Daily Times

During Prime Minister Imran Khan’s first-ever visit to the US on July 23, 2019, President Trump had offered to mediate the outstanding Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. This move was greatly appreciated by Pakistan, President Trump had publicly stated that Prime Minister Modi had requested him to mediate between the two countries over Kashmir during the sidelines of 2019 G20 Summit held in Osaka in June this year.

With President Trump’s offer to mediate at such a crucial time, the issue has once again achieved global significance.

Moreover, President Trump’s mediation offers, and India’s recent move to constitutionally revoke the special status offered to Kashmir would likely have serious implications within the prevalent security environment throughout the region.

India has often rejected such offers claiming Kashmir as its internal matter. Taking a step forward, on August 5, 2019, the government of India revoked the special status of the Kashmir region that has been previously granted under Articles 370 and 35(A) of the Indian constitution through a presidential order. Referred to as the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, it was later approved by parliament, despite the opposition’s criticism.

Under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the Kashmir region had been awarded special constitutional rights and a ‘so-called’ autonomous status of decision-making. Following the abrogation of Article 370, the Kashmir region would be divided into two ‘Union Territories’ i.e. Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh governed by the Indian central government.

The timing of this constitutional abrogation might have been influenced by President Trump’s offer of mediation between India and Pakistan, which was reiterated by the US President despite India’s rejection.

This abrogation was also part of the Bhartiya Janata Party’s (BJP) election manifesto as promised by Prime Minister Modi during the 2019 general elections.

By fulfilling this electoral promise, Modi is trying to assert that Kashmir is entirely an internal matter for India and that it would not allow any third country to interfere in the Kashmir issue irrespective of its relations with India.

The security environment of Kashmir has been at stake in recent years due to India’s desire to oppress the freedom movement militarily

Based on this notion, India is inclined to project this political and constitutional change as its internal matter. By revoking the special status of this disputed region, India also intends to change the demography of Kashmir as much of the current population is Muslim. India has been involved in various tactics to change the demographic structure of Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK), which includes a steady stream of Hindu migrants relocating and settling in masses from other parts of India in this predominantly Muslim region.

This trend is also evident in the region’s population numbers. In 1947, for instance, the Muslim population of IOK was about 79 per cent. As of 2018, this figure has been reduced to 68 per cent. In this regard, the abrogation of Article 35(A) would likely intensify this trend as in the future. Non-residents of Kashmir would be able to purchase property in Kashmir and would become permanent residents with a right to vote.

The security environment of Kashmir has been at stake in recent years due to India’s desire to oppress the freedom movement militarily. During Prime Minister Modi’s first term from 2014-2019, the Kashmiri freedom struggle has seen greater military suppression, especially since 2016, when a prominent freedom fighter Burhan Wani had been brutally assassinated. However, it seems that India has still not succeeded in achieving its desired objectives. After a landslide victory in the 2019 elections and with Modi once again in office as Prime Minister, the military suppression of the freedom movement in Kashmir has further intensified. Recently, India has deployed an additional 38,000 paramilitary troops in the region to join more than half a million troops and paramilitary forces already present. Along with this increased military presence in Kashmir, India has also been involved in continued aggression across the Line of Control (LoC) as evident by its use of prohibited ‘cluster bombs’ against the civilian population. These could have seriously provoked Pakistan to respond offensively and might have resulted in another February 2019 episode.

At present, Indian aggression along the LoC poses a major threat to peace in the region. India might believe it could carry out a limited attack or ‘surgical strike’ against Pakistan, which would stay below Pakistan’s nuclear threshold, as evident from the February 2019 military engagement and the recent attacks along the LoC. India has repeatedly attempted to dominate the escalation ladder as was shown in the recent escalation instance the recent escalation following the Pulwama attack. Prime Minister Imran Khan has warned about the possibility of a ‘false-flag operation’ in Kashmir carried out by India for which Pakistan might be blamed. Based on such blame India could launch a limited attack or a low-intensity conflict across the LoC. Consequently, Pakistan would be left with no choice but to respond in kind to any such aggression by India.

India’s abrogation of Kashmir’s special constitutional status and its military offensive in Kashmir could trigger another politico-military escalation between India and Pakistan within a year. India’s policy to forcefully make Kashmir an integral part of the Indian Union by annexing it through political and military means would serve a very dangerous precedent, which would likely pose as a serious detriment towards the peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute. This change in the constitutional status of Kashmir would greatly limit the prospects for third-party mediation in the future especially for the United Nations, whose resolutions on Kashmir provide a right of self-determination to decide Kashmir’s future. Unfortunately, the prevalent security environment in Kashmir is dominated by India’s aggressive behaviour, which would ultimately have long-lasting implications for strategic stability throughout the South Asian region.

The writer is working as a research associate at Strategic Vision Institute (SVI) Islamabad, Pakistan