logo
China adding ripples to India-Pakistan river rift

China adding ripples to India-Pakistan river rift

AllAfrica4 days ago
With the future of a crucial water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan up in the air, one outside party is looking on with keen interest: China.
For 65 years, the Indus Waters Treaty has seen the two South Asian rivals share access and use of the Indus Basin, a vast area covered by the Indus River and its tributaries that also stretches into Afghanistan and China.
For much of that history, there has been widespread praise for the agreement as a successful demonstration of cooperation between adversarial states over a key shared resource. But experts have noted the treaty has long held the potential for conflict.
Drafters failed to factor in the effects of climate change, and the Himalayan glaciers that feed the rivers are now melting at record rates, ultimately putting at risk the long-term sustainability of water supply. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict over Kashmir, where much of the basin is situated, puts cooperation at risk.
That latest provocation threatening the treaty was a terrorist attack in the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025. In response to that attack, which India blamed on Pakistan and precipitated a four-day confrontation, New Delhi temporarily suspended the treaty.
But even before that attack, India and Pakistan had been locked in negotiation over the future of the treaty – the status of which has been in the hands of international arbitrators since 2016.
In the latest development, on June 27, 2025, the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued a supplementary award in favor of Pakistan, arguing that India's holding of the treaty in abeyance did not affect its jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, the treaty does not allow for either party to unilaterally suspend the treaty, the ruling suggested.
Amid the wrangling over the treaty's future, Pakistan has turned to China for diplomatic and strategic support. Such support was evident during the conflict that took place following April's terrorist attack, during which Pakistan employed Chinese-made fighter jets and other military equipment against its neighbor.
Meanwhile, in an apparent move to counter India's suspension of the treaty, China and Pakistan have ramped up construction of a major dam project that would provide water supply and electricity to parts of Pakistan.
So, why is China getting involved? In part, it reflects the strong relationship between Pakistan and China, developed over six decades.
But as an expert in hydro politics, I believe Beijing's involvement raises concerns: China is not a neutral observer in the dispute. Rather, Beijing has long harbored a desire to increase its influence in the region and to counter an India long seen as a rival.
Given the at-times fraught relationship between China and India – the two countries went to war in 1962 and continue to engage in sporadic border skirmishes – there are concerns in New Delhi that Beijing may respond by disrupting the flow of rivers in its territory that feed into India.
In short, any intervention by Beijing over the Indus Waters Treaty risks stirring up regional tensions.
The Indus Waters Treaty has already endured three armed conflicts between Pakistan and India, and until recently, it served as an exemplar of how to forge a successful bilateral agreement between two rival neighbors. Riccardo Pravettoni, CC BY-SA
Under the initial terms of the treaty, which each country signed in 1960, India was granted control over three eastern rivers the countries share – Ravi, Beas and Satluj – with an average annual flow of 40.4 billion cubic meters. Meanwhile, Pakistan was given access to almost 167.2 billion cubic meters of water from the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.
In India, the relatively smaller distribution has long been the source of contention, with many believing the treaty's terms are overly generous to Pakistan. India's initial demand was for 25% of the Indus waters.
For Pakistan, the terms of the division of the Indus Waters Treaty are painful because they concretized unresolved land disputes tied to the partition of India in 1947. In particular, the division of the rivers is framed within the broader political context of Kashmir.
The three major rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab – flow through Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir before entering the Pakistan-controlled western part of the Kashmir region.
But the instability of the Kashmir region – disputes around the Line of Control separating the Indian- and Pakistan-controlled areas are common – underscores Pakistan's water vulnerability.
Nearly 65% of Pakistanis live in the Indus Basin region, compared with 14% for India. It is therefore not surprising that Pakistan has warned that any attempt to cut off the water supply, as India has threatened, would be considered an act of war.
It also helps to explain Pakistan's desire to develop hydropower on the rivers it controls. One-fifth of Pakistan's electricity comes from hydropower, and nearly 21 hydroelectric power plants are located in the Indus Basin region.
Since Pakistan's economy relies heavily on agriculture and the water needed to maintain agricultural land, the fate of the Indus Waters Treaty is of the utmost importance to Pakistan's leaders.
Such conditions have driven Islamabad to be a willing partner with China in a bid to shore up its water supply.
China provides technical expertise and financial support to Pakistan for numerous hydropower projects in Pakistan, including the Diamer Bhasha Dam and Kohala Hydropower Project.
These projects play a significant role in addressing Pakistan's energy requirements and have been a key aspect of the transboundary water relationship between the two nations.
With its rivalry with India and its desire to simultaneously work with Pakistan on numerous issues, China increasingly sees itself as a stakeholder in the Indus Waters Treaty, too.
Chinese media narratives have framed India as the aggressor in the dispute, warning of the danger of using 'water as a weapon' and noting that the source of the Indus River lies in China's Western Tibet region.
Doing so fits Beijing' s greater strategic presence in South Asian politics. After the terrorist attack, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi reaffirmed China's support for Pakistan, showcasing the relationship as an 'all-weather strategic' partnership and referring to Pakistan as an 'ironclad friend.'
And in response to India's suspension of the treaty, China announced it was to accelerate work on the significant Mohmand hydropower project on the tributary of the Indus River in Pakistan. Construction at the Mohmand Dam. Photo: Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority via The Conversation
Chinese investment in Pakistan's hydropower sector presents substantial opportunities for both countries in regards to energy security and promoting economic growth.
The Indus cascade project under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor initiative, for example, promises to provide cumulative hydropower generation capacity of around 22,000 megawatts. Yet the fact that the project broke ground in Gilgit-Baltistan, a disputed area in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, underscores the delicacy of the situation.
Beijing's backing of Pakistan is largely motivated by a mix of economic and geopolitical interests, particularly in legitimizing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. But it comes at the cost of stirring up regional tensions.
As such, the alignment of Chinese and Pakistani interests in developing hydro projects can pose a further challenge to the stability of South Asia's water-sharing agreements, especially in the Indus Basin.
Recently, the chief minister of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which borders China, warned that Beijing's hydro projects in the Western Tibet region amount to a ticking 'water bomb.'
To diffuse such tensions – and to get the Indus Waters Treaty back on track – it behooves India, China and Pakistan to engage in diplomacy and dialogue. Such engagement is, I believe, essential in addressing the ongoing water-related challenges in South Asia.
Pintu Kumar Mahla is research associate at the Water Resources Research Institute, University of Arizona
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

