Why India and Pakistan Are Clashing Over Kashmir: The Real Risks of Escalation

Siddiq Wahid recounts awakening at his residence on the morning of August 5, 2019, with a sense that all was not well. "There was an eerie stillness," he says. "I could tell that some event was imminent." Consequently, he rose from bed, got dressed, and decided to investigate what might be occurring.

He found himself utterly alone until he approached a small village plaza where about a dozen soldiers were loitering threateningly in the distance. "It could have been an army unit, perhaps even something else," he recalls, explaining why he promptly returned home. Upon arriving, he realized his mobile device was non-functional, with neither cellular service nor internet access available. Everything seemed to be cut off. He now recounts how they couldn't reach out to anyone at all and felt helpless.

Thus commenced one of the most remarkable epochs in contemporary Kashmiri history—a land nestled beneath the majestic Himalayan range under the control of three nations armed with nuclear capabilities: India in the south, China to the east, and Pakistan to the west. Both India and Pakistan assert full sovereignty over this area, maintaining opposing forces along what is known as the "Line of Control" (we'll delve into that further shortly). This zone stands out as among the globe's highest concentration of military presence, housing vast numbers of soldiers from either side of the divide.

Wahid, an expert in the political history of Central Eurasia, found himself in his residence located in Srinagar within the region governed by India in Kashmir. Over the following one and a half years, this area experienced a sequence of curfews much stricter compared to measures enforced globally for controlling the pandemic caused by coronavirus. Movement across the territory was prohibited. Media personnel were not allowed entry. Means of communication faced disruptions as well. Numerous Kashmiri individuals were held in custody. , have "vanished" due to stringent anti-terrorism legislation. Now, they worry that a comparable suppression may be imminent as India reacts to these circumstances. a terrorist attack killing 26 tourists last month.

As part of its efforts to identify those behind the assault, India has dispatched numerous soldiers and law enforcement officers throughout Kashmiri cities. The country has also destroyed several residences and arrested many individuals. Additionally, India has blamed Pakistan for supporting these insurgents, which was further emphasized earlier this week. fired missiles at several targets within Pakistan Including within Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which they refer to as Operation Sindoor. Pakistan refutes all claims of involvement in the terrorist attack. They have vowed to retaliate against India’s military actions.

Why is this region facing such turmoil? Can the tensions between India and Pakistan lead to a nuclear confrontation? What does the future hold for Kashmir?

What just happened?

On April 22, a handful of attackers unexpectedly emerged within the crowd of tourists exploring the Baisaran Valley, an attractive destination located to the east of Srinagar, often referred to as "Little Switzerland" due to its dramatic mountain ranges and forested slopes. These assailants killed 26 individuals and injured approximately another 17. Most of those who lost their lives were Indian Hindu males touring the region. One surviving witness, who was on her honeymoon at the time, recounted the incident. the Associated Press The man questioned her and her husband regarding their faith. Upon hearing from her husband that they practiced Hinduism, he was fatally shot.

A group named the Resistance Front subsequently claimed responsibility, reportedly acting as a front organization for a terrorist outfit based in Pakistan known as Lashkar-e-Taiba. Despite this claim, the identities of those behind the attack remain unclear since the culprits are still at large. In response, India launched an extensive search operation. Additionally, the country took an extraordinary measure by initiating a widespread crackdown. considering cutting off water supplies To Pakistan via the Indus River system, putting an end to a pact that had been upheld since 1960—a step they stated would persist until "Pakistan unequivocally renounces its backing of cross-border terror."

How hundreds of millions of litres of water might be diverted is as yet unknown, but the threat served to increase friction with Pakistan, which said that any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water would be considered an act of war. “The taps are not going to run dry immediately,” says Sudhir Selvaraj, a political scientist at the University of Bradford. “But in the long run, that could have a significant impact for Pakistan.” In response, Pakistan suspended its participation in the Shimla Agreement, a pact signed in 1972 by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the president of Pakistan, and Indira Gandhi, the prime minister of India, to aid co-operation and understanding in the region – a significant symbolic act.

