
Water, not warheads, could spark the next South Asia crisis
On July 19, Li, while justifying the launch of the construction of a dam over the Brahmaputra River in the ecologically fragile and sensitive Tibet region, allayed apprehensions over its possible bearing in the midstream and lower riparian countries such as India and Bangladesh. China says the dam project, costing an estimated $167 billion, will ensure ecological protection and enhance local prosperity.
Earlier this month, the chief minister of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, described the Chinese dam project on the river, which in India is largely referred to as the Brahmaputra, as a 'ticking water bomb' and a matter of grave concern.
Over 3,000km from Arunachal Pradesh, in the hushed conversations of the Kashmir Valley, people are quietly speculating that the next war between India and Pakistan may be fought over Kashmir's waters.
After the April 22 terrorist attack in the picturesque Baisaran valley in Pahalgam, Kashmir, New Delhi put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 in abeyance. In a tit-for-tat response, Islamabad suspended the Simla Agreement of 1972 and described India's action as an 'act of war.'
The IWT, brokered by the World Bank, was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960. It is a water-distribution agreement between India and Pakistan that had survived for the last 65 years but has been suspended for the first time by India.
According to the IWT, both countries can use the water available in the Indus River and its tributaries. Pakistan is granted rights to the Indus Basin's western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab – for irrigation, drinking, and non-consumptive uses (hydropower). India has control over the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej – for unrestricted use. As per the treaty, India is allowed to use the western rivers for limited purposes (power generation and irrigation), without storing or diverting large volumes.
New Delhi is now reportedly working on a mega inter-basin water transfer plan to possibly divert surplus flows from Jammu and Kashmir waters to the northern Indian states of Punjab and Haryana, and even to Rajasthan. Media reports indicate that New Delhi aims to maximize the benefits of the Indus River waters. A feasibility study is being conducted to explore the possibility of constructing a 113-km-long canal that would redirect surplus flows from Kashmir to other states.
Predictably, this proposal has not gone down well with either Islamabad or Kashmir-based political groups. Besides triggering a war of words between the major Unionist political formations of Kashmir and Punjab, this project is likely to instigate new interstate water disputes.
It also has geopolitical ramifications.
Pravin Sawhney, a former India Army officer, prominent strategic and defense expert and author, told RT that any violation of the IWT would be an act of war from Pakistan's perspective.
'Stopping water flow to Pakistan or diverting Kashmir waters to other states in violation of the IWT will be considered an Act of War. A war that India cannot win because of China and Pakistan being iron-clad friends,' Sawhney said.
However, after the Pahalgam incident, New Delhi hardened its position vis-à-vis Islamabad. On a visit to the state of Madhya Pradesh last month, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah said, 'Indus waters will be taken to Rajasthan's Sri Ganganagar through canals within three years.' He also claimed that Pakistan will be left 'craving for every drop of water.' Similar statements have been made by other Indian politicians.
How does Islamabad perceive this threat?
In a recent interview with The Wire, former Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari spoke in favor of a comprehensive dialogue between the two countries on all outstanding issues, including the Kashmir dispute and 'water terrorism.'
'India is threatening to cut off the water supply to 240 million people of Pakistan to starve the Indus Valley civilization, a shared culture, history and heritage. This goes against everything that used to be Indian. It goes against the philosophy of (Mohandas Karamchand) Gandhi. It goes against all that we have been taught about India as a secular country.'
In earlier interviews, Bhutto warned of serious ramifications if the water flow was stopped to Pakistan, a low riparian state. During the National Assembly's budget session in Pakistan last month, he accused the current Indian government of violating international law by unilaterally suspending the IWT.
The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration recently ruled that New Delhi's decision to suspend the IWT did not deprive the court of its competence to deliver judgment on Pakistan's complaints against India. New Delhi has opposed the proceedings of the Court of Arbitration ever since its creation by the World Bank in October 2022.
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs, in a statement on June 27, called the move the 'latest charade at Pakistan's behest.'
New Delhi's plan to reroute Kashmir's waters potentially complicates geopolitical tensions between the two rivals, whose 78-year-old history has witnessed major wars, intense and prolonged periods of escalation during the 1999 Kargil conflict, and more recently, the standoff in May 2025.