China confirms US bank employee banned from leaving over ‘criminal case'
China confirms US bank employee banned from leaving over ‘criminal case'

HKFP

time2 hours ago

  • HKFP

China confirms US bank employee banned from leaving over ‘criminal case'

Beijing confirmed Monday that an employee of US bank Wells Fargo was barred from leaving China, following reports last week that Shanghai-born managing director Chenyue Mao was under an exit ban. After multiple media reports, Wells Fargo confirmed last week that it was providing assistance to the Atlanta-based Mao, who entered China in recent weeks but is now unable to leave. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Monday that Mao was 'involved in a criminal case currently being investigated by the Chinese authorities'. 'The Chinese law enforcement agencies have imposed exit restrictions in accordance with the law,' Guo said. He did not give details of Mao's alleged offences, and Wells Fargo has not provided more information on her case. But the San Francisco-based bank is now restricting its employees from visiting China following this case, according to reports. It said in a statement to AFP on Friday that it was 'closely tracking this situation and working through the appropriate channels so our employee can return to the United States as soon as possible'. Guo said Mao 'cannot leave the country while the case is ongoing, and has an obligation to cooperate with the work of investigators'. He stressed that it was an 'individual case' and that China would 'continue as ever to welcome people from every country to travel and do business here'. 'No matter whether you are Chinese or not, you must follow Chinese laws while in China,' he said. Tensions and detentions Industry groups say multinational firms have faced an increasingly difficult business environment in recent years, citing a lack of transparency on data laws and prolonged detentions of employees in the country. The trend has coincided with growing tensions between Beijing and certain Western nations, particularly the United States but also regional competitors. The Washington Post reported on Sunday, citing four unnamed sources, that an employee at the US Commerce Department was being prevented from leaving China after failing to declare on his visa application that he worked for the American government. The unnamed Chinese American man, who works for the Patent and Trademark Office, had travelled to China several months ago to visit family, the newspaper reported. Asked about the report on Monday, Guo said he was not familiar with the case. On Wednesday, a Chinese court sentenced a Japanese businessman from pharmaceutical company Astellas to three and a half years in prison for spying. Another pharma giant, UK-headquartered AstraZeneca, said in November that the head of its China operations, Leon Wang, had been detained, after reports that the firm was under investigation for potentially illegal data collection and drug imports. And in 2023, a senior executive at US risk advisory firm Kroll was prohibited from leaving China, according to the Wall Street Journal.

