India & Pakistan, and… Trump?
- Mila McGonigal
- May 25
- 4 min read
Recent headlines concerning India and Pakistan have had the world at the edge of its seat since mid-April of this year.
History Repeats Itself
The painful conflict dates back almost a century to the partition that took place under British imperial rule. The influence of the colonial past on this conflict is fascinating. Primarily, it sticks out as highly reminiscent of the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. Like Kashmir, the divide between the Tutsi and Hutu people of Rwanda, historically minimal, was deepened by the former colonial rulers of the country: first German, then Belgian. These colonial administrations clearly defined the two groups, encouraging hierarchy for their own benefit, and ultimately created the context necessary to facilitate the mass murdering of the Tutsis at the hands of the Hutus. In a very similar way, the British contributed to the Kashmir divide through political and administrative decisions during India’s partition in 1947 via their colonial policies of “divide and rule”. Everything from their declaration of Kashmir as a “princely state” to facilitating the rise of a Hindu Dogra ruler (Maharaja Gulab Singh) in Kashmir contributed to the tragic current status of the state that we know today. Interesting literature on the parallel exists, and ought to be studied in an effort to learn from previous mistakes.
Having pointed out a parallel case (being Rwanda), it is equally important to discuss what the Kashmir affair does not resemble: Palestine. For a variety of reasons - primarily a lack of education on the matter - there have been frequent comparisons of Kashmir to Gaza in recent weeks. Doing so is dangerous in that it is both confusing and inaccurate. The situations in the two states are vastly different (one is an occupation and the other is mutual terrorism over a region), meaning they also require vastly different solutions. In comparing them, we risk losing sight of their nuances and ultimately more tailored solutions.
The Religion Question
As in any conflict, it is critical to ask the question of who benefits? It is clear that, ideologically speaking, it is the establishments of both India and Pakistan that benefit. This is largely due to the framing of the war (by these establishments as a religious one). But this war is not, in reality, a religious war. And yet, governments and militaries on both sides continue to frame it as such. Why? Doing so allows them to play victim: a crucial step for gaining international support.
Despite common belief, Hindu supremacy is not, in fact, embedded into the foundations of India. The country’s constitution, supplemented by the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, preaches religious equality. However, in practice, and especially under Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Modi, religion is often weaponized. Under Modi’s BJP government, India’s muslims have become an increasingly marginalized population. Portraying the Pakistanis on the other side of the LOC (Line of Control) in Kashmir works in favor of further tarnishing the reputation of muslims, as well as fueling stereotypes about them.
Pakistan, on the other hand, makes use of the BJP’s aversion to muslims to rally support. This is because Modi’s Hindu nationalism not only excludes muslims, but also Christians. Pakistan, for example, takes advantage of the religious exclusion of the BJP, specifically by warming up to Muslim Turkey and Christian-Maoist China, both of whom have shown heightened support for the country since the Indian attacks this spring.
The American in the Room
As usual, American President Trump factors into the equation in an equally amusing and baffling way. Firstly, Trump announced that he, alongside his administration, single-handedly facilitated the ceasefire between the two countries in early May. Since then, both countries have rejected the president’s claims, declaring that the ceasefire was reached exclusively through "direct military communication" between the two countries. As stated by Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, “The cessation of firing and military action was something which was negotiated directly between India and Pakistan. We made one thing very clear to everybody who spoke to us, not just the United States, but to everyone, saying look, if the Pakistanis want to stop the firing, they need to tell us. We need to hear it from them, their general has to call our general and say this, and that is what happened.” Much of the world is tired of Trump taking credit for events he knows frankly very little about in an effort to maintain his image and stay relevant.
But Pakistan needs to do more than declare they want to stop shelling. This ceasefire is a temporary solution, not a permanent one. If Pakistan wants to end conflicts for good, it is critical that they put an end to state-sponsored terrorism. Whether or not the “Resistance Front” terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir in April was state-backed (as India accuses and as Pakistan denies), it is true that Pakistan remains a haven for terrorism - a policy that it must put an end to if it is going to be fully trusted by India or the international community.
Concerns for the Future
Across the aisle, it can be agreed upon that civilian lives are the collateral damage being tragically lost in the ideological battles being fought between the establishments of Pakistan and India. By and large, the people of both states want peace. Some argue this has been achieved (if only temporarily) via the ceasefire. However, questions remain about the permanence of such a deal, leaving us with upsetting questions: Is war between the two states inevitable? And if so, what is the risk of it becoming nuclear?
Photo Credit:
[Header]: ABC News
Sources:
Comments