What's new

Kashmir: People or Water?

Minimalist

BANNED
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
M.A. Jinnah had once said, "Kashmir is Pakistan's Jugular".

Q - Why did he say so?

A - A major part of the rivers on which Pakistan's whole agriculture is based, comes from the rivers originating in Kashmir. The map below will give an idea of how dependent Pakistan is on rivers originating from Kashmir.

20091102084547!Pakistan_Rivers.PNG



The key to solving any problem, be it of mathematics or politics, is correct problem identification. Without proper problem identification, effective problem solution can be a pipe-dream at best.

Having said that, it startles me to observe that Kashmir is probably the biggest lie Pakistan's rulers ever told their populace...

Q - Why?

A - Because Kashmir, as they have told their people, is about:

1. Islamic brotherhood with a majority of kashmiris being muslims.
2. Human rights violations allegedly being carried out by India in kashmir.
3. Suppression of Kashmiris' voice
4. Denial of a right to choose their own fate, be it independence from India, accession to India or accession to Pakistan.

But if one just stops for a while and thinks over it, one will find that all these 'reasons' are nothing but mere emotional pretexts to galvanize the support of the masses.

Masses...a very important yet unfortunately trivialized word. The masses, just like they are anywhere on earth and more so in the Indian subcontinent, are an emotional lot. Their support cannot practically be garnered unless the issue be of an emotional connect to the masses.

And what better way to connect to the masses than religion?

Religion...the focal point of the common man's life in the Indian subcontinent. Something that can make him so emotional that he will stand in endless lines to kill or die for it.

And that's what the rulers wanted. Men who would just line up to die for the stated cause of religion and unstated cause of the rulers' desires. Pawns in a game of chess.

Now think about it, would those men be willing to put themselves in the line of fire had their rulers just told them,

"We need to claim back our rivers from India."

or if they had told the masses,

"India is the devil suppressing our Muslim brethren in Kashmir and hence we must wage a war against India."

It's obvious that to the mind of a highly religious muslim belonging to the Indian subcontinent, the second pretext would seem to be much more powerful and convincing a reason to both go to war and death.

Hence Kashmir was the greatest lie that Pakistani rulers ever told their people.

It is not about religion or human rights or freedom etc. It never was.

It is, was and will remain solely and firmly about the rivers and their waters.

A solution to Kashmir is possible only if both the sides understand this.

Like I earlier said, only correct problem identification can lead to problem solution.
 
Last edited:
.
Future wars shall be fought for resources, especially Water!
 
. .
Would you apply the same argument to Tibet, considering that many of the major rivers in Asia originate from the Tibetan Plateau?
 
. .
I say it is neither of the two.

It is Revenge - Revenge for what happened in 1971.

first it manifested in the form of support to Khalistan and when that failed now Kashmir.

BS! These are all escapist pretexts used to cloud the minds of those unwilling to see the obvious.
 
.
Whom is your question directed at?

Just a general question, anyone can answer it.

Regardless, I don't think it's actually possible to "stop" the water supply.

Firstly it would be illegal and also a cause for war, secondly the practical difficulties would be enormous, and thirdly any Dams that are built for the sole purpose of stopping the water supply can be taken out with missiles in the event of such a war.
 
.
Just a general question, anyone can answer it.

Regardless, I don't think it's actually possible to "stop" the water supply.

Firstly it would be illegal and also a cause for war, secondly the practical difficulties would be enormous, and thirdly any Dams that are built for the sole purpose of stopping the water supply can be taken out.

The sharing of the water is is governed by the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan, but the problem is that Pakistan keeps on blaming India for all water problems in its country...

When there was a drought they blamed that India is building dams and blocking the flow of water... when there were floods, they again blamed India that we caused the floods... They should behave a bit more mature and use water more efficiently... either build dams along Indus to store more water to control drought and floods or follow rain water harvesting.

Complaining against India always does not help the poor farmers who are the ones who have to suffer every year.
 
.
Just a general question, anyone can answer it.

Regardless, I don't think it's actually possible to "stop" the water supply.

Firstly it would be illegal and also a cause for war, secondly the practical difficulties would be enormous, and thirdly any Dams that are built for the sole purpose of stopping the water supply can be taken out with missiles in the event of such a war.

Sometimes mere 'threatening' or 'sabre rattling' can do the job. Moreover, you are forgetting about diverting the waters of the rivers.

Had the water belonged entirely to us, we would have very much liked to divert whole or at least some part of it to our water deficient areas/deserts etc.

The upper riparian always has an upper hand.
 
. .
The sharing of the water is is governed by the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan, but the problem is that Pakistan keeps on blaming India for all water problems in its country...

When there was a drought they blamed that India is building dams and blocking the flow of water... when there were floods, they again blamed India that we caused the floods... They should behave a bit more mature and use water more efficiently... either build dams along Indus to store more water to control drought and floods or follow rain water harvesting.

Complaining against India always does not help the poor farmers who are the ones who have to suffer every year.

I see what you mean. :cheers:

My overall point is that trying to divert the water supply, is probably not a very cost-effective method of hurting your adversary.

India and Pakistan have had several wars, China and India have had one war... and in all those wars, nobody has ever bothered to tamper with the water supplies of other nations.

Does anyone here have more information about how difficult/practical it would be to divert a river in times of war? And how would they be able to protect such a dam from enemy missiles?
 
.
In my opinion diverting a river is not an acceptable way to counter the enemy in a war scenario. First of all if India were to try and divert the rivers, it can do at the risk of flooding its own towns and cities and cause massive flood damage.

Any blockages in water flow in a dam can only be limited to a few weeks at the most, since the dams are always built to a certain capacity, you increase beyond it and you risk bursting the dam. No one will try to play this ploy in case of a war and there are no such incidents in recent wars as well.
 
.
I see what you mean. :cheers:

My overall point is that trying to divert the water supply, is probably not a very cost-effective method of hurting your adversary.

When you have an existential leverage on your adversary, you don't have to go to war in the first place.

India and Pakistan have had several wars, China and India have had one war... and in all those wars, nobody has ever bothered to tamper with the water supplies of other nations.

Having the 'capability' to inflict damage is far different and better than actually inflicting the damage. Just because it did not happen before, does not mean it will never happen in future.

Does anyone here have more information about how difficult/practical it would be to divert a river in times of war? And how would they be able to protect such a dam from enemy missiles?

Not much difficult if you already have the capability put in place. Moreover, if you can wield an existential threat at your adversary, you might never have to go to war in the first place.
 
.
When you have an existential leverage on your adversary, you don't have to go to war in the first place.

Interesting point. :tup:

In my opinion diverting a river is not an acceptable way to counter the enemy in a war scenario. First of all if India were to try and divert the rivers, it can do at the risk of flooding its own towns and cities and cause massive flood damage.

Any blockages in water flow in a dam can only be limited to a few weeks at the most, since the dams are always built to a certain capacity, you increase beyond it and you risk bursting the dam. No one will try to play this ploy in case of a war and there are no such incidents in recent wars as well.

I agree with you. Even if it is only used as a last resort, I still feel quite uneasy about it. That's my personal opinion of course.
 
.
BS! These are all escapist pretexts used to cloud the minds of those unwilling to see the obvious.

No.

Gen.Kayani,Gen Musharraf were all part of the young Pakistan Army that suffered one of the worst defeats at the hands of the Indians and ever since there has always been an yearning of revenge for that.

Do unto India what it did onto us. was their motto.

Actually there is a specific name for that - some Generation..which I read in a book but not able to recollect now.

You can argue that water,etc are reasons..but after 1971 its a pure sense of revenge that is the motivating factor.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom