Why India and Pakistan are on verge of all-out war after terror attack and strikes
Stunningly beautiful Kashmir is the jewel in the crown for both Pakistan and India but it has been blighted by years of violent, bloody turmoil which has led to both countries to war before and could again.
When British rule of the Indian subcontinent ended in 1947 hastily drawn borders gave birth to two sovereign nations - majority Hindu India and majority Muslim Pakistan. The poorly-executed transition led to one of history's largest-ever refugee catastrophes and a boiling over of sectarian violence that had simmered for many years.
Ethnically diverse Kashmir is a Himalayan region famed for the beauty of its lakes, meadows and snow-capped mountains, which is why India wants tourism there. But after partition, under the Indian Independence Act, Kashmir was free to become either Indian or Pakistani and the local Maharaja or ruler wanted independence. In October 1947 the Maharaja chose to join India, in return for its help against an invasion of tribesmen from Pakistan.
War erupted, the UN stepped in and could not solve the issue for the whole of Kashmir and in 1949, India and Pakistan signed an agreement to establish a ceasefire line. This meant the region was divided and has remained so.
A second war followed in 1965. Then in 1999, India fought a brief but bitter conflict with Pakistani-backed forces. By that time, India and Pakistan were declared nuclear powers. Today, Delhi and Islamabad both claim Kashmir in full, but control only parts of it.
Each controls a section of the territory, separated by one of the world 's most heavily militarised borders. However there is still unrest in the India-controlled part. Within India-controlled Kashmir, some do not want it to be governed by India, preferring either independence or union with Pakistan instead.
The population of historic Kashmir is divided into about 10 million people in Indian-administrated Jammu and Kashmir and 4.5 million in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. There are a further 1.8 million people in the Gilgit-Baltistan autonomous territory, which Pakistan created from northern Kashmir and the two small princely states of Hunza and Nagar in 1970.
An armed revolt has been waged against Indian rule in the region since 1989, claiming tens of thousands of lives. India accuses Pakistan of backing militants in Kashmir and Pakistan has accused India of encouraging oppression against Muslims.
In 2019, Indian-administered Kashmir was stripped of its semi-autonomous status by the government in Delhi amid a huge security crackdown. For several years after, the revocation of the region's special status, militancy waned and tourist visits soared. But as we saw with the terrorist killings of mostly Indian tourists in the region, tension still simmered.
As many as 26 civilians were killed by the gunmen in an attack that was claimed by Pakistani Salafi jihadist militant organisation Lashkar e Taiba , whose objective is to merge the whole of Kashmir. The group has since withdrawn their claim of responsibility.
India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of being involved in supporting insurgents within Kashmir, which Islamabad has denied. And that is with some evidence of Pakistan in the past having had links to terror groups such as the Taliban and others.
And that is why this current spat has blown up, with protests on both sides of the border becoming increasingly angry over the side's aggression.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding immediate Gaza ceasefire
The resolution before the UN's most powerful body also did not condemn Hamas's deadly attack in Israel on October 7 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza — two other US demands. The 14 other members of the 15-nation council voted in favour of the resolution, which described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as 'catastrophic' and called on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid to the 2.1 million Palestinians in the territory. The US vetoed the last resolution on Gaza in November, under the Biden administration, again because the ceasefire demand was not directly linked to the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Similarly, the current resolution demands those taken by Hamas and other groups be released, but it does not make it a condition for a truce. President Donald Trump's administration has tried to ramp up its efforts to broker peace in Gaza after 20 months of war. However, Hamas has sought amendments to a US proposal that special envoy Steve Witkoff has called 'totally unacceptable'.
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US vetoes resolution for unconditional Gaza ceasefire at UN security council
The United States has vetoed a United Nations security council resolution calling for an 'immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire' in Gaza while the 14 remaining countries on the council voted in favour. The vetoed resolution also called the situation in Gaza 'catastrophic', and demanded the 'immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza and its safe and unhindered distribution at scale, including by the UN and humanitarian partners'. It was the fifth time that the US has vetoed a security council draft ceasefire resolution in order to protect Israel. Washington vetoed a similar resolution in November, under the Biden administration, on the grounds that the ceasefire demand was not directly linked to the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas. The text was co-sponsored by Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia. Russia, China, France and the UK also voted in favour. The US representative, Dorothy Shea, called the draft resolution 'unacceptable' saying that the United States 'would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza'. Israel also welcomed the US veto. 'I thank @POTUS and the U.S. administration for standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel and vetoing this one-sided resolution in the UN Security Council,' wrote Gideon Saar, Israel's minister of foreign affairs. 'The proposed resolution only strengthens Hamas and undermines American efforts to achieve a hostage deal.' The UK supported the resolution. In a statement, its ambassador, Barbara Woodward, called Israel's new aid system 'inhumane' and said that Israel 'needs to end its restrictions on aid now'. 'This Israeli government's decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid are unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive,' she said. 'And the UK completely opposes them.' The resolution was put up for a vote as the UN and aid agencies have warned of famine conditions in Gaza after a protracted embargo on aid and the shambolic rollout of a US- and Israeli-backed scheme called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). 'The world is watching, day after day, horrifying scenes of Palestinians being shot, wounded or killed in Gaza while simply trying to eat,' said the UN relief chief, Tom Fletcher, on Wednesday. GHF, which has murky political backing and funding, announced that its distribution centres in Gaza would remain closed for a second day on Thursday morning. At least 27 people were killed and hundreds injured on Tuesday by Israeli fire as they waited for food at a GHF distribution point. Woodward, the UK permanent representative to the UN, voiced support for a UN call for 'an immediate and independent investigation into these events and for perpetrators to be held accountable'. 'Israel needs to end its restrictions on aid now: let the UN and humanitarians do their job to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity,' she said.
