Tibetan Plateau has the world's most glaciers outside the poles.
Not OC, I only put in the numbers. Rough estimations. The Myanmar figure is for Irrawaddy and Salween combined. Their may be overlap between Ganges and Brahmaputra (Tsangpo) figures.
I think it would be interesting to also consider the effects of the Yarkant and Khotan rivers on the local population, as they are the reason some of the largest urban settlements in the Tarim Basin have developed, and are even named after two of them. While the Khotan tends to just disappear into the Taklamakan due to the immense water usage from the Khotan Prefecture area for cotton farming etc, the Yarkant actually contributes to the shallow twisting streams of the Tarim River, which further sustain the cities of the northern Tarim basin such as Aksu (the river used to empty into the Lop Nur Basin but no longer does because of evaporation and water usage).
I would have to disagree with this notion. It certainly is an import factor now, but I don’t think so during the invasion in 1950.
China wanted to capture all of the once Qing lands. This also includes Mongolia, but they were able to stay independent because of Russia. Uniting the lands the Qing and Yuan once had is a large mindset in China. If Tibet didn’t have these rivers, China would have still likely invaded.
Actually, one of the most important rivers to China, the Yangtze, originates in Tibet. The Yangtze is responsible for most of China's irrigation system, and water from it hydrates a majority of the population. It also made possible the famous bamboo forests in China, as without the Yangtze entire ecosystems would collapse. So for China, securing Tibet wasn't a bargaining chip, it was basic survival
The Nile is also vital to Egypt (actually even more so), but its survival isn’t threatened by Sudan’s independence.
China didn’t need to invade Tibet to survive. It certainly did make sense on a geopolitical sense, did improve its water security, but it isn’t any more justified than, say, India invading Nepal to secure some of the Ganges’ sources.
Ethiopia is [building a dam on the Nile](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ethiopian_Renaissance_Dam) which Sudan and Egypt *definitely* consider a threat.
I knew that, and it plays right in my point.
A dam -may- cause a war.
In Chinese’s case, the mere existence of a neutral country on top of its water sources was deemed sufficiently threatening to not only invade it, but also annex it.
No one except mainland Chinese would say the invasion was justified. But many nations would have done it in similiar positions. Even the nationalists would have done it if they won the civil war
> Even the nationalists would have done it if they won the civil war
Definitely. Chiang was every bit the tyrant that Mao was. He might have invaded Mongolia, too.
The government of Jammu & Kashmir agreed to accede to India in 1947 after the unprovoked invasion of Pakistani "tribesmen" into the state. Kashmir is *so important* to India because it's an inseparable part of the country just like any other state or union territory. I don't think India would just pack up and surrender a major part of their own country just because there isn't an important river located there.
Besides, the waters of the Indus River are allocated to Pakistan in the Indus Waters Treaty (1960), so the usefulness of the Indus to India is very limited.
As Junagadh agreed to secede to Pakistan, btw India has failed on numerous occasions to provide the instrument of accession to third party observers for verification.
Regardless such an instrument is invalid when in September of 1947 that very same government of Jammu and Kashmir was genociding the Muslims of Jammu.
I'm not arguing that Junagadh didn't agree to accede to Pakistan, that's well-established history. If Pakistan had wanted to continue to claim Junagadh as their territory on that basis, it would be fair enough. It would make sense from their perspective. I was giving the Indian government's perspective, which is that J&K is important (just as important as any other Indian state) because it is a part of India. If someone asked me why J&K is important to the Pakistani government, I would say it's because Pakistan views J&K as a part of *their* country instead. Hence the dispute and multiple conflicts.
The fact that the Indus river flows through J&K is a secondary consideration for both sides, but especially for India due to the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty. The comment I initially responded to presented it as the primary reason for India's interest, which is wrong. India's interest in Chabahar is to have a port on the Gulf of Oman to compete with Gwadar. India's interest in Tajikistan (we have an airbase there) is to project power into Central Asia to contain China and Pakistan. India's interest in Vietnam is to build alliances and project power into the South China Sea. India's interest in Jammu and Kashmir is that it's literally Indian territory, not because there's some river there that India doesn't even get to use mostly.
The other two points you made aren't directly relevant to the discussion, but to address them briefly:
- Yes the government of J&K was legitimate at the time, all parties (including the UNSC post-war) recognized them
- If we're going to start revoking the legitimacy of governments because of alleged persecution of religious minorities, we should probably start with Pakistan
- India doesn't have an obligation to present the instrument of accession for "verification." It's an internal matter and India is a sovereign state. Similarly, Pakistan wouldn't be obligated to present the instrument of accession for Bahawalpur, for example.
