https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/indias-water...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Waters_Treaty
Wasn't there something in the intro of "Mad Max fury road" about water wars?
Neither side gains to win much from a conflict, but should India really tamper with the water supply I hope they consult their economists first. Otherwise Pakistan has little choice but instantly commit to a full war.
The reason:
A significant amount of the food produced in Pakistan directly depends on the water from the river Indus. Even a moderate water supply reduction would lead to a loss of around 10% of the harvest.
That does not sound like much, BUT economically food is a commodity with low 'elasticity', meaning demand does not really go down with reduced supply. The result would therefore be a doubling of food prices.
In a country where people have little dispensable income, that means wide spread famine.
By all measures India is the more powerful state, but as Ukraine demonstrates: Desperation can make up for a lot of disadvantage.
If you mean people as a whole, sure. But it's not people who decide, it's the governments. And war is a tried and true measure for authoritarians of all stripes to use as an excuse to consolidate their power and rally the public. Because, well, it works - so long as you're on the winning side. But, given the history of Indo-Pak wars, I could see why the Indian government might believe that they'll win any open military confrontation that their actions may provoke.
If that's the case then the die is already cast. Early in the conflict, India released too much water on the Chenub too early for the season as a way to punish Pakistan. The quantity of water was such that Pakistan had no choice but to let it run off to the sea. This now means that the upstream Indian reservoir will not have enough water to release during regular season where coordinated releases ensure farmers have an uninterrupted supply during certain critical time periods.
By 2020 they already had Bayraktars and Javelins:
https://www.dailysabah.com/business/defense/ukraine-to-buy-5...
The question is whether China would prop up Pakistan like NATO did for Ukraine
The only one India is messing with is the Chenab, and only because it messes up Pakistan's Rice and Sugar exports (major forex provider for Pakistan, and the supply chain is heavily owned by Pakistan's MilBus). Kharif sowing season ends in a couple weeks so messing with the Chenab for 3-4 weeks is enough to destroy the rice harvest in Northeast Punjab.
I recommend reading Ayesha Siddiqui's "Military Inc" to understand the Pakistani army (she was forced into exile because of the book), and "Army and Nation" by Steven Wilkinson to understand India's army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Waters_Treaty#Suspension
Following the suspension of the treaty, India significantly reduced the flow of water through the Chenab River, which crosses into Pakistan. Pakistani authorities claimed a 90% drop in water supply and accused India of choking the river’s flow. India also initiated new hydroelectric projects and began constructing dams on the western rivers, actions previously constrained under the treaty.[125][126][127]
Pakistan has reportedly warned that any attempt by India to disrupt the flow of water from shared rivers could be considered an act of war, and would attack India with nuclear weapons.[128]
India just wants to save face over the terror attacks, a very easy game to play diplomatically. This missile strike was even smaller and more symbolic than even the Israeli Iranian ones. And those two are much more inclined (and far more prepared) to do something stupid.
India could build water channel, in style of China's South North water transfer project in less than half decade. Huge dams aren't really needed for just diversion, if India is really serious about it.
Neither side wants peace. But neither side wants to commit military manoeuvre that secures strategic aims. So we get this defence sale wet dream of a forever war instead.
There are no strategic goals here. Either side may recover some vantage points high up in the Himalayas. But that's about it.
You have to be careful with that word, peace, because all wars are defensive.
Peace implies disengagement by maintaining long-standing borders. India wants peace by maintaining Line of Actual Control (LAC). Be it China or Pakistan, India has never been the one to escalate first. When engaging with nations that want peace, India has been able to resolve complex border issues. Eg: Srilanka[1] and Bangladesh [2].
Russia and China do not want peace because they are invading past their effective borders into lands they do not control.
All wars are not defensive. All countries are not the same. Each war is different, and it is fair to impose different judgements on the participants of each war.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katchatheevu
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Bangladesh_encla...
Before I write a novel of a response, can you rigorously define "long-standing borders", as well as the implied words of "nation", "country", and "state"? How far back in history is "long standing" valid for? Some of these things are matters of history, how do you deal with historians disagreeing on the ground truth? What happens when someone strongly asserts something that is factually untrue?
