The conflict in Kashmir began in 1947 when Britain pulled out of India and separated the region into India and Pakistan. This pullout caused a vast migration of people to Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. When Hari Singh the local ruler choose to accede to India instead of Pakistan in return for armed support against invasion and revolts throughout the region in 1947. After this decision, it led to a two-year war to fight Indian rule in a majority Muslim area. The fighting continued in 1965 and 1999 by when both India and Pakistan had armed themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Although, Kashmir now operates with little support from Pakistan why is there a continued conflict in these quiet valleys even now?
To explain this conflict in the Realist perspective the state’s of India, Pakistan and Kashmir are the principal actors; they are unitary with one voice, individuals of each state do not affect their goals. It is the state officials who determine the interests of the state. Pakistan in support of Kashmir for independence from India to gain power, Kashmir for independence from India and to become a player in the international system or accession to Pakistan, and for India their goal is to maintain control of their land and stay in power in the region. The state’s actions are rational with the purpose of gaining power over one another. Anarchy defines these states relations, without one hegemonic state, Pakistan and India continually fighting to win control over Kashmir. Although, Kashmir militant groups have lost most of their support from Pakistan after the US and India forced their hand in 2002 (Burns). The international organizations that have tried to Also, due to the anarchy of the system, the state can only rely on themselves for protection, this forced Pakistan and India to build up military power steadily to protect themselves from all-out war (BBC News). States view the use of force as a useful tool to acquire power, Kashmir militant groups attacks against Indian soldiers and officials in support of Indian rule as an essential tool to become independent (Gettleman). The state’s of Kashmir and India are always under the threat of war and because of the continual use of force in the Kashmir region makes cooperation hard. State’s are also concerned about there power relative to other states because of this threat.
Kashmir militants are tired of being under India’s thumb and want to gain their independence. Because states are focused on relative gains, it is difficult for states to cooperate with the fear of cheating preventing it. Although Pakistan did back out and collaborated in a ceasefire, Kashmir militants have no intention of joining hands with India. A Realist would claim that this conflict continues today due to the dilemma that India wants to be the most powerful and keep control over Kashmir, and that Kashmir’s have the primary goal to build up their power to gain a position of dominance in the international system. Defensive Realists believe that wars rarely end up benefiting the state initiates it and that may be true but the continued need for power over one another makes war, or at least the shootouts between Kashmir natives and Indian “supporters” and police officers, seem like it will not end anytime soon.
In the Liberal perspective individuals and states are rational actors; however, the state is not a unitary actor. Individual people in a state can affect the goal of that state. Individual militants in Kashmir who post to social media draw more people to their cause (Gettleman 2018). The system is anarchic, but this is not the only thing that defines how these countries interact. It is not only that India or Kashmir wants to be the most powerful it is also about the state's relationships with other states, such as Pakistan’s history of support for Kashmir in its protest against India. The type of characteristics a state has, matter when they interact. The aspect of Kashmir and Pakistan being Muslim majorities is a significant factor in their alliance and the reasoning that Kashmir would accept becoming apart of Pakistan. The fact that India is a majorly Hindu country also helps to distance the Kashmiris from them. The difference in religion makes it easy for these countries to view themselves as separate. States also focus on absolute gains because the state is not solely interested in its power compared to another state.
The institutions in the international system and within states are important in affecting how states act and their interests as well. International institutions help to monitor state actions and work to prevent cheating a significant barrier in cooperation. The primary example of institutions working to help solve this issue is the UN. The UN took action in the year 1949 to put an end to the fight, established a ceasefire line and made a recommendation that Kashmir acceded to India (Hashim). The proposal was however ineffective at creating peace between Pakistan and Kashmir and India. Although Kashmir did accede to India in 1954, this is action did not stop the fighting (Hashim). Other measures of the UN like the mandated ceasefire of 1965 were also unable to prevent the third war between Pakistan and India from breaking out (Hashim). Many agreements have been signed and many promises made with the help of institutions, but it seems that Muslim Kashmir cannot accept the rule of a country that is Hindu. Some institutions have sanctioned the Pakistan and India in an attempt to end the nuclear device testing, and have been effective in stopping the tests in 1998 (Hashim). However, this has not entirely quashed the battles in Kashmir.
States have interests, relationships, and institutions that connect them to other states foster interdependence. This interdependence helps to prevent war as such action could be costly for the state. India, Pakistan, and Kashmir seem to have formed some relationship with a $7.6 bn gas pipeline project, and trade over the line between Indian Kashmir and Pakistan Kashmir in 2008 (Hashim 2014) State interact continuously over time, and this helps to build reciprocity and trust between states. While Pakistan and India communicate time and time again, and eventually Pakistan did withdraw its full support for the Kashmiri militants, this has not fostered reciprocity between Kashmir and India. The fact remains that Kashmir and India do not seem close to ceasing the fighting. With solo fighters in Kashmir inspiring others to act and the great distinction between the Muslim and Hindu communities, the struggle will go on.
In the Constructivist perspective, the main factor which defines the international system is anarchy like in other perspectives, the socially constructed identities and norms associated with a state, the distribution of ideas through discourse. The principal actors in the global system are a state’s people and individuals like Sameer Tiger who ignited the country with his efforts and led many boys to become militants like himself (Gettleman). The political elites and the state's culture are also key factors. Identities of nations are essential as they can explain actions that would not make sense if only power motivated the state. Much of Kashmiri actions can be described by the socially constructed identities that Kashmiris have against Indian officials and others suspected of supporting their rule. The most important is the Kashmiris identity that they are their own country that should be independent of “foreign” control (Gettleman). The identity that they Muslim is also vital to the motivation for the continued struggle. There is a strong belief that India does not have the right to control Kashmir as they do not share the same religious identities. When states have divergent identities, this may explain the conflict between them, and when states have convergent identities, this may also account for the peace or interdependence between them. This assumption is an ideal theory to explain the conflict in Kashmir. The Kashmiris have a shared or convergent identity with Pakistan and a divergent or dissimilar identity with India which makes it easy for the Kashmiris to side with Pakistan. Normative structures matter more than material in defining interactions. The long-standing expectations of behavior within a group are what’s important.
Kashmiris have an expectation that the actions of the Indian police will not ever be justified and have decided to take action. There is also an expectation that within the Kashmiri community everyone must support Kashmir’s independence. However, this is not the only stance people have; some support India’s rule for its promise of infrastructure and reliability (Gettleman). This support for India does not sit well the militants in Kashmir. Its legitimacy determines the power of a state to the world.
The best perspective to explain the conflict in Kashmir is in the Constructivist viewpoint.