Afrasianet - The India-Pakistan crisis has its roots in 1947, the year India gained independence from Britain, and is based on the division of India, with Kashmir remaining a disputed area between Pakistan and India. This crisis has escalated and calmed down over time.
But this crisis was quickly exploited by the West, especially the United States of America, to be an entry point for incitement and exploitation, which ensures the continuation of wars between the two countries for several reasons that the West deems necessary to keep the region in permanent chaos and to ensure control over its course, as well as targeting other countries that could be affected by these ongoing wars between the two countries, such as China and Russia, and perhaps targeting China more because of its long border with the two countries and the competition of India and China in particular, knowing that China shares with the two countries. With common interests, the most important of which are water and economic and military exchange, although the latter is greater than with Pakistan.
In the Iran-Iraq war, it was clear the large scale of foreign interventions, while the two countries paid a high price for this war, without leading to what can be said that one of them won over the other.
The approach may seem very similar to what is happening between India and Pakistan, but it is clear that there is more than one goal of war that the West, especially the United States, is looking for: to harm China.
New Delhi has taken-for-tat escalatory steps, blaming Pakistan for the terror attack in Bahlegam in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
Mutual diplomatic moves between the two sides, India's suspension of the Indus Water Agreement, and mutual military threats have changed the course of the crisis. The arrival of two nuclear powers to the brink of war is more than a crisis between two states or a regional crisis that concerns the region in which the two countries are located, but will have global repercussions.
The India-Pakistan crisis, emerging at a time when the world is reshaping power centers, moving from a unipolar to a multipolar world, can be assessed as a global development that global actors care more about than regional actors.
The competition between the United States and China in many areas, mainly trade, and the continuing crisis between the United States and Russia, although it has eased relatively with the assumption of the presidency of the United States, affect the regional and global positioning of other countries.
On the other hand, the global powers of the United States, China, and Russia, in the midst of their global rivalry, seek to develop strategic alliance relations with other countries, especially those that are strong in their regions, which are regional powers.
Looking at the India-Pakistan crisis from the perspective of a power struggle between world powers, we can conclude that the crisis is deeper than just a crisis between two countries.
Multipolarity
The multipolarity, which the United States accepts, has different characteristics than it was during the Cold War. During the Cold War, the world was divided between the United States and the Soviet Union. This division between them was ideological and geographical.
The "multipolar world" of the twenty-first century does not bear the characteristics of the geographical and ideological division of the Cold War period.
Therefore, the concepts of East and West, Global North and Global South, Western World and Non-Western World do not fully reflect the "multipolar world" system that is in the process of formation, whose contours are not yet clear, and which is progressing through many painful processes.
Although ideological blocs have completely collapsed, ideologies continue to exist. But the influence of ideologies is a topic of debate. Countries are moving towards more realistic politics because the world is more complex, more interdependent, and more fragmented.
The factors that will shape powerful geopolitical blocs in the future are: economy, technology, security, demography, culture, and civilization. These factors can create new alliances, rivalries, and balances of power in the international system.
Today's world is not divided between blocs, alliances, ideologies or poles. In today's world, the ranks are not as sharply separated, as they were during the Cold War.
For example, Vietnam cooperates with America against China in the military sphere, while siding with Russia on the Ukraine issue. Turkey supports Kiev in the Ukrainian war, and at the same time can play the role of mediator between Ukraine and Russia, and can play an active role by bringing the two countries together in agreements that concern the whole world, such as the grain agreement.
Another example is the Gulf states. Many Gulf states enjoy good relations with America, and at the same time they can sign important agreements with China in many areas such as energy.
All these examples show that the new "multipolar world order" has different characteristics from the old "bipolar world system".
The complex and chaotic situation in today's world in areas such as economics and security can be assessed as the labor pains of the transition to a multipolar world order.
These transitional crises will define the framework of the new world and shape the centers of power. The India-Pakistan crisis, occurring at such a critical time, could play a crucial role in shaping the multipolar world if it turns into war.
After the outbreak of the crisis between India and Pakistan, the United States, China and Russia warned against an escalation of the crisis and called for diplomacy and dialogue.