All wars are defensive in that the combatants are told they are defending, not attacking. Russians in Ukraine don't think they are attacking, they think they are defending Russia from NATO or de-nazifying Ukraine, or at least that is their national narrative.
Mostly I think your post proved my overall point, which is that peace is not a meaningful word because its meaning is relative to its speakers beliefs rather than in reference to a universalize-able moral framework describing about what justice is.
And it is absurd to claim that Russia wants peace. It can literally have peace anytime it wants by simply pulling its troops out of Ukrainian territory and ceasing the launching of missiles and drones on the populace.
The US threats on Canada and Greenland are not made with "peace" in mind.
The best example of this is the Iraq war. The US invaded another country and sold it as a peace keeping mission because "They are building weapons of mass destruction!".
In fact, the US has decades of history doing such actions (see: banana republics and the CIA's anti-communism efforts).
I think the argument is all wars can be defensively spun. Russia apologists falling for the imminent-Ukraine-membership lie, MAGAs falling for the idea that we’re defending our Arctic interests by invading Greenland, Hitler’s argument that the Nazis were defending against a jealous Jewry and Europe, et cetera. The justifications for war are always, in part, however flimsily, couched in terms of defence (in modern times).
The jingoists won't ever be ... as Orwell predicted, they'll use Orwellian terms fit for their grandeur and inline with their delusion.
Violence is usually conditional. It comes with instructions on how to avoid it. Let the criminal take your things and he won't shoot you. Let us take this territory and you won't be killed. If you surrender and submit to our rule, you will have your peace. It's just that the cost is your land, your economy, your freedom, your secuity, your dignity, your pride, your self-determination
The key fact about violence is nobody actually wants it. Everybody wants peace. At the same time, everybody also wants scarce resources that others are unwilling to just hand over to them. So they use the threat of violence to get what they want. Actual violence is risky and all bets are off once it escalates. Without the threat of violence though, why negotiate when you can just take?
So there's a lot of nuance to "peace". India cannot claim to want peace and then suspend a treaty that provides vital water resources to Pakistan. Pakistan cannot claim to want peace and at the same time support insurgency against India. All of these things will obviously escalate the situtation until it erupts into war.
Not really. There are options for a negotiated peace that involves swapping land, specifically, ceding Muslim-dominant territory to Pakistan and setting borders along rivers. That's anathema in India because there is broad-based antipathy towards Islamabad, historically, and Muslims, recently.
Why would India do that? Why would a unilateral surrender of land be considered valid terms for peace?
> swapping land
In a fair swap, what land would Pakistan offer in exchange?
> Muslims, recently
Pakistan doesn't have a stellar reputation for treatment of its Muslim minorities (Ahmediyyas, Ismailis) and non-Punjabi muslims (Balochis, Pasthuns, once-Pakistani-Bengalis). I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations.
____
Note: Pakistan's historic terror attacks have been deep in India soil (Mumbai, Delh). There is no indication that they'd maintain peace with India if they gained control over Kashmir.
Because you trade it for more than it's worth to you. America gave up the Philippines, for example. Every decolonisation effort could accurately be described as "a unilateral surrender of land."
> what land would Pakistan offer in exchange?
You'd probably need China to participate. Maybe Siachen or even areas of Sindh? It's a long shot. One of the elements would almost certainly be co-ordinated anti-terrorist policing. Maybe guaranteed by China.
> I'm inclined to consider India a safer nation for most muslim denominations
I am, too. But let's be honest, neither side is concerned with the wellbeing of anyone in Kashmir.
Kashmiris on the Indian side are citizens (unlike in "colonies"). AFSPA must be phased out but Kashmir isn't the only Indian state that's subject to it.
> neither side is concerned with the wellbeing of anyone in Kashmir
Yeah, the issue is too good to give up for (religion-based) politics and (military-industrial) businesses, on both sides of the border.
Reminds of me this Bollywood movie dialogue: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RJAJdYw3ctw
Since when has that prevented any government from negotiating borders?
