Posts

Posted on

620: EPOCHS OF WARFARE: FROM ANCIENT TO CONTEMPORARY WARS

 

Presented My paper at the Forum for Global Studies

 

Warfare has been a defining element of human civilisation, shaping societies, economies, and political landscapes. It has undergone profound transformations throughout history, reflecting technological, strategy shifts, and global power dynamics. From the ancient world’s phalanxes and legions to the medieval era’s siege warfare, military tactics evolved alongside societal advancements. The gunpowder revolution reshaped battlefields, leading to industrialised warfare in the 19th and 20th centuries. The World Wars introduced mechanised combat and nuclear deterrence, while contemporary conflicts emphasise cyber warfare, asymmetric strategies, and precision-guided munitions. Each period’s innovations and doctrines have shaped the conduct of war and global security.

 

Ancient Warfare (3000 BC – 500 AD)

Rudimentary weaponry, massed formations, and reliance on close-quarters combat characterised ancient warfare. Civilisations such as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, and Romans developed structured military forces that relied on discipline, organisation, and evolving battlefield tactics.

Key Features. A combination of infantry-based combat, siege tactics, chariot warfare, and naval engagements defined ancient warfare. Infantry formations such as the Greek phalanx and Roman Legion provided disciplined, cohesive units capable of overwhelming enemies through coordinated movements and superior training. Meanwhile, as civilisations fortified cities, primitive siege warfare developed, employing battering rams, siege towers, and catapults to breach enemy defences. Beyond land battles, chariots revolutionised mobility in warfare, particularly among the Egyptians and Hittites, where swift, highly manoeuvrable chariot units allowed for rapid strikes and battlefield control. However, naval engagements also played a crucial role in shaping military dominance. The Greco-Persian Wars demonstrated the importance of maritime power, with triremes warships enabling the Greeks to secure critical victories, such as at Salamis island in 480 BC. These key features of ancient warfare shaped military strategies, allowing the civilisations to expand their influence, defend their territories, and establish powerful empires.

Notable Conflicts.

    • The Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC). The Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta reshaped Greek warfare by demonstrating the effectiveness of prolonged sieges, naval blockades, and attritional strategies. Sparta’s victory, aided by Persian naval support, marked the decline of Athenian maritime supremacy and the rise of land-based military dominance, influencing future Greek and Macedonian tactics.
    • The Punic Wars (264–146 BC). The Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage introduced large-scale naval warfare, siege tactics, and strategic land battles. Rome’s development of the Corvus boarding device revolutionised maritime combat, while Hannibal’s campaigns showcased innovative manoeuvre warfare. Rome’s victory solidified its dominance for centuries, shaping imperial military strategies through adaptation and logistics.
    • The Roman Conquests (509 BC – 476 BC). Rome’s conquests expanded military engineering, battlefield tactics, and logistical superiority. The disciplined Roman legions, advanced siegecraft, and road networks facilitated rapid mobilisation. These innovations influenced medieval and modern warfare through professional armies, combined arms tactics, and fortified frontiers like Hadrian’s Wall, ensuring Roman influence on military strategy long after its fall.

 

Medieval Warfare (500 AD – 1500 AD)

Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, medieval warfare evolved with the rise of feudalism. Conflicts were dominated mainly by heavily armoured knights, fortified castles, and protracted sieges.

Key Features. Feudal levies, castle sieges, religious conflicts, and the rise of professional armies defined medieval warfare. Lords provided knights in exchange for land, creating a decentralised military structure reliant on vassalage. The prominence of castles led to advanced siege techniques, including trebuchets and early gunpowder artillery. Religious conflicts, such as the Crusades, combined faith and military ambition, fuelling prolonged wars between Christian and Muslim forces. By the late medieval period, centralised states moved away from feudal levies, maintaining professional armies for greater stability and efficiency. This transition laid the foundation for modern military organisation and state-controlled warfare.

