by Hayat Imam
An act of terrorism in Kashmir has triggered a crisis in South Asia that is extremely alarming: two nuclear armed countries, India and Pakistan, are in a dangerous face off. Yesterday, India attacked 9 sites in Pakistan.
This tense situation in Kashmir might appear to be new, but the roots of the problem are very old, as old as the partitioning of India in 1947. England’s parting shot as it ended its colonial rule of India was to carve out two nations, made up of Muslims in Pakistan and Hindus in India. And Pakistan was further divided, with one portion in the East and one in the West – with a thousand miles of hostile Indian territory in between. At the time of the partition, Principalities of India were asked to choose which country they would join. In Kashmir, the ruler was a Hindu Rajah who opted to join India against the wishes of its Muslim majority population. These inauspicious beginnings have fostered a tinderbox. India and Pakistan have fought four wars since independence, with Kashmir always in the center of the tension.
In 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi escalated the Kashmir problem by revoking Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. This Article had given Kashmir a special status and some autonomy to run itself. But Modi changed that by fully integrating Kashmir into India under an aggressive doctrine of Hindu nationalism. The upshot of this change was that Kashmiri Muslims had to abandon their Muslim laws and abide by Indian property and customary laws. These are not moves that have helped create solutions.
Simmering home-grown resistance by residents of Kashmir have been ongoing for a long time. These are seen as “acts of terrorism”, depending on who is making the assessment. And, as in every other conflict situation, there are suspicions of false flag operations to create just such conditions. After gunmen in Kashmir shot and killed 28 mostly Hindu tourists last month, India charged Pakistan with supporting the gunmen, which Pakistan has denied. Indian retaliation against Pakistan has however been swift, including suspending visas, trade, and expelling Pakistani diplomats, and now a major armed attack.
NUCLEAR ARMED FOES
Pakistan and India have fought a series of conventional wars over Kashmir. But both countries now have nuclear weapons, so the potential for a nuclear stand-off is a reality.
By one authoritative estimate, a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could kill 50 million people, and the effect of a nuclear winter on food production would lead to famine for billions.
Although India had previously given support for a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons, it has since backed off from that position. Pakistan has never pledged not to use nuclear weapons first. Neither country has signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), that would have prevented developing, testing or deploying nuclear weapons. The reasons given by the two countries for not joining the NPT are complicated and include the following: Both India and Pakistan see these treaties as discriminatory, favoring certain nations, while restricting others.
If the peace movement’s efforts to reduce the nuclear arsenal is to succeed, peace activists in the global North must listen to the South perspective on the issue, as stated above. Public fears are often expressed in the US about the dangers of the “Muslim Bomb”, while eyes are turned away from the open secret of Israel’s 90 to 400 nuclear warheads. Ensuring Iran does not make a nuclear bomb has become a huge priority, but there is no public discussion at all about the US or Russia taking the lead by reducing their arsenals. Our job is clear: we must continue to push hard for universal disarmament.
CLIMATE WARS
Among the punitive measures after the attacks in Kashmir, India has threatened Pakistan with the cancellation of agreements on water sharing. Withholding of life-giving water resources is an existential threat. As the largest country in the Indian Subcontinent, India is the most powerful player in South Asia. Among other things, it has the tremendous advantage of controlling the sources of almost all the major rivers of the Indian subcontinent. Up to now, World Bank brokered treaties govern the distribution of waters and these treaties have been significant in curbing dangerous potential conflicts over water. But now, India is promising to punish Pakistan by no longer abiding by these agreements.
We should all be deeply concerned by this. The agrarian economy of Pakistan relies heavily on riverine water supplies, and more so each year as rainfalls decline. We have always known that as climate change becomes entrenched, dwindling water sources will undergird tensions between nations all over the world. In this moment of crisis, the fact that India is using the withholding of water as a threat is a terrible portend for the future.
Knowing that peace and climate change are conjoined, there is urgency for the peace movement to research the status of world water rights, laws on the books governing water rights, and the creation of momentum among the public and among public officials regarding the use of, and weaponizing of, water. More specifically, we have an immediate opportunity to build public pressure to denounce India’s threats to withhold water to Pakistani civilians and farmers.
SAARC AND SAPAN
SAARC is the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation and was, once, a source of hope for greater cooperation and peace in the Indian subcontinent. Since it covered 21% of the world’s population, its success would have been impressive and enduring. Unfortunately, it is no longer a functioning body; most of its activities have been suspended. It failed partly because of the power imbalance between India, the one large country, and all the other smaller countries in South Asia. Another element was a general lack of trust among all the nations of the region, in particular, between India and Pakistan.
SAPAN is the Southasia Peace Action Network. It is an alliance of individuals from the various countries and organizations of South Asia who believe in peace across the Subcontinent. SAPAN’s approach is regionalism, and it tries to transcend political boundaries, while connecting the people of the region. Southasia is used as one word, as a nod to restoring the historical unity of this common space the people share. Coexistence can only be reached through deep dialogue, sharing art, mutual respect, fair journalism and activism for peace. At a recent event, journalists from South Asia shared their assessment that neither India nor Pakistan is likely to use nuclear weapons in a War. There is simply too much at stake.
If there is to be any peace and unity to be had in the region, our best hope is for a people’s movement to take precedence over government alliances. For a deeper understanding of the region, the work of groups like SAPAN is a great place to start.
Hayat Imam is a member of MAPA’s Board of Directors