The US, China, and Russia's relations with India and Pakistan are shaped by the conditions imposed by the multipolar world order we have mentioned. Global trade lines, economy, trade, and technological wars play a major role in determining the relationship of global countries with other countries.
United States
America sees China as its biggest rival in the trade war that began again with Trump taking office. In this context, while US President Trump has raised tariffs at different rates by country, optimism has begun to emerge about the possibility of positive results from the ongoing tariff negotiations between the United States and its trading partners.
While the United States faces problems with China and Japan in Asia, rapprochement with India is an important development to focus on. US Treasury Secretary Scott Biscent has said that one of the first agreements to be struck could be with India.
As the US seeks to diversify its supply network, there are also news flows that American companies are shifting their investments to India.
Although the United States sees India as a country that will fill the vacuum that China will leave in the trade war, experts believe that India will not be able to fill the trade vacuum that China will leave in the short term.
Trade corridors play an important place in global conflict. America supports the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor ( IMEC) project to counter the Chinese-led Belt and Road project.
America sided with India in the crisis that arose from the clash between the Indian military and the Chinese army in eastern Ladakh in 2020.
Therefore, although America advocates diplomacy and dialogue in the crisis between India and Pakistan, it sees India as a key country in its rivalry with China.
People's Republic of China
China is alarmed by India's rise because of its development in trade and its technological advancement. In addition, India's strengthening of power at both the global and regional levels, which develops close ties with America and moves jointly with it in crises, troubles China.
When BRICS was first founded, it was valued as an alternative bloc against the Western bloc. India's presence among the founders of the BRICS with China was interpreted as India's siding with China against America.
But over time, it became clear that the BRICS is not an economic cooperation organization against America's West. Because on January 1, 2024, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and then Saudi Arabia joined the group. Therefore, China's presence with India in the BRICS is no reason to support the New Delhi government in the crisis with Pakistan.
Pakistan, on the other hand, is the key country in the Belt and Road project, in which China has invested billions of dollars.
China is showing through statements made in the India-Pakistan crisis that it supports the Islamabad government.
Russian Federation
Russian-Pakistani relations have been volatile since the Cold War. Pakistan stood against Moscow in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It supplied weapons to groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. After Russia's withdrawal from Afghanistan, relations between the two countries began to improve. Russia even promised support to Pakistan against the Taliban in 2007.
At this point, Russia and China are assessed as strategic allies moving jointly against America. However, the rivalry between China and Russia in Asia has been known since Soviet times.
China's rapprochement with Russia is the result of America's aggressive policies toward both countries. This rapprochement caused by America's policies does not mean that the two countries will abandon their rivalry in Asia.
Given the Ukrainian war operation, China, a strategic ally of Russia, has not provided military and diplomatic support to Russia that would bring victory to Moscow.
Therefore, it would be misleading to make an assessment based on Sino-Russian relations that Moscow will support Pakistan against India.
Because Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, instead of taking a clear position on the crisis, offered the two countries the possibility of mediating a solution to the problem.
What China Will Lose from the Crisis
Undoubtedly, the country most affected by a potential war between India and Pakistan is China. China, which has difficulty maintaining a balanced policy between India and Pakistan within the framework of its economic interests, could lose its global position, and its economic interests could be severely damaged in a potential war.
China, which expresses the principles of peaceful coexistence, is reluctant to be an active security and military player at the international level. In fact, an active role brings not only benefits, but also significant risks. In a potential war, China risks losing its image as a peaceful power that hates hegemony, power politics, and traditional big-power competition.
At the same time, China's neutrality often leads to positive results for one of the conflicting parties. In the current situation, the fact that Islamabad benefits from China's neutrality more than New Delhi cannot be ignored.
Although China strongly condemned the attack at Behalgham, it offered no support for India's claims, nor did it accept New Delhi's interpretation of events. Instead of embracing allegations linking Pakistan to the attack, Beijing supported the Pakistani government's call for a prompt and fair investigation.
China, on the other hand, is part of the Kashmir crisis between India and Pakistan. Because Kashmir is a divided region between India, Pakistan and China. Sino-Pakistani rapprochement also occurred across Kashmir.
