Escalating conflict between India and Pakistan threatens crucial long-standing agreements
On 7 May, India launched missiles at nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which it says hosted ‘terrorist infrastructure’. Pakistan, in response, claims to have shot down Indian aircraft and drones and has warned of further military action. These developments mark a significant escalation in recent tensions between India and Pakistan, which stem from an attack by militants on a group of tourists in Pahalgam, a town in Indian-administrated Kashmir.
April’s attack in Pahalgam killed 26 people and injured 17. India’s security forces allege Pakistan’s involvement, which Islamabad denies. The incident has struck a nerve across India because it intentionally targeted tourists, says Tahera Mandviwala, a Member of the IBA India Working Group.
In the aftermath of the attack, India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, vowed to find and punish the perpetrators ‘beyond their imagination.’ In the following days, over 1,500 people in India-administered Kashmir were taken for questioning as security forces sought to apprehend those involved.
Pakistan and India each manage parts of Kashmir, but both have claimed it in full since the partition of British India in 1947, and several conflicts have taken place in the region. The access to nuclear weapons enjoyed by both India and Pakistan has however been seen as mitigating the prospect of a major war between the two countries, despite their disagreements. Mandviwala says however that ‘with two nuclear powers at play, an escalation of the current situation could have far-reaching consequences.’
The current situation has seen trade between the two countries suspended, the closure of their border and air space and visas revoked. Further, it has threatened long-standing legal agreements between the two countries that have maintained some stability and peace for decades. India has suspended the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, via which both countries share vital access to water derived from the Indus River. With 80 per cent of Pakistan’s farms relying on the river for crop irrigation, the country has announced a legal challenge in response to India’s suspension of the Treaty.
If the state parties decide to walk away from the Simla Agreement, this has the potential to [create] a highly militarised and volatile border between the countries
Taimur Malik
Partner, Clyde & Co
Pakistan has also threatened to suspend its participation in all other bilateral agreements with India. This includes the 1972 Simla Agreement, which was signed after disputes involving Kashmir led to war in 1965 and again in 1971. The Agreement established the Line of Control – which dictates which country controls each part of Kashmir – as well as a tentative ceasefire, and committed both countries to working through future disputes via diplomatic means. The abandonment of such critical legal treaties would jeopardise the stability of the two countries and the region, says Mandviwala, while ‘undoing decades of work done to reach a point of mutual co-existence.’
‘If the state parties – or one of them – decides to walk away from the terms of the Simla Agreement […] this has the potential to convert the long border between the countries into a highly militarised and volatile border,’ says Taimur Malik, a Pakistan-based international law expert and a partner at Clyde & Co. Both countries need to consider the far-reaching consequences of any legal actions they may be tempted to take simply to appease the current local sentiment, adds Malik.
The hope, says Mandviwala, is that, as in the past and in line with the Simla Agreement, this latest dispute will be de-escalated by diplomatic means. Marvin G Weinbaum, Director of the Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies Program at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, highlights that Pakistan has agreed to an international investigation of the April attack in Pahalgam. ‘It has welcomed outside [involvement] so clearly they've laid the ground here for a diplomatic opportunity to de-escalate,’ he says.
A number of countries have urged peace. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has spoken to both the Indian foreign minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, and the Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in an effort to broker peace. Meanwhile, Wang Yi, the foreign minister of China – which also controls part of Kashmir – has spoken of the risk to regional security should the conflict continue.
Mandviwala says that the international intervention seen so far may not be enough. ‘Though many countries have openly condemned the terrorist attack and asked for a de-escalation between the two neighbours, there does not seem to be any active initiation of interference in the situation,’ she says, adding that this is where the UN could play a role.
The intergovernmental organisation’s Secretary-General, António Guterres, has condemned the attack and offered the UN’s support in finding a solution. ‘Now is the time for maximum restraint and stepping back from the brink,’ he said in a press conference on 5 May. The way forward, says Malik, is cooperation and information-sharing through legal confidence-building measures and mutual legal assistance requests.
Image credit: Dilok/AdobeStock.com