A fragile peace was reached on May 10 between India and Pakistan after four tense days of escalation following India’s Operation Sindoor missile strikes, officially aimed at “terrorist infrastructure.” This recent conflagration follows the killing of at least twenty-six tourists and civilians by armed militants in the picturesque meadow of Pahalgam in Kashmir on April 22.
The dastardly attack on civilians in Pahalgam deserves to be condemned in no uncertain terms. However, actions taken in the name of “national security” by India have marginalized ordinary Kashmiris and fueled anger that has the potential to bring about further militancy.
The Kashmir conflict, though not a thousand years old, as Donald Trump has claimed, does have a long and tortuous history. The rulers of Kashmir, before, during, and after British colonization, have always considered the political aspirations of Kashmiris secondary to the geopolitical and strategic importance of the land.
The hollowing out of the Instrument of Accession (IOA) is a case in point. The local ruler, the Dogra Maharaja Hari Singh, signed the IOA when he capitulated and agreed that Kashmir would become part of India’s territory during the partition.
Central to the IOA was the constitutional provision of Article 370, which assured the Kashmiri people autonomy over all matters besides those pertaining to defense, external affairs, and communications. The article was supposed to be temporary and provisional because there was a promise of a referendum by which the people of Kashmir would decide…
Auteur: Avishek Konar
