# data[].attributes.body
Benefits to the Britain:

The Britain took goods and valuable items from India which supported them with building significant infrastructure like railways, bridges, roads, and transportation. These infrastructure not only help British citizens but also supported trade and commerce.

After extracting a lot of Indian goods, the British applied economic policies that transformed India's economy. They introduced source of cash crops like tea, coffee, cotton and more resources which also became major exports from India. Britain also made an establishment of forming a formal banking system and industrialization under British rule laid for groundwork for economic growth. To be able to take control over the Indian and take their resources, the Britain imprisoned hundreds of soldiers and civilians in a cramped up, heated room without any ventilation causing many Indians to die.

Overall, the Britain gained goods and items from India. They used it to build infrastructures and to extend the relationships between other countries using trade and commerce. The British also expanded their economy with the goods they have.

Impact to the Indian:

India were known for its thriving economy due to their trade and rich cultural heritage. The colonization of the British made a significant negative impact on the Indian's economy and society that stopped them from developing. Under the control of the British, Indian's wealth drained out though the extractions of resources, trades and heavy taxes. Even after all of the economic lost, it also impacted on the exploitation of labor. The colonization left permanent impact on the Indian society that even continued after the day of their independence. Overall, the Indian have been deeply impacted by the Britain colonizing them taking goods and affecting their economies and society.

# data[].attributes.body
Tea was exclusively grown in China and Britain was one of the greatest buyer. But however, when China refused to do the same by buying British goods, tensions were created and led to conflicts known as the Opium Wars.

To avoid disruptions in the tea market and trade system, the British decided to turn to India as a source of tea production instead. The tea cultivation involved a lot of intensive labors, there were indeeds slaves that were used as laborers. However, slavery was banned in the British empire at the time so indentured laborers were brought instead of slaves. But even though they're not called slaves, the conditions for the workers are not much better and the difference between slavery and indentured workers is not a big difference. But by this, the economic of Britain was expanded due to the trade system growth and the successful routes of India tea exports. It also boosted the reputation of British merchants involved in the trade.

# data[].attributes.body
Since gold was a valuable and a wanted item, most countries wanted to have gold in their countries, including the Britain. India have a history of gold mining and was known to be rich due to the mining areas and how much gold there are in every one of the areas. Around 1765-1938, the Britain extracted a worth of $45 trillion gold from India through the trade system. The east India company took control of Indian trade in 1765 started to collect taxes and a portion of the revenues are fund to of Indian goods for British use. This also allowed the British trasders to take Indian goods for free by using the monet that had been taken from the peasants.

After the British colonized India, a new twist was added to the tax and buy system. If a person wants to buy goods from India, they had to use special Council Bills that was in controlled by the British Crown only. The traders had to pay London in gold or silver to obtain the bills. The Indians then were paid in rupees from tax revenues when they cashes the bills. At the end, the british edned up with all the gold and silver that could have gone directly for them for their benefits of exportations. This represents that a portion of India's wealth could have been used to develop India if it hasn't been extracted by the Britain.

# data[].attributes.body
From Gandhi's nonviolent resistance, he helped end British rule in India and has influenced modern civil disobedience movements across the globe. Widely referred to as Mahatma, which means saint or great soul in Sanskrit, Gandhi helped India reach independence.

As nonviolent resistance is becoming more popular, we can see more protests, boycotts, or other actions to confront an opponent instead of using violence.

For non-cooperation/civil disobedience, the goal of the non-cooperation movement was to demand the status of the non-dominium status from the British government. The movement was very widespread in its geographical extent and mass participation. However, none of the movements could achieve their objectives, their real effectiveness lay in the political mobilization of the masses and half-hearted constitutional reforms extended by the British government.

# data[].attributes.body
Gold was a highly valued item for its rarity, beauty and properties such as melleability. It also held a symbolic significance and was used for prestige usage such as ornaments, jewelry, and other luxurious goods. When gold get molded or turn into a usable item, people who have it or wear it are considerdered the higher class and it shows their power, wealth, and the importance to the community. Last, gold is valueable for its high value in trades and commerces. Its disireability made it wanted for everyone to have and it is especially wanted and valueable in trades of luxury goods among elites. Since India contained a lot of gold due to its rich natural resources and thriving trade networks, it led to the Britain taking over and stealing gold and goods, colonizing them.

