May 12, 2025 • 19 mins
After a week of tensions, India and Pakistan have reached a ceasefire deal.
Tensions over the disputed territory of Kashmir were reignited after a massacre of Hindu tourists last month, leading to a series of bombings between the two countries that sparked fears they would return to full out war.
While the ceasefire deal is holding for now, many in the Kashmir region are hoping a permanent solution can be found.
Today on The Front Page, Auckland University Director of Global Studies, Chris Ogden is with us to explain the historical tensions between the two countries, and what is needed for permanent peace.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Curta. I'm Richard Martin in for Chelsea Daniels and this
is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the
New Zealand Herald. After a week of tensions, India and
Pakistan have reached a ceasefire deal. Tensions over the disputed
territory of Kashmir were reignited after a massacre of Hindu
(00:27):
tourists last month, leading to a series of bombings between
the two countries that sparked fears they would return to
all out war. While the ceasefire deal is holding for now,
many in the Kashmir region are hoping a permanent solution
can be found. Today on the Front Page, Auckland University
Director of Global Studies, Chris Ogden is with us to
(00:48):
explain the historical tensions between the two countries and what
is needed for permanent peace. Okay, so to start off
with Christus might be a bit of a loaded question,
but can you explain to us what the Kashmir region
is and why it's disputed by both India and Pakistan.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
So it's the territory that straddles the border between India
and Pakistan and it's been under dispute since the two
countries came into formation after the ending of British India
in nineteen forty seven, and the end of British India
came about due to partition, where the territory was split
into Muslim dominated areas and other areas within India, and
(01:32):
that whole region and Kashmir was disputed from the very beginning.
There was a war almost immediately after the mutual independences,
and then there have been wars periodically across the time
since then. A lot of it's to do with territory,
but realistically it's also to do with identity. Which country
is the dominant Muslim entity, which one represents all the
(01:55):
other religions on the subcontinent, and for that reason it's
seen as been highly existential. And both sides they lose Kashmir,
they can lose other bits of their territory and that
could be the end of their kind of national independencies.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
And then just in terms of this latest round of bombings,
can you run us through what prompted that?
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Yep, So one thing that's happened over the years. It's
not just that Pakistan and India have had say, direct
military conflicts, but there have been other ways that they've
kind of needed each other or tried to have contract
to proxies. Pakistan has been very adept at doing this,
in particular by harnessing terrorist groups that it trains in
(02:36):
its territory and then sending them into India and causing
attacks either within Indian control Kashmir or other parts of India.
Rather and this is what happened a couple of weeks ago,
where a group went in who are affiliated to a
group called Lashkar Etoiba, who are a very long standing
kind of thall in the side for India in terms
(02:57):
of terrorism. They've carried out lots of different and terrorist attacks,
and they attacked tourists in Kashmir in Indian control Kashmir
with a direct religious dimension to it. So it's said
that before people were killed, they were asked if they
could intone parts of the Quran, for example, and if
(03:17):
they couldn't, then they were directly targeted and executed. Those
events combine with an uncertainty about exactly whose control are under,
which is an ongoing dimension of all of these tensions
that often we don't know exactly who's controlling these groups,
if it's the Pakistani military or the intelligence services, or
the government itself, I think provoked lots of the emotions
(03:39):
of previous conflicts, including even going back to nineteen forty
seven that then it was kind of irregular troops you
came in. And this has reasserted these linkages between the
events of last week and all of that, those toxic,
very emotional kind of experiences from the past that then
(04:00):
vote the Indians into the reaction that they had.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
It's interesting because now we've reached a ceasefire really quickly.
And do you think that this was a case of
just sort of both sides getting tip for tat, but
of retaliation and against the other and then moving on,
or do you think there was a chance that this
could have turned into all that war?
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Yeah, I mean, I think first of all, there's always
a chance of rapid and very quick escalation, which often
is based upon tip for tap, but is also driven
by high degrees of nationalism on either side. So it's
not possible if you're the Indian prime minister or the
Pakistani prime minister to not react if you're attacked in
(04:41):
some way, either towards your civilians or towards your military.
So there always has to be some kind of retaliation.
In this case, there is definitive retaliation from both sides repeatedly.
I think we can draw different conclusions or kind of
get to different endpoints. One could be you could say
(05:02):
that both sides are kind of testing out the other.
