History: Conflict between India and Pakistan 2-b
The India-Pakistan War of 1965
The 1965 war between India and Pakistan was the second conflict between
the two countries over the status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The clash
did not resolve this dispute, but it did engage the United States and the
Soviet Union in ways that would have important implications for subsequent
superpower involvement in the region.
The dispute over this region originated in the process of decolonization
in South Asia. When the British colony of India gained its independence in
1947, it was partitioned into two separate entities: the secular nation of
India and the predominantly Muslim nation of Pakistan. Pakistan was composed of
two noncontiguous regions, East Pakistan and West Pakistan, separated by Indian
territory. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had a predominantly Muslim
population but a Hindu leader, shared borders with both India and West
Pakistan. The argument over which nation would incorporate the state led to the
first India-Pakistan War in 1947–48 and ended with UN mediation. Jammu and
Kashmir, also known as “Indian Kashmir” or just “Kashmir,” joined the Republic
of India, but the Pakistani Government continued to believe that the majority
Muslim state rightfully belonged to Pakistan.
Conflict resumed again in early 1965, when Pakistani and Indian forces
clashed over disputed territory along the border between the two nations.
Hostilities intensified that August when the Pakistani Army attempted to take
Kashmir by force. The attempt to seize the state was unsuccessful, and the
second India-Pakistan War reached a stalemate. This time, the international
politics of the Cold War affected the nature of the conflict.
The United States had a history of ambivalent relations with India.
During the 1950s, U.S. officials regarded Indian leadership with some caution
due to India’s involvement in the nonaligned movement, particularly its
prominent role at the Bandung
Conference of 1955. The United States hoped to maintain a regional
balance of power, which meant not allowing India to influence the political
development of other states. However, a 1962 border conflict between India and
China ended with a decisive Chinese victory, which motivated the United States
and the United Kingdom to provide military supplies to the Indian Army. After
the clash with China, India also turned to the Soviet Union for assistance,
which placed some strains on U.S.-Indian relations. However, the United States
also provided India with considerable development assistance throughout the
1960s and 1970s.
U.S.-Pakistani relations had been more consistently positive. The U.S.
Government looked to Pakistan as an example of a moderate Muslim state and
appreciated Pakistani assistance in holding the line against communist
expansion by joining the Southeast
Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954 and the Baghdad Pact (later
renamed the Central Treaty Organization, or CENTO) in 1955. Pakistan’s interest
in these pacts stemmed from its desire to develop its military and defensive
capabilities, which were substantially weaker than those of India. Both the
United States and the United Kingdom supplied arms to Pakistan in these years.
After Pakistani troops invaded Kashmir, India moved quickly to
internationalize the regional dispute. It asked the United Nations to reprise
its role in the First India-Pakistan War and end the current conflict. The
Security Council passed Resolution 211 on September 20 calling for an end to
the fighting and negotiations on the settlement of the Kashmir problem, and the
United States and the United Kingdom supported the UN decision by cutting off
arms supplies to both belligerents. This ban affected both belligerents, but
Pakistan felt the effects more keenly since it had a much weaker military in
comparison to India. The UN resolution and the halting of arms sales had an
immediate impact. India accepted the ceasefire on September 21 and Pakistan on
September 22.
The ceasefire alone did not resolve the status of Kashmir, and both
sides accepted the Soviet Union as a third-party mediator. Negotiations in
Tashkent concluded in January 1966, with both sides giving up territorial claims,
withdrawing their armies from the disputed territory. Nevertheless, although
the Tashkent agreement achieved its short-term aims, conflict in South Asia
would reignite a few years later.
Why Kashmir is still ensnared in conflict after 70 years
Under the terms by which Britain brought an end to the Raj, it was up to princely rulers to decide whether to accede to India or Pakistan. Kashmir (or Jammu and Kashmir, to give its full title) was one of the few princely states adjoining both new dominions where there was a real decision to be made.
The state is in the far north of India, stretching into the foothills of the Himalayas. In 1947, its maharajah was a Hindu but more than three-quarters of his subjects were Muslims. He delayed signing up to either India or Pakistan, hoping that he might be able to achieve independence. But in October 1947, the princely state was invaded by fighters from the tribal areas in north-west Pakistan. They wanted to overthrow the maharajah and claim Kashmir for Pakistan, and were motivated by both jihad and the prospect of loot. They received support, including transport and weapons, from sections of Pakistan’s armed forces.
