Kashmir Issue

Kashmir Conflict BACKGROUND: According to folk etymology, the name "Kashmir" means "desiccated land" (from the Sanskrit: Ka = water and shimira = desiccate). An earlier and well known recorded reference can be found in the writings of Hsien Tsang, a 6th Century Chinese Buddhist who referred to a state called 'Kash-mi-lo' that had existed in the 1st century. The mid-12th century Rajatarangini, a history of Kashmir written by Kalhana, records that the valley of Kashmir was formerly a lake. The Pashtun Durrani Empire ruled Kashmir in the 18th century until its 1819 conquest by the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh. Following the First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–1846), Kashmir was ceded under the Treaty of Lahore to the East India Company, who sold it shortly afterwards through the Treaty of Amritsar to Gulab Singh, Raja of Jammu, who thereafter received the title Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. From then until the 1947 Partition of India, Kashmir was ruled by the Hindu Maharajas of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, although the majority of the population were Muslim CURRENT SCENARIO: Chief Minister: Mehbooba Mufti Sayeed , 28 SEATS OUT OF 87, PEOPLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HURRIYAT PARTY LEADER : YASIN MALIK arrested and other leaders are house arrest Protests are ongoing by common man as well as college students including girls Martyrdom of Burhan wani, rapidly grew the wave of freedom 2016-OCT: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday regretted the fact that the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was unable to fully function in held Kashmir due to India’s non-cooperation. 2016-OCT: Pakistan's Permanent Representative to UN Dr Maleeha Lodhi, in the meeting with the top diplomat, asked the UN secretary general to ensure that UNMOGIP is able to report facts independently regarding the situation in held Kashmir to the UN Security Council. Facts: Kashmir is an 86,000-square mile region in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. The separatist violence has killed more than 47,000 people, which does not include people who have disappeared due to the conflict. Some human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations put the death toll at twice that amount. India and Pakistan have been fighting over Kashmir since both countries gained their independence in 1947. The Line of Control separating Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir is 435 miles (700 km) long. India-controlled: One state, called Jammu and Kashmir, makes up the southern and eastern portions of the region, totaling about 45% of Kashmir. Pakistan-controlled: Three areas called Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan make up the northern and western portions of the region, totaling about 35% of Kashmir. China-controlled: One area called Aksai Chin in the northeastern part of the region, equaling 20% of Kashmir. Between January 1990 and April 2011: 43,460 people have been killed in the Kashmir insurgency. Of these, 21,323 are militants, 13,226 civilians killed by militants, 3,642 civilians killed by security forces, and 5,369 policemen killed by militants. The 21,323 militants were killed in operations by security forces and include both Kashmiri and foreign militants. And of the 5,369 members of the security forces, around 1,500 are Kashmiri policemen.  DEVELOPMENTS: 1990s - The insurgency continues, with Kashmiri militants training in Pakistan and India deploying hundreds of thousands of troops in Jammu and Kashmir. Violence against civilians by both sides is widespread. 1999 - India and Pakistan go to war again after militants cross from Pakistani-administered Kashmir into the Indian-administered Kargil district. India repulses the attack, accuses Pakistan of being behind it, and breaks off relations. 2001-2004 - Moves to boost relations between the two countries are punctuated by continuing violence, notably an attack on the parliament of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir in Srinagar in 2001. 2010 - Major protests erupt in the Kashmir Valley of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir over the summer after a demonstrator is killed by the Indian army. The protests abate in September after the government announce measures to ease tension. 2011 August - Chief Minister Omar Abdullah announces an amnesty for the 1,200 young men who threw stones at security forces during the anti-government protests in the Kashmir Valley the previous year. Indian State Human Rights Commission confirms presence of more than 2,000 unidentified bodies in unmarked graves near the Line of Control. Activists say many may be people who disappeared after being arrested by security forces. 2011 September - Indian forces kill three Pakistani soldiers in firing across the Line of Control. India accuses Pakistan of opening fire first. 2013 February - Kashmiri Jaish-e-Mohammed member Mohammad Afzal Guru hanged over role in 2001 Indian parliament terror attack, prompting protests in which two young men are killed. 2013 September - Prime ministers of India and Pakistan meet and agree to try reduce the number of violent incidents at their disputed border in Kashmir. 2014 August - India cancels talks with Pakistan after accusing it of interfering in India's internal affairs. The decision comes after Pakistan's High Commissioner in Delhi consulted Kashmiri separatist leaders in advance of the talks. During a visit to the disputed border state of Jammu and Kashmir, India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi accuses Pakistan of waging a proxy war against India in Kashmir. 2014 October - Pakistan and India exchange strongly-worded warnings, after a flare-up of violence across their common border leaves at least 18 people dead. BJP joins government 2015 March - India's ruling BJP party is sworn into government in Indian-administered Kashmir for first time in coalition with local People's Democratic Party, with the latter's Mufti Mohammad Sayeed as chief minister. 