So in this conflict, if we can call it a conflict,
we saw the use of drones from both sides, which
hasn't happened before. We also saw incursions, particularly into Pakistani territory,
that we've not seen for decades and decades. And some
of this can be testing capabilities of the other side,
trying to understand how to respond militarily effectively, but also
(05:26):
seeing what their defensive systems are like. But many reports
are also saying that because of the emotional side, plus
the capability side, plus the proximity side, escalation was expected
to really increase, some ramp up rapidly over the weekend.
I think what's also notable too, is is that in
many Indian reports at the moment, they're saying that they
(05:48):
don't recognize it as a ceasefire, and they say that
their military forces are still on high preparedness, and so
the perspective from their side is first of all, on
ongoing fear, but also think they've tried to kind of
exsert a high degree of cost on the Pakistani side
to say, if you are supporting these groups and these
(06:09):
attacks happen, you can expect more of this in the future.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
It will be a challenge for the international community to
keep that and maintain. You know, this cease fire that
has been announced, well, it has come from the highest
office in America. So President Trump has a very good
relationship with Prime Minister Modi. He's called him his a
very good friend, and every time they've met, they've hugged,
(06:38):
and he maintains that Prime Minister Mody is a good
friend of America. And I'm sure there will be a
lot of pressure on the political establishment out here to
make sure that this cease fire holds.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Yeah, do we know the details of sort of what's
been agreed so far?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
I think the only details so far are is the
recognition that if both sides don't stop, or at least
if one side doesn't stop, then that escalation will just
mount up a mount up. So I think that's what
all these diplomats from all these countries have done. They've
been able to pull back both sides from further escalation.
The other thing that I'm aware of is that certainly
(07:21):
the Pakistani side was quite shocked by the incursions into
its territory by Indian drones and missiles, the direct targeting
of military installations. So in the past the targeting would
often been against terrorist camps. But here again I think
the Indian strategy is is you hit much much harder
(07:42):
to make the other side much more afraid. And that's
continuing now that there's retro coming out from the Indian
side about how their ships were prepared to attack Karachi,
for example, or other major cities. So I think what's
happened is is that that kind of tip for tap
has been and that's allowed there to be calm. But again,
(08:04):
the amount of military preparedness is still there, so I
don't think either side has certainly not pulled back all
its troops. I think it's more a recognition from the
international community of the dangers of what can happen quite
quickly in South Asia.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Well, and both sides have now claimed victory as well,
is that right?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Yeah, they have. And this is the other thing, so
you know, now there's a kind of battle for narratives.
There's a battle for the kind of moral high ground
if that is even possible in this situation. And certainly
on one level, you could say that both leaders have
had the chance to prove that they are strong in
the sense of a terrorist attack has occurred, India has
(08:44):
reacted with force. Pakistan has then have been able to
react with force. But certainly these kind of claims and
counter claims will keep on going. I feel certain that
Pakistan will now come out with statements to say, well,
we were always prepared to hit Deli with weapons or
these other major cities with weapons as well. But I
guess within all of that is how useful is that
(09:06):
in terms of diffusing tensions, because in many ways it's
just kind of ramping up the rhetoric even further, even
though there isn't direct conflict, and in that sense, the
kind of triggers or the kind of sense of it
being a powder keg haven't gone away.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
I've read some commentary with people from Kashmir have spoken
up about this latest incident, and many of them have
said that they want to see some sort of permanent
solution in place for their country. Do you think that
there's any path to that realistically?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah? So This is a really this is a really
interesting observation, right because often within this conflict, we think, well,
there's this disputed territory. India claims it's part of its
territory and it needs that for its kind of territory integrity.
From the other side, Pakistan claims it, and Pakistan's a
acrosstic interestingly, so its name comes from different bits of
(10:08):
its territory. So the K in pakistanis for Kashmir, so
it makes it truly existential. But we often forget about
what the Kashmiri's want, and most Kashmiris, I think in
most polls consistently across time, would like some kind of
plebiscite or referendum which would give them the right to
(10:29):
choose their future, including their own self determination. So there
are three pathways that Kashmi could go to Pakistan. Kashmi
could go to India, or Kashmir could become independent. For
the big players in the region, and we should also
remember that China holds ten percent of Kashmir territory, the
idea of Kashmir becoming independent will not satisfy or help
(10:52):
anybody from those big actors. But certainly if you live
in Kashmir, you live in very difficult circumstances, so your
kind of day to day life will be heavily militarized.
