What does a country do when it is confronted by an aggressive neighbor that can potentially control its water supply by playing the role of the upstream riparian? Unfortunately, when dialogue is not constructive and the policies of the upstream riparian are becoming increasingly about a strategic advantage, options are very limited. Pakistan is faced by such a situation with its neighbor, India. Though the Western media likes to highlight problems in Pakistan such as terrorism and the (unfounded) concern that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is in danger of falling into the wrong hands, India's often menacing policies, state-sponsored terrorism and denial of Pakistan's right to free-flowing water goes largely ignored. With this post, I hope to shed some light on the reality of the situation.

Early on, Pakistan realized that unless a legally binding international treaty is made with India, water wars would be inevitable. The World Bank was soon involved and the Indus Waters Treaty was born in 1960. Ok, great - but India keeps violating it. What now? What if the World Bank's neutral experts don't make sound decisions? What can Pakistan do - cede its water rights to India, allowing India to control the country by controlling its water resources? Certainly not. Indian control of the water that flows into Pakistan is an existential threat to Pakistan. This fundamental realization has to inform all policy decisions - international and domestic.

India's water projects have to be seen in a context outside their technical blueprints, as any project affording India control of the water flow before it enters Pakistan is without doubt a huge cause for concern. The two countries have fought three wars in the past 50 years and the fact that India hints at "strategic importance" when talking about most of its water projects should grab the attention of the international community. The occupation by India of the disputed territories of Jammu & Kashmir, through which most rivers pass, is itself illegal, denying the people of Jammu & Kashmir their inalienable right to self-determination. There are dozens of resolutions in the UN that call for a referendum in the territories, allowing the people to democratically choose whether they want to be a part of Pakistan, India or independent. India does not allow such processes to take place. It seems that the "world's biggest democracy" is big on the "big" but not on the "democracy."

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of President Obama's foreign policy is his administration's Af-Pak policy. Stability in this region is of grave importance. If Pakistan gets no justice and India does end up controlling all of Pakistan's water supply, forcing Pakistan to fight for its water, is the world ready to sit idle as this region - vital for world peace - plummets into chaos as two nuclear powers battle it out (over water that, under an international treaty, belongs to Pakistan)?

A lot is being asked of Pakistan, which has lost more troops than any of America's allies in the "war on terror" and has suffered a huge amount of civilian casualties as a result of waves of suicide bombings because of its allegiance to the US. At a time when - despite the enormous cost Pakistan is paying to fight terrorists - fingers are still being pointed at the country, it's time to point some back.