2015 September - Muslim separatist leaders in Indian-administered Kashmir close shops, businesses and government departments in protest at the enforcement of a colonial-era ban on eating beef. 2015 November - One person dies in violent protests following a visit to Indian-administered Kashmir by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 2016 April - Mehbooba Mufti, the leader of the People's Democratic Party (PDP), becomes the first female chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir following the death of her father and party founder Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. Curfew 2016 July - Authorities impose an indefinite curfew in most parts of Indian-administered Kashmir after the killing of popular militant by security forces of Burhan Wani, a popular militant and top commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen group, sparks violent protests. 2016 August - A curfew in most parts of Indian-administered Kashmir is lifted but schools, shops and most banks remain shut and mobile and internet services remain suspended. At least 68 civilians and two security officials have died and more than 9,000 people injured in over 50 days of violence according to official tallies. 2016 September - India and Pakistan exchange a war of words after 18 Indian soldiers are killed in a raid by gunmen on an army base in Indian-administered Kashmir. 2016 September - India says it has carried out "surgical strikes" against suspected militants along the de-facto border with Pakistan in Kashmir but Pakistan rejects the claims. 2016 October - The Indian army shoots dead three suspected militants as they try to enter an army camp in northern Kashmir. 2016 November - Human Rights Watch appeals for an end to the burning of schools in Indian-administered Kashmir after the total set alight since a wave of pro-separatist unrest began in July reaches 25.  2016―17 unrest in Kashmir: Killing of Burhan Wani Media blackout Social Media ban Newspaper ban Arrest of human rights activist Action against security personnel Internet Ban Persistent militarisation of Kashmir Human rights abuses Use of pellet guns , tear gas shells, rubber bullets, as well as assault rifles(According to official records at SMHS, the main hospital in Srinagar, 570 people sought treatment after their eyeballs were ruptured by metal pellets) Aggressive movement ever CPEC issue: India claims this territory As working president of the National Conference, he said, “To blame Pakistan alone for the political situation or the current unrest in the Valley is a distortion of the truth. Partition and dispute: British rule in India ended in 1947 with the creation of a new state: the Dominion of Pakistan Muslim league alongside the Union of India, the successor state to British India, while British suzerainty over the 562 Indian princely states ended. According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, States were thereafter left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. Jammu and Kashmir, the largest of the princely states, had a predominantly Muslim population ruled by the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh. Following partition, Pakistan had expected the annexation of Kashmir to its territory. Reasons behind the dispute: Both countries subsequently made claims to Kashmir, based on the history and religious affiliations of the Kashmiri people. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which lies strategically in the north-west of the subcontinent bordering Afghanistan and China, was formerly ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh under the paramountcy of British India. In geographical and legal terms, the Maharaja could have joined either of the two new countries. Although urged by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, to determine the future of his state before the transfer of power took place, Singh demurred. In October 1947, incursions by Pakistan took place leading to a war, as a result of which the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains divided between India and Pakistan. ROLE OF MAHARAJA: Hari Singh, the maharaja of Kashmir, initially believed that by delaying his decision he could maintain the independence of Kashmir Maharaja signed an instrument of accession on 25 October 1947 to the Indian union. Revolution among his Muslim subjects along the western borders of the state and the intervention of Pashtun tribesmen Indo-Pakistani War of 1947: Maharaja supported the annexation of Kashmir by India, militant Muslims from western Kashmir and Pakistani tribesmen made rapid advances into the Baramulla sector. Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh asked the government of India to intervene. However, India and Pakistan had signed a non-intervention agreement. Before the tribesmen's arrived, India argued that the Maharaja must complete negotiations to cede Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for military aid. The subsequent cession agreement was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten of Burma. In Jammu and Kashmir, National Conference volunteers worked with the Indian Army to drive out the Pakistanis. The Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to India was accepted by Viceroy Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. The resulting First Kashmir War lasted until 1948, when India sought resolution of the issue at the UN Security Council. Sheikh Abdullah was not in favour of India seeking UN intervention because he was sure the Indian Army could free the entire state from invaders. Following the set-up of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948. The measure imposed an immediate cease-fire and called on the Government of Pakistan 'to secure the withdrawal from the state of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen It also asked Government of India to reduce its forces to minimum strength, after which the circumstances for holding a plebiscite should be put into effect 'on the question of Accession of the state to India or Pakistan.' However, both India and Pakistan failed to arrive at a truce agreement due to differences over interpretation of the procedure for and the extent of demilitarisation. One sticking point was whether the Azad Kashmiri army was to be disbanded during the truce stage or at the plebiscite stage END OF WAR In November 1948, although both the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite, the failure of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from Kashmir was a violation of the agreed conditions for holding it and the process stalled. Furthermore, the Indian Government distanced itself from its previous commitment to hold a plebiscite. India then proposed that Pakistan withdraw all its troops first, calling it a precondition for a plebiscite. Pakistan rejected the proposal on the grounds that the Kashmiris would be unable to vote freely in the presence of the Indian army and in the light of the friendship between Sheikh Abdullah and Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. However, Pakistan proposed simultaneous withdrawal of all troops followed by a plebiscite under international aegis, which India rejected. UN SECURITY COUNCIL: As a result Pakistani forces did not unilaterally withdraw.Over the next few 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 on the recommendations of General Andrew McNaughton. To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the demilitarisation of the region. All of these were accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government. The resolutions were passed by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter and as such are considered non-binding with no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to resolutions passed under Chapter VII. 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 Chinese annexation of the region they call Aksai Chin and which has continued since then. Another smaller area, the Trans-Karakoram, was demarcated as the Line of Control (LOC) between China and Pakistan, Although some of the territory on the Chinese side is claimed by India to be part of Kashmir. The line that separates India from China in this region is known as the "Line of Actual Control" 1965 and 1971 Wars The Indian forces intruded into Pakistani area in the Rann of Kutch in April 1965. In a sharp and short conflict, the Indian forces were ejected. Both the armies had fully mobilized, with eyeball to eyeball contact. Pakistan proposed cease-fire, India accepted. An agreement was signed: the forces disengaged. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 resulted in the defeat of Pakistan and the Pakistani military's surrender in East Pakistan, leading to the creation of Bangladesh. The Simla Agreement, signed in 1972 between India and Pakistan, allowed both countries to settle all issues by peaceful means through mutual discussion within the framework of the UN Charter. 1989 popular insurgency and militancy In 1989, a widespread popular and armed insurgency started in Kashmir. After the 1987 state legislative assembly election, some of the results were disputed. This resulted in the formation of militant wings and marked the beginning of the Mujahadeen insurgency, which continues to this day India contends that the insurgency was largely started by Afghan mujahadeen who entered the Kashmir valley following the end of the Soviet-Afghan War. Yasin Malik, a leader of Huriyat party of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, was one of the Kashmiris to organise militancy in Kashmir, along with Ashfaq Majid Wani and Farooq Ahmad Dar (alias Bitta Karatay). Since 1995, Malik has renounced the use of violence and calls for strictly peaceful methods to resolve the dispute. Malik developed differences with one of the senior leaders, Farooq Siddiqui (alias Farooq Papa), for shunning demands for an independent Kashmir and trying to cut a deal with the Indian Prime Minister. This resulted in a spilt in which Bitta Karatay, Salim Nanhaji, and other senior comrades joined Farooq Papa. Pakistan claims these insurgents are Jammu and Kashmir citizens, and are rising up against the Indian army as part of an independence movement. Amnesty International has accused security forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir of exploiting the Public Safety Act that enables them to "hold prisoners without trial". India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir a part of Pakistan. The Pakistani government calls these insurgents "Kashmiri freedom fighters", and claims that it provides them only moral and diplomatic support, although India 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. These comments sparked outrage amongst many Kashmiris, some of whom defied a curfew imposed by the Indian army to burn him in effigy 1999 Conflict in Kargil In mid-1999, insurgents and Pakistani soldiers from Pakistani Kashmir infiltrated 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 in the Kargil range overlooking the highway in Indian Kashmir that connects Srinagar and Leh. By blocking the highway, they could cut off the only link between the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. This resulted in a large-scale conflict between the Indian and Pakistani armies. Fears of the Kargil War turning into a nuclear war provoked the then-United States President Bill Clinton to pressure Pakistan to retreat. The Pakistan Army withdrew their remaining troops from the area, ending the conflict. India reclaimed control of the peaks, which they now patrol and monitor all year long. 2000s Al-Qaeda involvement Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden In a 'Letter to American People' written by Osama bin Laden in 2002, he stated that one of the reasons he was fighting America was because of its support for India on the Kashmir issue. While on a trip to Delhi in 2002, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld suggested that Al-Qaeda was active in Kashmir, though he did not have any hard evidence. An