to do? We write in our judgments every day that public officials aren’t kings and their administrative powers are neither unfettered nor should be exercised in a colorable manner. The cause lists issued under your watch reflect that cases are mostly marked to transferred judges and additional judges, leaving out permanent judges of IHC who found your transfer to IHC disagreeable. While exercising the administrative powers of IHC should one not remember that judges, including the CJ, are public officials too and not kings?”
Use of administrative powers to undermine judicial independence: Justice Sattar lamented that under Justice Dogar’s leadership and watch, “we have seen the office refusing to issue cause lists in breach of judicial orders, we have seen cases being transferred from the docket of one court to another despite the lack of any power in the office of the CJ to do so, and most recently we have seen issuance of rosters to deprive two judges (including me) of their dockets in a move to render them dysfunctional vis-à-vis their single-bench dockets”.
The judge said that the above might be successful manoeuvres in “rendering some judges irrelevant” and the country’s judicial history was replete with “similar malevolent practices that spread during authoritarian times”. He, however, questioned whether such “subversion of judicial independence” was justifiable.
Composition of committees to undermine high court’s collegiate character: On this issue, Justice Sattar said Justice Dogar had constituted committees “such that they exclude most of the senior judges of IHC from participating in its administrative functions.
“You’ve excluded the two senior-most judges of IHC from the Administration Committee in breach of IHC rules and entrenched institutional norms abided by all high courts, including the LHC from where you’ve come.
“Do you think manning IHC committees with additional judges appointed earlier this year and judges transferred from other provinces along with you strengthen IHC as an Institution and promote collegiality amongst judges?”
Assumption of powers to transform chief justice’s office into a monocracy: The judge said the IHC chief justice had “assumed powers to issue a circular requiring judges to seek an NOC (no-objection certificate) from you to travel out of the country, essentially placing judges on the Exit Control List”.
Justice Sattar said neither the Constitution nor the law vested such rule-making power in the office of the chief justice to “lord over his peers”.
“The draft rules circulated for consideration during the full court meeting also seek to concentrate all administrative powers in the office of the chief justice. You might have read Lord Acton’s words that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Will transforming the office of chief justice into an autocracy, in an effort to reduce the judiciary to a regiment, bolster judicial independence essential for the discharge of our adjudicatory duties?” Justice Sattar pondered.
Performance evaluation of judges and reporting of judgments: Regarding this issue, Justice Sattar said judges were the highest-paid public officials and should be strenuously held to account for their performance by the public.
However, he questioned whether there should not be an agreed objective framework for their performance evaluation.
“Under your watch IHC has issued skewed statistics regarding discharge of judicial work at IHC. These statistics are designed to cultivate an impression that some judges work super efficiently, while others don’t work at all. What if a curious researcher were to investigate the nature (and number) of cases marked to the ‘performing’ judges versus others, and the nature, quality and length of orders that make up their disposal figures? Should we not put together a consensual performance-evaluation criteria as well as guidance for which judgments are to be reported, to earnestly seek to enhance our performance and hold ourselves to account, instead of engaging in deceptive advertising?”
Concluding his letter, Justice Sattar said: “You will appreciate that it takes decades to build institutions, but they can be destroyed exponentially. We have seen this happen to Islamabad High Court in the last couple of years.
“While I may be accused of letting hope trump experience in writing to you to encourage and facilitate intra-institutional debate to stem the rot that is reducing this judicial organ into nothingness, I am partial to Rousseau’s opinion regarding the capacity of human beings for virtue. History doesn’t remember kindly those who only make hay while the sun shines. And history also reminds us that all good (and bad) times come to an end sooner rather than later.”
Justice Sattar expressed hope that the IHC chief justice would read the letter to “appreciate the spirit in which it is written”.
He added: “I apologise in advance if the content causes any offence, for that is not the intent. We are all grown adults who should be able to speak candidly about the state of our institution’s disrepair. Without honest identification and admission of our failings, there can be no corrective action.”
It may be mentioned that Justice Sattar previously wrote letters to Justice Dogar on multiple issues, including amendments in the IHC Rules and formation of administrative committees, among others.
Judiciary kowtowing to the executive: Justice Ishaq
In his separate letter, an incomplete copy of which was seen by Dawn.com, Justice Ishaq alleged that his fellow judges had “submissively reconciled to the concept of a judiciary kowtowing to the executive”.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan of the Islamabad High Court. — IHC website/File
A “third” point in the letter mentioned “recent instructions by the office of the chief justice for the Judges to take NOC (no-objection certificate) from him for travel abroad”.
Justice Ishaq objected that it was “backed neither by any law nor by the common norms of CJ whether a judge spends his vacations in Pakistan or abroad”.
“This is a blatant impingement of the Fundamental Right of movement of a judge and, by extension, a below-the-belt strike on the independence of the judiciary. It is tantamount to a de facto placement of Judges on the Exit Control List. It is a mighty blow to the independence of the Judiciary.”
Justice Ishaq further noted: “There are orders passed by some judges of this court highlighting the clear distinction between the initial constitution of the benches and any later transfer of part-heard cases; the latter concept is beyond the pale of the ‘master of the roster’.
“A full and frank discussion (if it is allowed to take place) will necessitate that the Office be directed to annex with the Working Paper all judicial orders on this point passed by various judges of this court.”
The matter, Justice Ishaq said, “requires a frank discussion in the full court, for I am curious to know why my brethren judges have submissively reconciled to the concept of a judiciary kowtowing to the executive, regardless of the miscarriage of justice it can (and has already in some cases) resulted in, and which at least to me is tantamount to a perpetual violation of innumerable injunctions in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of our beloved Prophet (PBUH) to do justice come what may, as also the oath of a judge under the Constitution to do justice without ‘fear, favour, or ill will’.”
