独家｜克什米尔风云再起，大国竞逐能否换来真正的和平？（中英对照）_风闻

Club提要：4月22日，印控克什米尔帕哈尔加姆镇发生严重恐袭事件，造成至少26名游客死亡。印度政府迅速将责任归咎于巴基斯坦，并宣布中止维持六十余年的《印度河河水条约》，使紧张局势进一步升级。

巴基斯坦信德大学国际关系系助理教授西拉杰·尼扎马尼应北京对话邀请撰写英文评论认为，印度政府的仓促定责，忽视了克什米尔冲突正在发生的三个本质变化：一是武装分子本土化，大量当地青年因政治疏离感加入极端组织；二是冲突性质已从跨境恐怖主义转变为内生性暴力；三是印度强硬政策正在产生反噬，连远离边境的旅游区也频遭袭击。

尼扎马尼强调，克什米尔问题早已超越边境恐怖主义范畴，成为一场深层的政治与社会危机。解决之道不在于军事对抗或民族主义动员，而在于开展包容性政治对话，寻求各方都能接受的妥协方案，特别是要重视长期被边缘化的克什米尔民众的正当诉求。

Club Briefing: On April 22, a severe terrorist attack occurred in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, killing at least 26 tourists. The Indian government swiftly blamed Pakistan and announced the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, a landmark agreement that had remained in place for over sixty years, further escalating regional tensions.

Siraj Nizamani, Assistant Professor of International Relations at the University of Sindh in Pakistan, wrote a commentary at the invitation of the Beijing Club for International Dialogue, arguing that the Indian government’s hasty attribution of blame overlooks three fundamental shifts in the nature of the Kashmir conflict: first, the increasing localization of militancy, with many disillusioned local youths joining extremist groups; second, a transformation from cross-border terrorism to internally driven violence; and third, the counterproductive effects of India’s hardline policies, as even tourist areas far from the border are now frequently targeted.

Nizamani emphasizes that the Kashmir issue has long surpassed the framework of cross-border terrorism, becoming a deep political and social crisis. The solution does not lie in military confrontation or nationalist mobilization, but in inclusive political dialogue aimed at finding a compromise acceptable to all sides — especially by addressing the legitimate grievances of the long-marginalized Kashmiri population.

当地时间2025年4月29日，巴基斯坦防长表示伊斯兰堡正在等待印度对克什米尔恐袭案调查提议做出回应（图源：美联社）

2025年4月22日，帕哈尔加姆发生的无辜游客遇害事件，再次震撼了整个地区。这一悲剧理所当然地引发了当地民众的悲痛与愤慨。然而，在急于归咎责任——特别是将矛头直指巴基斯坦之前，有必要退后一步，审视更大的格局。 历史经验表明，在危机时刻，人们往往倾向于接受简单的叙事，但真相通常更为复杂。

袭击发生后，印度政界人士、媒体和官员迅速将矛头指向巴基斯坦。印度总理莫迪承诺要“给肇事者一个教训”，印度水利水资源部更是暂停执行《印度河河水条约》——这是印巴六十多年紧张关系中始终得以维系的重要协议。巴基斯坦方面表示，中止条约是一种战争行为。如果我们回顾一下过去的事件，就会明白为什么妄下论断会很危险。2000年，美国时任总统克林顿访印期间，查蒂辛格波拉大屠杀爆发，导致35名锡克教徒遇害。大屠杀最初被归咎于巴基斯坦的组织，但后续调查显示，是印度安全部队掩盖了真相，才导致无辜村民被诬陷。该事件表明，当情绪高涨时，真相往往成为第一个牺牲品。

印度政府对帕哈尔加姆事件的处理——仅一天后就宣布中止《印度河河水条约》——让人感觉不像是临时反应，而更像是早有预谋。这与2019年普尔瓦马事件后发生的情况如出一辙：印度当时很快就废除了宪法第370条，剥夺了克什米尔的特殊地位。

当地时间2025年4月24日，巴基斯坦海德拉巴，库特里水坝附近的印度河干涸，水位下降，显示出未来缺水的高风险（图源：视觉中国）

战争的呼声或许听起来慷慨激昂，充满爱国情怀，却忽视了一些非常严峻的现实：巴基斯坦是一个有核国家，任何军事行动都可能升级为一场不可控的灾难。这一教训已被其他国家以惨痛代价验证——无论是俄乌冲突，还是美国在中东无休止的战争，都警示着我们：战争往往轻易发动，却几乎无法按预期收场。即便只是针对边境的所谓“外科手术式打击”，也可能迅速演变成全面冲突，而一旦战火燃起，便再难平息。

在克什米尔地区，武力手段屡遭挫败。正如受人尊敬的律师兼历史学家A·G·努拉尼所指出，克什米尔并非单纯的治安问题，更是一个政治问题，需要各方共同参与解决。单纯归咎于巴基斯坦，无异于忽视了一个日益凸显的现实：如今克什米尔地区的武装分子大多是土生土长的。克什米尔政治学者阿贾伊·克伦古博士的研究表明，当前众多武装人员都是当地青年，他们普遍怀有强烈的疏离感、绝望与愤怒情绪。其中部分人受到“伊斯兰国”等全球极端主义思潮的影响，另一部分人则对印巴两国都深感失望。这些武装分子已不再依赖跨境支援，他们完全可以通过黑市武器、加密通讯工具以及强大的本地网络获取所需资源——这与20世纪90年代的情况已截然不同。

许多人还指出，印度政府的政策损害了克什米尔人的基本权利，加剧了地区局势的恶化。批评者认为，以国家安全顾问阿吉特·多瓦尔和内政部长阿米特·沙阿为代表的强硬派路线正在适得其反。阿南塔纳格和帕哈勒格姆等旅游区远离边境，如今却也频发武装袭击事件，这表明克什米尔问题已超出简单的跨境渗透范畴，正在演变为一场深刻的内部危机。

A·G·努拉尼强调，克什米尔冲突涉及三方——印度、巴基斯坦和克什米尔人民自身。除非三方都参与进来，否则不可能达成持久的解决方案。从最早的讨论开始，甚至在联合国介入之前，这一原则就得到了认可。无论是1972年的《西姆拉协议》和1999年的《拉合尔宣言》，抑或2000年代曼莫汉·辛格与佩尔韦兹·穆沙拉夫达成的四点方案，都承认克什米尔是一个需要谈判解决的争议地带。印度宪法第253条规定，未经克什米尔政府同意，不得决定克什米尔的归属。这充分证明，无论某些政治主张如何宣称，克什米尔问题远未得到真正“解决”。

2000年，时任美国总统克林顿访问印度（图源：英国广播公司）

任何忽视当地民众情感诉求的做法，都必将加剧克什米尔的地区对立。正如资深国会领导人古拉姆·纳比·阿扎德所坦言，即使在克什米尔主流社会群体中，对巴基斯坦的情感联结依然客观存在。前首席部长梅赫布巴·穆夫提也多次公开强调这种根植于历史与文化的深层情感羁绊。这种情感是无法用武力消除的。只有对话、妥协和尊重才能有效解决这些问题。

当下，真正需要的，不是愤怒与报复，而是采取更明智、更果敢的做法：包括帕哈尔加姆惨案在内的每一起事件，都必须得到公正的调查，而非沦为政治博弈的筹码；对话不能仅限于政府，克什米尔人民也必须在谈判桌上占有一席之地；与此同时，印度的内部问题必须得到解决，尤其是侵犯人权的问题，逮捕、审查和严厉镇压只会滋生更多的怨恨和暴力；在国际层面，《印度河河水条约》等协议必须得到严格遵守，而非沦为政治武器；负责任的新闻报道至关重要，媒体必须摒弃哗众取宠的做法，注重事实真相。如果印度和巴基斯坦不能公开接触，也可以考虑通过第三方渠道开展低调务实的外交接触。最重要的是，两国都必须正视克什米尔是一个混乱、复杂的争端这一现实——这个持续七十余年的争端不会因为任何一方的刻意忽视而消失。

印度新德里的警察站在巴基斯坦高级专员公署门外（图源：路透社）

帕哈尔加姆的悲剧绝不能成为推行危险政治议程的借口。克什米尔、巴基斯坦和印度人民真正需要的，不是无休止的暴力与相互指责。真正的勇气，不在于轻易发动战争，而在于即使面临重重阻力与民意压力，仍能坚持推动和平进程。唯有通过对话与妥协，特别是尊重那些长期被忽视的声音，才能找到根本解决之道。终有一天，历史将公正评判：我们究竟是选择了智慧之路，还是重蹈了无止境冲突的覆辙。

编译｜李雨琪

以下为英文原文：

The tragic killing of innocent tourists at Baisaran, Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, has once again left the entire region shaken. Understandably, there is grief and anger everywhere. But before rushing to point fingers — especially towards Pakistan — it is important to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. History teaches us that during moments of crisis, people often grab onto easy narratives, but the truth is usually more complicated.

Immediately after the attack, Indian politicians, the media, and officials quickly blamed Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi promised to “teach the perpetrators a lesson,” and India’s Ministry of Jal Shakti suspended the Indus Waters Treaty — a major agreement between India and Pakistan that has survived over sixty years of tensions. Pakistan called the suspension an act of war. However, if we look back at past incidents, we see why rushing to judgment can be dangerous. In 2000, during President Bill Clinton’s visit to India, the Chattisinghpora massacre left thirty-five Sikhs dead. Initial blame was placed on Pakistan-based groups, but later investigations revealed major cover-ups by Indian security forces, with innocent villagers falsely accused. History shows that when emotions are high, truth often becomes the first casualty.

The handling of the Pahalgam incident — with the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty announced just a day later — feels less like a spontaneous reaction and more like something pre-planned. It echoes what happened after Pulwama in 2019, when the removal of Article 370 soon followed, stripping Kashmir of its special constitutional status.

Calls for war may sound strong and patriotic, but they ignore some very serious realities. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Any military action could escalate into a disaster no one can control. Other countries have learned this the hard way — Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the United States’ endless wars in the Middle East serve as grim reminders that wars are easy to start, but nearly impossible to end. Even so-called “surgical strikes” against alleged terror camps across the border could quickly trigger a full-blown war, with no easy way to calm it down once it begins.

Force has repeatedly failed in Kashmir. As the respected lawyer and historian A.G. Noorani points out, Kashmir is not simply a law-and-order issue; it is a political problem that requires a political solution involving all sides. Blaming Pakistan alone also ignores the growing reality that today’s militancy in Kashmir is increasingly homegrown. According to Kashmiri political scientist Dr. Ajay Chrungoo, many of the fighters today are young local men who feel alienated, hopeless, and angry. Some are influenced by global jihadist ideologies like ISIS, while others are disillusioned with both India and Pakistan. These militants do not necessarily rely on support from across the border; they have access to black-market weapons, encrypted communication, and strong local networks. This is a very different situation from the 1990s.

Many also argue that India’s own policies have worsened the situation by undermining the fundamental rights of Kashmiris. Critics say that the hardline approach championed by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Home Minister Amit Shah has backfired. The fact that tourist areas like Anantnag and Pahalgam — far from the border — are now witnessing militant attacks shows that the issue is no longer simply about infiltration. It has become a deep internal crisis.

A.G. Noorani rightly emphasizes that there are three parties to the Kashmir conflict — India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri people themselves. No lasting solution can be achieved unless all three are involved. From the earliest discussions, even before the UN became engaged, this principle has been acknowledged. The Shimla Agreement of 1972, the Lahore Declaration of 1999, and even the Manmohan-Musharraf four-point formula of the 2000s recognized Kashmir as a dispute needing negotiation. The Indian Constitution itself, through a provision under Article 253, states that no decision about Kashmir’s disposition can happen without the consent of Kashmir’s own government. This clearly shows that the issue is not “settled” despite political claims to the contrary.

Ignoring the sentiments of Kashmiris has only deepened the divide. Veteran Congress leader Ghulam Rasool Kar once admitted that even mainstream Kashmiris have emotional ties with Pakistan. Mehbooba Mufti has also spoken openly about the deep, complex connections people feel. Such sentiments cannot be erased by force. Only dialogue, compromise, and respect can address them meaningfully.

What should happen now is not a rush into anger or revenge, but a smarter and braver approach. Every incident, including Pahalgam, must be investigated fairly, without political blame games. Dialogue must not be limited to governments; Kashmiris themselves must have a seat at the table. Internal issues, especially human rights violations, must be addressed. Arrests, censorship, and harsh crackdowns only breed more resentment and violence. International agreements like the Indus Waters Treaty must be respected and not turned into political weapons. Responsible journalism is critical; the media must move away from sensationalism and focus on facts. Quiet third-party diplomacy could also be considered if India and Pakistan cannot engage openly. Above all, both countries must face the reality that Kashmir is a messy, complicated dispute — and pretending otherwise will not make it disappear.

The tragedy at Pahalgam must not be used as an excuse to push dangerous political agendas. The people of Kashmir, Pakistan, and India deserve better than endless cycles of violence and blame. Real courage lies not in starting wars but in making peace, even when it is difficult and unpopular. The only real solution lies in dialogue, compromise, and in respecting the voices that have been ignored for too long. History will judge whether we chose the path of wisdom — or once again fell into the trap of endless conflict.