Speaker 1: Curta. I'm Richard Martin in for Chelsea Daniels and this
Speaker 1: is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the
Speaker 1: New Zealand Herald. After a week of tensions, India and
Speaker 1: Pakistan have reached a ceasefire deal. Tensions over the disputed
Speaker 1: territory of Kashmir were reignited after a massacre of Hindu
Speaker 1: tourists last month, leading to a series of bombings between
Speaker 1: the two countries that sparked fears they would return to
Speaker 1: all out war. While the ceasefire deal is holding for now,
Speaker 1: many in the Kashmir region are hoping a permanent solution
Speaker 1: can be found. Today on the Front Page, Auckland University
Speaker 1: Director of Global Studies, Chris Ogden is with us to
Speaker 1: explain the historical tensions between the two countries and what
Speaker 1: is needed for permanent peace. Okay, so to start off
Speaker 1: with Christus might be a bit of a loaded question,
Speaker 1: but can you explain to us what the Kashmir region
Speaker 1: is and why it's disputed by both India and Pakistan.
Speaker 2: So it's the territory that straddles the border between India
Speaker 2: and Pakistan and it's been under dispute since the two
Speaker 2: countries came into formation after the ending of British India
Speaker 2: in nineteen forty seven, and the end of British India
Speaker 2: came about due to partition, where the territory was split
Speaker 2: into Muslim dominated areas and other areas within India, and
Speaker 2: that whole region and Kashmir was disputed from the very beginning.
Speaker 2: There was a war almost immediately after the mutual independences,
Speaker 2: and then there have been wars periodically across the time
Speaker 2: since then. A lot of it's to do with territory,
Speaker 2: but realistically it's also to do with identity. Which country
Speaker 2: is the dominant Muslim entity, which one represents all the
Speaker 2: other religions on the subcontinent, and for that reason it's
Speaker 2: seen as being highly existential. And both sides they lose Kashmir,
Speaker 2: they can lose other bits of their territory and that
Speaker 2: could be the end of their kind of national independencies.
Speaker 1: And then just in terms of this latest round of bombings,
Speaker 1: can you run us through what prompted that?
Speaker 2: Yep, so one thing that's happened over the years. It's
Speaker 2: not just that Pakistan and India have had say, direct
Speaker 2: military conflicts, but there have been other ways that they've
Speaker 2: kind of needed each other or tried to have contract
Speaker 2: to proxies. Pakistan has been very adept at doing this,
Speaker 2: in particular by harnessing terrorist groups that it trains in
Speaker 2: its territory and then sending them into India and causing
Speaker 2: attacks either within Indian control Kashmir or other parts of India.
Speaker 2: Rather and this is what happened a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 2: where a group went in who are.
Speaker 3: Affiliated to a group called Lashkar Etoiba.
Speaker 2: Who are a very long standing kind of fall in
Speaker 2: the side for India in terms of terrorism. They've carried
Speaker 2: out lots of different and terrorist attacks, and they attacked
Speaker 2: tourists in Kashmir in Indian control Kashmir.
Speaker 3: With a direct religious dimension to it.
Speaker 2: So it's said that before people were killed, they were
Speaker 2: asked if they could in tone parts of the Quran,
Speaker 2: for example, and if they couldn't, then they were directly
Speaker 2: targeted and executed. Those events combined with an uncertainty about
Speaker 2: exactly whose control are under which is an ongoing dimension
Speaker 2: of all of these tensions, that often we don't know
Speaker 2: exactly who's controlling these groups, if it's the Pakistani military
Speaker 2: or the intelligence services of the government itself, I think
Speaker 2: provoked lots of the emotions of previous conflicts, including even
Speaker 2: going back to nineteen forty seven that then it was
Speaker 2: kind of irregular troops you came in. And this has
Speaker 2: reasserted these linkages between the events of last week and
Speaker 2: all of that, those toxic, very emotional kind of experiences
Speaker 2: from the past that then vote the Indians into the
Speaker 2: reaction that they had.
Speaker 1: It's interesting because now we've reached a ceasefire really quickly.
