logo
‘What if China stops Brahmaputra water,' threatens Pakistan. Does India need to worry?

‘What if China stops Brahmaputra water,' threatens Pakistan. Does India need to worry?

First Post2 days ago

India's decision to pause the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan hasn't gone down well in the neighbouring country. Now, Islamabad has come up with a scare tactic, claiming China could stop the Brahmaputra water. Is Beijing seriously considering such a move? What would it mean for New Delhi? read more
Even as India and Pakistan have ceased military strikes against each other, the water war between the two nations continues after New Delhi placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack.
The decision to place the water agreement of 1960 has angered and concerned Pakistan; a recent report shows that the water levels of the Indus and Jhelum rivers on Pakistan's side are running low. And this water shortage will, in turn, have a direct impact on the summer crop season.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In such a situation, Pakistan has once again resorted to scare tactics. Islamabad stated that the suspension of Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan could set a precedent for China to block the Brahmaputra River to India.
However, now Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has called out Pakistan for its 'baseless attempt' to incite fear over a hypothetical situation involving the Brahmaputra.
We take a closer look at the situation — from a possible China choke on the Brahmaputra to what the Indian chief minister is saying to what experts believe.
Pakistan's threat of a China choke on Brahmaputra
India's decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance has become a contentious issue in Islamabad. In late May, a senior aide to Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned that India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) could set a dangerous precedent, potentially prompting China to take reciprocal actions, such as blocking the flow of the Brahmaputra River.
Speaking to a private news channel on Friday, Rana Ihsaan Afzal, the coordinator to the prime minister on commerce and industry, said New Delhi's decision could have far-reaching implications not just for Pakistan, but for the entire region. 'If India does something like this and stops the flow of water to Pakistan, then China can also do the same thing,' he cautioned. 'If things like this happen, the entire world will be in a war.'
Days later, Victor Zhikai Gao, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing, was quoted as telling India Today that one should not treat others in a way they themselves would not like to be treated.
Fishermen steer a boat on the Brahmaputra River at sunset in Guwahati. In his rebuttal to Pakistan's threat, Himanta Biswa Sarma said that China contributes only about 30 to 35 per cent of the Brahmaputra's total flow. File image/Reuters
In the interview, the Chinese highlighted Beijing's control over the Brahmaputra River, adding further that just like rivers from India flow into Pakistan, rivers from China also flow into India. He warned that if India acts against others, it should be prepared for similar responses in return, which could lead to serious challenges for the country.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Assam's Himanta counters Pakistan threat
However, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has slammed Pakistan for attempting to spread fear with the narrative of China blocking the Brahmaputra. In a strongly worded post on X, the chief minister issued a point-by-point rebuttal.
'Let's dismantle this myth — not with fear, but with facts and national clarity,' he wrote in the post.
What If China Stops Brahmaputra Water to India?
A Response to Pakistan's New Scare Narrative
After India decisively moved away from the outdated Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan is now spinning another manufactured threat:
'What if China stops the Brahmaputra's water to India?'… — Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) June 2, 2025
He first explained that the Brahmaputra is a 'river that grows in India, not shrinks'. Explaining this, he said that China contributes only 30 – 35 per cent of the Brahmaputra's total flow — mostly through glacial melt and limited Tibetan rainfall.
Meanwhile, India generates the remaining 65–70 per cent through monsoon rains and inflows from its numerous tributaries in the Northeast.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
He further emphasised that the strength of the river only intensifies after entering Indian territory. Using data, he said, 'At the Indo-China border (Tuting), flow is 2,000–3,000 metres per second. In Assam plains (for instance, Guwahati), the flow swells to 15,000–20,000 metres per second.'
Sarma also argued that in the rare instance that China attempted to block the Brahmaputra's flow it would help rather than hurt India. How? He said that it would reduce the recurring floods in Assam that displace hundreds of thousands each year.
In conclusion, he asserted that China has never officially threatened to weaponise the Brahmaputra and dismissed Pakistan's suggestion as nothing but speculative and fear-mongering.
Experts Speak
However, not everyone is assured by Sarma's counter on the Brahmaputra. Some experts are of the opinion that while China has made no official plans to block the Brahmaputra River, Beijing has announced the construction of the world's largest hydropower dam , across the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet last December.
This construction has raised alarm bells for India as experts note that such infrastructure would exacerbate the risk of flash floods, particularly during monsoon season and could even cause environmental harm.
Last December, China announced the construction of a dam on the Brahmaputra in the region of Tibet. File image/Reuters
For those who are unaware, in December 2024, Beijing said it would build a hydropower dam on the Yarlung Zangbo River, also known as the Yarlung Tsangpo River in the Tibet autonomous region. The Yarlung Zangbo River becomes the Brahmaputra River when it flows into the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
At the time of announcing the dam, China said that once completed it would produce three times more energy than the Three Gorges Dam, which generates 88.2 billion kWh of electricity annually.
And experts note that this dam could be a problem for India. How? As Genevieve Donnellon-May, a geopolitical and global strategy advisor, wrote for AsiaGlobal Online in 2022, that India worries the project could result in the country depending on China for its water supplies.
Others also note that a dam of this scale would trap massive amounts of sediment upstream, disrupting its flow downstream. This could make farming less productive, threatening food security in one of the world's most densely populated regions.
Besides being a risk to the country's agricultural sector, such a damn is also a security threat. As the dam is expected to be near Arunachal Pradesh , an area claimed by both India and China, it is bound to complicate matters. Given the recent military standoffs along the Sino-Indian border, Beijing's control over a major water source could be perceived as a strategic pressure point.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Environmental concerns also loom large. The Himalayas are one of the most seismically active regions in the world, making large-scale infrastructure projects highly risky. A potential dam failure or mismanagement during extreme weather events could lead to catastrophic flooding in downstream areas, posing serious humanitarian and economic consequences for India.
With inputs from agencies

