This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.
Once again, India and Pakistan are locked in conflict over Kashmir. A diplomatic crisis that started with a terrorist attack that killed 26 tourists, all but one of them Indian, became a fortnight of cross-border skirmishes and pugilistic posturing from New Delhi and Islamabad. India responded on May 7 with Operation Sindoor, a series of airstrikes apparently aimed at what India said were terrorist training camps, in which at least 31 people were reportedly killed. Pakistan has vowed revenge and launched its own deadly attacks. And so an old emnity is rekindled.
India and Pakistan have been at loggerheads over Kashmir virtually since partition in 1947. Its mixed population, its geography and, importantly, its history as what was known as a “princely state”, virtually guaranteed it. Princely states, which were not administered by the British Raj were given the choice of joining either independent India or the newly created Pakistan. Kashmir, ruled over by the Hindu maharaja Hari Singh, eventually joined India.
Hari Singh reportedly did so with some misgivings. The state he ruled over had a majority population of Muslims. But when the first conflict broke out at the end of 1947, with an invasion by Pakistani tribesmen looking to take control of Kashmir, he called on India for assistance and signed a deal temporarily incorporating the state into India pending a plebiscite – which never took place.
The first India-Pakistan war ended in 1949 with a UN-mandated ceasefire. A border was drawn through the state giving India roughly two-thirds control over Jammu and Kashmir, with Pakistan controlling the other third. Both sides have claimed the whole territory ever since.
Violence has broken out periodically in the intervening decades, characterised since the 1980s by insurgencies, which India routinely accuses Pakistan of backing – an accusation which Pakistan routinely denies. Groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) have carried out terror attacks in both Kashmir and India, including LeT’s 2008 Mumbai massacre in which 166 people were killed.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
Now the situation which the rest of the world has worried about for years, a conflict between two neighbouring nuclear armed powers, has begun to escalate with fears it might spiral out of control. Natasha Lindstaedt, an expert in international security, takes a look at the military – and nuclear– capabilities and policies of the two countries.
She writes that India has a far larger military (it’s ranked as one of the world’s top five military nations by Military Watch magazine, with Pakistan ranked ninth). The two countries have a roughly comparable nuclear arsenal. But while India has a “no first use” policy, Pakistan has never committed itself in this way, arguing it needs its nuclear arsenal to counter India’s larger conventional forces.
But even a small nuclear exchange between the two could kill more than 20 million people, writes Lindstaedt.
Part of the problem seems to be a complete lack of communications at the highest level. US president, Donald Trump, initially appeared reluctant to get involved, saying that he is “sure they’ll figure it out one way or the other … There’s great tension between Pakistan and India, but there always has been.” He is since reported to have offered to step in, an offer apparently politely rejected by New Delhi.
“What is needed now is robust, real-time crisis communication between the two nations,” write security experts Syed Ali Zia Jaffery of the University of Lahore and Nicholas Wheeler of the University of Birmingham. The problem is that there is no mechanism for that.
And as we know from the Cuban missile crisis, when the US and Soviet Union came very close to a nuclear exchange, it’s all too easy for mistakes to be made which could escalate a conflict between two nuclear powers into a conflagration.
After that crisis, the two leaders involved, John F. Kennedy and Nikita Krushchev, set up a communications link (which became known as the “hotline”) to enable direct communications. As Jaffery and Wheeler point out, this served to keep the rival powers from further dangerous confrontation (it even helped in bringing about arms treaties when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Mikhail Gorbachev was in the Kremlin.
Read more:
Why a hotline is needed to help bring India and Pakistan back from the brink of a disastrous war
For a deeper dive into the crisis and the long history of conflict between India and Pakistan, here are five essential reads, carefully curated for you by my colleague Matt Williams, senior international editor at The Conversation in the US.
Read more:
India-Pakistan strikes: 5 essential reads on decades of rivalry and tensions over Kashmir
Netanyahu’s Gaza plan
In the Middle East, meanwhile, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are planning to move in large numbers into Gaza with a plan to occupy the whole of the territory. The prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has described the move as a “forceful operation” which will destroy Hamas and rescue its remaining hostages. The remaining population of 2.1 million Palestinian civilians will be moved “to protect it”.
EPA-EFE/Haitham Imad
With more than 50,000 people dead in Gaza since the conflict began in October 2023, you have to say Israel’s attempts to protect civilians have been decidedly unsuccessful.
Leonie Fleischmann, senior lecturer in international politics at City St George’s, University of London, sees this as Israel’s next step towards clearing Gaza of Palestinians, something she says Netanyahu’s far-right enablers have been pushing for all along. But she also sees parallels with what is happening in the West Bank, where Israel is gradually annexing land occupied by Palestinians and mandated by the Oslo accords of the 1990s as part of a future Palestinian state.
The recent Louis Theroux documentary film showed the terrible circumstances under which Palestinians live on the West Bank, juxtaposing that with the determination of extreme Zionists to take over what they see as the land of their forefathers.
Fleischmann notes that this week, Israeli cabinet minister Bezalel Smotrich approved plans for construction on land in an area which, if given to settlers, would effectively cut the West Bank in two. This would, she says, “bury any remaining hope for a two-state solution”. Rather chillingly, Smotrich is quoted as saying: “This is how you kill the Palestinian state.”
Read more:
Israeli plan to occupy all of Gaza could open the door for annexation of the West Bank
Where would Palestinians go under Netanyahu’s plan? Well, if the Israeli prime minister shares Donald Trump’s vision of redeveloping Gaza as some sort of Middle Eastern “riviera”, they’d be dispersed into countries such as Egypt and Jordan.
This idea is a non-starter, writes Scott Lucas of University College Dublin. Lucas, a Middle East expert who has written regularly for us about Israel and Gaza and answered our questions about the situation. He says Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has definitively ruled out accepting a mass exodus of Palestinians via the Rafah crossing at Gaza’s southern end. And Jordan is equally unwilling to accept any more Palestinian refugees. Apart from anything else, it already has about 3 million.
As Lucas writes: “Any Arab government that takes in Gazans, even amid a humanitarian crisis, would be tacitly burying the idea of a Palestinian state. That would break a 77-year-old principle and resurrect the Nakba – the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948.”
Israel is unlikely to get much international support for such a move either, Lucas adds. Donald Trump is preoccupied with other things and, even if he weren’t, the rest of the international community would hardly stand for what would probably be seen as an act of ethnic cleansing on a massive scale.
But what do ordinary Israelis think of their government’s plans for Gaza? For most Israelis the paramount factor is their security. So far the Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza had enjoyed majority suppport for that reason and in the hope that somehow the conflict might lead to getting the remaining hostages home.
But the latest plan to take Gaza completely could scupper any hope of repatriating the hostages. And there are signs that many Israelis are getting tired of the constant crisis and conflict. There appears to be a growing appetite for peace.
Or so writes Yuval Katz of Loughborough University, who grew up in Israel but left eight years ago to pursue an academic career. He was recently home for the first time in two years and spent time contacting peace groups. Here is what he found.
Read more:
Israel’s peace movement offers a ray of hope amid the pain of Gaza conflict
World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.
