WIREDGOV

EXPERT COMMENT

The Pahalgam terror attack has returned Kashmir to the international agenda. But a history of flawed policy means neither country can claim moral authority on the region.

Tensions between India and Pakistan are fast escalating, following the terrorist attack that killed 26 Indian tourists near Pahalgam in India-administered Kashmir on 22 April – and subsequent military action by India against alleged terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir on 7 May. But two stark realities have emerged as hostilities have grown, exposing the limits of each party’s ability to gain leverage over its rival.  

The first pertains to Pakistan’s enduring credibility problem created by allegations that the country has historic connections with acts of terrorism abroad, especially in Indian-administered Kashmir. The second relates to India’s frustrated attempts to ‘marginalize’ Pakistan internationally and – as an extension of that policy – to revoke Kashmir’s special status and de-list it as a disputed territory. Both issues have resurfaced as hostilities have gained momentum.

Within hours of the attack, India announced – without evidence – that the gunmen had ‘cross-border’ links to Pakistan and threatened retaliation. India also suspended its water-sharing agreement with Pakistan under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT), downgraded its diplomatic representation in Pakistan, revoked Indian visas for Pakistani nationals, and sealed off all border crossings.  

The measures triggered strong condemnation in Pakistan, which angrily rejected India’s allegations of involvement in the terrorist attack. Islamabad announced that it was withdrawing from the 1972 Simla Agreement with India, which committed both parties to the bilateral settlement of all outstanding issues, including the Kashmir dispute.

But in a move that was clearly intended to defuse tension, Pakistan subsequently offered to participate in ‘any neutral, transparent and credible investigation’ into the attack at Pahalgam – a proposal that appears to be supported by the United States. 

Click here to continue reading the full version of this Expert Comment on the Chatham House website.