If you live in Kashmir for say the last two
to three years, the vast majority of that time you'll
have had no internet because the Internet will have been
(11:13):
switched off because it's considered from the Indian side to
be too much of the security threat and also quite
high degrees of poverty. So one interesting thing about this
attack was that it was directly against tourists, and maybe
the militants chose to do that as a way to
break down the kind of emergent tourist industry within that region.
(11:33):
And again, these are all things that are directly affecting
people on the ground. So in terms of that Kashmir voice,
I think it's lost. It could definitely be stronger. But
again this maybe explains why the border within Kashmir between
India and Pakistan hasn't really changed much since nineteen forty seven,
because the status quo is the kind of it's kind
(11:56):
of the way to muddle through the mess.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
I think in different ways.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
India is one of the fastest growing populations on the
planet and one of the biggest populations in general, and
it does sort of seem like lately the country is
trying to rise out of being seen as this sort
of third world subcontinent. They're eyeing up trade deals with
countries like New Zealand and I believe they're even eyeing
up a bid for the Olympics in twenty thirty six.
(12:21):
So would go against Prime Minister Modi's attempts to sell
the country on the world stage to get embroiled in
a conflict like this.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Yeah, so it definitely seems paradoxical, doesn't it. It does
seem as though engaging this conflict, or at least escalating
and pushing it further, would be detrimental to India's self image.
I think the biggest thing to think about, though, is
that I would argue that India is now becoming a
great power in the sense that it's highly influential on
(12:49):
the global stage. It's huge economy, huge population, as you mentioned,
so huge emergent middle class, lots of military spending that
this is quite unknown in the West, but it's important,
more weapons than any other country in the last sixty
years in terms of overall spending. And if we think
about what's happening in the global system as a whole.
(13:12):
There are lots of pressures against the rise in China
and a need for countries to counterbalance against China, and
India's key to all of that. So in many ways,
because India has become more essentially necessary in global politics,
in a sense, it protects it from direct criticism. So
(13:33):
if you're going to India, for example, this could be
New Zealand, but the kind of big ones would be
saying the UK and the US. I think Indian leaders
will say, you know, if you want a trade deal,
that's great, and we really want one, but make sure
you don't criticize us when it comes to Kashmir. We
see this as an internal issue. So I think that
positional factor actually plays into places to India's advantage. And
(13:56):
then beyond that, you could also say that it appears
that the UA is kind of decoupling or pulling itself
out of global affairs. And if you are an ally
over the United States, such as say Israel, then in
many ways there are fewer controls in terms of how
(14:17):
you conduct your policy, and certainly there are fewer leaders
in place who are able to maybe pull back conflicts
or pullback escalation, and I think that's also partly something
to do with India's calculation and then when final facts
would be and that this is also quite under reported
that Pakistan itself are combating militants in Pakistan and Balukistan
(14:41):
who want to separate from the country. They're also combating
the Taliban on their border with Afghanistan. So many senses,
the attempt to maybe regain Kashmir, or at least rebalance
the relationship is a prime opportunity for India at the moment.
Speaker 5 (15:01):
From as the Moodia and I sat down today and
we charted out the future of our two countries relationship,
a future that builds from where we have been and
one that is wholly more ambitious about what we will
do together in the future. We agreed to our defense
forces building greater strategic trust with one another while deploying
together and training together more. We want our scientists collaborating
(15:22):
on global challenges like climate change and on commercial opportunities
like space. We are supporting our businesses to improve airlinks
and build primary sector cooperation.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
We will facilitate.
Speaker 5 (15:32):
Students and young professionals and tourists to move between our
two countries, and we've instructed our trade negotiators to get
on and negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement between our
two great nations.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Just on New Zealand specifically, we're pursuing quite close ties
with India at the moment. It seems to really be
Christopher Luckson's big sort of trade bet. Do you think
what sort of position does that leave us in if
they were to engage in war.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
So I think fundamentally with Kashmir, the Indian position has
always been this is an internal issue. They also strongly
believe in kind of anti interventionist values or norms, so
that stems from their colonial period. So there have been
lots of powers in the past who've tried to interfere
(16:22):
or negotiate or mediate about Kashmir, and they nearly every
single time they get told, this isn't to do with you.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
This is our kind of issue.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Within that context, even though it might seem quite uncomfortable.
