Kashmir and Indo-Pak Relation



The Indo–Pakistan dispute is a hindrance to socio-economic cooperation and development in South Asia. Core of the conflict is Kashmir, which each country claims in full but rules only in part.
Imagine trade of Indian goods to Afghanistan via Pakistan.

Over the past sixty years, there have been three wars, along with:

  • The Siachen Glacier (World’s Highest Altitude Conflict)

  • Kargil conflict

  • Armed conflict in Kashmir

  • Semi-wars along the Line of Control in Kashmir and Siachen Glacier

Check the defence-to-GDP ratio for a developing country — it’s sad.
Whenever there is a war threat, social spending is the first to receive cuts. Both countries have epidemic corruption, and during times of military tension, it only gets worse.

Leave Pakistan and the conflict out of the equation for a minute — there is social unrest in China simply due to rising urban–rural income disparity.
This is considered a major challenge for China.

But the situation in Kashmir is deeper and more complex than income disparity in China.
How can the prosperity of India be delinked from peace and harmony in the region?
How can the consequences of this conflict be expected to resolve in isolation without addressing the cause?


A Missed Moment for Peace?

I think there was a reasonable possibility of sorting the issue of Kashmir once and for all when Musharraf visited India back in 2001.
He was one man with real decision-making power — and certainly had a peculiar advantage.

However, democracy delayed the matter, leaving it to be solved another day.
Vajpayee couldn’t get his cabinet to agree.

Then came extreme tension throughout 2002.
There was a rare moment at the SAARC Summit in Nepal when Musharraf made a symbolic handshake gesture towards Vajpayee.

For the next SAARC Summit in 2004, Vajpayee visited Pakistan.
The Islamabad Declaration was signed to start a composite dialogue.
But then the BJP lost the election.


The Line Between Freedom and Terror

Pakistan’s position becomes more difficult to sustain when the Mujahideen fighting for freedom in Indian-held Kashmir are also guilty of involvement in terrorist activities elsewhere in India and around the world.

It’s not just a case of "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter."
Sometimes, a man can be a legitimate freedom fighter in one context — and a terrorist in another, depending on what he does.


What Will It Really Take?

So I think it’s going to take more than just democracy or a dictator to resolve this issue.
It will not stop unless the people of both countries stop taking Kashmir as a blow to national ego.

They need to start looking at it as what it really is —
A place where living creatures called humans live.
People who are capable of making their own decisions and should be facilitated in doing so.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Escalation Dominance Backfires: A Personal Account of the 2025 India-Pakistan Conflict

The Flawed Question of the “Right to Exist”

Family and Faith: The Shield Against a Shattered (Post-modernist) World