The machine guns peeking over parapets of small, sandbagged concrete bunkers and the heavy artillery cannons dug deep into Himalayan Kashmir’s rugged terrain have fallen silent — at least for now.
The Line of Control, a highly militarized de facto border that divides the disputed region between the two nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, and a site of hundreds of deaths, is unusually quiet after the two South Asian neighbors last month agreed to reaffirm their 2003 ceasefire accord.
The somewhat surprising decision prompted a thaw in the otherwise turbulent relations between the countries, but also raised questions about the longevity of the fragile peace, in part due to earlier failures.
The crackdown by Indian forces and attacks by rebels have continued inside Indian-held Kashmir.
Experts say that the ceasefire could stabilize the lingering conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives, while Kashmiris say that the rare move should lead to resolution of the dispute.
It was unclear what prompted the two militaries to adhere to the accord that they had largely ignored for years, but experts point to an easing of the countries’ earlier stances following a decision by India to strip Kashmir of its semi-autonomy and take direct control over the region in 2019, and its months-long border standoff with China.
The ongoing costs of clashes along the Line of Control, the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other foreign policy challenges facing the two countries might have combined to create incentives to pursue a ceasefire, University of Chicago political science professor Paul Staniland said.
Since 2003, the ceasefire has largely held, despite regular skirmishes. India and Pakistan claim the region in its entirety and have fought two wars over it, and in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir, militants have fought against Indian rule since 1989.
Each country has accused the other of heightening tensions by significantly ratcheting up border attacks over the past four years, leading to the deaths of soldiers and villagers.
The ceasefire announcement came shortly after China and India agreed to a military disengagement from a portion of their disputed border after a months-long military standoff. It had led to fears of a two-front war between India and China, with the latter assisted by its closest ally, Pakistan.
“Some sort of pressure, possibly from Washington and Beijing for different reasons, is pushing India and Pakistan for wider peace moves in the region,” said Siddiq Wahid, historian and a former vice chancellor of the Islamic University of Science and Technology.
Beijing wants Pakistan to focus on securing its investments as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Islamabad is a key partner and some Chinese-built highways snake through Pakistani-controlled Kashmir.
On the other hand, the US is courting India to focus its energies on countering China.
“If Pakistan is indeed looking to move toward a new regional role, embracing geopolitics, reducing tensions with India is a must, and if India is going to pivot to deal with a rising China, it has reasons to want to calm relations with Pakistan,” Staniland said. “The real question is whether these reasons remain powerful enough over time.”
The thaw in relations became apparent when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an avowed Hindu nationalist, ceased playing up rhetoric against Pakistan and referencing Kashmir in campaigning for elections in four key states.
In Pakistan, too, political leadership and the powerful military have shifted from their earlier position of not engaging with India until it reversed its decision to annul Kashmir’s semi-autonomy.
Last week, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa said that it was time for the two countries to “bury the past” and resolve the dispute over Kashmir peacefully.
His remarks followed Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s repeated calls for good Indian relations, with the caveat that the Kashmir dispute remains at the center of any talks. Since the announcement of the ceasefire, Khan, too, has abandoned his past rhetoric against Modi.
Modi appeared to reciprocate when he sent Khan a letter on March 23 — Pakistan’s Republic Day — seeking cordial relations. While Khan replied on Tuesday last week, he reiterated that lasting peace was mainly contingent on resolving the future of Kashmir.
The rapprochement has sparked skepticism among Kashmiris, who fear the dispute could be pushed to the backburner — given the fast administrative and political changes in the region — by India, which they have likened to a colonial power.
“We are not against talks and want an end to violence, but there has to be an end to repression, too,” said Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a Kashmiri separatist leader who has been under house arrest since August 2019. “The whole idea behind the negotiations has to be a resolution of the Kashmir issue as per the wishes of its people.”
In the past, Pakistan and India made multiple attempts to broker a deal over Kashmir. They also initiated confidence-building measures, such as exclusive barter trade between the two parts of Kashmir, sporting games and bus services for divided families.
“The ceasefire can lead to relative peace, but one should not expect lasting peace,” said retired Indian Air Marshal Vinod Bhatia, who was director-general of Indian Army Military Operations from 2012 to 2014.
Meanwhile, villagers living along the frontier are paying the price.
The lives of Nader Hussain and Munshi Muhammad Arshad are divided by barbed concertina wire. Hussain lives in Indian-controlled Kashmir and Arshad in the part controlled by Pakistan.
In late November last year, Hussain saw an artillery shell fired by Pakistani soldiers fly toward him in his mountain village. The 50-year-old could not outrun the projectile and lost both legs in the blast. Two other men were killed on the spot.
“The two countries do politics on our bodies, but this must end,” he said.
On the other side, the 45-year-old Arshad, who lost his father to an artillery shell fired by Indian soldiers, hoped for peace.
“But a durable peace will only come when the Kashmir issue is resolved,” he said.
With a Taiwan contingency increasingly more plausible, Taiwanese lobbies in Japan are calling for the government to pass a version of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), emulating the US precedent. Such a measure would surely enable Tokyo to make formal and regular contact with Taipei for dialogue, consultation, policy coordination and planning in military security. This would fill the missing link of the trilateral US-Japan-Taiwan security ties, rendering a US military defense of Taiwan more feasible through the support of the US-Japan alliance. Yet, particular caution should be exercised, as Beijing would probably view the move as a serious challenge to
As the Soviet Union was collapsing in the late 1980s and Russia seemed to be starting the process of democratization, 36-year-old US academic Francis Fukuyama had the audacity to assert that the world was at the “end of history.” Fukuyama claimed that democratic systems would become the norm, and peace would prevail the world over. He published a grandiose essay, “The End of History?” in the summer 1989 edition of the journal National Interest. Overnight, Fukuyama became a famous theorist in the US, western Europe, Japan and even Taiwan. Did the collapse of the Soviet Union mark the end of an era as
During a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo on Monday, US President Joe Biden for the third time intimated that the US would take direct military action to defend Taiwan should China attack. Responding to a question from a reporter — Would Washington be willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan? — Biden replied with an unequivocal “Yes.” As per Biden’s previous deviations from the script of the US’ longstanding policy of “strategic ambiguity” — maintaining a deliberately nebulous position over whether the US would intervene militarily in the event of a conflagration between Taiwan and
Will the US come to the defense of Taiwan if and when China makes its move? Like most friends of Taiwan, I’ve been saying “yes” for a couple decades. But the truth is that none of us, in or out of government, really know. This is precisely why we all need to show humility in our advice on how Taiwan should prepare itself for such an eventuality. After all, it’s their country, and they have no choice but to live with the consequences. A couple weeks ago the New York Times published an article that put this reality in stark relief. As
RSS