The recent escalation of violence and terror activities in Kashmir is not a mere coincidence; it aligns closely with Pakistan’s deep-seated frustration over its exclusion from prominent international platforms, most recently the BRICS summit. The sidelining of Pakistan in global and regional alliances underscores its diminishing influence and its inability to participate meaningfully in high-level economic and strategic dialogues. To reassert its relevance, Pakistan seems to have reverted to a long-familiar tactic: destabilizing Kashmir to draw international attention and create insecurity within India.
Pakistan’s Agenda Behind Reviving Terror in Kashmir
Pakistan’s frustration isn’t limited to diplomatic isolation alone. The high voter turnout in Kashmir’s recent elections has likely unsettled Pakistan further, as it suggests a renewed commitment from the people of Kashmir toward peaceful civic engagement and stability within the framework of the Indian Union. This shift represents a rejection of Pakistan’s narrative and casts doubt on its claim of Kashmiri discontent with Indian governance. As such, a resurgence of violence orchestrated from across the border serves as a deliberate move to disrupt this evolving peace, undermine the credibility of democratic institutions, and paint a false picture of instability in the region.
Cross-Border Terrorism as a Tool of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy
India’s stance on Pakistan is uniquely hardened by Islamabad’s open support for terror activities directed at Kashmir. Over the years, Pakistan has consistently leveraged proxy groups to further its agenda in the region, using violence as a method to challenge India’s sovereignty. This tactic is unique to Pakistan, as India’s relationships with other neighboring countries—China included—are primarily shaped by border disputes rather than active state-sponsored terrorism.
From the 26/11 Mumbai attacks to attacks in Pathankot and Uri, Pakistan’s hand in harboring and enabling terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) has long been acknowledged globally. These groups are not only present in Pakistan but operate with impunity, often receiving support from powerful factions within the Pakistani establishment. This support has created a direct and ongoing security threat to India, making it impossible for India to view Pakistan as a viable partner for dialogue or cooperation as long as terrorism remains an active component of its policy.
Farooq Abdullah’s Remarks: Misguided and Mistimed
Farooq Abdullah, often driven by habit, has a reputation for making unnecessary and offbeat statements. His recent remarks seem to reflect either a fear of accusations against Omar Abdullah or a desire to stay relevant in the media. However, when there is a strong, widespread opposition to the BJP across Kashmir, his statements against the party feel out of place and mistimed. Furthermore, his attempt to blame the recent attacks on security arrangements is not only misguided but also seems like a failed attempt to shift focus from the real issues at hand. Rather than addressing the core security challenges or offering constructive solutions, this statement risks coming off as a deflection. On the other hand, there’s also a reference to the BJP leader’s absurd claim labeling the National Conference as a terrorist organization, which itself is laughable. Farooq Abdullah’s remarks appear to lack any real impact, and neither the public nor the political climate seems to take them seriously.
Economic Realities: Why India Chooses Engagement with China Over Pakistan
India’s relationships with its neighbors are influenced by pragmatic assessments of economic and political stability. With China, India shares a massive $135 billion trade relationship, creating a powerful economic incentive to maintain open communication channels despite unresolved border disputes. China’s stable government and established economy make it a challenging yet calculable partner for India.
Pakistan, by contrast, lacks any comparable economic offering. Its recent economic turmoil, marked by a 31% food inflation rate and a severe foreign currency crisis, only underscores its weakened standing. Pakistan’s decision to cut trade ties with India in 2019, following the revocation of Article 370, has done little to harm India but has increased economic pressure within Pakistan itself. Given Pakistan’s inability to contribute substantially to India’s economic interests, there is little incentive for India to engage.
Moreover, Pakistan’s economic crisis, driven by heavy reliance on foreign aid, frequent IMF bailouts, and loans from countries like China and Saudi Arabia, limits its independence and makes it an unpredictable partner. Engaging with such an unstable nation, whose power dynamics are frequently swayed by military and intelligence interests, presents too high a risk for India to pursue.
Civil Society’s Perspective: Awareness of External Interference
Despite attempts to manipulate public perception, civil society in Kashmir increasingly sees through the false narratives propagated from across the border. Many Kashmiris recognize that the recent rise in violence is not driven by local grievances but by foreign agendas seeking to destabilize the progress and peace that have slowly started taking root. While propaganda may influence some, the broader civil society in Kashmir is aware of the external nature of the threats they face. Pakistan’s calculated attempts to meddle in Kashmir serve only to underscore its agenda to control the narrative in the region, disregarding the genuine well-being of the people.
India’s Firm Stance: Terrorism as a Red Line
India’s refusal to engage with Pakistan while terror activities persist is a stance rooted in both principle and necessity. India views terrorism not as a negotiable issue but as an existential threat that undermines its security and disrupts civilian lives. While territorial disputes can be discussed and resolved through diplomatic channels, state-sponsored terrorism crosses a red line that India has consistently refused to ignore.
To that end, India’s selective engagement approach is clear: it will engage with countries, even those with border disputes, if they respect norms of international behavior and refrain from hostile acts. China, despite its aggressive territorial claims, does not support or sponsor anti-India terror outfits, allowing India to manage its relationship with China through diplomatic and economic channels. Pakistan, on the other hand, has chosen a path that leaves little room for India to extend an olive branch.
Pakistan’s Self-Isolation
Pakistan’s continued export of terrorism, combined with its diplomatic isolation and economic struggles, has isolated it further from meaningful regional and global partnerships. While it aims to destabilize Kashmir to project influence and gain international attention, this tactic only deepens its isolation. India’s stance on Pakistan is clear: until Pakistan demonstrates a concrete shift away from terrorism as a tool of foreign policy, there is no incentive for India to pursue engagement.
As India continues to grow in influence, it will likely maintain its stance of conditional engagement based on mutual respect, non-interference, and shared economic interests. Pakistan, however, remains entangled in a self-destructive cycle, prioritizing short-term tactical gains through destabilization over long-term stability and growth. For Kashmir, the recent violence is yet another tragic chapter in a saga driven by external interests, but the resilience and awareness of its people offer hope for a peaceful future free from external meddling.