> the issue is too good to give up for (religion-based) politics and (military-industrial) businesses, on both sides of the border
Yup. I’d add that the citizens of both countries legitimately despise each other. Not genocidally, for the most part, but dismissively to each others’ humanity. So it’s not like you have to go full manufactured consent to develop jingoism.
I've been to towns on both sides throughout the years and this isn't the case everywhere. Though, disagreements do run deep, as contrasting narratives are in fact mainstream talking points.
Hopefully, in my lifetime, the countries resolve their differences & cast aside the hateful fringe like they should.
> negotiating borders
That's a very different thing to "decolonisation".
> manufactured consent to develop jingoism
They have to. A widow survivor of the Pahalgam Attack called for peace and the jingoists lost their collective minds: https://x.com/RahulSeeker/status/1919771002013118540
India is 1.6bn people and even if 7% disagree, that's a 100mn people (and the number is far greater than 7%). Not everyone is a right-wing nationalist, though, the ruling parties and the now-compromised MSMs are.
Come on. You can't live in India and think this seriously.
Anyways, the Kashmir issue is contentious but Kashmiris never got to say whether they should be part of India or not, unlike most states and people during partition. I am very aware the full history of the region is murky and that the removal of Kashmiri Pandits from the region led to the current broad swath of support for Kashmiri independence (or becoming a part of Pakistan, either way being separate from India), but the current situation is what it is, and until that is resolved it will continue to be an issue in India.
> Pakistan's historic terror attacks have been deep in India soil
India is said to sponsor Balochistan separatism as well, those groups have also made attacks deep into Pakistan, so again, no indication that either side will remain peaceful if the Kashmiri conflict ended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis_(Pakist...
> unlike most states and people during partition
This is complete nonsense. Nobody got a say, Kashmir wasn't any different.
I don't know where you live. There are states in India where minorities are absolutely safe.
That almost made me laugh.
No one asks what the Kashmiris of the Valley want, which, for the most part, seems like they want to be left alone: https://www.quora.com/What-do-Jammu-and-Kashmirs-people-thin....
You know how this looks from a position outside the conflict, right? Can you imagine a Paskistani perspective? Put yourself on the other side. Imagine what it would take for peace from that point of view.
The sectors on the Indian side where fighting is happening right now in Jammu Division are 50-50 Muslim-Hindu/Sikh. What you are advocating would lead to Yugoslav style ethnic cleansing.
> setting borders along rivers
It already is that on the LoC, or mountain faces where rivers are not existent.
Yes. When you have a sectarian conflict, the only lasting solution is moving people around. Hateful people don’t learn to stop hating each other. Particularly not when you’re dealing with the levels of education in J&K.
> It already is that on the LoC, or mountain faces where rivers are not existent
And. Having a river with a sectarian cross isn’t useful.
This stuff is hard and controversial. It takes work. My point is nobody is particularly interested in that work versus leaving the region in a low simmer.
Jammu Division is an entirely separate ethnic community (Pahari) from that in Kashmir Division (Koshur).
Even during the worst of the partition and the Indo-Pak Wars, the mountain areas where active fighting was occurring never saw the same kind of religious violence you'd see in neighboring Kashmir or Punjabi speaking areas like Jammu City or Mirpur City.
This would be solving a non-existent problem, as the leadership making decisions for conflicts on or around the LoC are not from these regions.
And btw, the Indian and Pakistani army did attempt that when my grandmother was a child, but it didn't stick and people from one side or the other would just cross back - and this was the norm until the 1980s.
---------------
There are ways to resolve the problem longer term, and that requires forcing professionalization of the Pakistani Armed Forces and cajoling India back to the negotiating table using the carrot and the stick. Similar precedent already exists with the Israel-Egypt peace accords under Sadat, and would have happened under Bajwa, Nawaz Sharif, or Musharraf if they weren't undermined.
The people in the region are pretty much irrelevant, one can successfuly model the conflict as a proxy war between New Delhi and Islamabad. Their interests are particular to the borders in the region, namely, access to waterm, China and the other side's Kashmir.