investigation by a Christian Science Monitor reporter in 2002 claimed to have unearthed evidence that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates were prospering in Pakistan-administered Kashmir with tacit approval of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) In 2002, a team comprising Special Air Service and Delta Force personnel was sent into Indian-administered Kashmir to hunt for Osama bin Laden after reports that he was being sheltered by the Kashmiri militant group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. US intelligence analysts say Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan-administered Kashmir are helping terrorists trained in Afghanistan to infiltrate Indian-administered Kashmir. In 2006 Al-Qaeda claim they have established a wing in Kashmir, which worried the Indian government. Indian Army Lieutenant General H.S. Panag, GOC-in-C Northern Command, told reporters that the army has ruled out the presence of Al-Qaeda in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. Indian view: India holds that the Instrument of Accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union of India, signed by Maharaja Hari Singh (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 25 October 1947and executed on 27 October 1947 between the ruler of Kashmir and the Governor General of India was a legal act and completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) as well as under international India does not accept the two-nation theory that forms the basis of Pakistan's claims and considers that Kashmir, despite being a Muslim-majority state, is in many ways an "integral part" of secular India. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was provided with significant autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India. All differences between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir, need to be settled through bilateral negotiations as agreed to by the two countries under the Simla Agreement signed on 2 July 1972.[88] The Government of India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of waging a proxy war in Kashmir by providing weapons and financial assistance to terrorist groups in the region. Pakistan is trying to raise anti-India sentiment among the people of Kashmir by spreading false propaganda against India. According to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistani radio and television channels deliberately spread "hate and venom" against India to alter Kashmiri opinion. The UN Chapter VII resolution that makes it mandatory for member states to not provide active or passive support to terrorist organisations Specifically, it has pointed out that the Pakistani government continues to support various terrorist organisations, such as Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, in direct violation of this resolution. Karan Singh, the son of the last ruler of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, has said that the Instrument of Accession signed by his father was the same as signed by other states. He opined that Kashmir was therefore a part of India, and that its special status granted by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution stemmed from the fact that it had its own constitution. In 2008, the death toll from the last 20 years was estimated by Indian authorities to be over 47,000. Pakistani view: 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 maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population. Pakistan 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, From 1990 to 1999, some organisations reported that the Indian Armed Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias were responsible for the deaths of 4,501 Kashmiri civilians. During the same period, there were records of 4,242 women between the ages of 7–70 being raped. The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that Kashmir either wants to be with Pakistan or independent According to the two-nation theory, 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 for the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the United Nations Commission in India and Pakistan by failing to hold a plebiscite to determine the future allegiance of the state. Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a hereditary ruler and was merely a British appointee, after the British defeated Ranjit Singh who ruled the area before the British conquest. Pakistan has noted the widespread use of extrajudicial killings in Indian-administered Kashmir carried out by Indian security forces while claiming they were caught up in encounters with militants. Human rights organisations have strongly condemned Indian troops for widespread rape and murder of innocent civilians while accusing these civilians of being militants. The Chenab formula was a compromise proposed in the 1960s, in which the Kashmir valley and other Muslim-dominated areas north of the Chenab river would go to Pakistan, and Jammu and other Hindu-dominated regions would go to India. A survey carried out across both Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir by London-based thinktank Chatham House, its author claims 'is the first ever of its kind', shows that only 2% of the respondents on the Indian side favour joining Pakistan Chinese view China states that Aksai Chin is an integral part of China and does not recognise the inclusion of Aksai Chin as part of the Kashmir region China did not accept the boundaries of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, north of Aksai Chin and the Karakoram as proposed by the British. China settled its border disputes with Pakistan under the 1963 Trans Karakoram Tract with the provision that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the Kashmir dispute Cross-border troubles (Siachen Conflict) The world's highest battleground, the Siachen Glacier, is a part of this difficult-to-man boundary. The Siachen glacier is the highest battleground on earth, where India and Pakistan have fought intermittently since April 13, 1984. Both