Indian Defence Minister Rajanth Singh and the northern command senior military commander Lieutenant General Dwivedi’s decision to invade Azad Kashmir is the manifestation and continuation of a malicious and ambitions policy that inspires instability in the region. Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir have brought India criticism from the international community. At the same time, mounting instability in India has been widely noticed by the United Nations, the international community and humanitarian organisations, and this is something that is indigestible for the Indian leadership. Resultantly, the Indian military and civilian leadership carried out a variety of illegal activities in Jammu and Kashmir recently, following Israel’s model in Palestine.
The UNSC resolutions, especially resolution 38 from 1948, which prohibits parties from ominously altering Jammu and Kashmir, are gravely violated by these Indian actions. The human rights watch published its recent report probing within the Indian state and its oppression not only in Jammu and Kashmir but also inside its own borders. The report also examines a wide range of illegal acts employed by the Indian military and the state in Jammu and Kashmir to subjugate innocent people using torture and extrajudicial killings as a tool.
India has been exaggerating its regional position by assuming and propagating an aggressive posture for five main reasons. First, Pakistan has successfully internationalised the Jammu & Kashmir problem as a nuclear flashpoint and gained a significant attention of the international community which is not acceptable for India.
Second: due to economic and religious gist, India is experiencing widespread indigenous instability. In fact, this is the third time when India is going to face a massive movement for independence by subjugated communities. The Hindutva itself represents a unilateral ideological basis for Hindus in India and proves the claim of other nations including the Sikhs of Punjab, the Christians of Nagaland and the Muslims of Utterpedesh Bangal, Behar, Gujrat as well as in Jammu & Kashmir. India is afraid of any such development like that which it faced during the 1970s and 80s when thousands of innocent Sikhs were massacred by Indian state on their justified demands of homeland. The recent indigenous riots and turmoil is the resurgence and rebirth of a suppressed spark.
The third reason is linked with regional geo-strategic dimensions where China is increasingly dominating the economic, political and military canvas. India is aware of the unshakable friendship between China and Pakistan and thus maneuvers through redundant boarder skirmishing. China’s recent investments in Pakistan, as well as its support for resolving the Jammu and Kashmir issue in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions are also impeding India’s ability to establish a dual aggressive counterforce strategy.
Forth, the nuclearisation of South Asia resulted in a new strategic balance in the region. A large scale war option became less likely and the Indian quest for establishing new options to continue instability in the region gave birth to ‘blame games and the surgical strike theories in Indian policy making circles. India knows that Pakistan has proven ‘tit for tat policy’ to balance any aggression. The recent cross boarder air strikes and dogfight proved the ability of Pakistan to counter any such misadventure. The failure of the surgical strike formula left India with no choice but to continue with propaganda to demonise Pakistan and accuse it for sponsoring terrorism to build a nuclear counterforce strategy.
Finally, the aggressive Indian posture is premised in building its swaying role in order to construct a global narrative in which it can be equated with Western and European powers. The quest for Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the ultimate ambition to partially join existing p-5 global structure can be assessed through recent policy debates in India regarding NFU.