Notable Conflicts

    • The Crusades (1095–1291) were religious wars between Christian and Muslim forces. They drove military advancements in siege tactics, fortifications, and logistics. They facilitated cultural exchanges, introduced European knights to advanced Islamic warfare techniques, and contributed to the eventual decline of feudal armies.
    • The Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) saw the rise of longbows, gunpowder weaponry, and professional armies, diminishing feudal knightly dominance. It led to stronger centralised states, particularly in France and England, influencing the shift toward modern military structures and the decline of feudal warfare.
    • The Mongol Conquests (1206–1368). The Mongol conquests revolutionised warfare through superior mobility, psychological tactics, and siegecraft. Their composite bows, disciplined cavalry, and adaptable strategies reshaped military doctrines, demonstrating the effectiveness of rapid, coordinated strikes and influencing future empires’ approach to large-scale warfare.

 

Early Modern Warfare (1500 AD – 1800 AD)

The advent of gunpowder weaponry and the centralisation of states led to radical changes in military tactics and organisation. The early modern period witnessed the emergence of large professional armies, advanced artillery, and global conflicts fuelled by colonial ambitions.

Key Features. The Gunpowder Revolution transformed warfare, as muskets and cannons rendered armoured knights obsolete, leading to the dominance of infantry and artillery. Naval advancements enabled European powers to expand overseas, sparking global conflicts over trade and colonies. On land, armies adopted linear tactics, using disciplined line infantry formations to maximise firepower and manoeuvrability. Simultaneously, the rise of centralised nation-states allowed governments to directly control military funding, organisation, and strategy, leading to larger, more professional armies. These developments shaped early modern warfare, shifting power from feudal lords to centralised monarchies and paving the way for global empires and nation-based conflicts.

Notable Conflicts

    • The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) devastated Europe, advancing gunpowder warfare, mass conscription, and siege tactics. It led to the professionalisation of armies and the Treaty of Westphalia, which established the modern concept of sovereign nation-states, influencing future diplomatic and military conflicts.
    • The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815). The Napoleonic Wars introduced mass conscription, rapid manoeuvre warfare, and the corps system, revolutionising military organisation. Napoleon’s strategies emphasised mobility and decisive engagements, shaping modern warfare. These wars also influenced nationalism, strengthening state-controlled military structures in Europe and beyond.
    • The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) demonstrated the effectiveness of guerrilla tactics, citizen militias, and alliance-based warfare. It influenced future revolutions by proving that disciplined irregular forces could challenge established armies, leading to global shifts in colonial conflicts and military strategy.

 

Industrial Warfare (1800 AD – 1945 AD)

The Industrial Revolution transformed warfare, introducing mechanised armies, mass conscription, and unprecedented levels of destruction. Industrialised nations leveraged technological advancements to wage large-scale wars.

Key Features. The 20th century saw warfare evolve through mass mobilisation, mechanisation, and new strategic doctrines. Total war concepts led to entire populations being drafted, fuelling large-scale conflicts. Mechanised warfare, with tanks, aeroplanes, and automatic weapons, revolutionised combat, replacing traditional cavalry and infantry dominance. World War I introduced trench warfare, creating static, attritional battlefields. By World War II, strategic bombing devastated cities, making airpower a decisive force. The advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally altered global conflicts, introducing deterrence strategies that shaped Cold War geopolitics. These developments transformed warfare from localised battles to global, highly destructive confrontations with long-lasting consequences.

Notable Conflicts

    • The American Civil War (1861–1865) introduced rifled muskets, trench warfare, and rail-based logistics, increasing battlefield lethality. It marked the transition from Napoleonic tactics to modern warfare, emphasising industrial production, mass mobilisation, and total war strategies, influencing future global conflicts.
    • World War I (1914–1918) saw trench warfare, machine guns, poison gas, and early tanks, which created prolonged stalemates. It revolutionised military strategy, leading to combined-arms tactics and mechanised warfare, shaping modern combat and setting the stage for even deadlier conflicts in World War II.
    • World War II (1939–1945). World War II introduced blitzkrieg tactics, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons, making it the most destructive war in history. It accelerated technological advancements, solidified total war strategies, and reshaped global power structures, leading to the Cold War and modern military doctrines.

