MAY 07: The tragic news of an Indian Air Force soldier’s death and the injury of four others in a recent attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district is a grim reminder of the persistent volatility in the region. This incident, described as a terrorist attack, involves complexities that merit a deeper examination beyond the immediate label often used to describe such events.
For decades, India and Pakistan have been locked in a conflict over Jammu and Kashmir, with both nations staking territorial claims that date back to the partition in 1947. This longstanding dispute has not only shaped the geopolitical landscape of South Asia but has also manifested in various forms of military and non-military engagements. Among these, the concept of a “proxy war” is perhaps the most significant and the least acknowledged in public discourse.
The term “proxy war” refers to a conflict where two states indirectly engage in war, often by supporting non-state actors to carry out their agendas. In the context of India and Pakistan, it is widely acknowledged by strategic experts and international observers that Pakistan has, over the years, supported militant groups operating in Kashmir. This strategy is seen as an attempt to wage a low-intensity conflict that keeps Indian forces engaged and internationalizes the Kashmir issue without engaging in full-fledged war, which would be costly for both sides.
Calling these incidents merely “terrorist attacks” oversimplifies and misrepresents the nature of the conflict. It fails to capture the broader strategy of proxy warfare wherein these militant groups are not merely independent actors but are elements of a larger strategic game played by Pakistan. This narrative adjustment is crucial not only for an accurate representation of the conflict but also for formulating effective strategies to address the root causes of the violence.
Moreover, referring to these events repeatedly as terrorist attacks might inadvertently minimize the state-backed nature of the conflict, reducing the perceived culpability of Pakistan in fostering instability in the region. This can affect international opinion and policy, skewing it towards a law-and-order problem within India rather than recognizing it as a matter of international security and diplomacy.
Acknowledging the proxy war element does not negate the terrorist aspect of these attacks, as the tactics used are undeniably terrorist in nature. However, it calls for a more nuanced understanding and response that goes beyond counter-terrorism. It requires diplomatic, military, and intelligence strategies that address both the immediate security challenges and the underlying political tensions.
The need of the hour is for India to push for greater international recognition of the proxy war dynamics at play. This involves diplomatically engaging with allies to put pressure on Pakistan to cease its support of militant groups. Concurrently, India must strengthen its internal security measures and invest in the socio-economic development of Kashmir to reduce the local populace’s vulnerabilities to militant ideologies.
In conclusion, as India mourns the loss of its brave soldier and prays for the speedy recovery of the injured, it is imperative to look at these incidents through the prism of proxy war. By doing so, India can craft a more holistic approach that aims not just at responding to individual attacks but at systematically dismantling the infrastructure of proxy warfare that fuels this cycle of violence. Such a shift in narrative and strategy is essential for a lasting peace in the region.