The maharajah appealed for Indian support in repulsing the tribesmen and fled from Srinagar to his heartland of Jammu. He also signed the instrument of accession by which his state became part of India. The official Indian account says this document was signed the day before troops landed in Kashmir; much of the evidence suggests it was signed a few hours after the airlift started.
The first Indian troops flew into the Kashmir Valley shortly after dawn on October 27 1947. The airfield at Srinagar, the Kashmiri capital, could only take small planes. At most, 300 Indian troops a day could land there, transported in planes requisitioned from commercial airlines. India’s military deployment had the backing of the maharajah’s principal opponent, a charismatic, left-leaning Kashmiri nationalist named Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, who became Kashmir’s dominant political figure.
Indian troops succeeded in repulsing the invaders from the Kashmir Valley, but not from all of the princely state, and the conflict escalated into the first war between India and Pakistan. The United Nations helped to delineate a ceasefire line, in effect a partition of Kashmir, and sent military observers. They are still there, and the plebiscite mandated in UN resolutions to give Kashmiris a choice between India and Pakistan has never been held.
Along with fighting occasional wars, Pakistani leaders have admitted arming and training groups to fight against Indian rule in Kashmir. The insurgency that erupted in 1989 was triggered by local factors, but Pakistan’s backing made it more formidable. Although India largely defeated the armed separatists by the late 1990s, a low-level insurgency continues to this day. A recent report based on Indian official data suggested that 41,000 lives have been lost; Kashmiri separatists often cite a higher figure.
Indian view
Maharaja Hari Singh
signed the Instrument
of Accession in October 1947 under which he acceded the State
of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union of India.
India has officially stated that it believes that Kashmir to be an
integral part of India, though the then Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, stated after the 2010 Kashmir Unrest
that his government was willing to grant autonomy to the region within the
purview of Indian constitution if there was consensus among political parties
on this issue.[266][267] The Indian viewpoint is
succinctly summarised by Ministry
of External affairs, Government of India[268][269] —
- 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 1947[270][271] and executed on 27 October 1947[271] 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 law and as such was total and irrevocable.[269]
- The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India. India claims that the constituent assembly was a representative one, and that its views were those of the Kashmiri people at the time.[note 5][272]
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue without the need for a plebiscite in the framework of UN Charter.[273][274]
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan failed to withdraw its forces from Kashmir, which was the first step in implementing the resolution.[275] India is also of the view that Resolution 47 is obsolete, since the geography and demographics of the region have permanently altered since it adoption.[276] The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter and as such is non-binding with no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[277][278]
- 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.[263]
- The state of Jammu and Kashmir was provided with significant autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India.[279]
- 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.[280]
Additional Indian viewpoints regarding the broader debate over the
Kashmir conflict include –
- In a diverse country like India, disaffection and discontent are not uncommon. Indian democracy has the necessary resilience to accommodate genuine grievances within the framework of India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The Government of India has expressed its willingness to accommodate the legitimate political demands of the people of the state of Kashmir.[268]
- Insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is deliberately fuelled by Pakistan to create instability in the region.[281] 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.[282][283][284][285]
- Pakistan is trying to raise anti-India sentiment among the people of Kashmir by spreading false propaganda against India.[286] 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.[287]
- India has asked the United Nations not to leave unchallenged or unaddressed the claims of moral, political, and diplomatic support for terrorism, which were clearly in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. This is a Chapter VII resolution that makes it mandatory for member states to not provide active or passive support to terrorist organisations.[288][289] 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.[290]
- India points out reports by human rights organisations condemning Pakistan for the lack of civic liberties in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[286][291] According to India, most regions of Pakistani Kashmir, especially Northern Areas, continue to suffer from lack of political recognition, economic development, and basic fundamental rights.[292]
- 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.[293]
According to a poll in an Indian newspaper Indians were keener to keep
control of Kashmir than Pakistanis. 67% of urban Indians want New Delhi to be
in full control of Kashmir.[294]
Michigan State
University scholar Baljit Singh, interviewing Indian foreign policy
experts in 1965, found that 77 percent of them favoured discussions with
Pakistan on all outstanding problems including the Kashmir dispute. However,
only 17 percent were supportive of holding a plebiscite in Kashmir. The