 

Cold War and Proxy Warfare (1945 AD – 1991 AD)

The Cold War era was defined by ideological conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. The confrontation was primarily avoided, but both superpowers engaged in proxy wars and an arms race, including nuclear deterrence strategies.

Key Features. The Cold War era redefined warfare through nuclear deterrence, preventing full-scale conflicts under the mutually assured destruction (MAD) doctrine. Instead, proxy wars featured guerrilla tactics and insurgencies, as seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan, where asymmetrical warfare challenged conventional military forces. Technological advancements, including the space race, intelligence warfare, and precision-guided munitions, revolutionised military strategy, emphasising surveillance and targeted strikes. Special Forces operations became vital, with covert missions, espionage, and psychological warfare shaping geopolitical struggles. These developments shifted warfare from direct military confrontations to strategic manoeuvring, proxy conflicts, and advanced technology-driven engagements that continue to influence modern military doctrines.

Notable Conflicts.

    • The Korean War (1950–1953) demonstrated the effectiveness of combined arms warfare, air superiority, and mechanised infantry in a Cold War proxy conflict. It solidified Korea’s division, reinforced U.S. military commitments worldwide, and established the precedent for limited wars without direct nuclear confrontation between superpowers.
    • The Vietnam War (1955–1975) highlighted the power of guerrilla tactics, asymmetrical warfare, and psychological operations. It exposed the limitations of conventional military superiority against determined insurgencies, leading to shifts in U.S. war strategy and influencing future conflicts by emphasising counterinsurgency, intelligence gathering, and political warfare.
    • The Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989) showcased the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare against a technologically superior adversary. The U.S.-backed Mujahedeen used ambush tactics and Stinger missiles to counter Soviet forces, contributing to the collapse of the USSR and shaping future insurgencies, including modern jihadist movements and asymmetric warfare strategies.

 

Contemporary Warfare (1991 AD – Present)

The post-Cold War era has seen a shift towards unconventional warfare, cyber warfare, and terrorism-driven conflicts. Traditional state-versus-state wars have become less common, replaced by asymmetric engagements, hybrid warfare, and precision strikes.

Key Features. Modern warfare has evolved beyond traditional battlefields, incorporating cyber warfare, drones, AI, and hybrid tactics. Nations now engage in digital conflicts, targeting critical infrastructure and intelligence networks through cyber attacks. Meanwhile, drones and AI-driven systems have revolutionised surveillance and precision strikes, reducing the need for human-operated missions. Hybrid warfare blends conventional military strategies with irregular tactics and cyber operations, creating complex battle environments. Non-state actors like ISIS and Al-Qaeda further complicate security landscapes, challenging traditional counterinsurgency strategies. Regional conflicts and proxy wars, such as the Syrian Civil War, the War on Terror, and the Russia-Ukraine War, exemplify modern geopolitical struggles where global powers support different factions to further strategic interests. These evolving methods of warfare highlight the increasing overlap between technology, statecraft, and military operations, requiring nations to adapt their defence and security strategies to counter emerging threats in an unpredictable global environment.

Notable Conflicts

    • The Gulf War (1990–1991) showcased the dominance of modern airpower, precision-guided munitions, and electronic warfare. The U.S.-led coalition’s swift victory over Iraq demonstrated the effectiveness of network-centric warfare, integrating real-time intelligence with advanced weaponry. This war redefined conventional military strategy, emphasising air superiority, rapid mobilisation, and technological advancements that continue to shape modern combat operations.
    • The War on Terror (2001–Present) revolutionised counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategies, prioritising asymmetric warfare and intelligence-driven operations. U.S.-led campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq relied heavily on drones, Special Forces, and cyber warfare. However, prolonged conflicts exposed the challenges of nation-building and insurgency suppression, highlighting the limits of conventional military power against decentralised terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
    • The Russia-Ukraine War (2022–Present) has underscored the significance of drone warfare, cyber operations, and Western-supplied precision weaponry. Ukraine’s resistance has demonstrated the power of asymmetric tactics, intelligence-sharing, and hybrid warfare. Russia’s reliance on missile strikes with Ukraine’s guerrilla air defence signals a shift toward technology-driven conflicts where cyber attacks, propaganda, and real-time intelligence play decisive roles.
    • Israel-Hamas War (2023–Present). The Israel-Hamas War has highlighted the role of urban warfare, missile defence systems, and asymmetric tactics. Hamas’s use of tunnels, rockets, and drones contrasts with Israel’s reliance on precision airstrikes, AI-driven targeting, and the Iron Dome system. The conflict underscores the growing importance of intelligence, cyber warfare, and advanced air defence in modern asymmetric and urban battlefields.

