India and Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir – explained in 30 seconds
Both claim it in full, but each controls a section of the territory, separated by one of the world's most heavily militarised borders: the 'line of control' based on a ceasefire border established after their 1947-48 war.
India and Pakistan have gone to war twice since over Kashmir, most recently in 1999.
The dispute stems from the partition of colonial India in 1947, when small, semi-autonomous 'princely states' across the subcontinent were being folded into India or Pakistan, and the local ruler chose to become part of India despite the fact the area had a Muslim majority. Map of Kashmir
Armed insurgents in Kashmir have resisted Delhi for decades, with many Muslim Kashmiris supporting the rebels' goal of uniting the territory either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country. India accuses Pakistan of backing militants – a claim Pakistan denies.
In 2019 Narendra Modi's government launched a severe security crackdown in Indian-administered Kashmir and revoked the region's special status, which had granted it limited autonomy since 1949.
The move fulfilled a longstanding Hindu-nationalist pledge and was widely welcomed across India, but angered many in the territory itself.
New rules were implemented that allowed outsiders to buy land in Kashmir for the first time, which many saw as an attempt by Modi's Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) to dispossess them of their land and change the Muslim demography of the region.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
India's Rahul Gandhi says he will challenge 'serious discrepancies' in electoral system
NEW DELHI, Aug 13 (Reuters) - Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi said on Wednesday India's electoral system suffers from "serious discrepancies" and he pledged to continue challenging its integrity through public mobilisation and potentially the courts. Gandhi, the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that controls the main opposition Congress party, last week accused authorities of manipulating voter rolls by adding fake names in the 2024 general election and other recent polls. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party, which performed below expectations in the national vote and had to rely on allies to form a government, went on to win several state elections with relative ease. The BJP and the Election Commission have both denied the rigging charges, which are rare in the world's most populous democracy of 1.42 billion people. "There are serious discrepancies in the election system, and we will diligently keep exposing them,' Gandhi told a group of reporters citing research conducted by Congress party colleagues. However, he said he aimed to preserve public trust in democratic institutions. "We do not want to discredit the election process of India, so we are doing it slowly and deliberately," he said at his official bungalow in central Delhi, where portraits of his father and grandmother — both former prime ministers — hung from the walls. Gandhi said the party's strategy was focused on building public pressure. "We mainly want to challenge the Election Commission through the people but could eventually go to court." "If elections are rigged, no amount of cadre mobilisation will work. The game we are playing is rigged," Gandhi said, when asked by Reuters if the opposition alliance could oust Modi in the next national election in 2029. His comments come ahead of a closely contested state election in Bihar. 'The Bihar election is looking very close, but we are rising and they are declining,' he said. Bihar, one of India's most politically important states, goes to polls by November. It is ruled by an alliance of Modi's party but according to a recent survey by the VoteVibe agency, the opposition has an edge largely because of a lack of jobs.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Shadow tanker fleet grows more slowly as Western sanctions target Russian oil
LONDON, Aug 13 (Reuters) - Dozens of tankers have joined the shadow fleet this year compared with hundreds in previous years as the harshest Western sanctions yet target Russia's oil exports and add to the difficulty of finding suitable vessels, shipping sources said. The European Union and Britain last month imposed further sanctions on Russia over its war in Ukraine. Together with U.S. restrictions, they mean more than 440, opens new tab shadow fleet tankers face sanctions, including tankers Moscow needs to ship oil to its biggest buyers, China and India. The shadow fleet of vessels is used by Venezuela and Iran, as well as Russia to evade Western sanctions. Typically, the vessels are old, their ownership is opaque, and they sail without top-tier insurance cover to meet international standards for oil majors and many ports. Since the Ukraine war began in 2022, the shadow fleet has been especially used by Russia, which has relied on oil revenues to help finance its war effort. In addition to the sanctions, the Group of Seven countries has imposed a cap over what price level Russian oil can be sold at, adding to trade complexities. The size of the fleet is between 1,200 and 1,600 tankers, according to estimates from industry sources and analysts, including Lloyd's List Intelligence and shipbroker Gibson. This represents an estimated fifth of the overall global tanker fleet. That compares with a few hundred vessels operating before the Ukraine war, but sources say its growth has slowed year-on-year as the list of sanctions has grown and sales of second-hand ships have been under more scrutiny from authorities and legal compliance teams. The estimate of the shadow fleet's size does not include hundreds of smaller coastal tankers, which are not ocean-going but have transported oil, chiefly for Russia. "Regulators are closing the net," Anna Giacomello, analyst with British maritime cyber defence and risk intelligence company Dryad Global, said in a July report. For all the risks, the potential for profit remains a lure for some. "Operators may still enter the shadow fleet because it can be highly lucrative," said Leigh Hansson, sanctions partner at law firm Reed Smith, who advises shipping and trading companies on oil sanctions compliance. But she said the major established players would stay away and that only those with little experience of the shipping market may be willing to engage in risky operations, with older vessels that major ship insurers will not cover.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Recognising Palestine is why Starmer and Macron will be ignored on Ukraine