On Wednesday, the situation intensified even more when Indian aircraft attacked multiple locations within Pakistan. The Indian government issued a statement asserting that their recent operations did not target any Pakistani military installations but were instead "well-focused, restrained, and aimed at de-escalation." They indicated that these actions specifically targeted areas known for housing militants. According to them, evidence suggested significant links between the attacks and terrorist groups based in Pakistan. In response, the Pakistani authorities declared that they would not let this stand without retaliation, vowing that "India’s fleeting satisfaction will turn into lasting sorrow.” Additionally, they reported having brought down five Indian aircraft.

Why is Kashmir contested?

The complexity arises due to conflicting ownership assertions over the area which remain unresolved till date. Pakistan asserts full sovereignty over all of Kashmir, encompassing even the regions under Indian control. In contrast, India stakes its claim on the portions governed by Pakistan. Additionally, China holds sway over an uninhabitable section in the east for purportedly tactical purposes. Furthermore, certain inhabitants of Kashmir seek autonomy independent of both India and Pakistan’s rule.

"Looking at it today, Kashmir serves as the intersection—and frequently collision—of interests between India, Pakistan, and China," states Indian writer and policy analyst Abhijnan Rej. "Historically, Kashmir has presented both insurgency and terrorism challenges, being equally an internal security concern for India and an external military issue." According to him, only a few skilled militants operate with minimal local backing, aiming to reignite sectarian tensions. This situation escalated in 2019 after India eliminated the autonomous status granted under Article 370 of its Constitution, transforming these regions into 'union territories' governed centrally from New Delhi. Despite this change facing criticism, India's Supreme Court supported it.

In Jammu and Kashmir specifically, this was perceived as an overt move by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a pro-Hindu nationalist leader, aimed at integrating its majority-Muslim population and heritage into predominantly Hindu India.

“Beyond reducing its political clout, this shift enabled changes in population distribution,” explains Sudhir Selvaraj, noting that this was the first instance allowing individuals from other parts of India to purchase property in predominantly Muslim Jammu and Kashmir.

In order to prevent any potential separatist movement, Modi implemented a harsh crackdown on mobility, digital access, and expressions of disagreement. An academic from the Shiv Nadar University in New Delhi, Siddiq Wahid, recalls a friend cycling over to inform him "that I should stay silent."

Historically, Pakistan has supported militants in Kashmir, as Michael Kugelman, a South-East Asia specialist, explains from his position in Washington. "However, in recent times, new groups have appeared which are predominantly homegrown, relying significantly on local combatants and assets. It wouldn't be accurate to claim that outside support doesn't still occur; such instances do happen. Nonetheless, we're far removed from previous eras when Pakistan openly sent jihadis into Kashmir. Yet, the relationship between these locally-based militants in Kashmir and the Pakistani security apparatus continues to remain unclear."

What led us to this point?

Whenever we refer to Kashmir, we're talking about the whole mountainous area bounded by China to the northeast and southeast, India to the south, Pakistan to the west, and Afghanistan to the northwest. This place boasts fertile valleys, towering mountains, foothills of the Himalayas, and enormous glaciers. However, politically speaking, Kashmir is split up into multiple areas each having different levels of self-governance. The regions of Azad Jammu Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan in the northwest come under Pakistani control; Indian governance covers Jammu and Kashmir in the south as well as the eastern territory of Ladakh; meanwhile, China manages an eastern zone known as Aksai Chin.

