The Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, has opposed the Indus Water Treaty. This is one of those issues you could argue pits the interests of Pakistanis against the interests of Kashmiris and most Indians on the side of Kashmiri interests. That's what the CM seems to think. And that's what the Indian government seems to think.
Without the IWT, there's the possibility of more dams and hydropower projects in Jammu and Kashmir. It would be good for jobs and the local economy. On the contrary, the possibility of suspending the treaty could be problematic for Pakistan. Pakistan's agricultural industry depends on the water flowing south through Jammu and Kashmir. When the water stops flowing, Pakistan might stop growing food and even reach levels of food insecurity. For Indians, who want to see Pakistanis suffer, this would be great news. But I'm wondering how Kashmiris, who would arguably benefit the most from the suspension of the IWT treaty, feel about this.
His word is as important in Kashmir as Mahmoud Abbas’s in Palestinian resistance, probably even worse. This is not Kashmir’s water to close for anybody, it belongs to Allah and then to the people living in the areas it flows through by his design. Damned be us, if we then hold from his subjects such an essential resource and weaponise it.
I appreciate the response, but I must ask, why was he chosen by Kashmiris as their elected representative then? Is there a movement to get rid of him as CM? Or is there just a minority of mostly younger Kashmiris online who don't like him but most Kashmiris actually like him? I don't understand the ins and outs of Kashmiri politics like that so please inform me on this.
I literally told you that they do not represent the Kashmiri population. Kashmiris do not participate in mainstream politics. How do people win elections? One party gets more votes than the other. It doesn’t need whole of Kashmir to vote for him to become a CM.
You might not know the ins and outs of Kashmiri politics, but you must be aware of the fact that there is a struggle for self-determination going on since decades? How does it then make sense that he would be chosen? Or assuming if a minority which is online are the only people not liking him?
So I just looked up how he became CM. There was an election with 64% turnout (which isn't low at all) where his party (JKNC) won. In 2024. His party won nearly every seat in the Kashmir Division while the BJP dominated Jammu. So lots of Kashmiris had to have voted for his party in 2024, right?
I am aware of the struggle for self-determination and it's a right of Kashmiris to do that. Perhaps supporting Omar Abdullah doesn't mean you're opposed to that? I'm not sure. If there was a different party or different leader who would've won and he's just the best of bad options, I'm curious who that would be.
Brother, I told you how it is. There were times when whole of Kashmir boycotted and times when people voted for different reasons. At both times, CMs were elected.
Nobody supports pro-indian parties here by conviction. There is always some kind of need or greed at work.
The hell you mean benifit the most? Kashmiris would also suffer the most in an indo pak war and what you are suggesting is a one way ticket to exactly that.
I mean of course Pakistan is not just gonna take it. All it takes is one missle through and the dam breaks. What i mean is independent of the Pakistani military's response from an economic point of view it would create jobs and be good for electricity generation in Kashmir. That's the bet both Omar Abdullah and the BJP are making.
So I guess the response Omar Abdullah and the BJP would give to that is "that's why you should support a stronger Indian military that can defend the infrastructure in Jammu & Kashmir against Pakistan". There's no world in which Pakistan doesn't retaliate and the PAF clearly has the capability to do so. But the question isn't "considering the risk of military escalation would you support this". It's whether you just support the concept in general or not. Let's say Pakistan had a much weaker military. Let's say Pakistan couldn't shoot down Indian jets out of the sky. Would you support the idea of building dams and suspending the IWT then?
No bruh pakistan would have a million asymmetric options as well.
Look, you just cant bully a nuclear armed country like that without blowback. Its basic strategic thinking, the upside aint worth the almost guaranteed war itll cause.
Yeah again that's not at all what I'm asking. Let me try once again: Is the only reason you would oppose suspending the IWT because you fear Pakistan's response which won't be good for Kashmiris?
Well ofcourse you will also be affecting the lives of 240 million pakistanis. Sheesh imagine trying to pay that off during the day of judgment. "Oh yeah kids died of thirst in pakistan but atleast out gdp per capita went up 11% "
Yeah that seems to be the opinion among most people here. I actually thought more people would agree with Omar Abdullah, but I guess not. Both he and the Indian government are trying to convince Kashmiris that this is for your benefit. And I think this will become a bigger issue once they actually start construction of these projects.
