Theoretical Axis and the PoK Dispute

This post will analyze the PoK boundary dispute between India and Pakistan. It will begin with a brief historical background to the conflict and will go on to theoretically explain the issue through the lens of Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism paradigms. 

Historical background to the conflict- Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, referred to as Pakistani-controlled Kashmir or Pakistan administered Kashmir by the United Nations and other international bodies, was a part of erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. The state had the choice of either to remain independent or join either of the newly formed states namely India and Pakistan. Hari Singh, then Maharaja of J&K decided to remain a dominion independent state. But following the invasion on 21st October 1947 by Pashtun tribesmen from the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) supported by the Pakistan army invaded the region in an attempt to liberate it from Maharaja’s rule. Owing to his inability to deal with the pro-Pakistan rebellions, the Maharaja turned back to India for military assistance. In return, he agreed to sign an ‘Instrument of Accession’ with the Government of India which marked the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian territory. Indian troops airlifted into Srinagar while Pakistan intervened subsequently and war started between the Indian and Pakistani armies. The two fronts solidified along what later came to be known as the Line of Control and regions won by the Pakistan supported rebellions were collectively termed as the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK).

As far as Realists are concerned, nation states are the key referent objects and ‘power politics’ is the central phenomena in their conceptual framework. Therefore, they would note that the POK issue has evolved into an international security problem turning into a hotspot for great power rivalry. The dynamic nature of conflict and the US-Russia-China nexus along with the key stakeholders (India and Pakistan) are producing unparalleled challenges for the international security environment. Since anarchy is considered to be a structural condition, seeking physical survival in terms of maintaining territorial integrity and sovereignty is the central goal for the states. Therefore, they would legitimize internal balancing (deployment of troops, missiles and other defensive systems) and external balancing (for example, China-Pakistan and India-Russia alliance) by both India and Pakistan primarily because strengthening military security is the only means that can ensure self-preservation, safeguard self-interests, extenuate security dilemma and mitigate the conditions of anarchy for both the countries. However, Realists may target Pakistan for funding and harboring terrorism in the form of radical/militant Islamic organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e Muhammed etc. This is because lesser significant players like non-state actors are getting involved in the conflict and also, they are disrupting order and stability of the entire region which is not supposedly rational.

 

(Image Source: Jagran Josh)

   

Liberals would prefer to widen their ambit of analysis by including the preferences/interests of a variety of actors ranging from individuals who reside in such a conflict-prone region, the two states of India and Pakistan to non-state actors like Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed who engage in violence through unlawful means. Neo-liberalism would emphasize the role of free trade and international institutions in mitigating conditions of anarchy. The Indus Water Treaty  signed by Nehru and Ayub Khan to resolve the water dispute concerns the river Indus and its tributaries that  pass through some parts of POK. According to neoliberal theorists, one of the prominent reasons of the treaty’s success would be that it is mediated by the World Bank which is deeply embedded in neoliberal principles, liberal democratic values and legal frameworks eventually leading to peace and cooperation between the two actors. Additionally, consistent involvement of the United Nations in the Kashmir dispute and its establishment of United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan would ameliorate conditions of anarchy and promote institutionalized cooperation since the UN is driven by rationality and is a legitimate institution. Drawing from democratic peace thesis and political liberalism, one of the key reasons why India and Pakistan are in a perpetual state of conflict is because they are not liberal democracies and are hence illegitimate states especially Pakistan wherein larger issues of human rights, individual autonomy and so on are subsumed within a very authoritarian political regime. However, domestic liberalism (along with holistic constructivism) would take a bottom-up approach into account and the roles played by domestic identities and interest groups in locating a particular security issue (such as Hindu nationalists advocating a more hard-core stance on PoK). So, Liberalism as a concept would find the solution in dialogue diplomacy through people-to-people contacts, bilateral and multilateral engagements etc. An example to substantiate the argument could be when Modi offered support in flood relief efforts in PoK under the Nawaz Sharif government and advocated for closer collaboration in disaster management as a part of his agenda of peace and development in the region. Regional organizations such as South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) can further encourage a peaceful rule-based order and interdependence amongst the two nations by providing a space for deliberations and negotiations over the conflict. In all, liberalism would advance the role of global governance (laws, legitimate institutions) in mitigating structural conditions of anarchy, asymmetry of information (security dilemma in realist terms) and would term it a ‘collective action problem’ requiring collaborative efforts and dialogue on every possible subject.

Constructivist approaches would firstly reject the view that anarchy is predisposed and would rather think of it as a social construct. They would reiterate that the PoK conflict is a result of a process of mutual constitution by both India and Pakistan. As it gives both of them a ‘security of their self’ as pointed out by the concept of ontological security, constructivists will term it as an ‘intractable conflict’ that provides both the entities a coherent narrative of their self and is an inherent part of their identity. Accordingly, such theoretical frameworks will underline the important aspects of meaning-making practices and construction of identity wherein states make use of discursive power to constantly perform ‘binary opposition’ and secure their self. For instance, according to an Indian viewpoint the fact that Pakistan is a non-democratic and Islamic state that harbors terrorist groups is in contrast with what India stands for i.e., peace, democracy, secular and a responsible actor and which acts the primary reason behind the PoK dispute. Such strong discourse is deployed to articulate and define a potential threat to a state’s identity and its sense of ontological security. Lastly, collective memory and historical socialization of states play a greater role in legitimizing a conflict. In this context, the British legacy of partition and 1947 Indo-Pak war are a reminder of their historical past to these states leading to social construction of their identity which in a way results in perpetual/intractable conflict i.e., PoK.     

All of these conceptual frameworks recognize centrality of the states in theorizing security. As Realists have pessimistic visions, they focus on how anarchy drives states to look for their self-interests and physical survival (the black-box model). While liberalism offers more agency to navigate through anarchy through the means of regulatory frameworks, international regimes and institutional structures, it is still top-down and systemic in nature. Constructivism takes a middle ground (‘change is both possible and difficult’) and highlights key concepts like meaning making, binary opposition, discourse, performativity, intersubjective world order etc. to describe issues pertaining to international security studies.    

Bibliography:

1. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51 (4): 513–53. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550447.

2. Mitzen, Jennifer. 2006. “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma.” European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 341–70.https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346.

3. Hopf, Ted. 1998. ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’. International Security 23 (1): 171. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267.

4. Keohane, Robert. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110: 82–96.