Kashmir Issue
Kashmir Issue
Kashmir Issue
com/enumerate-the-measures-adopted-by-pakistan-to-spotlight-on-the-plight-of-
kashmiri-people-in-the-indian-occupied-jammu-and-kashmir-after-5th-august-2019/
https://na.gov.pk/en/content.php?id=89
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/kashmir-the-roads-ahead/ (solutions)
Historical Context
To understand this conflict, it is essential to look back into the history of the area. In August of 1947,
India and Pakistan were on the cusp of independence from the British. The British, led by the then
Governor-General Louis Mountbatten, divided the British India empire into the states of India and
Pakistan. The British India Empire was made up of multiple princely states (states that were allegiant to
the British but headed by a monarch) along with states directly headed by the British. At the time of the
partition, princely states had the right to choose whether they were to cede to India or Pakistan. To
quote Mountbatten, “Typically, geographical circumstance and collective interests, et cetera will be the
components to be considered[1]. In general, the Muslim majority states went to Pakistan while the
Hindu majority states went to India, although India was a secular nation.
However, Kashmir was a peculiar case. While the majority of the population was Muslim, the ruler was a
Hindu, Maharaja Hari Singh. However, this was not the only such case. The state of Junagadh was also
faced with such a conflict. The ruler of Junagadh[2] was a Muslim, who wished to accede to Pakistan,
against the wishes of his people. Mountbatten recommended that Junagadh should go to India not only
because it was a largely populated state but also because it was completely surrounded by India.
However, the ruler ceded to Pakistan. India, enraged, annexed Junagadh on the pretext that the
Pakistani Prime minister Muhammed Ali Jinnah stated that Hindus and Muslims could not live in one
nation and because they feared riots[3].
However, when it came to the region of Kashmir, the situation unfolded differently. Although Kashmir
was a Muslim majority state headed by a Hindu ruler, Mountbatten recommended that Kashmir should
go to India.[4]This had to do with India being a secular state. But Hari Singh decided that Kashmir would
be independent, at least for a while, because he feared that the Kashmiri Muslims would not be happy
with India while the Hindus and Sikhs would not be happy in Pakistan[5]. During this period of
ambivalence in Kashmir, there were outbursts of riots in certain districts of Kashmir against the ruler.
This eventually led to Pakistani tribesmen and militia crossing into Kashmir, in an attempt to take over
the city of Srinagar, whilst looting and plundering the region[6]. Hari Singh made a plea to India to aid
him against this anarchy and in doing so ceded Kashmir to India. This led to the First Indo-Pakistani War,
also known as the First Kashmir War that was fought between the Indian soldiers and the Pakistani
tribesmen. In 1948, Pakistani armed forces entered the war. Towards the end of 1948, both sides
solidified their positions in Kashmir. A ceasefire agreement was made and a line of control (LOC) was
established[7]. India was left with roughly two-thirds of Kashmir, while Pakistan obtained control over a
third of the region of Kashmir. This marked the first of the many wars and conflicts between these two
nations over Kashmir.
The establishment of the LOC in 1948, however, was insufficient. The United Nations then played the
role of the mediator. On the 21st of April, 1948, the Security Council passed and adopted resolution
47[8]. A commission of five members (this commission was initially established by resolution 39) was to
go to the Indian subcontinent and aid India and Pakistan in restoring peace in Kashmir. Additionally, the
commission was supposed to help these countries prepare for a plebiscite to decide Kashmir’s
accession. A three-step process was also recommended to ease tensions:
India accepted this resolution. However, Pakistan rejected it. This led to no withdrawal of troops and no
referendum being held. Further International negotiations were attempted in the form of the Dixon plan
among others. However, these too failed as every time either India or Pakistan rejected the terms.
1.
