(Redirected from Kashmir dispute)
The disputed areas of the region of Kashmir. India claims the entire historic Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, while Pakistan claims all areas except for those administered by China.
The 'Kashmir conflict' refers to the
territorial dispute between
China,
India, and
Pakistan over the northwestern region of the
Indian subcontinent. India, which claims the entire erstwhile
Dogra Kingdom of
Jammu and Kashmir, has control of approximately half the region including most of
Jammu,
Ladakh, Kashmir Valley and
Siachen Glacier. India's claim is contested by Pakistan which controls a third of Kashmir. The Kashmiri region under Chinese control is known as
Aksai Chin. In addition, China also controls the
Trans-Karakoram Tract, also known as Shaksam Valley, which was ceded to it by Pakistan in 1963.
India has fought three wars with Pakistan: in
1947,
1965, and
1999 and
one with China in 1962 over Kashmir. Since the
1990s, the
Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has been hit by confrontation between armed separatists and the
Indian army, which has resulted in thousands of deaths.
Partition, dispute and war
Shown in green is the Kashmiri region under Pakistani control. The dark-brown region represents Indian-controlled
Jammu and Kashmir while the
Aksai Chin is under Chinese occupation
In
1935, British rulers compelled the
Dogra King of
Jammu and Kashmir to lease parts of his kingdom, which were to make up the new Province of the North-West Frontier, for 60 years. This move was designed to strengthen the northern boundaries, especially from
Russia.
In
1947, the British dominion of India came to an end with the creation of two new nations, India and Pakistan. Each of the 562 Indian
princely states joined one of the two new nations: secular
India or Muslim
Pakistan.
Jammu and Kashmir had a predominantly Muslim population but a Hindu ruler, and was the largest of these autonomous states and bordered both modern countries. Its ruler was the Dogra King (or
Maharaja)
Hari Singh. Hari Singh preferred to remain independent and sought to avoid the stress placed on him by either India and Pakistan by playing each against the other.
According to the Indian theory, Pakistani tribals (Kabailis) from
North Waziristan, aided and supported by Pakistani soldiers, entered Kashmir to support a Muslim-led rebellion against the Maharaja's taxation policies in Punch district. India contends that the tribal invasion was actually an attempt to force the Maharajah out of power as he had avoided a vote to decide Kashmir's fate during partition. The Maharajah was not able to withstand the invasion; he ceded Kashmir to India. The
Instrument of Accession was accepted by
Lord Mountbatten,
Governor General of India October 27,
1947.
However, the Pakistani theory contests this narrative. It is asserted, rather, that Indian troops marched towards Kashmir amidst the tensions resulting from the indecision of the Maharajah.The successful tribal invasion ultimately forced the Maharajah to accede with India, whether willingly or unwillingly is still unclear, though Pakistan contends that since the treaty was signed under duress and after the Maharaja had fled Kashmir, he thus forfeit any right to determine Kashmir's future. After hearing about Indian soldiers pouring into Kashmir,
Mohammad Ali Jinnah (the founding father of Pakistan) ordered the head of the Pakistani Army, who was a British officer, to stop the takeover of Kashmir by sending his troops to the area in support of tribals who had already invaded Kashmir on behalf of Muslims in Punch District that were rebelling against the Maharaja's taxation. This order was denied by the General on the grounds that it would have constituted an attack motion against his own British counterparts in the Indian Army.
Pakistani attitudes towards this hardened after India reversed its pledge to the United Nations to hold a plebiscite, allowing the Kashmiri people to decide between India and Pakistan.
[1]
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
Main articles: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
The
irregular Pakistani tribals made rapid advances into
Kashmir (
Baramulla sector) after the rumors 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 Pakistani tribal invaders 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.
Pakistan contends that the Maharaja signed the document after having fled Kashmir, and thus forfeit his right to decide Kashmir's future. Outside observers such as Alistair Lamb have noted that it is likely that Indian troops were in Kashmir before any treaty was ever signed. Pakistan also claims that the Maharaja acted under
duress, and that the accession of Kashmir to India is invalidated by the Standstill Agreement between India and Pakistan, which was designed to maintain the "status quo". India counters that the invasion of Kashmir by tribals, allegedly aided and instigated by the Pakistani government, had rendered the agreement null and void. India argues that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was the decision of the ruler
Hari Singh, but also reflected the will of the people living in Jammu and Kashmir, though Pakistan argues that it was against the will of Kashmiri people.
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 neither side actually removed its troops. The plebiscite never took place, leading the UN Security Council to pass several more resolutions which reaffirmed its earlier resolution.
Aftermath of war
The Treaty of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, was ratified by the parliament of the kingdom, and by a political party of Kashmir, the
National Conference led by
Sheikh Abdullah. It should be noted however, that the Kashmiri parliament was largely made up of personal appointments made by the Maharaja. Under the leadership of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, a Constituent Assembly of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (which was also its Legislative Assembly) had ratified the State's accession to India and had adopted a constitution
[1] calling for a perpetual merger of the state with India. This constitution was promulgated
26 January 1957, making Jammu and Kashmir as the only state of India to have a separate constitution, much to the displeasure of many nationalists in India.
Pakistan still asks for a plebiscite in Kashmir under the UN. However, India is no longer willing to allow a plebiscite as it claims that the situation has changed and that a large number of the Hindus who once lived in Kashmir were forced to move out due to threat from separatist activities. It also claims that Pakistan or China are not willing to demilitarize areas occupied by them.
Kashmiri nationalists argue that merger in India was conditional upon a large degree of autonomy that was to be awarded to the state. Under the Treaty of Accession, Kashmir was to defer only matters of foreign affairs and defense to India. The National Conference has since the termination of this treaty, called upon India for greater autonomy. The largest pro-Indian political figures in Kashmir all argue for the widespread autonomy guaranteed to Kashmiris by Nehru.
The ceasefire line is known as the '
Line of Control' (dotted line) and is the pseudo-border between India and Pakistan in most of the Kashmir region.
Sino-Indian War
Main articles: 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, as well as a strip along the eastern border. 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''.
[2]
1965 and 1971 wars
Main articles: Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
Main articles: 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. The treaty is often viewed by many as having cemented the Line of Control as a permanent border between the two nations, although Pakistanis consider it temporary, pending a solution.
Rise of militancy
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 Afghanistani 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.
[2] Yasin Malik, a leader of one faction of the
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front,along with Ashfaq Majid Wani and Bitta Karate, 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.
[3]
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. 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 that are well-documented by international observes such as Amnesty International.
The Pakistani government calls these insurgents, "Kashmiri freedom fighters", and claims that it gives only moral and diplomatic support to these insurgents, though India
[4] believes they are Pakistani-supported terrorists from Pakistan Administered Kashmir.
Cross-border troubles
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,
[3] 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
[4] after intense pressure from the Bush administration in mid 2002.
[5]
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.
Human rights abuse
Claims of human rights abuses have been made concerning on both the Indian Armed Forces and the Militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir.
[6]. Some Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistanis contend that Indian Armed Forces are responsible for much of the human rights abuses in Kashmir, while many other Kashmiri Muslims, Kashmiri Hindus and Indians contend that militants are to blame. Such beliefs highlight the communal nature of Kashmiri politics, where neither side fully acknowledges its role in the suffering of the Kashmiri people.
Reasons behind the dispute
Ever since the
Partition of India in
1947, both
India and
Pakistan have claims over 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 the two largest
empires 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. For over two months, the state of Kashmir was independent.
In October
1947 tribesmen from Pakistan's
NWFP province invaded the Punch District of Kashmir in support of a rebellion by Muslims against the Maharaja's taxation policies, and with, as India contends, the aid of Pakistani forces. The Kashmiri Dogra army was quickly overrun by these tribesmen who then looted and plundered the overrun areas. Faced with a deteriorating human rights situation, the Maharaja fled Kashmir and requested assistance from the
Government of India. Lord Mountbatten, who had become India's
Governor General, argued that the provision of assistance to an independent state could lead to an inter-Dominion
War. He therefore advised that Hari Singh should first accede to the
Union of India before any Indian forces were used to control the situation. Kashmir thus became a part of India and on 27th October 1947,
Indian
troops were airlifted to
Srinagar. Fighting between the tribesmen and Indian forces intensified, spreading to
Ladakh,
Baltistan and
Gilgit. The
Pakistani army officially entered the war in May
1948 on the grounds that the presence of Indian troops in Kashmir constituted a great threat to Pakistan's own
national security. Pakistan further contends that because the Maharaja fled Kashmir, he gave up his right to decide the fate of Kashmir, and that even if he could decide its fate, he did so under duress, which invalidates his claims. Outside observers also note that Indian troops were likely in Kashmir before the Maharaja signed the treaty, noting that road conditions and the Maharaja's own diary suggest that reaching Delhi within the timeframe indicated by India may would have been impossible.
[5]
The
Indian
Prime Minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru, referred the dispute to the
United Nations, and a
cease-fire was agreed on
1 January 1949. The UN resolution asked the invading Pakistani army to withdraw to the pre-war international border and instructed
Bharat to hold a plebiscite to determine the will of the people. The
plebiscite has, however, never ever been held since to this day and Pakistani army too did not leave the portion of Kashmir occupied by them. This Pakistani held area is currently administered in two separate units,
Azad Kashmir and the
Northern Areas.
Thus Kashmir remains bitterly divided on the ground; two-thirds of it (known as the
Indian state of
Jammu and Kashmir) compromising
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, called
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 civil 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".
In
1989 Kashmiri
activists, who had become disenchanted with the political process as a means of expressing dissent, mounted an armed
insurgency in the valley. The
movement, which gained momentum through out
1990s, was severely repressed by the
Indian
authorities.
Numerous violations of the Line of Control including the famous incursions 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, add to concern for the stability of the hostile region.
Indian view
The Indian claim 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. The Indian viewpoint is generally the official viewpoint used and supported by the United Nations and its client countries. 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, the
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. Indians also maintain that Kashmiris would be better off in India because they claim that Muslims are better off in India than in any other non-Muslim nation.
Thus, to briefly summarize the Indian viewpoint:
★ For a UN Resolution subscribing Plebiscite monitored by any third neutral party, Pakistan should first vacate its part of Kashmir.
★ 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. While many members of the Assembly were elected, the majority of seats were filled by personal appointments of the Maharaja.
★ India does not accept the
Two Nation Theory that forms the basis of Pakistan.
★ The state of Jammu and Kashmir was made autonomous by the article 370 of the
Constitution of India, though this autonomy has since been revoked.
★ India
[7] alleges that most of the terrorists operating in Kashmir are themselves from Pakistan Administered Kashmir and that Pakistan has been involved in
State sponsored terrorism.
★ India states that despite Pakistan being named as an "Islamic Republic", Pakistan has been responsible for one of the worst
genocide of Muslims when it killed millions of its own countrymen in
East Pakistan in the
1971 Bangladesh atrocities. India also cites the violent repressions of
Balochs and other internal sectarian violences in Pakistan among fellow Muslims as further proof that Pakistan is incapable of a cohesive existence even with Muslim majority and that its concern over Muslims in Kashmir is nothing more than shedding "
crocodile tears".
[6]
★ The Indian Government believes that Pakistan has used the Kashmir issue more as "a diversionary tactic" from internal and external issues.
★ India regard Pakistan's claim to Kashmir based largely on religion alone to be no longer correct because India claims that it now has more Muslims than Pakistan, though no accurate figures are available to confirm this.
[7].
★ India also points to articles and US reports
[8] which suggest that the terrorists are funded mostly by Pakistan as well as through criminal means like from the illegal sale of arms and
narcotics as well as through circulating
counterfeit currency in India. India argues that since many Kashmiri terrorists are also known to resort to unlawful rackets like
extortion and
bank robberies to fund their activities,
[9] they are nothing more than felons under the guise of "freedom fighters".
[10]
Pakistani view
[10]
Pakistan 's principle position on Jammu and Kashmir is based on the UN Security Council Resolutions, which provide that the final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people. Pakistan is committed to this position until the three parties to the dispute, Pakistan, India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir arrive at some mutually acceptable final settlement.
Pakistan, along with Kashmiri nationalists, further contends that Indian Armed Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias have unleashed havoc in Kashmir, murdering innocent civilians, and subjecting the population to communal punishment for the actions of a few. They allege that Indian forces have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Kashmiri civilians, and that gang-rape has been used by India as a weapon of war. Such accounts have been substantiated by Indian observers who note that instances such as the mass-rape of over thirty women in the hamlet of Konun Poshpura, are weapon of war.
[11]. Western observers, such as Amnesty International further allege that Indian torture of Kashmiri civilians is so brutal and widespread that it "defies belief."
[12]
Pakistan also rejects the basis of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was in fact regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris, including pro-Indian Kashmiri politicians at the time. Furthermore, as he had fled Kashmir, 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 notes that Indian forces were in Kashmir before the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, thus, Indian troops were in Kashmir in violation of the Standstill Agreement which was designed to maintain the status quo in Kashmir. This view is also echoed by many Western experts on the Kashmir conflict.
