The Decibel - The history behind the fragile India-Pakistan ceasefire

Episode Date: May 13, 2025

After several tense weeks of escalating military action across the de facto border in Kashmir, India and Pakistan have agreed to a fragile ceasefire. For the last week there have been reports of gunfire, drone attacks, and missile strikes in the region. This current conflict started after an April 22 terrorist attack left 26 people dead at a Kashmir tourist resort. But this isn’t the first time these two countries have been at odds. Dr. Reeta Tremblay is the former provost at the University of Victoria and a political scientist and expert on the Kashmir region. She’s on the show today to give us insight into the decades-long fight between India and Pakistan, and what needs to happen in order for the two countries to have lasting peace. Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

Over the weekend, the world received some welcomed news. India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire. This comes after several tense weeks of escalating military action between the two nuclear armed countries. They've been fighting in a disputed region that's nestled between the two countries, called Kashmir. Over the last week, gunfire along the de facto border in Kashmir turned into drone attacks, which turned into missile strikes. And all of this started after a terrorist attack at a tourist resort in Kashmir on April 22. at a tourist resort in Kashmir on April 22nd. Gunmen stormed a meadow where families were zip lining, taking pony rides, and bouncing on trampolines.

That is the voice of a survivor of the attack. He describes how the gunfire created a stampede-like situation. He talks about how he pushed his wife and his son towards a nearby swamp for safety. During their escape, his wife fell several times and twisted her ankle, but they all managed to survive. This attack was so shocking because tourists have generally not been targeted by terrorism in the region.

But in this attack, Hindu men were singled out and shot at close range. Aismat Jan lost her brother during the attack. She says, quote, The militants should also be treated in the same manner as they treated my brother. They shot three bullets at him. What will we do now?

Where will I find my brother now? He loved me so much. This disputed territory has been at the heart of the decades-long conflict between India and Pakistan, and its future is likely key to a long-lasting peace between the two countries. So today, I'm talking to Dr. Rita Tromble. She's a former provost at the University of Victoria and a political scientist who's an expert on the Kashmir region. I'm Maynika Raman-Wilms and this is the Decibel from the Globe and Mail.

Rita, thank you so much for being here today. You're very welcome, Maynika. So this past weekend we heard about a ceasefire deal between India and Pakistan. Rita, what was your reaction when you heard that news? I was both relieved as well as skeptical. And relieved because this is the most serious escalation in decades. There was a real danger of escalation of this crisis into a nuclear warfare. And both countries are have massive nuclear weapons and the escalation of the crisis was absolutely very rapid. So this it was quite worrisome but I was relieved also for my

family and friends in both countries. But second also I am very concerned how long this is going to last. Both the countries have long-standing irreconcilable differences, and they're not going to go away. One is Kashmir, the issue of Kashmir. The second is cross-border terrorism. So both relief and skepticism. So this agreement that we saw over the weekend, this was the product of talks led by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Vice President JD Vance as well. And then they also included Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir. Rita, were you surprised that the US helped broker this deal?

No, there were indications in the last few days, you know, after the conflict began that the United States was talking to both countries, not only the US, but other countries too. UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran, even China started speaking about exercising restraint. But the announcement was a surprise. It was announced by the US president, you know, on social media and reaffirmed then later on by Marco Rubio and JD Mass. But I must say that India and Pakistan have inconsistent narratives about it. If you look at or watch the Pakistani media. It openly acknowledged the long night negotiations, which were mediated by the United States. The Pakistani prime minister thanked the United States. Whereas in India, on the other hand, in his official statements, there was absolutely no mention of the United

States. It's arrived at by the two director of military operations, and they are the ones who negotiated this process. And not only that, it's the Pakistan's director of military operations who called the Indian counterpart, and then they worked through the agreement. So why would that be? Why would India not mention the US in that? You have to go back to actually 1972 and it's called the Shimla Agreement in which both India and Pakistan decided that there will be no third-party mediation in

regard to any conflict between India and Pakistan. So they would just deal with each other then? They just do deal with bilaterally and Mr. Modi has made a big deal about it and actually the reaction to some of the Hindu staunch supporters of Mr. Modi and the right wing supporter of Mr. Modi are not happy that US was somehow involved in it. So it's just two different narratives which are coming out and India is being very careful saying that there was no third party mediation. Okay. So yeah, both sides seem to be presenting this in slightly different ways then. Rita, I think in order to understand this current conflict,

we have to do a little bit of digging into history here because these two nuclear powers have been fighting over a region of land called Kashmir. This was of course created as an independent territory in 1947 during partition, which was when Britain divided the land and it colonized into India and Pakistan. How did Kashmir go from this independent region

after partition to a situation now where both India and Pakistan control part of it? Okay, so before I delve into the history, let me just quickly point out one major point actually here. When we speak about Kashmir, we are really referring to J we speak about Kashmir, we are really referring to Jammu and Kashmir, is the region of Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir is shorthand version of the whole Jammu and Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir has three distinct sub-regions. Jammu, which is Hindu

majority, Kashmir Valley, which is not majority, extensively Muslim 96% and Ladakh, which is equally divided between Buddhist and Muslims. So during partition, the British, when they leave and create two nations, India and Pakistan, they are going to divide up India, but the division is going to be only in 60% of India because British were only ruling the 60% of India directly and 40% of India consisted of about 565 princely states. So when the British leave and create two nations, they advise these princely states who became sovereign at that time saying join either India and Pakistan because you're scattered all over and you will not be able to survive?

Okay, so they divided up 60% of the country and the other 40% they said you can choose basically where you want to go. Absolutely. And they were all scattered. You know, there was just no logic to their scattering. So almost all joined either India or Pakistan, except three. And the two of them were integrated with India very quickly, but is the third one, which is the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. He doesn't want to join because going with Pakistan, no option.

He's a Hindu ruler. Going with India, no option because there was a nationalist movement in Kashmir. And so he doesn't join, he's sitting still. And meanwhile, you have a tribal invasion, which happens from the Northwest provinces of Pakistan. Take over almost all of the state. And at that time, Maharaja asked for a treaty of accession with India, and they accept the treaty of accession and will send the security forces only on the condition

that once law and order is established that there will be a plebiscite in the state of Kashmir, and the people will decide their future. Okay, okay. So in this region, but that is physically kind of between part of Pakistan and India, the Maharaja says, I want to, I want to stay independent, but then there's this invasion that comes in and from the Pakistan side. And then, so he asks India for help and they say, okay, but you gotta, you gotta make a deal basically. Yeah. So then India sends its forces. They're going to liberate so-called liberate in Indian language, two-thirds of Kashmir. And so since that time, since 1947, two-thirds of India, Indian Kashmir is known as Jammu in Kashmir.

And one-third of Kashmir, which is in Pakistan, Pakistan administered, is known as Azad Kashmir, free Kashmir. So now what goes on is India is going to begin to establish a popular government in the state and also is developing its own constitution. Within the Constitution, the 1950 Constitution, there are two provisions which it adds and one is Article 370, giving a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir because of its distinct identity, Muslim identity, because this is the only majority Muslim state in India. It also adds Article 35A, which allows Kashmiris or residents of Jammu and

Kashmir to own property and also to seek employment. And the rest of Indians are not allowed to do so. So those two provisions are created. This is an important point that you just brought up here that Kashmir then has this special status essentially in the Indian Constitution. And it's unlike any other state Indian Federation. There's no federalist symmetry. I always tell my Canadian audiences

that it's like the sovereignty association arrangement, which Parti Kuvekoff is desiring with Canada. It also allows the Kashmir state to have internal autonomy under this article and allows it to create its own constitution, have his own flag, and have his own nomenclature for his heads of state and out of government. Meanwhile, a very small minority, very small organized Hindu minority in the Jammu region protests, and they carried out a very strong protest, whereby they demand what they call it, one flag, one constitution, one prime minister. So India, Kashmir should not be treated differently

from any other state, and there should be full integration. So they wanted to be part of India more fully then? They wanted to be part, and they wanted this article to be abolished, Article 370 and 35A. In response, the new Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, starts having second thoughts. Maybe we are not safe in this new country, India. And so he starts exploring the option of being independent.

And once he starts doing that, he's imprisoned. And so that's in 1953. And that's when things are going to change. Okay, so there's a lot that happened then in that initial period. But basically, yeah, there was a kind of an independence, a move towards independence that was then tamped down, it sounds like. I guess I wonder, Rita, when did there start to be an armed resistance part of this, like to India's rule of the region? Actually, the armed resistance, the organized political insurgency and mass-based freedom movement, which is called the Azadi movement, actually begins in 1987 and gets carried out. But the seeds of it start in 1953. So 1953 people start feeling beginning to feel alienated because what Indian government is going to do is going to first of all back out of the plebiscite

promise. That's number one. Then second thing what it's going to do is going to slowly slowly begin to integrate the state of Jammu and Kashmir in Indian constitution and Indian laws. So by the end of 1960s, you start seeing almost de facto integration of Kashmir except the Article 370 special status, which stays in the constitution books. And most significantly, what we call the citizenship rules, the Article 35A, that no other person other than Jammu and Kashmiri citizen can own property and have laws.

So that remains, and it's only in 1987 you start seeing very organized political insurgency. What happened in 1987 then, when we're starting to see this political insurgency? Can you give us a sense of what was going on? So what was happening is that Indian government ensured that there were elections in Kashmir. They wanted to make sure that they let the world know they have legitimately Kashmir as an integral part of India and elections were considered really sacred. But while the elections were allowed, they would ban parties, political parties, which asked for independence or plebiscite, and they were not allowed to

participate in the political process. 1987, almost all Muslim opposition groups in the valley, in the Kashmir Valley, will get together and fight the elections, 1987 elections. And there was a huge support for them. Everybody thought that they were going to win. The results came out, they had barely four seats. All hell broke loose. So what happens in 1987, then they reach out to Pakistan. Pakistan start training the secessionist groups. And it's amazing, they will train both types of secessionist groups, the ones who want to be part of Pakistan,

Kashmir to be part of Pakistan, as well as who want Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir to be an independent state. So they're gonna provide them arms training, ammunition, and give them money, and they'll cross over to the Indian side. And then 1989, you have a full flown political insurgency, protests, attacks, and you had almost shut down of the state machinery, almost twothirds of the year. And so a complete breakdown of law and order,

complete breakdown of the state machinery, and you have all the civil society in the Kashmir Valley being together on this particular issue. We'll be right back. Okay, so we've gone over some of this history of this region. I wonder now though about the influence of Narendra Modi in particular. He is of course India's highly nationalist current prime minister. Rita, how has he changed the dynamic in this region in Kashmir? So their agenda has been always, our Indian Union is one union. You cannot give special status to one state. There has to be full integration with India. So therefore there has to be abolition

of Article 370. Moreover Article 35A is counter to Indian mobility laws. And so therefore we have to remove that. That was the one about only Kashmiri people could occupy or buy land then essentially in that region. And also have public employment. And so first mandate, he doesn't do anything. 2019, the first day of the parliamentary session, they are going to abolish Article 370 and 35A. And the logic they're going to give is that this article is the one which has kept Kashmiri

people in a very economically backward position. That is the fault of this article, that you have the rise of militancy in the valley. So these changes would basically take away Kashmir's special status then, and then also now any Indian citizen could occupy by land there as well. Yeah, so that's what happened in 2019. And the third thing they did was to take away the status of the state and created union territories out of this particular state. Jammu and Kashmir state was divided into two parts.

Jammu and Kashmir were created the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh became a separate territory and they were brought under directly under central control. And Mr. Modi, you know, basically ensured there was a huge security presence there, no dissidents allowed, and basically bragged about it that how not only Mr. Modi has created economic development in the state, but also got rid of militancy. Okay. I think since 2019, since this has happened, Kashmiri voices have been silenced.

There's a huge surveillance in the valley, huge number of security forces. But I can tell you from my own understanding and research on the valley and being there also, being part of the state for 20 years or so, the identity issues are sacrosanct to the Kashmiri Muslims. And Mr. Modi might say everything is normal, everything is good, but inside there is this alienation

which is actually very deep and stays very much embedded in them. Only thing is they're not speaking up. But last three years, we are beginning to see new rise of terrorism again, militancy again. And first the militancy began in not knowing the valley, but in the Jammu region. And also in the valley, you've had militant activities. And my suggestion is fundamentally that you cannot have that kind of militant activity if there's no

local support. Local people are feeding them, supporting them, helping them. There's a new kind of militancy which has emerged in Kashmir, which is called hybrid militancy, in which the terrorists or militants are basically using one person, local person at a time, to convey messages further down to another militant. And then another local person is used. So no person is used twice, but there is a local support. So what you're saying is there's support throughout the population then in a way for in order for this to happen? Yeah, it might not be seen as overt, but it's there. It's underlined there. And

one of these days is going to burst open. Yeah, I guess that brings us then to the attack in late April, where we saw 26 people killed. us then to the attack in late April where we saw 26 people killed. Yeah. Now, there was an outrage in the valley about that. And the reason why the outrage is first of all, Kashmiris have never encouraged the killing of tourists and killing of Hindus. But the point I'm trying to make here is that these militants who came and killed 26 people did not suddenly arrive from Pakistan the day before or two days before. They've been there.

They've been living with the local population. Local population has been supporting them. And so one cannot think of that Kashmir issue is dead. It's still there. So Rita, let's come back to the ceasefire that we began talking about. Hours after it was signed this past weekend, there were allegations from both sides

that it had been broken, from both India and Pakistan. How likely do you think it is that this ceasefire will last? I think it will last, but temporarily. And the reason I'm saying it's a temporary cause because it's not at this juncture is neither in the interests of India nor Pakistan to continue the escalation. Why is that? The reason for that, let me take country by country. For Pakistan, it's economically not doing very well. They just had recently another IMF bailout.

The army has had a very difficult relationship with this population because of ousting a very popular political leader, Imran Khan, and arresting him. They also have on the border with regard to Afghanistan, the Tariq-e-Taliban, which has its basis in Afghanistan, which is challenging the army. So things are not good in Pakistan.

India, on the other hand, is facing, just like Canada, Trump tariffs, trying to negotiate. United States is India's largest trading partner. India also does not want to face two front wars. It has difficult relationship with China. They've had huge border conflicts and China, you know, is a strategic ally of Pakistan. So it doesn't want it. Third, Mr. Modi has great ambitions of India being a developed India. He calls it Vixit Bharat. India will be developed by 2047. India will be the third largest economy in the world. And it wants to present itself as a credible nuclear power, which can lead in this multi, what he calls it a multipolar world. So India really has to really play this very, very cautiously. But it's

a temporary pause because they have serious issues between them, India and Pakistan. So to that point then, Rita, just very quickly before I let you go, can I ask you about the long term future of Kashmir? Because after the ceasefire was announced on Saturday, the Pakistani prime minister gave a speech that called for peace in the region and the resolution of the dispute over Kashmir using dialogue. So what actually needs to happen for Kashmir and its residents

to have a lasting peace? I think I would answer your question at two levels, two different levels. The first level is that it has to be a political engagement with Pakistan, which Mr. Modi and his government have adamantly refused to do so unless it deals with the issue of cross border terrorism. So India has to kind of move beyond that. It has to politically engage somehow with Pakistan. And the reason right now it has become important

because one of the unintended consequences or you can say intended consequence on the part of Pakistan is that Kashmir is once again brought into the international realm agenda. India had very successfully kept the issue of Kashmir very dormant. There was no protest, no opposition to India with regard to Mr. Modi abolishing Article 370.

We did not hear anything from the Western countries. But Pakistan now has been very, has very successfully brought back the Kashmir issue. So under those conditions, what does Mr. Modi do? I think he should politically engage because there is no solution. Our military fighting drones, missiles, it doesn't work. So Mr. Modi has to do something.

And second, it's time for Mr. Modi and his government to think at a domestic level about Kashmir. At a minimum, I think his government must restore the state status of German Kashmir. And then he has to make sure that local population cannot be controlled through surveillance and through constant punishment of anybody who speaks against the government. There's got to be freedom, and that freedom has to be restored.

The Kashmiris have to be won over again. Rita, thank you so much for taking the time to be here. My pleasure. That's it for today. I'm Maynika Raman-Welms. This episode was edited and mixed by Ali Graham. Our intern, Kelsey Howlett, helped produce this episode. Our associate producer is Aja Souter.

Our producers are Madeleine White, Michal Stein, and Ali Graham. David Crosby edits the show. Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Matt Frainer is our managing editor. Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.