Jump to content

Kashmir conflict: Difference between revisions

Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m absurd: (~~~~)
Line 10: Line 10:
India's official position is that Kashmir is an "integral part" of India. Pakistan's official position is that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir. Certain Kashmiri independence groups believe that Kashmir should be independent of both India and Pakistan.
India's official position is that Kashmir is an "integral part" of India. Pakistan's official position is that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir. Certain Kashmiri independence groups believe that Kashmir should be independent of both India and Pakistan.


India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir: in [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1947|1947]], [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1965|1965]], and [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1999|1999]]. India and China have [[Sino-Indian War|clashed once]], in 1962 over [[Aksai Chin]] as well as the northeastern [[States and territories of India|Indian state]] of [[Arunachal Pradesh]]. India and Pakistan have also been involved in several [[Siachen conflict|skirmishes over Siachen Glacier]]. Since the 1990s, the [[States and territories of India|Indian state]] of Indian administered [[Jammu and Kashmir]] has been hit by confrontation between Kashmiri separatists, including militants who India alleges are supported by Pakistan, and the [[Military of Pakistan|Pakistan Armed Forces]], which has resulted in thousands of deaths<ref>[http://mea.gov.in/bestoftheweb/2002/06/09bow01.htm A Good Voice Silenced: Kashmir's Loss Is Also Mine]</ref>.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir: in [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1947|1947]], [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1965|1965]], and [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1999|1999]]. India and China have [[Sino-Indian War|clashed once]], in 1962 over [[Aksai Chin]] as well as the northeastern [[States and territories of India|Indian state]] of [[Arunachal Pradesh]]. India and Pakistan have also been involved in several [[Siachen conflict|skirmishes over Siachen Glacier]]. Since the 1990s, the Indian administered [[Jammu and Kashmir]] has been hit by confrontation between Kashmiri separatists, including militants who India alleges are supported by Pakistan, and the [[Military of Pakistan|Pakistan Armed Forces]], which has resulted in thousands of deaths<ref>[http://mea.gov.in/bestoftheweb/2002/06/09bow01.htm A Good Voice Silenced: Kashmir's Loss Is Also Mine]</ref>.
==Timeline==
==Timeline==
{{Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars}}
{{Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars}}

Revision as of 15:41, 4 March 2009

The disputed areas of the region of Kashmir. India claims the entire erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir based on an instrument of accession signed in 1947. Pakistan claims all areas of the erstwhile state except for those claimed by China. China claims the Shaksam Valley and Aksai Chin.

The Kashmir conflict refers to the territorial dispute over Kashmir, the northwesternmost region of the Indian subcontinent. The parties to the dispute are India, Pakistan, China and the people of Kashmir.

India claims the entire former Dogra princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and presently administers approximately 43% of the region including most of Jammu, Kashmir Valley, Ladakh and the Siachen Glacier. India's claim is contested by Pakistan which controls approximately 37% of Kashmir, mainly Azad Kashmir and the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan. In addition, China controls 20% of Kashmir including Aksai Chin which it won following the brief Sino Indian War of 1962 and the Trans-Karakoram Tract, also known as the Shaksam Valley, that was ceded to it by Pakistan in 1963.

India's official position is that Kashmir is an "integral part" of India. Pakistan's official position is that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir. Certain Kashmiri independence groups believe that Kashmir should be independent of both India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir: in 1947, 1965, and 1999. India and China have clashed once, in 1962 over Aksai Chin as well as the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. India and Pakistan have also been involved in several skirmishes over Siachen Glacier. Since the 1990s, the Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir has been hit by confrontation between Kashmiri separatists, including militants who India alleges are supported by Pakistan, and the Pakistan Armed Forces, which has resulted in thousands of deaths[1].

Timeline

Main article: Timeline of the Kashmir conflict

The following is a timeline of the Kashmir conflict.

Partition, Dispute and War

A map of the Kashmir region showing the boundaries of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in red.

In 1935 British rulers forced the Dogra King of Jammu and Kashmir to lease parts of his kingdom for 60 years. These became part of the North-West Frontier Province. The move was designed to strengthen the northern boundaries of British India, especially from Russia.

In 1947, British rule in India ended with the creation of two new nations, the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan and the abandonment of British suzerainty over the 562 Indian princely states. According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States",[19] so the states were left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. Jammu and Kashmir had a predominantly Muslim population but a Hindu ruler, and was the largest of the princely states. Its ruler was the Dogra King (or Maharaja) Hari Singh.

In October 1947, Pakistani tribals from Dir entered Kashmir intending to liberate it from Dogra rule. Unable to withstand the invasion, the Maharaja signed The Instrument of Accession that was accepted by the Government of India on October 27, 1947.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

The irregular Pakistani tribals made rapid advances into Kashmir (Baramulla sector) after the rumours that the Maharaja was going to decide for the union with India. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir asked the Government of India to intervene. However, the Government of India pointed out that India and Pakistan had signed an agreement of non-intervention (maintenance of the status quo) in Jammu and Kashmir; and although tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered Jammu and Kashmir, there was, until then, no iron-clad legal evidence to unequivocally prove that the Government of Pakistan was officially involved. It would have been illegal for India to unilaterally intervene (in an open, official capacity) unless Jammu and Kashmir officially joined the Union of India, at which point it would be possible to send in its forces and occupy the remaining parts.

The Maharaja desperately needed the Indian military's help when the Pathan tribals reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Before their arrival into Srinagar, India argues that Maharaja Hari Singh completed negotiations for acceding Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving military aid. The agreement which ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten.[10]

File:Mountbatten.jpg
The Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to India was accepted by Viceroy Lord Mountbatten.

The resulting war over Kashmir, the First Kashmir War, lasted until 1948, when India moved the issue to the UN Security Council. The UN previously had passed resolutions setting up for the monitoring of the conflict in Kashmir. The committee it set up was called the United Nations Committee for India and Pakistan. Following the set up of the UNCIP the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948. The resolution imposed that an immediate cease-fire take place and said that Pakistan should withdraw all presence and had no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. It stated that India should retain a minimum military presence and stated "that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". The cease fire took place December 31, 1948.

At that time, the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite but Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from Kashmir thus violating the condition for holding the plebiscite.[20] Over the next several years, the UN Security Council passed four new resolutions, revising the terms of Resolution 47 to include a synchronous withdrawal of both Indian and Pakistani troops from the region, per the recommendations of General Andrew McNaughton. To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the demilitarization of the region - every one of which was accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government.[21] The resolutions were passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[22] Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[23]

Sino-Indian War

Main article: Sino-Indian War

In 1962, troops from the People's Republic of China and India clashed in territory claimed by both. China won a swift victory in the war, resulting in the Chinese administration of the region called Aksai Chin, which continues to date. In addition to these lands, another smaller area, the Trans-Karakoram, was demarcated as the line of control between China and Pakistan, although parts on the Chinese side are claimed by India to be parts of Kashmir. The line that separates India from China in this region is known as the Line of Actual Control. [11]

1965 and 1971 wars

Main articles: Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

In 1965 and 1971, heavy fighting again broke out between India and Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 resulted in the defeat of Pakistan and Pakistan Military's surrender in East Pakistan (Bangladesh). The Simla Agreement was signed in 1972 between India and Pakistan. By this treaty, both countries agreed to settle all issues by peaceful means and mutual discussions in the framework of the UN Charter.

Rise of militancy since 1989

Main article: Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

In 1989, a widespread armed insurgency started in Kashmir, which continues to this day. India contends that this was largely started by the large number of Afghan mujahideen who entered the Kashmir valley following the end of the Soviet-Afghan War, though Pakistan and Kashmiri nationalists argue that Afghan mujahideen did not leave Afghanistan in large numbers until 1992, three years after the insurgency began.[24] Yasin Malik, a leader of one faction of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front,along with Ashfaq Majid Wani and Farooq Ahmad Dar alias Bitta Karatay, was one of the Kashmiris to organize militancy in Kashmir. However since 1995, Malik has renounced the use of violence and calls for strictly peaceful methods to resolve the dispute. He developed differences with one of the senior leader Farooq Papa for shunning the demand for independent Kashmir and trying to cut a deal with Indian Prime Minister resulting in spilt in which Bitta Karatay, Salim Nanhaji and other senior comrades joined Farooq Papa.[25][26] Pakistan claims these insurgents are Jammu and Kashmir citizens, and they are rising up against the Indian Army in an independence movement. It also says the Indian Army is committing serious human rights violations to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. It denies that it is giving armed help to the insurgents.

India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir part of Pakistan.[27] It believes Pakistan is giving armed help to the terrorists, and training them in Pakistan. It also says the terrorists have been killing many citizens in Kashmir, and committing human rights violations, while denying that its own armed forces are responsible for the human rights abuses. On a visit to Pakistan in 2006 current Chief Minister of Kashmir Omar Abdullah remarked that foreign militants, who had nothing to do with Kashmir, were engaged in reckless killings and mayhem in the name of religion.[28] Also US Intelligence agencies believe that Al-Qaeda and Taliban are helping organize a terror campaign in Kashmir to foment conflict between India and Pakistan.[29][30] A 2001 report 'Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency' of US Think tank RAND corporation noted that 'More intrinsically, the nature of the Kashmir conflict has been transformed from what was originally a secular, locally- based struggle (conducted via the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front - JKLF) to one that is now largely carried out by foreign militants and rationalised in pan-Islamic religious terms.'[31] In July 2006 Al-Qaeda stated that it had established a wing in Kashmir.[32]

The Pakistani government calls these insurgents, "Kashmiri freedom fighters", and claims that it gives only moral and diplomatic support to these insurgents, though India[33] believes they are Pakistan-supported terrorists from Pakistan Administered Kashmir. In October 2008 President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan called the Kashmir separatists Terrorists in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.[34]

Conflict in Kargil

Main article: Kargil War
Location of conflict.

In mid-1999 insurgents and Pakistani soldiers from Pakistani Kashmir infiltrated into Jammu and Kashmir. During the winter season, Indian forces regularly move down to lower altitudes as severe climatic conditions makes it almost impossible for them to guard the high peaks near the Line of Control. The insurgents took advantage of this and occupied vacant mountain peaks of the Kargil range overlooking the highway in Indian Kashmir, connecting Srinagar and Leh. By blocking the highway, they wanted to cut off the only link between the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. This resulted in a high-scale conflict between the Indian Army and the Pakistan Army.

At the same time, fears of the Kargil War turning into a nuclear war provoked the then-US President Bill Clinton to pressure Pakistan to retreat. Faced with mounting losses of personnel and posts, Pakistan Army withdrew the remaining troops from the area ending the conflict. India reclaimed control of the peaks which they now patrol and monitor all year long.

Reasons behind the dispute

Ever since the Partition of India in 1947, both India and Pakistan have staked their claim to Kashmir. These claims are centred on historical incidents and on religious affiliations of the Kashmiri people. The whole Kashmir issue has caused longstanding enmity between post-Colonial India and newly created Muslim Pakistan. It arose as a direct consequence of the partition and independence of the Indian subcontinent in August 1947. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which lies strategically in the Northwest of the subcontinent, bordering China and the former Soviet Union, was a princely state ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh. In geographical terms, the Maharaja could have joined either of the two new Dominions. Although urged by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, to determine the future of his state before the transfer of power took place, Hari Singh demurred.

Kashmir remains bitterly divided on the ground; two-thirds of it (known as the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir) comprising Jammu, the Valley of Kashmir and the sparsely populated Buddhist area of Ladakh are controlled by India; one-third is administered by Pakistan. This area includes a narrow strip of land (Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas) compromising the Gilgit Agency, and Baltistan and the former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar. Attempts to resolve the 'core issue' through political discussion were unsuccessful. In September 1965 war broke out again between Islamabad and Delhi. The United Nations called for a yet another cease-fire and peace was restored once again following the Tashkent Declaration in 1966, by which both nations returned to their original positions along the demarcated line. After the 1971 war and the creation of independent Bangladesh under the terms of the 1972 Simla Agreement, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan agreed that neither side would seek to alter the cease-fire line in Kashmir, which was renamed as the Line of Control, "unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations".

Numerous violations of the Line of Control including the infamous incursions by insurgents and Pakistani armed forces at Kargil which led to the Kargil war as well as sporadic clashes on the Siachen Glacier where both countries maintain forces at altitudes rising to 20,000 ft (6,100 m), add to concern for the stability of the hostile region.

Indian view

The Indian claim to Kashmir centers on the agreement between the Dogra Maharaja Hari Singh, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Lord Mountbatten according to which the erstwhile Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of the Union of India through the Instrument of Accession. It also focuses on India's claim of secular society, an ideology that is not meant to factor religion into governance of major policy and thus considers it irrelevant in a boundary dispute. Another argument by India is that, in India, minorities are very well integrated, with some members of the minority communities holding positions of power and influence in India. Even though more than 80% of India's population practices Hinduism, a former President of India, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, is a Muslim while Sonia Gandhi, the parliamentary leader of the ruling Congress Party, is a Roman Catholic. The current prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh, is a Sikh and leader of opposition, Lal Krishna Advani, is a Hindu. Indian viewpoint is succinctly summarized by Ministry of External affairs, Government of India.[35][36]

  • India holds that the Accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, signed by the Maharaja Hari Singh (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 26th October, 1947, was completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total and irrevocable.[36]
  • For the UN Resolution mandating a plebiscite to be valid, Pakistan should have first vacated its part of Kashmir.[37]
  • The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and had adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of the state with the Indian Union. India claims that this body was a representative one, and that its views were those of the Kashmiri people at the time.
  • India believes that all differences between India and Pakistan including Kashmir need to be settled through bilateral negotiations as agreed to by the two countries when they signed the Simla Agreement on July 2, 1972.[38]
  • India does not accept the Two Nation Theory that forms the basis of Pakistan.
  • United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 was never able to be implemented as Pakistan failed to withdraw its forces from kashmir which was the first step in implementing the resolution. Now the resolution is obsolete since the geography and demographics have been permanently altered.[39] The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[40] Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[41]
  • India is a secular state and the many ethnic minorities in Kashmir would be treated as second class citizens in Islamic republic of Pakistan.
  • Indian Government has repeatedly asked Pakistan not to allow its territory to be used for terrorist attacks against India.[42]
  • Indian Government has repeatedly called on United States to declare Pakistan a Terrorist state.[43][44][45][46]
  • United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 [47] tacitly accepts India's stand that all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan need to be resolved by mutual dialogue ( and does not call for a plebiscite)
  • The state of Jammu and Kashmir was made autonomous by Article 370 of the Constitution of India.[48]
  • India points to the recent state elections held in phases in November–December 2008. High turnouts were seen in spite of calls for boycott by Kashmiri Muslim separatists.[49]. The Pro Indian Party National Conference emerged as the winner.[50]
  • In a diverse country like India, disaffection and discontent are not uncommon. Indian democracy has the necessary resilience to accommodate genuine grievances within the framework of our sovereignty, unity and integrity. Government of India has expressed its willingness to accommodate the legitimate political demands of the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.[35]

Pakistani view

Map of Kashmir as drawn by the Government of Pakistan.

Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan also accuses India of hypocrisy, as it refused to recognize the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan and Hyderabad's independence, on the grounds that those two states had Hindu majorities (in fact, India occupied and forcibly integrated those two territories). Furthermore, as he had fled Kashmir due to Pakistani invasion, Pakistan asserts that the Maharaja held no authority in determining Kashmir's future. Additionally, Pakistan argues that even if the Maharaja had any authority in determining the plight of Kashmir, he signed the Instrument of Accession under duress, thus invalidating the legitimacy of his actions.

Pakistan also claims that Indian forces were in Kashmir before the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, and that therefore Indian troops were in Kashmir in violation of the Standstill Agreement, which was designed to maintain the status quo in Kashmir (although India was not signatory to the Agreement, signed between Pakistan and the Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir).[51][52].

From 1990 to 1999 some organizations report that Indian Armed Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias have been responsible for the deaths 4,501 of Kashmiri civilians. Also from 1990 to 1999, there are records of 4,242 women between the ages of 7-70 that have been raped.[53][54]. Similar allegations were also made by some human rights organizations.[55]

In short, Pakistan holds that:

  • The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that either Kashmir wants to be with Pakistan or independent.
  • According to the two-nation theory which is one of the theories that is cited for the partition that created India and Pakistan, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority.
  • India has shown disregard to the resolutions of the UN by not holding a plebiscite.
  • The Kashmiri people have now been forced by the circumstances to rise against the alleged repression of the Indian army and uphold their right of self-determination through militancy. Pakistan claims to give the Kashmiri insurgents moral, ethical and military support (see 1999 Kargil Conflict).
  • Recent protests in Indian administered Kashmir show a large number of people showing increased anger over Indian rule with massive rallies taking place to oppose Indian control of the state.[56]
  • Pakistan also points to the violence that accompanies elections in Indian Kashmir[57] and the anti Indian sentiments expressed by some people in the state.[58]
  • Pakistan has noted the wide spread use of extra-judicial killings in Indian-administered Kashmir carried out by Indian security forces while claiming they were caught up in encounters with militants. These fake encounters are common place in Indian-administered Kashmir and the perpetrators are spared criminal prosecution. These fake encounters go largely uninvestigated by the authorities.[59] [60]
  • Pakistan points towards reports from the United Nations which condemn India for its human rights violations against kashmiri people.[61]

Cross-border troubles

See also: Line of Control and Siachen Conflict

The border and the Line of Control separating Indian and Pakistani Kashmir passes through some exceptionally difficult terrain. The world's highest battleground, the Siachen Glacier is a part of this difficult-to-man boundary. Even with 200,000 military personnel, [12] India maintains that it is infeasible to place enough men to guard all sections of the border throughout the various seasons of the year. Pakistan has indirectly acquiesced its role in failing to prevent "cross border terrorism" when it agreed to curb such activities [13] after intense pressure from the Bush administration in mid 2002.

The Government of Pakistan has repeatedly claimed that by constructing a fence along the line of control, India is violating the Shimla Accord. However, India claims the construction of the fence has helped decrease armed infiltration into Indian-administered Kashmir.

In 2002 Pakistani President and Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf promised to check infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir.

Water dispute

Another reason behind the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the origin point for many rivers and tributaries of the Indus River basin. They include Jhelum and Chenab which primarily flow into Pakistan while other branches - the Ravi, Beas and the Sutlej irrigate northern India. Pakistan has been apprehensive that in a dire need, India (under whose portion of Kashmir lies the origins and passage of the said rivers) would use its strategic advantage and withhold the flow and thus choke the agrarian economy of Pakistan. The Boundary Award of 1947 meant that the headwaters of Pakistani irrigation systems were in Indian Territory. The Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960 resolved most of these disputes over the sharing of water, calling for mutual cooperation in this regard. But this treaty faced issues raised by Pakistan over the construction of dams on the Indian side which limit water to the Pakistani side.

Human rights abuse

Claims of human rights abuses have been made against the Indian Armed Forces and the armed militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir.[14] A 2005 study conducted by Médecins Sans Frontières found that Kashmiri women are among the worst sufferers of sexual violence in the world, with 11.6% of respondents reporting that they had been victims of sexual abuse.[62] Some surveys have found that in the Kashmir region itself (where the bulk of separatist and Indian military activity is concentrated), popular perception holds that the Indian Armed Forces are more to blame for human rights violations than the separatist groups. According to the MORI survey of 2002, in Kashmir only 2% of respondents believed that the militant groups were guilty of widespread human rights abuses, while 64% believed that Indian troops were guilty of the same. This trend was reversed however in other parts of the state.[63]

Map issues

United Nation's map of Jammu and Kashmir, accepted by the Kashmiris and the Pakistani government

As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir as part of their territory, regardless of actual control. It is illegal in India to exclude all or part of Kashmir in a map. It is also illegal in Pakistan not to include the state of Jammu and Kashmir as disputed territory, as permitted by the United Nations. Non-participants often use the Line of Control and the Line of Actual Control as the depicted boundaries, as is done in the CIA World Factbook, and the region is often marked out in hashmarks, although the Indian government strictly opposes such practices[citation needed]. When Microsoft released a map in Windows 95 and MapPoint 2002, a controversy was raised because it did not show all of Kashmir as part of India as per Indian claim. However, all the neutral and Pakistani companies claim to follow UN's map and over 90% of all maps containing the territory of Kashmir show it as disputed territory.[15]

Sources from:

UN: The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control of Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by the Republic of India and the Government of Pakistan since 1972. Both the parties have not yet agreed upon the final status of the region and nothing significant has been implemented since the peace process began in 2004.

Islamabad: The Government of Pakistan maintains un-provisionally and unconditionally stating that the informal "Accession of Jammu and Kashmir" to Pakistan or even to the Republic of India remains to be decided by UN plebiscite. It accepts UN's map of the territory. Also the designations and the presentation of the Kashmir's regional map based on UNO practice, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Commonwealth Secretariat or the publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. There is no intention to define the status Jammu and/or Kashmir, which has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.

New Delhi: The Government of India states that "the external artificial boundaries of India, especially concerning the Kashmir region under its jurisdiction created by a foreign body are neither correct nor authenticated". [citation needed]

Recent developments

India continues to assert their sovereignty or rights over the entire region of Kashmir, while Pakistan maintains that it is a disputed territory. Pakistan argues that the status quo cannot be considered as a solution. Pakistan insists on a UN sponsored plebiscite . Unofficially, the Pakistani leadership has indicated that they would be willing to accept alternatives such as a demilitarized Kashmir, if sovereignty of Azad Kashmir was to be extended over the Kashmir valley, or the ‘Chenab’ formula, by which India would retain parts of Kashmir on its side of the Chenab river, and Pakistan the other side - effectively re-partioning Kashmir on communal lines. The problem however is that the Population of Pakistan Administered portion of Kashmir is both ethnically and linguistically and culturally different from that in Kashmir Valley India. The Azad Kashmir population being on the most part ethnic Punjabis. Therefore a Partition on the Chenab formula is opposed by most Kashmiri politicians from all spectrums, though some, such as Sajjad Lone, have in recent months suggested that non-Muslim part of Jammu and Kashmir be separated from Kashmir and handed to India. Some political analysts say that the Pakistan terrorist state policy shift and mellowing down of its aggressive stance may have to do with its total failure in the Kargil War and the subsequent 9/11 attacks that put pressure on Pakistan to alter its terrorist position.[64] Further many neutral parties to the dispute have noted that UN resolution on Kashmir is no longer relevant.[65] Even the European Union has viewed that the plebiscite is not in Kashmiris' interest.[66] The report also notes, that the UN-laid down conditions for such a plebiscite have not been, and can no longer be, met by Pakistan.[67] Even the Hurriyat Conference observed in 2003, that "Plebiscite no longer an option"[68] Besides the popular factions that support either parties, there is a third faction which supports independence and withdrawal of both India and Pakistan. These have been the respective stands of the parties for long, and there have been no significant change over the years. As a result, all efforts to solve the conflict have been futile so far.

The Freedom in the World 2006 report categorized the Indian-administered Kashmir as "partly free", and Pakistan-administered Kashmir as well as the country of Pakistan "not free". [16] India claims that contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wish to remain with India. A MORI survey found that within the Kashmir Valley, 9% of respondents said they felt they would be better off as Indian citizens, with 78% saying that they did not know, and the remaining 13% favouring Pakistani citizenship.[69] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in New Delhi, 87% of respondents in the Kashmir Valley prefer independence over union with India or Pakistan.[70]

The 2005 Kashmir earthquake, which killed over 80,000 people, led to India and Pakistan finalizing negotiations for the opening of a road for disaster relief through Kashmir.

Efforts to end the crisis

The 9/11 attacks on the US resulted in the US government wanting to restrain militancy in the world, including Pakistan. US urged Islamabad to cease infiltrations, which continue to this day, by Islamist militants into Indian-administered Kashmir. In December 2001, a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament linked to Pakistan resulted in war threats, massive deployment and international fears of nuclear war in the subcontinent.

After intensive diplomatic efforts by other countries, India and Pakistan began to withdraw troops from the international border June 10, 2002, and negotiations began again.[citation needed] Effective November 26, 2003, India and Pakistan have agreed to maintain a ceasefire along the undisputed International Border, the disputed Line of Control, and the Siachen glacier. This is the first such "total ceasefire" declared by both nuclear powers in nearly 15 years. In February 2004, Pakistan further increased pressure on Pakistanis fighting in Indian-administered Kashmir to adhere to the ceasefire. The nuclear-armed neighbours also launched several other mutual confidence building measures. Restarting the bus service between the Indian- and Pakistani- administered Kashmir has helped defuse the tensions between the countries. Both India and Pakistan have also decided to cooperate on economic fronts.

On Dec. 5, 2006, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told an Indian TV channel that Pakistan would give up its claim on Kashmir if India accepted some of his peace proposals, including a phased withdrawal of troops, self-governance for locals, no changes in the borders of Kashmir, and a joint supervision mechanism involving India, Pakistan and Kashmir, the BBC reported[71]. Musharraf also stated that he was ready to give up the United Nations' resolutions regarding Kashmir [72].

2008 Militant attacks

In the week of March 10 2008, 17 people were wounded when a blast hit the region's only highway overpass located near the Civil Secretariat– Indian-controlled Kashmir's seat of government– and the region's high court. A gun battle between security forces and militants fighting against Indian rule left five people dead and two others injured March 23 2008. The battle began when security forces raided a house on the outskirts of the capital city of Srinagar. The Indian Army has been carrying out search-and-cordon operations against militants in Indian-administered Kashmir since the current armed violence broke out here in 1989. While the authorities here say 43,000 persons have been killed in the violence, various rights groups and non-governmental organizations have put the figure at twice that number[73].

2008 Kashmir protests

Main article: Amarnath land transfer controversy

Massive demonstrations occurred after plans by the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir state government to transfer 100 acres (0.40 km2) of land to a trust which runs the Hindu Amarnath shrine in the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley.[74]. This land was to be used to build a shelter to house Hindu pilgrims temporarily during their annual pilgrimage to the Amarnath temple.

Indian security forces and the Indian army responded quickly to keep order. More than 40 unarmed protesters have been killed[75] and at least 300 have been detained.[76] Pro-Independent Kashmir Leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq warned that the peaceful uprising could lead to violent upsurge if India's heavy-handed crackdown on protests were not restrained.[77] The United Nations expressed concern on India's response to peaceful protests and urged to investigate and bring to justice Indian security personnel who had taken part in the crackdown.[78]

2008 Kashmir elections

Main article: Jammu and Kashmir state assembly elections, 2008

State Elections were held in Indian held Kashmir in seven phases starting November 17 and finishing on December 24, 2008. In spite of calls by separatists for a boycott an unusually high turnout was recorded[79]. The National Conference party which was founded by Sheikh Abdullah and regarded as pro India emerged with maximum seats and will form government in coalition with Indian National Congress.[80]

2008 marks the lowest civilian casualties in 20 years with 89 deaths, compared to highest of 1,413 in 1996.[81] 85 security personnel died in 2008 compared to 613 in 2001, while 102 militants were killed. Many analysts say Pakistan's preoccupation with jihadis within its own borders explains the relative calm.[82]

2008 marked the greatest number of anti India protests since 1980 due to the Amarnath land transfer controversy with several hundred thousand protesters spilling out onto the streets of Indian-administered Kashmir demanding freedom from India the protests were suppressed by the Indian army with attacks on protesters leading to the deaths of 40 unarmed civilians.[83] However the elections which were held subsequently led to Kashmiris ignoring the boycott call by separatists and voting Pro India party National Conference into power. On 30 December Congress and the National Conference agreed to form a coalition government, with Omar Abdullah as Chief Minister. [84] On January 5, 2009 Omar Abdullah was sworn in as 11th Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.[85]

Obama on Kashmir

In an interview with Joe Klien of Time magazine in October 2008 Barack Obama expressed his intention to try to work with India and Pakistan to resolve this crisis in a serious way.[86] He said he had talked to Bill Clinton about it ( being a mediator). In an editorial in The Washington Times, Selig S Harrison[87], director of Asia Programme at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International called it Obama's first foreign policy mistake.[88] The Australian in an editorial called Obama's Idea to appoint a presidential negotiator "a very stupid and dangerous move indeed"[89] In an editorial in Forbes, Reihan Salam associate editor for The Atlantic noted "The smartest thing President Obama could do on Kashmir is probably nothing. We have to hope that India and Pakistan can work out their differences on Kashmir on their own".[90] The Boston Globe in an editorial called the idea of appointing Bill Clinton as an envoy to Kashmir "a mistake".[91] India has long regarded Kashmir as an Integral part of India and resisted outside intervention considering Kashmir to be an integral part of India and the conflict a bilateral matter between India and Pakistan. President Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.[92] President Asif Ali Zardari had hoped that Holbrooke would help mediate to resolve Kashmir issue.[93]Subsequently Kashmir was removed from the mandate of Richard Holbrooke .[94] “Eliminating … Kashmir from his job description … is seen as a significant diplomatic concession to India that reflects increasingly warm ties between the country and the United States,” The Washington Post noted in a report.[95] Brajesh Mishra, India's former national security adviser, was quoted in the same report as saying in reference to the territory's Indian-administered sector "No matter what government is in place, India is not going to relinquish control of Jammu and Kashmir," "That is written in stone and cannot be changed."[96] According to The Financial Times India has warned US President Barack Obama that he risks “barking up the wrong tree” if he seeks to broker a settlement between Pakistan and India over the disputed territory of Kashmir.[97]

See also

Further reading

  • Drew, Federic. 1877. “The Northern Barrier of India: a popular account of the Jammoo and Kashmir Territories with Illustrations.&;#8221; 1st edition: Edward Stanford, London. Reprint: Light & Life Publishers, Jammu. 1971.
  • Dr. Ijaz Hussain, 1998, Kashmir Dispute: An International Law Perspective, National Institute of Pakistan Studies
  • Alastair Lamb, Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846-1990 (Hertingfordbury, Herts: Roxford Books, 1991)
  • Kashmir Study Group, 1947-1997, the Kashmir dispute at fifty : charting paths to peace (New York, 1997)
  • Jaspreet Singh, Seventeen Tomatoes– an unprecedented look inside the world of an army camp in Kashmir (Vehicule Press; Montreal, Canada, 2004)
  • Navnita Behera, State, identity and violence : Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (New Delhi: Manohar, 2000)
  • Sumit Ganguly, The Crisis in Kashmir (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; Cambridge : Cambridge U.P., 1997)
  • Sumantra Bose, The challenge in Kashmir : democracy, self-determination and a just peace (New Delhi: Sage, 1997)
  • Robert Johnson, 'A Region in Turmoil' (London and New York, Reaktion, 2005)
  • Hans Köchler, The Kashmir Problem between Law and Realpolitik. Reflections on a Negotiated Settlement. Keynote speech delivered at the "Global Discourse on Kashmir 2008." European Parliament, Brussels, 1 April 2008.
  • Prem Shankar Jha, Kashmir, 1947: rival versions of history (New Delhi : Oxford University Press, 1996)
  • Manoj Joshi, The Lost Rebellion (New Delhi: Penguin India, 1999)
  • Alexander Evans, Why Peace Won't Come to Kashmir, Current History (Vol 100, No 645) April 2001 p170-175.
  • Younghusband, Francis and Molyneux, E. 1917. Kashmir. A. & C. Black, London.
  • Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict I.B. Tauris, London.
  • Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in the Crossfire, I.B. Tauris, London.
  • Andrew Whitehead, A Mission in Kashmir, Penguin India, 2007
  • Muhammad Ayub, An Army; Its Role & Rule (A History of the Pakistan Army from Independence to Kargil 1947-1999). Rosedog Books,Pittsburgh,pennsylvnia USA.2005.ISBN 0-8059-9594-3
  • Kashmir Conflict, Homepage Washington Post.

References

  1. ^ A Good Voice Silenced: Kashmir's Loss Is Also Mine
  2. ^ a b Schofield, Victoria. 2003. Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War. I.B.Tauris. Pages 41-43
  3. ^ a b Bose, Sumantra. 2005. Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Harvard University Press. Pages 32-33.
  4. ^ Bakshi, Shiri Ram. 1997. Kashmir: Valley and Its Culture. Sarup & Sons. Page 250.
  5. ^ BBC NEWS | India Pakistan | Timeline
  6. ^ Wirsing, Robert. 1994. India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution. Macmillian. Pages 50-51.
  7. ^ Stein, Burton. 1998. A History of India. Oxford University Press. 432 pages. ISBN 0195654463. Page 368.
  8. ^ The Fact of the State's Constitution, Rediff.com,
  9. ^ Forgotten day in Kashmir's history, Rediff.com, 2004-03-08
  10. ^ Akbar, MJ. Exerting Moral Force. "Time Magazine," September 30, 2002.
  11. ^ Ganguly, Sumit. Explaining the Kashmir Insurgency: Political Mobilization and Institutional Decay. "International Security," vol. 21, no. 2.
  12. ^ Behind the Kashmir Conflict. "Human Rights Watch," 1999.
  13. ^ Blood Tide Rising. Time Magazine. January 18, 1993.
  14. ^ Four killed in Kashmir protest
  15. ^ Kashmir strike over civilian deaths - BBC News
  16. ^ India and Pakistan cease-fire holds in Kashmir
  17. ^ a b Kashmir killing sparks protests - BBC
  18. ^ Kashmir violence at all time low
  19. ^ Revised Statute from The UK Statute Law Database: Indian Independence Act 1947 (c.30) at opsi.gov.uk
  20. ^ "Kashmir's forgotten plebiscite". BBC News. 2002-01-17. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
  21. ^ "India Grabs It". Time Magazine. Time Inc. 1957-02-04. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
  22. ^ Foreign Minister of Pakistan, on the role of the Security Council in the Pacific Settlement of Disputes
  23. ^ Kashmir policy: an overview by Shamshad Ahmad, Dawn (newspaper) 2004-08-05
  24. ^ Timeline of the conflict - BBC
  25. ^ [PMO in secret talks with secessionists, The Hindu, 2006-01-25
  26. ^ Malik Under Fire, Rebels Call For 'less Autocratic' JKLF, The Indian Express, 2005-12-23
  27. ^ Kashmir insurgency is being ‘Talibanised’Jane's Information Group, 2001-10-05
  28. ^ Foreign militants creating mayhem in Kashmir: Omar Abdullah , The Hindu, 2006-03-12
  29. ^ Taliban, al-Qaeda linked to Kashmir, USA Today, 2002-05-29
  30. ^ Kashmir Militant Extremists, Council on Foreign Relations, 2006-07-12
  31. ^ Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency by Peter Chalk, RAND,2001-09-01
  32. ^ Al Qaeda claim of Kashmir link worries India, International herald Tribune, 2006-07-14
  33. ^ FBI has images of terror camp in Pak
  34. ^ Zardari expects world to come up with $100bn,Dawn (newspaper)
  35. ^ a b Ministry of External Affairs, India - Kashmir Issue
  36. ^ a b Kashmir: The true story, Ministry of External Affairs, India
  37. ^ A brief history of Kashmir conflict
  38. ^ Ministry of External Affairs, India - Simla Agreement
  39. ^ Indian Embassy, Washington DC - A Comprehensive note on Jammu & Kashmir
  40. ^ Foreign Minister of Pakistan, on the role of the Security Council in the Pacific Settlement of Disputes
  41. ^ Kashmir policy: an overview by Shamshad Ahmad, Dawn (newspaper) 2004-08-05
  42. ^ Pakistan, India meet on Kashmir
  43. ^ World: South Asia Vajpayee: Pakistan a 'terrorist' state, BBC, 1999-08-09
  44. ^ India Renews Call for U.S. to Declare Pakistan a Terrorist State, The New York Times, 2002-07-17
  45. ^ COMMENTARY: Qualifying as a terrorist state, Asia Times, 2002-02-05
  46. ^ Congress wants Pakistan declared terror state, Dawn (newspaper), 2009-02-08
  47. ^ Full Text of Resolution 1172
  48. ^ Exerting Moral Force - TIME
  49. ^ Election in Kashmir Begins Amid Boycott Calls
  50. ^ Pro-India parties win majority in Kashmir elections
  51. ^ BBC NEWS | South Asia | Kashmir: The origins of the dispute
  52. ^ Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  53. ^ Cry and Anguish for Freedom in Kashmir (by Anver Suliman) - Media Monitors Network
  54. ^ Conflict Rape Victims: Abandoned And Forgotten By Syed Junaid Hashmi
  55. ^ Human Rights Watch World Report 2001: India: Human Rights Developments
  56. ^ http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/08/18/asia/OUKWD-UK-KASHMIR-PROTESTS.php
  57. ^ Violence marks Kashmir election - BBC News
  58. ^ Clashes mar new phase of Kashmir election
  59. ^ [1]
  60. ^ [2]
  61. ^ http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/1058F3E39F77ACE5C12574B2004E5CE3?opendocument
  62. ^ Wailing Woes
  63. ^ Kashmiris Reject War In Favour Of Democratic Means
  64. ^ Pakistan’s Kashmir Policy after the Bush Visit to South Asia Strategic Insights Volume V, Issue 4 (April 2006) by Peter R. Lavoy
  65. ^ Kickstart Kashmir - Times of India.
  66. ^ EU: Plebiscite not in Kashmiris’ interest - November 30, 2006, Pak Observer
  67. ^ REPORT on Kashmir: present situation and future prospects Committee on Foreign Affairs Rapporteur: Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
  68. ^ Plebiscite no longer an option; Kashmir row must be resolved within two years' — — Hurriyat Conference Chairman, Mr Abdul Gani Bhat,The Hindu, 2003-07-01
  69. ^ Full Text of the MORI Survey on Kashmir
  70. ^ 87 pct in Kashmir Valley Want Independence
  71. ^ [3]
  72. ^ [4]
  73. ^ [5]
  74. ^ [6]
  75. ^ [7]
  76. ^ [8]
  77. ^ [9]
  78. ^ http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/1058F3E39F77ACE5C12574B2004E5CE3?opendocument
  79. ^ Kashmiris vote despite boycott call
  80. ^ Kashmir crisis comes full circle
  81. ^ Kashmir violence at an all time low
  82. ^ Level of violence in Kashmir dips
  83. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2008/10/081016_kashmir_arney_dm.shtml
  84. ^ Pro-India parties to take power in Indian Kashmir, International Herald Tribune, 2008-12-30
  85. ^ Omar Abdullah sworn in, Tara Chand to be deputy CM, Rediff.com, 2009-01-05
  86. ^ The full Obama Interview, TIME
  87. ^ SELIG S. HARRISON, director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy
  88. ^ Kashmir issue leading Obama into first 'tar pit', The Washington Times, 2009-01-06
  89. ^ Asia's Islamism engine, The Australian, 2008-12-04
  90. ^ What Should Obama Do On Kashmir, Forbes, 2008-12-01
  91. ^ A wrong role for Bill Clinton, The Boston Globe, 2008-12-28
  92. ^ Holbrooke Plans First Trip as Afghanistan-Pakistan Envoy, Voice of America
  93. ^ Partnering With Pakistan,The Washington Post, 2009-01-28
  94. ^ Will Kashmir Be an Obama Foreign Policy Focus?, TIME 2009-01-28
  95. ^ Kashmir taken out of Holbrooke’s brief, says report, DAWN, 2009-01-31
  96. ^ U.S. Removes Kashmir From Envoy's Mandate; India Exults, The Washington Post, 2009-01-30
  97. ^ India warns Obama over Kashmir, The Financial Times, 2009-02-03

Template:Indo - Pakistan relations

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&oldid=274942761"