In 1963, Pakistan handed over part of the territory of Kashmir to China. This was not accepted by India and was met with a reaction. Sino-Pakistani relations deepened with the handover of part of Kashmir's territory narrowed the distance between Beijing and New Delhi. This historic experience in Kashmir prevents Beijing from mediating a resolution of the crisis between India and Pakistan.
Xi Jinping announced the Belt and Road project in 2013. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is the most important pillar of this global project. This has allowed Beijing to have direct access to the Arabian Sea via the port of Gwadar, strengthening its position in this strategic region.
On the other hand, cooperation in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has provoked India's reaction to the implementation of some projects in the Kashmir region. Economic relations between the two countries have brought cooperation in the military and intelligence fields. Today, China is Pakistan's largest arms supplier.
New Delhi is concerned about the close defence and military ties between Islamabad and Beijing. Because the two sides agreed on joint training, transfer of military technology and exchange of intelligence.
Geopolitical and economic drivers drive China's share of Pakistan. The partnership with Islamabad helps Beijing put pressure on New Delhi and counterbalance India's growing regional ambitions.
At the same time, a strong and stable India does not necessarily conflict with China's interests. Despite insecurity and disagreements, India is one of China's largest trading partners.
The Indian domestic market offers great opportunities for Chinese exporters, and the presence of Chinese investors in the country has long been strong. Ironically, the conflict between India and Pakistan came at a time when Sino-Indian relations are beginning to improve.
The two countries recently agreed to reduce border tensions and resume joint border patrols and direct flights. The conflict in Kashmir could reverse this trend.
Therefore, relations between China, India, and Pakistan in Asia are intertwined in many areas, including the economy, the military, and technology. This relationship is built on balances sensitive to regional and global developments.
The main planner and executor of building this relationship is China. These economic, military, and intelligence relationships, which China has established with a lot of effort and money over the years, face a high risk of being damaged in a potential war.
Roots and causes
Over the decades, the India-Pakistan conflict has been the focus of complex regional and international conflicts, resulting in a series of wars and confrontations that have taken a heavy human and economic toll on both sides.
But in the world of international politics, where strategic interests overlap with economics and arms, a different question arises: Who is the real winner in this chronic conflict?
India not only lost aircraft, but also suffered a severe blow to its air prestige, and to the reputation of Western weapons, especially the French, which until recently were considered a tool of superiority
Direct losers: India and Pakistan
India and Pakistan are the first losers in this recurring conflict; each wave of escalation leads to mutual depletion of resources, impeding economic development, and increasing internal tensions.
These crises are reflected in the lives of citizens, who are paying the price in the form of deteriorating services and high military expenditures at the expense of infrastructure, health and education.
Indirect Losers: India and the Reputation of Western Arms
India, despite having one of the largest armies in the world, recently suffered losses of great symbolic and military dimension, after Pakistan announced the downing of Indian Rafale fighter jets, the first time this fighter jet was shot down in an actual confrontation. Surprisingly, Pakistan has used Chinese-made J-10C fighter jets, reshaping the image of the military balance in South Asia.
India not only lost aircraft, but also suffered a severe blow to its air prestige and to the reputation of Western weapons, especially the French, which until recently were considered a tool of superiority.
This incident is likely to have an impact on future Indian arms deals, and boosts developing countries' confidence in Chinese weapons as a highly efficient and low-cost alternative.
China: Indirect Winner
China is one of the main beneficiaries of the conflict, albeit indirectly. On the one hand, it supplies Pakistan with weapons, mainly JF-17 fighter jets and defense systems, which constitutes free propaganda for China's military industries on international markets. On the other hand, Beijing benefits from India's preoccupation with its border conflicts with Pakistan or China itself (as in the 2020 Galwan Valley incident), which weakens its ability to compete economically and technically with China.
Amid this grand game, the people of Kashmir remain the most prominent victims, living in a perpetual state of isolation, oppression and instability.
Traditional winners: the United States and Russia
The United States is good at playing on the ropes between the two sides. By strengthening military cooperation with India within the framework of the QUAD alliance, and on the other hand, maintaining a limited intelligence or military relationship with Pakistan, Washington ensures its continued influence in South Asia. It also uses conflict as a justification to market its modern weapons and equipment.
