Pol 350 Group Project: India and Pakistan
History of issue:
Script:
1947 partition of british india – created muslim majority pakistan and hindu majority india and provided jammu and kashmir an opportunity to choose who they belonged to
Kashmir originally sought independence as it had been conquered land for centuries but ultimately it joined India in exchange for help against invading pakistani herders triggering the Indo pakistani war of 1947-48. A ceasefire was established in 1949 ending the violence only temporarily.
Tensions were still high with many border skirmishes happening until they escalated into full blown war in 1965.
In 1971 India and pakistan fought another brief war over east pakistan where india helped the area achieve independence establishing present day bangladesh
1972 simla agreement established the Line of Control that split the Kashmir region into two administrative regions
1974 india tests its first nuclear weapons raising the tensions between the two countries even higher
1989 Pakistan capitalized upon a burgeoning resistance movement in Indian-administered Kashmir to undermine Indian control, reigniting tensions and beginning decades of communal violence.
1999 Despite a recommitment to the LOC in 1999, Pakistani soldiers crossed the LOC, sparking the Kargil War. Although both countries have maintained a fragile cease-fire since 2003, they regularly exchange fire across the contested border. Both sides accuse the other of violating the cease-fire and claim to be shooting in response to attacks.
2008 fears that India and Pakistan would once again head towards direct military confrontation abounded after militants laid siege to the Indian capital of Mumbai. Over three days, one hundred sixty-six people were killed, including six Americans. Both India and the United States blamed Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a militant group with alleged ties to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)—Pakistan’s primary intelligence agency—for perpetrating the attack.
2014 there were hopes that India would pursue meaningful peace negotiations with Pakistan after India’s then-newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to attend his inauguration. After a brief period of optimism, relations turned sour once more in August 2014 when India canceled talks with Pakistan’s foreign minister after the Pakistani high commissioner in India met with Kashmiri separatist leaders. A series of openings continued throughout 2015, including an unscheduled December meeting on the sidelines of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris. This was followed by a meeting between national security advisors in Bangkok a few days later, where the Kashmir dispute was discussed. In the same month, Prime Minister Modi made a surprise visit to Lahore to meet with Prime Minister Sharif, the first visit of an Indian leader to Pakistan in more than a decade.
2016 armed militants attacked a remote Indian Army base in Uri, near the LOC, killing eighteen Indian soldiers in the deadliest attack on the Indian armed forces in decades. Indian officials accused Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), another group with alleged ties to ISI, of being behind the attack. In response, the Indian military announced it had carried out “surgical strikes” on terrorist camps inside Pakistani-administered Kashmir while the Pakistani military denied that any such operation had taken place.
2017 more than three thousand cross-border strikes were reported, while nearly one thousand were reported in the first half of 2018. Militants launched attacks in October 2017 against an Indian paramilitary camp near Srinagar and, in February 2018, against an Indian army base in the Jammu region, which killed five soldiers and a civilian. During this time, violent demonstrations and anti-India protests calling for an independent Kashmir also continued; over three hundred people, including civilians, Indian security forces, and militants, were killed in attacks and clashes in 2017. After months of Indian military operations targeting both Kashmiri militants and demonstrations, India announced in May 2018 that it would observe a cease-fire in Kashmir during the month of Ramadan for the first time in nearly two decades;
2019 following a deployment of tens of thousands of additional troops and paramilitary forces to the region, the Indian government moved to revoke Article 370 of the Indian constitution, removing the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The abrogation of Article 370 removed Kashmir’s ability to determine its own property and settlement laws, forcing Kashmiris to abide by Indian property and customary law and effectively diminishing their autonomy. The ruling not only angered Kashmiris but was also viewed as a “grave injustice” by Pakistan. The removal of Article 370 signified the more aggressive approach of the Modi government to integrate Kashmir into India through a doctrine of Hindu nationalism. (all cfr.org)
US stance on Pakistan v India:
Script:
The United States has made several attempts to mediate India-Pakistan tensions with mixed results. In the 1960s, the United States and the United Kingdom conducted six rounds of talks to resolve the Kashmir dispute to little avail. Conversely, the Clinton administration’s intervention in the Kargil War of 1999 was largely credited with averting nuclear war and laying the groundwork for post-Cold War relations between the United States and India. The United States’ parallel relationships with India and Pakistan have limited its credibility as an honest broker in the dispute. The U.S.-Pakistan relationship was primarily founded upon their mutual interests in counterterrorism and regional stability following 9/11. However, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, further compounded by Pakistan’s domestic unrest and increasing ties with China, has thrown the relationship into flux. U.S.-India relations, on the other hand, have strengthened in recent years. Denoted a “strategic partnership” in 2005, the United States and India have deepened their defense cooperation, particularly under the Trump administration. Other international attempts to resolve India-Pakistan tensions, notably via the UN Security Council, have also been unsuccessful. (cfr.org)
Washington remains deeply involved with both countries, viewing India as a long-term partner that can play a supporting role in blunting China’s rise, and Pakistan as a frustrating but indispensable player in the negotiations to conclude America’s 17-year war in Afghanistan.
