NCF Research Officer Felix presents the need to push for a permanent peace deal in Kashmir especially in the aftermath of the four day conflict in Kashmir in early May.

The NCF believes that consolidating a nation’s preferred borders is less important than making peace and ensuring that normal people can live their lives freely and without fear. For nearly 80 years India and Pakistan have shared Kashmir. If the global community took an interest in the two nations, they could encourage them to implement an actual border on the already existing line of control (LoC). 

This border would allow for both sides to remove their military apparatus around the region, to end the curfews and martial law that Kashmiris live with everyday. The border would hopefully put an end to discussion on who or where Kashmir belongs and would hopefully take the wind out of the sails of the many armed groups who operate in the region. Beyond that though, for the Kashmiris, the border would not have to be a ‘hard’ border, there are plenty of examples of ‘soft’ borders in formerly contested parts of the world. The border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is open, Schengen is the greatest area of free movement in the world. Kashmiris could be enabled to visit their families and loved ones who would have been locked off to them via the LoC. 

Since the ceasefire between India and Pakistan on the 10th of May, the conversation surrounding the conflict between the two nations has returned to the status quo; one of accepting the continued ceasefires and the LoC. 

This is unsustainable. As we have seen in the Korean Peninsula, or in the Taiwan Straits, an open-ended ‘end’ to a conflict only leads to future attempts at escalation and, as seen in early May this year in Kashmir, open conflict. Only a concrete peace deal can lead to lasting peace, which is the most important thing for the people living in any disputed area on earth.

A continuing series of tit-for-tat responses by both Pakistan and India

On April 22nd, the Pakistan-administered Kashmir (PaK) based armed group, The Resistance Front, assaulted the picturesque tourist resort of Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir (IaK), in which 26 civilians were killed, making it the deadliest attack in a quarter-century in Indian-administered Kashmir.

India blamed Pakistan for the attack, insinuating that the group was funded and armed by the Pakistan government and had carried out the attack on their orders. On May 7th, India retaliated with airstrikes and Pakistan struck back with their own aircraft as well as artillery. Thankfully the fighting only lasted four days when on the 10th of May both sides agreed to a ceasefire, no attempt at lasting peace was made though. The short tit-for-tat killed over 30 people on both sides, the majority may have been civilians. 

Since independence , Pakistan and India have been engaged in multiple conflicts over the disputed territory of Kashmir. 

The 1947 partition led to a number of territorial tensions within the Indian subcontinent, and the 1947 war over Kashmir did not lead to a lasting peace, it only led to the region being split between the two nations (and China). Furthermore, areas such as Bangladesh were left under Pakistan´s control, which led to another war in 1971 when Bangladesh’s independence movements rose up against the authoritarian government of Yahya Khan. India would intervene to liberate Bangladesh, widening the conflict. 

Beyond that, India and Pakistan have fought over Kashmir in 1965 until international pressure brought an end to it and in 1999  as both nations, now nuclear powers after Pakistan’s 1998 test, fought over the Kargil area of Kashmir. 

Tensions are too high, and the risks are even higher

Since the Kargil War, both nations have expanded their nuclear arsenals. In the case of Pakistan, their military capabilities and nuclear weapons are arguably the only aspect of the state that the Pakistani government has kept at a high level of capability. 

In India’s case, the Modi government has been accused of supporting Hindu-supremacist ideology within India and this thinking naturally delves into ideas of territorial expansion and consolidation, especially in the context of contested regions, Kashmir being the most infamous split piece of land. Furthermore the Indian economy has grown at an exponential rate, outgrowing Pakistan’s by leaps and bounds. This also means that the Indian military is better funded, equipped and trained than their Pakistani counterparts. It would not be outside the realm of possibility for Indian policymakers to attempt an armed solution to the two Kashmirs, relying on their superior conventional capabilities to knock out Pakistan quickly. The Kargil War saw the Indian Army successfully push out the Pakistani incursion into IaK. 

This most recent round of combat, from the 7th to the 10th of May saw airstrikes and artillery usage by both sides. That the fighting was able to continue for four days is risky, thankfully it was reported that neither side had mobilised their ground forces for major operations, but if the fighting had continued for longer before the ceasefire, either side could have attempted to escalate. 

The dangers are immense. Both sides have multiple nuclear warheads, and the means of deploying them, India fortunately has a ‘no-first-use’ policy, meaning that they won’t attack with nuclear weapons first, only in response to WMD usage. Pakistan has emphasised that in the face of greater Indian conventional war-waging means, the use of ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons is considered would Pakistan’s conventional army ever be defeated in the field. 

As Pakistan falls further into economic and political uncertainty and chaos, it is likely that their military capacities will decline, allowing the gap, in economic, military and industrial capabilities, to widen. 

We have seen the costs of a failing state. Pakistan’s failure to keep an eye on the Resistance Front allowed them to assault an Indian town in Kashmir, furthermore the Pakistan government’s track record with supporting extreme Islamist groups meant that India blamed them for the attack, not just the terrorist group. It is clearer than ever, especially in the age of hybrid warfare, how easy it is for non-state actors and their actions to escalate and expand into state-on-state conflict. This is especially problematic with India and Pakistan where even a ‘limited’ use of nuclear weapons could easily kill over twenty million people. 

What the NCF believes

Setting up an international border on the line of control would put an end to the Kashmir crisis.

Furthermore, a successful resolution to the crisis would prove an amazing example to other parts of the world with such issues. Korea is still split by the DMZ at the 38th parallel. Israel and Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) share a border that has been militarised, and might similarly benefit from mutual recognition of an agreed line of control as the international border. 

For the people of Kashmir, a permanent border would mean an end to the state of emergency that they have lived under for half a century. Prime Minister Modi ended Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status in 2019, putting the state under central Indian control. This has forced Kashmiri citizens to live under a brutal crackdown. Kashmiri people are under threat of detention without trial by local counter-insurgency forces, these detentions have included instances of beatings and often last for multiple days. Notoriously from late 2019 to 2021 the Indian government blocked all communications, including the internet, within Kashmir. This was a preemptive crackdown on all avenues of protest by local Kashmiris for the revocation of Kashmir’s autonomous status.

A reinstatement of Kashmir’s Special Status, highlighting its unique place within India, as well as following article 370 of the Indian Constitution, would help reduce the fighting with the insurgency that highlights local displeasure with direct Indian government rule. The government knows it was unpopular move, hence the major crackdown outlined above in this article. Furthermore, on a humanitarian basis, a repeal of the 1990 Special Powers Act would finally allow Kashmiris to live as free people with all rights afforded them. The Special Powers Act gives local military forces impunity in how they run their counter-insurgency operations as they can only be prosecuted by the military, who will be more lenient than any civilian court would be. Kashmir has been singled out in the use of the Special Powers Act as the other states that were under similar legislation, such as Assam or Punjab, had those laws withdrawn by 2014, only Kashmir stays under the permanent state of emergency that allows the act to stay on the books. In addition, the 1978 Public Safety Act should also be repealed. It allows for citizens to detained for multiple days without any reason given or any due process.

Further Background

We include the NCF Secretary General´s Podcast, an American Comment, and a comment on the comment from Pakistan:

And this comment from Pakistan:

[13:16, 09/06/2025] Rubab Mehdi: Trying to think what’s going on because it was India who requested Trump for a ceasefire. They have had 3-5 of their Rafeals shot and were beaten up by Pakistan. Also , as I’m in Pakistan I can confirm they killed women and children not any terrorists.
[13:21, 09/06/2025] Rubab Mehdi: As an aside, I have a feeling Trump might be wanting to put them in their place because they have become big headed a bit too soon . I am trying to recall something to do with iPhone trade. It is true that Indians are a powerful group within the US ( the Vice President appears to be almost always an Indian origin). To sum it Pakistan and US is like a bad marriage with their interests intertwined in more ways than one. India is the new girl friend who has now begun showing a lot of attitude 🙈😂.