 

Conclusion

Warfare has continuously evolved, adapting to technological advancements, political shifts, and strategic innovations. From the disciplined phalanxes of ancient armies to today’s cyber and AI-driven conflicts, each era has shaped the nature of war. Modern conflicts blend conventional battles with asymmetric tactics, cyber operations, and unmanned warfare, redefining military strategy. The rise of hybrid warfare and regional proxy wars highlights the complexities of global security. As nations and non-state actors harness emerging technologies, the future of warfare remains unpredictable. Understanding past epochs provides crucial insights into the ever-changing dynamics of global conflicts and their profound geopolitical consequences. While modern conflicts have become increasingly complex, the fundamental nature of war, rooted in competition for power, resources, and ideology, remains unchanged.

 

Please Do Comment.

 

1279
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

References:-

  1. Archer, Christon I., John R. Ferris, Holger H. Herwig, and Timothy H. E. Travers. World History of Warfare. University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
  1. Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Princeton University Press, 1984.
  1. Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. Vintage, 1993.
  1. Sun Tzu. The Art of War. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963.
  1. Freedman, Lawrence. “The Future of War: A History.” International Affairs, vol. 95, no. 1, 2019, pp. 39–61.
  1. Black, Jeremy. War and the World: Military Power and the Fate of Continents, 1450–2000. Yale University Press, 1998.
  1. Boot, Max. War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today. Gotham Books, 2006.
  1. Creveld, Martin van. The Transformation of War. Free Press, 1991.
  1. Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. Vintage, 1993.
  1. Biddle, Stephen. “The Past as Prologue: Assessing Theories of Future Warfare.” Security Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, 1998, pp. 1–74.
  1. Freedman, Lawrence. “The Future of War: A History.” International Affairs, vol. 95, no. 1, 2019, pp. 39–61.

Posted on

619: PAKISTAN TRAIN HIJACK: START OF A LARGER CRISIS?

 

​My Article was published on the Eurasian Times Website

on 12 Mar 25.

 

On March 11, 2025, separatist militants attacked the Jaffar Express passenger train in Balochistan’s Bolan district, Pakistan. The train, carrying approximately 500 passengers, was en route from Quetta to Peshawar when it was ambushed in a tunnel. The assailants detonated explosives on the railroad track and engaged in gunfire with onboard security personnel. The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), designated as a terrorist organisation by both Pakistan and the United States, claimed responsibility for the assault. They asserted that they had taken security forces and civilians hostage, using women and children as human shields. Authorities face challenges accessing the remote, mountainous area to conduct rescue operations. ​

Reports on the number of hostages vary, with some sources estimating 182 while others suggest the initial number could exceed 400. The BLA later claimed to have released civilian passengers—including women, children, and Baloch citizens—but retained active-duty military and security personnel. Conflicting accounts also exist regarding casualties, with the BLA alleging deaths among security forces, though exact figures remain unconfirmed.

The crisis remains ongoing, with tensions high between the BLA and Pakistani authorities. The government and military face the challenge of resolving the standoff without further loss of life, while the BLA’s threats add urgency to the situation. The incident underscores the persistent unrest in Balochistan and the complexities of addressing the region’s separatist movements.

