It is ironical that the global powers are celebrating the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, while unleashing new wars in Gaza, Ukraine and the Indo-Pak border. Both the US and Russia in the west, and India and Pakistan in the south have succeeded in proving wrong the utterances of two philosophers. First, the statement by Karl Marx : “…all great events and personalities in world history reappear … the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce.” (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. 1852). Today, history is continuously repeating itself by replicating the tragedies of the past, instead of providing any space for farce. Second, the famous words of George Santayana (1863-1952): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Both Trump and Putin are definitely `remembering’ one part of the past by hosting gala parties celebrating the victory over Hitler, but are at the same time `repeating’ another part of the same past by replicating Hitler’s strategy and tactics in Gaza and Ukraine respectively. Similarly in our part of the subcontinent, Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif are remembering and reviving the vicious past of mutual hostilities and repeating the same old acts – pumping up war hysteria and jingoism leading to border skirmishes resulting in the killing of innocent citizens on both sides of the border. There seems to be an unwitting and indirect collaboration between the intelligence agencies and armed forces of both the states which is bringing about the destruction of lives and properties. It has become unstoppable. Both the personnel of ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) in Pakistan and of the NSA (National Security Agency) in India have developed stakes in continuing the confrontation, as it fuels their respective interests and guarantees their permanent preeminence in decision making of the two states.
Besides, we have to take into account that over the two states is looming large the huge military-industrial complex of the US and Russia, with China creeping in. These global powers are keeping alive their respective armaments manufacturing units and making them profitable by exporting all types of military equipment to the two warring states in South Asia. As long as the Indo-Pak skirmishes continue, the better for Washington, Kremlin and Beijing. For instance, India’s imports of defence equipment from the US rose from just around 1.0% in 2006-10 to over 10% in 2020-24. Similarly in the case of Pakistan during the same period, China’s exports of military hardware to that country rose from 36% to 81%.
President Trump’s role in war games
In such a situation where the continuation of Indo-Pak military conflicts serves the interests of the military industrial complex and fills it treasury, why is President Trump all of a sudden appearing as a peace-maker ? While Trump’s regular war-mongering blustering speeches are usually dismissed as his egoist attempts at self-promotion, this time however he proved effective by brokering talks between India and Pakistan and bringing about a ceasefire. This he did by threatening both Modi and Sharif with trade embargo unless they ended the hostilities. As he later told reporters at White House on May 12: “I said (to the Indian and Pakistani leadership), let’s stop it. If you stop it, were doing trade. If you don’t stop it, we’re not going to do any trade”. This blunt warning worked. Commercial deals through trade benefit the US as well as India and Pakistan. Such benefits prevail over military victories. After all, as the old saying goes: `Money talks.’ Once both the prime ministers realized that they would be starved of such benefits, they cowed down. While Pakistan’s prime minister Shehbaz Sharif has been frank enough in paying tribute to Trump for his intervention in solving the dispute, the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi in his usual style of braggadocio has dismissed such foreign intervention, and claimed instead that it was the DGMO (Director General of Military Operations) of Pakistan who called his Indian counterpart at 3.35 p.m. requesting a ceasefire.
But the stark facts reject Modi’s tall claims. Trump announced the cease fire even before it was officially signed by the two governments, revealing the power that he yields over both Islamabad and New Delhi. The Indian prime minister Narendra Modi dismissed reports of such intervention by boasting that he alone agreed to the ceasefire as he had finished off the main terrorist hideouts in Pakistan. But the fact that terrorist attacks are still continuing disputes his tall boasting. Let us look back at the sequence of events leading up to the declaration of the May 10 ceasefire. They give the lie to Modi’s claims. Soon after the initiation of Operation Sindur on May 7, the next day the US Secretary of State and NSA (National Security Advisor ) Marco Rubio spoke to Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. On May 9, US Vice-President J.D. Vance spoke to Modi. A day later on May 10, Marco Rubio spoke to India’s NSA Ajit Doval. A few hours later on the same day, the ceasefire agreement was signed. The co-incidence is not surely accidental. Even though the contents of the conversation between the US and Indian heads of states and officials have not been revealed, one cannot escape the speculation that it was pressure from the US that led Modi to retreat from his pledge to continue the war. As a face saving device, he claimed that he agreed to the ceasefire because his objective of destroying terrorist camps in Pakistan had been achieved. But his claim is being proved wrong every day. Even after the declaration of ceasefire, cross border skirmishes continue with Pakistani drones invading Jammu and killing civilians, as reported on May 13.