One unpleasant lesson is that the United States cannot meaningfully inhibit the sort of Pakistani risk taking that might spark military escalation with its larger neighbor. Americans have tried for years to stop Pakistan from using proxy militants to frustrate India. They have attempted a dizzying array of strategies: Increase security assistance and decrease security assistance; broaden diplomatic dialogue and constrain diplomatic dialogue; pursue cooperative counterterrorism strikes and engage in unilateral counterterrorism strikes; encourage international engagement and press for international isolation; threaten, cajole, praise, plead, and ignore. (brookings)
U.S. policy toward India and Pakistan has focused primarily on deterring and reversing the nuclear weaponization of the subcontinent. Congressional actions have subordinated other aspects of both bilateral relationships to the nuclear issue, most notably in the case of Pakistan. The Clinton administration, like its predecessors, has chafed at these legislative restraints and sought expanded bilateral relationships and a more realistic approach to nonproliferation issues. It has worked with members of Congress to mitigate certain existing sanctions. Still, it has not invested substantial political capital in bringing congressional and executive policies fully into line. Despite U.S. nonproliferation efforts, both India and Pakistan have become de facto nuclear weapons-capable states and show no sign of changing course.
In the nonproliferation arena, U.S. policy should focus instead on establishing a more stable and sustainable plateau for Indian and Pakistani nuclear relations. This would involve concentrating on persuading both countries to refrain from testing nuclear explosives, deploying nuclear weapons, and exporting nuclear weapon- or missile-related material, technology, or expertise. The United States should also urge both countries to refrain from missile deployments and cease unsafeguarded production of fissile material.
The time is ripe, in particular, for the United States to propose a closer strategic relationship with India, which has the potential to emerge as a full-fledged major power. The relationship would be based on shared values and institutions, economic collaboration including enhanced trade and investment, and the goal of regional stability across Asia. Consistent with these interests, the Task Force recommends that the United States adopt a declaratory policy that acknowledges India’s growing power and importance; maintain high-level attention including regular reciprocal visits of cabinet members and senior officials; loosen unilateral U.S. constraints upon the transfer of dual-use technologies; increase military-to-military cooperation; cooperate on elements of India’s civilian nuclear power program and other energy-related issues; and undertake limited conventional arms sales. The United States should also support India’s entry into Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and consult with India regarding its interest in membership in other regional and global institutions. (cfr report)
Trent sources:
Cohen, S. P., P.R. Chari, P. I. C., Tanvi Madan, J. T. W., & Afzal, M. (2022, March 9). Why America can’t escape its role in the conflict between India and Pakistan. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-america-cant-escape-its-role-in-the-conflict-between-india-and-pakistan/
Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.-a). A new U.S. policy toward India and Pakistan. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/report/new-us-policy-toward-india-and-pakistan
Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.-b). Conflict between India and Pakistan | global conflict tracker. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-between-india-and-pakistan
What is the issue of contention/interest between these countries? Who are the actors involved?
The issue of contention between these countries have been long standing since 1947, after decades of British rule both India and Pakistan declared themselves independent countries. The region of Kashmir is what the territorial issue is about. Both of these countries claim parts of Kashmir, which has led to many wars and disputes. The actors involved in this issue include India, Pakistan, citizens of Kashmir, and several international countries. India has control over Jammu and Kashmir, which is a large portion of the region. This includes the widely known Kashmir Valley. Pakistan also claims this region due to religious purposes and the Muslim population values the Kashmir valley indefinitely. The people of Kashmir are actors because they have to be in the center of conflict and most people want independence. Other countries have attempted to create peace such as the United Nations, United States, China, and the European Union. The issue between India and Pakistan has yet to be accomplished.