Russia, India's traditional ally, continues to export arms to both sides, with a greater inclination toward New Delhi, giving Moscow considerable political and economic room for maneuver.
Allies of the Parties: A Map of Influence
The conflict is not limited to India and Pakistan, but has expanded to include a network of international and regional allies who play varying roles in steering the balances.
Pakistan's list of allies includes China as a primary political, military and economic backer, in addition to Turkey, which adopts positions in support of Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, and North Korea, which has had secret military relations with Islamabad in previous periods. Saudi Arabia is also emerging as a strategic ally that supports economically and militarily, along with a number of Arab countries that tend to support Pakistan in its Islamic and international positions.
In contrast, India relies on broader alliances that include the United States, which sees it as an important partner in countering Chinese influence, as well as Russia, which supplies it with advanced weapons. India also enjoys political and economic support from the European Union, within the framework of the Economic and Technical Partnership, which strengthens its position as a rising power in the international system.
In the India-Pakistan conflict, the real winners seem not to be in the line of fire, but in capitals that sell weapons and quietly redraw power maps.
Silent Victims: Kashmir and Local Economies
Amid this grand game, the people of Kashmir remain the most prominent victims, living in a permanent state of isolation, oppression and instability. Local economies in both countries are also being hit, with vast resources going towards armaments, while opportunities for growth and development are declining.
A war without a direct winner
In modern warfare, the winner is not the one who achieves a field victory, but the one who makes good use of the results of the battle.
In the India-Pakistan conflict, the real winners seem not to be in the line of fire, but in capitals that sell weapons and quietly redraw the maps of influence, such as Beijing, Washington and Moscow. The losers are those who pay blood and money without achieving lasting peace or decisive superiority.
The Kashmir issue in brief. India-Pakistan conflict complex
Since the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act on July 17, 1947, ending British rule, and a month later the decision to partition the Indian subcontinent, the Kashmir issue has emerged as a knot between the newly formed states of India and Pakistan.
The partition resolution ensured that Muslim-majority states would join Pakistan, and Hindu-majority states would join India, with states joining according to the wishes of the population, taking into account the geographical divisions of each emirate.
The partition decision passed without any difficulties in all but three states: Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir, in the Emirate of Junagadh, its Muslim ruler decided to join Pakistan despite the presence of a Hindu majority in the emirate, but in front of the opposition of the majority, Indian forces entered and held a referendum that ended with the emirate's accession to India.
The same thing happened in Hyderabad, where Indian forces intervened on September 13, 1948, making them acquiesce to join India.
Kashmir was in a different position from the previous two emirates, with its Hindu ruler Hari Singh deciding to join India, ignoring the desire of the Muslim majority to join Pakistan and ignoring previous British rules of partition.
But his fear of the reaction of the Muslim street prompted him to submit a treaty to the two countries to keep the situation as it is, and Pakistan accepted the treaty, while India rejected it.
The first armed fighting between Kashmiris and Indian forces broke out in 1947 that resulted in India occupying two-thirds of the state, then the United Nations intervened in the conflict, and the Security Council passed a resolution on August 18, 1948 providing for a ceasefire and a referendum to determine the fate of the territory.
The United Nations proposed that Muslim-majority parts that share a boundary of Pakistani sovereignty with Pakistan and that other parts with a Hindu majority that share a border with India join Indian sovereignty, but this resolution remained a dead letter and did not find its way to implementation.
In 1965 tensions between the two sides returned, and Pakistan tried to support Kashmiri fighters, but events spiraled out of control.
Armed fighting between the regular armies of India and Pakistan took place in September 1965 along their border, in which neither was a decisive victory, and international efforts ended with a cease-fire treaty between the two sides.
The following year, the then Soviet Union tried to intervene in the ongoing conflict and arranged a reconciliation conference in January 1966 in Tashkent, but the conference ended in failure.
Fighting between the two neighbours resumed in the early seventies after Pakistan accused India of supporting East Pakistan (Bangladesh) in its secession bid.
