Pakistan-India tensions are once again on the rise after a militant attack in the small tourist town of Pehalgam, located in the Anantnag district of Indian Administered Kashmir (IAK). The attack killed 27 civilians, mostly tourists from different parts of India visiting the disputed valley.
India was swift in blaming Pakistan for its alleged involvement in the attack, without a proper investigation, and took offensive measures, including the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), brokered by the World Bank in 1960. Pakistan retaliated by condemning and dubbing the militant attack as a “false flag operation” and warning that if the IWT is suspended unilaterally, Pakistan will consider it as “an act of war.” The other measures include suspension of visas to each other’s citizen with exception of Indian Sikhs permitted to stay in Pakistan for their religious rituals, deporting the defense attaches of both countries by declaring them persona non grata, downscaling the diplomatic relations, closing down of Wagah border route for every kind of movement including trade and shutting down of airspace by Pakistan for India.
Soon after the attack, India hastily announced the suspension of the IWT, which raises serious doubts. The IWT, managing the share of rivers between both states, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, is a legally binding agreement that has withstood the test of multiple wars and hostilities. According to the provisions of the treaty, no party can unilaterally withdraw or revise its terms. This is guaranteed by international law as well. However, India’s unilateral move, along with its recent past violations of the IWT, for example, building a dam on the Kishan Ganga River, suggests that it was a pre-planned move to justify its intended diplomatic maneuver in the guise of the false flag operation of Pehalgam.
Additionally, the deployment of almost 1 million military personnel, with high-tech technology guarding the cease-fire line with Pakistan, makes it impossible for alleged intruders to conduct such an operation in the town, which is 400 kilometers deep (nearly 250 miles) from the cease-fire line. This is a clear-cut security lapse and apparently a deliberate negligence of the central government, as the IAK has been converted into a union territory, which is governed by the center. The security lapses have also been pointed out by the opposition members of the Indian Parliament.
Moreover, the Kashmiris on both sides of the cease-fire line protested against the attack. The IAK locals have also been vocal about their plight particularly after the Aug. 5, 2019, revocation of Article 370, by India, that the economy of the IAK has already suffered from the long curfew and conflict, and why would any Kashmiri be engaged in such activity at peak season of tourism when the IAK’s significant chunk of the economy depends on the tourism industry? The Kashmiris have been very pragmatic and have not resorted to violence against civilians even at the peak of the insurgency, that is, the 1990s.
Using the same tactics
Though this incident has echoed one of the very rare events of attacks on tourists in the valley of Kashmir, that is in 2000, when then-U.S. President Bill Clinton was on a tour to India. Thirty members of the Sikh community were gunned down by unknown assailants in South Kashmir’s Chattisinghpora in the same Anantnag district. The blame was put on Pakistan, but later investigations could not prove any relationship between the attack and Pakistan. Rather, analysts dubbed it a false flag operation by the then Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government to play the victim card.
This time, coincidently, U.S. Vice President JD Vance was on the tour to India and again the BJP government is in power, trying to divert the attention from domestic issues including Manipur unrest, communal violence and the persecution of minorities – especially Muslims – as well as increasing international scrutiny over its human rights violations, notably from countries like Canada, the U.S. and Türkiye.
There has been a history of India blaming Pakistan for any attack in the IAK without any concrete evidence. The Uri attack of 2016 and the Pulwama attack of 2019 are testimonies of baseless allegations in the recent past and the warmongering attitude of India, which led to a standoff between air forces, where Pakistan shot down the Indian jet and captured its pilot. This pattern of irresponsible behaviour of a nuclear state is putting the security of the region at stake, while Pakistan has offered to cooperate in an independent international inquiry of the incident, which is again based on rationality.
Furthermore, Pakistan in response reserves the right to suspend or terminate the bilateral agreement of Shimla of 1972, which emphasized the principle of mutual respect, resolution of disputes through peaceful means and sovereignty. By suspending the IWT, India has not only violated international law but also has put the survival of Pakistan at stake, as it will make an effort to divert or store the water, causing drought and other serious conditions for Pakistan. This is the right time for Pakistan to announce its complete withdrawal from the Shimla agreement, as India has also tactfully used it in its favor by propagating a false narrative about reducing the status of the Kashmir conflict to a bilateral issue rather than its international status enshrined in U.N. resolutions. This has caused serious damage to Kashmiris’ cause of right to self-determination internationally as well.
In conclusion, India must understand that peace in South Asia passes through the resolution of the Kashmir conflict, and it can’t evade its responsibility of ensuring the exercise of Kashmiris’ right to choose under the U.N. The myth of normalcy in the IAK has been busted once again post-August 2019. Kashmiris are dissatisfied with the loss of their statehood and due to the maligning of their identity. They consider this an effort of India to change the demography of the Muslim majority state in favor of the Hindus, as the government has issued more than 80,000 domiciles to non-Kashmiris, mostly non-Muslims. The essence of the problem has to be acknowledged, or else the blame game, along with a hegemonic mindset, cherished in Hindutva ideology, will lead nowhere but a constant threat of nuclear war.