Last week, India made a controversial decision to revoke the special status of the disputed region of Kashmir and sent thousands of troops to quell any potential unrest. The Muslim-majority territory has been a major source of tension between India and Pakistan since it was partitioned between the two countries (the Indian side is known as Jammu and Kashmir) in 1947. Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s move prompted loud protests from Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and other Pakistani leaders and increased tensions between the two nuclear powers. Meanwhile, the voices of Kashmiris have largely been unheard, as government authorities cut off almost all communication from the area. USIP’s South Asia experts discuss what led India to make this decision now, how Pakistan has responded, and what the U.S. can do to help mitigate tensions.

A protest against the ending of Kashmir's limited autonomy in Srinagar, India, Aug. 12, 2019. (Atul Loke/The New York Times)
A protest against the ending of Kashmir's limited autonomy in Srinagar, India, Aug. 12, 2019. (Atul Loke/The New York Times)

What led to India’s decision to remove Jammu and Kashmir’s special status? What’s going on there now?

Singh: Though there is some question about the precise timing, the Modi government had long planned to change Kashmir’s status in an effort to integrate the restive region. Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party have long viewed Kashmir’s exemption from several provisions of the Indian constitution as an obstacle to stability and development that facilitated extremism and terrorism. 

India views this decision as a strictly internal matter, but concerns about some developments in the region may have been a factor in the timing. In particular, accelerating U.S. efforts to broker a peace deal with the Taliban and withdraw from Afghanistan remind Indian leaders of the Pakistan-backed insurgency that erupted in Kashmir in the early 1990s after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. Leaders in Delhi believe Pakistan will again ratchet up the pressure through Kashmiri proxies when the Taliban return to Afghanistan (whether under a peace deal or after a U.S. withdrawal). Making Kashmir a union territory is seen as a way to remake politics there and help manage any increase in extremism. To bolster the legitimacy of their decision, the Modi government sought and received parliamentary approval with more than a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

In terms of the situation now, the Indian government took unprecedented security measures along with the announcement. These included evacuating tourists; cutting of phone, internet and television service; instituting curfews; and preemptively detaining an unknown number of residents including current and former political leaders. The government claims these steps were needed to protect human life and prevent anything like the violence that claimed dozens of lives in 2016. Many Indian media outlets are reporting from Kashmir and showing calm, including on Indian Independence Day. Average Kashmiri citizens and their detained leaders, however, can mostly not be contacted. 

The Indian Supreme Court delayed any action on a claim that the move is unconstitutional for two weeks. Whether the government can normalize the situation and lift the extraordinary security measures will be a key indicator of how their dramatic action will actually play out. While engaging in substantial diplomatic efforts to explain the move to neighbors, Indian leaders have mostly ignored Pakistani complaints.

How has Pakistan responded?

Cookman: Pakistani leaders from across the political spectrum have harshly condemned India’s move to revoke Kashmir’s special constitutional status, describing it as a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions meant to govern the territory’s disputed status. Prime Minister Khan and top military leaders have huddled several times to plan Pakistan’s response, and have issued multiple statements denouncing the Modi government’s actions and vowing to counter it. 

Khan has raised warnings about a heightened risk of war and terrorism, but has placed the onus on India, accusing it of seeking to scapegoat Pakistan for the domestic reaction within Kashmir to its own internal crackdown, and denying that Pakistan would seek to initiate a conflict. Indian officials in turn have justified their move in part as a response to Pakistan-sponsored militancy in Kashmir. Cross-border exchanges of fire between the two militaries along the Line of Control have been ongoing, although thus far not at levels indicating dramatic new mobilizations.
So far, the overt Pakistani response has primarily been symbolic or diplomatic in nature. Public statements by Khan and other civilian and military leaders appear aimed as much for foreign consumption as domestic, as Pakistan seeks to mobilize international support and avert a fait accompli change in the status quo by its larger neighbor. Khan and other foreign ministry officials have reached out to a range of allies to seek support, including China, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the U.S. and U.K. China has supported Pakistan’s call for a closed-door U.N. Security Council meeting on the issues.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has downgraded diplomatic ties with New Delhi, recalling its ambassador and blocking the posting of his Indian counterpart. It has also cut rail links and imposed partial overflight restrictions, and suspended bilateral trade; although the volume involved was minimal from the perspective of both economies, closer trade linkages have often been cited as a potential avenue for the eventual normalization of relations.

What role can the U.S. play in de-escalating tensions over the standoff on Kashmir? 