A new war broke out in 1971 in which the military balance tilted in India's favor and it was able to achieve military victories on the ground, resulting in the secession of East Pakistan from Pakistan to form the Republic of Bangladesh.
This round of wars changed Pakistan's military strategic thinking and plunged the two countries into an arms race in which the announcement of their respective nuclear weapons was the most important milestone.
After this war, things seemed to be heading towards a negotiated solution, which actually happened in 1972 when the Treaty of Shamla was signed, which stipulated that the ceasefire line signed between the two sides on December 17, 1971, would be considered an armistice line between the two countries.
Under the agreement, India retained some of the Pakistani territory it controlled after the 1971 war, as well as the territory it controlled.
It was until April 1987 that an armed uprising erupted in Kashmir following India's "rigging" of the 1987 elections, which soon turned to armed struggle.
1990 saw the beginning of an insurgency against Indian rule by young Kashmiri fighters who were motivated by the idea of Kashmir independence and supported militarily and politically by Pakistan.
The militants carried out numerous qualitative operations against the Indian army, which responded with excessive force against civilians each time.
The two countries tried many times to reach an agreement to resolve the crisis between them, but each agreement carried factors that exploded it, and several agreements were announced between the two countries to settle all outstanding files, including the Kashmir issue, but none of them had the opportunity to be implemented on the ground.
But what happened in July 1999 brought things back to square one, as Kashmiri militants managed to infiltrate the Indian part of Kashmir and occupy the peaks of Kargill, and India considered the incident a "stab in the back", massing its forces in the area and managing to retake it.
Afterwards, the leaders of the two countries held a summit in the Indian city of Agra, but the summit failed due to the different positions of the two countries on the settlement.
The attack on the Indian parliament on December 13, 2001 also contributed to a rise in tensions between the two countries, and India escalated militarily and threatened an all-out confrontation with Pakistan under the pretext of eliminating "terrorist" bases in Pakistani Kashmir.
Despite mutual visits between officials of the two countries, no solution was reached to the issue, which remained an obstacle to any peace negotiations between them, and statements were issued by the two countries confirming that "the Kashmir issue represents the core of their differences."
The importance of Kashmir Kashmir represents a strategic importance for India that has made it very attached to it, as it considers it a strategic security depth for it vis-à-vis China and Pakistan.
It sees it as a geographical extension and an important natural barrier to Pakistan's philosophy of governance, which it considers religiously based, threatening the internal situation in India.
If India allows Kashmir independence on religious or ethnic grounds, it will open a door that it cannot close to many Indian states.
As for Pakistan, Kashmir is a vital area for its security, as there are two main roads and a railway network in Sarhad and northeastern Punjab running along Kashmir.
Three major rivers of agriculture originate in Pakistan from the Kashmiri territory, making the occupation of India a direct threat to Pakistan's water security.
Relentless struggle. Why are India and Pakistan fighting over Kashmir?
India's Supreme Court has upheld the Indian government's decision to revoke the semi-autonomy of the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir has re-highlighted the long and bitter conflict between India and Pakistan.
The state of "Jammu and Kashmir" is part of the Kashmir region located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, on the border of Pakistan and China, which is divided into 3 main regions, the largest of which is "Jammu and Kashmir" under the administration of India with a population of 10 million people, and the "Free Kashmir State" under the administration of Pakistan with a population of 3 million, and the third region called "Aksai Chin" is controlled by China and is uninhabitable as it is arid icebergs.
The roots of the conflict
The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, which is rich in natural resources and picturesque nature, dates back to 1947, after Great Britain passed the Indian Subcontinent Independence Act proposing to divide it into three main districts:
First, it includes the Hindu-majority provinces of Bombay, Madras, Bihar, Orissa, and the central provinces (the regions that formed India after independence).
Second, it includes the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab, Sindh, the North-West Frontier and Balochistan (Pakistan).
Third, they include Hindu-majority Assam and Muslim-majority Bengal, which in 1971 became Bangladesh.
Kashmir had the choice between joining India or Pakistan.
