The Roots of Kashmir’s Division
In 1947, the British departure from India fractured the subcontinent, leaving Kashmir as a lingering dispute. This Muslim-majority state, ruled by a Hindu maharaja, sparked conflict when the ruler joined India amid tribal invasions from Pakistan. War erupted, dividing the region. India claimed Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan seized Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, and China later took Aksai Chin. For example, decades of skirmishes, wars, and unfulfilled UN plebiscite promises have kept Kashmir fragmented. India controls the largest share, followed by Pakistan, with China holding a smaller portion. Today, this contested land transcends a regional feud. It’s a global proxy battleground where nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, backed by external powers, compete in a fractured geopolitical landscape.
A Deadly Attack in Pahalgam
On April 22, 2025, violence struck Pahalgam, a quiet tourist town in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. The Resistance Front (TRF), a militant group tied to Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, killed 26 people in the deadliest civilian attack in nearly two decades. India responded decisively. It suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, closed the last border crossing, expelled Pakistani diplomats, and reduced high commission staff to 30. Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed to “track and punish” the perpetrators, framing the attack as an assault on India’s resolve. Meanwhile, Pakistan denied involvement. It retaliated by closing its airspace to Indian airlines, suspending the 1972 Simla Agreement, and halting trade. For instance, Pakistan warned that diverting shared river waters would be an “act of war.” These escalating measures, driven by economic fragility and stalled talks, deepen the crisis. Skirmishes along the Line of Control are likely to continue.
A Global Geopolitical Stage
Kashmir is more than a territorial dispute; it’s a platform for global power plays. India deploys 500,000 troops to maintain control, yet faces accusations of human rights abuses that alienate Kashmiris and invite international scrutiny. Conversely, Pakistan, burdened by a $100 billion debt, supports insurgents to challenge India’s grip, rallying domestic support but risking instability. Additionally, China, holding Aksai Chin, backs Pakistan through the $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a cornerstone of its Belt and Road Initiative. This secures Gwadar port and energy pipelines. Meanwhile, the United States, through the Transnational Private Sector’s (TPS) Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) and Financial-Industrial Complex (FIC), aligns with India, supplying $2 billion in arms and $500 million in bonds. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), with $20 billion in CPEC and $15 billion in Indian trade, balances both sides to protect its oil-driven economy.
Pawns in a Larger Game
Kashmir reflects a fragmented world where weakened states become tools of external powers. For example, India and Pakistan, drained by defense costs and debt, lose autonomy. China’s CPEC ties Pakistan to a non-dollar trade system, challenging TPS dominance. In contrast, TPS profits from India’s militarization, with Lockheed Martin securing arms deals and BlackRock managing debt. Prolonged skirmishes distract India from China’s regional ambitions, while TPS firms bankroll India’s $10 billion defense budget. However, the GCC seeks stability to safeguard its $1 trillion trade, but its dual commitments limit influence.
Strategies and Risks
Game theory highlights the players’ strategies. For instance, China strengthens Pakistan’s dependence, consolidating long-term influence. Similarly, TPS capitalizes on India’s escalation for economic gains. Yet, risks remain. China’s CPEC could falter if fighting disrupts Gwadar. TPS faces sanctions if India’s actions spark global backlash. Meanwhile, the GCC pushes for stability but struggles to ease tensions through trade.
Local Grievances Fuel Tensions
The Pahalgam attack exposed deep local frustrations. TRF’s assault, tied to India’s issuance of 85,000 residency permits to non-Kashmiris, reflects anger over demographic changes. As a result, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, targeting Pakistan’s agriculture, which relies heavily on Indus basin water. This move bolstered Modi’s nationalist base but intensified tensions, raising the risk of ongoing skirmishes. Pakistan retaliated, closing its airspace and suspending the Simla Agreement. Its $7 billion military budget limits defiance compared to India’s might. Notably, the attack’s timing, during U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s visit, amplified India’s narrative of Pakistan as a terrorism sponsor, strengthening TPS ties. However, evidence linking TPS or India to orchestrating the attack is weak, based on unverified X posts.
China’s Subtle Role
China plays a quiet but critical role. It pressures Pakistan to secure CPEC, prioritizing stability. For example, China’s neutral stance and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation mediation aim to protect $46 billion in investments, potentially curbing Pakistan’s insurgent support. Still, rogue factions in Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence may sustain low-level conflict. Meanwhile, India relies on TPS support to maintain 500,000 troops. Its $3.9 trillion economy faces strain from defense costs and sanctions. Kashmiris, caught in the crossfire, demand autonomy, their unrest fueling TRF and complicating peace.
A Stalemate with Clear Winners
Game theory underscores the stalemate. India escalates to secure TPS backing, gaining geopolitical leverage but risking unrest. Pakistan’s insurgent defiance, constrained by debt and China, struggles to succeed. China vassalizes Pakistan with minimal conflict, while TPS profits from India’s dependence. China distracts India, consolidating influence, while TPS reaps economic rewards. Pakistan suffers most, its economy and water supply battered. India gains short-term leverage but faces insurgency costs.
A Costly, Enduring Conflict
Prolonged skirmishes benefit China and TPS, though risks persist. Specifically, China keeps India preoccupied, ensuring Pakistan’s CPEC reliance, but fighting could disrupt its investments. TPS profits from India’s arms and debt but risks losses if sanctions arise. Pakistan’s $100 billion debt crisis deepens, as does its agricultural strain. India’s control comes at a high cost, with diminishing returns over time. Kashmir remains a proxy battlefield where local grievances and global ambitions collide. A negotiated settlement seems unlikely due to entrenched rivalries and Kashmiri unrest.
Realpolitik’s Heavy Toll
Kashmir’s conflict mirrors realpolitik. China and TPS exploit India and Pakistan’s weaknesses, creating a profitable deadlock. Additionally, the GCC’s balancing act and stalled trade talks entrench this dynamic. Skirmishes persist as a low-cost strategy for external powers. For Kashmiris, the cost is highest. Their hopes for autonomy fade amid the clash of arms and the calculations of distant capitals.