Kashmir's Strategic Importance in National Security
2. Indus River: The Lifeline of Pakistan and India
3. Hydroelectric Potential and Natural Resources in Kashmir
4. Geopolitical Significance: A Bridge between South Asia and Central Asia
5. Kashmir and the Belt and Road Initiative
6. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and its Impact on Kashmir
7. Kashmir: A Critical Region Amidst Three Nuclear Nations.
Kashmir’s Importance
The primary reason for this conflict between the two nations is due to how valuable Kashmir is in terms
of national security, geography and resources[9].
The largely important Indus River flows through Kashmir. The Indus River is extremely crucial to
agriculture in Pakistan. It is especially important in the lower Indus valley region, where rainfall is
uncommon. Similarly, India depends on the Indus for irrigation. Hence, the Indus and its tributaries are
highly sought after. The nation that controls this region effectively can cut off the water supply to the
other. To manage these fears and ensure a fair distribution of the water from this river, the Indus Water
Treaty[10] came into existence on the 19th of September, 1960. Under this treaty, India has control over
the eastern tributaries of Beas, Ravi and Sutlej, while Pakistan has control over the western rivers of
Indus, Chenab and Jhelum. India has roughly 16% of the total water carried by the river while Pakistan
has the rest. However, while this treaty is in place, Pakistan still fears that in a potential conflict, India
could cut off the supply, since they control the region of Kashmir through which the Indus flows. But it is
important to note that in the previous wars, India did not choke off the water supply. Yet, from
Pakistan’s standpoint, the possibility remains, making Kashmir precious to them. Additionally, the
glaciers provide immense amounts of freshwater to the region[11].
The Kashmiri Rivers and water bodies also have the potential to generate hydroelectricity at great
magnitudes. The state of Jammu and Kashmir largely depends on hydroelectricity for its power
demands. At the moment, Kashmir only produces around 3000 megawatts of electricity. However, the
region has the potential to produce up to 16,000 megawatts of power. The Indian administration is
looking to tap into this, making Kashmir an important region. The region is also home to a plethora of
resources such as uranium, gold, oil and natural gas.
From a geopolitical standpoint, Kashmir is vital as well. Kashmir serves as a bridge between South Asia
and Central Asia. For India, it is the only direct route to Central Asia and through Central Asia to Europe.
It plays a key role in the Belt and Road initiative. More importantly, it is key for the China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor (CPEC)[12]. The CPEC is a large-scale bilateral undertaking involving the development
of infrastructure in Pakistan, the establishment of transportation networks between China and Pakistan
and the creation of numerous energy projects. Many of these projects run through the Pakistan
administered Kashmir. Pakistan aims at directly connecting itself with both Central Asia and China
through Kashmir.
Kashmir is a central piece between three nuclear nations: India, Pakistan and China. At the moment, of
the original territory of Kashmir, India has control over roughly 55% of the total area, Pakistan controls
30% of the land and China controls 15% of it.
According to India, Kashmir in its entirety belongs to India, and both Pakistan and China are falsely laying
claim on Indian territories. India views the instrument of accession that was signed by Maharaja Hari
Singh as legally binding, hence legally and fairly giving India Kashmir.
As mentioned, Kashmir is India’s only path to Central Asia. India does not have access to Central Asian
and European countries directly through the land without it.
It is also extremely important to India’s national security[13]. The Siachen Glacier is the only barrier
between Pakistan and China. In the face of a conflict, without Kashmir, China and Pakistan could
combine forces, gravely endangering India. With India’s straining relationships with both China and
Pakistan, it has become wary of this.
Additionally, in 1963, Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam valley and Gilgitto China. This region was originally a
part of Pakistan administered Kashmir[14]. Some claim that this was done in order to undermine India
and in order to allow Chinese military presence in Kashmir. While India does not accept this, it is
nonetheless threatened. With China and Pakistan strengthening ties, increasing Chinese and Pakistani
troops has made this region increasingly important.