countries maintain permanent military presence in the region at a height of over 6,000 metres (20,000 ft). More than 2000 people have died in this inhospitable terrain, mostly due to weather extremes and the natural hazards of mountain warfare. The conflict in Siachen stems from the incompletely demarcated territory on the map beyond the map coordinate known as NJ9842. The 1972 Simla Agreement did not clearly mention who controlled the glacier, merely stating that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed “thence north to the glaciers.” UN officials presumed there would be no dispute between India and Pakistan over such a cold and barren region. The Government of Pakistan has repeatedly claimed that by constructing a fence along the line of control, India is violating the Shimla Accord. India claims the construction of the fence has helped decrease armed infiltration into Indian-administered Kashmir. Line Of Control Conflicts: The border and the Line of Control separating Indian and Pakistani Kashmir passes through some exceptionally difficult terrain. Water dispute Another reason for the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the source of many rivers and tributaries in the Indus River basin. This basin is divided between Pakistan, which has about 60 percent of the catchment area, India with about 20 percent, Afghanistan with 5 percent and around 15 percent in China (Tibet autonomous region). The river tributaries are the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which primarily flow into Pakistan, while other branches—the Ravi, Beas, and the Sutlej—irrigate northern India. The Indus is a river system that sustains communities in India and Pakistan. Both have extensively dammed the Indus River for irrigation of their crops and hydro-electricity systems. In arbitrating the conflict in 1947, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, decided to demarcate the territories as he was unable to give to one or the other the control over the river as it was a main economic resource for both areas. The Line of Control (LoC) was recognised as an international border establishing that India would have control over the upper riparian and Pakistan over the lower In 1948, Eugene Black, then president of the World Bank, offered his services to solve the tension over water control. In the early days of independence, the fact that India was able to shut off the Central Bari Doab Canals at the time of the sowing season, causing significant damage to Pakistan's crops. Nevertheless, military and political clashes over Kashmir in the early years of independence appear to have been more about ideology and sovereignty rather than over the sharing of water resources. However, the minister of Pakistan has stated the opposite. The Indus Waters Treaty was signed by both countries in September 1960, giving exclusive rights over the three western rivers of the Indus river system (Jhelum, Chenab and Indus) to Pakistan, and over the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Ravi and Beas) to India, as long as this does not reduce or delay the supply to Pakistan. India therefore maintains that they are not willing to break the established regulations and they see no more problems with this issue. Proposed Options for Resolution of the Dispute  Over the past fifty years, besides the UN resolutions, observers and intellectuals have proposed various other options for resolving the Kashmir dispute time and again at the UN fora and at the bilateral India-Pakistan levels. These proposals are examined below.  United Nation’s Plebiscite First Prime Minister of Inida Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru said, in a detailed statement to the Constituent Assembly of India, that the will of the Kashmiris should be fulfilled under the supervision of the United Nations. On December 31, 1947, India filed a complaint against Pakistani aggression with the United Nations. The U.N. passed resolutions asking for the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from the occupied territory in Kashmir, for the reduction in the number of Indian troops in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and finally for a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the people of Kashmir with regard to their political affiliations. In this regard UN established UNCIP and UNMGOIP. But since then no plebiscite could be held because of the lack of cooperation by both sides. India says that Pakistan should first withdraw its forces from Azad Kashmir and Pakistan holds India responsible for not allowing Kashmiris to ascertain their will. After so many years UN resolution is still seeking its implementation, which has very less prospects in near future to be implemented in its lateral spirit. One another drawback of this resolution is that it doesn’t give Kashmiris an option to decide for their independent state and for this reason it is not wrong to claim that under current circumstances the solution of UN Plebiscite has lost its importance and can no more be considered as a viable solution to the problem. Because, if according to the current resolution a plebiscite would be held, It will only ask for the accession with either Pakistan or India, which is not going to be accepted by the either side, if the decision goes against one of them. In this regard, it is important to include option of independence in the current UN resolution, only then it could be considered as a plausible solution. United Nation’s Trusteeship Option “There is a proposal that to resolve the issue of Kashmir for some time the territory may be placed under control of trusteeship of United Nations and after a period of ten to fifteen years the matter may be referred to the people for the final verdict with regard to future status of the State. This arrangement will provide a face-saving arrangement for India, and will also give Kashmiris, on both sides of Line of Control, enough time to decide their future without any pressure or compulsion from any country or group”. But this option is