Fighting over water is a sign of failure, not strength
Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at
[email protected] or filling in
this Google form . Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification
Advertisement
Few diplomatic agreements survive the forces of hatred, bullets and bombings. Yet for 65 years, the
Indus Waters Treaty has endured. Today, rash decisions risk ending one of South Asia's few durable successes.
A tragic and deadly
shooting in Kashmir on April 22 has provoked India into suspending the treaty. Pakistan, predictably, has escalated in response. Neither side seems to grasp what is at stake.
The Indus system isn't a mere river network; it's a life source for both nations. More than 80 per cent of Pakistan's irrigated agriculture draws water from it. India's farmers and hydropower projects rely on it too. Playing politics with water is a reckless gamble with millions of lives. Brokered by the World Bank, the treaty gives the eastern rivers to India and the western ones to Pakistan. That balance has kept the peace – at least on the rivers.
In reality, India cannot suddenly block Pakistan's access to the rivers. India currently lacks the infrastructure to do so. But symbolism matters. By suspending treaty obligations, India damages its image as a responsible rising power. Pakistan's bluster – that it will respond with 'full force' – is even worse. It treats the flow of water not as a shared necessity but as a trigger for war. The region cannot afford such dangerous bravado.
Advertisement
As politicians grandstand, the Himalayan glaciers are melting. Water is becoming more scarce, exacerbating droughts as floods become deadlier. The Indus Waters Treaty must be updated, not suspended, to cope with these realities. Cooperation on climate resilience, new dispute mechanisms and smarter agriculture should be on the agenda instead of acts of retaliation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
12 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
With 50 years of history, Manila and Beijing should do better diplomacy
June 9 marks the 50th anniversary of Philippines-China relations , ties steeped in history but marred by friction in recent years. Sadly, an overemphasis on the intractable sea dispute has polluted broader connections, stunting economic cooperation and stigmatising people-to-people exchanges. This is irrational and unproductive. For Manila to make the sea row front and centre of ties is a tragedy of its foreign policy. For China to see its smaller neighbour as a mere pawn in its great power competition with Washington is a recipe for misunderstanding; it lets down Beijing's neighbourhood diplomacy. Allowing security issues to dominate relations is neither wise nor strategic. Confining ties to maritime tensions, alleged spying and influence operations limits their scope and potential. Describing your big neighbour as an adversary can be a dangerous, self-fulfilling prophecy. Increasing pressure on a smaller neighbour may push it deeper into a rival's embrace. Other Southeast Asian coastal states with similar concerns assign less publicity to their sea rows and employ more effective strategies. Manila and Beijing should do better diplomacy. First, there are many areas where the two can work together without compromising their positions. China is the world's greatest economic miracle, lifting 800 million people out of poverty in four decades. It is the world's largest consumer and tourism market, a rising investor, the biggest producer of renewable energy and electric vehicles , and a leading player in mineral processing.
Asia Times
21 hours ago
- Asia Times
India-EU deal holds key to a new world trade era
The European Union and India have reached consensus on almost half of the topics to be covered by a trade deal they hope to seal this year, according to a report. The India-EU trade deal isn't just about tariffs or trade quotas—it's a cultural cage match between India's vibrant, improvisational spirit and Europe's love for order. And if resolved in a win-win deal, it could rewrite the rules of global trade. This trade pact is more than a deal on goods; it's a daring experiment in fusing two wildly different worldviews: India's adaptive, sometimes chaotic economic approach—rooted in jugaad , the art of making do with what's at hand—with Europe's rigid, regulation-heavy ethos. This tension isn't necessarily a flaw; it's the deal's potential secret sauce. By forcing both sides to confront their blind spots, this agreement could birth a new trade model that values flexibility over cookie-cutter uniformity, giving India a chance to tilt the global economic balance more toward the Global South. Trade deals sound like dusty policy papers, but they're the arteries of the global economy, pumping goods, ideas, and power across borders. With world trade fracturing under US tariff threats and China's constrictive supply chain grip, India and the EU are racing to secure their economic futures. India, with its 1.4 billion people and roaring growth, is no longer a bit player. The EU, a trade giant, needs new partners as old alliances wobble. Recent reports peg the deal's deadline for late 2025, but the real story is how this pact could redefine who sets the terms in a world where emerging powers are flexing their muscles. To understand why this deal matters, consider the broader picture. Global trade is no longer just about who makes the cheapest widgets. It's about who controls the flow of ideas, technology and