I do think it's possible to separate different dimensions of
foreign policies. So it's very possible to have lots of
great trade with India. India does this with China, for example,
but when it comes to its territorial dispute or a
dispute in another area of international politics, then that dispute
(16:53):
will kind of take place. So I think from a
New Zealand point of view, you can emphasize the trade.
That's definitely possible. I think when it starts to move
into politics, human rights, treatment of minorities, those sensitivities, the
Indians will definitely push them back and remove them from negotiation.
In terms of a conflicts. I don't think India will
(17:15):
be looking to anybody in terms of say international support
or justification. So in many senses that would leave possibilities
for New Zealand in terms of probably what most other
countries are doing at the moment, asking for restraint, pointing
out the regional ramifications, pointing out the ramifications in terms
potentially in terms of trade and how that might affect
(17:38):
other countries. And one final point would be maybe New
Zealand has a benefit in being quite a small country,
so certainly a trade deal is beneficial for everybody involved,
but in many ways it's probably more beneficial for New
Zealand than it is for India and the overall scheme
of things.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
So just finally, Chris how likely do you think it
is that there will be peace in the short and
long term in Kashmia.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
My feeling right.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Now is is I don't think that this is finished,
So I think I think it's very easy for these
tensions to kind of blow up again. It's intriguing to
think if the leaders do me and this has happened
in the aftermath of every other kind of conflagration or conflict,
to see what they're able to negotiate. Because India is
definitely much stronger than it ever has been relative to
(18:27):
Pakistan in terms of the exceptionally long term, it's very
difficult to determine that, primarily because parties such as the BJP,
the ruling party at the moment in India, are super
Hindu nationalists. It is one of their aims to regain Kashmir,
and it is possible to think of scenarios in the
(18:48):
future where they would try to militarily gain Kashmir. And again,
if this was just the kind of testing to see
how Pakistan would react, that's also possible overall. Though on balance,
so if we look at the last seventy five years,
it's status quo.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
Which has kind of been there.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
So the current split between territory and Kashmir has stayed
where it is. There are periodic issues, periodic tensions, periodic
flare ups, and then with a broader hope for all
of us that that doesn't escalate very quickly into a
nuclear confrontation.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Thanks for joining us, Chris Pleasure, Thanks for having me.
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at inziherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills. I'm Richard Martin. Subscribe to the
(19:41):
Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Curta. I'm Richard Martin in for Chelsea Daniels and this
is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the
New Zealand Herald. After a week of tensions, India and
Pakistan have reached a ceasefire deal. Tensions over the disputed
territory of Kashmir were reignited after a massacre of Hindu
(00:27):
tourists last month, leading to a series of bombings between
the two countries that sparked fears they would return to
all out war. While the ceasefire deal is holding for now,
many in the Kashmir region are hoping a permanent solution
can be found. Today on the Front Page, Auckland University
Director of Global Studies, Chris Ogden is with us to
(00:48):
explain the historical tensions between the two countries and what
is needed for permanent peace. Okay, so to start off
with Christus might be a bit of a loaded question,
but can you explain to us what the Kashmir region
is and why it's disputed by both India and Pakistan.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
So it's the territory that straddles the border between India
and Pakistan and it's been under dispute since the two
countries came into formation after the ending of British India
in nineteen forty seven, and the end of British India
came about due to partition, where the territory was split
into Muslim dominated areas and other areas within India, and
(01:32):
that whole region and Kashmir was disputed from the very beginning.
There was a war almost immediately after the mutual independences,
and then there have been wars periodically across the time
since then. A lot of it's to do with territory,
but realistically it's also to do with identity. Which country
is the dominant Muslim entity, which one represents all the
(01:55):
other religions on the subcontinent, and for that reason it's
seen as been highly existential. And both sides they lose Kashmir,
they can lose other bits of their territory and that
could be the end of their kind of national independencies.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
And then just in terms of this latest round of bombings,
can you run us through what prompted that?
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Yep, So one thing that's happened over the years. It's
not just that Pakistan and India have had say, direct
military conflicts, but there have been other ways that they've
kind of needed each other or tried to have contract
to proxies. Pakistan has been very adept at doing this,
in particular by harnessing terrorist groups that it trains in
(02:36):
its territory and then sending them into India and causing
attacks either within Indian control Kashmir or other parts of India.
Rather and this is what happened a couple of weeks ago,
where a group went in who are affiliated to a
group called Lashkar Etoiba, who are a very long standing
kind of thall in the side for India in terms
(02:57):
of terrorism. They've carried out lots of different and terrorist attacks,
and they attacked tourists in Kashmir in Indian control Kashmir
with a direct religious dimension to it. So it's said
that before people were killed, they were asked if they
could intone parts of the Quran, for example, and if
(03:17):
they couldn't, then they were directly targeted and executed. Those
events combine with an uncertainty about exactly whose control are under,
which is an ongoing dimension of all of these tensions
that often we don't know exactly who's controlling these groups,
if it's the Pakistani military or the intelligence services, or
the government itself, I think provoked lots of the emotions
(03:39):
of previous conflicts, including even going back to nineteen forty
seven that then it was kind of irregular troops you
came in. And this has reasserted these linkages between the
events of last week and all of that, those toxic,
very emotional kind of experiences from the past that then
(04:00):
vote the Indians into the reaction that they had.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
It's interesting because now we've reached a ceasefire really quickly.
And do you think that this was a case of
just sort of both sides getting tip for tat, but
of retaliation and against the other and then moving on,
or do you think there was a chance that this
could have turned into all that war?
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Yeah, I mean, I think first of all, there's always
a chance of rapid and very quick escalation, which often
is based upon tip for tap, but is also driven
by high degrees of nationalism on either side. So it's
not possible if you're the Indian prime minister or the
Pakistani prime minister to not react if you're attacked in
(04:41):
some way, either towards your civilians or towards your military.
So there always has to be some kind of retaliation.
In this case, there is definitive retaliation from both sides repeatedly.
I think we can draw different conclusions or kind of
get to different endpoints. One could be you could say
(05:02):
that both sides are kind of testing out the other.
So in this conflict, if we can call it a conflict,
we saw the use of drones from both sides, which
hasn't happened before. We also saw incursions, particularly into Pakistani territory,
that we've not seen for decades and decades. And some
of this can be testing capabilities of the other side,
trying to understand how to respond militarily effectively, but also
(05:26):
seeing what their defensive systems are like. But many reports
are also saying that because of the emotional side, plus
the capability side, plus the proximity side, escalation was expected
to really increase, some ramp up rapidly over the weekend.
I think what's also notable too, is is that in
many Indian reports at the moment, they're saying that they
(05:48):
don't recognize it as a ceasefire, and they say that
their military forces are still on high preparedness, and so
the perspective from their side is first of all, on
ongoing fear, but also think they've tried to kind of
exsert a high degree of cost on the Pakistani side
to say, if you are supporting these groups and these
(06:09):
attacks happen, you can expect more of this in the future.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
It will be a challenge for the international community to
keep that and maintain. You know, this cease fire that
has been announced, well, it has come from the highest
office in America. So President Trump has a very good
relationship with Prime Minister Modi. He's called him his a
very good friend, and every time they've met, they've hugged,
(06:38):
and he maintains that Prime Minister Mody is a good
friend of America. And I'm sure there will be a
lot of pressure on the political establishment out here to
make sure that this cease fire holds.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
Yeah, do we know the details of sort of what's
been agreed so far?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
I think the only details so far are is the
recognition that if both sides don't stop, or at least
if one side doesn't stop, then that escalation will just
mount up a mount up. So I think that's what
all these diplomats from all these countries have done. They've
been able to pull back both sides from further escalation.
The other thing that I'm aware of is that certainly
(07:21):
the Pakistani side was quite shocked by the incursions into
its territory by Indian drones and missiles, the direct targeting
of military installations. So in the past the targeting would
often been against terrorist camps. But here again I think
the Indian strategy is is you hit much much harder
(07:42):
to make the other side much more afraid. And that's
continuing now that there's retro coming out from the Indian
side about how their ships were prepared to attack Karachi,
for example, or other major cities. So I think what's
happened is is that that kind of tip for tap
has been and that's allowed there to be calm. But again,
(08:04):
the amount of military preparedness is still there, so I
don't think either side has certainly not pulled back all
its troops. I think it's more a recognition from the
international community of the dangers of what can happen quite
quickly in South Asia.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Well, and both sides have now claimed victory as well,
is that right?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Yeah, they have. And this is the other thing, so
you know, now there's a kind of battle for narratives.
