The Jammu and Kashmir conflict has long been viewed as primarily a territorial and political conflict between India and Pakistan for a long time. It has been frequently discussed in relation to the partition, wars between the two states, the Line of Control and the United Nations resolutions that demanded the right of self-determination for the Ksshmiri people.
In the classical perspective, Kashmir is seen as a territory over which both states claim authority. However, within recent years and especially since Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution were revoked in August 2019, the character of the problem appears to have changed. Kashmir is not only a contentious territory, but it also has a disputed history in the present day.
The control of Information, media coverage, legal interventions, and even demographics, have now become valuable instruments in how Kashmir is perceived not only outside of the region but also within it. This has serious implications for strategic stability in South Asia. Pakistan and India are nuclear-armed nations with their deterrence relationship relying heavily on clarity, communication and understanding each other. In the state of active control of narratives, limitation of information, and shaping of perception, the possibility of misunderstanding and mistrust is most likely. Kashmir has slowly transformed from a conflict of territory to become an informational warfare, and this transformation poses new threats to strategic stability between Pakistan and India.
In Kashmir, information warfare may be viewed from various perspectives. First, constant internet disconnections and a lack of communication block the free flow of information and eliminate the chance of reporting in real-time. Second, the coverage in the media is particularly monitored, and journalists frequently have to work under pressure, which influences the manner of coverage presentation. Third, anti-terror legislation like the Public Safety Act is enforced to hold people in custody for long durations of time. Such laws not only regulate behavior, but they also communicate some information concerning the state.
Then there are new domicile laws and administrative regulations that have changed the social structure of this region. Pakistan and India can be strategically stable when both countries are clear in communication and understand the intentions of each other. Nuclear deterrence is effective when the two can read the signals correctly, and they end up not miscalculating. Where the news of a sensitive area as Kashmir, is narrowed or biased through other conflicting accounts, the two states will view events in their own voices. Recent developments are seen by Pakistan as repression of self-determination and demographic change, whereas India sees them as internal administrative issues. Such disparity in interpretation causes more mistrust.
Transparency should be increased as much as possible to minimize risks, overcome internal communication channels, and promote its existence. The other way to reduce misunderstandings is by implementing confidence-building measures on the LoC and resuming diplomatic activities. The modern world is characterized by the fact that it is not only fought on the ground, but also on the perception front. The Kashmir problem, in this case, also demands not only legal and territorial issues, but also needs to respond to the informational environment in terms of the way the dispute is interpreted.
The events in Kashmir have mostly led to a crisis between the two nations. Pulwama is one of the instances in 2019 that can show the swift development of any situation to military exchange. In a setting where information is scarce and narratives are contested, there is an increased possibility of making false assessments.
Kashmir is not the only place where narrative and information take the center stage in the conflict. In 2014, Russia in Crimea applied both legal arguments, media campaigns, and the use of limited force to change the situation on the ground. The conflict over the control of the story was as important as the conflict over the power of the territory.
This demonstrates a larger pattern in contemporary conflicts, whereby states attach importance to the dominance of information and legal action to fulfill strategic objectives without engaging in an actual war. Kashmir follows this trend as well. The Kashmir dispute has slowly evolved to be more than a mere territory matter. It has turned into a field in which controlling information, enforcement, and shaping of narratives are significant factors. This change has important implications for the strategic stability between India and Pakistan.
Transparency should be increased as much as possible to minimize risks, overcome internal communication channels, and promote its existence. The other way to reduce misunderstandings is by implementing confidence-building measures on the LoC and resuming diplomatic activities. The modern world is characterized by the fact that it is not only fought on the ground, but also on the perception front. The Kashmir problem, in this case, also demands not only legal and territorial issues, but also needs to respond to the informational environment in terms of the way the dispute is interpreted.