> ways to resolve the problem longer term, and that requires forcing professionalization of the Pakistani Armed Forces and cajoling India back to the negotiating table using the carrot and the stick. Similar precedent already exists with the Israel-Egypt peace accords under Sadat
This is a solution from a different era. The current borders are unstable and thus unsustainable. Between proxy forces and the militarisation of the South China Sea, we're kicking the can down the road until someone acts decisively.
The game theory is that kicking the can down the road works for both sides. There isn't a pressing need for peace between India and Pakistan, just not nuclear conflict. And that's achieved with a Korean Peninsula-esque stalemate. The problem is either side gaining an advantage resolves the issue, and the later that happens the more destructive the resolution would be. (Think: Pakistan gaining top-of-the-line Sino-Russian missile defence.) And both sides know that ex ante. So we have a prisoner's dilemma without the common enemy (and common ally) that animated Tel Aviv and Cairo.
"We should do my poorly thought out plan because they're too dumb to stop killing each other" is not a reasonable way to discuss geopolitics.
Sorry, why would that be done? When Pakistan was split from India, because of the Muslims voting against their own land that they have been living in for centuries, the lines are set and done.
Why should India cede more land?
Pakistan is on one of the most resource rich, fertile lands in the Indian subcontinent.
Lines are never "set and done for." We had a short period of global consensus around the unacceptability of taking territory by force. But between the superpowers' proxy wars, America's invasion of Iraq, China's annexation of Tibet and threats on Taiwan, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that precedent was always tenuous at best and, now, has certainly passed.
> Why should India cede more land?
Because New Delhi expects something of greater value in return. For example, one could see a China-mediated truce trading territory in J&K for settling boundaries in Andra Pradesh and/or a deployment of Chinese troops on anti-terrorist missions in Pakistan.
Nobody is saying India just give land to Pakistan for feelsies. It's engaging in a negotiation where that's on the table.
> Pakistan is on one of the most resource rich, fertile lands in the Indian subcontinent
Geopolitics isn't fair? (Also, India is richer than Pakistan. Both in population and GDP per capital.)
That said, this argument represents the pathos in India. India broadly isn't interested in peace if it comes at the cost of territory. It expresses a preference for certain things above peace.
Even if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan, there is no reason why they'd be done aggressing for more territory.
Nope. It’s just being realistic about the priorities at play. And there isn’t a clear aggressor in this conflict, it is as old as both states.
(Also, countries have bought and sold territories for ages. That doesn’t invite aggression or strike me as wrong.)
> if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan, there is no reason why they'd be done aggressing for more territory
They wouldn’t. New Delhi would have to get something that is worth more than that territory in return.
What would that be? Pakistan and India had an agreement to peacefully resolve issues already in 1972 Simla agreement. But they continue to send terrorists to murder indian civilians on indian soil. They never followed the agreement. They invaded twice after that agreement.
Anything that India gets out of Pakistan cannot be trusted. They have been claiming that Osama was not in Pakistan, while taking money from the US to support its war in terror.
I don't think Pakistan has any trustability remaining.
It will continue to provoke and attack India as long as their military rules the nation. Their military's existence is the anti-India stance it propagates.
Then the only security solution for India is invading and replacing Pakistan’s government. Anything less is needlessly drawing out the violence out of caution and cowardice. The fact that this is obviously overkill belies that there is room for diplomacy.
Also! Not how diplomacy works! A fundamental fact about international relations is it’s anarchic. If your model of international relations requires trust for diplomacy, you’ve fundamentally missed how geopolitics works.
> It will continue to provoke and attack India as long as their military rules the nation
Look at the history of France and Germany negotiating territory exchanges, including under duress. Or the U.S. and Britain while the two hated each other. Et cetera.
Actually trust is a significant factor in geopolitical setup. This is why NATO was stable for a long time and Trump's statements are read as a threat to NATO.
Many nations trust the signed agreements are kept. If those are not followed, then there is no point in signing those agreements.
If there is no trust, then there will be military build up to manage the risks. The fact that this does not happen to western countries is due to high degree of trust among them (France will not attack Germany tomorrow).
>>Look at the history of France and Germany negotiating territory exchanges, including under duress.