[5].
Pakistan has always emphasized the necessity of a meaningful, constructive and result oriented dialogue to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Pakistan maintains that rigidity and aggression must give way to accommodation and flexibility.
In their struggle for self-determination, the Kashmiri people have undergone untold sufferings and hardship over the years. Pakistan believes that the Kashmiri people must be associated with the Pakistan-India dialogue process for arriving at a sustainable solution. Their legitimate aspirations cannot be ignored and must be accommodated in any just and durable solution.
Thus, to summarize the Pakistani viewpoint,
★ The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this uprising is pro-Pakistani, while Kashmiri nationalists argue that such a move is for independence.
★ Brutal Indian counterinsurgency tactics merit international monitoring of the Kashmir conflict.
★ According to the two-nation theory by which Pakistan was formed, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority (it should be noted that India has never accepted the Two-Nation Theory, which is the basis for Pakistan's existence).
★ India has shown disregard to the resolutions of the UN (by not holding a plebiscite). India however asserts that since 1947 the demographics of Pakistani side of Kashmir has been altered with generations of non-Kashmiris allowed to take residence in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. This, India believes, would heavily influence any voting in favour of Pakistan, rendering the idea of a free and fair plebiscite impossible.
[14]
★ The Kashmiri people have now been forced by the circumstances to rise against the repression of the Indian army and uphold their right of self-determination through militancy. Pakistan just gives the Kashmiri freedom-fighters moral, ethical and military support (see
1999 Kargil Conflict).
Plight of the Kashmiri Pandits
Kashmiri pandits claim that they are the original natives of the valley with a history tracing back to at least 2000 years, though Kashmiri Muslims are the descendants of Kashmiri pandits who converted to Islam, and as such cannot be considered outsiders. Thus, Kashmiri Muslims argue that the pandits' claims of being the "original" natives of Kashmir makes little sense. With the beginning of the Islamist insurgency in the Kashmir valley in 1989, the Pandits were forced out of Kashmir. The Pandits became soft targets of the terrorists. Most of them were forced out of valley and are now living as refugees in other parts of India creating a unique situation - these people are refugees in their own country (Internally
Displaced People). The ethnic cleansing of virtually the entire Pandit community from the Kashmir valley since 1990 is one of the major tragedies of 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 headworks of the chief irrigation systems of Pakistan were left located in Indian Territory.
Furthermore, the British commission in charge of Partition handed Gurdaspur district over to India, despite being a Muslim majority district of Punjab. The British claims were that if India did not control Gurdaspur, then Pakistan could simply cut off water supplies to Amritsar. However, Gurdaspur is the district in which all roads from India in Kashmir run, and thus, Pakistan alleges that the British effectively decided the fate of Kashmir by giving India a lifeline in Kashmir. Pakistan also alleges that the British reasoning for handing over Gurdaspur was flawed and unfair because while Pakistan was denied Gurdaspur district on the grounds of Indian water security, India maintained control over Pakistani water by retaining all the districts of Punjab in which major Pakistani river had their headwaters. Essentially this is seen as a
veto power held by India over Pakistan agriculture. The
Indus Waters Treaty signed in
1960 resolved most of these disputes over the sharing of water, calling for mutual cooperation in this regard. This treaty faced issues raised by Pakistan over the construction of dams on the Indian side which limit water to the Pakistani side.
Many historians agree that the failure of Pakistan to take the much more fertile areas of Kashmir during the initial conflict (
First Kashmir War) has cost them dearly. This is because the area occupied by Pakistan is much less fertile and less strategic a point given India's unlimited access to the most critical resource of all:
water. The Kashmir issue, thus, is both about land and water.
Map issues
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, leading to many arguments and disputes. 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. 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.
[12]
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 formal “Accession of
Jammu and Kashmir” to
Pakistan or even to the
Republic of India remains to be decided by
UN Plebiscite” and only according to their own violition of
Kashmir Regional state.
New Delhi: The
Government of India (
Bharat) states that “the external artificial boundaries of
Hindustan, especially concerning the
Kashmir region under its jurisdiction created by a foreign
super power are neither correct nor authenticated”.