Speaker 1: And do you think that this was a case of
Speaker 1: just sort of both sides getting tip for tat, but
Speaker 1: of retaliation and against the other and then moving on,
Speaker 1: or do you think there was a chance that this
Speaker 1: could have turned into all that war?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think first of all, there's always
Speaker 2: a chance of rapid and very quick escalation, which often
Speaker 2: is based upon tip for tap, but is also driven
Speaker 2: by high degrees of nationalism on either side. So it's
Speaker 2: not possible if you're the Indian prime minister or the
Speaker 2: Pakistani prime minister to not react if you're attacked in
Speaker 2: some way, either towards your civilians or towards your military.
Speaker 2: So there always has to be some kind of retaliation
Speaker 2: in this case, there is definitive retaliation from both sides repeatedly.
Speaker 2: I think we can draw different conclusions or kind of
Speaker 2: get to different endpoints. One could be you could say
Speaker 2: that both sides are kind of testing out the other.
Speaker 3: So in this.
Speaker 2: Conflict, if we can call it a conflict, we saw
Speaker 2: the use of drones from both sides, which hasn't happened before.
Speaker 2: We also saw incursions, particularly into Pakistani territory that we've
Speaker 2: not seen for decades and decades. And some of this
Speaker 2: can be testing capabilities of the other side, trying to
Speaker 2: understand how to respond militarily effectively, but also seeing what
Speaker 2: their defensive systems are like. But many reports are also
Speaker 2: saying that because of the emotional side, plus the capability side,
Speaker 2: plus the proximity side, escalation was expected to really increase,
Speaker 2: some ramp up rapidly over the weekend. I think what's
Speaker 2: also notable too, is is that in many Indian reports
Speaker 2: at the moment, they're saying that they don't recognize it
Speaker 2: as a ceasefire, and they say that their military forces
Speaker 2: are still on high preparedness, and so the perspective from
Speaker 2: their side is first of all, on ongoing fear but
Speaker 2: also think they've tried to kind of exsert.
Speaker 3: A high degree of cost on the Pakistani.
Speaker 2: Side to say, if you are supporting these groups and
Speaker 2: these attacks happen, you can expect more of this in
Speaker 2: the future.
Speaker 4: It will be a challenge for the international community to
Speaker 4: keep that and maintain. You know, this cease fire that
Speaker 4: has been announced, well, it has come from the highest
Speaker 4: office in America. So President Trump has a very good
Speaker 4: relationship with Prime Minister Modi. He's called him his a
Speaker 4: very good friend, and every time they've met, they've hugged,
Speaker 4: and he maintains that Prime Minister Mody is a good
Speaker 4: friend of America. And I'm sure there will be a
Speaker 4: lot of pressure on the political establishment out here to
Speaker 4: make sure that this cease fire holds.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do we know the details of sort of what's
Speaker 1: been agreed so far?
Speaker 2: I think the only details so far are is the
Speaker 2: recognition that if both sides don't stop, or at least
Speaker 2: if one side doesn't stop, then that escalation will just
Speaker 2: mount up a mount up. So I think that's what
Speaker 2: all these diplomats from all these countries have done. They've
Speaker 2: been able to pull back both sides from further escalation.
Speaker 2: The other thing that I'm aware of is that certainly
Speaker 2: the Pakistani side was quite shocked by the incursions into
Speaker 2: its territory by Indian drones and missiles, the direct targeting
Speaker 2: of military installations. So in the past the targeting would
Speaker 2: often been against terrorist camps. But here again, I think
Speaker 2: the Indian strategy is is you hit much much harder
Speaker 2: to make the other side much more afraid. And that's
Speaker 2: continuing now that there's retro coming out from the Indian
Speaker 2: side about how their ships were prepared to attack Karachi,
Speaker 2: for example, or other major cities. So I think what's
Speaker 2: happened is is that that kind of tip for tap
Speaker 2: has been and that's allowed there to be calm. But again,
Speaker 2: the amount of military preparedness is still there, so I
Speaker 2: don't think either side has certainly not pulled back all
Speaker 2: its troops. I think it's more a recognition from the
Speaker 2: international community of the dangers of what can happen quite
Speaker 2: quickly in South Asia.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, and both sides have now claimed victory as well,
Speaker 1: is that right?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they have.