This is a fairly recent change. Prior to 1947, the broader Kashmir region functioned as a "princely state" governed by a maharaja (prince), who operated under the oversight of colonial Britain. In 1947 everything shifted following the withdrawal of the British from India. Concerned about potential inter-religious strife sweeping through the subcontinent post-departure, Britain devised an arrangement to split India into two separate countries based on religion—a scheme referred to as Partition. This period marked significant turmoil; indeed, the Partition Museum in Delhi characterises this era as profoundly disruptive, describing it as "nightmarish chaos." thousands of families who suddenly found themselves uprooted in a land they had inhabited for generations. Law and order broke down, and there were large-scale massacres and looting as families left their homeland to trudge across the new, arbitrarily drawn borders.” The Hindus would remain mostly in the south – in what we know as India today – while two Muslim-majority territories in the north-west and south-east were to become the new nation of Pakistan, reportedly an acronym derived from Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sindh, Tukharistan, and Baluchistan.

The situation in Kashmir, caught between Pakistan and India, remained unclear. Despite having a predominantly Muslim population, the Maharaja Hari Singh was hesitant about joining Pakistan. Therefore, during discussions surrounding the partition, both India and Pakistan seemingly agreed that Kashmir's ruler had the option to deliberate before deciding whether to align with one of these countries or maintain considerable autonomy.

Shortly after, armed tribesmen from Pakistan initiated insurrections in Kashmir. Facing immense pressure, the maharaja opted for an agreement to align with India, anticipating that this move would offer immediate military support and allowing hope that stability could lead to a referendum determining Kashmir’s destiny later on. As Rej explains, "The maharaja realized that resisting the Pakistan-supported attack came at the price of joining India, otherwise risking total annihilation of his realm."

Many individuals, including some today, argue that the maharaja lacked the power to consent independently without backing from his populace. "The accession letter endorsed by the maharaja remains highly disputed," states Sudhir Selvaraj. "Scholars particularly question the exact moment when the accession letter was signed, as this detail significantly affects our comprehension of India’s stance regarding the maharaja."

Certainly, Pakistan viewed the accession as an aggressive move against its interests and officially launched an invasion into northwestern Kashmir. In response, India deployed forces to repel the invaders. The clashes persisted for more than a year until the UN stepped in and facilitated a truce. By January 1949, both countries had agreed upon a ceasefire, establishing what became known as the Line of Control—a de facto boundary between their respective territories. In contrast, further east, another makeshift frontier referred to as the Line of Actual Control delineates the area controlled by India from part of the territory subsequently claimed by China. According to Siddiq Wahid, this latter line encompasses approximately eighteen percent of the overall Kashmir region.

Various diplomatic initiatives have been undertaken over the past 78 years to address this longstanding conflict, featuring even an element from down under. Back in 1950, Justice Owen Dixon, acknowledged as one of Australia’s most distinguished jurists, embarked on a mission to cities such as Karachi in Pakistan, New Delhi which was then India’s capital, and regions within Kashmir. He did so for several weeks as part of his role representing the United Nations with the aim of finding a lasting solution and bringing peace to the area.

Dixon travelled extensively as he later recounted, acquiring firsthand knowledge of the cease-fire line's topography and the "overall deployment of military forces on both sides." He had meetings with the leaders of both countries (India’s Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s Liaquat Ali Khan), and devised a plan aimed at resolving their disputes. This proposal became known as his “Dixon Plan” Would award the area of Ladakh to India and the northern territories along with Pakistan-controlled Kashmir to Pakistan. It divided the region of Jammu between both countries and proposed a referendum in the Kashmir Valley to determine its future.

It appeared that he was making headway, noting that both parties consented to hold a referendum. Nonetheless, they couldn’t reach an accord on any initial steps required for its implementation—like scheduling military disengagement—with each side hesitant to move first out of fear of being seen as initiating unilateral actions. In his writings, he expressed: "The circumstances I encountered held peculiar aspects." He elaborated further stating, “Achieving consensus on the core issue has proven unattainable.” This stalemate persisted without resolution from then onwards.

What could happen next?