There has also been a surge of Indian nationalism lately, especially with the nationalist Bhartiya Janata
Party coming to power in 2014 with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the helm[15]. Since the inception
of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the region and India have faced numerous terrorist attacks, both by
outside terrorist groups and by local insurgents. In 2001, insurgents from this region along with
terrorists from outside attacked the Indian Parliament, killing many. There have been many incidents
such as this. The result of this has been the deaths of thousands of civilians and Indian soldiers. This has
led to feelings of resentment amongst the Indian people. Since many of these terrorists have their
camps in Pakistan, this anger is directed towards Pakistan[16]. The Indian people have been longing for
these deaths to stop and for the government to decisively deal with these acts of terror. The Indian
people have also developed feelings of anger and resentment towards primarily Pakistan but also China
for illegally taking over their territory. They believe Kashmir in its entirety belongs to India and severe
action must be taken.
1.
Pakistan's Historical Perspective: Illegitimate Cession and Religious Identity
2. Strategic Importance of Kashmir for Pakistan's Resources and Water Security
3. Kashmir as a Vital Link between Pakistan and China
4. Geopolitical Concerns: Threat to Pakistani Security and Chinese Relations
5. People's Views: Sympathy towards Kashmiris and Conflict Fatigue
6. Pakistani Government's Position: Kashmir as an Essential Part of Pakistan's Territorial
Integrity
7. Call for UN Mediation in the Kashmir Conflict.
Historically, Pakistan believes that Kashmir was illegitimately ceded to India by a ruler who did not
represent the people. Additionally, since a majority of the Muslim majority states went to Pakistan, they
believe Kashmir should belong to them.
However, Kashmir is also important to Pakistan for strategic reasons[17]. As mentioned, Kashmir has a
plethora of resources. Moreover, Pakistan is largely dependent on the Kashmiri Rivers. If India has
complete control over Kashmir, it could potentially paralyze Pakistani agriculture and induce droughts.
Kashmir is the only direct link between Pakistan and China. China being a strong ally makes this
important, both for military reasons and for economic development. The China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor goes through Kashmir as well. Losing Kashmir would deny this direct link to Pakistan. This direct
link with China has been largely beneficial in terms of economic development.
Additionally, if India has complete control over Kashmir, India could move a large number of troops to
the edge of the border, posing a large threat to Pakistani security. Losing Kashmir would not only cut off
access to help from China but also have Indian troops present very close to important cities in Pakistan.
This could prove devastating in the time of conflict. Hence, Pakistan believes they will be at the mercy of
India if Kashmir is lost.
The general view of the people on this issue seems to be against India. Many are sympathetic towards
the Kashmiris and believe that the people’s lives can be bettered by Kashmir joining Pakistan. However,
there is a sizable population that is rather tired of this conflict and criticized the government for
investing a lot of its resources in the Kashmiri conflict.
The Pakistani administration has maintained the view that Pakistan cannot lose Kashmir. They maintain
that India has no legal or moral right over Kashmir and that Kashmir is rightly theirs. Subsequently, they
are calling for UN mediation in the region.
The Kashmiri perspective is one that has been largely ignored. This conflict is one that has stemmed due
to the fact that there are those that believe Maharaja Hari Singh ceding Kashmir to India was unlawful as
he did not represent the majority. Before the partition, Kashmir had approximately 4 million people. Of
these, around 70% were Muslims, 25% were Hindus, and the remaining 5% were Buddhists and
Sikhs[18].
Even before the time of the partition, there was a rising movement against the ruler. The Muslim
Conference led by Sheik Abdullah denounced the Maharaja and claimed that he was a danger to Islam.
However, later on, the Conference lost its steam and lost a majority of its followers, causing Abdullah to
embrace secularism. Abdullah remained a prominent leader. Later on, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the future
prime minister of Pakistan, and Abdullah became fierce adversaries. This relationship with Jinnah led
him to become an ally of the Indian leaders.
After the partition of India and Pakistan, Kashmir signed a standstill agreement with both the nations
while they decided their fate. However, with the Pakistani tribesmen attacking India, Abdullah, as a
representative to the Maharaja, went to India and sought its help, leading to Kashmir being ceded to
India.
