From Partition to Present: The India-Pakistan Conflict and the Imperative for Global Action

 

 

Introduction

The partition of British India in 1947, a seismic event that birthed Pakistan, set the stage for one of the most intractable geopolitical conflicts of the modern era.

 While India embraced secularism and democratic pluralism, Pakistan's trajectory has been defined by religious exclusivism, military dominance, and, critically, the institutionalisation of terrorism as a tool of state policy. This paper argues that Pakistan's systematic sponsorship of terrorism, evidenced by a long history of attacks targeting India and beyond, demands a revaluation of its status as a legitimate nation-state. India, as a rising global power and a victim of Pakistan's aggression, must lead the international community in derecognising Pakistan, establishing a precedent that statehood is contingent upon adherence to international norms. The global community, in turn, faces a moral and strategic imperative to act decisively against a state that threatens the rules-based order.

 Historical Context: A Nation Forged in Division

The partition of British India was not merely a territorial reconfiguration but a profound ideological schism. The Two-Nation Theory, championed by the Muslim League under Muhammad Ali Jinnah, argued that Muslims required a separate homeland to safeguard their religious and cultural identity. This premise, inherently antithetical to pluralism, laid the foundation for Pakistan's national identity. The violence of partition, resulting in over one million deaths and the displacement of millions, underscored the fragility of this ideological experiment. While India adopted a constitution that enshrined secularism and democratic governance, Pakistan struggled to reconcile its religious foundation with the demands of modern statehood. The early years of Pakistan's existence were marked by political instability, with frequent military interventions culminating in the dominance of the Pakistan Army and its intelligence arm, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This military-intelligence complex has since shaped Pakistan's domestic and foreign policies, prioritising strategic depth through proxy warfare over democratic institution-building.

Pakistan's fixation on Jammu and Kashmir, a princely state that legally acceded to India in 1947 under the Instrument of Accession, became the epicentre of its rivalry with India. The first Indo-Pakistani War (1947–1948) saw Pakistan-backed tribal militias attempt to seize Kashmir, setting a precedent for its use of irregular forces to challenge India's sovereignty. The United Nations Resolution 47, adopted in 1948, called for Pakistan to withdraw all forces from the occupied territories as a prerequisite for a plebiscite, a condition Pakistan has never fulfilled. Instead, Pakistan has maintained control over parts of Kashmir, known as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Gilgit-Baltistan, through military coercion, denying residents fundamental political and civil rights. This illegal occupation, coupled with Pakistan's sponsorship of insurgency in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, has perpetuated instability in South Asia, undermining prospects for peace and cooperation.

Pakistan's Institutionalised Terrorism: A Comprehensive Record

Pakistan's support for terrorism is not a series of isolated incidents but a deliberate and institutionalised strategy orchestrated by the ISI and the Pakistan Army. This section provides a comprehensive overview of major terrorist attacks directed by Pakistan, focusing on their impact on India, the region, and the global community. The evidence, drawn from credible sources, underscores the systematic nature of Pakistan's actions and the urgent need for international intervention.

The 1993 Bombay Bombings

On 12 March 1993, a series of 12 coordinated bomb blasts rocked Bombay (now Mumbai), targeting key infrastructure, including the Bombay Stock Exchange and prominent hotels. The attacks killed 257 people and injured over 700, marking one of the deadliest terrorist incidents in India's history. Investigations revealed the involvement of Pakistan-based underworld figure Dawood Ibrahim, whose D-Company syndicate operated with ISI support. The bombings were a retaliatory response to communal riots in Bombay, and further scale and sophistication pointed to state-backed logistics. The economic disruption was profound, with the Bombay Stock Exchange temporarily halting operations, and the psychological toll on India's financial capital was immense. Pakistan's failure to extradite Dawood Ibrahim, who remains a fugitive in Karachi, exemplifies its unwillingness to confront its role in terrorism.