 

BLA Origin and Background. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) is an ethno-nationalist militant group that seeks an independent Balochistan, citing political marginalisation, economic exploitation, and human rights abuses by the Pakistani state. Its origins are deeply rooted in the broader Baloch nationalist movement, which began when Pakistan annexed the princely state of Kalat in 1948 despite resistance from its ruler, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan. This led to the first Baloch insurgency, followed by successive uprisings in 1958-59, 1973-77, and post-2000, each met with Pakistani military crackdowns. The modern BLA is believed to have formed in the late 1990s or early 2000s, allegedly led by Baloch separatist leaders such as Hyrbyair Marri and Balach Marri. The growing militarisation of Balochistan fueled its emergence, enforced disappearances, and the assassination of nationalist leaders, notably Nawab Akbar Bugti, in 2006. Initially, the BLA targeted Pakistani security forces, gas pipelines, and government installations, but in the 2010s, it expanded its focus to attacking Chinese interests, particularly the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). High-profile attacks include the 2018 Karachi consulate bombing, the 2019 Gwadar Pearl Continental attack, and the 2022 Karachi University suicide bombing targeting Chinese nationals. Pakistan has banned the BLA and designated it as a terrorist organisation, accusing India’s RAW and Afghan intelligence of supporting it, though India denies involvement. The BLA has since fragmented into factions like the Majeed Brigade, known for its suicide attacks and high-profile operations.

 

Pakistan’s Strategy to Deal with the Baloch Problem. Pakistan has adopted a military-centric approach to address the Baloch insurgency, using a combination of force, intelligence operations, and economic incentives. The Pakistan Army and intelligence agencies (ISI and MI) have led counterinsurgency campaigns, conducting large-scale military operations, airstrikes, and search-and-kill missions against Baloch militant groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). Reports suggest enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture of suspected militants and activists, which have further fuelled resentment. To counter separatist narratives, Pakistan has also sought to integrate Balochistan into national development programs. Projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), including Gwadar Port, are promoted as economic solutions, but many Baloch nationalists argue they benefit outsiders while displacing locals. The government has also offered amnesty programs, urging militants to surrender in exchange for reintegration and financial incentives. Diplomatically, Pakistan has labelled Baloch insurgents as foreign-backed terrorists. Security forces have intensified border controls and cracked down on pro-Baloch political groups and media outlets. However, these actions have failed to neutralise the insurgency, as groups like the BLA’s Majeed Brigade continue attacks, mainly targeting Pakistani forces and Chinese interests in the region.

 

Past Incidents Worldwide. Throughout history, militant groups have targeted trains for hijackings or attacks as part of their insurgencies. During the Nicaraguan Contra War (1980s), the leftist Sandinista rebels hijacked and ambushed trains carrying military supplies, disrupting government forces. In Russia, Chechen militants and North Caucasus insurgents targeted trains, including the 2009 Nevsky Express bombing, which killed dozens and highlighted vulnerabilities in railway security. Closer at home, in 1982, Naxalite rebels in India hijacked a train in Bhusaval, Maharashtra, using it as a platform to protest government policies. Naxalites have also derailed and bombed trains, particularly in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha, as part of their guerrilla warfare.  These historical cases show how trains remain a strategic target for militants aiming to spread terror and weaken state control.

 

Likely Future Consequences.

This incident underscores the ongoing security challenges in Balochistan and reflects the BLA’s capacity to orchestrate significant attacks. It marks a serious escalation in the Baloch insurgency and could have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan’s security, economy, and regional stability. The incident demonstrates the BLA’s growing operational capability, suggesting that future attacks could target critical infrastructure, transport networks, and Chinese-backed projects like CPEC. In response, Pakistan is likely to intensify military operations, search-and-destroy missions, and intelligence-based crackdowns in Balochistan. However, such actions may exacerbate local grievances, leading to further radicalisation and recruitment into militant ranks. The potential future consequences of this incident are grave, emphasizing the need for immediate action and the audience’s understanding of the gravity of the situation.

Politically, the hijacking may prompt increased state suppression of Baloch political movements, fuelling more unrest. It could also heighten diplomatic tensions, as Pakistan is likely to accuse India (RAW) of supporting Baloch insurgents, increasing hostilities between the two nations. Additionally, the attack raises serious security concerns for Chinese investments, potentially discouraging future economic cooperation and funding for CPEC projects. Foreign investors may reconsider their commitments if such incidents continue, further straining Pakistan’s fragile economy. The incident could have significant economic implications, potentially discouraging foreign investment and economic cooperation and undermining the potential benefits of CPEC for regional development.

