India-Pakistan: On the Brink—But Is There a Way Back?

Human Wrongs Watch By Zofeen Ebrahim

Tensions spiked after a deadly April 22 attack in the Indian-administered Pahalgam by The Resistance Front, killing 26 people—25 Indians and one Nepali.

India blamed Pakistan for backing TRF, calling it a Lashkar-e-Taiba front. Pakistan denied involvement, urging an independent probe. Meanwhile, pressure mounted on the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, to respond forcefully, as the attackers remained at large two weeks later.

The question on everyone’s mind — including Michael Kugelman, a Washington, DC-based South Asia analyst — is, “How could such a horrific attack have been carried out on soft targets in one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world?”

When India crossed the line

On May 7, early morning, the intensity of the animosity between the two since the Pahalgam attack took on a serious turn when India launched a full-fledged series of attacks on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

India claimed it targeted “terrorist camps” in Pakistan, stating, “No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted.”

Pakistan’s armed forces have been authorized to take “corresponding actions” following the strikes, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s office said following the attack.

The Indian attack killed 26 civilians, injuring 46. In addition, the Pakistani army reported downing five Indian jets. In retaliatory attacks by Pakistani forces, at least 10 people have been killed in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Reuters, quoting the local government on the Indian side, admitted that three fighter jets crashed in Jammu and Kashmir hours after India announced it had struck “nine Pakistani terrorist infrastructure sites across the border.”

The international community has called for restraint, with the United States urging the two sides to “keep lines of communication open and avoid escalation” the United Kingdom offering “in dialogue, in de-escalation and anything we can do to support that, we are here and willing to do…” United Nations’ Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the international community could not “afford a military confrontation” between the nuclear-armed nations.

Closed gates, broken pacts

Following the Pahalgam attack, India and Pakistan shut borders, halted visas, expelled visitors, and downgraded missions—familiar moves in past standoffs.

But this time, India suspended the 1960 water treaty, prompting Pakistan to threaten withdrawal from the 1972 Simla Agreement.

Dr. Moonis Ahmar, former chairman of the department of international relations at Karachi University, blamed leaders of both countries for “misguiding their people” and polarizing them by spewing so much vitriol.

“What was the point of bringing in the unnecessary “jugular vein” conversation out of the blue?

 The ‘jugular vein’ debate

Recently, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, General Asim Munir’s characterization of Kashmir as Pakistan’s jugular vein at a diaspora event held just days before the Pahalgam tragedy, was considered provocative and a “trigger” for the massacre.

“But that is what it is, and the general only reiterated the stand taken by the Quaid,” defended Khawaja Muhammad Asif, the country’s defense minister, referring to the country’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Defining the jugular vein, Asif said Kashmir stirred both deep emotions and economic concerns.

Recalling the lesser-known massacre of the partition, he said, “Thousands of Muslims were massacred in the Jammu region by mobs and paramilitaries led by the army of Dogra ruler Hari Singh,” adding that Muslim villagers from Jammu province were forced to evacuate to West Pakistan and were then accommodated in refugee camps in the districts of Sialkot, Jhelum, Gujrat, and Rawalpindi.

Asif, a native of Sialkot, emphasized that the economic significance of Kashmir cannot be overstated.

“Kashmir is our lifeline—all our rivers, including the Jhelum, Sutlej, and even the smaller tributaries flowing through my own hometown, originate there,” he said, acknowledging that India’s recent announcement to withdraw from the pact posed a “real threat.”

What is the root of conflict?

Over the years many historians from both sides have unraveled the historical, political, and emotional fault lines dividing India and Pakistan since 1947. But Kashmir remains the stumbling block, 78 years later.

“At the time of British India’s partition in August 1947, the 565 princely states were given the option to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent—provided their people had the right to decide.”

Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh, initially chose to remain independent.

After tribal militias from Pakistan invaded parts of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947—reportedly with covert support from Pakistani forces and encouragement from some local Muslims—the situation quickly descended into chaos and violence.

Facing the threat, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding the state’s sovereignty to India in exchange for military assistance.