There's a battle for the kind of moral high ground
if that is even possible in this situation. And certainly
on one level, you could say that both leaders have
had the chance to prove that they are strong in
the sense of a terrorist attack has occurred, India has
(08:44):
reacted with force. Pakistan has then have been able to
react with force. But certainly these kind of claims and
counter claims will keep on going. I feel certain that
Pakistan will now come out with statements to say, well,
we were always prepared to hit Deli with weapons or
these other major cities with weapons as well. But I
guess within all of that is how useful is that
(09:06):
in terms of diffusing tensions, because in many ways it's
just kind of ramping up the rhetoric even further, even
though there isn't direct conflict, and in that sense, the
kind of triggers or the kind of sense of it
being a powder keg haven't gone away.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
I've read some commentary with people from Kashmir have spoken
up about this latest incident, and many of them have
said that they want to see some sort of permanent
solution in place for their country. Do you think that
there's any path to that realistically?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah? So This is a really this is a really
interesting observation, right because often within this conflict, we think, well,
there's this disputed territory. India claims it's part of its
territory and it needs that for its kind of territory integrity.
From the other side, Pakistan claims it, and Pakistan's a
acrosstic interestingly, so its name comes from different bits of
(10:08):
its territory. So the K in pakistanis for Kashmir, so
it makes it truly existential. But we often forget about
what the Kashmiri's want, and most Kashmiris, I think in
most polls consistently across time, would like some kind of
plebiscite or referendum which would give them the right to
(10:29):
choose their future, including their own self determination. So there
are three pathways that Kashmi could go to Pakistan. Kashmi
could go to India, or Kashmir could become independent. For
the big players in the region, and we should also
remember that China holds ten percent of Kashmir territory, the
idea of Kashmir becoming independent will not satisfy or help
(10:52):
anybody from those big actors. But certainly if you live
in Kashmir, you live in very difficult circumstances, so your
kind of day to day life will be heavily militarized.
If you live in Kashmir for say the last two
to three years, the vast majority of that time you'll
have had no internet because the Internet will have been
(11:13):
switched off because it's considered from the Indian side to
be too much of the security threat and also quite
high degrees of poverty. So one interesting thing about this
attack was that it was directly against tourists, and maybe
the militants chose to do that as a way to
break down the kind of emergent tourist industry within that region.
(11:33):
And again, these are all things that are directly affecting
people on the ground. So in terms of that Kashmir voice,
I think it's lost. It could definitely be stronger. But
again this maybe explains why the border within Kashmir between
India and Pakistan hasn't really changed much since nineteen forty seven,
because the status quo is the kind of it's kind
(11:56):
of the way to muddle through the mess.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
I think in different ways.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
India is one of the fastest growing populations on the
planet and one of the biggest populations in general, and
it does sort of seem like lately the country is
trying to rise out of being seen as this sort
of third world subcontinent. They're eyeing up trade deals with
countries like New Zealand and I believe they're even eyeing
up a bid for the Olympics in twenty thirty six.
(12:21):
So would go against Prime Minister Modi's attempts to sell
the country on the world stage to get embroiled in
a conflict like this.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Yeah, so it definitely seems paradoxical, doesn't it. It does
seem as though engaging this conflict, or at least escalating
and pushing it further, would be detrimental to India's self image.
I think the biggest thing to think about, though, is
that I would argue that India is now becoming a
great power in the sense that it's highly influential on
(12:49):
the global stage. It's huge economy, huge population, as you mentioned,
so huge emergent middle class, lots of military spending that
this is quite unknown in the West, but it's important,
more weapons than any other country in the last sixty
years in terms of overall spending. And if we think
about what's happening in the global system as a whole.
