The drums of war are beating in South Asia once again. The decision by the Modi government to remove the special constitutional status of Indian Kashmir has heightened tensions in the region. As expected, most Indians rejoiced at their government’s decision. Predictably, there was widespread condemnation of the Indian action in Pakistan. The two South Asian neigbours celebrate their 73rd independence anniversary a day apart this week. The big question is whether India and Pakistan ever get past their bitter rivalry and normalise relations? There are enough reasons for pessimism; two militarily potent states, colliding nationalisms, contested borders, and religious fanaticism. Of particular concern is the willingness of both countries to draw a line in the sand and have policies that nurture conflict. Gone are the leaders with the vision to negotiate the Shimla Agreement of 1972 and the Lahore Declaration of 1999. Over the past two decades, adverse events have seriously negated the chance of peace between India and Pakistan, leaving the two peoples deeply divided. South Asia lacks statesmen like Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer who brought about Franco-German rapprochement and eventual peace and integration in Europe. A fresh cycle of mutual hostility is possible as Pakistan reacts to India’s Kashmir move. Hopefully, the reaction will remain confined to saber-rattling and rhetoric only. But shutting channels of communications and downgrading diplomatic ties doesn’t augur well for this volatile region. In the current hostile environment, there is little opportunity to improve people-to-people, media, educational, cultural, and sporting contacts. The jihadi option in Kashmir is senseless despite the intense domestic pressure to counter the Indian action. Still, the strong narrative of an unequal battle between India and the long-suffering Kashmiris will continue to draw supporters and strengthen public opinion against India The development in Indian Kashmir shouldn’t come as a surprise. The ruling BJP in India had promised to change the status of the territory during its recent victorious election campaign. And Prime Minister Modi is a decisive leader with a reputation of getting things done. But India prides itself on its constitutional democracy. We expected a parliamentary and public debate before the Kashmir announcement. How the revocation of the provisions of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution to change the status of Kashmir was carried out appears contrary to democratic norms. We can only hope that India has learned from its previous poor governance record in Kashmir. Resolving political issues at the point of the gun rarely works. Changing the special status of Indian Kashmir is symbolic as the autonomy of the territory has gradually whittled away over 70 years as Delhi has established its control. Abrogating 370 will further sideline pro-India politicians in Kashmir leaving a stark choice between India and the Kashmiri separatists. The tools at India’s disposal are maintaining over 700,000 troops, changing the demographics by allowing land ownership by non-Kashmiris, and ruling by decree. But the use of force and repression hasn’t defeated separatism or brought peace and security to Kashmir. We will soon find out if the new Indian strategy can address the alienation of Kashmiris. While Muslims make up a majority in Kashmir, most don’t see themselves as part of the sizeable Indian Muslim minority in India. The challenge for Indian leadership is to entice Kashmiris to join the big tent of Indian democracy. Pakistan senses a trap: India’s revocation of Article 370 is a fait accompli in terms of the Kashmir dispute. It is encouraging that after the regular bellicose statements of standing by the Kashmiris through thick and thin by all means available, the Pakistani leadership has adopted the diplomatic route to challenge the Indian action. Privately some Pakistanis are coming around to the view that it is nonsensical to sacrifice Pakistan for Kashmir. The refusal of friendly states except for China and the world community to condemn the Indian move is a telling sign. It is a clear signal to Pakistan to accept reality and the status quo in Kashmir and move on. An unfriendly external environment, international regulatory pressure, and a tottering economy limit Pakistan’s options. The jihadi option in Kashmir is senseless despite the intense domestic pressure to counter the Indian action. Still, the strong narrative of an unequal battle between India and the long-suffering Kashmiris will continue to draw supporters and strengthen public opinion against India. Leaders in both countries mustn’t allow the volatile situation, heightened by media and public opinion, to degenerate into mutual fear-mongering and demagoguery. Can India and Pakistan limit the intensity of future wars? Will the death toll remain confined to border skirmishes in this nuclear flashpoint? Do the leadership have the will and the desire to contain xenophobic forces in both countries bent on exploiting tensions? The international community must remain engaged with the two parties to manage tensions. While external involvement doesn’t appeal to India, it seems the only way forward in the absence of bilateral dialogue. With no diplomatic breakthrough on the horizon and no bridging of the divides, international efforts must focus on reducing the threat of war and suffering. But reinforcing the forces in both countries in favour of working relations is a worthy goal that over time will prove essential in its own right. The writer is a freelance contributor