THE preservation of stability and the assertion of dominance by superpowers are inextricably linked to their ability to exert control over critical geostrategic regions and maritime routes in the contemporary world. The acquisition of such control enables these states to secure their political and economic interests, while simultaneously guaranteeing their strategic advantage in the global arena. The current geopolitical landscape reveals the proxy conflicts initiated by these dominant states in many regions of the world. The United States exercises control over strategically important bottlenecks in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, while Russia continues to uphold its long-established sphere of influence in Eurasia Central Asia and Africa. China is getting its hold tighter on the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
They are in significant competition for geopolitical and geostrategic dominance in the Middle East, Indo-Pacific, and Africa and are engaged in proxy wars against one other in these regions. An illustrative instance is Syria, where the United States and its allies are engaged in combat against the Assad Regime and its principal backers. The strategic importance of South Asia has rendered it a crucial region for the competition between them. In the past, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, which was a strategically important country in the rivalry between big powers, to acquire control of the hot waters in the Indian Ocean. In response to the events of 9/11, the United States launched a military operation in Afghanistan to protect its strategic interests in Central, South, and Southeast Asia. However, in this broader geopolitical contradiction Russia, China, and major European governments mostly disregarded the issue of Indian-occupied Kashmir.
The challenging terrain and severe climate, combined with the lack of direct access to the sea, necessitate a substantial investment of financial resources to create the necessary physical infrastructure. Consequently, this discourages superpowers from becoming involved in the dispute. Russia has consistently sought to exert influence over the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan, while China has constructed the Karakorum Highway and is currently extending it into the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as a means to gain access to the Indian Ocean via Azad Kashmir hence diminishing the geographical significance of Indian-occupied Kashmir. Conversely, the United States implemented the Indo-Pacific strategy as a means to curb the growing Chinese influence and extended an invitation to India to assume regional security responsibilities. Thus, the unfolding situation reveals the insignificance of Jammu & Kashmir for key global powers.
The United States has established new policy directions to redefine its fundamental aims and long-term goals through an enhanced political, economic, military, and strategic alliance with India. The defence cooperation between India and the United States has emerged as the central and most important aspect of a new strategic partnership. The crucial component of the newly formed strategic alliance is the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal which was ratified in 2005. The main objective of the contract is to deliver nuclear fuel, components, and technology to India and the pact has the potential to initiate a new phase of the arms race in South Asia. Both the US and India have engaged in a series of defence policy discussions to expand their defence connections and have successfully secured billions of dollars in defence trade deals.It encompasses a range of sophisticated equipment, including the P-8 maritime surveillance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft, Apache attack helicopters, CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters, C-17 and C-130 transport aeroplanes, and various other systems.
The US-India alliance is considered to be taken as counter China-Pakistan in the region. Because of this power politics and struggle for strategic superiority, the issue of Kashmir has been badly neglected.
Despite the genocide of approximately five hundred thousand Kashmiris including 250,000 in the Jammu region. The world community isn’t paying careful attention to the systematic and purposeful violations of human rights in Jammu and Kashmir by Indian forces. The UN Commission on Human Rights and other reputable organizations specializing in human rights have thoroughly documented the acts of brutality. But without the attention of the influential states, the UN is not able to promptly adopt a pragmatic approach and formulate a comprehensive strategy to address the issue of holding India responsible for its actions in Indian-occupied Kashmir. There is merely lip service during various UN sessions, therefore, there are doubts regarding the UN’s ability to take effective measures in response. Both domestic and systemic factors seem to have a significant impact on the UN’s hesitance to take concrete steps. At the systemic level, the dominant economic and military interests of major powers in India took precedence over the concerns over human rights violations in Jammu & Kashmir.
Furthermore, the geographical significance of Jammu & Kashmir is generally overlooked in the current geopolitical competition among major powers. Moreover, India’s emergence as a dominant regional force further strengthens its position in the regional political and security framework. In light of the nuclear capabilities possessed by India and Pakistan, there exists a plausible scenario wherein they may become embroiled in a consequential conflict, primarily emanating from the unresolved Kashmir issue. Negligence in addressing the complex dynamics surrounding the Kashmir dispute holds the potential for severe ramifications, thereby necessitating heightened global engagement and diplomatic initiatives to mitigate the risk of a serious conflagration between these nuclear-armed states.
—The writer is PhD Scholar International Relations, based in Islamabad.
Email: guleayeshabhatti@gmail.com
views expressed are writer’s own.
