Source: Harish Tyagi / Efe

A poorly closed partition

Few places in the world condense as much history, conflict, and geopolitical tension as Kashmir. Located in the north of the Indian subcontinent, at the intersection of India, Pakistan, and China, this mountainous region with stunning landscapes and strategic natural resources has been, for over seven decades, the epicenter of one of the most persistent and dangerous territorial conflicts of the 20th… and 21st century.

To understand why Kashmir matters —and why it is back in international headlines following a new military escalation between India and Pakistan— it is necessary to go back to 1947, when the British Empire withdrew from South Asia after nearly two centuries of colonization. The independence of British India led to the creation of two states: the Republic of India, with a Hindu majority, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It was a tragic and violent partition, marked by forced displacements, pogroms, and over a million deaths.

In the midst of that chaos lay the region of Jammu and Kashmir. Although it was a principality with a Muslim majority, its monarch —a Hindu maharaja— decided to annex itself to India, a decision rejected by Pakistan. That dispute marked the beginning of a lasting enmity: since then, India and Pakistan have fought three conventional wars (in 1947, 1965, and 1971) and a limited war in 1999, known as the Kargil conflict. Over the years, they have also exchanged accusations of fostering terrorism and violating the human rights of the Kashmiri people.

Today, the territory of Kashmir is de facto divided among three countries: India controls two-thirds (the state of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh), Pakistan administers a western portion (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan), and China possesses a northeastern part (Aksai Chin). However, both India and Pakistan claim the entire region, and none of the tensions have been resolved through permanent diplomatic channels.

In this historical context, violence has erupted again. In the town of Pahalgam, in the Indian-controlled Kashmir, a bombing left 26 people dead and dozens injured, most of them tourists visiting the Baisaran valley. It was the bloodiest attack in years. Within hours, the government of Narendra Modi blamed extremist groups based in Pakistan —such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed— and launched “Operation Sindoor,” a campaign of airstrikes and missile attacks on targets on the Pakistani side, including areas of Kashmir administered by Islamabad and the outskirts of the Pakistani capital.

Pakistan's response was swift. The government of Islamabad denounced a flagrant violation of its sovereignty and described the attack as an “unprovoked act of war.” In retaliation, it deployed its air force and carried out limited bombings, shot down Indian drones, and mobilized troops toward the line of control, a militarized border that has divided the territory since 1972.

Beyond the exchange of fire, what caught the world’s attention was the technological dimension of the confrontation. Pakistan used J-10C Vigorous Dragon fighters, made in China, equipped with state-of-the-art radars and PL-15 missiles, to confront Indian Rafale (French) and MiG-29 (Russian) aircraft. According to unconfirmed sources, up to five Indian aircraft may have been shot down. Although China denied direct participation, the episode served as a testing ground for its weaponry technology and highlighted the growing alliance between Islamabad and Beijing.

In just four days, the new escalation left at least 98 dead —including 47 civilians— and over 180 injured. In Pakistani Kashmir alone, 31 civilian deaths were recorded, 206 homes destroyed, and over fifty injured. The humanitarian toll is once again devastating: ruined houses, displaced communities, traumatized children, and a renewed fear that a spark could turn this cold war into an open nuclear conflict.

Why so much interest in Kashmir? Besides its symbolic value for Indian and Pakistani nationalisms, the region has enormous water wealth (which feeds essential rivers for both countries), fertile agricultural land, mineral resources, and high tourism potential. For India, it represents an affirmation of its territorial integrity and the Hindu nationalism project promoted by Modi. For Pakistan, it is a historical debt to the Kashmiri Muslim population, which many consider victims of occupation.

But Kashmir is not just a bilateral issue. What happens there today also involves powers like China, which provides arms to Pakistan and maintains territorial disputes with India, and Western countries with commercial and strategic interests in the region. India, as an emerging power and a member of the BRICS bloc, maintains a complex relationship with China and Russia, while holding a strategic dialogue with the United States, Japan, and Australia through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD).

In an increasingly multipolar world, the Kashmir conflict reminds us that the wounds of the colonial past remain open and that local tensions can escalate into global conflicts. When two nuclear powers face off in the Himalayas, what is at stake is not just a valley, but the fragile balance of an entire region.

