Peace for the World World ! Your War Our Lives
The Dalai Lama
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Back to 500BC.
Friday, March 15, 2019
India, Pakistan and the changing rules of engagement: here’s what you need to know
India’s airstrikes caused some damage inside Pakistan. AMIRUDDIN MUGHAL/AAP
March 12, 2019 3.08pm EDT
More than 40 Indian security staff lost their lives in a suicide attack on
February 14, 2019 in the Pulwama region of Indian-administered Kashmir.
The Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)
claimed responsibility for the attack.
Twelve days later, India launched air strikes against JeM training camps in Balakot, Pakistan. India claimed the strikes inflicted significant damage on infrastructure and killed militant commanders, while avoiding civilians.
India said the strikes were “pre-emptive”, based on intelligence that
JeM were planning more suicide attacks in Indian territory. Pakistan
denied India’s claims, both about the damage done by their airstrikes
and that Pakistan was planning further attacks.
But Pakistan retaliated with an airstrike on what it termed a
“non-military installation” in the Indian controlled region of Kashmir.
In the ensuing skirmish with the Indian Air Force, an Indian jet was
downed and a pilot captured.
These events, in the disputed territory of Kashmir, have brought
international attention to the prospect of a nuclear confrontation
between India and Pakistan. But why is the decades-long conflict heating
up again, and why now?
History of Kashmir
India and Pakistan have been involved in a territorial dispute over
Kashmir for decades. The roots of the conflict lie in the partition of
British India in 1947, which created the secular state of India and the
Muslim state of Pakistan.
The idea behind the partition was for Muslim-majority regions to become a
part of Pakistan. But Kashmir was complicated. Although a
Muslim-majority state, it was ruled by a Hindu king.
He decided to accede to India in October 1947. This was unacceptable to
Pakistan, which launched a war in 1948 to capture Kashmir by force.
A result of the war was a UN-mediated ceasefire line. This divided
Kashmir into Indian-administered “Jammu and Kashmir” (J&K) – which
constituted two-thirds of the territory – and Pakistan-administered
“Azad (free) Kashmir”, which was one-third of the territory.
While the 1948 ceasefire brought an end to the fighting, Kashmir’s
status remained unresolved and Pakistan continued to contest the
territorial boundaries. India granted J&K constitutional autonomy,
while the Pakistan-administered region was a self-governing entity.
View from Pakistan
Kashmir is central to Pakistan’s national identity as a Muslim state,
and therefore it represents unfinished business after the 1947
partition.
Pakistan launched another war against India in 1965, which caused
thousands of casualties on both sides. Hostilities between the two
countries ended after a diplomatic intervention by the Soviet Union and
the United States and a UN-mandated ceasefire.
The 1965 war, the 1971 Indian intervention in Pakistan’s civil war, and
the subsequent creation of Bangladesh led to more changes to the
territorial borders in Kashmir. The ceasefire line is now designated as
the Line of Control (LoC).
Since the 1990s, Pakistan has supported militant groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) to attack Indian security forces and civilians.
View from India
Kashmir has also been central to India’s national narrative of unity in diversity propagated by leaders of the independence movement, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. Indian leaders have often projected the accommodation of a Muslim majority state in the J&K region as proof of Indian secular democracy.
India’s official position considers
the whole of undivided Kashmir as a part of India. And India has not
consistently upheld J&K’s constitutionally-guaranteed autonomy.
Political instability in the state has been compounded by interference
from the Indian government. Indian armed forces in the area have often
used force against civilians.
In the 1990s, this led to a mass uprising and insurgency among the
Kashmiri population in India. Pakistan exploited this discontent,
offering arms, training and funds to both Pakistan-based and local
Kashmiri militants.
The insurgency in Indian Kashmir eased in 2003, with a ceasefire and the
initiation of an India-Pakistan peace process that led to a relative
period of calm.
The peace process came to an end after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist
attacks, carried out by the LeT. But India’s policy of strategic
restraint and pressure on Pakistan by the United States to address
militancy prevented a worsening of hostilities.
A new government came to power in India in 2014, led by the Hindu
nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. The leadership’s approach to
Pakistan and Kashmir has been significantly different from
the previous administration, with more emphasis on curbing dissent in
J&K and using pre-emptive strikes across the LoC against militant
groups in Pakistan’s territory.
Local discontent in Indian Kashmir has also led to an increase in
militancy since 2014 with more Pakistani support and a combination of
rising local recruitment and an influx of foreign militants.
What does this mean?
The rules of engagement between India and Pakistan are changing. India’s
“pre-emptive” air strikes in February were a significant shift away
from the previous policy of strategic restraint. This is the first time
since the dispute emerged that India has targeted militants inside
Pakistani territory.
Pakistan chose to escalate tensions further, a move that had previously
been prevented by the US. Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan, has
reiterated his desire for dialogue with India. But ceasefire violations
across the LoC and the international border have continued unabatedsince February 14k, with both sides reporting civilian casualties.
Diplomatic pressure from the UN and the rest of the international
community has forced the Pakistani government to ban some militant
groups. Yet, it continues to deny that JeM is active in Pakistan.
Meanwhile, tensions with Pakistan are playing well into Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promotion of
being a “strong leader”, capable of protecting the country from its
enemies. This is all part of the strategy leading up to the coming
elections.
Read more: Kashmir: India and Pakistan's escalating conflict will benefit Narendra Modi ahead of elections
The escalatory responses by both governments have shown the actions of
the two countries are becoming more difficult to control, particularly
with the United States’ lack of involvement in defusing tensions as it
disengages from the region.