The 2001 Indian Parliament Attack

On 13 December 2001, five gunmen stormed the Indian Parliament in New Delhi, killing nine people, including security personnel, and injuring 18 others. The attack, executed by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), aimed to decapitate India's political leadership and destabilise its democracy. Indian intelligence traced the operation to ISI handlers, who provided training and logistical support to the perpetrators. The attack precipitated a major military standoff, with India and Pakistan mobilising troops along the Line of Control (LoC), raising fears of nuclear escalation. The international community, including the United States, condemned the attack, but Pakistan's refusal to ban LeT and JeM underscored its complicity.

The 2008 Mumbai Attacks

The 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks, often referred to as India's 9/11, represent the zenith of Pakistan's terrorist enterprise. Ten LeT operatives, trained in camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, launched a 60-hour siege on Mumbai, targeting luxury hotels, a railway station, a Jewish community centre, and a café. The attacks killed 166 people, including 26 foreigners, and injured over 300. Intercepted communications between the attackers and their handlers in Pakistan confirmed ISI involvement, with real-time instructions relayed from a control room in Karachi. The global impact was significant, straining India-Pakistan relations and prompting widespread condemnation. Hafiz Saeed, LeT us founder, continued to operate freely in Pakistan, delivering public speeches despite being designated a terrorist by the United Nations.

 The 2016 Uri Attack

On 18 September 2016, four JeM militants attacked an Indian Army base in Uri, Jammu and Kashmir, killing 19 soldiers. The attack, one of the deadliest on Indian forces in decades, was traced to JeM operatives trained in Pakistan. India responded with surgical strikes on terrorist launchpads across the LoC, marking a shift towards a more assertive counterterrorism policy. The attack heightened tensions, with India accusing Pakistan of harbouring JeM leader Masood Azhar, who remains at large despite UN sanctions.

 The 2019 Pulwama Attack

On 14 February 2019, a suicide bomber from JeM rammed an explosive-laden vehicle into a convoy of Indian paramilitary forces in Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir, killing 40 personnel. The attack, claimed by JeM, was the deadliest in Kashmir in three decades. Indian intelligence linked the operation to Pakistan-based handlers, prompting India to conduct airstrikes on JeM camps in Balakot, Pakistan. The international community, including the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), intensified scrutiny of Pakistan's terror financing, but its grey-listing has failed to curb state support for groups like JeM.

 The 2025 Pahalgam Attack

On 22 April 2025, gunmen attacked tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, killing 26 people, mostly Hindus, in the deadliest attack on civilians in the region since 2000. Indian intelligence traced the attackers to safehouses in Karachi and Muzaffarabad, with forensic evidence suggesting a control room similar to that used in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Survivors reported that the attackers targeted victims based on religion, asking them to recite Islamic verses. The attack reignited India-Pakistan tensions, with India suspending the Indus Waters Treaty and expelling Pakistani diplomats. Pakistan's denial of involvement, coupled with its closure of airspace and trade routes, underscored its refusal to address its role as a terror sponsor.

 Regional and Global Impacts

Pakistan's terrorism has not been confined to India. The Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network, both nurtured by the ISI, have destabilised Afghanistan with attacks such as the 2008 Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul and the 2011 assault on the US Embassy. In Bangladesh, the ISI has been linked to the 2016 Dhaka café attack by Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, which killed 22 people. In Europe, British Pakistanis trained in Pakistani camps have been implicated in plots like the 2004 fertiliser bomb conspiracy, highlighting Pakistan's global reach.

 The economic costs are staggering. Pakistan's economy has suffered losses of $126.79 billion since 2001 due to its involvement in the War on Terror, yet it continues to prioritise terrorism over development. For India, the human toll of over 23,000 civilian deaths in terrorism-related incidents since 2000 has been compounded by economic disruptions and heightened security expenditures. Globally, Pakistan's actions have strained diplomatic relations, undermined counterterrorism efforts, and perpetuated a cycle of violence that threatens the rules-based order.

