Irene Martínez: "India has been backfiring on the nationalist rhetoric it has fostered."

BarcelonaIndia's attack on Pakistan and Kashmir this morning The Pakistani-administered region, which both countries dispute, is the worst confrontation between the two nuclear powers in two decades. While New Delhi justifies the attack by claiming it only hit "terrorist" targets, Islamabad denounces it as an "act of war" and promises retaliation. What has caused the conflict to flare up now? Should we expect the start of a new war? We spoke with Irene Martínez, a professor at Aga Khan University in Karachi, Pakistan.

What is India's intention behind these attacks?

— If the declared objectives are confirmed, the Indian authorities have been careful about where they aim. They have attacked Kashmir—which is not officially Pakistan—and locations linked to groups that have provided economic or political support to armed groups. They have not hit military or civilian targets, although there have been collateral civilian casualties. This tells us that India has responded because there is widespread hysteria in the country, which forced the government leadership to act to remedy domestic pressure, alarmed by the tabloid press.

How do you assess Pakistan's reaction?

— Pakistan's response has been restrained and measured, although internally they will have to say they have done great things.

Considering they are nuclear powers, how far can the escalation go?

— It's true that there has been a change in the dynamics of the conflict, but neither country wants an escalation for anything. In fact, since acquiring nuclear weapons, neither India nor Pakistan has ever gone to open war. In this case, it can be said that nuclear deterrence works: it has prevented the conflict from escalating rapidly.

Why is Kashmir a disputed territory?

— Kashmir has been a disputed region since the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. The British left no clear lines when they left, and in fact, even China controls part of it. It's a strategic area because it originates from key rivers, but also because India and Pakistan link the political narrative of their nation's origins to it. Both states fight for its control, and at times, they have successfully used it to accuse each other. But neither advocates for its independence. In recent decades, residents from other parts of India and Pakistan have arrived and left with the intention of repopulating the area and changing its demographic balance. In the Indian zone, for example, there is now a Hindu majority, while traditionally the majority was Muslim.

Who are the rebel groups that India accuses of terrorism?

— This issue has generated a great deal of media confusion. In recent years, violence in Pakistan has become fragmented. With the UN's withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, many jihadist cells operating there have relocated or reactivated in Pakistan, in areas such as Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where several attacks have recently occurred. Pakistan officially denies any links to these groups and condemns the attacks. But the situation has become very difficult for the Pakistani authorities to control.

What was the intention behind theattack on tourists in Pahalgam?

— It seems the aim was to provoke instability and sectarian tensions to divide India. The target was Hindu tourists, not Indians in general. It was seeking visceral violence and a Hindu nationalist backlash. This only fuels [Indian President Narendra] Modi's nationalist rhetoric about the different Indias: Hindus first, then everyone else.

And has India taken advantage of this opportunity?

— In India, they have worked wonders by using the attack as an excuse to withdraw from the Indus River Treaty, which defined how the two countries should share water. Now they have turned off the tap in Pakistan, which fits with their strategic vision of development needs. India controls the headwaters of the eastern rivers and also wants to control the western part. But this water is vital to Pakistan because it not only supplies almost all of Pakistan's agriculture but also uses it to generate electricity. That's why Islamabad had reiterated that for them, the treaty was a matter of state and that violating it would be considered aggression.

So, could New Delhi benefit from a confrontation?

— Right now, it's far from clear that Modi is interested in a confrontation with Pakistan; quite the opposite. In a context of a trade war, his priority is to attract foreign investment and companies looking to relocate factories, taking advantage of the poor relationship between the United States and China. To attract investment, you need stability. But in India, nationalist rhetoric has backfired. When you continually foment confrontation, there comes a day when you lose control and independent movements emerge that can become radicalized.