Speaker 2: And this is the other thing, so you know, now
Speaker 2: there's a kind of battle for narratives, there's a battle
Speaker 2: for the kind of moral high ground, if that is
Speaker 2: even possible in this situation. And certainly on one level,
Speaker 2: you could say that both leaders have had the chance
Speaker 2: to prove that they are strong in the sense of
Speaker 2: a terrorist attack has occurred, India has reacted with force.
Speaker 2: Pakistan has then have been able to react with force.
Speaker 2: But certainly these kind of claims and counter claims will
Speaker 2: keep on going. I feel certain that Pakistan will now
Speaker 2: come out with statements to say, well, we were always
Speaker 2: prepared to hit Deli with weapons or these other major
Speaker 2: cities with weapons as well. But I guess within all
Speaker 2: of that is how useful is that in terms of
Speaker 2: diffusing tensions, because in many ways it's just kind of
Speaker 2: ramping up the rhetoric even further even though there isn't
Speaker 2: direct conflict, and in that sense, the kind of triggers
Speaker 2: or the kind of sense of it being a powder
Speaker 2: keg haven't gone away.
Speaker 1: I've read some commentary with people from Kashmir have spoken
Speaker 1: up about this latest incident, and many of them have
Speaker 1: said that they want to see some sort of permanent
Speaker 1: solution in place for their country. Do you think that
Speaker 1: there's any path to that realistically?
Speaker 3: Yeah, So this is a.
Speaker 2: Really this is a really interesting observation, right because often
Speaker 2: within this conflict, we think, well, there's this disputed territory.
Speaker 2: India claims it's part of its territory and it needs
Speaker 2: that for its kind of territory integrity. From the other side,
Speaker 2: Pakistan claims it, and Pakistan's a acrosstic interestingly, so its
Speaker 2: name comes from different bits of its territory. So the
Speaker 2: K in pakistanis for Kashmir, so it makes it truly existential.
Speaker 2: But we often forget about what the Kashmiri's want, and
Speaker 2: most Kashmiris, I think in most polls consistently across time,
Speaker 2: would like some kind of plebiscite or referendum which would
Speaker 2: give them the right to choose their future, including their
Speaker 2: own self determination. So there are three pathways that Kashmi
Speaker 2: could go to Pakistan. Kashmi could go to India, or
Speaker 2: Kashmir could become independent.
Speaker 3: For the big players in the region, and.
Speaker 2: We should also remember that China holds ten percent of
Speaker 2: Kashmir territory, the idea of Kashmir becoming independent will not
Speaker 2: satisfy or help anybody from those big actors.
Speaker 3: But certainly if you live in Kashmir, you.
Speaker 2: Live in very difficult circumstances, so your kind of day
Speaker 2: to day life will be heavily militarized. If you live
Speaker 2: in Kashmir for say the last two to three years,
Speaker 2: the vast majority of that time you'll have had no
Speaker 2: internet because the Internet will have been switched off because
Speaker 2: it's considered from the Indian side to be too much
Speaker 2: of the security threat and also quite high degrees of poverty.
Speaker 2: So one interesting thing about this attack was that it
Speaker 2: was directly against tourists, and maybe the militants chose to
Speaker 2: do that as a way to break down the kind
Speaker 2: of emergent tourist industry within that region. And again, these
Speaker 2: are all things that are directly affecting people on the ground.
Speaker 2: So in terms of that Kashmir voice, I think it's lost.
Speaker 2: It could definitely be stronger. But again this maybe explains
Speaker 2: why the border within Kashmir between India and Pakistan hasn't
Speaker 2: really changed much since nineteen forty seven, because the status
Speaker 2: quo is the kind of it's kind of the way
Speaker 2: to muddle through the mess.
Speaker 5: I think in different ways.
