ANALYSIS
The Brewing Conflict in Kashmir: How Water Has Become a Fighting Point for One of America’s Most Important Emerging Allies
Embedded Files
This is a historical material “frozen in time”. The website is no longer updated and links to external websites and some internal pages may not work.
Throughout human history, wars have been waged over land and resources. As the 21st century progresses, one of the most essential resources has reemerged as a critical point of contention: water. Across the globe, billions lack access to clean and reliable drinking water. In regions where rivers cross political borders, water is no longer just a basic human necessity, it has become a geopolitical fault line. Few places illustrate this clearer than Kashmir, where the Indus River begins in the Himalayas and flows through both India and Pakistan. While water is just one of many disputes between these nuclear-armed neighbors, their shared dependence on the Indus River makes the situation extremely volatile. A conflict in this densely populated and highly militarized region could have catastrophic consequences, not just for South Asia, but for global stability and U.S. strategic interests.
Following the British colonial withdrawal in 1947, India and the newly created Pakistan were divided largely along religious lines: India as a Hindu-majority state and Pakistan as a Muslim-majority one. But the status of several states, including Jammu and Kashmir, was left unresolved. The region, with a Muslim majority but ruled by a Hindu maharaja, quickly became a source of conflict. After a Pakistani-backed incursion, the maharaja acceded to India, triggering the first of three wars between the two countries. A United Nations-brokered ceasefire followed, leaving Kashmir divided yet disputed. Under the agreement India retained control over most of the territory, while Pakistan claimed the rest. A later claim to parts of the territory by China made the situation even more complicated, and it eventually clashed with India in 1962 over its territorial claims in eastern Kashmir. Today, all three powers maintain military forces in the region, making it one of the most heavily militarized zones on earth1.
1.1 Map of Kashmir Region
In an effort to reduce tensions, the Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960, facilitated by the World Bank. The agreement divided the six rivers of the Indus Basin between India and Pakistan and has, remarkably, withstood decades of hostility. However, it now faces renewed pressure amid rising political and environmental strains.
The Indus River sustains more than 300 million people across India, Pakistan, and China2. While the river originates in the Chinese controlled Tibetan Plateau, it then flows through Indian-administered Kashmir, giving India upstream control over Pakistan, a reality that leaves Pakistan deeply uneasy as its agriculture and economy are heavily reliant on a steady river flow. Additionally, India’s construction of hydroelectric projects, including the controversial Kishanganga Dam, has sparked fierce objections from Pakistan, which fears that water could be diverted or withheld in times of conflict. While India maintains it is acting within the treaty’s limits, these moves are widely interpreted as politically motivated. Tensions peaked in 2019 after a terrorist attack, when Indian leaders openly threatened to restrict Pakistan’s water access. Former Water Resources Minister Nitin Gadkari at the time publicly declared that India would divert water flows previously allocated to Pakistan, an unprecedented step that showcases the entangled nature of water and warfare3.
1.2 Map of Rivers in Kashmir Region
India’s dam-building strategy aligns with the broader agenda of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose government has taken a hardline approach to Kashmir. In 2019, Modi revoked Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status and placing it under direct federal control4. The move provoked outrage in Pakistan and drew concern internationally, as Indian troops flooded the region and communications were shut down for weeks. Modi’s leadership, often characterized by Hindu nationalist rhetoric, has blurred the boundary between domestic development and strategic dominance. Critics warn that his assertive control over Kashmir, both politically and hydrologically, risks inflaming an already unstable nuclear rivalry. Both India and Pakistan possess nuclear arsenals, have yet to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and have previously engaged in nuclear signaling and threats during moments of heightened tension. Under these conditions any escalation, particularly over a resource as fundamental as water, remains incredibly dangerous.
The involvement of China further complicates matters. China controls Aksai Chin, a disputed region claimed by India, and exerts significant influence over the Tibetan Plateau, the source of several major South Asian rivers, including the Indus. Its dam-building along the Brahmaputra River has raised alarm in India over the potential use of water as a tool of leverage5. In this complex triangle of India, Pakistan, and China, water security is no longer a domestic concern, it is a matter of regional survival.
For the United States, the Kashmir water crisis intersects with two major strategic objectives: preventing a potential nuclear conflict and managing its growing partnership with India, a key ally to counterbalance against China in the Indo-Pacific region. The U.S. has significantly deepened military and economic ties with India through initiatives like the Quad alliance (made up of India, Japan, Australia, and the U.S.) and expanded defense cooperation. This leaves the U.S. with difficult policy choices such as entering into a mutual defense pact with India or formally recognizing Kashmir as Indian territory. Both of these options would solidify bilateral ties, but at the cost of alienating Pakistan and other Muslim-majority partners. More concerningly, such actions could inflame tensions in an already volatile region.
A more measured U.S. approach could focus on supporting water diplomacy, investing in climate resilience through USAID, and encouraging all parties to recommit to multilateral conflict-resolution frameworks. However, given the Trump administration’s retreat from international institutions, a more unilateral strategy may be more likely, particularly given Trump’s close personal relationship with Prime Minister Modi, whom he has called “a great friend.”6 This relationship could facilitate smooth diplomatic engagement. Nonetheless, ongoing trade disputes regarding tariffs on imported goods could pose a barrier to deeper cooperation. The United States therefore finds itself in a high-stakes dilemma with no easy policy solutions. While multiple strategies exist, each comes with potential drawbacks. However, what is clear after a deeper analysis of the conflict is that Washington cannot afford to wait to prepare for a potential escalation or fallout. Should armed conflict break out, it will be too late to formulate a coherent response.
5
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse