Vani Mahajan, The University of California – Santa Barbara
Abstract
This paper aims to analyze the Kashmir land dispute between India and Pakistan which is consequently impacted by foreign interference from China and the U.S.A. over the past few decades. The goal is to analyze how power struggles between nations can lead to a humanitarian crisis encouraging war and terrorism. Amidst the forefront of international diplomacy, several Kashmiris remain devoid of autonomy and human rights. Hence, the main argument of this paper remains an open-ended discussion about the future of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and its path towards independence. To further analyze this dispute, the paper uses chronological timelines and internal issues of Kashmir.
- Introduction
During the independence era in the 1940s, the princely states of British India were given an option that either they become a part of India or Pakistan, or they declare themselves as independent nation-states. Initially, the last ruler of Kashmir Raja Hari Singh had declared that the state of Jammu and Kashmir shall become its own state post independence. However, things took a turn when Pakistani forces attacked the non-Muslim populations of Kashmir and Raja Hari Singh asked for assistance from India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. This led to the treaty of Instrument of Accession which permitted Jammu and Kashmir to become a part of the Indian Union. Later, there was a battle between the two nation-states over the legitimate control of Kashmir which was resolved by the UN leading to the ceasefire in 1949. This has since led to land disputes in the region, increasing military involvement and the creation of Line of Control or LOC to divide the borders between India-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
There have been disturbances and wars since then between the two countries leading to constant political disturbance and lack of economic stability in the region. This instability and vulnerability of Kashmir’s administration has led to a persistence of local and transnational terrorism in the area. For instance, active terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Hizbul Mujahideen remain some violent forces operating in the territory.
Over the past decade, there has also been an involvement of external forces to influence regional politics between India and Pakistan. This involves the interference of the U.S.A. and China. A 2002 New York Times article emphasized the involvement of the U.S.A. in matters of Kashmir highlighting the international impact of this matter. The article claims “From the American standpoint, curbing Pakistani militancy is part of addressing the greater problem of eliminating international terrorist networks. From the Indian perspective, reining in the militants would reduce the violent struggle inside India-occupied Kashmir and provide an indirect advantage to Indian forces in that area.” While the U.S.A. in some scenarios has backed India there have been times when this loyalty has shifted. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s ally China is also a part of this land dispute, through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Here, we see that there is a constant foreign interference, or a power struggle. Both China and the U.S.A. have been actively involved in the Kashmir land-dispute as an attempt to make an impact on the politics within the Global South. Hence, the power struggle between India and Pakistan is not alienated from international politics, in fact, it becomes an active diplomatic struggle between rising and top global powers.
- Literature Review
In many cases China’s involvement in the Kashmir dispute has brought international attention to the matter. However, Masahiro Kurita’s article claims that China’s policy on India’s Kashmir reorganization has changed since the 2010s. Instead of acting as a mere economic partner of Pakistan in relation to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, China has now taken the role of a mediator, even though still standing strong in their support for Pakistan. After the Sino-Indian war in 1962 China controlled the disputed land of Aksai Chin and became proactive in the Kashmir land dispute. It further demarcated the Xinjiang-Kashmir border in 1963 creating an anti-India partnership with Pakistan. This entails that Kashmir has become a tool to assert power dynamics and is a part of the power-struggle between the countries in South Asia. Amidst all this, the U.S.A. has also been involved, often as a mediator, as mentioned by Rudra Chaudhuri in “Balancing US Interests in India and Pakistan.” The work gives a background into President Obama’s neutral policies of maintaining good relations with South Asia’s two nuclear giants. However, the U.S.A.’s stance has been rather fleeting in the matter, especially since in the beginning it visibly supported Pakistan. In 1947, during the First Kashmir War, the U.S.A. did not acknowledge Pakistan as an aggressor. Until the end of the Cold War, India remained suspicious of U.S.A.’s intentions and it was only after that when there were attempts from Washington to mend the ties with India. Even recently during Operation Sindoor, which was a consequence of the Pahalgam terrorist attack in Kashmir, the U.S. remained neutral in the conflict with President Trump even initiating attempts of a ceasefire and later taking credit for U.S. intervention in preventing a potential war. In one of his tweets regarding the issue President Trump mentioned, “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.” This portrays the role of the U.S. in playing the middleman between the two countries especially in regard to war and Kashmir.
As mentioned in the article, “Pahalgam attack: a reflection of Asia’s geopolitical landscape,” rival nationalism between India and Pakistan has not been subdued; rather it has radically increased after the recent Pahalgam attack. Furthermore, the terrorism in the region highlights the PTSD that comes with it and a sense of instability. This leads to the humanitarian concern towards Kashmir especially regarding terrorism and the way it impacts the locals, yet the focus becomes the relevance of the land dispute and the geopolitics behind it. This paper follows a qualitative analysis of the Kashmir conflict through a geopolitical lens highlighting the history and relevance of the land-dispute between India and Pakistan’s power struggle becoming a part of a rival nationalism which continues till date.