# data[].attributes.body
Tea was a significant resource in the British because tea was considered a luxury item in Britain and its high price made it only accessible to the rich people. Teas were also first introduced to Britain in the 1650s but it wasn't until late 17th century it became a popular item mong the upper class. Drinking tea was a symbol of social status and refinement in the Britain. People who can afford high quality tea indicates wealthiness and royalty. Most of all, the British government imposed taxes on the tea imports to fund wars. Because of this, there were protests and boycotts in the Bostom Tea Party. This led to the Britain colonizing India and taking tea from them to make a benefit.

# data[].attributes.body
The Non-Cooperation Movement was a political campaign launched on 4 September 1920 by Mahatma Gandhi to have Indians revoke their cooperation with the British government.

This resulted in the Indian National Congress (INC) withdrawing its support for British reforms following the Rowlatt Act of March 18, 1919. The movement was one of Gandhi's first organized acts of large-scale satyagraha. Gandhi's planning of the non-cooperation movement included persuading all Indians to withdraw their labor from any activity that "sustained the British government and also economy in India," Including British industries and educational institutions. Through non-violent or ahimsa, protesters would refuse to buy British goods, and adopt the use of local handicrafts and picket liquor shops. In addition to promoting self-reliance by spinning Khadi, buying Indian-made goods only, and boycotting British goods. The non-cooperation movement for Indian independence from British rule ended, as Nehru described in his autobiography, "suddenly" on 4 February 1922 after the Chauri Chaura incident. Subsequent independence movements were the Civil Disobedience Movement and the Quit India Movement.

# data[].attributes.body
Gandhi's method of protest against British rule was "satyagraha" based on non-violence and non-cooperation.

In 1915 Gandhi returned to India from South Africa at the invitation from one of the leaders of the INC. (Indian National Congress) Initially, Gandhi refused to be involved in politics but the harsh methods the British were using forced him to begin organizing demonstrations, protests, and boycotts. Because of the number of people in India who were already angry about Britain's refusal to hand over meaningful power to Indians despite the amount of Indians fighting to defend Britain during World War One.

Gandhi promoted non-violent civil obedience campaigns in response to the Amritsar Massacre (The massacre by British forces of Indians gathered for a peaceful demonstration at Armitsar in 1919.) These campaigns continued until 1922 when Gandhi called them off due to his fear of non-violent solutions not being realized yet.

In 1930, Gandhi returned with his most ingenious protest, The Salt March. The British had been taxing salt in India for decades but this hurt the poorest people most. To show the world the injustice of this rule, Gandhi marched to the coast with a large number of people to symbolically collect salt from the sea without paying any tax to the British.

In 1942, Gandhi launched his final campaign, the Quit India campaign. The aim was very simple; Indians would make India ungovernable to the British and they would have no choice but to leave because there'd be no way of controlling India.

# data[].attributes.body
The border dispute between India and China has become a problem between the two countries sides. The root cause is an ill-defined 3,440 km-long disputed border. Rivers, lakes, and snowcaps along the frontier mean the line can shift, bringing the soldiers from each country face to face at many points, sparking a confrontation.

At the same time, the two countries are also competing to build infrastructure along the border, which is also known as the "Line of Actual Control". India's construction of a new road to a high-altitude air base is seen as one of the main triggers for a deadly 2020 clash with Chinese troops.

Despite military-level talks between the countries, this tension continues. In December 2022 the troops clashed for the first time in more than one year near the Tawang sector of Arunachal Pradesh state, the eastern tip of India. This caused some soldiers to have minor injuries.

The two countries have fought only one war, in 1962, when India suffered a defeat but simmering tensions involve the risk of escalation which can be devastating because both China and India are established nuclear powers there could also be a fallout in the economy as China is one of India's biggest trading partner.

