.png)
The India and Pakistan of today formed when they gained independence from the British in 1947. Since that day, strife between the countries has been persistent. The principal reason for this is due to religious divides. The very existence of Pakistan is formed on the contentious two-nation theory, which stipulates that Pakistan is a state for Muslims and India for Hindus. Such religious animosity is profound in the Muslim-dominated regions of Jammu and Kashmir, administered by India, part of the larger region of Kashmir that is split between the two countries along the Line of Control (LoC). I will first shed light on the four wars fought between the countries, as well as their nuclear development. With this groundwork laid I will move on to the future of the conflict, which shows no sign of ceasing. Whilst this article will not make specific reference to IR theories, I hope it provides you with an intuitive case study to apply them. Think realism and constructivism, what elements would they best explain and how might they do it differently?
If you're unsure of the concepts of both realism and constructivism, don't worry because we've got you covered. Check out Yasmine Kelkouli's fantastic article explaining constructivism and Omera Shaikh's post which sheds light on the concept of realism.
If you are interested in learning more about the Pakistan-India conflict and the part Britain had to play in it, check out this fantastic video below:
Just 3 months after independence, India and Pakistan were already at loggerheads over Kashmir. The first Kashmir War began in October 1947. Pakistani militants believed that the Muslim-dominated Kashmir region was destined to be a part of Pakistan, a sentiment not shared by the people of Kashmir who hastily turned to India for support and subsequently took over the defence of the region. The ceasefire of 1949 created what is now the LoC. After myriad skirmishes over the LoC in 1965, tension finally boiled over into a full-blown war when Pakistani soldiers crossed the LoC, marking the second Kashmir War, which ended in September 1965 when the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding a ceasefire. The Third Indo-Pakistan War altered the world map forever. In 1971, civil war broke out between East and West Pakistan. India stepped in, supporting East Pakistan, routing the forces from the West. On the 6th of December 1971, East Pakistan declared independence and renamed itself Bangladesh.
The future of the conflict markedly changed post-1998, as both countries became nuclear powers. Their development had begun in the 1970s; concerned over “nuclear ambiguity”, both sides felt obliged to continue developing nuclear capabilities over a fear of the power imbalance that would inevitably emerge if one side halted development. This belligerence and ever-increasing animosity, exacerbated by weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), erupted in the Kargil War in May 1999. Yet again Pakistan soldiers crossed the LoC and occupied Indian territory, but Indian troops had largely driven them out by July 1999. This marked the last war between the countries, with a fragile peace agreement struck in 2003, but it was far from the end of their conflict. Small-scale skirmishes along the LoC remain frequent, and terrorist attacks continue to destabilise the relationship between the two countries. In 2001, armed terrorists stormed the Indian parliament. Indian officials were quick to blame radical Pakistanis, although evidence for this remains checkered. In 2007, bombs detonated by terrorists on the Samjhauta Express that runs between India and Pakistan killed 43 Pakistan citizens and 10 Indian citizens; the aim of the attack is believed to have been the disruption of India-Pakistan relations. Finally, the last key act of terror came in 2008 when 164 Mumbai citizens were killed by 10 Pakistani men, although blaming the country would be erroneous.
These types of nuclear arms race are typical and very difficult to mitigate against. Luca Booth wrote a fantastic article on this very topic questioning whether nations can ever enhance security without triggering an arms race.
The election of Narendra Modi as the prime minister of India, a self-proclaimed Hindu nationalist, has only exacerbated state hostilities. For example, in 2019 Modi abrogated Article 370, which had given Jammu and Kashmir special status and greater autonomy. Actions such as this, as well as political unrest in Pakistan after the Khan premiership, have left relations tenuous. For example, according to a recent Pew Research poll, 73% of Indians have an unfavourable view of Pakistan, the highest level since 2013. Whilst I unfortunately lack second sight, increased military alliance formations and high military expenditure underpinned by dangerous political rhetoric often form a potent mix for hostility. The development of the close Chinese-Pakistani relationship and India’s recent military affinity with the US risks this conflict expanding beyond two hostile countries, into a quasi-proxy war for the great powers of the day. Therefore, it is important that people familiarise themselves with the past and present of this perennial conflict. In addition, having empirical knowledge of conflicts allows us to apply IR theories and improve our understanding of them and their relevance in contemporary society.
Links to Further Reading
Comentários