Kashmir – the sore on the Indo-Pak body politic
If we trace the roots of this perpetual hostility between India and Pakistan, we have to go back to the Kashmir imbroglio. The unsolved problem of Kashmir continues to plague Indo-Pak relations. The policies adopted by the Indian government all through the last decades have eroded the sovereignty (although limited) that Kashmir was granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Whether under the Congress or the BJP government at the Centre, New Delhi had always interfered in Kashmir’s domestic politics, either by manipulating elections or by replacing one chief minister by another who would be more amenable to the Centre’s directives.
The latest move by the Modi government to abrogate Article 370 has become the proverbial last straw that breaks the camel’s back. It has turned the already alienated Kashmiri people into total antagonists. What is even more dangerous is that this will pave the way for Pakistan and its terrorist outfits to exploit the disgruntlement of the Kashmiri youth. There is the likelihood of rising tide of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.
Towards a lasting solution
If we have to seek a lasting cure for this perpetual sore on the Indo-Pak body politic, we may explore two avenues of political medication – diplomatic and surgical. Both can be prescribed and followed simultaneously. First, to tackle the root cause – the Kashmir imbroglio – it may be wise to revive the old proposal that was initially agreed to by Jawaharlal Nehru, but who later withdrew it under pressures from his party colleagues. This was the proposal for holding a plebiscite in Kashmir to assess the choices of the people there. On April 21, 1948 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 47, which while recommending plebiscite, proposed a three-step process to pave way for it. First, Pakistan was required to withdraw its fighters – the raiders who invaded Kashmir. Second, India was required to progressively reduce its armed forces from the state. Third, India was asked to appoint a plebiscite administrator nominated by the UN who would conduct a free and impartial plebiscite there. Both India and Pakistan objected to the UN proposal, and it thus remained frozen on paper.
Sometime later in 1953, Nehru signed a joint communiqué with his then Pakistan counterpart M.A. Bogra, agreeing to a plebiscite in Kashmir. But Nehru backed out after Pakistan signed a military pact with the US in 1954. He feared that this would embolden Pakistan to influence the Kashmiri people to vote in its favour. Since then, Kashmir had remained in a perpetual state of military tension, a battlefield between India and Pakistan – its people denied their right to choose their option.
Today, India and Pakistan should agree to hold a plebiscite in both parts of Kashmir – one described as POK (Pak-Ooccupied Kashmir) by India and Azad Kashmir by Pakistan, and the other part which is the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian territory – to assess the choices of the people living there. Do they want to remain divided living under the two warring regimes ? Or, do they want an independent status as a separate state ? Such a plebiscite can be conducted under the supervision of an independent UN appointed committee consisting of jurists, diplomats and other eminent experts from the West, Middle East as well as the Indian sub-continent, who have been specializing in the field of Indo-Pak relations.
At the same time, on the front of surgical operations, it must be ensured that Pakistan on its own dismantles the terrorist camps inside POK and other parts of its territory, instead of inviting military retaliation from India targeting these camps – thus creating a perpetual conflict zone. Simultaneously there should be a reduction in army control over civil society in India’s Jammu and Kashmir. This will allow the creation of a comfortable and independent environment in which the Kashmiri people on both sides of the border will feel free to express their choices if a plebiscite is held.
Sumanta Banerjee is a political commentator and writer, is the author of In The Wake of Naxalbari’ (1980 and 2008); The Parlour and the Streets: Elite and Popular Culture in Nineteenth Century Calcutta (1989) and ‘Memoirs of Roads: Calcutta from Colonial Urbanization to Global Modernization.’ (2016).