not workable until both India and Pakistan agree to withdraw their forces from the occupied areas. Secondly India has outrageously and repeatedly refused the involvement of any third party and always argues that this is a bilateral issue and only India and Pakistan should solve it. On the other hand it would be difficult for Pakistan to dismantle all the military establishments and especially the militant groups would not agree to the presence of any International forces because then they have to disarm and stop militancy. So this option doesn’t look practical under current situation. Independence The idea of Independent Kashmir is not new at all. Sheikh Abdullah was dismissed by Jawahar Lal Nehru on expressing his views in favour of Independence way back in 1953. However, it is a view which has found favour with a large number of Sunni Muslims in the Kashmir valley. Over the last 63 years political manipulations, Human rights abuses, rigging of elections and corrupt Government has created a sense of alienation among Kashmiri population and they have become more defiant and assertive. But one important thing is that there is a divide on this option among the political parties, militant groups in Kashmir and people from different regional, religious and ethnic background who make up the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Some political parties like Hurriat Confernce (Ali Gillani Group) and Hizbul-Mujhahideen (militant group) demands accession with Pakistan and hence would not buy this idea of independence but on the other hand some Political parties like Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and Hurriyat Conference (Mir Wais Group) are in favour of independence. Therefore there is no consensus on this option, which makes it difficult to adopt. But even if Kashmir gets independence, it would be difficult to survive as a sovereign state because of its land locked territory and would be dependent on Pakistan and India for trade and other resources. Moreover, it has very strategic position, Main water sources are coming from Kashmir and there would be again a competition to install a pro Pakistani or pro Indian Government in order to secure their strategic interests. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to envisage a viable and sovereign state. The Hindu minority, which already feels threatened by militants would not favour the independence and would like to remain with India. The Partition Option Regarding the option of the partition of Jammu and Kashmir, this has largely been an academic debate and various scholars have suggested different proposals. The first is a division-related option for Jammu and Kashmir, based on the holding of regional plebiscites. This proposal was first given by UN Representative, Sir Owen Dixon, in his report of 1950-51. Called the ‘Dixon Report’, it proposed the idea of holding regional plebiscites, instead of a general plebiscite as proposed in the UN resolutions.81 The Owen Dixon Plan proposed the division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into four main regions: Jammu, Ladakh, the Vale of Kashmir including Muzaffarabad, and Gilgit-Baltistan. According to his plan the district of Poonch was to remain with Pakistan. He proposed that of the four regions, Jammu and Ladakh should go uncontested to India and the Northern Areas to Pakistan. He concluded that in the Valley a plebiscite might be held to decide about its future. Pakistan, did not outrightly reject the proposal, but was in favour of a general plebiscite in the whole of Jammu and Kashmir. India on the other hand regarded Jammu and Kashmir as a unit of the Indian Federation and thus was not in favour of any regional plebiscite.82  The second partition proposal is an option based on a ‘Trieste-type’ solution. The Trieste issue, between Italy and Yugoslavia, arose as a result of the two World Wars. After World War I, Trieste and the adjoining areas, including the whole valley of the Adige river and Istria, went to Italy, but in 1945 it was claimed by Yugoslavia on the grounds that Italy was guilty of aggression against Yugoslavia. However, Trieste and its environs and the Gorzia region to the northwest (Zone A) remained under Anglo-American control and the southern portion (Zone B) was under the control of the Yugoslav troops. Finally, in 1954, Italy and Yugoslavia agreed to a partition and Zone A (including Trieste) was given to Italy and Zone B to Yugoslavia. Italy agreed to maintain a free port at Trieste. Later, the agreement was given a de jure status by the 1975 Treaty of Osimo between Italy and Yugoslavia. The ‘Trieste’-type option for Jammu and Kashmir proposes that the Valley along with some adjoining parts of Jammu and the Pakistani side of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir), be made an autonomous units, under India and Pakistan, respectively. The LoC would be a soft border between the two autonomous units. The remaining areas on both sides of the LoC may be merged with India and Pakistan, respectively. India and Pakistan would be required to withdraw their forces under UN supervision.83 Again, this proposal lacks viability, as it does not address either the genesis of the dispute, nor the complexities that have accumulated since then to date. The struggle in Jammu and Kashmir is not for autonomy of any one region but for the right of self-determination to be expressed by the Kashmiris, as granted to them under UN resolutions. Also, India and Pakistan being parties to the dispute will continue to have a clash of interests in the proposed autonomous regions; therefore, this would certainly not result in any stability in the region. Moreover, the option implies that the existing Line of Control (LoC) may serve as the line of division. The LoC remains the UN-recognised ceasefire line (CFL) and was not drawn with any basis for serving as a permanent border, but with the intention of bringing about cessation of military hostilities.  