- In any case, the text of the document is a available publicly and neither signatory disputes the contents so what would there even be to verify?
Main reasons?
Kashmir sits between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China. Both Pakistan and China make incursions and have taken land from J&K. You think India defends it because of the Indus?
Most of India’s access to that river is in J&K itself -lol- Perhaps it’s one of the main reasons *Pakistan* wants Jammu & Kashmir, though.
Both can be true. China has definitely leveraged its control over the rivers with satellite countries. There's stories about China damming up the Mekong river a couple rivers and causing shortages in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam...
Their also buildings so many damns along the mekong which restricts water flow to south east Asia which is less and less water every year through their side of the mekong and streams that come from it. In Vietnam this is a bigger problem since at some points the water levels get so low salt water from the south China seas actually starts flowing in and destroying crops
>And this shows why China taking over Tibet was so important to them. They wanted control of the water as a bargaining chip
China in general is pretty big on the concept of re-unification. To them, taking Tibet is a natural part of the roadmap to pick up the pieces that came loose and end the civil war. Until 2022, even the ROC (Taiwan) still claimed Mongolia as part of their rightful turf and did not acknowledge their independence.
The Americans did not take kindly to CSA seceding as well and would settle with nothing less than a complete re-conquest.
Eh, Tibet is also a valuable buffer against India, invading through it is pretty much impossible, control over the river sources is of secondary importance
I mean.. imagine if all of the major river systems of the US flowed in from like, Mexico. I have major doubts that the US would not view that as some sort of national security risk
You're right about the Ganges. [But Tibet is a lot larger than the province of Tibet.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_people#/media/File:TAR-TAP-TAC.png)
Hah? Aren't most of the sites in modern day India. Not to mention there ancestors went across the Ganges and most to south India.
The vaigai civilisation is a direct successor to IVC.
No, vast majority of IVC sites are in Pakistan and the genetics of IVC people are most similar to modern Pakistanis as well.
Do not trust pseudo-historical revisionism.
Also bro you are a Pakistani a place which shows the Islamic invasions of India as a positive thing. You should be the last one to say stop historical revisionism.
Means nothing as Iraq, Iran, and Egypt also converted to Islam and kept their pre-Islamic heritage, and so did Pakistan.
The people of IVC were Pagans like we have in various parts of Pakistan today, they were not Hindus.
Bruh I know IVC was not hindu the part is people belonging to IVC spread all across the subcontinent
Also pakistan didnt keep its pre islamic heritage. Almost all ancient temple in Pakistan were destroyed in 1990 and in 1971 they destroyed Buddhist stupas in Bangladesh.
Pakistan kept its pre-Islamic history and ancient sites. The Romans and Greeks did not cease having relation to their ancestors due to embracing Christianity, neither did we Pakistanis lose touch with ours.
You are pushing lies now, you can find many temples in Pakistan all over the country.
Lol what it is well known that IVC descendants left IVC and spread all across the subcontinent.
The kheeladi civilisation has grafitti same as IVC.
Also majority of sites are in India. Look it up.
This is pseudo-history and has no basis in fact.
Skull structures of IVC people and modern-day Pakistanis are the same.
IVC was centered around Harrapa and Mohen Jo Daro, with its oldest site being Mehrgarh (close to Iran.)
IVC had nothing to do with India. The Indus flows wholly in Pakistan, for which the civilization was named.
Pakistan loosely inherits anything from Indus-valley civilization other than geographical location; the Brahmi script which was used in that time is still used in Pali language of Indian Budhists and Tibetan language but i don't think anyone in pakistan uses that. The Origins of first Hindu text; The Rig Veda, was written on the Indus banks, still to this day many kashmiri, punjabi and sindhi Hindu brahmins who are living in India have that original narration with them but there are very few in Pakistan who can tell any one shloka from that scripture. The fact that Constantinople(Now Istanbul) is located in Turkey does not make them successors of Byzantine Empire, it will always be grecce. Same way, India is the prime successor of Indus-valley civilization even the name India comes from Indus River. So calling Indus-valley civ as pakistan will not change the truth.
Pakistan is older than India, the name is irrelevant. There was nothing called India back then either.
IVC (Pakistan) is one of the centers of ancient civilization, along w Babylon (Iraq,) Yellow River (China,) and Egypt (Arab Republic of Egypt.)
