�ǿմ�ý

At the end of April, a new bloody chapter was written in the Kashmir conflict, when militants killed 26 civilians in Indian-controlled Pahalgam. It soon became clear to India that Pakistan was behind the attack. Since their independence in 1947, the two countries have engaged in open combat with each other. The international community is remarkably calm in this conflict between two nuclear powers. Even though a ceasefire has been in place since May 10, it is a fragile peace.

Pascale Schild, how threatening is the current situation in Kashmir?

It is certainly the case that relations between India and Pakistan have reached a low point. Immediately after the attack, both countries ramped up their war rhetoric. At present, the situation is similar to that of the last escalation in 2019.

What happened then?

I would call it “saber rattling”. India bombed targets in Pakistan, Pakistan fired back and captured an Indian soldier. He was later surrendered back to the Indian army. After that, the open conflict was swiftly averted, and no civilians were killed or injured. But the people in Kashmir are afraid. If India carries out a retaliatory strike, they will be the ones who will suffer, as the guns will be fired in their villages.

Both India and Pakistan have nuclear bombs. How high is the risk that countries will use them?

No one has an interest in escalating the conflict, not India or Pakistan. That’s why I consider the risk to be low. But of course, there is a danger of open war, and with it the possibility of nuclear bombs being used. But again: I don’t think it’s going to come to that.

The United Nations has called on India and Pakistan to de-escalate the conflict. Why don’t they talk about peace negotiations?

It would be utopian to call for peace to mean resolving the conflict. The history of Pakistan and India is closely linked on this conflict: Pakistan sees itself as the home of Muslims and therefore wants to bring Kashmir with its predominantly Muslim population under its protectorate. India sees itself as a secular multi-ethnic state and therefore wants to bring the region, in which a variety of population groups live, into its fold. However, it has to be said that this Indian self-image no longer corresponds to reality: With the Hindu-nationalist reorganization of the state under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, tolerance towards minorities has dwindled considerably and there is no desire to grant them special rights any more. Here I see a religiously based claim of a majority to rule their minorities and no longer the idea of a secular multi-ethnic state. In Kashmir, India also invokes history and its deal with the then Maharajah (see “Kashmir conflict” box). One thing that shouldn’t be underestimated is that, in both countries, the military has a high status and a great deal of power. They provoke their mutual hostility because their rulers derive their legitimacy from this hostility. The international community hopes that the two countries will calm down and refrain from deploying their nuclear weapons. They do not seem to expect more from this region and are not prepared to help, for example by exerting diplomatic pressure to resolve the conflict.

Why is Kashmir so important for both countries? Are there economic interests?

One natural resource that makes Kashmir interesting is water. The Indus River, for example, originates in Tibet and then flows through northern India and Kashmir to Pakistan. Pakistan needs the water for its rice and wheat production, while India wants to build hydropower plants. But this is just a side issue. Kashmir is much more important because of its historical significance. The two countries are fighting for it because it is part of their founding myth. And because the conflict has hardened over decades, both countries can hardly deviate from their positions.

What role does China play in the conflict?

China is officially neutral when it comes to the conflict between India and Pakistan. However, the country has invested a lot of money in infrastructure in Pakistan and in the Pakistan-controlled part of Kashmir and is an important trade and alliance partner of Pakistan. In northern Kashmir, China also controls a small area claimed by India, but not Pakistan. It is important for the People’s Republic, because they have built a highway to Tibet to connect the region to China. Beyond that, however, China has no interest in Kashmir as far as I'm aware.

Why were Indian tourists targeted in the attack?

India and its Prime Minister Modi have deliberately promoted tourism in the region. When India withdrew Kashmir's special status in 2019, it also justified this by saying that Kashmir was now being transformed into a proper part of India in order to promote peace and development. For Modi, tourism is a sign that this has been achieved. For this peace, he has not shied away from repression, human rights violations and increased military occupation. However, the military has not managed to protect Indian tourists from this attack. This makes the policies of the Indian Prime Minister vulnerable.

Was the attack orchestrated by Pakistan, as alleged by India?

We simply do not know to what extent the Pakistani government is involved. But the fact that India is carrying out house searches in Kashmir and even burning down the homes of suspects and their families shows that India also suspects the perpetrators in Kashmir itself. This is a conflict that is often forgotten internationally: Kashmir is also unhappy with its situation. Parts of Kashmir's population have been fighting for independence from India for decades. In this struggle for freedom, militant groups also resort to violent means, such as attacks. The breeding ground for this violence is the Indian occupation, not Pakistan, although the country has historically supported and harbored militant groups. However, I think direct involvement in this attack is rather unlikely.

What do the people of Kashmir want?

We don’t know for sure because they have never been asked. And the answer won’t be straightforward. Kashmir is home to around 18 million people, who speak more than a dozen different languages. And even though there is a Muslim majority, in some areas Buddhists or Hindus are the majority. It is an extremely heterogeneous area and accordingly people would prefer different solutions, such as a connection to Pakistan, a connection to India or independence.

Is there a chance that Kashmir will become independent?

Certainly not at the moment. The Pakistani and Indian fronts are too hardened for that. But the possibility of a referendum is theoretically possible. After the first Indo-Pakistani War, there were several UN resolutions calling for a referendum as soon as the armies of the two countries withdrew. This vote was intended to allow the people of Kashmir to decide whether they wanted to belong to India or Pakistan. The option of independence was later also discussed. In the meantime, however, the vote has receded into the distant future. This is also because India is now strictly opposed to the referendum and the involvement of the UN in the conflict. For India, Kashmir is a bilateral conflict. The debate surrounding this referendum alone would be extremely important in order to initiate further talks on the future of the region and to understand the prevailing needs in Kashmir. At the moment, the people living in this region are hostages in the conflict between India and Pakistan. But the international community doesn’t really care about them – the main thing is that the two nuclear powers keep their conflict under control.