There is a very good reason why there will be no European representation at the summit due to take place in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the Ukraine conflict. It is simply that, when it comes to the big geopolitical decisions affecting the future security of the continent, today's generation of European leaders cannot be trusted to make the right call. The last time the world's major powers met to carve up Europe's borders, at the Potsdam Conference at the end of the Second World War, Britain was guaranteed a seat at the top table by virtue of the statesmanlike leadership qualities Winston Churchill had displayed throughout the conflict. Back then Europe's fate was to be decided by the so-called 'Big Three', the US, Britain and Russia. Now the Big Three are the US, Russia and China – the UK barely meriting a mention. The notion that Sir Keir Starmer, or any other European leader, might have any useful contribution to make at the Alaska summit is almost risible given their recent conduct on the other pressing security issue of the day: ending the appalling conflict in Gaza. Since returning to office in January, Trump has made it clear that his two main foreign policy objectives are to end the conflicts in both Ukraine and Gaza. While his efforts regarding Ukraine have so far been stymied by Putin's lack of interest in a ceasefire, the Trump administration has worked hard to formulate a workable ceasefire proposal for Gaza. Indeed, by early July, Washington was indicating that Israel had broadly accepted the terms of the 60-day ceasefire deal, with the final decision on whether it would go ahead or not left in the hands of Hamas. It was torpedoed after the organisation's terrorist leadership announced that it would not accept the ceasefire until a Palestinian state had been created and recognised. A key factor in Hamas's rejection of the ceasefire deal appears to have been the decision by Starmer, together with French President Emmanuel Macron, to announce their intention to recognise a Palestinian state at next month's annual UN General Assembly in New York. This is despite the fact that no such Palestinian state actually exists. To add insult to injury, Hamas officials publicly praised the British and French leaders for declaring their intention to recognise a Palestinian state, with the terrorist organisation hailing the decision as 'one of the fruits of October 7'. Not surprisingly, the grandstanding exploits of Starmer and Macron, which were taken more to embarrass Israel than make any positive contribution to the plight of ordinary Palestinians, have not gone down well in Washington. Even Trump remarked that Starmer's plan to grant recognition meant 'rewarding Hamas'. The Trump administration has blamed the collapse of July's ceasefire talks, and Hamas's decision to reject the ceasefire terms, directly on Macron's decision to recognise Palestinian statehood. Talks with Hamas 'fell apart on the day Macron made the unilateral decision that he's going to recognise the Palestinian state,' said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Starmer's subsequent decision to follow Macron's lead in planning to recognise Palestine only made matters worse for Washington in terms of arranging a lasting ceasefire in Gaza. In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that the Trump administration has little appetite for including the likes of Starmer and Macron in key discussions relating to the future of Europe's security when he meets with Putin in Alaska. Instead, the Europeans, in the form of Starmer's so-called 'coalition of the willing', have been relegated to the periphery of the negotiations, with Trump agreeing to hold video conferences with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ahead of his summit with Putin. Whether the American president will take on board anything Starmer has to contribute to the discussion is another matter. To date, Starmer's most notable contribution to the Ukraine debate has been to float the notion of establishing some form of European security force to protect Ukraine's borders once a ceasefire takes hold. Starmer has even talked of deploying 'boots on the ground', although this proposition has been quietly dropped after it was pointed out to the Prime Minister that the parlous state of our Armed Forces meant the UK's contribution would be minimal. The other big disconnect between Starmer and Trump is that the US leader is playing for far higher stakes than simply ending hostilities in Ukraine. Trump's primary goal is to forge closer ties with Moscow in a bid to weaken Russia's strategic partnership with China, a country that Washington regards as posing a far greater threat to America's long-term security than Russia. So when Starmer warns Trump, as he did earlier this week, that Putin cannot be trusted, the American president will politely note the Prime Minister's concerns, and then act in a way that suits his own interests.