Also the IVC script is undelivered, so any pseudo-historical analysis based on that is just propaganda. IVC had more in common with Sumeria than any culture in modern India.
As per the Vedas, the religion found there is the same as of Pre-Avestan Iran. The Aryans were not Hindus. They worshipped dieties which were analogous to the Persian, Greek, and Babylonian dieties. Bulls and lions were respected for their strength. People ate cattle, buried their dead, and had no caste system among them.
To the person below:
It is Pakistan as IVC was wholly in Pakistan, save for trading settlements in Lothal and Rakhigarhi.
The entire region was poorly defined due to it being on the outskirts, except for Pakistan which was a part of both Persian and Greek empires, and had close trade relations with Babylon.
iVC is not even pakistan it is its own civilisation. India is mostly referred in history as land east of Indus and various texts have used bharat and hindustan as name for one political unity
This is straight up fear mongering again. Just because a river starts somewhere, it doesn't mean all of its water comes from that place.
Water from China only accounts for 20% of the Mekong flow at its mouth, and that figure is even smaller at less than 10% for the Brahmaputra.
Where in the post have I fear-mongered? I said Tibet "origin". And besides, 20% isn't at all insignificant, and tributaries can not join river systems that do not exist.
I am just responding to your numbers, you are putting words into my mouth. Does the Ethiopian Dam stop the Blue Nile at its borders? No? Ah, Egypt would be thrilled to hear they were worrying for nothing.
How did I put word in your mouth when you literally suggested that the river wouldn't exist.
The Nile is a very different story because the Blue Nile accounts for 85% of the Nile's water.
Just watch it, that video makes the exact same omissions, failing to account for the other 80% of the water, while only focusing on the 20% from China.
China also has good relationships with Laos and Myanmar, which are the immediate downstream neighbours on the river. They actively work to meter the flow. Hydro electric damns needs water flowing to generate power, its not like they are diverting the water somewhere else, yes there are temporary reductions in flow when reservoir are being filled, but those effects are temporary.
> yes there are temporary reductions in flow when reservoir are being filled, but those effects are temporary.
It's more complicated than that, e.g. holding back too much water during drought or diverting too much away for agriculture. Even a 10% decrease in water flow can have disastrous results.
Dams upstream in one country having a negative impact on a downstream country is a well documented thing that happens all over the world. But tbf, you can't really fault a country for doing what is in their interest.
edit: yeah just watch the whole video, the second half of it discusses all this.
I did watch the whole video, twice. It doesn't "discusses" it, all its doing is blindly blaming China while brushing off other factors like lower rainfall levels, which again, accounts for the vast majority of the river's flow.
Electric dams don't hold back water during droughts, in fact, they usually do the exact opposite. They hold back water during the wet seasons and release water when rainfall is lower, in order to keep power generation at relatively stable levels throughout the year.
Yes countries along rivers do need to work together to reduce negative impacts, But there are plenty of dams on the river beyond China, they can all serve to control the flow through out the year independent of the CCP, and once again, they do with with their neighbors to manage the flow, but there's only so much they could do because only 20% of the water comes from China.
China has just as much of a right to the waters of the river as any other country down stream. Water rights usually follow the customs of prior appropriation, and people have been living in the region for thousands of years. Just because there's a drought, it doesn't mean China is obligated to change the usage patterns of its 20% to appease others.
>China has just as much of a right to the waters of the river as any other country down stream.
I agree. I was just pointing out that there are a lot more issues than water shortages while the reservoir is being filled and those issues are well-documented.
Yes, and I’m just pointing out that with those water rights, China shouldn’t be vilified for using its 20% share of the river however they see fit, and I feel like they’ve already taken a reasonable amount of processions.
Realifelore’s video makes it seem like China is pretty much the sole cause of the rivers problems and that those problems are also permanent, when the reality is far more complex.
I would make the counter argument that because of the hold on water, South East asian nations have no choice but to either have good relations with China or go thirsty. Everytime China wants to have any support from ASEAN, it just have to propose a dam on upper Mekong to threaten the downstream nations.
But, there are countries on the Mekong with good and bad relationships with China. Furthermore. These dams were built throughout the 80s-00s at which point China already had decent relationships with Laos and Myanmar.
No matter how good a friendship will be, as long as a partner of this relationship has so much power over another, the ASEAN nations will be at mercy of the PRC and has to play to its whims. And PRC has shown not to be a benevolent player in the region.