The third partition proposal considers the conversion of the Line of Control (LoC) into an international border. This means maintenance of the prevailing status quo. This option is in principle supported by India. If it were accepted, India would take additional advantage by then propagating that it had conceded Indian territory to Pakistan and would try to emerge as a peacemaker in the region. As assessed by Robert Wirsing, ‘by asserting the primacy of actual military control over punitive legal entitlement, it tacitly acknowledges India’s dominant political standing in the region. By requiring Pakistan to relinquish its claim of the coveted Valley of Kashmir and the Kashmiri separatists their claim of independence, while at the same time entailing little or no detachment from India of territories now in its possession, it leaves existing political and economic arrangements essentially undisturbed. Thus, of the several conceivable forms of partition, it is clearly among the most generous to India.’84 However, the ‘the LoC as a border’ option has to take into account the fact that the LoC is merely a ceasefire line, as well as take stock of the struggle for the right of self-determination that is going on in the Indian-held Kashmir. Moreover, Kashmiris do not recognise the LoC. Prof. Mrs. Shamim Shawl, a Kashmiri scholar from Srinagar, has argued that ‘the proposal of division is in contravention of the basic principle that Jammu and Kashmir is an indivisible entity. It also violates the fundamental fact that the Kashmir problem is basically the problem of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It is not a bilateral problem between India and Pakistan. Nor is it a territorial dispute.’85 Secondly, the present LoC is an altered ceasefire line, whereby India acquired territory through military aggression in 1971. Therefore, accepting LoC would mean legitimising Indian military aggression. Thirdly, the LoC as accepted by both Pakistan and India at Simla in 1972 does not exist anymore. Indian incursion into Siachen in 1984 has destroyed the sanctity of the ceasefire line.  Fourthly, some Western scholars have proposed the partition of Kashmir along ethnic/cultural, religious, and linguistic lines. For example the Kashmir Study Group, a US-based group comprising academics and diplomats from various countries as members, 86 has made various proposals along these lines in its report entitled, Kashmir: A Way Forward (September 1999). The proposals suggested are as follows: (a) Two hypothetical sovereign entities, self-governing in all aspects, established on both sides of the Line of Control on cultural and linguistic grounds. According to the study, ‘On the Indian side of the LOC every tahsil in Kashmir proper and in Doda district in Jammu, and Gool Gulab Ghar tahsil in Udhampur district in Jammu would seek incorporation in the proposed state. All these areas are imbued with “Kashmiriyat” or interact with Kashmiri speaking people. On the Pakistani side it is conceivable that the whole of Azad Kashmir would opt to have a sovereign status. This is predominantly Punjabi-speaking, wholly Muslim area’;  (b) A new sovereign state on the Indian side of LoC with no territorial exchange between India and Pakistan. The state would include ‘within its maximum potential area the whole of Kashmir proper as well as adjoining areas in which Kashmiri is either the majority language or that of a plurality of the population’; (c) Desirable territorial changes along and beyond the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. Viewing that ‘LoC is dysfunctional and has been violated innumerable times’, it proposes that a new state be created with territorial exchanges between India and Pakistan. However, it proposes that Pakistan gives almost twice as much area (7,366 sq. km) to India, than India ceding territory (4,501 sq. km) to Pakistan. The rationale given for such an exchange is ‘ overall, the territorial adjustments should not be excessively disruptive of the established order and yet should appear significant and be of such a nature as to allow all parties to claim a victory.’87 The above proposals are again not viable solutions, as they tend to complicate the situation in Jammu and Kashmir and result in a further division of the region, rather than leading to a stable solution. Moreover, the ‘Kashmir Study Group’s’ proposals make no provision for the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir to which presently a military struggle is underway by the Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Musharaf Four point solution: This four-point solution to Kashmir issue which includes demilitarization and “self-governance with joint supervision mechanism”. The four-point formula of Musharraf  included a) Kashmir should have the same borders but free movement   across the region be allowed for people on both side of LoC; b)There should be  self-governance or autonomy but not independence  c)Region should be demilitarized i-e  phased wised withdrawal  of troops from the region. d) and a mechanism should be devised  jointly so that the road map for Kashmir is implemented smoothly. Thus Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf, had diluted the Pakistani position significantly. Musharraf 4 point formula  brought five major shifts in Pakistan decades long stand on Kashmir. These five major changes are  : 1) setting aside the U.N.’s resolutions on plebiscite; 2)  self-governance substation for self-determination; 3) forsaking religion as a criterion; 4) Pakistan  advise  to  Kashmiris to talk to New Delhi; and 5) accepting the Line of Control (LoC) provided it is combined with joint management, an issue pre-eminently liable to compromise. The Irish Model Recently, various scholars have suggested the Irish model, based on the ‘Good Friday Agreement’ signed in April 1998 between the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland, as a possible option for resolving the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.  