(13:12):
There are lots of pressures against the rise in China
and a need for countries to counterbalance against China, and
India's key to all of that. So in many ways,
because India has become more essentially necessary in global politics,
in a sense, it protects it from direct criticism. So
(13:33):
if you're going to India, for example, this could be
New Zealand, but the kind of big ones would be
saying the UK and the US. I think Indian leaders
will say, you know, if you want a trade deal,
that's great, and we really want one, but make sure
you don't criticize us when it comes to Kashmir. We
see this as an internal issue. So I think that
positional factor actually plays into places to India's advantage. And
(13:56):
then beyond that, you could also say that it appears
that the UA is kind of decoupling or pulling itself
out of global affairs. And if you are an ally
over the United States, such as say Israel, then in
many ways there are fewer controls in terms of how
(14:17):
you conduct your policy, and certainly there are fewer leaders
in place who are able to maybe pull back conflicts
or pullback escalation, and I think that's also partly something
to do with India's calculation and then when final facts
would be and that this is also quite under reported
that Pakistan itself are combating militants in Pakistan and Balukistan
(14:41):
who want to separate from the country. They're also combating
the Taliban on their border with Afghanistan. So many senses,
the attempt to maybe regain Kashmir, or at least rebalance
the relationship is a prime opportunity for India at the moment.
Speaker 5 (15:01):
From as the Moodia and I sat down today and
we charted out the future of our two countries relationship,
a future that builds from where we have been and
one that is wholly more ambitious about what we will
do together in the future. We agreed to our defense
forces building greater strategic trust with one another while deploying
together and training together more. We want our scientists collaborating
(15:22):
on global challenges like climate change and on commercial opportunities
like space. We are supporting our businesses to improve airlinks
and build primary sector cooperation.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
We will facilitate.
Speaker 5 (15:32):
Students and young professionals and tourists to move between our
two countries, and we've instructed our trade negotiators to get
on and negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement between our
two great nations.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Just on New Zealand specifically, we're pursuing quite close ties
with India at the moment. It seems to really be
Christopher Luckson's big sort of trade bet. Do you think
what sort of position does that leave us in if
they were to engage in war.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
So I think fundamentally with Kashmir, the Indian position has
always been this is an internal issue. They also strongly
believe in kind of anti interventionist values or norms, so
that stems from their colonial period. So there have been
lots of powers in the past who've tried to interfere
(16:22):
or negotiate or mediate about Kashmir, and they nearly every
single time they get told, this isn't to do with you.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
This is our kind of issue.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Within that context, even though it might seem quite uncomfortable.
I do think it's possible to separate different dimensions of
foreign policies. So it's very possible to have lots of
great trade with India. India does this with China, for example,
but when it comes to its territorial dispute or a
dispute in another area of international politics, then that dispute
(16:53):
will kind of take place. So I think from a
New Zealand point of view, you can emphasize the trade.
That's definitely possible. I think when it starts to move
into politics, human rights, treatment of minorities, those sensitivities, the
Indians will definitely push them back and remove them from negotiation.
In terms of a conflicts. I don't think India will
(17:15):
be looking to anybody in terms of say international support
or justification. So in many senses that would leave possibilities
for New Zealand in terms of probably what most other
countries are doing at the moment, asking for restraint, pointing
out the regional ramifications, pointing out the ramifications in terms
potentially in terms of trade and how that might affect
(17:38):
other countries. And one final point would be maybe New
Zealand has a benefit in being quite a small country,
so certainly a trade deal is beneficial for everybody involved,
but in many ways it's probably more beneficial for New
Zealand than it is for India and the overall scheme
of things.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
So just finally, Chris how likely do you think it
is that there will be peace in the short and
long term in Kashmia.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
My feeling right.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Now is is I don't think that this is finished,
So I think I think it's very easy for these
tensions to kind of blow up again. It's intriguing to
think if the leaders do me and this has happened
in the aftermath of every other kind of conflagration or conflict,
to see what they're able to negotiate. Because India is
definitely much stronger than it ever has been relative to
(18:27):
Pakistan in terms of the exceptionally long term, it's very
difficult to determine that, primarily because parties such as the BJP,
the ruling party at the moment in India, are super
Hindu nationalists. It is one of their aims to regain Kashmir,
and it is possible to think of scenarios in the
(18:48):
future where they would try to militarily gain Kashmir. And again,
if this was just the kind of testing to see
how Pakistan would react, that's also possible overall. Though on balance,
so if we look at the last seventy five years,
it's status quo.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
Which has kind of been there.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
So the current split between territory and Kashmir has stayed
where it is. There are periodic issues, periodic tensions, periodic
flare ups, and then with a broader hope for all
of us that that doesn't escalate very quickly into a
nuclear confrontation.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Thanks for joining us, Chris Pleasure, Thanks for having me.
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at inziherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills. I'm Richard Martin. Subscribe to the
(19:41):
Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.