Speaker 1: India is one of the fastest growing populations on the
Speaker 1: planet and one of the biggest populations in general, and
Speaker 1: it does sort of seem like lately the country is
Speaker 1: trying to rise out of being seen as this sort
Speaker 1: of third world subcontinent. They're eyeing up trade deals with
Speaker 1: countries like New Zealand and I believe they're even eyeing
Speaker 1: up a bid for the Olympics in twenty thirty six.
Speaker 1: So would go against Prime Minister Modi's attempts to sell
Speaker 1: the country on the world stage to get embroiled in
Speaker 1: a conflict like this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it definitely seems paradoxical, doesn't it. It does
Speaker 2: seem as though engaging this conflict, or at least escalating
Speaker 2: and pushing it further, would be detrimental to India's self image.
Speaker 2: I think the biggest thing to think about, though, is
Speaker 2: that I would argue that India is now becoming a
Speaker 2: great power in the sense that it's highly influential on
Speaker 2: the global stage. It's huge economy, huge population, as you mentioned,
Speaker 2: so huge emergent middle class, lots of military spending that
Speaker 2: this is quite unknown in the West, but it's important,
Speaker 2: more weapons than any other country in the last sixty
Speaker 2: years in terms of overall spending. And if we think
Speaker 2: about what's happening in the global system as a whole.
Speaker 2: There are lots of pressures against a rise in China
Speaker 2: and a need for countries to counterbalance against China, and
Speaker 2: India's key to all of that. So in many ways,
Speaker 2: because India has become more essentially necessary in global politics,
Speaker 2: in a sense, it protects it from direct criticism. So
Speaker 2: if you're going to India, for example, this could be
Speaker 2: New Zealand, but the kind of big ones would be
Speaker 2: saying the UK and the US. I think Indian leaders
Speaker 2: will say, you know, if you want a trade deal,
Speaker 2: that's great, and we really want one, but make sure
Speaker 2: you don't criticize us when it comes to Kashmir. We
Speaker 2: see this as an internal issue. So I think that
Speaker 2: positional factor actually plays into places to India's advantage. And
Speaker 2: then beyond that, you could also say that it appears
Speaker 2: that the UA is kind of decoupling or pulling itself
Speaker 2: out of global affairs. And if you are an ally
Speaker 2: over the United States, such as say Israel, then in
Speaker 2: many ways there are fewer controls in terms of how
Speaker 2: you conduct your policy, and certainly there are fewer leaders
Speaker 2: in place who are able to maybe pull back conflicts
Speaker 2: or pullback escalation, and I think that's also partly something
Speaker 2: to do with India's calculation. And then one final facts
Speaker 2: would be and that this is also quite under reported
Speaker 2: that Pakistan itself are combating militants in Pakistan and Balukistan
Speaker 2: who want to separate from the country. They're also combating
Speaker 2: the Taliban on their border with Afghanistan. So many senses,
Speaker 2: the attempt to maybe regain Kashmir, or at least rebalance
Speaker 2: the relationship is a prime opportunity for India at the moment.
Speaker 6: From as the Moodia and I sat down today and
Speaker 6: we charted out the future of our two countries relationship,
Speaker 6: a future that builds from where we have been and
Speaker 6: one that is wholly more ambitious about what we will
Speaker 6: do together in the future. We agreed to our defense
Speaker 6: forces building greater strategic trust with one another while deploying
Speaker 6: together and training together more. We want our scientists collaborating
Speaker 6: on global challenges like climate change and on commercial opportunities
Speaker 6: like space. We are supporting our businesses to improve airlinks
Speaker 6: and build primary sector cooperation. We will facilitate students and
Speaker 6: young professionals and tourists to move between our two countries,
Speaker 6: and we've instructed our trade negotiators to get on and
Speaker 6: negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement between our two great nations.
Speaker 1: Just on New Zealand specifically, we're pursuing quite close ties
Speaker 1: with India at the moment. It seems to really be
Speaker 1: Christopher Luckson's big sort of trade bet. Do you think
Speaker 1: what sort of position does that leave us in if
Speaker 1: they were to engage in war.