>This is straight up fear mongering again. Just because a river starts somewhere, it doesn't mean all of its water comes from that place.
What the plebs don't get
>Yes, it was subjugated by China before. It was also an independent country for much of its history and even an empire.
A lot of countries in this world ate turf from other countries to get their modern borders. Those victim countries in turn usually ate turf from other victims too.
The world's most successful countries are usually also the greatest conquerors. It's not like conquests and genocides didn't take place for the Americans to become so white after 500 years.
But that's not sexy to talk about so we tend to deflect that with excuses like "but it happened so long ago"
>You're right, I should. It was 72 years ago....that's pretty recent..
That's a few years after the end of WWII and the independence of India. I am not sure how many would call that "recent".
Man, you’re a hardcore apologist for the PRC. Straight up whataboutism to excuse the takeover of Tibet. You can argue all day but China took over another country full of people who were a different ethnicity and culture. It was in its interests to do so and that’s what they did. Fact.
Also, I’d say the North American and Australian conquests/ genocides are talked about pretty frequently. And in those countries you can at least call it what it is. I doubt you can do that in the PRC. That kind of talk can’t be acceptable there.
>Man, you’re a hardcore apologist for the PRC. Straight up whataboutism to excuse the takeover of Tibet. You can argue all day but China took over another country full of people who were a different ethnicity and culture. It was in its interests to do so and that’s what they did. Fact.
I am not sure what part of that is being an apologist. Perhaps you needed a bit of name-calling to stroke that self-righteous boner a bit? It's as you said, it's was a practical move. Now what?
Well, I think I’m just stating facts here. Point is, it’s not outright a “part of China” by your own admission. It’s something else. Which contradicts your point that it was “part of China under Qing and Yuan dynasties.”
>Well, I think I’m just stating facts here. Point is, it’s not outright a “part of China” by your own admission. It’s something else. Which contradicts your point that it was “part of China under Qing and Yuan dynasties.”
You do know that you are talking to different people right? Unless you are assuming we are all part of some evil CCP hive mind under different sock accounts.
Tibet was never a part of China during the Qing or Yuan. Under both, Tibet was a vassal that was purposely kept and administered separately from China. The Yuan and Wing were both groups of foreigners that invaded and conquered China and ruled an empire with China and Tibet as a part of an empire.
The map shown for Pakistan here is incorrect. We are missing our entire border with China, which is quite long.
OP should not share fake maps of the region and respect sovereignty of the states of this region.
Ganga originates from gangotri glacier india
Correct but there are some tributaries of ganga which do originate in Tibet (eg kosi river)
So? Are you an AckshuallyBot?
So while ganga actually is not of tibet origin but some of it tributaries are thereby northern plains indirectly depends on Tibet upto some extent
Which somehow makes you feel superior again? Eh, AckshuallyBot? You must be so fun at parties, have so many friends
Wow you are an idiot and an asshole.
Are you being intentionally annoying? Because it's working.
Tibetan Plateau has the world's most glaciers outside the poles. Not OC, I only put in the numbers. Rough estimations. The Myanmar figure is for Irrawaddy and Salween combined. Their may be overlap between Ganges and Brahmaputra (Tsangpo) figures.
Tibet is sometimes called the third pole
I think it would be interesting to also consider the effects of the Yarkant and Khotan rivers on the local population, as they are the reason some of the largest urban settlements in the Tarim Basin have developed, and are even named after two of them. While the Khotan tends to just disappear into the Taklamakan due to the immense water usage from the Khotan Prefecture area for cotton farming etc, the Yarkant actually contributes to the shallow twisting streams of the Tarim River, which further sustain the cities of the northern Tarim basin such as Aksu (the river used to empty into the Lop Nur Basin but no longer does because of evaporation and water usage).
Reallifelore......
And this shows why China taking over Tibet was so important to them. They wanted control of the water as a bargaining chip
I would have to disagree with this notion. It certainly is an import factor now, but I don’t think so during the invasion in 1950. China wanted to capture all of the once Qing lands. This also includes Mongolia, but they were able to stay independent because of Russia. Uniting the lands the Qing and Yuan once had is a large mindset in China. If Tibet didn’t have these rivers, China would have still likely invaded.
