Opinion: Op Sindoor Has Introduced New War Strategy, But Kashmir Dispute Stuck In 1947

When Narendra Modi assumed prime ministership in 2014, he was hailed for his out-of-the-box thinking in inviting SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) leaders for his swearing-in ceremony, which included then Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif. In 2015, PM Modi surprised the entire country by landing in Lahore, Pakistan, all of a sudden for a private visit on the way back from his official trip to Afghanistan. This move also garnered praise for his ability to reach out to the adversary in an unusual manner, which not just his own domestic constituency but also the international community took note of.

This period was applauded by many as India’s strategic recalibration in response to the persistent security challenges posed by Pakistan by way of cross-border terrorism even as Jammu and Kashmir burnt.

While India was reaching out to Pakistan and PM Modi was being cheered upon by India’s strategic and security community, terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) continued to perpetrate attacks targeting both civilians and military personnel in India, thereby escalating the level of cross-border terrorism.

However, a pivotal moment in this complex diplomatic landscape occurred when India permitted a Pakistani Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to investigate the 2016 terror attacks at the Pathankot Air Force base.

This JIT included operatives from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), allowing them unprecedented access to the critical military installation to gather evidence related to the actions of JeM, the group responsible for the attack. This incident underscores the intricate and often fraught nature of India-Pakistan relations, particularly in light of the ongoing security dilemmas stemming from cross-border militant activities. At the same time, India also conducted surgical strikes by attacking the terror launchpads located across the Line of Control (LoC).

Then came 2019, when a convoy of Indian paramilitary forces was attacked in Pulwama, Kashmir, leading to the death of 40 personnel. The attack was claimed by JeM, which later retracted from their statement. India responded by carrying out air strikes inside Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, crossing over the International Boundary (IB).

However, this time, apart from the military intervention inside Pakistani territory, India took another unprecedented step and that was to abrogate Article 370 and 35A — a temporary provision laid down in India's Constitution that accorded Kashmir a semi-autonomous status wherein the Kashmiri Muslims used to get special benefits related to education and employment.

After the scrapping of Kashmir’s special status, the Modi government claimed infiltration and terrorism have come down in the Valley drastically, and that normalcy has been restored. But Jammu and Kashmir continued to witness terrorist attacks and Indian forces came under massive attack from terrorists in the Jammu region.

ALSO READ ON ABP LIVE | Op Sindoor: 96 Hours — When India Hit Pakistan's Deep State, Triggered US, And China Watched

The Metaphysics Of Kashmir Terrorism

In a span of six years, terror struck again in the Kashmir’s Pahalgam and this time it targeted innocent civilians and killed 26 people in the most brutal manner — something that was never seen before as only men were targeted in front of their families and the terrorists killed after asking religion. JeM-affiliate The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility but later on withdrew.

New Delhi considers the Pahalgam attack to be crossing of the “red line” by Pakistan and Pakistan-sponsored terror outfits. Therefore, India decided to take its military posture against Islamabad significantly higher and launched ‘Operation Sindoor’ to attack multiple targets deep inside Pakistan’s Punjab province hitting terror infrastructure from Bahawalpur to Muridke, considered to be the headquarters of JeM and LeT, respectively.

India had been trying to proscribe TRF at the United Nations 1267 Sanctions Committee, but Pakistan apparently had been attempting to thwart those efforts.

After Operation Sindoor, India has approached the UN 1267 committee again to designate TRF as a terrorist organisation. But listing TRF will be much more difficult for New Delhi than it was when India got JeM chief Masood Azhar designated as a global terrorist.

Convincing the UN on TRF will require severe diplomatic work, and for that India might be asked to produce evidence of TRF’s hand behind the Pahalgam attacks. India has not been able to detain any of the terrorists who carried out the gory killings in the meadows of Pahalgam.

Besides, it also needs to be noted here that the international community, particularly the United Nations, does not take a terrorist incident that takes place in India with the same gravitas as it does when such occurrences take place in the United States, the United Kingdom, or other European nations.

This is the reason why India’s proposal to combat terrorism under a global legal framework of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), which it had proposed to the UN in 1996, remains in limbo. While supported by many, the CCIT faces challenges in achieving a consensus definition of terrorism and therefore it has not yet been adopted.

Furthermore, India's strategy of targeting only the terrorist infrastructure located within Pakistan and PoK does not significantly address the broader issue of terrorism that emanates from these regions. This approach falls short of dismantling the underlying networks that facilitate terrorism or effectively thwarting future attacks on Indian territory.

At the core of this dilemma lies the metaphysics of terrorism — where ideology serves as the foundation for the justification of violence. This ideology often seeks to provide a coherent framework for actions that are fundamentally violent in nature. Terrorism, in this context, is a direct manifestation of a specific ideological stance that not only legitimizes acts of violence but also seeks to impose a particular vision or agenda on society.

OPINION | PoJK, CPEC, And Regional Dynamics — Understanding The China Factor In India-Pak Tensions

When Kashmir Was Taken To UN

During his address to the nation for the first time since Operation Sindoor was commenced, Modi hinted at the fact that India has only put on hold the military campaign, and that New Delhi does not consider it to be a “ceasefire” mediated by the United States.

Without naming the US, which also advocated for a dialogue between the two nuclear-armed neighbours at a “neutral site”, Modi said: “Today, I would also like to tell the global community that our stated policy has been: if there are talks with Pakistan, it will be only on terrorism; and if there are talks with Pakistan, it will be only on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).”

On Tuesday, Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India’s policy of treating the Kashmir dispute as a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan has not changed, implying that there is no role for countries like the US in this matter.

"We have a long-standing national position that any issues pertaining to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir have to be addressed by India and Pakistan bilaterally. That stated policy has not changed. As you are aware, the outstanding matter is the vacation of illegally occupied Indian territory by Pakistan,” Jaiswal said during a weekly presser.

But if India wants the UN to pay heed to New Delhi’s concerns and demands of proscribing terrorists in Kashmir then it will have to involve a third party. The UN, in return, might ask New Delhi to reinstate the office of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) created in 1949 to monitor the ceasefire line in J&K after the end of the first war between India and Pakistan in 1947-48.

India significantly trimmed down UNMOGIP’s presence in India in 2014 when it was asked to vacate its official premises located in New Delhi. The group currently runs a small office in Srinagar.

New Delhi had long argued that with the signing of the Simla Agreement of 1972 between India and Pakistan, which recognised the LoC as the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir, the presence of UNMOGIP has become irrelevant.

The Kashmir issue continues to face a similar dilemma even today. At that time India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took the Kashmir matter to the UN due to Pakistan’s continued support to the tribesmen and raiders, who, with support from the outgoing British, wanted to invade J&K. Militarily, all options were exhausted and thus Nehru submitted a memorandum to the UN Security Council on January 7, 1948, to consider the issue.

Today, India is facing a somewhat similar situation where it wants the world to recognise, admit and punish Pakistan for its constant support to foment terror in Kashmir. Despite reiterating the Kashmir issue as “bilateral”, New Delhi is also depending on the UN to list TRF as a global terrorist organisation for its nefarious activities in J&K. Therefore, India needs to now take every step concerning Kashmir bilaterally where daily reports of violent encounters between the terrorists and police have again become a daily event.

Nayanima Basu is a senior independent journalist.

[Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs, and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.]

blog