10 Years of HKFP: Why we revived our deer mascot
10 Years of HKFP: Why we revived our deer mascot

HKFP

time4 hours ago

  • HKFP

10 Years of HKFP: Why we revived our deer mascot

Hong Kong Free Press has revived its decade-old deer mascot, based on a Chinese proverb. To 'call a deer a horse ' (指鹿為馬) refers to the distortion of facts and the misrepresentation of truth. When HKFP launched in 2015, we adopted the deer as our mascot, promising to always 'call a deer a deer.' The HKFP mascot. We'll always call a deer a deer. Support us: — Hong Kong Free Press HKFP (@hkfp) October 29, 2015 To mark our 10th anniversary, a new version of our deer is returning to remind us all of the importance of truth and press freedom at a time when misinformation, disinformation and propaganda are rife. If you would like to receive an exclusive HKFP plush deer keyring, designed from scratch by HKFP, sign up as a HK$150+ monthly donor as a member today and enjoy eight benefits.

Who's fueling Pakistan's Baloch militancy – and why?
Who's fueling Pakistan's Baloch militancy – and why?

AllAfrica

time5 hours ago

  • AllAfrica

Who's fueling Pakistan's Baloch militancy – and why?

In a geopolitical arena increasingly defined by shadows and silence, few conflicts exemplify the dynamics of proxy warfare better than the ongoing militancy in Pakistan's Balochistan province. On July 15, geopolitical commentator Brian Berletic reignited this debate by alleging that Washington may be quietly enabling Baloch militants to accelerate militant activities, particularly against the Chinese engineers and Pakistani security forces in the province. While the veracity of his claims remains contested, they tap into a growing body of evidence suggesting that Baloch militancy is no longer a purely domestic insurgency and is becoming a lever in a broader strategic tug-of-war between two powers. In the last two weeks, Balochistan has witnessed a dozen militant attacks that killed more than 50 people, including two major rank officers of the Pakistan Army. Balochistan, long a flashpoint of political dissent and insurgency, has now become a fault line in a larger global confrontation. Bordering Iran and Afghanistan and home to the strategic Gwadar Port, the province is a linchpin in China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Gwadar's connectivity offers Beijing a trade route bypassing the Malacca Strait, thereby unsettling the strategic calculus of Washington and its allies. Against this backdrop, each explosion targeting Chinese assets seems to echo not just domestic discontent but also certain international anxieties. While there is no smoking gun linking the US to Baloch separatists, circumstantial indicators have become difficult to dismiss. Reports by institutions such as the US Institute of Peace, Foreign Policy and Radio Free Europe have chronicled how abandoned American weapons in Afghanistan, left in the wake of America's hasty 2021 withdrawal, have found their way into the hands of militant groups, including the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Such proliferation of US materiel, even if unintended, becomes part of the strategic ecosystem shaping violence in the region, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The narrative becomes murkier when considering ideological affinities. Baloch insurgents, unlike jihadist movements, couch their rhetoric in secular nationalism, democratic rights and ethnic self-determination, terms that align comfortably with Western liberal values. This alignment has earned them platforms in Washington and Brussels, with diaspora organizations such as the Baloch American Congress advocating openly for US congressional intervention and global scrutiny of Pakistani counterinsurgency policies. While public lobbying does not equate to covert sponsorship, the optics are telling. The same BLA that has claimed responsibility for suicide bombings against Chinese nationals in the recent past is the subject of panel discussions and briefings in Western capitals. The US government's 2019 designation of the BLA as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) appears, on closer inspection, more cosmetic than consequential. Little effort has apparently been made to stem the group's transnational networking, fundraising or narrative-building efforts. This duality is not unprecedented. From Latin America to the Middle East, the US has a long history of maintaining a diplomatic posture in public while