In the long term, the train hijacking could push the Baloch insurgency towards more sophisticated urban warfare tactics, creating sustained instability that Pakistan’s current military approach may struggle to contain.

 

Please Do Comment.

 

1279
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the article on the website:-

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/train-attack-pakistan-sends-200-coffins-to-bolan/

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

Posted on

618: INPUTS TO QUESTIONNAIRE ON CHINESE DAMS

 

1a: What’s the historical legacy of the trans-border Rivers between India and China?

    • The trans-border rivers between India and China, most notably the Brahmaputra (Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet), the Indus, and the Sutlej, have long played a crucial role in shaping the historical and contemporary relationship between the two countries.
    • Their legacy is deeply intertwined with colonial-era geopolitics, water resource competition, and the evolving strategic tensions between India and China.
    • The Brahmaputra, Indus, and Sutlej rivers originate in Tibet, historically having fluid sovereignty claims before its integration into China in 1950.
    • British India recognised Tibet as an autonomous region, but the Chinese annexation of Tibet significantly altered the strategic importance of these rivers.
    • The British Raj was concerned about Chinese influence over the water sources and actively sought treaties and diplomatic manoeuvres (e.g., the 1914 Simla Accord, which China never fully recognised) to define border arrangements.
    • Despite British concerns, pre-1947 did not see active contestation over river resources since China lacked the technological and economic capability to alter water flows significantly.
    • After India’s independence and China’s annexation of Tibet (1950), both countries engaged in limited cooperation on water sharing.
    • However, the deterioration of relations in the 1950s, culminating in the 1962 Sino-Indian War, disrupted diplomatic communication on river management.
    • Unlike India and Pakistan (who signed the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960), China never agreed to a formal water-sharing agreement with India.

 

  •  1b: How does this legacy play in contemporary relations?
    • The legacy of these rivers plays a significant role in modern geo-strategic, economic, and environmental disputes between India and China.
    • China controls the headwaters of major rivers flowing into India but has no legally binding treaty on water sharing with India.
    • This gives China an asymmetrical advantage over India, raising fears of diversifying and strategically manipulating river flows.
    • China has constructed multiple dams on the Yarlung Tsangpo (Brahmaputra), including the Zangmu Dam, and plans a mega-dam at the Great Bend near Arunachal Pradesh.
    • India fears that Chinese upstream dams could reduce water flow, especially during dry seasons, affecting agriculture, livelihoods, and ecosystems in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.
    • China officially states that these projects are run-of-the-river and do not significantly alter flows, but India remains wary.
    • In the event of a military conflict, India fears that China could weaponise water by artificially creating floods or droughts.
    • China has, at times, withheld hydrological data from India during monsoon seasons (e.g., in 2017 during the Doklam standoff), exacerbating flood risks in the northeastern states.
    • Existing mechanisms, such as the annual hydrological data-sharing agreement, are limited in scope and do not address more significant concerns over dam-building and strategic manipulation of river flows.
    • The historical legacy of colonial geopolitics and the asymmetry of water control continue to shape contemporary Sino-Indian relations, making trans-border rivers a critical flashpoint in their evolving rivalry.

 

2: How do dams today define and complicate the disputed border management between India and China?

      • Dams have become critical in the complex and disputed border management between India and China, influencing water security and strategic, military, and geopolitical dynamics.
      • These dam projects, primarily on trans-border rivers such as the Brahmaputra (Yarlung Tsangpo) and the Sutlej, intersect with the broader territorial disputes along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), exacerbating tensions.
      • Dams along the Sino-Indian border are not just hydropower and irrigation projects; they serve as strategic assets with potential military and geopolitical consequences.
      • China controls the headwaters of major rivers flowing into India, including the Brahmaputra and the Sutlej. This upstream control allows Beijing to dictate the volume and timing of water flow.
      • China’s ability to divert, manipulate, or withhold water during crises or conflicts gives it a non-conventional weapon against India.
      • During the 2017 Doklam standoff, China withheld hydrological data on the Brahmaputra, flooding Assam and reinforcing Indian fears of water weaponisation.
      • Any large-scale water diversion could create flashpoints for diplomatic and military escalation.
      • Dams near the disputed borders have also created security risks and military vulnerabilities. If targeted in a military conflict, these could lead to environmental and humanitarian disasters.
      • Dams are no longer economic or energy infrastructure; they are now geo-strategic tools shaping the border dispute.

