SUKUMAR SAH
In the fog of Kashmir’s complex geopolitics, one comparison is rarely made aloud — yet it lingers, unspoken, in the shadows of history. Could Pakistan’s decades-long involvement in Kashmir resemble Britain’s colonial rule in India before 1947?
At first glance, the analogy appears strained. Britain was a foreign imperial power governing a vast subcontinent. Pakistan, by contrast, is a neighboring state with ethnic, religious, and historical ties to Kashmir. And yet, when examined through the prism of political strategy and narrative control, parallels begin to emerge — startling and uncomfortable.
India must invest in civic freedom, fair representation
The British Raj operated through a simple but devastating formula: divide and rule. Its administrators exploited communal divisions, cultivated proxy rulers, and positioned themselves as protectors of certain communities to sustain control. Today, Pakistan projects itself as the voice of Kashmir’s Muslim majority, asserting a moral and religious obligation to champion their cause. In doing so, it seeks to maintain relevance in the region, even without administrative authority.
Much like Britain claimed to safeguard Muslim interests while resisting Indian unity, Pakistan invokes the two-nation theory to justify its interventions. This theory — used to justify Partition — holds that Hindus and Muslims are inherently distinct nations. If that premise falters in Kashmir, it risks unraveling the ideological foundation of Pakistan itself.
Pakistan’s tactics reflect this anxiety. Since the late 1980s, it has supported armed insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, provided safe havens to separatist leaders, and waged an information war across borders. These are not the actions of a liberator — they echo the strategy of a retreating empire using proxies to prolong influence and prevent integration.
Unlike the British, Pakistan does not administer Kashmir, yet its fingerprints are unmistakable. From Gilgit-Baltistan to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, its control remains opaque, with limited rights and voice for local populations. Meanwhile, in Indian-administered Kashmir, Pakistan’s continued meddling ensures a state of chronic instability that undercuts development, democracy, and normalcy.
As with the British, the costs of this interference are borne by ordinary people. Kashmiris are caught between militancy and militarisation, between promises of autonomy and cycles of violence. What should have been a region of flourishing trade, tourism, and education remains hostage to an unfinished agenda of 1947.
India’s handling of elections, security arrangements, development measures have also invited criticism. But these are issues of governance, not the result of colonial ambition. The solution lies not in another partition of loyalties, but in building trust, voice, and opportunity within the Indian constitutional framework.
To move forward, India must expose and reject this colonial-style interference for what it is. Investing in civic freedoms, fair representation, and economic transformation in the Valley is not just moral — it’s strategic. It punctures the narrative Pakistan has long used to justify its stance and presents an alternative that is hard to argue with: progress.
Pakistan must ask itself a hard question: does it want peace, or perpetual leverage? So far, its actions suggest the latter. But history is no longer on its side.
The ghosts of empire linger in the subcontinent. In Kashmir, Pakistan risks playing the very role it once helped resist. And the longer it clings to that legacy, the further peace recedes into the past.