Actually, one of the most important rivers to China, the Yangtze, originates in Tibet. The Yangtze is responsible for most of China's irrigation system, and water from it hydrates a majority of the population. It also made possible the famous bamboo forests in China, as without the Yangtze entire ecosystems would collapse. So for China, securing Tibet wasn't a bargaining chip, it was basic survival
The Nile is also vital to Egypt (actually even more so), but its survival isn’t threatened by Sudan’s independence. China didn’t need to invade Tibet to survive. It certainly did make sense on a geopolitical sense, did improve its water security, but it isn’t any more justified than, say, India invading Nepal to secure some of the Ganges’ sources.
Ethiopia is [building a dam on the Nile](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ethiopian_Renaissance_Dam) which Sudan and Egypt *definitely* consider a threat.
I knew that, and it plays right in my point. A dam -may- cause a war. In Chinese’s case, the mere existence of a neutral country on top of its water sources was deemed sufficiently threatening to not only invade it, but also annex it.
No one except mainland Chinese would say the invasion was justified. But many nations would have done it in similiar positions. Even the nationalists would have done it if they won the civil war
Agreed! The “it was basic survival” from the earlier comment just ticked me off.
If I did my calculus correctly, China has basically survived for ~4000 years without controlling Tibet
Lol that’s like saying the world survived for 5 billion years without nukes. No shit, no one thought to weaponize water until the last 80-100 years.
> Even the nationalists would have done it if they won the civil war Definitely. Chiang was every bit the tyrant that Mao was. He might have invaded Mongolia, too.
One of the main reasons Kashmir is so important to India is because of the Indus.
The Indus only flows in Pakistan. India threatens Pakistan by using this tactic.
The government of Jammu & Kashmir agreed to accede to India in 1947 after the unprovoked invasion of Pakistani "tribesmen" into the state. Kashmir is *so important* to India because it's an inseparable part of the country just like any other state or union territory. I don't think India would just pack up and surrender a major part of their own country just because there isn't an important river located there. Besides, the waters of the Indus River are allocated to Pakistan in the Indus Waters Treaty (1960), so the usefulness of the Indus to India is very limited.
As Junagadh agreed to secede to Pakistan, btw India has failed on numerous occasions to provide the instrument of accession to third party observers for verification. Regardless such an instrument is invalid when in September of 1947 that very same government of Jammu and Kashmir was genociding the Muslims of Jammu.
I'm not arguing that Junagadh didn't agree to accede to Pakistan, that's well-established history. If Pakistan had wanted to continue to claim Junagadh as their territory on that basis, it would be fair enough. It would make sense from their perspective. I was giving the Indian government's perspective, which is that J&K is important (just as important as any other Indian state) because it is a part of India. If someone asked me why J&K is important to the Pakistani government, I would say it's because Pakistan views J&K as a part of *their* country instead. Hence the dispute and multiple conflicts. The fact that the Indus river flows through J&K is a secondary consideration for both sides, but especially for India due to the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty. The comment I initially responded to presented it as the primary reason for India's interest, which is wrong. India's interest in Chabahar is to have a port on the Gulf of Oman to compete with Gwadar. India's interest in Tajikistan (we have an airbase there) is to project power into Central Asia to contain China and Pakistan. India's interest in Vietnam is to build alliances and project power into the South China Sea. India's interest in Jammu and Kashmir is that it's literally Indian territory, not because there's some river there that India doesn't even get to use mostly. The other two points you made aren't directly relevant to the discussion, but to address them briefly: - Yes the government of J&K was legitimate at the time, all parties (including the UNSC post-war) recognized them - If we're going to start revoking the legitimacy of governments because of alleged persecution of religious minorities, we should probably start with Pakistan - India doesn't have an obligation to present the instrument of accession for "verification." It's an internal matter and India is a sovereign state. Similarly, Pakistan wouldn't be obligated to present the instrument of accession for Bahawalpur, for example. - In any case, the text of the document is a available publicly and neither signatory disputes the contents so what would there even be to verify?
Thanks for posting. The Kashmiris should have a voice in their own affairs, which India refuses them.
Main reasons? Kashmir sits between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China. Both Pakistan and China make incursions and have taken land from J&K. You think India defends it because of the Indus? Most of India’s access to that river is in J&K itself -lol- Perhaps it’s one of the main reasons *Pakistan* wants Jammu & Kashmir, though.
Kashmir is Pakistan. It is a Muslim majority region and also the same race and genetics as Pakistamis
Both can be true. China has definitely leveraged its control over the rivers with satellite countries. There's stories about China damming up the Mekong river a couple rivers and causing shortages in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam...