Significantly different economy, society and government. Hard to negotiate when the whole existence of the government depends on anti-India stance, when the economy is dependent upon aid from IMF, and high levels of illiteracy and radicalization (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_in_Pakistan)
I think here we are looking into a textbook style definition. But for all practical purposes, military rules Pakistan. It is well understood by its own citizens, especially post-Imran Khan.
>But a lot of countries are terrorist supporting, and the world is happy to negotiate with them.
Would like to understand which countries you mean. No one is negotiating with Iran nowadays. India also was willing to negotiate in the past, not anymore it seems.
Support for terrorism as a state policy is to put pressure without major impact to the aggressor nation. The aggressor is in an advantageous position. Terrorism is low cost high impact (non material, but psychological). There is not much leverage for the suffering country here. So negotiations are not long lasting.
Pakistani Military leadership has attempted to negotiate normalized relations as well. The issue is someone in their lower ranks or on the political front tries to take advantage of normalization attempts to overthrow the previous leader. I documented a number of cases that happened this past decade below.
And partners like KSA and UAE would come down hard if this became an extended conflict.
Asif Munir is the son of an imam and an avowed Islamist. India’s ruling party is openly pro-Hindu. Modi is also under pressure from the hardline religious wing of his party for the recent focus on caste instead of religion
Yup. But those same forces conspire against a sustained peace.
> partners like KSA and UAE would come down hard if this became an extended conflict
Zero chance. The problem is China.
As I mentioned previously, the China factor is significant but overstated. And I'm fairly hawkish about China.
UAE and KSA have equally as much if not more leverage on Pakistani elite than China. Majority of Pakistan's trade is devoted to the UAE and KSA, and most leadership (military, political, and business) has family and financial relations in both countries.
In addition, the UAE and KSA's sovereign wealth funds own the bulk of Pakistan's core assets like K-Power, PIA, Karachi Port, etc.
Furthermore, the classic Pakistani Army retirement strategy is to become a mid-level officer in the Saudi Land Forces, due to past recruitment.
And finally, a similar amount of Pakistani weapons systems are NATO adjacent from previous American procurement, so Pakistan has leveraged Turkiye as a hedge against being overly dependent on China.
> But those same forces conspire against a sustained peace
On the India side the same people who were negotiating normalization with Bajwa remain. The only change has happened in the last couple years is IK was ousted by Bajwa, and then he was ousted by Munir.
Munir was DG ISI during Balakot, and immediately demoted to Corps Commander in the direct aftermath of the LeT attack (who like other militant orgs have gotten support from the ISI, but not as much from the Army). It's Munir's clique that appears to be trying to use this to solidify their hold within Pakistan.
India and Pakistan can normalize relations, and sincere attempts have been made by both sides, but inter-factional competition amongst Pakistan's elite has undermined it. Pakistan needs a Musharraf again.
> India and Pakistan can normalize relations, and sincere attempts have been made by both sides, but inter-factional competition amongst Pakistan's elite has undermined it
India has less motivation for war. But it’s also done nothing to negotiate a peace.
2019 is a good example of UAE using it's heft [0][1]. In a couple years we'll probably see leaks in Bloomberg or AJ about KSA doing something similar rn.
> India has less motivation for war. But it’s also done nothing to negotiate a peace.
Both have worked on reconciliation immediately before some incident arises that causes talks to collapse.
For example, the last couple months before this incident happened [2], in 2021 thanks to the UAE [1][3] before Bajwa-IK-Munir's tussle, 2017-18 before Balakot according to Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy [4], and 2016 before the Pathankot Attack [5].
In most cases, both attempts are made at negotiating normalization, but some faction attempts to undermine it.
And there were multiple other examples before the Modi admin, at least 2-3 other attempts in the MMS-Musharraf admin and 1 attempt in the Vajpayee-Sharif admin, but they were all undermined by some faction in the Pak Armed forces.
I'd recommend reading "The Spy Chronicles" by AS Dulat (former head of India's intel agency) and Asad Durrani (former head of Pakistan's intel agency) where they decided to leak a number of these incidents. The book ended up causing a major political scandal in both India and Pakistan.
[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-28/india-...