 

3: Are there any particular dams by China that threaten India?

      • Several Chinese dam projects on trans-border rivers, particularly the Brahmaputra (Yarlung Tsangpo) and Sutlej rivers, pose potential threats to India.
      • The Great Bend Mega-Dam, a massive hydropower project, is planned at the Great Bend of the Yarlung Tsangpo, near where the river turns into the Brahmaputra and enters India. This project could be one of the largest hydropower plants in the world, with a capacity of 60 GW, nearly three times the size of the Three Gorges Dam. India fears the dam could reduce water flow into Arunachal Pradesh, impacting agriculture and drinking water supply. China could suddenly release excess water, leading to catastrophic floods in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. The project is close to the disputed Arunachal Pradesh border, reinforcing China’s territorial claims over the region. India has raised strong diplomatic objections, but China has refused to provide assurances that it will not alter natural water flows.
      • China’s Zangmu Dam (510 MW), commissioned in 2015, is the first large-scale hydropower project on the Yarlung Tsangpo. It is part of a cascade of six dams, including Jiexu, Jiacha, and Dagu, which China is building upstream of Arunachal Pradesh. While officially a run-of-the-river dam, multiple reservoirs upstream could be used to control water release. China could store water in the dam during monsoons and release it suddenly, causing flash floods downstream in India.
      • Dagu, Jiexu, and Jiacha Dams. These three dams, built in succession along the Brahmaputra’s upper reaches, further increase China’s capacity to regulate and potentially divert the river’s flow before reaching India. The combined effect of multiple dams allows Beijing to control water release precisely, creating a hydrological choke point for India. These projects could permanently reduce water flow into India, especially in dry seasons.
      • Lalho Dam, completed in 2019, is built on a major tributary of the Yarlung Tsangpo, holding back over 295 million cubic meters of water. While it is not on the main course of the Brahmaputra, its operation reduces tributary inflow into the river. Less water reaching the Brahmaputra in Tibet means lower flow into Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. This dam is part of China’s broader plan to harness Tibetan water resources, raising fears of future large-scale diversions.
      • Proposed North-to-South Water Diversion Project (Long-Term Threat). China has long debated a massive water diversion project to transfer water from Tibet to its arid northern regions. If implemented, this project could significantly alter the flow of the Brahmaputra before it even reaches India.
      • China is also building smaller-scale hydropower projects on the Sutlej River (which flows from Tibet into Himachal Pradesh). These dams have not been widely publicised, but they could potentially affect seasonal water flow into India’s northern regions.