resources. India's tech sector, for instance, is a powerhouse, with companies like Infosys and TCS already competing globally. The EU wants a slice of that expertise, especially as it pushes for digital transformation. But India's negotiators are savvy—they know their tech and pharmaceutical industries are bargaining chips. By leveraging these strengths, India could secure better terms for its smaller industries, like textiles, which employ millions but struggle against global competition. India's negotiators are playing a bold hand, and it's not just about lowering tariffs on cars or whisky, though those matter (Europe wants India's 100% duties on autos slashed; India wants access for its textiles and pharmaceuticals). The heart of the deal lies in cultural friction. India's refusal to open its dairy and small-farm sectors—vital to millions of livelihoods—challenges the EU's free-market ideals. Indian farmers, often working tiny plots, aren't just economic units; they're the backbone of a rural culture that resists the EU's vision of efficient, large-scale agriculture. This isn't just about milk or mangoes; it's about whether global trade can respect local realities. In India, trade isn't just numbers—it's lives. The dairy sector alone supports over 80 million farmers, many of whom rely on small-scale operations. Opening it up to European competition could devastate rural communities. India's negotiators know this, which is why they're digging in their heels. For the EU, this feels like protectionism, but for India, it's about survival. This push-and-pull isn't just a hurdle; it's a chance to redefine what fairness in trade looks like. Can a deal respect both India's small farmers and Europe's efficient markets? That's the question both sides are wrestling with. Europe, meanwhile, is grappling with its own dogma. Its obsession with predictability—think carbon taxes and strict labor standards—clashes with India's improvisational resilience. Indian businesses, accustomed to navigating red tape and power cuts, see the EU's rules like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (set to hit Indian steel and cement exports in 2026) as a fancy tax on their hustle. Yet, this friction is productive. India's pushback forces the EU to rethink its one-size-fits-all approach, while Europe's insistence on transparency nudges India toward clearer rules. Moreover, the deal could shift power toward the Global South. India, projected to be the world's third-largest economy by 2030, isn't just negotiating for itself. It's setting a precedent. If India can protect its farmers while securing market access for its tech and textiles, other developing nations—say, Brazil or South Africa—might demand similar treatment at the negotiating table. The EU-India trade corridor, already worth 184 billion euros in 2023, could become a blueprint for deals that balance growth with cultural identity. Unlike the UK-India deal, which focuses heavily on whisky and cars, this pact dives deeper, tackling investment protection and geographical indications. The stakes go beyond economics. This deal is a test of whether two vastly different systems can find common ground. For India, it's a chance to prove it can negotiate as an equal, not a junior partner. For the EU, it's about staying relevant in a world where Asia's giants are rising and the US is withdrawing behind protectionist walls. Success here could inspire other trade blocs to rethink their approaches, prioritizing nuance over rigid templates. Failure, though, risks entrenching old power dynamics, where the Global North sets the rules and the Global South scrambles to comply. The India-EU trade deal is a high-stakes drama where two worlds collide—one thriving on chaos, the other craving order. As they hammer out the final chapters, they're not just trading goods; they're trading ideas about how the new world order should work. If they pull it off, the pact could inspire a new kind of global trade—one where the Global South doesn't just follow rules but helps write them. Brabim Karki is an author and businessman and the owner of Mero Tribune media. Follow him on X at @brabim7
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- South China Morning Post
‘Japan is worried': South Korea's new leader pledges warmer ties, but past tensions loom
South Korea's newly inaugurated President Lee Jae-myung has pledged to pursue warmer ties with Japan, but analysts caution that optimism may be premature, citing his past criticism of Tokyo's wartime actions and fears he could reignite anti-Japan sentiment to bolster domestic support amid economic challenges. Advertisement Within hours of taking office, Lee struck a conciliatory tone, calling for collaboration in areas such as trade, security and culture. 'We can identify mutually beneficial areas in the economy, security, technology and cultural exchanges. Through this, we can pursue friendly relations and shared prosperity,' he said on Wednesday, according to Yonhap News. 'I hope the two countries will collaborate where possible and address differences as needed, without mixing up current issues,' he added. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba speaks to reporters in Tokyo on Wednesday following the victory of Lee Jae-myung in the South Korean presidential election. Photo: Kyodo Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba returned the diplomatic nicety the same day, telling reporters at his office that he hoped to be able to arrange a Japan-South Korea summit 'as soon as possible'.
