The moment rivers traverse borders, their courses affect terrains and political responses. Sitting atop the glistening snowy Tibetan Plateau is the Angsi Glacier, the source of the Brahmaputra. The river meanders from China down to India’s Arunachal Pradesh and subsequently flows into the Ganges Delta in Bangladesh.
The Brahmaputra brings life to more than 100 million people living downstream, but also underlying tensions between countries. As China sought to construct the world’s largest hydropower dam in Tibet, India became concerned about reduced water flows, which could jeopardize its national security, regional dominance and people’s livelihoods.
For farmers and city dwellers, access to billions of cubic meters of water during the dry season is a matter of life and death. India’s government has promptly responded by announcing a dam-building project in Arunachal Pradesh, hoping to reduce water shortages around Guwahati, the largest city in Assam state, during the non-rainy season.
Its approach shows that when an upstream country controls water flows, the sovereignties and livelihoods of downstream countries could be weaponized and threatened. Dams are not just water facilities; they are bargaining chips countries can wager during international negotiations.
That said, residents of Arunachal Pradesh have long resisted the dam project. They worry their villages would be flooded and their traditional way of life would be destroyed; such fears from local communities stand in direct conflict with the government’s strategic demands.
While India’s dam project aims to mitigate the impact of droughts during dry seasons, the social costs and ecological risks it incurs are difficult to overlook. It is emblematic of contemporary challenges, where concerns of national security, local life, technological capabilities, natural constraints, political ambitions and ethical responsibilities intertwine, and are difficult to be addressed in isolation of each other.
China claimed its hydropower dam had undergone strict scientific evaluation, and it vowed to act responsibly on using water from transboundary rivers. However, from India’s perspective, China’s control poses a risk and a threat, and it could only respond by accelerating construction of the dam, thereby prompting a defensive move.
China and India’s race for water resources mirrors the state of geopolitics: Those on the top make decisions, and those below them are forced to adjust their tactics and their way of life. India has attempted to grasp such uncertainty by calculating water flows during dry seasons, protecting cities down river and preventing floods.
Rivers shape landscapes, power hierarchies and the mentalities of a society. For India, dams symbolize sovereign control of life-saving resources; they are also a reflection of its security concerns near the border. The Upper Siang Multipurpose Storage Dam must be completed, even if it creates building and social costs.
The events surrounding the Brahmaputra are more than a race to construct dams; they also test how countries assert sovereign control, handle border issues and safeguard the survival of their citizens. The prospective dam at Upper Siang shows that India has chosen to defend its water resources and respond to changes in international water politics.
Liu Che-ting is a writer.
Translated by Cayce Pan
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS