The differential ways in which stakeholders to the Kashmir conflict map its territories and borders reveal much about the unresolved issue. Kashmir is imagined in multiple ways; the maps of India, Pakistan, China, and different non-state stakeholders can hardly ever reconcile, or even resemble each other in any way.
While analysing the conflict, we often tend to view boundaries as clean lines on a flat piece of paper. But there’s more to maps.
Tim Marshall’s ‘Prisoners of Geography’ goes beyond this simplistic understanding and looks at the physical maps with their three-dimensional geographies, incorporating the influence and impact of rivers, mountain ranges, deserts and plains on the geopolitical landscape. It is through these maps that he explains the world. Though the book doesn’t overlook factors like ideology, religion, nationalism, economics and diplomacy, he contends that politics is mostly shaped by geography.
In his introductory chapter, giving the example of Russia and Ukraine, and arguing that there would be no conflict if the two were separated by a mountain range, he writes, ‘The landscape imprisons their leaders, giving them fewer choices and less room to manoeuvre.’
Marshall's book covers ten regions: Russia, China, the United States, Western Europe, Africa, the Middle East, India and Pakistan, Korea and Japan, Latin America, and the Arctic. Each chapter reveals how physical terrain has shaped history, policy and conflict.
Fractured Lands
While acknowledging the centrality of Kashmir, he describes the conflict between India and Pakistan as one that is not merely unresolved, but unresolvable. He holds geography as the culprit and views the broader geopolitical picture, not just a shared history and the contestations that are anchored in the partition of the sub-continent.
The Indian subcontinent is enclosed by exceptionally strong natural borders: the Himalayas to the north, the Hindu Kush to the northwest, the Karakoram Range linking them, and three bodies of water - the Bay of Bengal, the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea - to the south. Within this natural frame, a complex civilization grew along rivers, rich in diversity with a multiplicity of languages, religions and ethnicities.
When the British made a hasty retreat in 1947, they imposed a line through this complexity and broke the region into two nation-states – India and Pakistan. It was a division rooted in religion and it erected borders within spaces where people with shared cultures and languages lived. The consequences were catastrophic. Over a million people died in the communal violence that followed. Fifteen million were displaced on either side.
Marshall mentions this human horror in passing but he carries its weight in the following paragraphs to explain the roots of the conflict. He argues that the two states were mismatched in every measurable way. India received the majority of the subcontinent's industry, its banking centres, its ports and its tax base. Pakistan inherited 17% of the pre-partition financial reserves, a volatile western frontier with Afghanistan, and a divided territory (referring to East Pakistan, before it became Bangladesh in 1972).
The name Pakistan is itself an acronym — Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, Baluchistan — five distinct regions assembled into one state, but never forged into a single nation.
Tracing the chronological history of wars and hostility between India and Pakistan, Marshall writes, “Militarily, India and Pakistan are pitted against each other. Both sides say their posture is defensive, but neither believes the other and so they continue to mass troops on the border, locked together in a potential dance of death.”
Kashmir’s Centrality
At the heart of this conflict is Kashmir and Marshall briefly encapsulates why. Separating sentiment from strategy, he writes that Kashmir is a question of national pride, religious identity and the unfinished psychological business of Partition. But strategy matters more, and here the geography becomes revelatory.
Kashmir was fought over in the very first year after Partition. By 1948 it was divided along what became the Line of Control referred to with grim aptness in the book as ‘Asia's Berlin Wall’.
For India, full control of Kashmir would open a window into Central Asia and provide a direct border with Afghanistan, dramatically expanding its geopolitical reach. It would also sever Pakistan's border with China, crippling the Beijing-Islamabad relationship that India views as a strategic encirclement. For Pakistan, the stakes are equally existential. Full control of Kashmir would strengthen its foreign policy options, deny India strategic room, and crucially secure its water supply.
This observation is significant, though not unknown. The Indus River, which provides water to two-thirds of Pakistan, originates in Himalayas but flows through the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir before entering Pakistani territory. The populations of both countries are growing rapidly. Climate change threatens to melt the glaciers that feed the river.
Referring to the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), Marshall writes that this is honoured even through their wars. The book was published in 2015. Much has flowed down the IWT since India unilaterally suspended the treaty in 2025, bringing this decades-long goodwill to end.
Kashmir remains an issue where “neither side will let go” and where, Marshall writes, "a sporadic proxy war between Pakistani-trained fighters and the Indian army is conducted — a conflict which threatens to spill over into full-scale war with the inherent danger of the use of nuclear weapons."
He arrives at a conclusion that is stark: "Until they agree on Kashmir the key to unlocking the hostility between them cannot be found."
A majority of Kashmiris, Marshall notes, want independence. But on this one point, “India and Pakistan are in total agreement: they cannot have it.” And so, the territory remains divided, claimed in full by both, administered in part by each, and governed by neither with anything approaching legitimacy.
Pointing out to the spill-over effect of this hostility radiates outward, pulling in Afghanistan, China, the United States and, indirectly, the entire architecture of global security.
Pakistan's chronic fear of India of being overwhelmed from the east across the indefensible Punjab plain has driven it to seek strategic depth westward, into Afghanistan. Islamabad needs a sympathetic government in Kabul as a fallback. An India-aligned Afghanistan would be a catastrophe for Pakistani strategic planners. This calculation, more than ideology or religion, explains Pakistan's decades of involvement with the Taliban.
The ISI helped create and fund them. The Pashtun population straddling the Durand Line ensured the connections ran deep.
When the 9/11 attacks brought American military power crashing into Afghanistan, Pakistan was caught in an impossible position. Islamabad cooperated publicly while elements within its establishment continued to shelter the very forces it had been ordered to destroy. The discovery of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, a Pakistani military garrison town, demonstrated that Pakistan had been running a double game, finally leaving the establishment red-faced.
The Taliban, as Marshall notes with some admiration for their patience, simply waited. "You may have the watches - but we have the time." NATO eventually left. The Taliban eventually returned.
The China dimension adds another layer of alarming complexity. Beijing has invested billions in Pakistan, culminating in the $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a superhighway of roads, railways and pipelines stretching from the Arabian Sea port of Gwadar to China's Xinjiang region. For China, this is a solution to the Strait of Malacca chokepoint through which the vast majority of China's energy imports pass, and which could, in a conflict with the United States, be closed.
Pakistan offers China a land route to the Indian Ocean and beyond. India watches this corridor with acute alarm, recognising that Chinese strategic infrastructure now runs through Pakistan-administered Kashmir which India considers its own, feeding the Indian anxieties with respect to both Pakistan and China.
Three nuclear-armed powers are entwined in a landscape of competing interests, unresolved borders and mutual suspicion. The India-Pakistan conflict, as Marshal and many others have pointed out, is not a regional problem. It is a global fault line.
Maps in their Fullness
The book is not about India-Pakistan conflict or Kashmir. That’s just a small fragment – one of the ten chapters. ‘Prisoners of Geography’s’ major argument is to place at the centre of the geopolitical decisions by global leaders and their constraints is the map – in its fullness, beyond the boundary line, with all their mountains, water bodies, plains and plateaus.
Russia cannot accept a NATO-aligned Ukraine because of the flat North European Plain. China cannot feel secure until it controls the South China Sea's chokepoints. The United States' extraordinary power was built, in part, on the extraordinary luck of its geography — two oceans, two manageable borders, and a temperate interior of staggering agricultural wealth. He sees them as crucial elements that drive human choices.
The India-Pakistan chapter is the most concentrated demonstration of this argument as the stakes are high and the geography unforgiving. Two nuclear powers, sharing an unnatural border they did not choose, fighting over territory neither can surrender, for reasons that are simultaneously emotional and existential.
The conflict was not caused by their geographies, but the mountains and rivers continue to drive anxieties, playing a part in every escalation or peace negotiation. On the possibility of any thaw, Marshall is brutal in his observation. He writes, “it is not just unresolved but unresolvable.”
Unheeded Prophecy on Iran
At a time when the world is caught in the grip of the US-Israel war on Iran, Tim Marshall's analysis in Prisoners of Geography reads almost as prophecy. Though his chapter on Middle-East is tinged with a slight western bias, he briefly hints Iran’s geographical reality: the Strait of Hormuz has essentially been closed since the war began, validating his argument that Iran's greatest trump card was never its army or its missiles, but its ability to threaten a 21-mile chokepoint through which a fifth of the world's daily oil supply passes.
US President Donald Trump threatened to bombard Iran's power grid if the Strait was not fully open to shipping within 48 hours, demonstrating how the most powerful military in the world found itself effectively held hostage by geography, compelled to negotiate the terms of a shipping lane rather than simply impose its will. Gas prices in the US hit a nationwide average of $3.98 per gallon, up over a dollar in a single month, and this domestic economic pain, not Iran's dwindling missile stocks, is what is generating pressure inside the Trump administration to end the war.
Marshall wrote that the industrialised world fears the closure of Hormuz "possibly for months on end, with ensuing spiralling prices" and that is precisely the scenario now playing out.
The West has always been wary of Iran’s geographical leverage including its protective mountain ranges. Marshall writes, the US military, at the height of its power in 2003, opted not to "take a right turn" into Iran after entering Iraq. Their catchphrase was "We do deserts, not mountains." This knowledge was, perhaps, lost on Trump.
Marshal doesn’t predict the geopolitics of the world. Using geography, interlaced with history, economy, and communities, he provides a basic lesson on understanding the strategic advantages and vulnerabilities of each chunk of land. That may only provide partial knowledge for understanding the evolving geopolitics.
A decade since the book was written, the world is phenomenally changing. Adding to the diffused energies of economic power and modern warfare methods shaping the geopolitics of the world, is the as-yet less understood emerging power of AI technology. The mountains, rivers and plains will continue to play a role in the future but would that now be more diminished?
Have you liked the news article?