The military standoff is shown by growing political tension between Chinese President Xin Ji Ping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Even though a war or other smaller conflicts might happen, it might not be too likely because both of the countries have much too lose.

# data[].attributes.headline
Water Conflict between India and Pakistan

# data[].attributes.subject
Water Conflict between India and Pakistan

# data[].attributes.body
For over half a century, rivalry over river resources has been a source of interstate tension between India and Pakistan. During the partition of British India in 1947 and the formation of the two states, borderlines were drawn following what was called the "Indus watershed" As the boundary between India and Pakistan cut across many of the river tributaries, an upstream-downstream power structure emerged, which has been a source of tension between the two countries, particularly in response to the Kishanganga dam project in the Indian-administered territory.

The Kishanga Dam project is a construction of the Kishanganga hydroelectric power plant on the Kishanganga River (or Neelum in Pakistan.) started in 2007 intending to divert water from the river through an underground tunnel to a powerhouse near Bonor Nallah in an Indian-administered territory. The project is seen as giving India control over the river's flow before it enters Pakistan due to its location in Kashmir being just meters away from the line of control. The expected impact of water availability on Pakistan argued that the project would reduce downstream water flow into Pakistan and leave them with 27% less water than natural flow. Consequently, this would affect irrigation, agriculture, and power generation downstream at Pakistan's Neelum-Jhelum hydroelectric power plant.

Damages to local ecology and livelihoods of the people who lived near the site in Jammu and Kashmir to mount protests against its constructions. Dams often overload occupied land, displace communities, and create inequalities in wealth and natural resources.

Local committees have opposed the construction of the dam. Protests primarily attacked the low amount of compensation offered for a loss of 38 hectares of land. Still, problems also existed with communities over how political claims for compensation overran attempts to block the project entirely.

Over the past two decades, Pakistan has tried to block multiple attempts to prevent India from building dams on both the Chenab and the Neelum rivers.

From this continuous opposition to the upstream dam projects, it could be likely that Pakistan and India will have conflicts over the river resources and the dam projects being built. Adding to this Pakistan and India also have been at war several times before adding to the likelihood of more conflicts happening.

# data[].attributes.body
it is most unlikely that India and Britain will have any more conflicts in the future. In recent years, it has been seen that the British and India have formalized their cooperation with a framework for future relations agreed upon in May 2021 and a joint statement published in April 2022. In January 2022, India and Britain opened negotiations for the India-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement and in 2023 the British government reaffirmed its commitment to strengthening its future relationships with India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A resource war is a type of war caused by conflict over resources. In a resource war, there is typically a nation or group that controls the resource and an aggressor that wishes to seize control over said resource. This power dynamic between nations has been a significant underlying factor in conflicts since the late 19th century. Following the rise of industrialization, the amount of raw materials an industrialized nation uses to sustain its activities is heightened.

Illustration of the Chincha Islands of Peru, circa 1859

One of the most prolific examples of resource war in history is the conflict over Chincha Island guano in the late 19th century. The Chincha Islands of Peru are situated off of the southern coast of Peru, where many seabirds were known to roost and prey on fish brought there by the currents of the Pacific Ocean. The guano of these seabirds is incredibly dense in nutrients and became a sought-after resource as a fertilizer. Soil that was nutrient rich allowed for higher crop yields, which subsequently translated to better sustenance of the population and overall improved economic performance. Known colloquially as "white gold", guano from the Chincha Islands began to catch the interest of Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and other industrial powers at the time.

The international interest for that resource resulting in a number of conflicts including the Chincha Islands War between Spain and Peru and the War of the Pacific between Chile, Bolivia, and Peru. Although the primary inciting force of the conflict originated over possession of the nutrient-rich guano, Spain also attempted to exercise prior colonial control over Peru during its aggressions during this conflict. The Chincha Islands guano became a resource of imperialism with foreign nations inciting conflict and establishing dominion over it. In 1856, United States President Franklin Pierce passed the Guano Islands Act with the exclusive purpose of addressing American scarcity over guano. Under the Guano Islands Act, any piece of uninhabited land that harbors a guano deposit could be claimed as a territory of the United States to extract the resource. The legislation acted as a workaround for the United States to access Peruvian seabird guano since direct trade was not an option because of a treaty between Peru and the United Kingdom.

