India has faced one of its largest attacks on civilians in recent history. The Pahalgam attack on April 22,
orchestrated by five armed militants, claimed 26 lives, of whom were predominantly Hindus. TRF, a terrorist group pursuing insurgency in Kashmir initially claimed responsibility, yet retracted this days later, complicating an already tenuous situation. India has since accused Pakistan of sponsoring this attack, escalating tensions as both parties use retaliatory techniques. This has reignited tensions not only bilaterally between India and Pakistan, but across the globe, the need for an international mediator has become more and more pressing.
A Diplomatic Duel?
The attack, which took in place in the tourist hub of Baisaran Valley, undoubtedly had a religious element
attached. The militants reportedly asked civilians to recite Islamic verses, before opening fire. Subsequently, a resurgence of anti-Muslim sentiment has been felt across India, with Kashmiris even facing violence. The prospect of political normalcy is far from attainable. The flashpoint has certainly raised questions of India’s quality of counter terrorism within Kashmir, as the region has faced numerous issues over several years. New Delhi and Islamabad are engaging in a series of tit for tat military and diplomatic actions, which is not likely to escalate to an all out war, though ought to be closely monitored as both parties are considering greater military action.
In fact, Pakistan’s information minister Minister Attaullah Tarar has stated he has ‘credible intelligence’ that India has plans for imminent military action, and has even shot down an Indian drone found on the Line of Control (LoC). Kashmir has remained a point of conflict since the 1947 Partition, in which the region was separated into Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered areas. Both areas, vital for economic stability, have heavy military presence across the border specifically. The Kashmir flashpoint will establish yet another geopolitical cycle of political tensions, violence and civilian conflict.
A Legacy of Hostility
It is important to understand the broader subtext of Kashmir, now clouded in suspended treaties and diplomatic tactics . A previously bilateral issue has now been brought to the international stage. In particular, India has suspended the World Bank mediated Indus Water Treaty established in 1960. This however, has been anticipated for years, with India revoking Article 370 in 2019, which has provided political leverage to use against Pakistan, of whom is highly reliant on the Western Rivers. To clarify, Article 370 protected Kashmir and Jammu under special autonomous status under the Indian Constitution; the revocation in 2019 was strongly denounced by Pakistan citing a transgression of international agreements. In response, the Pakistani Minister of State for Law and Justice has recently announced legal action against this suspension.
Considering previous military altercations between Islamabad and New Delhi, both parties are willing to escalate military actions after a period of political respite. Specifically, the 2016 surgical strikes, a retort orchestrated by India after the Uri attack involved a campaign to destroy military launch pads of terrorist camps along the LoC. The strikes represented a shift in India’s counter terrorism strategy, harnessing a covert operation to mark its dominance in the region.
International Pressure Builds
As both parties continue to reciprocate military and diplomatic actions, the global community has made efforts to diffuse the animosity. In fact Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, has catalysed international attention, with his remarks made days before the Pahalgam attack highlighting tension between Hindus and Muslims, and thus inflaming communities whilst rendering the opportunity for back channel diplomacy much less likely. In a meeting in Islamabad, he expressed Muslims are fundamentally different from Hindus, and labeled Pakistan-administered Kashmir it's ‘jugular vein’. Whether this marks a departure from a previously more diplomatic attitude or is simply an unfortunate instance of rhetoric being spun is still unclear, although General Munir has been considered to have taken a hard line stance on cross border issues, more so than his predecessors in recent years.
Simultaneously, the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia have engaged in discussion with both parties, with Iran’s
foreign minister offering to mediate this conflict. The UN and EU have also called for restraint and support the finding of a non violent solution; that said, in India’s most recent Raisina Dialogue, an evident dismissal of the Indo-Pak relationship was noted. The role of western actors has also been limited in the early stages of this political fallout. Although the US administration has backed India’s right against terrorism, more importantly Trump has not yet appointed an ambassador to either nation, indicating a deprioritization for his government perhaps.