At that time, the territory was under the rule of the Hindu Maharaja, Hari Singh, although the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims, and Singh was reluctant to announce his accession to India or Pakistan, which prompted the Muslims of the state to rebel against his authority, demanding Pakistan's support to join it, so Singh only asked for help from India, and she agreed after signing the document requesting to join it, and on the same day India worked to stop the advance of the Pakistan-backed tribes.
After Singh signed the document, India considered the territory to be part of it, while Pakistan held that the Maharaja had violated an agreement he had signed with it to maintain the status quo until the future status of the province was agreed, deeming the document illegal.
Relentless wars and tensions
The dispute over the sovereignty of the region led to the outbreak of 3 wars between India and Pakistan, the first of which was in 1947 that resulted in the occupation of India for a third of it, so the United Nations intervened, and the Security Council issued a resolution stipulating a ceasefire and a referendum to determine the fate of the region, but it remained ink on paper, to return and war broke out between the two countries in 1965 and 1971.
In 1972, the two countries signed the Treaty of Shamla, which stipulated that the ceasefire line signed between the two sides in December 1971 was an armistice line between the two countries, under which India and Pakistan retained the territory they controlled after the 1971 war.
Since 1989, separatists have been locked in battles with Indian forces in the state of Maju and Kashmir, seeking to merge them with Pakistan or independence, and the conflict has killed tens of thousands, mostly civilians, and prompted India to deploy more than half a million troops on its side of the border.
Among the most prominent phases of the conflict between the two countries were the events of Kargil in 1999 (during which period, India and Pakistan declared it a nuclear power), and the events in Mumbai in 2008, which led to a significant deterioration in relations between the two countries.
In 2019, India's Home Minister Amit Shah announced that the president had signed a decree repealing Article 370 of the constitution, which has granted special autonomy to the Himalayan state of Jammu and Kashmir since 1974.
Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has rejected India's revocation of the constitutional status of the disputed mandate, saying the move is a violation of the UN resolution and that Pakistan will intensify diplomatic efforts to revoke the presidential decision.
The Pakistani government announced at the time the expulsion of the Indian ambassador in Islamabad and the suspension of trade with New Delhi, and Pakistan also raised the level of alert among its forces, while deciding to refer the issue of Kashmir to the Security Council.
But India's foreign ministry stressed that "the events related to Article 370 of the Constitution are a completely internal Indian affair" and condemned Pakistan's "unilateral moves".
The revocation of limited autonomy for the state of Maju and Kashmir was accompanied by the imposition of direct authority by New Delhi, mass arrests, the complete closure of the state and the cutting of communications for a month, as India reinforced its armed forces in the region to contain the protests.
A number of individuals and political parties have filed several petitions with the Supreme Court, calling the decision of the Narendra Modi government "unconstitutional".
Importance of the territory
On Monday, India's Supreme Court called the Modi government's decision "the culmination of the merger process and therefore a legitimate exercise of power."
The court also ordered elections in the state next year, stressing that it should be equalized with other Indian states "as soon as possible", with voting to be held no later than September 30, 2024.
The court's decision was called "historic and a glimmer of hope, a promise of a better future and a testament to our collective determination to build a stronger, more united India."
Both India and Pakistan claim full territorial rule, and each relies on a combination of historical and demographic evidence to support its claims.
India's interest in the Kashmir region and its fight for it stems from the fact that it considers it a strategic security depth for it, as it is linked to the balance of power in South Asia, and the balance of power between India and China, and it fears that the independence of the state of Magu and Kashmir on religious or ethnic grounds will open the appetite of other Indian states to take the same step.
As for Pakistan, Kashmir is a vital area for its border and water security, as it has two main roads along Kashmir as well as a railway network, and secondly, its agriculture depends on the water of the three rivers that originate from Kashmiri territory.
In conclusion: The Indian-Pakistani conflict is no longer confined between the two countries, as the overlapping of intertwined global interests and the conflict over these interests confirms that external interventions will remain a reason for the renewal of these wars between India and Pakistan, in the hope that their results will be in favor of the interveners, especially in light of the current wars, which are not limited to military wars, but take several aspects, including wars for information control, trade wars, supply chains, export, competition for damaged metals, and others, while the biggest loser is both countries, India. and Pakistan.