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Asia's forgotten hellscape
Asia's forgotten hellscape

Hindustan Times

time34 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

Asia's forgotten hellscape

The world is not exactly short of crises. But one of the most alarming is also the most overlooked: an escalating state of anarchy in Myanmar, in the heart of Asia. The country is degenerating into a violent state of nature. Over 2m of its people are on the verge of starvation. The effects of crime, including drug-dealing, huge scam centres and human trafficking, spread far beyond its borders. What is taking place inside Myanmar is a disaster, but it matters for another, more abstract reason, too. America and Europe have walked away from what was once an influential role in the country. Instead, the hellscape is unfolding under the watch of China, which has gradually become the dominant outside power. Its cynicism and indifference in Myanmar are an ominous demonstration of its values-free foreign policy in action. Myanmar has a desperate past. After a coup in 1962, it suffered 49 years of military rule. Between 2011 and 2021, the army relinquished some power, and for a while that allowed Aung San Suu Kyi, a liberal darling of the West, to front a government. Even in those years there were severe human-rights violations, including pogroms against the Rohingya minority. In 2021 the army fully retook power in a coup. Since then, a sinister junta has been engaged in a civil war with a swirling cast of dozens of armed-resistance groups, freedom fighters and bandits, turning a country the size of Ukraine into a bewildering and bloody mess. As the West has lost interest, China has become more powerful. Its conduct is pragmatic rather than ideological, and it will do business with anyone who has power, money or guns. It has worked with Ms Suu Kyi, and now co-operates with the junta and also with the resistance groups and militias. It uses its influence and control over ammunition and weapon supplies to shape the fighting in order to safeguard its interests. These include protecting a 2,500km energy pipeline from the Indian Ocean. This gives China an alternative supply route that bypasses the strait of Malacca and might become vital in the event of a war over Taiwan. China also wants to maintain its access to minerals and other resources, protect infrastructure built under its Belt and Road Initiative, tamp down on scammers targeting Chinese citizens, and keep the West out of a country adjacent to its own southern border. China plays all sides, arming, threatening and coaxing them into meeting its demands. The results are lethal. Amid mounting hunger, the size of the economy has fallen by a quarter in nominal terms since 2019. The picture could get worse. China is pushing General Min Aung Hlaing, the junta's chief, to hold a sham election later this year, designed to provide a figleaf of legitimacy. That could trigger a surge in violence as resistance groups seek to disrupt an illegitimate process. More chaos could spill across the borders Myanmar shares with Bangladesh, China, India, Laos and Thailand. Having been mistakenly star-struck by Ms Suu Kyi's leadership in the 2010s, the West has abandoned the groups fighting for democracy. Today America and Europe could still help Myanmar by increasing their humanitarian assistance, publicising abuses and backing pro-democracy forces in any negotiations and even on the battlefield. But the Trump administration has cut aid to Myanmar and Europe is preoccupied with security on its own eastern border. Given Western neglect, Myanmar's best long-term hope is either that pro-democracy groups eventually consolidate and win the civil war, or that Myanmar's other neighbours, such as India and Thailand, strive for a just peace. Despite all the talk of a multi-polar world in which power and responsibility are more evenly spread, neighbouring countries have so far tended to back the junta and have encouraged other states to normalise relations with it. Yet over time they may come to recognise that only a more democratic Myanmar will provide the stability they crave. Until then, the war will continue and the liberal future that some Burmese are fighting for will remain out of reach. China's growing power and pursuit of its own priorities, the West's shrinking view of its own interests, and the apathy of everyone else have consigned a country to misery. That makes Myanmar not just a tragedy—but also a warning. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.

