In the remote, snow-covered forests of Kishtwar district in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), a protracted security operation against suspected members of armed opposition has entered its third week as of February 1, 2026. Launched on January 18 under the codename "Operation Trashi-I," the joint effort by the Indian Army, Jammu and Kashmir Police, and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has involved multiple encounters with a group as per Indian claims of three to four Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) militants but never varified their identity by independent sources believed to be hiding in the challenging terrain of the Chatroo-Dolgam-Dichhar belt. The operation has seen intermittent gunfights, including fresh exchanges on January 31 in the Dolgam area, where drones, sniffer dogs, and helicopters have been deployed to track the armed opposition amid heavy snowfall. One Indian paratrooper has been killed, and at least ten soldiers injured so far, with no confirmed armed opposition casualties reported. Officials indicate the armed opposition have repeatedly escaped into dense forests, prolonging the standoff and underscoring the difficulties of counter-insurgency in high-altitude, rugged landscapes.
This incident is part of a broader pattern of increased armed resistance activity in the Jammu region, which borders Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Reports from Urdu-language media highlight a shift in armed resistance tactics, with alleged infiltrators using forested areas to target security forces and civilians, potentially aided by drone-dropped supplies. Indian authorities alleged the surge to Pakistan-based groups like JeM, accusing Islamabad of sponsoring cross-border support to help armed opposition to destabilize the region. Pakistan, in turn, denies these claims and counters that India supports separatist elements elsewhere.
Analysis: A Cycle of Violence Benefiting No One
The Kishtwar operation exemplifies the human cost of protracted political violence in J&K, where both sides suffer losses without resolution. Since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, which revoked the region's special status without the consent of the people of J&K, encounters have intensified in Jammu, a Hindu-majority area previously less affected than the Kashmir Valley. Critics argue that India's approach—characterized by heavy militarization, sweeping powers under laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, and restrictions on freedoms—mirrors colonial-era tactics, alienating local populations and fuelling resentment. Public sentiment in the Valley remains deeply distrustful of New Delhi, with surveys and reports indicating widespread alienation, including perceptions of economic exploitation and cultural erasure. Armed groups, often labelled as "opposition" by sympathizers, draw support from these grievances, portraying their actions as resistance against occupation rather than terrorism.
However, this violence has yielded little progress. Armed opposition attacks, while symbolically potent, have not advanced self-determination goals and often result in civilian casualties, eroding broader sympathy. On the Indian side, security forces face mounting risks in asymmetric warfare, with operations like Kishtwar highlighting vulnerabilities in terrain familiarity and intelligence. The conflict's persistence benefits hardliners on both sides, perpetuating a zero-sum narrative that prioritizes military dominance over dialogue.
Parallels with Balochistan: A Mirror Image Across the Border
A striking comparison emerges with Pakistan's restive Balochistan province, where armed opposition like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) have escalated operations throughout 2025. The BLA's "Operation Baam" in July 2025 involved 84 coordinated attacks, claiming dozens of Pakistani security personnel lives and targeting infrastructure. Islamabad accuses India of backing these groups as proxies, citing alleged links to RAW (India's intelligence agency), though without concrete evidence. Indian officials dismiss these as deflection tactics, pointing instead to genuine Baloch grievances: resource exploitation, enforced disappearances, and over-militarization.
Baloch insurgents enjoy significant local popularity, driven by distrust of the Pakistani state, much like armed groups in J&K. Pakistan's response—imposing a "hand-picked" provincial regime and launching military operations—has only intensified the insurgency, with violence doubling in 2024 compared to prior years. This mutual finger-pointing over "proxies" echoes historical accusations: India blames Pakistan for Kashmir militancy, while Pakistan alleges Indian meddling in Balochistan and even the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Such claims, often unsubstantiated, exacerbate bilateral tensions, as seen in the May 2025 border flare-up following a Kashmir attack.
Lessons from Global Referendums: A Path Not Taken
To draws apt parallels to peaceful resolutions elsewhere. In Scotland's 2014 independence referendum, voters rejected separation from the UK by 55% to 45%, with an 84.6% turnout—the highest in modern British history. The UK government, facing rising nationalist sentiment, opted for a democratic vote rather than force, averting violence. Similarly, Canada's 1995 Quebec referendum saw a narrow "No" victory (50.58% to 49.42%), preserving unity without bloodshed. Both cases involved federal governments acknowledging separatist popularity through referendums, emphasizing dialogue over tanks.
In contrast, India and Pakistan's approaches resemble territorial grabs, akin to U.S. President Donald Trump's quip about buying Greenland. New Delhi views J&K as integral part a term alien to modern political science, rejecting people's inalienable right to self-determination even promised in UN resolutions, citing Pakistan's non-compliance with withdrawal preconditions. Islamabad, meanwhile, supports Kashmiri "self-determination" while suppressing Baloch aspirations through force. This hypocrisy sustains the post-Partition rivalry, with allegations flying amid stalled bilateral talks.
Toward Resolution: Prioritizing Dialogue and Democracy
The ongoing strife in J&K and Balochistan underscores that military solutions are unsustainable. Violence has claimed countless lives on both sides, yet trust remains eroded. India and Pakistan must move beyond "Siamese Twins Fighting"—tit-for-tat accusations and border skirmishes—to rebuild relations. Recent U.S.-mediated ceasefires in 2025 offer a glimmer, but deeper engagement is needed: confidence-building measures, trade resumption, and addressing core issues like the people of Jammu and Kashmir through multilateral forums. Allowing democratic processes, as in Scotland or Quebec, could de-escalate tensions, though geopolitical realities—China's stakes in Balochistan via the CPEC and India's strategic concerns in Kashmir—complicate matters but if there is a will there is a way. Ultimately, prevailing rule of law and popular will, rather than coercion, could foster peace. As global powers like the U.S., UAE, and Saudi Arabia urge restraint, both states should heed the lesson: endless conflict helps no one but perpetuates loss.
No comments:
Post a Comment