Early Wednesday morning, India fired military strikes against Pakistan, killing more than thirty people, according to the Pakistani government. Yesterday, the Indian government claimed that Pakistan had responded to a wide drone strike. It is the largest military confrontation between India and Pakistan for decades. The two countries were opposed to each other for more than seventy -five years; This last plane was launched when twenty -five Indian tourists were killed in a terrorist attack last month in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. (A Kashmiri resident was also killed locally.) The Kashmir region has a long history of armed activity, some of which are funded by Pakistan, and the opposition of Indian rule. The majority of Kashmir moved to India after the division in 1947, and the Indian government committed widespread human rights violations there. In 2019, Narendra Modi, Indian Prime Minister, I cancel the special Kashmir mode Under the Indian Constitution, which was granted as the only country in India a Muslim majority. Since then, India has taken more opposition in the region, and at the same time increasing tourism there. Now there is a great fear that the conflict between India and Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons, can escalate.
I recently spoken on the phone with Sushant Singh, a lecturer in South Asian Studies in Yale, and a consultant editor with Caravan Magazine, about the current situation. During our conversation, which was liberated for length and clarity, we also discussed how political dynamics in both India and Pakistan can contribute to expanding the conflict, and the long -term Indian government failed in Kashmir, and why it made it the world’s embrace of Moody less likely to peace.
What about this situation feels new or different, either for Indians, Pakistanis or Kashmiris?
The only big difference this time was visible in Kashmir, after these tourists were dropped. For the first time in a long time, we have witnessed that the Kashmiris are coming out in large numbers and protesting the killings. There were candlelight marches, there were protests, and there were people who publicly owed them. It has been very difficult for the past thirty or thirty -five to go out to support India, in some sense, or against armed militants who have been defending the separation or policy supporting Pakistan in Kashmir. It was a great opportunity for the government of Mr. Modi, but the government of Mr. Modi did not seize this opportunity. They continued their policies in demolishing the homes of suspected militants, and repressive security operations to arrest a large number of young people, which are clearly not helping anything. It was a great opportunity to benefit from it, which he did not take.
How do you understand this response from the Kashmiris?
Tourism was a great feature of the Kashmiri economy and the Kashmiri Association, and tourists were always seen as guests. The vision of tourists was chosen and killed in these numbers was a reflection of everything they were standing over the years. Not only in terms of KashmiriyaOne aspect of this is the idea that tourists are guests, but also in terms of the economic damage it causes.
I described this as an opportunity that you believe that Modi had missed it. What exactly is this opportunity, and what do you think the Indian government wants to do instead?
So the opportunity was very simple. He could announce certain steps to interact politically with the state and support tourism, because Indian tourists will not go to Kashmir now. There were a large number of cancellation that occurred. He could announce a form of support, which is a form of economic support for hotels and tourist guides and for other people linked to local tourism. He could have highlighted the fact that a young Kashmiri was killed while trying to save Indian tourists. It could also be highlighted that a large number of Kashmiri taxi drivers and hospital workers, etc., could have gone out on their way to help Indian tourists after this heinous attack. None of this. He could even take this moment to announce some bold steps such as restoring the state to Kashmir, or greatly enabling Kashmir. There could be small tactical steps, which would have been assisted in an administrative way, but also large and bold political steps to involve the Kashmiris and try to win it.
But only to be clear: He rejected this opportunity not because it is not bold enough or because it is coward, but, because he does not want to seize this opportunity for ideological reasons, correct?
definitely. Hindutva’s ideology, which Moody shares, sees Kashmir as a land, not a people. Whereas, basically, what I claim is that Kashmir revolves around people more than Earth. We must try to beat the Kashmiris, not just to look at how to control the ground.
What is a different feeling or this time not different from the dynamism between India and Pakistan?
There is a strong similarity to what happened in 2019, when the Indian forces were killed in Poloama by a young suicide bomber, and then the Hindi Air Force aircraft tried to hit a school in Palakot, in the province of Khyber Bakhtongua. Pakistan moved, there was an air conflict, an Indian Mig-21 was shot down, an Indian pilot was caught, a fighter plane was shot down, and the Indians were dropped their own helicopters, and so on.
But the most surprising thing here is the set of goals that India chooses and the location of those goals. These nine goals that India claims were hit not only in Pakistani Kashmir but also in Punjab. Now, Balkot was also out of Kashmir, but he was in Khyber Bakhtonkhua. Khayber Pakhtunkhwa is a tribal area, and it is not truly seen as part of a Pakistani heart. While Punjab is the heart of Pakistan. It is the most dominant boycott, it’s the most populated boycott, it’s the most powerful political boycott. Even inside the Punjab, one of these strikes has already targeted Muridke, which is outside Lahore. Taking one of the largest cities in South Asia and its military strike with a form of weapons is something that has not been seen outside of complete wars. This is the big difference. All of these places are mainly schools, or Islamic seminars. Therefore, these goals can be considered as provocative and sent in nature.
But I must also make it clear that in all the statements made by the Indian government, I tried to say that these strikes were accurate, very targeted, and not related. The non -scientific nature of strikes has been constantly, even in conversation with foreign diplomats. I think there is some fear in the government of Mr. Modi, that these strikes should not lead to an escalation that comes out of control.
But how do you understand this contradiction, which is that they struck goals in Punjab, but at the same time trying to prevent escalation?
Yes, so there is definitely a contradiction and tension here, and very high risks. There will always be the risk of escalation. But they highlight the fact that they only went to non -military targets, they said that they are not trying to target civilians, and that these goals are just an infrastructure of terrorism, and they were only bombed at night to reduce losses. As the media reports suggested, these schools or seminars have already been evacuated. So the way they tried to manage is to reduce the number of losses and messages. But does it really help? Is they really allowed to block the contradiction, or ride two boats at the same time? Only the time will be told.
What are the goals of the Modi government in the long run here? What it says seems to be reading between the lines is that they want to have a kind of strike that determines deterrence or national view, but at the same time it does not lead to a greater war, right?
Yes, but I will not call her deterrence. There will be no deterrent unless you target the Pakistani army. Deterrence cannot be created by targeting some seminars. I think the main purpose of these strikes is to strengthen its national banks, and to satisfy and reduce the increasing feelings generated by the mass media in India over the past two weeks at the request of the government.
Well, I was about to say that the increasing passion and press coverage seemed partially, thanks to the ruling party.
exactly. This is what I say. It is at the request of the government of Mr. Modi, and they do so about a good man as a partner, as a propaganda. It was manufactured, but it also inhales something, adopts a narration and helps build the image of Mr. Modi as a strong party and as a bold leader, as a heroic leader who made this great decision [to strike Pakistan]. Is there a strategic point of view for this? Will violent incidents be deterred in the future by militants, militants or terrorists, everything you want to contact them? No. No. 2019 has already shown that a deterrent can not be created like this. If there is a strategic point of view, India will already have a larger series of options that go in various fields. On a larger scale, not only in this week, India is likely to participate on the economic front, on the diplomatic front, on the cultural front, on the people’s front, and on the military front with both punishment and reward.