Let me make one thing crystal clear," states Michael Kugelman. "We're dealing with an exceptionally grave situation here, carrying substantial potential for further escalation. This particular crisis was sparked by a terrorist act which stood out due to its extreme nature." He notes that this incident emerged unexpectedly within the broader framework of ongoing but subdued hostilities. "Prior to this crisis, India-Pakistan ties were fairly stable; you could say they experienced a sort of cool détente during those preceding years,” he explains. “In fact, a boundary agreement reached back in 2021 managed to keep disputes largely contained. Hence, the abruptness and severity of this recent tension only amplifies how critical this moment truly is.

In the aftermath of the assault on April 22, Abhijnan Rej informed us, "The public outrage throughout the nation is evident. To be honest, there’s absolutely no chance of overlooking this issue from India's perspective." The two nations have engaged in three out of their total four conflicts over the area; the most recent one took place in 1999. Despite this, minor clashes and acts of terrorism have continually posed risks of escalating tensions even more. Back in February 2019, approximately 40 paramilitary personnel lost their lives within the bounds of Indian-controlled Kashmir. in a suicidal vehicle explosion This was allegedly carried out by a terror organization based in Pakistan. In response, India launched airstrikes deep into Pakistani territory. During these missions, an Indian pilot named Abhinandan Varthaman was shot down and taken captive but was eventually released unharmed.

Incidents involving shots are not rare along the Line of Control, with certain areas being especially tense. One such hotspot is the Siachen Glacier, an uninhabited wasteland situated between regions controlled by Pakistan and India. Here, India deploys approximately 5,000 soldiers who rely on helicopters for supplies and must cope with freezing conditions throughout the year, strong winds, as well as dangers from avalanches and hidden crevices.

Just like any conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir captures global attention due to the risk of escalating into a nuclear confrontation, considering both countries are believed to possess approximately 170-180 nuclear warheads each — making this one of the most worrying nuclear flashpoints globally. based on a 2024 report published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Don’t be shocked if threats of nuclear warfare emerge, warns Rej. "When Pakistan finds itself backed into a corner by India following significant terrorist attacks that result in a crisis, Islamabad consistently begins making vague references to their nuclear prowess. This strategy has been employed so frequently that it’s starting to lose its impact."

Wahid concurs, albeit partially. "Both New Delhi and Islamabad are well-versed in saber rattling and have engaged in such behavior previously, causing numerous small scares across South Asia over the past twenty-five years," he states. "However, my concern lies in the possibility of these smaller incidents escalating into a more severe crisis that could be fatal. This is what I dread."

Some experts argue that although nuclear weapons are alarming, they have historically served as a check against total warfare and will likely continue to do so. "A full-blown conflict is improbable," asserts Abdullah Yusuf, an authority on United Nations peacekeeping and Middle Eastern affairs from the University of Dundee. "The existence of these armaments turns nations into extremely wary players—not out of sagacity but due to the catastrophic consequences of error. Both India and Pakistan understand this reality, hence despite heated statements, their conduct stays restrained."

Meanwhile, Beijing shows little inclination towards an intra-regional conflict, as stated by Kugelman, due to its economic stakes in Pakistan and a wish to enhance collaboration with India. This indicates that China might serve as a potentially effective mediator.

Essentially, Yusuf argues that the conflict surrounding Kashmir's future cannot simply dissipate. He states, "Let there be no doubt; for both Washington and Beijing, Kashmir isn't viewed as a human catastrophe but rather as a piece on a broader geopolitical board." According to him, the core problem—the denial of Kashmiris' right to self-governance—remains unresolved. This ongoing suppression instead of dialogue perpetuates violence. Often enough, discussions about Kashmir focus more on speaking than listening. International discourse tends to simplify this country's incomplete process of shaking off colonial rule into mere geopolitics—a 'conflict' handled between India and Pakistan, a potential hotspot kept under control primarily for the ease of Washington and Beijing."

Discover captivating information and clarifications about the globe's most baffling subjects. Subscribe to our weekly Explainer newsletter .