Speaker 2: So I think fundamentally with Kashmir, the Indian position has
Speaker 2: always been this is an internal issue. They also strongly
Speaker 2: believe in kind of anti interventionist values or norms, so
Speaker 2: that stems from their colonial period. So there have been
Speaker 2: lots of powers in the past who've tried to interfere
Speaker 2: or negotiate or mediate about Kashmir, and they nearly every
Speaker 2: single time they get told, this isn't to do with you.
Speaker 5: This is our kind of issue.
Speaker 2: Within that context, even though it might seem quite uncomfortable.
Speaker 2: I do think it's possible to separate different dimensions of
Speaker 2: foreign policies. So it's very possible to have lots of
Speaker 2: great trade with India. India does this with China, for example,
Speaker 2: but when it comes to its territorial dispute or a
Speaker 2: dispute in another area of international politics, then that dispute
Speaker 2: will kind of take place. So I think from a
Speaker 2: New Zealand point of view, you can emphasize the trade.
Speaker 2: That's definitely possible. I think when it starts to move
Speaker 2: into politics, human rights, treatment of minorities, those sensitivities, the
Speaker 2: Indians will definitely push them back and remove them from negotiation.
Speaker 2: In terms of a conflict. I don't think India will
Speaker 2: be looking to anybody in terms of say international support
Speaker 2: or justification. So in many senses that would leave possibilities
Speaker 2: for New Zealand in terms of probably what most other
Speaker 2: countries are doing at the moment, asking for restraint, pointing
Speaker 2: out the regional ramifications, pointing out the ramifications in terms
Speaker 2: potentially in terms of trade and how that might affect
Speaker 2: other countries.
Speaker 5: And one final.
Speaker 2: Point would be maybe New Zealand has a benefit in
Speaker 2: being quite a small country, so certainly a trade deal
Speaker 2: is beneficial for everybody involved, but in many ways it's
Speaker 2: probably more beneficial for New Zealand than it is for
Speaker 2: India and the overall scheme of things.
Speaker 1: So just finally, Chris how likely do you think it
Speaker 1: is that there will be peace in the short and
Speaker 1: long term in Kashmia.
Speaker 2: My feeling right now is is I don't think that
Speaker 2: this is finished, So I think I think it's very
Speaker 2: easy for these tensions to kind of blow up again.
Speaker 2: It's intriguing to think if the leaders do me and
Speaker 2: this has happened in the aftermath of every other kind
Speaker 2: of conflagration or conflict, to see what they're able to negotiate.
Speaker 2: Because India is definitely much stronger than it ever has
Speaker 2: been relative to Pakistan in terms of the exceptionally long term,
Speaker 2: it's very difficult to determine that, primarily because parties such
Speaker 2: as the BJP, the ruling party at the moment in India,
Speaker 2: are super Hindu nationalists. It is one of their aims
Speaker 2: to regain Kashmir, and it is possible to think of
Speaker 2: scenarios in the future where they would try to militarily
Speaker 2: gain Kashmir. And again, if this was just the kind
Speaker 2: of testing to see how Pakistan would react, that's also
Speaker 2: possible overall. Though on balance, so if we look at
Speaker 2: the last seventy five years, it's status quo.
Speaker 5: Which has kind of been there.
Speaker 2: So the current split between territory and Kashmir has stayed
Speaker 2: where it is. There are periodic issues, periodic tensions, periodic
Speaker 2: flare ups, and then with a broader hope for all
Speaker 2: of us that that doesn't escalate very quickly into a
Speaker 2: nuclear confrontation.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Chris.
Speaker 5: Pleasure, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: We should note that the Pakistani government has denied any
Speaker 1: involvement in the Peholgam attack and disputes India's claims that
Speaker 1: Pakistani linked groups were responsible for the attack. So that's
Speaker 1: it for this episode of the Front Page. You can
Speaker 1: read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at
Speaker 1: inzherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced
Speaker 1: by Ethan Sills. I'm Richard Martin. Subscribe to the Front
Speaker 1: Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 1: tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Speaker 5: MHM.