4 Are any specific Indian states more threatened by the Chinese dams on the border?

      • Several Indian states are particularly vulnerable to the impact of Chinese dams on trans-border rivers, with Arunachal Pradesh and Assam facing the highest risks.
      • Arunachal Pradesh is most directly threatened. It shares a long border with Tibet, and the Brahmaputra (Yarlung Tsangpo) enters India here. China’s Great Bend Mega-Dam and Zangmu Dam could alter or reduce water flow into Arunachal Pradesh. Sudden water releases from Chinese dams could flood Indian villages, disrupt agriculture, and damage infrastructure.
      • Assam faces severe economic and ecological Threats. The Brahmaputra enters Assam from Arunachal Pradesh and is vital to the state’s agriculture, fishing industry, and transportation. Assam has a history of devastating floods, and any Chinese dam activity upstream could worsen the situation. Assam faces catastrophic flooding if China releases excess water (as suspected in the 2000 and 2017 floods). If China holds back water, it could impact agriculture, drinking water, and hydropower production. The Brahmaputra, including the Majuli River Island and Kaziranga National Park, supports a rich ecosystem. Flow changes could harm biodiversity and fisheries. Reduced or erratic water flow threatens rice farming and fishing-dependent communities. Infrastructure Damage: Increased flood risks make roads, bridges, and urban areas more vulnerable.
      • Sikkim faces moderate risk, as it depends on tributaries of the Brahmaputra, including the Teesta River, which could be affected by China’s upstream water management. Though not directly on the Brahmaputra, Chinese water diversion projects could impact Sikkim’s river networks. If China diverts water from Tibetan rivers feeding into Sikkim, it could impact the Teesta and Rangit rivers. Many of Sikkim’s rivers are fed by Himalayan glaciers, which are melting due to climate change. Chinese dams could exacerbate water shortages in dry seasons.  Sikkim has multiple hydropower projects on the Teesta, which could suffer from erratic water flow.
      • Himachal Pradesh faces a more minor, indirect risk because the Sutlej River, which originates in Tibet, flows into it. Chinese dam-building on the upper Sutlej could reduce water flow into the state. India has reported fluctuations in the Sutlej’s water levels, which could be linked to upstream Chinese activity. Reduced Sutlej flow could affect irrigation and hydropower projects. Farmers and hydropower plants depend on steady river flow, which could be disrupted. Unlike Assam or Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh faces a long-term risk rather than an immediate crisis.
      • Ladakh faces a lesser-known, potentially serious threat, as the Indus River, which originates in Tibet, flows into Ladakh. Chinese upstream projects could impact the Indus water flow, affecting Ladakh’s water availability. China has previously explored diverting Tibetan rivers to supply its drier northern provinces. Ladakh is an arid region, and any reduction in Indus water could harm local farming.
      • Arunachal Pradesh and Assam are the most threatened, with risks of floods, water shortages, and geopolitical disputes.
      • Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh face indirect threats, mainly related to water flow disruptions.
      • Ladakh could become a flashpoint, especially if China diverts the Indus tributaries.

5: Is ‘Dam for a dam’ the only way out between India and China?

      • A “dam for a dam” strategy, where India builds its dams to counter Chinese upstream projects, is not the only way to address the water security threats posed by China’s control over trans-border Rivers. While building dams can provide some leverage, it is neither a long-term solution nor a risk-free strategy.
      • Excessive dam-building could worsen floods by altering natural river flow. The Northeast is a seismically active zone, and excessive dam construction increases the risk of earthquakes and landslides.

6: What are your recommendations for India to counter China’s dam Aggression?

      • India must adopt a multi-pronged approach that includes diplomacy, technological advancements, international cooperation, and legal mechanisms.
      • Diplomatic engagement should try to reach a water-sharing agreement. India must push for bilateral negotiations on water flow guarantees, especially for the Brahmaputra. A possible framework could include year-round data sharing on water flows, a dispute resolution mechanism, and prohibitions on unilateral water diversion projects.
      • India should resort to technological and intelligence-based monitoring, using satellites, drones, and AI-based hydrological models to track Chinese dam activity in Tibet. Early warning systems could help predict and mitigate sudden water releases or drought-like conditions. Sensor networks along Indian rivers could provide real-time data on water levels, quality, and possible upstream activity.
      • India must work with Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal, which depend on trans-border rivers. A joint water-sharing agreement with downstream countries can increase diplomatic pressure on China. India can engage global institutions like the UN Water Conference and Indo-Pacific Alliances (QUAD) to raise concerns over China’s water militarisation.
      • India could take the “China Dam Issue” to international forums such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (though China is unlikely to comply), UNESCO, and the Mekong River Commission (as precedents for cross-border river management). India can also push for a South Asian Water Treaty, similar to the Mekong region’s agreements.
      • Developing India’s water infrastructure, such as innovative water storage projects that can absorb excess water from floods and small-scale hydropower projects that reduce risk while ensuring water security.
      • Instead of relying on a reactionary “dam for a dam” approach, India should pursue a balanced mix of diplomacy, surveillance, legal pressure, and selective dam-building.
      • While building some dams is necessary, it should be part of a broader water security strategy.

 

Please Do Comment.

 

1279
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

English हिंदी