The voice of a generation at war: Sankalp Wadhwani and the Indian youth's view on Kashmir

At 22 years old, Sankalp Wadhwani has already made international politics his intellectual battlefield. An advanced student of Global Affairs at O.P. Jindal Global University and a research assistant at various strategic centers in India —including the Centre for Security Studies and the Centre for Middle East Studies—, Sankalp represents a generation of deeply politicized youth, marked by post-2014 nationalism and a new Indian prominence on the global stage.

With research experience in Moscow, publications in international forums, and knowledge of Mandarin Chinese, Sankalp experiences the conflict with Pakistan not from a distance but from the center of the Indian public conversation. In this exclusive interview, he offers a lucid and uncompromising perspective on the causes of the latest military escalation in Kashmir, the role of political parties, and how society —especially his generation— reacted to the truce.

How did the recent conflict between India and Pakistan affect the internal political climate?

The impact was immediate. Major opposition forces, like Congress, decided not to question the government for possible intelligence failures but to support the military response. This marks a shift from previous stages, where the discourse of non-violence prevailed. Today, all parties understand that there is a strong citizen demand to act against terrorism, especially when it is clearly linked to actors supported from Pakistan.

Was there political unity during the escalation or did divergent positions prevail?

There was unity. The government called a multi-party meeting after the Pahalgam attack, where the “Operation Sindoor,” launched on May 7, was supported. The opposition also defended the need to continue retaliation if Pakistan crossed certain lines. Some leaders, like Sachin Pilot, did seek explanations about the role of the U.S. in the ceasefire, but the consensus was clear: the objective was not war but dismantling terrorist structures.

What do you see as the deeper causes of the conflict?

There is an evident external factor: China. The growing partnership between India and the U.S. in trade and strategy raises concerns in Beijing, and Pakistan remains its key ally to contain India's projection. Using the conflict in Kashmir as a tool for destabilization serves Chinese interests.

But there are also internal motivations in Pakistan. The fall of Imran Khan, massive protests, the crisis in Balochistan, and the loss of authority of the army created an ideal context for the military high command to provoke a confrontation that unifies Pakistani society around an external enemy: India.

How was the truce received by Indian society?

With mixed feelings. Many saw the ceasefire as an opportunity for stability and economic growth, which India needs to continue consolidating as a power. But others experienced it as a premature withdrawal. There was a consensus that we had tactical and technological superiority —our defense systems intercepted over 90% of enemy attacks— and that we should have continued until completely eradicating terrorist camps. Frustration grew upon seeing funerals of terrorists in Pakistan with military honors and participation from high-ranking officials.

Do you feel the conflict was used to divert attention from other internal issues?

Not in the case of India. But in Pakistan, undoubtedly. The conflict served to silence protests, justify authoritarian measures —like the possibility of trying civilians in military courts— and extend the power of the army chief. It is a strategy already seen: when the Pakistani army loses internal legitimacy, it resorts to conflict with India.

And how did young people like you, who are politically forming, experience it?

There was a clear wave of youth nationalism. But not an aggressive nationalism, rather one focused on justice and the firm defense of the country. We appreciate that the military response was precise, that it did not target Pakistani civilians. That matters a lot to us. At the same time, there is a deep understanding that this is a repeated cycle: Pakistan enters a crisis, attacks, a ceasefire is signed, and the world moves on. Many of us think that can’t continue. Peace cannot be built on the impunity of terrorist groups.

Kashmir, beyond the conflict: lives that await a future

The conflict in Kashmir is not just another chapter in the long history of tensions between India and Pakistan, but a constant reminder that the wounds of colonial past and geopolitical rivalries have yet to find resolution. As younger generations like Sankalp Wadhwani seek a balance between patriotism and aspirations for peace, the challenge remains enormous: transforming a dispute marked by violence and distrust into a sincere dialogue that guarantees stability, development, and coexistence for a region whose importance transcends its borders. In a world where regional and global powers play their cards, Kashmir remains a decisive test for diplomacy, security, and the future of the entire South Asia.