Before the invasion, the situation in Kashmir was ambivalent. There were many who willed for Kashmir’s
independence. However, there were also those who willed to go to either India or Pakistan. Later on, in
1953, Abdullah was arrested for trying to create an independent Kashmir and having clandestine
meetings with foreign powers. In 1954, the Kashmiri Constituent Assembly ratified Kashmir’s accession
to India.
But peace did not ensue.[19] A divide arose amongst the people of Kashmir. There are also reports that
indicate that many of the Kashmiri officials had become corrupt. In 1965, Pakistan invaded Kashmir,
following a military coup that overthrew the democratic government. The result of this was the rise of
anti-Pakistan feelings in Kashmir. By this time, Kashmiri leaders seemed to have changed their tune, with
many contents with their accession to India.
Beginning in 1980, there was a rapid Islamization of Kashmir. Names of cities were changed and
propaganda was spread. Those of other religions were denounced as ‘spies’ or ‘outsiders.’ There is
evidence suggesting nations like Saudi Arabia influenced and aided this spread. This was the beginning
of the violence in the region.
The first large-scale act of violence was the exodus of the Kashmiri Hindus[20]. Thousands of Kashmiri
Hindus were killed and forced to flee by Muslim mobs and Hindu temples were destroyed. Before this
exodus, there were about 600,000 Hindus living in the region. By the end of it, there were only around
2000 to 3000 remaining. There was a spread of radical Islam, where violence was encouraged against
those of other religions. Children were recruited by insurgency groups and trained in violence. People
were encouraged to sell their belongings in order to finance the purchases of weapons. Thus, began the
coming decades of violence and propaganda led by insurgency groups.
Since then, the violence and bloodshed in this region have only continued. Insurgent groups, terrorist
organizations, Pakistani forces and Indian forces have constantly found themselves in conflict, leading to
the deaths of thousands. As a result, there has been a significant increase in the number of military
personnel and equipment in the region. There has also been a steady rise in domestic terrorism.[21]
On the other hand, this combination of military personnel, insurgents and terrorists have resulted in
human rights violations. Allegations have included the suppression of freedom of speech mass
homicides, kidnappings, torture and sexual violence amongst others. The accused have included
insurgent and terrorist groups, the Pakistani military, and the Indian military. More recently, the Indian
government had completely cut off all means of communications and detained political leaders as a
preemptive move to maintain law and order after the amendment of article 370 (explained in more
detail in the following section). While the Indian government claims to have done it for the preservation
of peace, many have criticized this as a violation of human rights. In fact, internet services were cut for
213 days. International and domestic actors including organizations like Amnesty International have
called for an end of human rights abuses in Kashmir[22].
At the moment, it is safe to say, the Kashmiri people are tired of the decades of conflict and
violence[23]. On one hand, there are constant attacks by insurgent groups and terrorist organizations.
On the other, there is an increased presence of military troops. There are reports of human rights
violations by these troops. The Kashmiri people want an end to this constant violence by all the groups
present. Increasingly, more Kashmiris are in support of the referendum that was supposed to have taken
place during the partition. Additionally, there is an increasing number of people in support of an
independent Kashmir.
Recent events :
Recent Events
On the 14th of February, 2019, a convoy of vehicles carrying India’s Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
was attacked by a suicide bomber in Pulwama, killing 40 CRPF troops. Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan
based terrorist group. India blamed Pakistan to be responsible for the attack. However, Pakistan denied
any involvement with the attack[24].
Immediately, tensions flared between the two countries. In response to the attack, Indian fighter jets
crossed the border and bombed the alleged Jaish-E-Mohammed bases in the Pakistani town of Balakot.
Pakistan retaliated by conducting an airstrike on India, but there were no casualties. During a dogfight,
an Indian fighter plane was shot down and the pilot who landed in Pakistan was captured. The world
was at its edge, and the two nations were at the brink of war. However, after negotiations, the tensions
were eased and the pilot was returned to India.
In October of 2019, the Indian government led by Narendra Modi revoked Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution[25]. Article 370 was intended to be a temporary provision that gave the state of Jammu
and Kashmir a special status. According to this, Jammu and Kashmir were allowed a certain degree of
autonomy[26]. Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to have its own constitution, the ability to create its
own laws and its own flag. However, the government of India would have control over matters such as
defense and foreign affairs. Due to this, Indians from other states were not allowed to buy land or settle
in this state. Additionally, if a woman marries someone from an outside state, she loses her property
rights.
The Modi government argued that this was intended to be a temporary provision and that it has been
seven decades since. They also claimed that the article is discriminatory in nature and that it hindered
development. Consequently, after returning for a second term, Modi amended this article. The state of
Jammu and Kashmir has now lost its special rights. The region is now broken up into the ‘union
territories’ or federally administered areas of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.
However, this move was largely controversial. Anticipating intense reactions to this and citing the
perseveration of law and order, the Indian government mobilized large numbers of military personnel
into the region. Communication systems such as the internet were cut off. The chief minister of the state
and other prominent political leaders were detained preemptively. News agencies were curfewed and
the entire region was under lockdown. Human rights groups have criticized these moves as human rights
violations. Pakistan strongly condemned this decision and said that it will exercise all possible options to
counter the illegal steps.” Pakistan withdrew its ambassador to India and suspended trade.
Moreover, this move served to strain the already strained relation with Kashmir. Many Kashmiris were
enraged by the restrictions placed on them, leading to more anti-India sentiments. To add to this, many
Kashmiris believe that this is the Hindu nationalist government’s attempt to make Kashmir a Hindu state.
But, the international response to this move was largely favorable to India. Many nations expressed
their support and remarked that this was a situation of India dealing with its internal matters.
Both India and Pakistan strongly believe that Kashmir rightfully belongs to them. It is hard to discredit
either side’s arguments. Additionally, Kashmir is incredibly valuable to both nations. It is hard to
imagine, that either country would willingly surrender Kashmir. It is certain that thousands of Kashmiris
and soldiers have faced and continue to face atrocities. There are also reports of human rights violations
in the region. In both Pakistan and India there is increasing sympathy for the Kashmiris. However, at the
current moment, there is little hope for change in this region.
Of late, India has gained a lot of international support as well. Rapidly growing as an economy and as a
military power, India has become a desirable ally and trade partner for many. We can look to the
amendment of Article 370 as an example of this. Most nations were in support of India’s decision. We
can speculate that going forward this international support will only continue. India faces little
international pressure to renegotiate the terms of Kashmir with Pakistan. Pakistan on the other hand
was under scrutiny. Multiple nations have called for Pakistan to withdraw its support of terrorist
activities and funding terrorist organizations. Pakistan certainly faces the brunt of international scrutiny
in this matter.
India has little reason to withdraw from this conflict. Kashmir is very valuable to India. Future plans of
channeling hydroelectricity and the abundance of natural resources make it so. Additionally, with
nationalist and anti -Pakistan sentiments rising in India, a majority of the people would not want to lose
Kashmir. The Modi nationalist government’s persona of being hard negotiators and tough and decisive
on foreign matters was a significant factor in them winning the elections. In fact, Modi’s overwhelming
victory for his second term is credited by many to his swift and decisive retaliation on the terrorist
camps in Pakistan. To add to this, India has not faced severe economic or political repercussions due to
the Kashmiri conflict. Hence, in the coming future, given the current events, it is extremely unlikely that
India will change its stance on Kashmir. On the contrary, India seems to be moving towards completely
integrating Kashmir into itself.