Rao Farman Ali, the author of 'Water, Polity and Kashmir', argues that the international community will not allow another war between Pakistan and India given that both are nuclear powers. "Rhetoric on either side won't help. There is a need to handle sensitive issues such as the Indus Waters Treaty with caution and foresight, and the key lies in resolution of the Kashmir dispute,' Ali told RT.
He added that the IWT's potential as a sustainable peace-building structure remains unexploited. Meanwhile, he favors a win-win situation for China, Pakistan, and India as a result of a potential agreement between all stakeholders.
'A trilateral 1.2.3 Agreement between China, India and Pakistan, focusing on the immediate demilitarization of the Siachen Glacier – the vital 'blue crystal feeding the Indus (Neelam-Kishanganga) – is an urgent imperative,' he said, adding that suspending the IWT would trigger another conflict and that perpetual Pakistan-India acrimony is unaffordable and unreasonable.
Chinese experts meanwhile have warned New Delhi against any potential plans to divert waters. Victor Gao, chair professor at Soochow University and expert on international relations, said in an interview with India Today that Beijing will have to step in if New Delhi and Islamabad are not able to "come up with an equitable way of allocating the water."
'We really do not want to see the way the Indian government is diverting water from the Indus river, depriving the Pakistani people in the downstream of the benefit of water. We do not like it at all. And we warned the Indian government not to do that because there will be consequences if the Indian government continues to deny water to the people in Pakistan on the downstream," he asserted, arguing the India is a midstream country and that China is 'the real upper stream country.'
Gao, who is known to be close to the Chinese establishment, said that denial or diversion of water to mid-stream or low riparian states will have consequences. 'Don't do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. India is not really in the upper stream. India is a midstream country. So, be peaceful with your neighbor rather than engaging in a political spectacle,' he warned in a 25-minute-long interview.
China controls the Brahmaputra River and wields influence to disrupt the flow of the waters. The proposed dam project by China also risks renewed confrontation between Beijing and New Delhi. Unlike Pakistan and India, China is not a signatory to any international water treaties.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
India refutes Trump's claim it stopped buying Russia oil
India's foreign ministry has rejected US President Donald Trump's claim that New Delhi has halted purchases of Russian oil. The Indian government is unaware of any specific developments regarding Indian oil companies pausing Russian imports, the ministry stated, noting that the country's energy purchases are guided by market dynamics and national interests. 'The government is committed to prioritizing the welfare of Indian consumers. Our energy purchases will be based on price, availability and market conditions,' the ministry added. The remarks came hours after Trump claimed India had stopped purchasing Russian oil. 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard, I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens,' he told reporters in Washington, DC. 🇮🇳🇷🇺🇺🇸 Slick or Crude? Trump Claims India Halts Russian Oil Purchases - Then Admits Might Be Fake Washington on Thursday imposed a 25% tariff on goods imported from India, as well as an additional penalty for purchasing crude oil and military equipment from Russia. Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized India for continuing to import the discounted oil despite Western sanctions, claiming New Delhi was 'helping to sustain the Russian war effort.' Rubio called India's energy trade with Russia 'most certainly a point of irritation' in Washington's relationship with New Delhi. India's position has long been that its energy trade is guided by its national interest and the need to sustain the rapid economic growth of its 1.4 billion people. New Delhi officials have on many occasions stated that by ramping up purchases of Russian oil despite enormous pressure from the West, India has helped global markets avoid sharp increases in crude prices.


Russia Today
19 hours ago
- Russia Today
India-US ties have weathered many challenges
The India-US relationship has 'weathered many transitions and challenges' in the past and is based on mutual respect, Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said on Friday. The comments come in response to the US imposing 25% tariffs on imports from India and Donald Trump's threatening to add penalties over and above those due to New Delhi's trade and defense ties with Moscow. 'India and the US share a comprehensive global strategic partnership anchored in shared interests, democratic values, robust people-to-people ties,' Jaiswal said. He also spoke of the potential for the defense partnership with Washington. 'We have strong defense ties with the US which have been strengthening over the last several years,' he said. ❗️🇮🇳 Relationships With Other Countries Should Not Be Seen Through Prism Of A Third Country - Russia & India Have A Steady & Time-Tested Partnership- MEA Reacts To Trump's Secondary Tariffs A day after Trump said India and Russia 'could take their dead economies down together,' US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil 'a point of irritation.' In a response to these comments at the Friday press briefing, Jaiswal said bilateral relationships between two countries should not be viewed in the context of a third nation. 'Our ties with any country are based on their own merit and should not be judged through the lens of our relationship with another country,' he said. Jaiswal also highlighted that India and Russia enjoy a long-standing and robust partnership. The spokesman said India's decisions on defense purchases are driven solely by national security needs and strategic considerations, adding that the country's energy sourcing is guided by market availability and global circumstances.


