Junaid Ahmed, Professor of Law, Religion, and Global Politics, Director, Centre for the Study of Islam and Decolonization was unequivocal in his observation that “when nuclear powers start lobbing missiles and shooting down aircrafts, the stakes rise well beyond cynical domestic theatrics. Pakistan says it downed five Indian fighter jets in response, and India, predictably, denies it. Somewhere between truth and propaganda, two nuclear arsenals inch closer to an exchange that would turn subcontinental politics into radioactive dust”. It was clear that things would have gone out of hand had there been no mediation. Far more destruction, violation of agreements, would have characterised the battle had it been prolonged.
India has been accused of wanting to deliberately scuttle international agreements keeping the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, ignoring the reliance of millions of people on the shared water resources. The Indus Waters Treaty was brokered by the World Bank, outlines the terms for sharing and managing the Indus River and its five tributaries—Sutlej, Beas, Ravi, Jhelum, and Chenab—between India and Pakistan. It also mandates regular information exchange between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. The Indus River is vital for Pakistan, providing water for agriculture, hydropower, and drinking water, particularly for major cities like Karachi and Lahore. Over three-quarters of Pakistan’s renewable water resources come from outside its borders, almost entirely from the Indus. The river’s importance is underscored by the fact that nearly 80% of Pakistan’s cultivated land is irrigated by the Indus, supporting the livelihoods of millions of farmers and the nation’s food production. The Indus River is vital for Pakistan, providing water for agriculture, hydropower, and drinking water, particularly for major cities like Karachi and Lahore. Over three-quarters of Pakistan’s renewable water resources come from outside its borders, almost entirely from the Indus. The river’s importance is underscored by the fact that nearly 80% of Pakistan’s cultivated land is irrigated by the Indus, supporting the livelihoods of millions of farmers and the nation’s food production. India’s threat is real and a carrot-stick approach.
In times of war, opposing entities lean towards adopting measures which hurt the ‘enemy’. India is already adopting this a tough bargaining chip and the PM has said that water will not flow as long as blood does. The External Affairs Minister has endorsed this. This would generally be disagreeable to humanists anywhere because it will be the common people, not the Generals, and the comfortable classes who would suffer hunger and deprivation. Withholding the Indus waters would amount to weaponization of water by India. Pakistan already confronts the squeeze of the asymmetrical flow in advance of the upcoming sowing season.
A BBC report asks: “Will India be able to stop the Indus River and two of its tributaries from flowing into Pakistan? The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) survived two wars between the nuclear rivals and was seen as an example of trans-boundary water management. The suspension is among several steps India has taken against Pakistan, accusing it of backing cross-border terrorism – a charge Islamabad flatly denies. It has also hit back with reciprocal measures against Delhi, and said stopping water flow “will be considered as an Act of War”.
The treaty allocated the three eastern rivers – the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – of the Indus basin to India, while 80% of the three western ones – the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab – to Pakistan. Disputes have flared in the past, with Pakistan objecting to some of India’s hydropower and water infrastructure projects, arguing they would reduce river flows and violate the treaty. (More than 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture and around a third of its hydropower depend on the Indus basin’s water.”
The question now is where do we go from here? Hitherto, India has stubbornly excluded any form of mediation by other nations asserting that India-Pakistan is a bilateral matter. India may simply have to swallow its pride and accept mediation simply because this is 76 years since the UN Security Council resolution and both countries have remained stubborn over the Question of Kashmir. Recently, EAM Jaishankar referred to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir the last bit of work to be done before India can conclude the Kashmir issue. If that was true, then it could have happened long ago at times when the Indian Army was far better placed to win a war. Jaishankar may not be the man to usher in a lasting peace. His tough stances come nowhere near the style of a Manmohan Singh, humility as his cornerstone, during whose tenure, the borders were more peaceful, and incursions by militants brought down to the absolute minimum. Jaishankar does not give hope to so many citizens that India will shine bright as a gifted peace-maker. His image in many circles of thinkers and writers offers no hope of an end to the conflict. Moreover, Trump stepped in and heaved this solution. One does not have to be a Trump fan. But the dangers of the war getting out of hand, could have massively disastrous attacks not just for India and Pakistan but then entire region of Asia and even Europe. Reliable sources, say India had to talk with at least 22 other countries who may have been less forceful than the USA, but, nevertheless, on the side of a halt to the aggression. Whatever he meant to do, Trump. It was, who forged the peace.
Reactions from the international community continue to flood in, all calling for both countries to exercise maximum restraint.US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has played a pivotal role arguing that lines of communication open and escalation must be maintained. The UK is prepared to play a part too. Their interests lie regional stability, in dialogue, in de-escalation. Beijing is closer to Pakistan but has urged both sides to exercise restraint. China opposes all forms of terrorism it has unequivocally stated. Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot of France sides India on its desire to “protect itself from the scourge of terrorism” but called on both countries to avoid escalation and protect civilians. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the international community could not “afford a military confrontation” between the nuclear-armed nations. Prior to India’s much-anticipated attack, a number of countries said they would be willing to get involved to help de-escalate the continuing crisis. China has expressed willingness to support a role in an international probe to investigate the Pahalgam attack, at an early date”. China wants dialogue and consultation to uphold regional peace and stability”. Russia was ready to “act for a political settlement of the situation”, in the case there was a mutual willingness “on the part of Islamabad and New Delhi. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in a post on X expressed support for Pakistan’s call for an “independent and transparent investigation” into the Pahalgam attack. and to playing a constructive role, should the need arise.” Iran was willing to “use its good offices in Islamabad and New Delhi to forge greater understanding at this difficult time.