Sky News
24 minutes ago
- Sky News
The big problem facing UK as deadline to finalise US trade deal looms
When push comes to shove, the question of whether British industry faces crippling tariffs on exports to the US or enjoys a unique opportunity to grow may come back to three seemingly random words: "melted and poured". To see why, let's begin by recapping where we are at present in the soap opera of US trade policy. Donald Trump has just doubled the extra tariffs charged on imports of steel and aluminium into the US from 25% to 50%. In essence, this would turn a painfully high tariff into something closer to an insurmountable economic wall (remember during the Cold War, the Iron Curtain equated to an effective tariff rate of just under 50%). Anyway, the good news for UK steel producers is that they have been spared the 50% rate and will, for the time being, only have to pay the 25% rate. But there is a sting in the tail: that stay of execution will only last until 9 July - on the basis of President Trump's most recent pronouncements. 1:00 For anyone following these events from the corner of their eyes, this might all sound a little odd. After all, didn't Sir Keir Starmer announce only a few weeks ago that British steel and aluminium makers would be able to enjoy not 25% but 0% tariffs with America, thanks to his bold new trade agreement with the US? Well, yes. But the prime minister wasn't being entirely clear about what that meant in practice. Because the reality is that every trade agreement works more or less as follows: politicians negotiate a "heads of terms" agreement - a vague set of principles and red lines. There then follows a period of horse-trading and negotiation to nail down the actual details and turn it into a black and white piece of law. In this case, when the PM and president made their big announcement 28 days ago, they had only agreed on the "heads of terms". The small print was yet to be completed. Right now, we are still in the horse-trading phase. Negotiators from the UK and the US are meeting routinely to try and nail down the small print. And that process is taking longer than many had expected. To see why, it's worth drilling a little bit into the details. The trade deal committed to allowing some cars to pass into the US at a 10% rate and to protecting some pharmaceutical trade, as well as allowing some steel and aluminium into the US at a zero tariff rate. When it comes to cars, there are some nuances about which kind of cars the deal covers. Something similar goes for pharmaceuticals. Things get even knottier when you drill into the detail on steel. 2:13 You see, one of the things the White House is nervous about is the prospect that Britain might become a kind of assembly point for steel from other countries around the world - that you could just ship some steel to Britain, get it pressed or rolled or worked over and then sent across to the US with those 0% tariffs. So the US negotiators are insisting that only steel that is "melted and poured" in the UK (in other words, smelted in a furnace) is covered by the trade deal. That's fine for some producers but not for others. One of Britain's biggest steel exporters is Tata Steel, which makes a lot of steel that gets turned into tin cans you find on American supermarket shelves (not to mention piping used by the oil trade). Up until recently, that steel was indeed "melted and poured" from the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. But Tata shut down those blast furnaces last year, intending to replace them with cleaner electric arc furnaces. And in the intervening period, it's importing raw steel instead from the Netherlands and India and then running it through its mills. Or consider the situation at British Steel. There in Scunthorpe they are melting and pouring the steel from iron made in their blast furnaces - but now ponder this. While the company has been semi-nationalised by the government, it is still technically a Chinese business, owned by Jingye. In other words, its steel might technically count as benefiting China - which is something the White House is even more sensitive about. 👉 Tap here to follow Politics at Jack and Anne's wherever you get your podcasts 👈 You see how this is all suddenly becoming a bit more complicated than it might at first have looked? This helps to explain why the negotiations are taking longer than expected. But this brings us to the big problem. The White House has indicated that Britain will only be spared that 50% tariff rate provided the trade deal is finalised by 9 July. That gives the negotiators another month and a bit. That might sound like a lot, but now consider that that would be one of the fastest announcement-to-completion rates ever achieved in any trade negotiations in modern history. There's no guarantee Britain will actually get this deal done in time for that deadline - though insiders tell me they think they could be able to finalise it in a piecemeal fashion: the cars one week, steel another, pharmaceuticals another. Either way, the heat is on. Just when you thought Britain was in the safe zone, it stands on the edge of jeopardy all over again.