facilitating, or at least tolerating, destabilizing elements in private. In Syria, for instance, American condemnation of jihadist violence was accompanied by covert support to anti-Assad forces. The lines between rebels and terrorists were often redrawn depending on the utility they offered against regional rivals. In insurgent-riddled Balochistan, the strategic logic is not so different. Baloch militants disrupting China's infrastructure investments serve a purpose, even if Washington's hands appear clean. The same logic applies to Iran, where Baloch-dominated areas in Sistan and Baluchestan remain hotspots of insurgent activity. Tehran has consistently accused the US and Israel of fostering groups like Jaish al-Adl – a Sunni militant group responsible for attacks on Iranian security forces. Whether these claims are true or false, the persistent instability in these borderlands benefits actors looking to contain Iran's regional reach. India's role further complicates the equation. Wary of growing China-Pakistan cooperation, New Delhi has been accused by Islamabad of funding Baloch separatists from Dubai, the UAE and other Gulf states. With the Taliban now in power and reshuffling regional alliances, the question of who continues to aid the BLA has resurfaced. Pakistan's muted response to these developments is telling. Despite a litany of attacks on security forces and Chinese personnel in Pakistan, Islamabad has avoided naming the US as a potential stakeholder in the insurgency. Instead, the blame is largely directed at India, or vaguely attributed to 'hostile intelligence agencies.' This diplomatic restraint is not without reason. Pakistan's economic fragility—underscored by recurring bailouts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and reliance on Western financial systems—leaves it ill-equipped to confront Washington directly. Yet silence carries its own risks. By refusing to confront the full scope of the insurgency's geopolitical entanglements, Pakistan allows the crisis to metastasize. Equally damaging is the state's failure to differentiate between legitimate political dissent and armed rebellion. Baloch youth, academics and civil rights activists are often swept into the same security net as armed insurgents. The resulting alienation fuels resentment, creating a fertile ground for both radicalization and foreign manipulation. The case of imprisoned Mahrang Baloch, a civil rights advocate whose peaceful calls for justice have been met with suspicion and surveillance, illustrates this conflation. In the eyes of the Pakistani state, a protester with a placard is often indistinguishable from a militant with a gun. This securitized lens has not only delegitimized meaningful political dialogue but has also deprived Islamabad of moderate Baloch interlocutors capable of bridging the widening trust deficit. In this vacuum of political disengagement, external actors are pursuing their strategic interests. The less space Pakistan provides for peaceful negotiation and catharsis, the more attractive insurgency becomes, not just for disillusioned Baloch youth, but for global players seeking soft targets in their strategic contestations. Proxy wars, after all, do not require formal alliances; they merely need alignment of interests. And align they do. Baloch militants are disrupting China's economic vision, challenging Iran's border security and exposing Pakistan's internal fissures—all without implicating Western capitals in overt complicity. This is the new face of hybrid conflict: wars fought without declarations, allies backed without acknowledgment and casualties incurred without consequence. For Pakistan, the path forward requires more than military operations and international complaints. It demands an honest reckoning with its internal policies and external dependencies. Until the state distinguishes political grievances from armed rebellion, invests in inclusive governance and navigates its foreign partnerships with clarity and conviction, Balochistan will remain vulnerable – not just to insurgency, but to the invisible hands that steer it for great strategic interests. In the chessboard of 21st-century geopolitics, militancy is rarely merely a domestic affair. It is a mirror reflecting the ambitions of distant capitals. To ignore this is to mistake the symptom for the cause, and in doing so, to risk losing both the province and the peace in Balochistan.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store