U.S. vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate Gaza ceasefire
U.S. vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate Gaza ceasefire

The Hindu

time37 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

U.S. vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate Gaza ceasefire

The United States on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza because it was not linked to the release of hostages, saying it would embolden Hamas militants. All 14 other members of the council voted in favour of the resolution, which described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as 'catastrophic' and called on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid to the 2.1 million Palestinians in the territory. The resolution before the U.N.'s most powerful body also did not fulfill two other U.S. demands: It did not condemn Hamas' deadly attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza. Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea, speaking to the council immediately before the vote, said the resolution would undermine the security of Israel. a close U.S. ally, and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire 'that reflects the realities on the ground." U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the resolution would only have empowered Hamas. 'Hamas could end this brutal conflict immediately by laying down its arms and releasing all remaining hostages,' he said in a statement. Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon thanked the United States for refusing to abandon the hostages. He said the resolution's failure to make the release of hostages a condition for a ceasefire would have put all the pressure on Israel and handed Hamas 'time, leverage and political cover.' But the U.S. veto of the resolution — its fifth since the start of the war — was roundly criticised by other members of the council, who accused the United States of providing Israel with impunity. The Chinese ambassador to the U.N. said Israel's actions have 'crossed every red line' of international humanitarian law and seriously violated U.N. resolutions. 'Yet, due to the shielding by one country, these violations have not been stopped or held accountable," Ambassador Fu Cong said. Britain's U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward, a usual U.S. ally, lashed out at Israel. 'This Israeli government's decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid are unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive, and the U.K. completely opposes them,' she said. Pakistan's Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad said the U.S. veto "will be remembered as a complicity, a green light for continued annihilation. A moment where the entire world was expecting action. But yet again, this council was blocked and prevented by one member from carrying out its responsibility.' Slovenia's U.N. Ambassador Samuel Žbogar, the coordinator for the council's 10 elected members, stressed that it was never the intention to provoke a veto and therefore the resolution focused on the humanitarian crisis and the urgent need for unimpeded access to deliver aid. 'Starving civilians and inflicting immense suffering is inhumane and against international law,' he told the council after the vote. 'No war objective can justify such action. We had hoped and expected that this was our shared understanding.' Palestinian U.N. Ambassador Riyad Mansour said Palestinians are now urging governments to take 'real measures' to pressure Israel to get out of Gaza before it implements what he called an Israeli plan 'to destroy our people." And in the coming days, he said, the Palestinians will head to the 193-member General Assembly, where there are no vetoes, with a similar humanitarian-focused resolution. Unlike in the Security Council, assembly resolutions are not legally binding, though they are seen as a barometer of world opinion. The U.S. vetoed the last Security Council resolution on Gaza in November, under the Biden administration, also because the ceasefire demand was not directly linked to the release of all hostages. Similarly, the current resolution demands those taken by Hamas and other groups be released, but it does not make it a condition for a truce. President Donald Trump's administration has tried to ramp up its efforts to broker peace in Gaza after 20 months of war. However, Hamas has sought amendments to a U.S. proposal that special envoy Steve Witkoff has called 'totally unacceptable.' The vote followed a decision by an Israeli and U.S.-backed foundation to pause food delivery in Gaza after health officials said dozens of Palestinians were killed in a series of shootings this week. Israel and the United States say the new system was designed to prevent Hamas from stealing aid previously distributed by the U.N. The United Nations has rejected the new system. The U.N. says its distribution system worked very well during the March ceasefire and is carefully monitored. Gaza is almost completely reliant on international aid because Israel's offensive has destroyed nearly all food production capabilities. Israel imposed a blockade on supplies into Gaza on March 2, and limited aid began to enter again late last month after pressure from allies and warnings of famine. The war began when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing around 1,200 people and abducting 251. They are still holding 58 hostages, a third of them believed to be alive, after most of the rest were released in ceasefire agreements or other deals. Israel's military campaign has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which doesn't say how many of the dead were civilians or combatants. The ministry is led by medical professionals but reports to the Hamas-run government. Its toll is seen as generally reliable by U.N. agencies and independent experts, though Israel has challenged its numbers.