remaining 60 percent were pessimistic of a solution due to a distrust of
Pakistan or a perception of threats to India's internal institutions. They
contended that India's secularism was far from stable and the possibility of
Kashmir separating from India or joining Pakistan would endanger Hindu–Muslim
relations in India.[295]
In 2008, the death toll from the last 20 years was estimated by Indian
authorities to be over 47,000.[296]
In 2017 India's Union Home Minister, Rajnath Singh, demanded that Pakistan
desist from demanding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, saying: 'If at all a
referendum is required, it is needed in Pakistan, where people should be asked
whether they want to continue in Pakistan or are demanding the country's merger
with India'.[297]
Pakistani view
Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is the "jugular
vein of Pakistan"[298] and a currently disputed
territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir.[299][300] 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.[301]
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, which was designed to maintain the status quo in Kashmir
(although India was not signatory to the Agreement, which was signed between
Pakistan and the Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir).[302][303]
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.[304][305] Similar allegations were also
made by some human rights organisations.[306]
In short, Pakistan holds that –
- The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that Kashmir either wants to be with Pakistan or independent.[307]
- According to the two-nation theory, one of the principles 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.[308]
- The reason for India's disregard of the resolutions of the UN Security Council was given by India's Defense Minister, Kirshnan Menon, who said: "Kashmir would vote to join Pakistan and no Indian Government responsible for agreeing to plebiscite would survive.''[309]
- 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.[310]
- 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. These encounters are commonplace in Indian-administered Kashmir. The encounters go largely uninvestigated by the authorities, and the perpetrators are spared criminal prosecution.[311][312]
- Pakistan disputes claims by India with reference to the Simla Agreement that UN resolutions on Kashmir have lost their relevance. It argues that legally and politically, UN Resolutions cannot be superseded without the UN Security Council adopting a resolution to that effect. It also maintains the Simla Agreement emphasised exploring a peaceful bilateral outcome, without excluding the role of UN and other negotiations. This is based on its interpretation of Article 1(i) stating "the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries".[313]
Human rights organisations have strongly condemned Indian troops for
widespread rape and murder of innocent civilians while accusing these civilians
of being militants.[314][315][316]
- 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.[317]
A poll by an Indian newspaper shows 48% of Pakistanis want Islamabad
"to take full control" of Kashmir. 47% of Pakistanis support Kashmiri
independence.[294]
Former Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf on 16 October 2014 said
that Pakistan needs to incite those fighting in Kashmir,[318][319] "We have source (in
Kashmir) besides the (Pakistan) army…People in Kashmir are fighting against
(India). We just need to incite them," Musharraf told a TV channel.[318][319]
In 2015 Pakistan's outgoing National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz said that Pakistan wished to
have third party mediation on Kashmir, but it was unlikely to happen unless by
international pressure.[320] "Under Shimla Accord it
was decided that India and Pakistan would resolve their disputes
bilaterally," Aziz said. "Such bilateral talks have not yielded any
results for the last 40 years. So then what is the solution?"[320]
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.[citation
needed]
- 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.[321]
- 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.[322]
Kashmiri views
Scholar Andrew Whitehead states that Kashmiris view Kashmir as having
been ruled by their own in 1586. Since then, they believe, it has been ruled in
succession by the Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs, Dogras and, lately, the Indian government.
Whitehead states that this is only partly true: the Mughals lavished much
affection and resources on Kashmir, the Dogras made Srinagar their capital next
only to their native Jammu city, and through much of the post-independence
India, Kashmiri Muslims headed the state government. Yet Kashmiris bear an
'acute sense of grievance' that they were not in control of their own fate for
centurues.[323]
- A. G. Noorani, a constitutional expert, says the people of Kashmir are 'very much' a party to the dispute.[324]
- According to an opinion poll conducted by Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in 2007, 87% of people in mainly Muslim Srinagar want independence, whereas 95% of the people in the mainly Hindu Jammu city think the state should be part of India.[325] The Kashmir Valley is the only region of the former princely state where the majority of the population is unhappy with its current status. The Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh are content under Indian administration. Muslims of Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas are content under Pakistani administration. Kashmir Valley's Muslims want to change their national status to independence.[326]
- Scholar A.G. Noorani testifies that Kashmiris want a plebiscite to achieve freedom.[327] Zutshi states the people of Poonch and Gilgit may have had a chance to determine their future but the Kashmiri was lost in the process.[328]