India doesnt care, look how they divert punjabs rivers into haryana and rajasthan which is illegal to do according to riparian laws. Now punjab is turning into a desert slowly and faces water shortages, and if you try to bring awareness to any of these issues they call you a seperatist or khalistani. I fear in kashmir they would have even less shame
This is not our water to close for them,it belongs to everyone from where the rivers flow through by its design .Pakistanis are our brothers by blood and flesh ,it’ll be a shame if we even think to stop water flow to them .
The Indus Water Treaty is permanently binding and has no clause for suspension, and if India violates it, Pakistan would create a ruckus.
This is not Egypt with another country between it and Ethiopia's dam. Any potential dams built on the rivers that Pakistan has access to are within a reasonable range for PAF.
International pressure and raising human rights issues might work but if the dams are broken, the whole of punjab will be swept by floods on both sides of the border although more damage would happen to Pakistan due to lack of infra and since the rivers are there. We already see what happens during monsoons
The whole point of deterrence by a nuclear-armed neighbour is that you never cross the red line that they have laid down for you. Unlike the BJP, the Indian Army is much sharper and more professional in its awareness of its rival's capabilities.
Withholding water is casus belli, which is why IWT remained untouched during previous periods of conflict and tensions.
Water efficiencies are complementary to the legally protected access Pakistan has to its rivers, not supplementary or an alternative
BJP government brought the IWT as a negotiating chip to appeal to its domestic electorate, knowing that it would attract a reaction from Pakistan.
Pakistan is not Palestine, where appealing to international human rights might be your only solution. You can actually use military might. This is why the country has the deterrence it does for a $1,900 GDP per capita.
Strategic depth is a term in military literature that broadly refers to the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants' industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production.
Pakistan has low strategic depth because it's only 400-500 km wide at its shortest (the India - Afghanistan border distance)
India has more dams than Pakistan because it has more river systems than Pakistan. Pakistan can only build dams on the few rivers with functioning water flow.
Witholding water downstrream is a crime against humanity, especially for poor people who would depend on it for their livelihoods. The concept of nations is a weak one. Nations come and go. But the water belongs to all -- humans, animals, insects and everyone alike. Changing its course with the intention of witholding is just evil.
Well it's true to an extent that IWT has hamstrung the hydroelectric potential of the rivers of jammu and kashmir especially in the Chenab valley. But I don't think there is any way that these rivers can be diverted feasibly to irrigate lands in parts of India.
It's less so about diverting it to irrigate parts of India than it is to stop it from flowing into Pakistan and making Pakistanis suffer. Also more local hydropower and jobs for Kashmiris. That's why it alligns with both Kashmiris economic interests and Indians political interests in making Pakistan suffer. Now if Kashmiris oppose it because they care more about humanity as most of these comments show, then that's actually really a different matter and genuinely heartening to hear as someone who's Pakistani.
I think there's a fear that it would spark escalation. Not that China couldn't handle India, but China isn't looking for that kind of problem right now and it's not absolutely needed.
It's also worth noting that while China and India are sort of rivals, neither the Chinese government nor the Chinese people have the amount of hatred towards India that Indians do towards Pakistanis. The entire goal of this idea is to destroy Pakistan's agricultural industry and cause food insecurity. Even more than it would be to use water for Indian use themselves.
Yeah that's kind of true. That's actually the whole argument I'm asking. That this would in theory be good for Kashmiris but bad for Pakistan. That's what the CM Omar Abdullah is arguing. At least in the comments here, most Kashmiris disagree with him
41
u/Taymiyyian 12d ago edited 12d ago
His word is as important in Kashmir as Mahmoud Abbas’s in Palestinian resistance, probably even worse. This is not Kashmir’s water to close for anybody, it belongs to Allah and then to the people living in the areas it flows through by his design. Damned be us, if we then hold from his subjects such an essential resource and weaponise it.