The Latest Kashmir Conflict Explained

India argues it is stabilizing Kashmir—but, Islamabad says it will have dire consequences
for the region.

Wednesday, August 28, 2019 / By: Tara Kartha; Jalil Jilani

Editor’s Note: USIP Jennings Randolph Fellows Dr. Tara Kartha and Ambassador Jalil Jilani look
at the latest crisis in Kashmir from their respective views. Dr. Kartha was a member of India’s
National Security Council for 15 years and has over 30 years’ experience in national security
policy. Amb. Jilani, a career Pakistani diplomat, is a former ambassador to the U.S. and former
foreign secretary. This post represents the views of the authors and not those of USIP.

Barbed-wire placed by security personnel stretches across a Srinagar street in Indian-

controlled Kashmir, Aug. 11, 2019.

India aims to stabilize Jammu and Kashmir. But, why now?

Kartha: On August 5, India decided to take a long-considered move using article 370 of
its constitution to change the status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Although this
has long been a part of the platform of Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP), the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians across all parties supported
the decision—with 351 votes for and 72 against. Even the general secretary of the

1/4
opposition Congress Party expressed his approval. This has been a move long in the
making, with the backing of a wide swath of Indian political actors. But, the question
remains, why now?

New Delhi made this move in an effort to stabilize Jammu and Kashmir and integrate it
more fully with the Indian state. The Modi government’s decision is aimed at promoting
local governance and encouraging investment in a state that has lagged behind for
decades. The lack of effective local governance has hampered the development of the
entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, including Ladakh, Jammu, and tourism dependant
areas like Sonamarg and Gulmarg.

Although much criticized, New Delhi’s stepped-up security and communications

restrictions implemented along with the August 5 decision were lifted in 136 of 197 police
station areas. Many schools have also reopened. Jammu and Kashmir will gradually
return to normal, barring any terrorist activity or violence.

India believes that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir is final, and any unfinished
business regarding partition of the greater Kashmir region only concerns areas occupied
by Pakistan. Reorganizing Jammu and Kashmir made no territorial changes, but sought
to more closely integrate the state with the rest of India. Therefore, for India, the dispute
between India and Pakistan remains unchanged.

The advancement of U.S.-Taliban talks, and the imminence of a deal, has demonstrated
to India that the U.S. is serious about withdrawing from Afghanistan. India fears that this
could lead to history repeating itself. When another superpower, the Soviet Union, left
Afghanistan some 30 years ago, intense terrorism in Kashmir immediately followed, as
those who fought the Soviets turned to India.

To India, Islamabad’s objections to the move ring hollow. Over the years, Pakistan has
unilaterally changed the status of other territories it occupies in the greater Kashmir
region, namely Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Just last year, Pakistan changed the
structure of Azad Kashmir’s government. India protested the change. But, unlike
Pakistani Prime Minister Khan’s warning of a heightened risk of war and terrorism
following the August 5 decision, India did not resort to threats over Azad Kashmir.

Islamabad now has a choice. It can continue to support terrorism in Kashmir, which has
not only devastated the region, but also severely hurt Pakistan’s economy. Or it can
choose to cease such support and focus on its internal economic problems. Once the
threat of terrorism is removed, there will surely be room for dialogue.

By rooting out terrorism, Pakistan can focus on economic development and more
effectively leverage its immense resources to boost its economy. This could encourage
economic linkages across the region, leading to greater regional stability in the long run.

What are the consequences for India, Pakistan and the region?
Jilani: India’s unilateral decision to revoke Article 370 of its constitution has severely
2/4
hampered the chances of a renewal of the peace process between New Delhi and
Islamabad. From Pakistan's perspective the Indian action constitutes a grave violation of
the U.N. Security Council resolutions on Kashmir and bilateral Pakistan-India
agreements, such as the 1972 Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration.

Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s government’s decision will have far reaching
consequences for Pakistan-India relations and regional peace and security. Islamabad
says that increased repression and human rights violations by Indian forces in Indian
Occupied Kashmir will breed violence, fuel indigenous uprising, and further generate
tension with Pakistan. Yet, since August 5, India has mobilized hundreds of thousands of
troops, detained thousands of Kashmiris, and imposed a curfew resulting in food and
medicine shortages. In Islamabad’s eyes, the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir has
become a garrison area.

With the illegal steps taken by the Indian government—imposition of curfew, arrests of
political leaders and blockade of communications—the situation has reached a tipping
point. Intensifying violence in Indian-occupied Kashmir poses serious challenges for
Pakistan and the region. These challenges include:

For Pakistan, Kashmir remains the core issue and Islamabad cannot envision a
dialogue with India that excludes the Kashmir issue.
Islamabad rejects India’s claim that Kashmir is an internal matter, pointing to past
and present international and bilateral calls for a peaceful resolution through
dialogue. India’s move violates multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and is
unacceptable to Pakistan and the international community.
The faint hope for a reasonable settlement based on the four-point formula—
which became the basis of back-channel negotiations during the 2004-08 peace
process and envisaged self-governance for Kashmiris, demilitarization, travel
across the Line of Control and a monitoring mechanism, while also protecting the
vital interests of the two countries—has been extinguished.
Pakistan fears India could stage a false flag in either Jammu and Kashmir or
mainland India and blame it on Pakistan in order to divert attention from the
volatile situation in Kashmir.
The possibility of direct Indian intervention in Azad Kashmir or subversion inside
Pakistan cannot be ruled out. In case India directly intervenes in Pakistan or in Azad
Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan (both of which are part of what the U.N. calls Pakistan-
administered Kashmir), it could result in war between the nuclear powers with
incalculable implications for both countries and the region.
The outcome of the current Indian actions could result in more refugees from India
into Pakistan.
The latest Indian action will complicate the resolution of other long-standing
disputes over issues like the Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek.
The Indian decision will adversely impact people-to-people contacts and trade
relations between the two countries.
Tension between India and Pakistan will have a negative impact on regional
3/4
 security. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation process is already
suspended due to India-Pakistan tensions. India’s move is a further blow to
regional cooperation.

Irrespective of India’s actions, the fact is that Kashmir is an internationally recognized

disputed territory and will remain so until the legitimate aspirations of the Kashmiris are
fulfilled. India’s repression in Kashmir is unlikely to change this reality.

4/4