How does this issue relate to the materials we have studied in class? (i.e., theories, problems, etc.)
The territorial disputes about Kashmir can be shown through the lens of Realism. India and Pakistan is a great example of this theory in international relations because both countries rely on their military capabilities to survive the absence of a central authority. The conflict of balance of power creates a security dilemma where actions taken by one side to enhance security forms a threat to the other side leading to tensions and unnecessary actions taken upon each other. The Government Bargaining Model could be applied to this issue because this model focuses on how decisions are made from a result of competing interests. In the context of India and Pakistan both countries have different government regulations and beliefs about how to resolve the issue. The decision about Kashmir involves a bargaining and negotiation tactic where both sides attempt to give their claim and advocate policies they think would best respect both parties.
Haley
What are the suggested potential resolutions or outcomes for the issue?
From a realist perspective, resolving the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan necessitates acknowledging the enduring power dynamics and security considerations that have driven the dispute for decades. Realists prioritize state interests and the balance of power, recognizing that both India and Pakistan view control over Kashmir as essential for their national security and regional influence.
A realist solution would involve pragmatic measures to manage, rather than fully resolve, the conflict, given its deeply entrenched nature and the absence of a central authority to enforce a comprehensive settlement. This could entail maintaining the status quo through the Line of Control established in the 1972 Simla Agreement, while implementing confidence-building measures to reduce the risk of escalation.
Additionally, a realist approach would emphasize the importance of great power diplomacy, particularly involving the United States, as a key external actor with significant influence over both India and Pakistan. The United States could leverage its strategic partnership with India to encourage restraint and de-escalation, while also engaging with Pakistan to address its security concerns and prevent destabilizing actions.
Furthermore, regional cooperation and economic interdependence could be promoted as avenues for fostering stability and mutual benefit. Initiatives aimed at enhancing trade and connectivity between India, Pakistan, and other South Asian countries could incentivize cooperation and mitigate the risk of conflict.
Ultimately, while a realist solution may not fully address the underlying grievances and aspirations of the Kashmiri people, it seeks to manage tensions and maintain stability in a volatile region, recognizing the constraints of power politics and the complexities of the India-Pakistan relationship.
the Kashmir conflict from an idealist perspective means advocating for a solution rooted in principles of justice, human rights, and cooperation. Instead of perpetuating a cycle of violence and territorial disputes, an idealist solution prioritizes the well-being and aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
One key aspect of an idealist approach is fostering inclusive dialogue and negotiation among all stakeholders involved, including India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri population. This dialogue should be guided by principles of self-determination and respect for human rights, allowing Kashmiris to voice their preferences for their political future freely.
International mediation and support from organizations like the United Nations are essential in facilitating constructive negotiations and building trust between conflicting parties. By providing a neutral platform and assisting in implementing peace agreements, the international community can help establish a sustainable path toward peace and reconciliation in the region.
Additionally, addressing underlying socio-economic grievances and development needs in Kashmir is crucial for long-term stability. Investing in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and economic opportunities can help alleviate poverty and foster social cohesion, addressing the root causes of conflict.
In essence, an idealist solution to the Kashmir conflict emphasizes the importance of justice, equality, and mutual respect. By prioritizing the rights and well-being of the Kashmiri people and promoting dialogue and cooperation, India and Pakistan can work together towards a peaceful and prosperous future for the region.
Sources:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-america-cant-escape-its-role-in-the-conflict-between-india-and-pakistan/
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-between-india-and-pakistan
here is our outline to our project. we made a video with all of this information. all of the info above has been used with AI. this was a group project but we have to write a paper about it all in depth and for the solution, can you please explain the realist side and the idealist side, I AM MORE OF A REALIST, SO THATS THE ONE I WOULD LIKE YOU to make sure that my teacher knows thats my opinion even though we have to explain both. could you please goin order with the history of the problem, the US stance
What is the issue of contention/interest between these countries? Who are the actors involved?,
How does this issue relate to the materials we have studied in class? (i.e., theories, problems, etc.)
What are the suggested potential resolutions or outcomes for the issue?
PLEASE MAKE SURE NOTHING IS PLAGERISED. please use the souces provided and are welcome to add more. if the order i sent you for th history and stuff makes since in another order thats fine.
heres my number 3182459220 maybe i could send you the video. it wont let me upload on here
