Opinion - Can India and Pakistan overcome their violent history?
A terrorist attack killed 26 in the beautiful hill station of Pahalgam, Kashmir, on April 22. India blamed Pakistani-trained militants. Early on the morning of May 7, India launched missile attacks on nine sites in Pakistan, calling the strikes 'measured, responsible and designed to be non-escalatory in nature,' which Pakistan called a 'blatant act of war.'
These attacks tear at the intertwined cultural fabric of India and Pakistan and recall their partition in 1947, after the end of British colonial rule.
The personal and the political flow together here. Aarti Menon's father was killed in the April 22 attack and she noted that the terrorists spared her life as she clung to her six-year-old twin sons. Two Muslims named Musafir and Sameer helped her get away. Later, she recalled, 'I have two brothers in Kashmir now. May Allah protect you both.'
The U.S. is trying to reduce tensions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has spoken to senior officials on both sides, and President Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson affirmed American support for India against terrorism. Later, Trump echoed Western sentiment saying the U.S. is close to India and Pakistan. With typical exaggeration, he also noted India and Pakistan have fought for a thousand years.
India's government linked the April 22 attacks, without conclusive proof, to the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. Pakistan officially denied support, but militants are often trained in Pakistan. India provided ample proof after the November 2009 Mumbai terror attacks.
Anti-Pakistan fervor has built up in India, and vice versa. India and Pakistan fought wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971 and were involved in armed conflicts in 1999 and 2019.
In 1947, the Maharaja of Muslim-majority Kashmir and Hindu-majority Jammu ceded the territories to India. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru promised a referendum on the status of Kashmir that, stymied with fraught relations and politics, was never held. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution provided special privileges for Jammu and Kashmir until 2019, when the nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi government revoked it.
At a personal level, the story of two Muslims assisting a Hindu woman after a terror attack speaks to the scars that have healed since the partition. The issue resonates with many of us: My father was born in what is now Pakistan and my mother's family fled from a village near Lahore in 1947. They left behind neighbors. One million people were killed during the partition and 15 million were displaced as Muslims left for Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs came to India. However, post-colonial India had one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, and today 14.2 percent of India's 1.4 billion citizens are Muslim.
My mother recalled the partition vividly. Her family were in a caravan as they tearfully left their village in Pakistan. She and her sisters were dressed as boys because young girls were being raped. They were among those who eventually boarded the infamous trains from Pakistan to India. When they arrived at the house my great-grandparents owned in Indian Punjab, they entered through a courtyard with dead bodies.
A great deal has been written about the trauma of the partition, but much less about the lineage of people like Aarti Menon or like my mother who witness horrific acts of violence but do not blame religion. My family's account of the partition was not unique. Many families saw the outbreaks of violence as historic colonial tragedies, not as inescapable religious hatred. Aarti Menon's Kerala of present and my parents Punjab of the past feature several religious groups living side-by-side in towns and villages. They are neighbors.
It would have been easy for many post-partition Indians to blame Muslims. They largely did not. I grew up in a Sikh family. Many Sikhs were persecuted by Mughal emperors. However, the Sikh scripture is filled with verses from Muslim poets. Sikhs blamed the rulers, not the religion.
After 1947, Mahatma Gandhi and Prime Minister Nehru envisioned a secular and pluralist India for nation-building. One of the most famous Bollywood films remains 'Mughal-e-Azam' or 'The Great Mughal,' offering an allegory about integrating gender and Islam in a secular India.
The secular Indian state is under duress from far-right Hindu nationalists who seek conflict. Significant acts marginalizing the Muslim community include the 1992 demolition of the medieval Babri Masjid and, after a controversial Supreme Court judgment in 2019, the building of a Hindu temple where the mosque once stood. Despite 172 million Muslims in India, the current BJP party-led government's cabinet or parliamentary majority does not include a single Muslim. During the 2024 elections, Modi referred to Indian Muslims as 'infiltrators.'
The geopolitical implications are clear. Terrorist violence destabilizes America's political and commercial tilt toward India, especially as a check against China, with whom India has another historic rivalry. Meanwhile, polls show that Pakistanis favor China over America. The Pakistani military, an important but declining force in domestic politics, would also gain from conflict with India.
With domestic politics exacerbating international tensions, statements like those of Aarti Menon or the stories of millions of post-partition households remind us that the Indus River — whose waters India has threatened to divert, abrogating a 1960 treaty between the two countries — has flowed through these lands for millennia.
The lesson is not that neighbors do not fight, but that at interpersonal levels, people often choose not to fight, even when pressured the other way. Geopolitically, India is well-placed to avoid a war and win international favor. Trump called the May 7 attacks 'a shame' and expressed hope that they end quickly. Let's all hope so.
J.P. Singh is Distinguished University Professor at Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow with the Robert Bosch Academy (Berlin). He is co-editor-in-chief of Global Perspectives.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.


Washington Post
9 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump and Putin will meet at an Alaska military base long used to counter Russia
WASHINGTON — In an ironic twist, President Donald Trump is set to discuss the war in Ukraine with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at a military base in Alaska that was crucial to countering the Soviet Union during the height of Cold War and still plays a role today. The meeting is scheduled to take place Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, according to a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning. The base created by merging Elmendorf Air Force Base and Army Fort Richardson in 2010 has played a key strategic role in monitoring and deterring the Soviet Union during much of the Cold War. Throughout its long history, the base hosted large numbers of aircraft and oversaw operations of a variety of early warning radar sites that were aimed at detecting Soviet military activity and any possible nuclear launches. It earned the motto 'Top Cover for North America' at this time, according to the base website. While much of the military hardware has since been deactivated, the base still hosts key aircraft squadrons, including the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet. Planes from the base also still intercept Russian aircraft that regularly fly into U.S. airspace. The irony of Putin visiting an American military base that long has — and still does — aimed to counter Russian threats comes as Trump works to reach a ceasefire deal in a war that he promised during the 2024 campaign to end quickly. Officials from Ukraine and Europe fear that the one-on-one meeting they will not take part in could lead to an outcome that favors Russian goals. French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump was 'very clear' that the United States wants to achieve a ceasefire at the summit. Macron spoke after a virtual meeting between Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders. Trump has said any major agreement could involve land swaps and that Zelenskyy and Putin could meet next or he could meet with both leaders. 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting, which will be more productive than the first, because the first is I'm going to find out where we are and what we're doing,' Trump told reporters Wednesday. 'It's going to be a very important meeting, but it's setting the table for the second meeting.'