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.. In international forums however India has offered to make the Line of Control a permanent border on a number of occasions, though Pakistan argues that the status quo is the problem, and cannot be considered a solution to the very problem which it has caused. Officially Pakistan insists on a UN sponsored plebiscite, so that the people of Kashmir will have a free say in which country all of Kashmir should be incorporated into. 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. Most Kashmiri politicians from all spectrums oppose this, 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 and unjustified 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.
[15] Further many neutral parties to the dispute have noted that UN resolution on Kashmir is no longer relevant.
[16] Even the
European Union has viewed that the plebiscite is not in Kashmiris' interest.
[17] 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.
[18] Even the
Hurriyat Conference observed in 2003, that "Plebiscite no longer an option"
[19] 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".
[13] India claims that contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wish to remain with India. In a 2002 survey by
MORI in the Indian administered areas around 61% of the respondents said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen, with only 6% preferring Pakistan instead.
[20]
Conflict in Kargil
Main articles: 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
LoC. 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
Kashmiri insurgents.
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 backed forces 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.
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. Due to Indian persuasion on US Congress Members, the US urged
Islamabad to cease infiltrations, which continue to this day, by Islamic fighters into Indian-held 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. 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 held 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.
[14] Musharraf also stated that he was ready to give up the United Nation resolutions regarding Kashmir
[15]
Pakistani spokesperson Tasneem Aslam also reiterated that Kashmir was never considered an "integral part" of Pakistan.
[16]
Recent events
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.
References
1. The idea of Pakistan, , Stephen Philip, Cohen, Brookings Institution Press, ,
2. Timeline of the conflict - BBC
3. Interview: "I have never been on Pakistan's 'favoured guests' list"
4. FBI has images of terror camp in Pak
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1762146.stm
6. [8]
7. India Today August 21, 2006, Pg 91
8. [9] US Embassy
9. Strategic Analysis: A Monthly Journal of the IDSA Jan-Mar 2002 (Vol. XXVI No.1)
10. CIA On Net
11. http://www.countercurrents.org/kashmir-hashmi310307.htm
12. http://www.mediamonitors.net/suliman1.html
13. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1762146.stm
14. [11]
15. Pakistan’s Kashmir Policy after the Bush Visit to South Asia Strategic Insights Volume V, Issue 4 (April 2006) by Peter R. Lavoy
16. Kickstart Kashmir - Times of India.
17. EU: Plebiscite not in Kashmiris’ interest - November 30, 2006, Pak Observer
18. REPORT on Kashmir: present situation and future prospects Committee on Foreign Affairs Rapporteur: Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
19. [http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/07/01/stories/2003070102280400.htm Jul 01, 2003, The Hindu
20. Ipsos MORI - Kashmiris Reject War In Favour Of Democratic Means
See also
★
List of topics on the land and the people of Jammu and Kashmir
★
History of Jammu and Kashmir
★
Timeline of the Kashmir conflict
★
Kashmiriyat - a socio-cultural ethos of religious harmony and Kashmiri consciousness.
★
Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) to the Country / Dominion of India
★
Indo-Pakistani Wars
★
Trans-Karakoram Tract
★
Aksai Chin
★
Kargil War or the Indo-Pakistani War of 1999
★ ''
LOC Kargil'', a 2003
Bollywood war film based on "
Kargil War"
★
Terrorism in Kashmir
★
Indian Kashmir barrier
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)
★ 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.
External links
★
Kashmir Watch: In-depth coverage on Kashmir conflict
★
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF)
★
Legal Documents related to Kashmir including treaties
★
Centre for Contemporary Conflict on Kargil War
★
BBC articles on Kashmir
★
Kashmir Conflict
★
Recent Kashmir developments
★
The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict U.S. Institute of Peace Report, June 2004
★
The Jammu and Kashmir issue
★
A peep into Kashmir History
★
The Kashmir dispute-cause or symptom?
★
LoC-Line of Control situation in Kashmir
★
Jammu & Kashmir-The Basic Facts
★
Introduction of the Kashmir dispute
★
An outline of the history of Kashmir
★
Images of Muzaffarabad (Capital City of Pakistani controlled Kashmir)
★
Images of Pakistan controlled Kashmir
★
News Coverage of Kashmir
★
Jammu & Kashmir on The Indian Analyst News, Analysis, and Opinion
★
Accession Document.
★
'Conflict in Kashmir: Selected Internet Resources by the Library, University of California, Berkeley, USA'; University of California at Berkeley Library Bibliographies and Web-Bibliographies list
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
