Satyabrat Borah
(satyabratborah12@gmail.com)
The name Kashmir evokes a saga of conflict, intrigue, and unresolved tensions between India and Pakistan. This region, nestled in the Himalayas, is not merely a geographical entity but a symbol of deep-seated political, military, and cultural contestations. Recent remarks by former Indian Army Chief General NC Vij, who served as the Director General of Military Operations during the Kargil War, have reignited discussions on this issue. In an exclusive interview with NDTV, General Vij asserted that Pakistan has used Kashmir as a tool to unite its populace, leveraging the issue to stoke nationalistic fervour. His comments, drawn from decades of military experience and articulated in the context of his new book, “Alone In The Ring: Decision-Making In Critical Times”, underscore the enduring complexity of the Kashmir issue. General Vij’s reference to Operation Sindoor—a covert Indian strike targeting terror bases in Pakistan, including the headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed—further highlights India’s evolving stance: a resolute message that Pakistan’s nuclear posturing will no longer deter India from safeguarding its national integrity. This article delves into the historical roots of the Kashmir conflict, its contemporary dynamics, and the implications of General Vij’s observations for the future of India-Pakistan relations.
The origins of the Kashmir issue trace back to the partition of British India in 1947, a tumultuous period that birthed India and Pakistan as independent nations. The partition, based on religious demographics, left the princely states with the autonomy to accede to either nation. Jammu and Kashmir, ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, became a flashpoint due to its Muslim-majority population and Hindu ruler. Hari Singh’s indecision on accession created a vacuum, exploited by Pakistan-backed tribal militias who invaded the region in October 1947. Desperate for support, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession with India, prompting Indian military intervention. This sparked the first India-Pakistan war, which concluded in 1948 with a UN-mediated ceasefire and the establishment of the Line of Control (LoC), dividing Kashmir into Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered territories. This division, intended as a temporary measure, has instead fuelled a protracted conflict, with both nations claiming the entirety of Kashmir.
The LoC has since been a volatile boundary, witnessing skirmishes, wars, and diplomatic standoffs. Pakistan’s claim to Kashmir is rooted in its identity as a Muslim-majority nation, viewing the region as a natural extension of its territory. India, conversely, considers Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of its secular republic, emphasizing the legal validity of the 1947 accession. The dispute has led to two additional wars—in 1965 and 1999 (the Kargil War)—and countless cross-border incidents. General Vij, who played a pivotal role during the Kargil conflict, brings a unique perspective to the issue. His assertion that Pakistan uses Kashmir as a unifying weapon reflects a strategic understanding of how the issue transcends territorial ambitions. For Pakistan, Kashmir serves as a rallying cry, a means to galvanise its diverse populace amidst internal challenges such as economic instability, political turmoil, and ethnic divisions.
Pakistan’s internal dynamics provide context for General Vij’s remarks. Since its inception, Pakistan has grappled with centrifugal forces—regional rivalries, sectarian strife, and economic woes. The Kashmir issue, framed as a struggle for Muslim self-determination, has been a potent tool for its leaders to unify the nation. By portraying India as an existential threat, Pakistan’s military and political establishment has deflected attention from domestic failures. This strategy is evident in the state’s alleged support for militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, which have orchestrated attacks in India, particularly in Kashmir. General Vij’s reference to Pakistan’s “incorrigible and untrustworthy” nature, as articulated in his book, points to a pattern of state-sponsored terrorism that has undermined India’s peace overtures. From the 1971 Simla Agreement to the 1999 Lahore Declaration, India’s attempts at dialogue have often been met with continued aggression, exemplified by events like the 2008 Mumbai attacks and the 2016 Pathankot assault.
From India’s perspective, Kashmir is a matter of national sovereignty and security. The region’s strategic location, bordering China and Pakistan, amplifies its importance. Pakistan-backed terrorism has not only destabilized Kashmir but also threatened India’s broader security architecture. Operation Sindoor, as highlighted by General Vij, marks a significant shift in India’s approach. By targeting terror infrastructure deep within Pakistan, India signalled its willingness to take preemptive and retaliatory actions, undeterred by Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. This operation, though shrouded in secrecy, underscores a broader evolution in India’s military doctrine—from defensive restraint to proactive deterrence. General Vij’s assertion that Pakistan’s nuclear bluff has been called reflects India’s growing confidence, bolstered by its economic rise and global diplomatic clout.