Best of BS Opinion: Through the maze of trade, debt, plastic, and policy
Best of BS Opinion: Through the maze of trade, debt, plastic, and policy

Business Standard

time41 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

Best of BS Opinion: Through the maze of trade, debt, plastic, and policy

There's something comforting about walking through a maze with a map, not because it guarantees a swift exit, but because it offers a sense of direction in an otherwise confusing route. Life throws us mazes daily, shifting economies, changing policies, unpredictable markets. But when we hold the map that carries insight, foresight, context, we're less likely to panic at the next dead end. Let's dive in. This week, that map feels particularly vital. In Washington, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's optimism about a trade deal with India may sound like progress, but a closer look reveals a more complicated path. Indian negotiators remain wary, knowing how the terrain can shift overnight with U.S. political winds. With a more rule-bound European Union pact on the horizon, India might be wiser to invest in partnerships that don't tear at the seams every election cycle, argues our first editorial. Elsewhere, Bill Gates is drawing his own kind of map, a 99 per cent philanthropic pledge to Africa, aiming for maternal health, disease eradication, and poverty reduction in 2045, by when the trust is expected to be valued at $200 billion. While it's a powerful route charted against the backdrop of declining US aid, our second editorial notes that some remain skeptical of private capital's ability to reshape public futures without also shifting power dynamics. Still, it's a bold turn that reimagines legacy as impact rather than inheritance. Closer home, economist Ajay Chhibber believes the RBI may be reading the wrong map. Inflation is falling, yet the central bank's cautious stance risks repeating past errors. With growth sputtering worldwide, India must look inward and strengthen domestic demand urgently and with more than 25 basis-point baby steps. Meanwhile, Jamie Dimon warns of cracks in the world's largest financial corridor: the US bond market. With America's debt ballooning, global tremors are inevitable, writes Rajesh Kumar. India, like many others, will have to walk carefully, eyes on both the curve ahead and the map in hand. And on World Environment Day, Saabira Chaudhuri's Consumed: How Big Brands Got Us Hooked on Plastic offers a GPS through plastic's entangled legacy. Chintan Girish Modi reviews that through India and America's histories with plastic, the book shows how brands got us hooked and how hard it is to chart an escape. But with clarity, nuance, and honesty, she arms us with a better map for a cleaner future. Stay tuned!

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store