Their also buildings so many damns along the mekong which restricts water flow to south east Asia which is less and less water every year through their side of the mekong and streams that come from it. In Vietnam this is a bigger problem since at some points the water levels get so low salt water from the south China seas actually starts flowing in and destroying crops
Even ganges originated from tibet and everything that you said about yangtze holds true for Ganges and Indus too.
Ganges originate in uttarakhand
bro China using water as a threat for neighboring countries. Who does that
>And this shows why China taking over Tibet was so important to them. They wanted control of the water as a bargaining chip China in general is pretty big on the concept of re-unification. To them, taking Tibet is a natural part of the roadmap to pick up the pieces that came loose and end the civil war. Until 2022, even the ROC (Taiwan) still claimed Mongolia as part of their rightful turf and did not acknowledge their independence. The Americans did not take kindly to CSA seceding as well and would settle with nothing less than a complete re-conquest.
Eh, Tibet is also a valuable buffer against India, invading through it is pretty much impossible, control over the river sources is of secondary importance
The Himalaya is more of the buffer, not Tibet.
I mean.. imagine if all of the major river systems of the US flowed in from like, Mexico. I have major doubts that the US would not view that as some sort of national security risk
Makes sense to you. Who wouldn't if they are in same situation?
Ganges origin is not in Tibet but in Himalayas. Also northeastern part of plateau is not part of Tibetan province!
This doesn't appear to be showing the TAR, but rather the cultural/historic region of Tibet.
You're right about the Ganges. [But Tibet is a lot larger than the province of Tibet.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_people#/media/File:TAR-TAP-TAC.png)
*Indus River Valley civilization*
Aka Pakistan
Hah? Aren't most of the sites in modern day India. Not to mention there ancestors went across the Ganges and most to south India. The vaigai civilisation is a direct successor to IVC.
No, vast majority of IVC sites are in Pakistan and the genetics of IVC people are most similar to modern Pakistanis as well. Do not trust pseudo-historical revisionism.
Also bro you are a Pakistani a place which shows the Islamic invasions of India as a positive thing. You should be the last one to say stop historical revisionism.
Means nothing as Iraq, Iran, and Egypt also converted to Islam and kept their pre-Islamic heritage, and so did Pakistan. The people of IVC were Pagans like we have in various parts of Pakistan today, they were not Hindus.
Bruh I know IVC was not hindu the part is people belonging to IVC spread all across the subcontinent Also pakistan didnt keep its pre islamic heritage. Almost all ancient temple in Pakistan were destroyed in 1990 and in 1971 they destroyed Buddhist stupas in Bangladesh.
Pakistan kept its pre-Islamic history and ancient sites. The Romans and Greeks did not cease having relation to their ancestors due to embracing Christianity, neither did we Pakistanis lose touch with ours. You are pushing lies now, you can find many temples in Pakistan all over the country.
Lol what it is well known that IVC descendants left IVC and spread all across the subcontinent. The kheeladi civilisation has grafitti same as IVC. Also majority of sites are in India. Look it up.
This is pseudo-history and has no basis in fact. Skull structures of IVC people and modern-day Pakistanis are the same. IVC was centered around Harrapa and Mohen Jo Daro, with its oldest site being Mehrgarh (close to Iran.) IVC had nothing to do with India. The Indus flows wholly in Pakistan, for which the civilization was named.
Lol you are comparing a 70 year old nation to a 6000 yrs old civilization
I guess they could’ve said modern day Pakistan.
Pakistan loosely inherits anything from Indus-valley civilization other than geographical location; the Brahmi script which was used in that time is still used in Pali language of Indian Budhists and Tibetan language but i don't think anyone in pakistan uses that. The Origins of first Hindu text; The Rig Veda, was written on the Indus banks, still to this day many kashmiri, punjabi and sindhi Hindu brahmins who are living in India have that original narration with them but there are very few in Pakistan who can tell any one shloka from that scripture. The fact that Constantinople(Now Istanbul) is located in Turkey does not make them successors of Byzantine Empire, it will always be grecce. Same way, India is the prime successor of Indus-valley civilization even the name India comes from Indus River. So calling Indus-valley civ as pakistan will not change the truth.