The Indian government, led by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, agreed to extend help but asked Hari Singh to sign an Instrument of Accession first. The Raja agreed.

The documents conferred a special status on Jammu and Kashmir and allowed it to have its constitution, a flag, and control over internal administration, except in matters of defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, and were subsequently enshrined under Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution.

“These rules were not just legal provisions; they were a vital protection that ensured that no non-resident could purchase immovable property in the region, and this was done to safeguard the distinct identity, local ownership, and indigenous rights of the Kashmiri people,” explained Naila Altaf Kayani, an expert in Kashmir affairs, speaking to IPS from Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

But even before 2019, especially between 1952 and 1986, and through 47 presidential orders, the historical guarantees under the Maharaja’s Instrument of Accession had slowly been diluted and J&K’s special status steadily diminished.

“India effectively dismantled the State Subject Rules that had long been in place in Jammu and Kashmir,” said Kayani.

In 2019, India finally scrapped these articles completely, and J&K became a union territory (governed directly by the central government, unlike states, which have their own elected governments with significant autonomy).

Can India and Pakistan ever make peace?

Both Asif and Ahmar doubt the Kashmir dispute will be resolved in their lifetime. And till that doesn’t happen, the thorn in their side will keep pricking. But what the latter finds befuddling is the “unstable and unpredictable” Pakistan-India relationship.

“The two countries swing between total silence and sudden warmth, with no steady, consistent engagement like most nations maintain,” he said.

Ironically, it’s during the lowest points in their relationship that both Indian and Pakistani leaders stand to gain the most politically, said Kugelman.

“Delhi can bolster its tough-on-terror stand and reputation as a strong and defiant administration by responding with muscle, and in Pakistan, the civilian and military leaderships, which are not terribly popular, can shore up public support by rallying the country around it in the face of an Indian threat.”

Forgotten formula or a new peace plan?

Ahmar said this is the lowest point in India-Pakistan relations he has ever witnessed.

However, “if by some miracle General Pervez Musharraf’s out-of-the-box four-point formula gets a shot in the arm,” perhaps we can begin anew, on a friendlier note,” he said, referring to the July 2001 Agra summit, hosted by Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee.

The four fixes included a gradual demilitarization of troops from both sides; no change in borders but allowing the people of Jammu and Kashmir to move freely across the LoC; self-governance without independence; and a joint supervision mechanism in the region involving India, Pakistan, and Kashmir.

But until that happens, Ahmar said, it would be best to let the territory be put under international supervision until its fate is decided. “I would say, place the region under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations for at least 10 years,” he said.

Comprising the five permanent UN Security Council members—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US—the Trusteeship Council aims to guide territories toward self-government or independence, either as separate states or by joining neighboring countries. The last trust territory, Palau, gained independence in October 1994.

“The Trusteeship Council may have completed its mission in Palau but continues to exist on paper, under the UN Charter, chapter XII,” added Ahmar.

Columnist Munazza Siddiqui, also executive producer at Geo News, a private TV channel, advocated for yet another option: “Turn the LoC into a Working Boundary (a temporary, informally demarcated line used to separate areas, often in disputed regions or during a ceasefire, but different from the LoC, which is a military control line; something in-between the LoC and an international border), similar to the one that exists between Pakistan’s Punjab and Indian-administered J&K, as recognized under UN arrangements.

“The idea is to then shift focus towards bilateral cooperation in other areas,” she pointed out, adding, “This approach can hopefully help de-escalate the violence historically associated with the Kashmir issue.”

Related IPS Articles

• Kashmir Reels After Pahalgam Attack, Fear Long Term Impacts on Livelihoods
• Pakistan: Freedom of Expression at Stake With New Cybercrime Law
• Malala: ‘Honest Conversations on Girls’ Education Start by Exposing the Worst Violations’

*SOURCE: IPS. Go to ORIGINAL: https://www.ipsnews.net/2025/05/india-pakistan-on-the-brink-but-is-there-a-way-back/#google_vignette 2025 Human Wrongs Watch

Source: https://human-wrongs-watch.net/2025/05/08/india-pakistan-on-the-brink-but-is-there-a-way-back/