The Pahalgam terror attack has reopened the festering India-Pakistan wound. The brutal killings of 26 Indian civilians—mostly tourists—as they took in the scenic beauty of Baisaran Valley, popularly called ‘Mini Switzerland’, has shaken not just the Indian establishment but the collective conscience of the world. Amid calls for revenge, India has taken decisive steps against Pakistan, accusing the neighbour of fomenting terror and shedding the blood of innocents on Indian soil. Apart from holding the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, India has closed the integrated check-post at Attari. The government will no longer allow Pakistani nationals to travel to India under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) visas. SVES visas issued earlier to Pakistani nationals were cancelled and all Pakistanis holding SVES visas were told to leave India in 48 hours. The defence/military, naval and air advisors in the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi were declared persona non grata, and given a week to leave the country. India also announced it would withdraw its defence staff from the Indian High Commission in Islamabad. Along with this, India said it would bring down the overall strength of the High Commissions to 30 from the present 55 through further reductions, to be done by May 1. ALSO READ | Pahalgam Shooters Were Ordered To Kill Brutally: Exclusive From Sources On Their Training An irate Pakistan promised to make India pay for the missives, with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif saying Islamabad is prepared for a “neutral and transparent investigation” into the terror attack but provoked India by saying: “Muhammad Ali Jinnah had rightly declared Kashmir as a jugular vein of Pakistan.” The battle for Kashmir is not new; it is one of the longest-running and most complex territorial conflicts in South Asia. Once a princely state, the mountainous, 86,000-square-mile territory remains a flashpoint, leading to sporadic clashes between Indian and Pakistani forces as well as terrorist attacks. THE ROOTS OF THE DISPUTE The roots of the conflict lie in the neighbours’ shared colonial past. From the 17th to the 20th century, Britain ruled most of the Indian subcontinent till a growing nationalist movement threatened to overthrow the rule. It was the Partition in 1947 which established a Muslim-majority Pakistan and a Hindu-majority India, while giving Jammu and Kashmir the opportunity to choose which country to accede to. However, in October 1947, tribal militias from Pakistan invaded Kashmir. Kashmir’s then-ruler Maharaja Hari Singh requested help from India and signed the Instrument of Accession, allowing Indian troops to enter Kashmir. This triggered the First India-Pakistan war of 1947-48. ALSO READ | Debt In Billions, Crippled Foreign Reserves: Why War With India Is Economic Suicide For Pakistan In 1949, a UN-mediated ceasefire led to a Line of Control (LoC), with India getting two-thirds of the territory and Pakistan controlling the remaining third (what it calls Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan). WARS & SKIRMISHES India and Pakistan were at loggerheads once again in 1965 over Kashmir. Skirmishes continued till the neighbours fought once again in 1971 over East Pakistan, with Indian forces helping the territory gain independence, resulting in the establishment of present-day Bangladesh. What followed was decades of violence in Jammu and Kashmir and heavy military presence in the region, exacerbated by exodus of Kashmiri Pandits following targeted killings at the behest of Pakistan-sponsored terrorists. In 1999, tensions peaked once again with the Kargil War, further straining India-Pakistan relations and bring the spotlight on the volatility of the Kashmir issue. PEACE ATTEMPTS The Tashkent Agreement (1966), signed after the 1965 war, was brokered by the Soviet Union. Lal Bahadur Shastri (India) and Ayub Khan (Pakistan) agreed to withdraw forces and restore diplomatic relations. ALSO READ | Opinion | Why India And Pakistan Are Not The Same People This was followed by the Simla Agreement (1972) that was signed after the 1971 war that led to the creation of Bangladesh. Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto agreed to resolve issues bilaterally and maintain the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir. After India moved against Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, the neighbour suspended the Simla Agreement, weakening the agreed-upon mechanisms for dialogue and peaceful resolution and increasing the risk of miscalculation and escalation, particularly along the volatile Line of Control. India has also consistently cited the Simla Agreement to resist third-party intervention in the Kashmir issue. Pakistan’s suspension may be seen as an attempt to potentially internationalise the dispute once again, a scenario India has long sought to avoid. In 2001, the Agra Summit was held between then Indian PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf with the purpose of building trust and cooperation, but no agreement was finalised. The Composite Dialogue Process (1997–2008) was a comprehensive set of talks covering Kashmir, terrorism, trade, and people-to-people contact. However, it was suspended after the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which Pakistan-based terrorists killed over 160 people in India’s financial capital. The Lahore Declaration (1999) followed, signed during Vajpayee’s historic bus trip to Lahore. Both sides committed to nuclear restraint and peaceful resolution of issues. In 2019, the opening of the Kartarpur Corridor was a rare moment of cooperation, allowing Indian Sikh pilgrims visa-free access to a major gurdwara in Pakistan. THE ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 India and Pakistan locked horns yet again in August 2019 when the Narendra Modi government abrogated Article 370, ending Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and reorganising it into two Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature). A stunned Islamabad said international law does not recognise India’s “unilateral decisions” on the status of Jammu and Kashmir, adding that they had “no legal value”. “Pakistan does not acknowledge the supremacy of the Indian Constitution over Jammu and Kashmir. Any process, subservient to the Indian Constitution, carries no legal significance. India cannot abdicate its international obligations on the pretext of domestic legislations and judicial verdicts,” Jalil Abbas Jilani, the caretaker foreign minister had said. ALSO READ | ‘Doing This Dirty Work For 3 Decades’: Did Pakistan Just Admit To Training And Funding Terrorists? | Watch Unfortunately for Pakistan, its rabble-rousing received no substantial international support. Though Pakistan’s fair-weather friend China pushed for a UNSC meeting and criticised India, other major players urged the countries to hold a bilateral dialogue and resolve their issues. KASHMIR REACHES UNGA STAGE Pakistan has consistently raised the Kashmir issue at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the years, often highlighting human rights concerns and calling for international intervention. Some notable instances include when Pakistan’s Ambassador to the UN, Maleeha Lodhi, addressed the UNGA’s High-Level Thematic Debate on human rights in 2016 following the killing of separatist leader Burhan Wani and accused India of human rights violations. In 2019, Pakistan’s then prime minister Imran Khan addressed the 74th UNGA session in September and raised the Kashmir issue, especially after India’s revocation of Article 370, accusing India of committing human rights violations and warning of potential regional instability. In September 2024, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in his speech at the 79th UNGA session, likened the Kashmir situation to that of Palestine. He called for the reversal of India’s 2019 decision and urged dialogue for a peaceful resolution in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people. India, meanwhile, has consistently used the UNGA platform to push back strongly against Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir. Whenever Pakistan raises the Kashmir issue, India usually responds with a “Right of Reply” or a firm speech by its delegation, countering Pakistan’s narrative. Some notable instances when India hit back at the neighbour on the international stage include in 2016 when First Secretary Eenam Gambhir termed Pakistan the “Ivy League of Terrorism” in the aftermath of the Burhan Wani killing, accusing it of glorifying terrorists and exporting terror across the world. “The land of Taxila, one of the greatest learning centers of ancient times, is now host to the Ivy League of terrorism,” she said. In 2017, Gambhir took on Pakistan again as the Pakistani PM raised the Kashmir issue and called India’s actions oppressive. “Pakistan is now ‘Terroristan’, with a flourishing industry producing and exporting global terrorism,” she said. After India revoked Article 370, Pakistan’s Imran Khan gave an aggressive speech warning of “bloodbath” in Kashmir. Responding to the warning, First Secretary Vidisha Maitra said: “The words used today by the Pakistani leader are not worthy of a reply… This is a country that has shrunk the size of its minority population from 23% in 1947 to 3% today.” She also emphasised Pakistan’s track record of harbouring terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Hafiz Saeed. ALSO READ | What 1993 CIA Report Has Predicted For Pakistan If It Went On War With India | Explained Diplomat Sneha Dubey’s 2020 reply, terming Pakistan the “Epicenter of Terrorism”, went viral on social media as she said: “Pakistan is an arsonist disguising itself as a firefighter.” She called Pakistan’s statements on Kashmir a distraction from its domestic failures and human rights abuses in Balochistan. In 2024, Indian diplomat Bhavika Mangalanandan said for Pakistan that a country run by the military, with a global reputation for terrorism, narcotics, trade and transnational crime, has had the “audacity to attack the world’s largest democracy”. “As the world knows, Pakistan has long employed cross-border terrorism as a weapon against its neighbours. It has attacked our parliament, our financial capital, Mumbai, marketplaces and pilgrimage roots. The list is long. For such a country to speak about violence anywhere is hypocrisy at its worst. It is even more extraordinary for a country with a history of rigged elections to talk about political choices that, too, in a democracy,” the Indian diplomat said. “…The real truth is that Pakistan covets our territory and, in fact, has continuously used terrorism to disrupt elections in Jammu and Kashmir, an inalienable and integral part of India,” Mangalanandan added, puncturing Pakistan’s attempts to earn global sympathy over the issue.