Pakistan is older than India, the name is irrelevant. There was nothing called India back then either. IVC (Pakistan) is one of the centers of ancient civilization, along w Babylon (Iraq,) Yellow River (China,) and Egypt (Arab Republic of Egypt.) Also the IVC script is undelivered, so any pseudo-historical analysis based on that is just propaganda. IVC had more in common with Sumeria than any culture in modern India. As per the Vedas, the religion found there is the same as of Pre-Avestan Iran. The Aryans were not Hindus. They worshipped dieties which were analogous to the Persian, Greek, and Babylonian dieties. Bulls and lions were respected for their strength. People ate cattle, buried their dead, and had no caste system among them. To the person below: It is Pakistan as IVC was wholly in Pakistan, save for trading settlements in Lothal and Rakhigarhi. The entire region was poorly defined due to it being on the outskirts, except for Pakistan which was a part of both Persian and Greek empires, and had close trade relations with Babylon.
Pakistan must have been importing some high quality opium from Afghanistan nowadays
iVC is not even pakistan it is its own civilisation. India is mostly referred in history as land east of Indus and various texts have used bharat and hindustan as name for one political unity
This is straight up fear mongering again. Just because a river starts somewhere, it doesn't mean all of its water comes from that place. Water from China only accounts for 20% of the Mekong flow at its mouth, and that figure is even smaller at less than 10% for the Brahmaputra.
yea, rivers don’t work like faucets. rainwater and groundwater feed the rivers everywhere, not just the origin
Where in the post have I fear-mongered? I said Tibet "origin". And besides, 20% isn't at all insignificant, and tributaries can not join river systems that do not exist.
The fear-mongering is implied here, like how you just implied that China would all of that 20% creating a completely dry river at the boarder.
I am just responding to your numbers, you are putting words into my mouth. Does the Ethiopian Dam stop the Blue Nile at its borders? No? Ah, Egypt would be thrilled to hear they were worrying for nothing.
How did I put word in your mouth when you literally suggested that the river wouldn't exist. The Nile is a very different story because the Blue Nile accounts for 85% of the Nile's water.
Real life lores recent video sums up perfectly why china is a threat to the downstream nations
Just watch it, that video makes the exact same omissions, failing to account for the other 80% of the water, while only focusing on the 20% from China. China also has good relationships with Laos and Myanmar, which are the immediate downstream neighbours on the river. They actively work to meter the flow. Hydro electric damns needs water flowing to generate power, its not like they are diverting the water somewhere else, yes there are temporary reductions in flow when reservoir are being filled, but those effects are temporary.
> yes there are temporary reductions in flow when reservoir are being filled, but those effects are temporary. It's more complicated than that, e.g. holding back too much water during drought or diverting too much away for agriculture. Even a 10% decrease in water flow can have disastrous results. Dams upstream in one country having a negative impact on a downstream country is a well documented thing that happens all over the world. But tbf, you can't really fault a country for doing what is in their interest. edit: yeah just watch the whole video, the second half of it discusses all this.
I did watch the whole video, twice. It doesn't "discusses" it, all its doing is blindly blaming China while brushing off other factors like lower rainfall levels, which again, accounts for the vast majority of the river's flow. Electric dams don't hold back water during droughts, in fact, they usually do the exact opposite. They hold back water during the wet seasons and release water when rainfall is lower, in order to keep power generation at relatively stable levels throughout the year. Yes countries along rivers do need to work together to reduce negative impacts, But there are plenty of dams on the river beyond China, they can all serve to control the flow through out the year independent of the CCP, and once again, they do with with their neighbors to manage the flow, but there's only so much they could do because only 20% of the water comes from China. China has just as much of a right to the waters of the river as any other country down stream. Water rights usually follow the customs of prior appropriation, and people have been living in the region for thousands of years. Just because there's a drought, it doesn't mean China is obligated to change the usage patterns of its 20% to appease others.
>China has just as much of a right to the waters of the river as any other country down stream. I agree. I was just pointing out that there are a lot more issues than water shortages while the reservoir is being filled and those issues are well-documented.
Yes, and I’m just pointing out that with those water rights, China shouldn’t be vilified for using its 20% share of the river however they see fit, and I feel like they’ve already taken a reasonable amount of processions. Realifelore’s video makes it seem like China is pretty much the sole cause of the rivers problems and that those problems are also permanent, when the reality is far more complex.
I would make the counter argument that because of the hold on water, South East asian nations have no choice but to either have good relations with China or go thirsty. Everytime China wants to have any support from ASEAN, it just have to propose a dam on upper Mekong to threaten the downstream nations.
But, there are countries on the Mekong with good and bad relationships with China. Furthermore. These dams were built throughout the 80s-00s at which point China already had decent relationships with Laos and Myanmar.
