SRINAGAR, India — The recent wave of military conflicts between India and Pakistan nearly escalated into a larger war involving both nations, which are armed with nuclear weapons. Tensions surged, stopping only after intervention by world powers, raising global concerns about the risk of a nuclear confrontation.
Analysts note that the events have intensified the long-standing discord between the two countries, who engaged in reciprocal missile and drone attacks. This conflict has thrust the Kashmir issue back under international scrutiny, with U.S. President Donald Trump offering to mediate what has long been considered a potential nuclear flashpoint in the region.
Paul Staniland, a specialist in South Asian affairs and a political science professor at the University of Chicago, observed that the recent hostilities highlight India’s willingness to target Pakistan directly, and Pakistan’s readiness to escalate its responses.
This recent clash differs from previous ones that were largely confined to the disputed region of Kashmir. Instead, military targets deep within each country were struck, and significant artillery exchanges occurred along their shared border in Kashmir. The violence resulted in numerous casualties on both sides, with each country claiming to have achieved their tactical objectives.
Hostilities began last Wednesday following a retaliatory strike by India in response to an attack last month that took the lives of 26 people, predominantly Hindu tourists, in the Himalayan territory of Kashmir, a region both nations claim entirely. India accused Pakistan of harboring the attackers, a charge Pakistan denied, demanding evidence that was not provided. Both armies warned they would strike if provoked, highlighting the fragility of the peace.
The historical context includes two previous wars fought over Kashmir, with the current crisis renewing fears of another potential conflict between these nuclear-equipped nations. In a breakthrough, President Trump disclosed that both countries had agreed to a ceasefire following negotiations led by the United States. Trump additionally offered his assistance in seeking a resolution for the Kashmir issue.
While Pakistan expressed gratitude to the U.S. and Trump for their role in facilitating the ceasefire, India has been silent on the matter of American involvement, simply acknowledging that the ceasefire resulted from military discussions with Pakistan. Trump’s overture drew criticism towards India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration, which views the Kashmir situation as a domestic issue and opposes external intervention, citing a struggle against “Pakistan’s proxy war.”
Pakistan maintains that the division of Kashmir is an internationally recognized conflict that should be resolved according to United Nations resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
Michael Kugelman, an expert on South Asia, described Trump’s proposal as a success for Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts, since Pakistan has consistently aimed to elevate the Kashmir issue on the global stage. This development is unwelcome for the Indian government, which asserts that the matter is conclusive and non-negotiable.
Locals across the border have expressed relief at the ceasefire, though many believe that enduring peace is contingent upon resolving the Kashmir dispute. Praveen Donthi of the International Crisis Group argues for the inclusion of Kashmiri representatives in peace negotiations for a sustainable solution, recognizing that the Kashmiri people have borne the brunt of the conflict more so than the armed forces on either side.
In Kashmir, the conflict transcends political or diplomatic issues between India and Pakistan and strikes at the heart of personal survival and peace for its residents. As student Shazia Tabbasum poignantly put it, the resolution of this conflict is essential for putting an end to continuous hostilities over the region.