Kashmir’s internal dynamics further complicate the issue. Since the late 1980s, the Kashmir Valley has witnessed a surge in separatist movements, fuelled by local grievances and external instigation. Allegations of human rights abuses, political disenfranchisement, and economic neglect have alienated segments of the population, creating fertile ground for militancy. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been accused of arming and training insurgents, exacerbating the unrest. India’s response has oscillated between military crackdowns and attempts at dialogue, with mixed results. The 2019 revocation of Article 370, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status, was a bold move to integrate the region fully into India. While the decision was domestically popular, it inflamed tensions with Pakistan, which sought to internationalize the issue at forums like the United Nations. However, Pakistan’s efforts have largely failed to garner significant global support, reflecting India’s growing influence.
The international dimension of the Kashmir issue cannot be overlooked. The region’s geopolitical significance draws attention from global powers like the United States, China, and Russia. The U.S. has historically oscillated between neutrality and tacit support for India, particularly in the context of counterterrorism. China’s role, however, adds a layer of complexity. Its deepening alliance with Pakistan, exemplified by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passing through Pakistan-administered Kashmir, has raised concerns in New Delhi. India views this as an infringement on its sovereignty, given its claim over the entire region. The India-China border standoffs, particularly in Ladakh, have further intertwined Kashmir with broader regional rivalries. For Pakistan, China’s support provides diplomatic and economic leverage, but it also risks entrenching the conflict in a larger geopolitical chessboard.
General Vij’s observations, rooted in his book’s prophetic insights, highlight the challenges of dealing with Pakistan’s duplicity. His description of Pakistan as “incorrigible” reflects frustration with its refusal to abandon terrorism as a state policy. Yet, his remarks also point to India’s strategic evolution. The success of operations like Sindoor demonstrates India’s ability to project power beyond its borders, reshaping the deterrence equation. This shift aligns with India’s broader ascent as a regional power, backed by a robust economy and a modernizing military. Diplomatically, India has countered Pakistan’s narrative by emphasizing the latter’s role in harbouring terrorists, a stance that resonates with Western capitals post-9/11. The Financial Action Task Force’s scrutiny of Pakistan’s terror financing further isolates it globally.
Resolving the Kashmir issue remains a daunting task. It requires addressing not only the territorial dispute but also the aspirations of Kashmir’s people, who have endured decades of violence and uncertainty. Confidence-building measures, such as cross-LoC trade and people-to-people contact, have shown promise but remain vulnerable to political whims. For India, restoring normalcy in Kashmir involves balancing security imperatives with political and economic development. Initiatives like infrastructure projects and youth employment programmes aim to win hearts and minds, but their success hinges on sustained peace. Pakistan, meanwhile, must confront the costs of its Kashmir obsession—economic stagnation, international isolation, and the risk of internal radicalization.
General Vij’s remarks underscore a fundamental truth: Pakistan’s use of Kashmir as a unifying tool has perpetuated a cycle of hostility. Breaking this cycle demands bold leadership on both sides. For Pakistan, it means dismantling the terror ecosystem and engaging in genuine dialogue. For India, it involves fostering inclusive governance in Kashmir while maintaining a firm stance against cross-border aggression. The international community, too, has a role in encouraging restraint and facilitating talks, though past interventions, like the UN’s 1948 resolution, have yielded little progress. As General Vij’s book suggests, decision-making in critical times defines the course of history. India’s assertive posture, exemplified by Operation Sindoor, signals a willingness to confront Pakistan’s provocations head-on. Yet, military solutions alone cannot resolve Kashmir’s complexities. A lasting resolution will require diplomatic ingenuity, economic investment, and a commitment to the region’s people. The path to peace is fraught with obstacles, but the stakes—regional stability, millions of lives, and the prospect of a cooperative South Asia—are too high to abandon hope. Kashmir, long a weapon in Pakistan’s arsenal, must instead become a bridge to reconciliation, where the aspirations of its people, not the ambitions of nations, take centre stage.