India-Pakistan Relations Through the Lens of Realism

The relationship between India and Pakistan is often studied through the lens of Realism. Multiple wars,
countless border clashes, and an almost constant state of hostility depict the nature of their
relationship. Political elites on both sides are turning to realism to discuss and implement policies
influenced by realism.

An examination of the historical relationship between Pakistan and India shows that the enmity is not
just because of material objects (such as territorial disputes or nuclear weapons), but is rather explained
by deeply-rooted differences in beliefs, ideas, and norms. Examples of these non-material divides
include the pre-partition Urdu-Hindi language controversy, Muslims and Hindus’ conflicting views on
cow slaughter, or the violence during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947.

Understanding these non-material and often historic factors driving the India-Pakistan relationship is
important, even if material factors have some influence in the relationship. The hostility that exists at
the military and political levels has been discussed at length, but the hostility at the social and grassroots
levels is largely being ignored. In the contemporary world, people-to-people contact is inseparable from
regional and global politics; but in the case of Pakistan-India relations, this aspect is often ignored.

To best understand the relationship between the countries, I used realism as a theory of international
relations through the examples of the Battle of Kashmir and the riots of 1947 during the Partition of
India. India and Pakistan both have associations through the cultures, history and also economic and
geographic issues. Therefore, these two states have led themselves to high tensions, making their
relations unpredictable and in some cases destructive..

The partition of 1947, was a period of time involving unrest and violence. In 1947, India and Pakistan
had separated and became their own countries. Pakistan was predominantly Muslim while India was
majority Hindu. Before the partition, there weren’t many acts of violence between the three main
religions of Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus, the Partition changed that. Countless acts of sexual violence
towards women and slaying of families became a result of this Partition. “Some seventy-five thousand
women were raped, and many of them were then disfigured or dismembered…… By 1948, as the great
migration drew to a close, more than fifteen million people had been uprooted, and between one and
two million were dead (The New Yorker, 2015).” Punjab had been split in half between India and
Pakistan because of the Partition and this is where most of the violent acts on women and families
happened. However, after the long lasting struggle, India and Pakistan did gain their independence in
August of 1947.

Some of the reasons for the Partition of India were “Mohammed Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim
League, simply wished to use the demand for a separate state as a bargaining chip to win greater power
for Muslims within a loosely federated India (BBC, 2011).” Also, “One explanation for the chaotic
manner in which the two independent nations came into being is the hurried nature of the British
withdrawal (BBC, 2011).” These reasonings behind the Partition makes gives me a sense of a Realism
perspective because the definition of a Realist in International Relations is “ Realists consider the
principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act
in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power (Stanford Philosophy, 2013).”
Mohammed Ali Jinnah wanted to win a greater power for the Muslim people so this move to have their
own country would get that for them. Sadly, this didn’t happen without the tragedies of tons of people.

Since the Partition of India was in 1947, this leads right into our next topic. The Battle of Kashmir dates
back to 1947 as well. Even after India and Pakistan had formed into their own countries, there was still
an issue of having hundreds of states that were within these two countries that were lead by Monarchs.
These states could decide which country they wanted to be apart of or they could also choose to stay by
themselves and they would make the decision by having the people vote. Many of these Monarchs
wanted to stay independent but they had to stick with the decisions of the people and go with what
they wanted. During this time, “Maharaja Hari Singh was the ruler of Kashmir, which had the option to
choose either country to join because of the location of Kashmir. The only issue about Hari Singh, was
that he was Hindu while all of his people were Muslim (Daily O, 2015).” In order to keep the issue calm,
he decided to just stay and not join either. However, this did not last very long, “ his hopes of remaining
independent were dashed in October 1947, as Pakistan sent in Muslim tribesmen who were knocking at
the gates of the capital Srinagar. Hari Singh appealed to the Indian government for military assistance
and fled to India. He signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding Kashmir to India on October 26 (The
Telegraph, 2001).”

India and Pakistan ended up going to war over Kashmir, however, this was only the first time. After India
went to the United Nations for help, they decided they would leave it to the people of Kashmir to vote
for their own. They ended up going to war on four different occasions and still have battles to this day.
The fact that India and Pakistan have gone to four wars, that alone shows how important and significant
Kashmir is. Realism considers Security as a major priority, and for India, if they were to claim Kashmir it
would be very resourceful security wise for them against China and Pakistan. It serves as “ a barrier to
the philosophy of Pakistan Government which could threaten India’s internal security (aarcentre,
2016).” Kashmir is very important for either country because of its economic benefits as well. The
amount of revenue they can get from tourism of Kashmir would be a huge factor. “As for Pakistan it is
vital for its security zone as well the presence of two major roads and railway network in the border help
to strengthen its economy .

As far as Realism goes in the Battle of Kashmir, power is shown by India by the fact that after getting its
independence, many states chose to join them. Another instance of Realism in the Battle, was when
India supported Hari Singh. When the Pakistani troops showed up to Kashmir and tried to take over,
India backed him up without hesitating. However, India had a reason behind it, which was that they
would be in good standing with Hari Singh. Which is exactly how it worked out, Hari Singh ended up
signing Kashmir over to India soon after that. This shows that India only stepped in for their own
personal benefits and as a Realist would say, for their “struggle of power.”
India shows their sense of Realism once again as well when Pakistan wanted to go to the UN to solve the
issue. India played a trick on them by saying they should just negotiate between themselves, but then
soon after that they went to the UN themselves asking them to step in. This made it look like India was
concerned about the people of Kashmir which made them look better to the United Nations. This shows
the Realist standpoint of doing whatever it takes for the struggle of power.

Through the examples of The Battle of Kashmir, and the Partition of India and the riots during the time,
Realism helped me understand the relationship between India and Pakistan throughout the years.Using
The Partition of India, Realism was shown through the leader of the Muslim League Jinnah, because he
wanted to separate from the loose Indian government and have more power for his own Muslim
people. During this movement, an estimated 1-2 million people had died and about 15 million people
had to relocate their homes. Lastly, The Battle of Kashmir showed us the Realism perspective through
the many ways Kashmir would have brought security and money and power into the countries. India
showed us their Realist views by doing whatever was needed to gain their power by supporting Hari
Singh even though they had their own intentions in mind. They also showed a fake side by going to the
UN and making themselves look better after recently telling the Pakistani government that no one needs
to intervene and the best to solve the issue is by negotiating within themselves.