He also took exception to the IHC Practice and Procedure Rules (PPR) being shared with the judges “only a day-and-a-half” before the full court meeting.
“I received yesterday the note for the full court meeting. Following the adage ‘better late than never’, I welcome this step, noting nonetheless that the full court meeting is an institutional convention to be followed each time any material decision impacting the functioning of the Islamabad High Court is to be taken, and not only when the idea catches the fancy of the IHC chief justice,” Justice Ishaq wrote.
He added that the notice was accompanied by a “voluminous compendium” of the new PPR, which apparently had already been notified in the official Gazette.
“I take strong exception to the PPR being shared with the Judges only a day-and-a-half before the full court meeting, as if we were possessed with some magical powers to read, analyse, and comment usefully on such a voluminous treatise that will regulate the functioning of the IHC and its subordinate judiciary.”
Justice Ishaq demanded a “proper presentation to the judges on the changes made to the existing framework under the Lahore High Court Rules adopted by the IHC”.
“As it stands now, it seems the full court meeting will only be a formality, or in any event devoid of any meaningful discussion on the PPR,” he said, adding that he was “unable to give any meaningful input on the PPR for being excluded during the process of their conception and drafting”.
Recently, the IHC chief justice constituted a division bench exclusively for clearing the backlog of nearly 2,000 tax references. Both Justice Sattar and Justice Ishaq are members of this special bench. The IHC administration had transferred all the cases pending in the dockets of both judges to the other available judges.
LAHORE (Dunya News) – The Punjab government has intensified its crackdown on illegal housing schemes with the arrest of the owner of a private housing society in the provincial capital.
Anti-Corruption Department of Punjab provided an update on the development and said the action against illegal housing schemes has been accelerated in the aftermath of flood devastation, leading to the arrest of a private housing scheme owner.
Ravi River submerges private housing society near Chuhang
The department’s Director General Sohail Zafar Chattha also noted that the operation against such schemes has been increased.
He added that notices have been issued to the Ravi Urban Development Authority (RUDA) and Lahore Development Authority (LDA), with both departments directed to submit records of housing schemes, including those built around the River Ravi.
Actress Arifa Siddiqui’s home damaged as floods hit Lahore housing society
DG Chattha revealed that the arrested housing scheme owner had the support of some LDA officials in setting up the society. He is accused of transferring Rs8 billion to Dubai.
He further stated that the illegal scheme, spanning 11,000 kanal, was developed near Thokar. The scope of investigations has been expanded, and efforts will be made to ensure that the deceived citizens get their money back from such illegal projects.
Pakistan’s trade deficit widened 29% to $6 billion in just two months of this fiscal year due to stagnant exports and a double-digit jump in imports, reflecting early signs of the government’s trade liberalisation policy.
The Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS) said on Tuesday that the gap between imports and exports reached $6 billion during the July-August period of this fiscal year. The deficit was $1.4 billion, or 29%, more than the comparative period of the last fiscal year.
The $1.4 billion higher deficit in just two months is also much more than the $1 billion loan tranche of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Pakistan and the IMF are starting negotiations for the tranche in the third week of this month.
Imports during the first two months of the current fiscal year reached $11.1 billion, up $1.4 billion, or 14.2%, according to the national data-collecting agency. Imports were also double the total value of exports during this period.
The PBS stated that exports remained stagnant at $5.1 billion in two months, hardly 0.7% more than the comparative period.
Pakistan’s external sector stability largely hinges upon smooth and higher inflows of foreign remittances, as exports are not picking up despite multiple initiatives that successive governments announced over time. The Planning Commission’s Uraan Pakistan and Stefen Dercon’s Economic Growth Plan have also not helped boost exports significantly.
But exporters complain that exchange rate rigidity is eroding their competitiveness. The rupee has gradually appreciated after the authorities again intervened to arrest the downward slide of the local currency.
The rupee-dollar parity closed at Rs281.72 on Tuesday, which was better than a day earlier. But during the steep decline of the rupee about two years ago, exporters could not take advantage of the situation, and exports remained stuck at around $2.5 billion a month.
Under the IMF programme, the government has committed to reduce import taxes by 52% over five years. Its first phase was implemented in July this year. Trade liberalisation is so far not supported by an increase in exports, which may bring the external sector under pressure.
The Ministry of Commerce and the World Bank have projected that trade liberalisation would increase exports by 14% and imports only in the range of 5% to 7% over the medium to long term.
Tight control over imports till June had decreased pressure on Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves, but if exports do not pick up in the coming months, the government may have to review its trade liberalisation policy.
The PBS said that on a year-on-year basis, exports amounted to a mere $2.4 billion in August, which were $345 million, or 12.5%, less than the same month of the last year. The yearly contraction in exports should be a matter of concern for policymakers.
Contrary to the reduction in exports, imports grew 6.4% to $5.3 billion. It was the second consecutive month of this fiscal year when imports remained above the controlled threshold of $5 billion. In absolute terms, imports grew $319 million in a single month.
As a result, the trade deficit also widened over 30% to $2.9 billion last month. In absolute terms, there was a $664 million increase in the trade deficit. The PBS data showed that on a month-on-month basis, the trade deficit shrank 8.8%. Exports dipped 10% to $2.4 billion last month compared to July. Imports also decreased 9.4% to $5.3 billion. One reason for lower monthly imports was clearance of bulk cargoes in July, which importers had withheld in anticipation of a reduction in taxes.
The increase in imports is also reflected in monthly tax collection by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). The FBR has surpassed the two-month customs duty collection target. Against the target of Rs192 billion, the customs duty collection amounted to Rs204 billion with 20% growth. The growth in customs duty collection was more than the growth in the total tax collection of Rs1.66 trillion for the two-month period.