[1] - https://tribune.com.pk/story/2417903/gen-bajwas-india-peace-...
[2] - https://tribune.com.pk/story/2460279/fm-says-govt-to-serious...
[3] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-22/secret-in...
[4] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14799855.2019.16...
This is not projecting power, it's the UAE (and Qatar) playing their aspirational roles as the new Davos/Switzerland for diplomacy.
Pakistan is definitely more anti-peace than India. But while Islamabad undermines peace, New Delhi is mostly uninterested in it.
That's a framing I agree with.
> This is not projecting power, it's the UAE (and Qatar) playing their aspirational roles as the new Davos/Switzerland for diplomacy.
Sure, but in India-Pakistan relations, they (UAE and KSA, not Qatar) are increasingly the only mediators with whom both parties can negotiate offramps.
Large pole countries don't have the same heft they may have had 15-20 years ago, and even the Russian-Ukraine War has shown that power differentials are not that significant between major powers and regional powers, and why multilateralism is critical (and a major reason I dislike Trump - I primarily only agree with his tariff policy, nothing else).
Only the most minor ones. Anything significant requires an outside security guarantar.
> Large pole countries don't have the same heft they may have had 15-20 years ago, and even the Russian-Ukraine War has shown that power differentials are not that significant between major powers and regional powers
Russia was trying to replicate America's offensive successes in Afghanistan and Iraq. (What Devereaux calls the modern system [1].) Moscow couldn't even achieve air superiority. (America got supremacy in hours.) Russia's invasion of Ukraine showed that Russia isn't operating a modern, combined-arms military.
Great powers have always overestimated their power. That doesn't mean it's not there at all.
[1] https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
Just out of curiosity, what about this tariff policy do you like?
We need to incentivize American manufacturers to utilize that supply chain instead of co-mingling foreign inputs in an attempt to maximize margins while having taken advantage of the tax and cash incentives used when availing the aforementioned benefits during the Biden admin.
Tariffs are the easiest way to allow the American ecosystem to actually redevelop and stick, instead if wisping away due to malicious compliance. The Biden admin even considered adding similar barriers, but decided against it because they didn't want to risk a protracted trade war during a competitive election cycle.
Furthermore, most consumer goods and a number of industrial goods that would hurt the "average American's" pocketbook have alternative supply chains like Philippines, Brazil, Turkiye, India, Mexico etc that have now been made cost competitive compared to Chinese inputs.
You are entitled to your opinion and I will disagree with it. This strategy will not work. People do not want to pay higher prices and will build system that work around the artificial barriers. People will even pay the 30% of so tariffs that are currently in place on China than to build the same products here. It is cheaper that way.
Also, it takes many years to build the infrastructure to build the stuff you are trying to in-source. Tariff policy changes by the month if not sooner. Investors are not lining up to build factories in the US.
Really? How do you know. Most Indians don't care about what happens to Pakistan or its people.
The moment Pakistan's military stops its terror funding and support activities, India will not care whether it Pakistan lives or dies.
I'll entertain this is possible. But it's not only unlikely but irrational so long as Pakistan deepens its ties with China. It's made almost certain by the attitude you're presenting: countries that do "not care whether" their neighbours live or die generally aren't on peaceful terms with them.
The end of Lolita (old guy on a road, frustrated, goes off path) fits with the Furiosa taking a detour.
The roles are reversed. The young girl leaves in triumph (opposed to: the old guy leaves in frustration) and the old guy goes after her (opposed to: the young girl doesn't care about him leaving).
It could be just the skeleton of the story though.
Water is unobtanium of their scenic universe. In that movie perspective, it's related to healthy reproduction (healthy babies!), most likely cultural and not genetic.
As any work of art, it is subject to many interpretations. Not everything is a cue. But some cues exist in fact. Contrary to the meme swarm, you can't turn those ideas so quickly into what you want, otherwise it fails to connect to a sense of cultural continuity.
The old Minister represents an aged cultural interpretation of a nation (not exactly Japan, but what is perceived to be the form of Imperial Japan if it has won WWII).
After seeing it, the character is called out by his son, before quickly returning back to the war universe.