- Since the 1947 accession of Kashmir to India was provisional and conditional on the wishes of the people,[329] the Kashmiris' right to determine their future was recognised.[330] Noorani notes that state elections do not satisfy this requirement.[331]
- Kashmiris assert that except for 1977 and 1983 elections, no state election has been fair.[201] According to scholar Sumantra Bose, India was determined to stop fair elections since that would have meant that elections would be won by those unfriendly to India.[194]
- The Kashmiri people have still not been able to exercise the right to self-determination and this was the conclusion of the International Commission of Jurists in 1994.[332]
- Ayesha Parvez writes in The Hindu that high voter turnout in Kashmir cannot be interpreted as a sign of acceptance of Indian rule. Voters vote due to varying factors such as development, effective local governance and economy.[333]
- The Hurriyat parties do not want to participate in elections under the framework of the Indian Constitution. Elections held by India are seen as a diversion from the main issue of self-determination.[334]
- Kashmiri opponents to Indian rule maintain that India has stationed 600,000 Indian troops in what is the highest ratio of troops to civilian density in the world.[334]
- Kashmiri scholars say that India's military occupation inflicts violence and humiliation on Kashmiris. Indian forces are responsible for human rights abuses and terror against the local population and have killed tens of thousands of civilians. India's state forces have used rape as a cultural weapon of war against Kashmiris and rape has extraordinarily high incidence in Kashmir as compared to other conflict zones of the world.[335] Militants are also guilty of crimes but their crimes cannot be compared with the scale of abuses by Indian forces for which justice is yet to be delivered.[33]
- Kashmiri scholars say that India's reneging on promise of plebiscite, violations of constitutional provisions of Kashmir's autonomy and subversion of the democratic process led to the rebellion of 1989–1990.[336]
- According to scholar Mridu Rai, the majority of Kashmiri Muslims believe they are scarcely better off under Indian rule than the 101 years of Dogra rule.[337]
- According to lawyer and human rights activist K. Balagopal, Kashmiris have a distinct sense of identity and this identity is certainly not irreligious, as Islam is very much a part of the identity that Kashmiris feel strongly for. He opined that if only non-religious identities deserve support, then no national self-determination movement can be supported, because there is no national identity – at least in the Third World – devoid of the religious dimension. Balagopal says that if India and Pakistan cannot guarantee existence and peaceful development of independent Kashmir then Kashmiris may well choose Pakistan because of religious affinity and social and economic links. But if both can guarantee existence and peaceful development then most Kashmiris would prefer independent Kashmir.[338][339]
With affection,
Ruben
, step back
When General Pervez Musharraf was in power in Pakistan from 2001 to 2008, progress was made towards a deal over Kashmir. The Pakistani leader greatly reduced support for insurgent groups and proposed that the ceasefire line (or line of control) should become a permeable border, along with steps towards greater autonomy and the withdrawal of troops. India was receptive, but the moment was lost when Musharraf resigned from office in 2008.While the Kashmir conflict is often seen as a dispute between India and Pakistan, there is another dimension to it: while Hindu-majority Jammu is more comfortable with Indian rule, the Indian authorities and the people of the Kashmir Valley are still at a stand-off. Although there’s an elected state government, separatists don’t contest the elections, while India’s repeated interventions mean that many Kashmiris feel they have little say in how they are governed.
The large military presence in the Kashmir Valley, along with alleged human rights abuses, has stirred disaffection. In 2010, thousands of young Kashmiris took to the streets to protest against Indian rule. They threw stones while the security forces responded with pellet guns and bullets. About 120 Kashmiris were killed over that summer, which contributed to the radicalising of a new generation. Last year, protests prompted by the killing of a young and popular armed separatist led to another upsurge of violence.
In recent months, some prominent Indian public figures have warned of the scale of the disaffection. Palaniappan Chidambaram, a former home minister, went so far as to say: “The alienation of the people of the Kashmir Valley is almost complete. We are on the brink of losing Kashmir.” Wajahat Habibullah, once a senior official in Kashmir, lamented that “my life’s mission to win over the people of Kashmir for India is lost, irretrievably”. He described young Kashmiris as “educated, talented and consumed with hatred of the Indian state”.
The Indian government promises attention to Kashmiri concerns, but there’s no sign of genuine political initiative. Delhi seems to have decided it can simply contain the insurgency and ride out any political turbulence. The Kashmir issue does not sway many votes in Indian elections, and the level of international concern is low – meaning there’s no great pressure on India to resolve a problem which has festered ever since independence seven decades ago.
Why does India need Kashmir?
5 Answers
Alok
Goel, lives in India
Answered
Apr 12, 2017 · Author has 215 answers and 189.4k answer views
Partition of India in 1947 is a blot on the integrity of this ancient
land. Partition on religious lines meant that those religious missionaries who
were allowed to take shelter or as a guest or invaders were handed over a
sizable land of the nation. In spite of that more muslims (12 Crore) are in
India than in the partitioned land. In this context the following is submitted
regarding Kashmir.