 Nuclear Blackmail and Strategic Implications

Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, estimated at 165 warheads, amplifies the threat posed by its terrorist activities. Its doctrine of "full-spectrum deterrence" relies on nuclear posturing to deter conventional retaliation, effectively shielding its proxy warfare. The 2001 Parliament attack and the 2019 Pulwama crisis brought India and Pakistan perilously close to nuclear conflict, illustrating the risks of this strategy. The porous boundary between Pakistan's military and jihadist groups raises the spectre of nuclear materials falling into extremist hands, a scenario that demands pre-emptive international action.

 Pakistan's nuclear blackmail extends beyond India. By leveraging its arsenal to secure diplomatic concessions and military aid, Pakistan has coerced the international community into tolerating its behaviour. The United States, for instance, has provided billions in aid since 2001 despite evidence of Pakistan's duplicity in supporting the Afghan Taliban. This dynamic underscores the need for a coordinated global strategy to neutralise Pakistan's nuclear threat while addressing its terrorist infrastructure.

 The Case for Derecognition: A Legal and Moral Imperative

India, as a vibrant democracy and a responsible global power, is uniquely positioned to lead the charge in derecognising Pakistan as a legitimate nation-state. Derecognition is not merely a symbolic act but a legal and strategic necessity grounded in international law. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) stipulates that statehood requires a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Pakistan's persistent violation of international norms through its sponsorship of terrorism, illegal occupation of Kashmir, and failure to govern PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan constitutionally undermines its claim to statehood.

 Derecognition would signal that statehood is not an inalienable right but a privilege contingent upon adherence to the principles of peaceful coexistence. India's leadership in this regard could galvanise other democracies to reassess their engagement with Pakistan. For instance, the European Union, which condemned the 2025 Pahalgam attack, could align with India to impose targeted sanctions on Pakistan's military and ISI leadership. Similarly, the United States, which has reduced military aid to Pakistan by 60% since 2010, could formalise its designation of Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism, a step long overdue given the evidence.

 Global Responsibility: Rejecting False Equivalencies

The international community must abandon the false equivalency between India, a secular democracy committed to global norms, and Pakistan, a state that weaponised terrorism. Neutrality in this context is tantamount to complicity. Western governments, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, have historically engaged Pakistan for strategic reasons, such as its role in the Afghanistan conflict. However, this pragmatism has yielded diminishing returns, as Pakistan's duplicity has undermined counterterrorism efforts and prolonged regional instability.

 Concrete actions are imperative

First, the United Nations Security Council should designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism, building on the FATF's grey listing and the sanctions against LeT and JeM leaders. Second, economic sanctions should target Pakistan's military-intelligence complex, freezing assets and restricting travel for key figures. Third, military aid to Pakistan, which has been used to bolster its terrorist infrastructure, must cease entirely. Finally, legal action under the Rome Statute and UN conventions should hold Pakistani officials accountable for crimes against humanity, including their role in sponsoring terrorism.

 Comparison with Other Rogue States

Pakistan's behaviour aligns it with other rogue states—North Korea, Iran, and Syria—characterised by defiance of international norms, sponsorship of terrorism, and threats to global stability. North Korea's nuclear programme, with an estimated 50 warheads, mirrors Pakistan's brinkmanship, using nuclear threats to deter intervention while pursuing aggressive policies. Like Pakistan, North Korea has leveraged its arsenal to extract concessions, such as sanctions relief, while maintaining a repressive regime. However, Pakistan's active sponsorship of transnational terrorism, exemplified by the Pahalgam attack, surpasses North Korea's focus on domestic control and missile tests.

 Iran, designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the US since 1984, supports groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, similar to Pakistan's backing of LeT and JeM. Iran's nuclear ambitions, though constrained by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, parallel Pakistan's strategic use of nuclear capabilities to shield its proxy warfare. However, Iran's terrorism is primarily regional, targeting Israel and Gulf states. In contrast, Pakistan’s global reach from India to London poses a broader threat. Iran's theocratic governance contrasts with Pakistan's military-dominated hybrid regime. However, both exploit ideological narratives to justify their actions.