Russia Today
21 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump's onslaught: Why India and BRICS will not bend
US President Trump has rattled Washington's ties with New Delhi to an unexpected degree. Countries, including, India were prepared for rough diplomatic weather after Trump won his second term, but did not anticipate the kind of onslaught he has unleashed on the global system and diplomatic norms. Trump's latest attack on India and the BRICS countries explains this underlying dynamic. The BRICS aspire to play a greater political, economic and financial role in global affairs. This aspiration is based on shifts of economic and concomitant political and financial power towards the so-called emerging powers or middle-income countries. BRICS countries have already begun to use their national currencies in trading with each other as much as possible. The use of draconian financial sanctions on Russia by the West has accelerated this process. Today, almost all trade operations between Russia and China are conducted in rubles and yuan. India too is encouraging the use of its national currency in payment transactions with select countries. A significant portion of the trade between India and Russia is now settled using a rupee-ruble mechanism. Washington cannot use secondary sanctions to prevent countries, including India, from using the US dollar to trade with Russia and then oppose de-dollarization if these countries are compelled to use alternative payment mechanisms. If the US continues to weaponize the dollar, it will inevitably lead to the very 'de-dollarization' that Trump is concerned about. India has officially disowned any de-dollarization agenda – not the least because the US is its biggest trade partner in goods and services. India seeks more investments and technology transfers from the US. In many ways, New Delhi's ties with Washington are the most important for achieving its growth and developmental goals. But that does not preclude India from establishing other partnerships to reduce over-dependence on one country, balance its external relations and hedge against the excesses of US foreign policy. Trump has exacerbated the disruptions caused by Washington's frequent use of sanctions as a political weapon by also weaponizing tariffs. He is convinced that by imposing arbitrarily determined tariffs on imports from other countries he will compel them to enter into negotiations with the US to obtain relief by lowering their high tariffs on American products. But India on Wednesday sent a clear message: it is determined to protect the interests of its own businesses, farmers and people. Trump's use of tariffs as lever, like in the case of Brazil, where he has cited President Lula's treatment of his predecessor Bolsanaro as reason for imposing 50% levies, is being closely monitored by the world's governments. Trump has repeatedly targeted BRICS since his return to the Oval Office. He had threatened the countries with tariffs if they contonie to pledge to create a new common currency or support any alternative to the US dollar. Trump appeared to harbor the illusion that BRICS was 'dead' following his threats – which have now materialized into action. In reality, the BRICS summit held in Brazil this July showed no visible signs of intimidation. On the contrary, such overt displays of American economic coercion may well drive more countries toward alliances that seek to challenge the dominance of any single global power. The administration in Washington appears to lack realism in its assessment of global trends. Trump positions himself as a peacemaker and openly aspires to win a Nobel Peace Prize, while at the same time bombing Iran and assisting Israel in perpetuating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Similarly, threatening China as a BRICS member with 100% tariffs so casually – along with talk of bombing Beijing if the People's Republic were to invade Taiwan – makes little sense, especially given that an interim trade deal has already been reached and further negotiations are imminent. The US cannot reasonably claim that forums like BRICS have no right to determine their own agenda in pursuit of their shared interests. At the same time, the US has walked out of or subverted key international agreements and institutions. It has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Change agreement, the WHO, the UN Human Rights Commission and UNESCO. Trump seems to believe that these organizations cannot function or survive without the presence of the US and its financial contributions. In reality, the US will lose its voice and its leadership in these international forums. The space it vacates will be filled by others, especially China. Beijing has already carved out enormous influence in the UN institutions as it is now the second largest contributor to the UN. With Washington also bullying Europe and thereby damaging Western solidarity, the US absence from these organizations will have even less impact. The more the world learns to manage without the US in these international bodies, the more America's international influence will erode. These US decisions will also accelerate the dispersal of influence at the global level, as other centers of influence develop.