Similarly, Pakistan is unlikely to change its stance. Kashmir is very valuable to Pakistan. Its beneficial
relationship with China depends on it. Kashmir is the key to important rivers that fuel Pakistani
agriculture. Although Pakistan has been under international scrutiny, there has not been significant
pressure. While Pakistan may be weaker in terms of military strength, it too is a nuclear power. In the
case of a war, mutually assured destruction is a guarantee. Additionally, China has had straining
relations with India as well and is an ally. Hence, the chances of an Indian invasion are low. Although the
Pakistani economy is declining, losing Kashmir would only serve to damage the economy.
It is unlikely that we will see a referendum either[27]. It would be reasonable to believe that a fair
referendum would be hard to achieve. Additionally, the Kashmiri sentiments seemed to have changed,
during the partition, a sizable portion of Kashmiri were pro- India. However, given the current events
and the surge of anti-India sentiments amongst the Kashmiris, it is hard to say which side the Kashmiris
are leaning towards. India has no reason to change its position on Kashmir. Hence, since their victory is
not guaranteed through a referendum, they would have little reason to call for a referendum. India has
wanted no international involvement in this matter.
However, the plight of the Kashmiris is heard more than ever now. In both countries, there is a rising
demographic that wants to end the loss of lives and sorrow that Kashmir has become synonymous with.
As the world is increasing the measures taken against terrorism, we can hope that Kashmir too can one
day be free of it. The global stage is keeping a close watch on Kashmir and many organizations are going
in to better the situation. Some are calling to make the line of control the official border. While this is
certainly more likely than India or Pakistan entirely giving up Kashmir, the odds still remain low. For
reasons described, it is hard to see this happen especially, in the absence of a mutually hurting
stalemate. Both nations are likely to drag out this issue until they no longer can. Either way, while the
future looks bleak, the hope that there will be an improvement still remains.
This scenario has led to a great deal of diplomatic activity, much of it by American officials, and very
recently (September, 1994) by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. There have been three
strands to to this diplomacy. First, the Kashmiri problem has been addressed directly by several
American officials. In a series of speeches and informal addresses, the traditional American position on
Kashmir was subtly altered, so that the US now openly declares all of Kashmir to be disputed territory (in
the past the US had never publicly challenged the legitimacy of the accession of Kashmir to India, only
its wisdom). Second, both India and Pakistan were urged to engage in additional “confidence building
measures”—CBMs—that might prevent, or slow down the escalation process described above; third,
both incentives and sanctions have been wielded, in an attempt to get the two countries to talk directly
about their nuclear weapons programs.3
It can be said that after four years none of these efforts have shown significant results. The Kashmir
crisis is no closer to resolution than it was in 1990; there have been a few new CBMs introduced into
South Asia, but there is some indication that the old ones have fallen into disuse or distrust; the nuclear
dialogue that was to have begun a number of years ago has yet to commence, and public statements by
officials and former officials on both sides seem to indicate a slow escalation of the nuclear arms race in
South Asia, not any serious official dialogue on containing or managing it.
This chapter takes a somewhat different view than that of American officials and many strategists and
journalists who see Kashmir as a “flashpoint” that could lead to conventional war and even a nuclear
exchange.4 Without belittling the importance of the Kashmir problem, it argues, first, that this crisis is far
more complex than has been admitted by most American officials, and, therefore, that resolving the
crisis—and addressing the supplementary problems of nuclear proliferation and regional distrust require
a more sophisticated strategy than has hitherto been apparent. This chapter offers a strategic overview
of the Kashmir crisis. It differs from other recent studies in that its primary focus is on a strategy for
achieving a solution, not on the merit of individual solutions. 5
Anti-India sentiment in the state has ebbed and flowed since 1989, but the region
witnessed a fresh wave of violence after the death of 22-year-old militant leader Burhan
Wani in July 2016. He died in a battle with security forces, sparking massive protests
across the valley.
Wani - whose social media videos were popular among young people - is largely
credited with reviving and legitimising the image of militancy in the region.