Kashmir demands a just, permanent and lasting solution. This resolution must reflect the aspirations of the people and have as its foundation a consultative, and consensus political process. In some ways, even those opposed to the BJP, would suggest that it is they who can take the tough decisions that require accord among the people and their consent. The attempt to neutralise Kashmir in its present construct by snatching away its autonomy, by abrogating Article 270 has failed to achieve what Amit Shah set out to do. There are a series of decisions that flatten aspects of values secularism, federalism, impartiality and justice. To assume that Kashmir could be transformed by accumulating new business operations, industry was naïve. Tourism had always been there. But, the State, itself, (despite elections) is run by the Centre with the Government being a mere distant control mechanism. Tourism survives not by outside businesses entering the stage. You have to know the soil and be able to feel it and absorb it. Locals are the fulcrum of any viable tourism. The sector contributes a substantial amount to the region’s Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP), estimated at 7-8%and has the capacity to climb much further up. In point of fact, militants opposed to the current status of Kashmir, are peeved that Kashmir is fast losing its identity because of demographic changes. This is true of many other destinations in the country who deeply resent ‘outsiders’ come and disrupt tourism by interfering with its essential culture. In the final analysis, tourism is an encounter of the visitor and visited. It is not a financial transaction and the tourist is norther a Rupee nor a dollar. Tourists are welcome, but not to seize businesses that belong in the domain of the Kashmiri skills and lingo.
An important aspect that must also be taken into account when finding the ‘final solution’. Neither India nor Pakistan can afford the spendthrift ways of militarism. In fiscal year 2025, Pakistan’s poverty rate is projected to reach 42.4%, with an additional 1.9 million people falling into poverty due to population growth. Pakistan budgets 10 billion dollars on armaments. The World Bank defines poverty at $3.65 per day (2017 PPP), and this translates to 39.4% of the population experiencing poverty in the most recent fiscal year. This means that nearly 40% of Pakistan’s population is struggling to meet their basic needs, with 95 million people living in poverty. The World Bank estimates that 39.4% of Pakistan’s population lives below the poverty line using the lower middle-income rate. Poverty has increased in recent years, particularly due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, infrastructure destruction from floods, and inflation. The rise in poverty has resulted in millions of Pakistanis falling below the poverty line, impacting over 12.5 million individuals. Economic shocks, such as the floods, and high inflation have driven poverty levels higher. Pakistani households are particularly vulnerable to economic shocks, with informal employment serving as a temporary buffer during crisis periods.
India is much the same. India has faced a financial crisis and rising poverty, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. While there have been gains in poverty reduction, inequality persists, and the pandemic has slowed the pace of poverty reduction. Increased indebtedness, rising healthcare costs, and the impact on consumption have also contributed to the financial strain on households. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a sharp rise in overall indebtedness levels for households across India. Rising out-of-pocket medical expenses, reduced incomes, and increased prices of basic goods contributed to this trend. Despite progress, poverty remains a significant challenge. India accounted for the world’s largest number of poor people in 2012 using revised methodology to measure poverty, reflecting its massive population. However, in terms of percentage, it scored somewhat lower than other countries holding large poor populations. In July 2018, World Poverty Clock, a Vienna-based think tank, reported that a minimal 5.3% or 70.6 million Indians lived in extreme poverty compared to 44% or 87 million Nigerians. Although India is expected to meet the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals on extreme poverty in due time, a very large share of its population lives on less than $3.2 a day, putting India’s economy safely into the category of lower middle income economies. As with many countries, poverty is historically defined and estimated in India using a sustenance food standard. India and Pakistan need peace and prosperity. Converting US $ 86 million invested in armaments and militaries and its subsidiaries deprives investments required for wholesome development. India might be the 5th largest military spender in the world. It is a non-productive asset.
The constructions of 1948 must give way to new political constructs within which India and Pakistan accept that if the starting point is the plebiscite, it will go nowhere. And yet, there is no way other than for mediators to propose innovative solutions that are palatable to the vast number of people. Or for that matter, the entire of the Kashmir population. Creative peace formulations are possible just as long as the ego-centrism of politicians on both sides of the divide hand the solutions to neutral and distinguished Indians and Pakistanis coupled with trusted international partners.
The people want peace. Not the peace of the graveyard and scenes of mourning of young blood. It is time for Pakistan and India to play cricket and hockey between each other. It creates lasting people-to-people friendships as we have seen. Add to that, cultural exchanges, academics, and literature. Drones and Rafel Jets, and sophisticated weaponry will not bring peace. They will destroy humanity in this part of the world.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Get the latest CounterCurrents updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Ranjan Solomon is a political commentator
.