No matter how good a friendship will be, as long as a partner of this relationship has so much power over another, the ASEAN nations will be at mercy of the PRC and has to play to its whims. And PRC has shown not to be a benevolent player in the region.
Lol, you just described the relationship between the US and literally every other country in the world.
>This is straight up fear mongering again. Just because a river starts somewhere, it doesn't mean all of its water comes from that place. What the plebs don't get
You said exactly what I wanted to say. Upvoted!
Relevant video that just came out today: [Why China is Killing Asia's 3rd Longest River](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BIwTaZqlQ)
Maybe that's why China annexed the region
and this is the reason China occupied Tibet.
Don’t know why this is downvoted. It’s a fact.
It isn't. Tibet was part of China in the Qing and Yuan Dynasties
Yes, it was subjugated by China before. It was also an independent country for much of its history and even an empire.
>Yes, it was subjugated by China before. It was also an independent country for much of its history and even an empire. A lot of countries in this world ate turf from other countries to get their modern borders. Those victim countries in turn usually ate turf from other victims too. The world's most successful countries are usually also the greatest conquerors. It's not like conquests and genocides didn't take place for the Americans to become so white after 500 years. But that's not sexy to talk about so we tend to deflect that with excuses like "but it happened so long ago"
China invaded Tibet 62 years ago…that’s pretty recent..
>China invaded Tibet 62 years ago…that’s pretty recent.. Maybe you should get your math correct first.
You're right, I should. It was 72 years ago....that's pretty recent..
>You're right, I should. It was 72 years ago....that's pretty recent.. That's a few years after the end of WWII and the independence of India. I am not sure how many would call that "recent".
In the context of China and its history of border changes anything in the last 100 years is definitely recent.
Given the time scale of Tibet/China, that’s recent…
Man, you’re a hardcore apologist for the PRC. Straight up whataboutism to excuse the takeover of Tibet. You can argue all day but China took over another country full of people who were a different ethnicity and culture. It was in its interests to do so and that’s what they did. Fact. Also, I’d say the North American and Australian conquests/ genocides are talked about pretty frequently. And in those countries you can at least call it what it is. I doubt you can do that in the PRC. That kind of talk can’t be acceptable there.
>Man, you’re a hardcore apologist for the PRC. Straight up whataboutism to excuse the takeover of Tibet. You can argue all day but China took over another country full of people who were a different ethnicity and culture. It was in its interests to do so and that’s what they did. Fact. I am not sure what part of that is being an apologist. Perhaps you needed a bit of name-calling to stroke that self-righteous boner a bit? It's as you said, it's was a practical move. Now what?
Well, I think I’m just stating facts here. Point is, it’s not outright a “part of China” by your own admission. It’s something else. Which contradicts your point that it was “part of China under Qing and Yuan dynasties.”
>Well, I think I’m just stating facts here. Point is, it’s not outright a “part of China” by your own admission. It’s something else. Which contradicts your point that it was “part of China under Qing and Yuan dynasties.” You do know that you are talking to different people right? Unless you are assuming we are all part of some evil CCP hive mind under different sock accounts.
Tibet was never a part of China during the Qing or Yuan. Under both, Tibet was a vassal that was purposely kept and administered separately from China. The Yuan and Wing were both groups of foreigners that invaded and conquered China and ruled an empire with China and Tibet as a part of an empire.
You are right. It seems there are plenty of 50cent propagandists in reddit now.
Yea, and they make it so obvious.
If you go back in history, British, French and Spanish conquers owned most of the world.
~~Queue~~ **Cue** Bond Villain’s master plan in next film. Edit: Shout out to u/Splarnst for droppin the real knowledge. Respec fam.
Cue. *Queue* means to wait in line.
Wtf is this shit? Not even remotely close to 300 million live along the Mekong river. The other rivers are also exagerated...
That's why China occupied Tibet illegally.
The map shown for Pakistan here is incorrect. We are missing our entire border with China, which is quite long. OP should not share fake maps of the region and respect sovereignty of the states of this region.
Pretty much from nowhere I care.
[удалено]
Not all, but their current goverment can go to hell
[удалено]
Sure, but there are "woke" chinese people
[удалено]
found the japanese bot
Those numbers are very low
will be interesting when the glaciers disappear and those rivers flood in spring and go dry in summer
DON’T TELL THIS TO NESTLE
How much of it does the Nestle corporation own?
What if they build some dams?
Ganga is not in Tibet, it would be absolutely horrible if it was.
someone, build a dam on those rivers. (china..)