- Pahalgam Attack and Terrorism in Kashmir
On April 22, 2025, there was a terrorist attack on India-occupied Kashmir in Pahalgam. A group of Islamist terrorists attacked tourists in daylight and killed 25 Hindu men. Later, the Indian government blamed Pakistan based terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and The Resistance Front for involvement in the attack. Meanwhile, Pakistan denied any involvement in the attack. However, the Indian government with its evidence blamed Pakistan and went on to revoke the Indus Water Treaty which would divert the Indus water basin depriving access of river water from Pakistan. This ultimately led to Pakistan threatening war leading to Indian led Operation Sindoor and Pakistan’s retaliation to it. Ultimately, the attack in Pahalgam led to questioning India’s claims of “national sovereignty, human rights and counterterrorism.” Hence, the matter is not just about the land dispute but rather a power struggle between India and Pakistan. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar even claimed that India’s accusation of Pakistan’s involvement in the Pahalgam attack was “baseless, preposterous and politically motivated.” During these unsettling times both the countries were in an active power struggle where Kashmir once again became a subject of violence and a hub for terrorism depriving the Kashmiri people of basic human rights and security from unwanted militancy.
- The Involvement of the U.S. in Kashmir
As mentioned above during the first Kashmir War (1947-1949), the U.S. chose to side with the Pakistani forces leading to strains between Washington and Delhi. Later, in 1954, the U.S. and Pakistan entered a defense pact leading to another great rift in South Asian politics by bringing the Cold War to the two rival nations. Meanwhile, during all of this, Kashmir remained an active topic of discussion with the Kennedy administration even trying to resolve the issue while Pakistan remained adamant to globalize the matter but India repeatedly refused for any international intervention. Apart from that, the U.S. has repeatedly tried to mend its relations with India after the First Kashmir War. However, in 2009, several Kashmiri politicians such as Omar Abdullah the Chief Minister of Kashmir welcomed President Obama’s views on Kashmir being a “long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan.” Omar, in Obama’s support, had stated, “The U.S. president must stamp out the source of terrorism of which the state of Kashmir has been the worst victim during the last two decades.” His statement emphasized the involvement of terrorism in the state and claimed that Pakistan was involved in such matters. However, another dark side was the police violence faced by Kashmiris in India-occupied Kashmir in 2009 where approximately 112 people were killed while retaliating for their rights. On the other hand, separatist leader Syed Ali Geelani claimed that Obama’s statement of Kashmir was a result of Indian Police violence witnessed there. He went on to emphasize “Now that the U.S. has accepted Kashmir as a dispute, India should also stop parroting that Kashmir is an integral part.” The conflicting opinions of Kashmiri leaders on Obama’s statement was also a sign of internal disputes within Kashmir. While separatists such as Syed claimed that India was the problem and Kashmir should become its own sovereign, leaders such as Omar Abdullah highlighted the issue of Pakistan influenced terrorism. Hence, while President Obama attempted to play the mediator, there were further disputes that entangled the debate of Kashmir’s future as a state.
Over time, the U.S. has been unsuccessful in playing the mediator. In fact, during the recent Operation Sindoor, the U.S. once again attempted to play the mediator where President Trump claimed to have successfully called the ceasefire between the two countries. While Pakistan credited the U.S. for intervening, India has so far made no such claims of the U.S. being the primary mediator. Hence, the U.S. from the beginning of its involvement in South Asian affairs, has played “quiet diplomacy” by playing the peacemaker regarding matters of the Kashmir land dispute. However, the policies adopted by the U.S. have not impacted Kashmir and have failed to truly tackle tensions between the two countries since matters of land ownership seem to be prevailing leading to loss of life and political discourse in Kashmir.
- China’s involvement in Kashmir and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor
Much like the U.S.A., China’s attempted intervention in the dispute strongly suggests the importance of Kashmir in South Asian politics. However, while the U.S.A. practiced quiet diplomacy, China became active in the regional dispute especially since it shares borders with India and Pakistan. However, over the years, it has actively shown support for Pakistan occupied Kashmir through its economic and development projects initiated within the region. The rift between China and India began with the Sino-India war in 1962 regarding the Aksai Chin plateau in India occupied Kashmir. Afterwards, in the 1980s, the 1963 boundary agreement between Pakistan and China permitted China to take certain parts of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Hence, China’s direct involvement in the Kashmir land dispute has led to a rift between its relations with India. Apart from that, China has also initiated the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor which was an economic corridor meant to pass through. Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India, which was strongly against this political strategy, showed its discontent with the plan and even cancelled the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) led by China. The division of Kashmir into several parts and handing away the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir territory to China shows the lack of sovereignty of Kashmir. There is constant interference from occupying states and Kashmiri people do not get to choose for themselves as rival nations compete for the land. Hence, Kashmir constantly remains a hotspot for war and terrorism with lack of development and human rights.
Apart from that, during the current Operation Sindoor in 2025, China took credit for diffusing the war between India and Pakistan. In his statement, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi claimed that China followed its policy “to build peace that lasts” mediating between Pakistan and India during the Operation Sindoor. However, India maintained its stance on not utilizing any third-party interventions during the conflict. Hence, both China and the U.S. want to claim their role in South Asian politics, often dividing it into blocs of power. However, this power struggle has left Kashmiris out of the equation often sidelining their opinions about their motherland. Ultimately, stronger negotiations are needed without the interference of the U.S. and China as well as India and Pakistan.
- Conclusion
The argument remains intact and questions the future of Kashmir. With the current interference of foreign forces and the prevalent terrorism, there need to be harsher steps to take into account the initial goal which was to make the state of Jammu and Kashmir independent. The occupation of both India and Pakistan comes with heavy militancy and makes the political and economic growth of Kashmir slower, depriving the state of a sovereign future. Instead of hosting polls to decide whether Kashmir should be a part of India or Pakistan there should be polls that decide the independence of Kashmir from all states occupying it. Ultimately, there must be a non-influenced election held within the state to appoint a cabinet for a democratic and independent state without foreign influence within the state.
The Global Affairs Journal 
Leave a comment