 Syria, under Bashar al-Assad, has harboured terrorist groups and used chemical weapons, violating international law. Like Pakistan, Syria's state-sponsored violence has destabilised its region, triggering refugee crises and proxy conflicts. However, Syria's lack of nuclear capabilities limits its strategic leverage compared to Pakistan, whose nuclear arsenal amplifies its recklessness. Pakistan's institutionalised terrorism, orchestrated by the ISI, is more systematic than Syria's opportunistic alliances with non-state actors.

 Unlike these states, Pakistan's geographic proximity to India, a rising global power, and its role in the Afghanistan conflict have historically shielded it from severe consequences. The US and China, for strategic reasons, have engaged Pakistan despite its rogue behaviour, China through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and the US through counterterrorism cooperation. This leniency distinguishes Pakistan from North Korea and Iran, which face stringent sanctions. However, Pakistan's nuclear threats and terrorist sponsorship, as evidenced by the Pahalgam attack, demand a reevaluation of this approach, aligning its treatment with that of other rogue states.

 Conclusion: A Defining Moment for the World Order

The India-Pakistan conflict, rooted in the ideological divisions of partition, has evolved into a global challenge due to Pakistan's institutionalised terrorism. From the 1993 Bombay bombings to the 2025 Pahalgam attack, Pakistan's actions have inflicted immense human and economic costs, destabilised South Asia, and threatened the international order. Far from conferring legitimacy, its nuclear arsenal amplifies the urgency of addressing its rogue behaviour.

 India's call for derecognition is not an act of aggression but a defence of the principles that underpin global stability. By leading this initiative, India can set a precedent that resonates beyond South Asia, affirming that no state can sponsor terrorism with impunity. The international community faces a stark choice: to appease a rogue state or to uphold the values of peace, justice, and sovereignty. History suggests that inaction only emboldens aggressors. In this defining moment, the world must stand with India to delegitimise Pakistan's terrorist enterprise and secure a safer future for all.

 About the Author

Prashant Shukla is the Chairman of the Ireland India Council, a prominent platform fostering dialogue on South Asian affairs, diaspora engagement, and global cooperation. With extensive publications on migration, geopolitics, and economic policy, Shukla is recognised as a leading voice advocating for democratic values, counterterrorism, and regional stability. His work bridges Ireland, India, and the international community, promoting policies that advance peace, justice, and sustainable development.

 Bibliography

Atran, S. (2003). Genesis of Suicide Terrorism. Science, 299(5612), 1534–1539.

Bloom, M. (2005). Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. New York: Columbia University Press.

Daraz, U., et al. (2012). Socioeconomic and Psychological Impacts of Terrorism in Pakistan. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 345–356.

Horgan, J. (2008). From Profiles to Pathways and Roots to Routes: Perspectives from Psychology on Radicalization into Terrorism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 618(1), 80–94.

Sageman, M. (2004). Understanding Terror Networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Silke, A. (ed.) (2003). Terrorists, Victims and Society: Psychological Perspectives on Terrorism and its Consequences. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Wadhwani, R. (2011). Essay on Terrorism in Pakistan: Its Causes, Impacts and Remedies. Civil Service Pakistan Forum, 28 September.

Congressional Research Service (2003). Terrorism in Southeast Asia. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

European Foundation for South Asian Studies (n.d.). Pakistan Army and Terrorism: An Unholy Alliance. Brussels: EFSAS.

Financial Action Task Force (2022). Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring. Paris: FATF.

Institute for Economics and Peace (2025). Global Terrorism Index 2024. Sydney: IEP.

National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (2024). Global Terrorism Database. College Park: University of Maryland.

South Asia Terrorism Portal (n.d.). Terrorism in Pakistan: Yearly Fatalities. New Delhi: SATP.

United Nations Security Council (1948). Resolution 47: The India-Pakistan Question. New York: UN.

United States Department of State (2019). Country Reports on Terrorism 2019. Washington, DC: Bureau of Counterterrorism.

United States Department of State (2022). Country Reports on Terrorism 2022. Washington, DC: Bureau of Counterterrorism.

United States Department of State (2023). Pakistan: International Religious Freedom Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.