The main features of the ‘Good Friday Agreement’90 are: (a) it recognises the consent principle: that change in the status of Northern Ireland can only come about with the consent of the majority of its people. It acknowledges that while a substantial minority in the North and a majority on the island want a united Ireland, the majority in the North currently wishes to maintain the Union. However, it says that if that situation changes, there is a binding obligation on both governments to give effect to whatever wish the people of the North express; (b) it recognises ‘the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland’ to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish, British or both; (c) it proposes concrete legislative and constitutional changes; such as, the Government of Ireland Act , claiming British jurisdiction over all of Ireland is to be replaced, future polls in the North on its status are to be held on the order of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Such polls must be at least seven years apart; (d) it proposes a 108- member Assembly elected by proportional representation; (e) it establishes a North-South Ministerial Council under legislation at Westminister and the Oireachtas, to bring together ministers from the North and the Republic; (f) it establishes a British-Irish Council consisting of representatives of the British and Irish Governments, devolved in situations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; (g) it establishes a new British-Irish Conference; (h) reaffirms commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations, and confirms intention to work constructively with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning; and, (i) establishes an independent commission to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in the North.91 Based on the Irish model, some Indian scholars have made suggestions supporting autonomy for various regions of Jammu and Kashmir. For example, Amit A. Pandya, an Indian scholar, has proposed the following steps: (1) An India-Pakistan commission to discuss boundary issues in Jammu and Kashmir, and to engage in joint monitoring of the LOC; (2) Phased demilitarisation at the LOC, contingent first on substantial cessation of ‘cross-border’ terrorism; (3) Three-way (Indian, Pakistani, Kashmiri) commission on internal law and order. Kashmiris to be chosen from Pakistan-occupied Azad Kashmir and all Indian-occupied segments—Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. (4) Indian and Pakistani commitments to proceed with a scheme of local government reform and strengthening of local institutions and local autonomy in respective areas of Kashmir. (5) Issue-specific consultative bodies (water, power, tourism, finance) comprising such local units, and Indian Jammu & Kashmir State and Azad Kashmir governments. (6) Regularly scheduled and publicity-free consultative mechanism for Indian government’s talks with all parties, and with non-party civil society institutions, within Indian Kashmir on political issues. (7) Corresponding mechanism for Azad Kashmir. (8) Consultative mechanism for talks among all parties on ethnic and religious minority protections. (9) Consultative mechanism for dialogue between these processes on the Indian and Pakistani side of the LOC. (10) Indian commitment to allow free access, consistent with security requirements, to independent and credible Indian human rights monitoring organizations, and to Indian, and Pakistani press. Corresponding commitment by Pakistan for Azad Kashmir. 92  Another Indian scholar, Professor Sumantra Bose, basing his suggestions on the Irish model proposes three dimensions. Dimension one: the New Delhi-Islamabad axis, involving the ‘establishment of a permanent India-Pakistan Intergovernmental Conference to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships between the two countries.’ As suggested by Professor Bose, this body is to be chaired by the respective prime ministers, and its twice-yearly meetings to be rotated between Indian and Pakistani cities. Dimension two: the New Delhi-Srinagar and Islamabad-Muzaffarabad axis, here the ‘objective in Kashmir would be the gradual, incremental normalisation of politics within Kashmir in both Indian-and Pakistani-controlled zones, and the devising and implementation of political frameworks which can foster a working degree of internal accommodation and cooperation between the representatives of communities holding radically different basic political allegiances.’ Dimension three: the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad axis, proposes ‘along with the progressive normalisation of the overall framework of India-Pakistan relations and the gradual normalisation of life and politics in both sides of the Kashmir border’, that there is greater need to make the border porous. He further suggests ‘the establishment of a cross-border Jammu and Kashmir Council for Cooperation, with representatives from inclusive, elected and autonomous governments from both sides of the line of control.’93 These Indian proposals, selectively use the Irish model, but basically support autonomy for the regions of Jammu and Kashmir under the supervision of India and Pakistan. The central aspects focusing on self-determination and total disarmament after implementation of the agreement are ignored. The Indian proposals are similar to the idea of a condominium with dominant Indian influence. Also, the LoC has been proposed as the dividing line and a soft border. This is against the genesis of the Kashmir dispute, which is not for greater autonomy or ‘self-government’, as proposed, but for the right of self-determination to be expressed by the Kashmiris. However, as Dr. Mazari has suggested, 94 it is the central aspects of the Irish model, which are relevant in case of the Kashmir dispute and could be used as guiding principles for a resolution of the conflict. For instance the underlying principle is recognition of the right of the people as of Northern Ireland to choose their political future through a referendum. Also, the principle of deweaponisation is linked to it, as following the implementation of the Agreement.