The teenager blinded by pellets in Kashmir
'Modi's Kashmir move will fuel resentment'
WATCH: The boy drawing Kashmir's conflict
Thousands attended Wani's funeral, which was held in his hometown of Tral, about
40km (25 miles) south of the city of Srinagar. Following the funeral, people clashed with
troops and it set off a deadly cycle of violence that lasted for days.
More than 30 civilians died, and others were injured in the clashes. Since then, violence
has been on the rise in the state.
More than 500 people were killed in 2018 - including civilians, security forces and
militants - the highest toll in a decade.
Weren't there high hopes for peace in the new century?
India and Pakistan did indeed agree a ceasefire in 2003 after years of bloodshed along
the de facto border (also known as the Line of Control).
Pakistan later promised to stop funding insurgents in the territory, while India offered
them an amnesty if they renounced militancy.
In 2014, India's current Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power promising a tough
line on Pakistan, but also showed interest in holding peace talks.
Nawaz Sharif, then prime minister of Pakistan, attended Mr Modi's swearing-in
ceremony in Delhi.
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Pakistan and India's prime ministers promised peace in 2014
But a year later, India blamed Pakistan-based groups for an attack on its airbase in
Pathankot in the northern state of Punjab. Mr Modi also cancelled a scheduled visit to the
Pakistani capital, Islamabad, for a regional summit in 2017. Since then, there hasn't been
any progress in talks between the neighbours.
Are we back to square one?
The bloody summer of street protests in Indian-administered Kashmir in 2016 had
already dimmed hopes for a lasting peace in the region.
Then, in June 2018, the state government there was upended when Mr Modi's BJP
pulled out of a coalition government run by Ms Mufti's People's Democratic Party.
Jammu and Kashmir was since under direct rule from Delhi, which fuelled further anger.
The deaths of more than 40 Indian soldiers in a suicide attack on 14 February, 2019
have ended any hope of a thaw in the immediate future. India blamed Pakistan-based
militant groups for the violence - the deadliest targeting Indian soldiers in Kashmir since
the insurgency began three decades ago.
Following the bombing, India said it would take "all possible diplomatic steps" to isolate
Pakistan from the international community.
On 26 February, it launched air strikes in Pakistani territory which it said targeted
militant bases.
Pakistan shows off disputed air strike site
Pakistan's dilemma over anti-India militants
Pakistan denied the raids had caused major damage or casualties but promised to
respond, fuelling fears of confrontation. A day later it said it had shot down two Indian
Air Force jets in its airspace, and captured a fighter pilot - who was later returned
unharmed to India.
Media caption,
Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was handed over to Indian officials near a
border crossing with Pakistan
Kashmir remains one of the most militarised zones in the world.
So what happens next?
India's parliament has now passed a bill splitting Indian-administered Kashmir into two
territories governed directly by Delhi: Jammu and Kashmir, and remote, mountainous
Ladakh.
China, which shares a disputed border with India in Ladakh, has objected to the
reorganisation and accused Delhi of undermining its territorial sovereignty.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan has vowed to challenge India's actions at the UN
security council, and take the matter to the International Criminal Court.
In an ominous warning, he said: "If the world does not act today... (if) the developed
world does not uphold its own laws, then things will go to a place that we will not be
responsible for."
But Delhi insists that there is no "external implication" to its decision to reorganise the
state as it has not changed the Line of Control or boundaries of the region.
US President Donald Trump has offered to mediate in the crisis - an overture that Delhi
has rejected.
The Indian army landed in Srinagar soon after, and with the help of
the National Conference, headed by Sheikh Abdullah (who had been
sworn in as Prime Minister of Kashmir by India), regained the military
initiative against the raiders. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of
India, declared that his government pledged to hold a referendum in
Kashmir once the combat was over to allow the people of Jammu and
Kashmir to decide whether they wanted to join India or Pakistan. As
the fighting between the two sides raged into 1948, the United
Nations, at the request of India, which was hoping for an international
condemnation of Pakistan’s incursion into Kashmir, entered the
picture to play a mediating role between the two countries. In August
1948, it adopted a resolution calling on both India and Pakistan to
withdraw their troops from the region and to reach a ceasefire
agreement in Kashmir, with the ultimate aim of holding a plebiscite in
the region. The ceasefire finally came into effect on January 1, 1949,
but a plebiscite was not held. While Pakistan accuses India of
betraying the people of Kashmir by not holding the plebiscite, India
counters by accusing Pakistan of not withdrawing its troops from the
region, which it argues was a prerequisite of the UN resolution for the
plebiscite to be held.
