The Indus Water Treaty by Charles Olsen

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

It is essential to consider diverse perspectives when researching, as potential biases can be introduced through the omission of information, selective word choice, and statistical manipulation. In an article written by Arab News, the author quotes Awan, a Pakistani representative, saying, “Pakistan is willing to talk about or to address anything, any concerns they [the Indians] may have.”(Reuters) This quote suggests that India isn’t willing to address anything; however, this can’t be proven or disproven because the article fails to quote a single Indian representative. This is a perfect example of leaving out information or quotes just to sway the opinion of the reader by not supplying the entire truth. In the article written by The Hindu, which is in favor of India, quotes Mr. Harish calling out Pakistan as “grossly hypocritical” and that “they make no distinction between terrorists and civilians, so therefore have no credentials to speak about protecting civilians”(Gettleman, Jeffrey). This kind of harsh wording so blatantly shows that the perspective is biased towards India and isn’t the neutral source that should be used when learning about an issue. In the same article the Hindu is also using statistics which victimize India and it reads “The Indian envoy underlined that in the last four decades, more than 20,000 Indian lives have been lost in terror attacks, the most recent of which was the dastardly targeted terror attack on tourists in Pahalgam” (Gettleman, Jeffrey). This is also a deathly obvious example of an article failing to be bipartisan. When combining these three methods of omission, word choice, and statistical fishing, we can discover biases in any article. It is incredibly important to consider the perspectives of both sides because biased sources are bound to stretch the truth and omit important details, which may be key to developing an opinion of your own on the topic.

citation

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

Reuters. "Pakistan Says Open to Water Talks with India but Insists Indus Treaty Remains Binding." Arab News, 22 May 2025, www.arabnews.com/node/2601783/pakistan.

What Perspective/bias does this take?

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

They blatantly skip out on some aspects of India’s perspective. The headline seems biased due to the fact that it makes Pakistan seem more open to talk, while India seems harsher and closed off. Most word choices make India seem big and ominous, like the choice to refer to India as the nuclear-armed neighbor, which, in my opinion, was done for no other reason than to create a sense of fear. They used quotes directly from an interview with a Pakistani official. They have also used quotes from an Indian representative; however, it isn’t stated where these quotes are from. This lack of representation on India’s part suggests that this source is biased towards Pakistan. And finally, they used two data sets of terrorist attacks that India carried out, including the number of people dead, which makes India look worse.

The potential audience is

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

The people of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia in particular. However, this article is meant to be read by anyone who has ties to Pakistan and sides with them on this conflict, which does include most Muslims. We can make this assumption due to Arab news being based in Saudi Arabia and being named "The Arab"

This article argues that

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

This article argues that Pakistan is willing to talk about the water treaty and come to peace and equal terms on the framework of this treaty, however, India is being stubborn and unable to communicate with or budge on any aspects of the treaty.

citation

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

"Pakistan Violated Spirit of Indus Waters Treaty by Inflicting Three Wars, Thousands of Terror Attacks: India Tells U.N." The Hindu, 24 May 2025, www.thehindu.com/news/national/pakistan-violated-spirit-of-indus-waters-treaty-by-inflicting-three-wars-thousands-of-terror-attacks-india-tells-un/article69613260.ece. Accessed 3 June 2025.

What Perspective/bias does this take?

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

They blatantly leave out that India has also killed many Pakistani people and leave out the aspects of this treaty that favor India and create a power imbalance. This headline makes Pakistan look terrible and India look like a complete victim to Pakistan’s violence and blatant rule-breaking. Lots of word choices which are biased towards India and make it look like the bigger and smarter country, and Pakistan is playing cheap in this treaty. They use quotes from the UN conference of Indian representatives, which make the Indian side look much better. Lastly, they use the stat of 20,000 Indians being killed due to Pakistani attacks, which makes Pakistan look much worse than India.

Potential Audience

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

The potential audience is mostly Indians, as well as Hundi people who side with India in the case of this conflict, as well as in most political disputes. The Hindu, being based out of central India, means it is bound to have Indian biased viewers due to the close proximity. On top of this, the newspaper is called "The Hindu," which likely means Hindu believers read it.

This article argues that

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

This article argues that India is taking precautionary measures due to Pakistan’s repeated violence and cruelty, which have gone against the Indus Water Treaty and the moral values of the Indian government.

citation

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

Gettleman, Jeffrey. "Nytimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos, 21 Feb. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/world/asia/india-pakistan-water-kashmir.html. Accessed 3 June 2025.

What perspective/bias does this take?

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

There is no bias because it includes quotes of both sides and explains both sides of the issue without having the issue of leaving things out. There is no bias because the headline is mostly neutral. There is no bias because there are images of both sides suffering, as well as the top image being entirely neutral on the issue. The language used to describe both countries and their actions seems relatively objective on the issue, avoiding emotionally charged or biased terms in one way or another. Lastly, the document uses sources of quotes from both sides of the issue to stay fair.

Potential audience

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

A person interested in trying to find out what is going on in this dispute without having a biased view. The reporting primarily focuses on the statements and actions of both governments, without explicitly favoring one side's narrative. The New York Times is an American-based newspaper, which means many of its readers will also be American. On top of this, many scholars look to the NYT for unbiased papers on these kinds of issues so they can be better educated without the need to sift through bias.

This Article argues that

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:22:08 UTC

There is no central argument one way or another as to which side of the conflict is right or wrong. It is generally informative as to what each side believes is right and informs us about the past and how it has been built upon and led to where they are now, and why they are having this proxy water war.

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:25:11 UTC

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:26:48 UTC

28colsen2 — 2025-05-30 16:28:16 UTC