Olson: As the U.S. has recently learned the hard way, the possibilities of a formal mediation of the Kashmir dispute are virtually nil, since India denies that there is any international dimension to the dispute and rejects any third-party role. Public posturing notwithstanding, Pakistan understands that adamant India opposition makes a visible U.S. role impossible. Any more public offers of mediation would simply undercut whatever credibility the U.S. retains. 
Given that reality, the first priority for U.S. policymakers and diplomats is to make clear to Pakistan that it should resist any temptation to support proxy forces in cross border attacks. In fact, the U.S. should urge Pakistan to continue its crackdown on Lashkar-e-Taiba and other militant groups pointing out that any retrogression will have a severe impact on both bilateral ties—which are gradually improving—as well as support for Pakistan in multilateral financial institutions. These demarches will be complicated by the ongoing need to also support a peace process in Afghanistan, which Pakistan rightly perceives gives them leverage over the U.S. Nonetheless, the need to avoid a possible clash between nuclear power states requires the U.S. to take a strategic view and push Pakistan to eschew proxy warfare on both fronts.  
That said, given the inflamed situation in the Kashmir Valley and despite U.S. pressure, it is likely that there will be violent attacks, and some may be traced back to militants based in Pakistan. Should such an outrage occur, Washington should not shy away from its traditional role as the de facto crisis manager; the U.S. should play a quiet “good offices” role to urge de-escalatory actions on both sides and press Pakistan to rein in violent actors. This requires low-key diplomacy at a local level, coordinated between our embassies in Islamabad and Delhi supported by Washington. Over time, such quiet diplomacy might facilitate some kind of a discreet back-channel dialogue between Islamabad and Delhi.

Related Publications

Extending Constitutional Rights to Pakistan’s Tribal Areas

Extending Constitutional Rights to Pakistan’s Tribal Areas

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

By: Umar Mahmood Khan; Rana Hamza Ijaz; Sevim Saadat

When Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas were officially merged into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province in May 2018, the five million residents of the former tribal areas acquired the same constitutional rights and protections—including access to a formal judicial system—as Pakistan’s other citizens. This report, based on field research carried out by the authors, explores the status of the formal justice system’s expansion, finding both positive trends and severe administrative and capacity challenges, and offers recommendations to address these issues.

Type: Special Report

Justice, Security & Rule of Law

India, Pakistan choke on their smog. Can they clear the air?

India, Pakistan choke on their smog. Can they clear the air?

Monday, March 29, 2021

By: Jumaina Siddiqui; Zaara Wakeel

South Asia’s extreme smog worsens each winter, helping to kill an estimated 1.2 million Indians and 128,000 Pakistanis annually—more than have died in either country from the COVID virus. As pollution this past winter exacerbated the pandemic, India’s and Pakistan’s governments responded with mutual blame. Yet COVID, and a sudden moment of détente between these bitter rivals, could offer an opportunity to address the smog crisis, and build rare collaboration with the only strategy that can work: a joint one. The governments, their U.S. and international allies and civil society should use this chance to jumpstart such an effort.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment

Pakistan: A Rising Women’s Movement Confronts a New Backlash

Pakistan: A Rising Women’s Movement Confronts a New Backlash

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

By: Aleena Khan

Thousands of women rallied across Pakistan on International Women’s Day this year and demanded an end to violence against women and gender minorities. In the days since, Pakistan’s Taliban movement has escalated the threats facing the women who marched. Opponents of women’s rights doctored a video of the rally to suggest that the women had committed blasphemy—an accusation that has been frequently weaponized against minorities in Pakistan and has resulted in vigilantes killing those who are targeted.

Type: Analysis and Commentary


Pakistan Senate Election Upsets Government Efforts to Solidify Power

Pakistan Senate Election Upsets Government Efforts to Solidify Power

Wednesday, March 10, 2021

By: Tamanna Salikuddin; Jumaina Siddiqui; Adnan Rafiq; Colin Cookman; Ambassador Richard Olson

Pakistan held indirect elections on March 3 for the Senate, its upper house of Parliament, which is elected by sitting legislators in the National Assembly (the lower house of Parliament) and each of the provincial assemblies. Given the typically party-line vote, Pakistani Senate elections tend to be mundane affairs, with the results often preordained. However, in last week’s elections the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, despite having a numerical majority in the national and provincial assemblies, failed to forestall defections among some lawmakers and in doing so failed to take control of the Senate from the opposition.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & Governance

View All Publications