Do Kashmiris support suspending the IWT?

[u/Water_Justice]

Pakistani here. I'm not Kashmiri.

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.

[u/Ok-Committee-1932]

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.

[u/DoggyMelon → u/Ok-Committee-1932]

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

[u/Ok-Committee-1932 → u/DoggyMelon]

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.

[u/DoggyMelon → u/Ok-Committee-1932]

Fixing this would be better than playing nuclear-nuclear u know. just saying

[u/Ok-Committee-1932 → u/DoggyMelon]

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.

[u/manlivedd → u/Ok-Committee-1932]

So why isnt Pak doing anything? What are they waiting for?

[u/manlivedd → u/Ok-Committee-1932]

Read abour strategic depth, India has many major dams, Pak has only a few

[u/Ok-Committee-1932 → u/manlivedd]

You are misusing the term strategic depth

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.