- Kashmir is a part of Jammu And Kashmir State. That has three main regions viz Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.
- Except for some Kashmir’s Sunni Muslims others are against any association with Pakistan or as independent state.
- Kashmir as a valley has been a part of India and a prominent Hindu region since ancient times.
- Kashmir is one of the most beautiful place and well known as Heaven on Earth.
- Kashmir cannot be negotiated as a separate part from the J&K and therefore issue will remain either J&k or none.
- As a status quo the Line of Control (LoC) acts as a IB. Pakistan is enjoying the control over almost 30–40% of the area that Pak is now bargaining with China for all kind of assistance including support for terror in India and abroad.
- If J&K is handed over to Pakistan her borders will come closer and so will China.
- It will be disastrous for the people of J&K if they are to be controlled by Pakistan because it has never treated others with equal status. Bangla Desh had had step motherly treatment and that led to its separation. The Muslims that moved to Pakistan from India during partition are still suffering for their rights and are given step motherly treatment in Pakistan.
- Most Muslims in J&K by conduct are sufis which Pakistan or Sunni Muslims dont recognise as part of Muslim religion. It will involve mass conversion to adopt Sunnism as their religion.
- Thus Kashmir as a part of India is more in the interest of the people in Kashmir and in J&K than of India. For India it of course has a cultural, political and strategic value.
The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict
primarily between India and Pakistan, having
started just after the partition of India in 1947. China
has at times played a minor role.[2] India and
Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, including the
Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947 and 1965, as well as
the Kargil War of 1999. The
two countries have also been involved in several skirmishes
over control of the Siachen Glacier.
India claims the entire princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, and, as of
2010, administers approximately 43% of the region. It controls Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier.[3] India's claims
are contested by Pakistan, which administers approximately 37% of the region,
namely Azad
Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.[4][5] China
currently administers the remaining 20% mostly uninhabited areas, the Shaksgam Valley, and the Aksai
Chin region.
The present conflict is in Kashmir Valley.[6] The root of
conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian government is tied to a
dispute over local autonomy[7] and based on the demand for
self-determination.[8][9][10] Democratic
development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s, and by 1988, many of
the democratic reforms introduced by the Indian Government had been reversed.
Non-violent channels for expressing discontent were thereafter limited and
caused a dramatic increase in support for insurgents advocating violent
secession from India.[7] In 1987, a
disputed state election[11] created a catalyst for the
insurgency when it resulted in some of the state's legislative assembly members
forming armed insurgent groups.[12][13][14] In July 1988 a
series of demonstrations, strikes and attacks on the Indian Government began
the Kashmir Insurgency.
Although thousands of people have died as a result of
the turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir,[15] the conflict has become less
deadly in recent years.[16][17] Protest
movements created to voice Kashmir's disputes and grievances with the Indian
government, specifically the Indian Military, have been active in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989.[16][17] Elections
held in 2008 were generally regarded as fair by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and had a high voter turnout in
spite of calls by separatist militants for a boycott. The election resulted in
the creation of the pro-India Jammu
and Kashmir National Conference, which then formed a government in the state.[18][19] According to Voice of America, many analysts
have interpreted the high voter turnout in this election as a sign that the
people of Kashmir endorsed Indian rule in the state.[20] But in 2010 unrest erupted
after alleged fake encounter of local youth with security force.[21] Thousands of
youths pelted security forces with rocks, burned government offices and
attacked railway stations and official vehicles in steadily intensifying
violence.[22] The Indian
government blamed separatists and Lashkar-e-Taiba, a
Pakistan-based militant group for stoking the 2010 protests.[23]
Elections
held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 26 years of history in
Jammu and Kashmir.[24][25][26][27] However,
analysts explain that the high voter turnout in Kashmir is not an endorsement
of Indian rule by the Kashmiri population, rather most people vote for daily
issues such as food and electricity.[28][29] An opinion
poll conducted by the Chatham
House international affairs think
tank found that in the Kashmir valley – the mainly Muslim area in Indian
Kashmir at the centre of the insurgency – support for independence varies
between 74% to 95% in its various districts.[30][31] Support for
remaining with India was, however, extremely high in predominantly Hindu Jammu
and Buddhist Ladakh.