Under the geopolitical lens for interpreting resource wars, the main rationale behind resource conflict is strategic. It assumes that control over the resource provides a particular advantage to that nation and interprets hostile attempts to take over the resource as a means to acquire that advantage for themselves. Resources that are deemed strategic shift over time and pertain to what is required for economic expansion or success at the time. Examples of this include timber during the seventeenth century for naval development or oil during the twentieth century onward for enabling military technology and transportation.

Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon at an NDP convention in British Columbia, circa 2007

Also known as the environmental scarcity or political economy, the environmental security perspective interprets resource conflict as a response to resource scarcity. A notable proponent of the environmental security perspective is Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon, a Canadian political scientist and professor at the University of Waterloo. The work of Homer-Dixon focuses on two different phenomena regarding the effect of resources on violent conflict: resource scarcity and resource abundance. Under the environmental security perspective, resource scarcity perpetuates conflict by inciting pressures on a society that is dealing with resource deprivation. According to Homer-Dixon, populations struggling with resource scarcity are also impacted by overpopulation and inequitable resource allocation. Overpopulation and inequitable resource allocation can make resource scarcity even more pronounced, creating a cyclical instability in the society.

Conversely, countries with natural resource abundance are impacted in a different way. Countries that are wealthy in resources have been shown to have disproportionate economic growth, less democracy, and overall insufficient development outcomes. This permeates from an overdependence on their resource from an economic standpoint, where authoritarian traits may begin to take effect. This creates pressure on the citizens as a whole due to undermined governance of the nation and volatile economic state if the resource fluctuates heavily in price. This phenomenon is known as the resource curse.

Conflict resources are natural resources extracted in a conflict zone and sold to perpetuate the fighting. There is both statistical and anecdotal evidence that the presence of precious commodities can prolong conflicts (a " resource curse"). An unfortunate irony is that many countries rich in minerals are impoverished in terms of their capacity for governance. Conflict, corruption and bribery may be seen as the typical costs of doing business. The extraction and sale of blood diamonds, also known as "conflict diamonds", is a better-known phenomenon which occurs under virtually identical conditions. Petroleum can also be a conflict resource. Other commodities are also involved in financing conflict.

The concept of "conflict resource", or "conflict commodity" emerged in the late 1990s, initially in relation to the " blood diamonds" that were financing rebellions in Angola and Sierra Leone. Then "conflict timber" financed hostilities in Cambodia and Liberia.

The concept was first officially discussed by the UN General Assembly in the context of 'conflict diamonds': The UN Security Council has since referred to conflict resources in several resolutions, particularly resolutions 1533 and I698.97.

Since 1996 the Bonn International Center for Conversion has tracked resource governance and conflict intensity by country. Aside from fossil fuels, metals, diamonds, and timber it tracks the governance of other primary goods that might fund conflicts, including: poppy seeds and talc (Afghanistan), rubber (Côte d'Ivoire), cotton (Zambia), and cocoa (Indonesia).

Several countries and organizations, including the United States, European Union, and OECD have designated tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold connected to conflict in the DRC as conflict minerals and legally require companies to report trade or use of conflict minerals as a way to reduce incentives for armed groups to extract and fight over the minerals.

In the 2020s, the concept of conflict minerals was extended to those mined to support conflicts in parts of the world other than where the mining takes place. The Wagner Group has been granted mining rights in the Central African Republic in return for securing the continuity of the government. This "blood gold" is then sold to support Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Wagner also has gold-related operations in Mali and Sudan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A resource war is a type of war caused by conflict over resources. In a resource war, there is typically a nation or group that controls the resource and an aggressor that wishes to seize control over said resource. This power dynamic between nations has been a significant underlying factor in conflicts since the late 19th century.