The ceasefire line (renamed the line of control in 1972) gave India
sixty-three percent of the territory of the original princely state of
Jammu and Kashmir, including the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and most
of Jammu (now the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir). Pakistan
gained a part of Jammu (now Azad Kashmir in Pakistan) and the
remote areas of Gilgit and Baltistan (now the Northern Areas of
Pakistan). The contours of the Kashmir dispute between India and
Pakistan had been laid out.
1. Wars over Kashmir since 1949: 1965, 1971, and 1999
2. India's Attempt to Make LOC the Permanent Border
3. Pakistan's Rejection and Claim of the Entire Princely State
4. The Significance of Kashmir for Pakistan's Ideological Raison-d'etre
5. Kashmir as Evidence of India's Secular Credentials
6. Territorial Anxieties Reflected in Official Maps of India and Pakistan
India and Pakistan have fought several wars over Kashmir since 1949
—in 1965, 1971 (Kashmir was only an ancillary battlefield in this
particular war), and most recently in 1999. These wars have brought
about remarkably little change in the placement of the line of control
(LOC). While India officially claims the entire territory of the erstwhile
princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, it has made several attempts to
make the LOC into a permanent border. Pakistan, on the other hand,
not only rejects this idea, claiming the entire erstwhile princely state on
the basis of its Muslim-majority population, but also accuses India of
reneging on its promise of plebiscite. The positions of the two
countries and the rhetoric accompanying them have remained
unchanged over the decades.
Offical map of Pakistan.
Image source: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Pakistani% 20official
%20map/sic1223/map_pakistanUse.jpg.
The official maps of India and Pakistan express the territorial anxieties
of the two countries over the region. The Pakistani official map is
without a northeastern border, literally unbounded. Instead, the words
‘frontier undecided’ curve around the map’s northeastern edge, even
as the words ‘disputed territory’ stamped across Jammu and Kashmir
challenge India’s claims to the region and proclaim the business of
partition as unfinished. In the case of India, official maps simply claim
the entire region of the erstwhile princely state as an integral part of
India, thus belying Pakistan’s claim of the region as disputed territory.
1. Emergence of Insurgency in Kashmir (1989)
2. Background of Political Repression and Loss of Democratic Rights
3. Sheikh Abdullah and the Growing Unpopularity in Jammu Region
4. 1987 Elections and the Rise of Disillusionment with Indian State
5. Formation of Separatist Organizations - JKLF and Hizbul Mujahideen
6. Complexities of the Kashmiri Insurgency - Azaadi and Freedom
7. Hijacking of the Insurgency by Radical Islamic Groups
8. Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad's Agenda in Kashmir
9. Challenges for the New Government in Kashmir (2009)
10. The Search for Peace and Resolution in Kashmir
In the early years of the insurgency against the Indian state, there was
a groundswell of popular support for the movement, in particular by
young men from the Kashmir Valley, who joined the movement in
huge numbers. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF),
headed by Yasin Malik, became the main separatist organization
during this time, carrying out a number of political assassinations and
organizing massive demonstrations demanding independence
(azaadi) for Kashmir. The JKLF was soon joined by the Hizbul
Mujahideen (party of freedom fighters), a Pakistani-supported guerilla
organization led by Syed Salahuddin. India’s response to these
insurgent organizations and their supporters was brutal as security
forces cracked down on the Valley, which only added more fuel to the
insurgency.