According to scholars, Indian forces have committed
many human
rights abuses and acts of terror against Kashmiri civilian
population including extrajudicial killing, rape, torture and
enforced disappearances. Crimes by militants have also happened but are not
comparable in scale with the crimes of Indian forces.[9][32][33] According to Amnesty International, as of
June 2015, no member of the Indian military deployed in Jammu and Kashmir
has been tried for human rights violations in a civilian court, although there
have been military court martials held.[34] Amnesty
International welcomed this move but cautioned that justice should be consistently
delivered and prosecutions of security forces personnel be held in civilian
courts. Amnesty International has also accused the Indian government of
refusing to prosecute perpetrators of abuses in the region.[35]
Kashmir's accession to India was provisional,
and conditional on a plebiscite,[36] and for this reason had a
different constitutional status to other Indian states.[37] In October
2015 Jammu and Kashmir High Court said that article
370 is "permanent" and Jammu and Kashmir did not merge with India
the way other princely states merged but retained special status and limited
sovereignty under Indian constitution.[38]
In 2016 (8 July 2016 – present) unrest erupted after killing
of a Hizbul
Mujahideen militant Burhan
Wani by Indian security forces.[39]
Partition and invasión
British rule in the Indian subcontinent ended in 1947 with the creation of new states: the Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India, as the successor states to British India. The British Paramountcy over the 562 Indian princely states ended. According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States".[45] 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. He decided to stay independent because he expected that the State's Muslims would be unhappy with accession to India, and the Hindus and Sikhs would become vulnerable if he joined Pakistan.[46][47] On 11 August, the Maharaja dismissed his prime minister Ram Chandra Kak, who had advocated independence. Observers and scholars interpret this action as a tilt towards accession to India.Pakistanis decided to preempt this possibility by wresting Kashmir by force if necessary.Pakistan made various efforts to persuade the Maharaja of Kashmir to join Pakistan. In July 1947, Mohammad Ali Jinnah is believed to have written to the Maharaja promising "every sort of favourable treatment," followed by the lobbying of the State's Prime Minister by leaders of Jinnah's Muslim League party. Faced with the Maharaja's indecision on accession, the Muslim League agents clandestinely worked in Poonch to encourage the local Muslims to an armed revolt, exploiting an internal unrest regarding economic grievances. The authorities in Pakistani Punjab waged a 'private war' by obstructing supplies of fuel and essential commodities to the State. Later in September, Muslim League officials in the Northwest Frontier Province, including the Chief Minister Abdul Qayyum Khan, assisted and possibly organized a large-scale invasion of Kashmir by Pathan tribesmen.[50]:61[51] Several sources indicate that the plans were finalised on 12 September by the Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, based on proposals prepared by Colonel Akbar Khan and Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan. One plan called for organising an armed insurgency in the western districts of the state and the other for organising a Pushtoon tribal invasion. Both were set in motion.[52][53]
The Jammu division of the state got caught up in the Partition violence. Large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs from Rawalpindi and Sialkot started arriving in March 1947, bringing "harrowing stories of Muslim atrocities." This provoked counter-violence on Jammu Muslims, which had "many parallels with that in Sialkot." According to scholar Ilyas Chattha.[54] The violence in the eastern districts of Jammu that started in September, developed into a widespread 'massacre' of Muslims around the October, organised by the Hindu Dogra troops of the State and perpetrated by the local Hindus, including members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and the Hindus and Sikhs displaced from the neighbouring areas of West Pakistan. The Maharaja himself was implicated in some instances. A large number of Muslims were killed. Huge number of Muslims have fled to West Pakistan, some of whom made their way to the western districts of Poonch and Mirpur, which were undergoing rebellion. Many of these Muslims believed that the Maharaja ordered the killings in Jammu and instigated the Muslims in West Pakistan to join the uprising in Poonch and help in the formation of the Azad Kashmir government.[55]
The rebel forces in the western districts of Jammu got organised under the leadership of Sardar Ibrahim, a Muslim Conference leader. They took control of most of the western parts of the State by 22 October. On 24 October, they formed a provisional Azad Kashmir (free Kashmir) government based in Palandri.[56]
Indian view
Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of
Accession in October 1947 under which he acceded the State of Jammu and Kashmir to
the Union of India.
India has officially stated that it believes that
Kashmir to be an integral part of India, though the then Prime Minister of
India, Manmohan
Singh, stated after the 2010 Kashmir Unrest
that his government was willing to grant autonomy to the region within the
purview of Indian constitution if there was consensus among political parties
on this issue.[266][267] The Indian viewpoint is succinctly summarised by Ministry of External affairs, Government of India[268][269] — - 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 1947[270][271] and executed on 27 October 1947[271] 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 law and as such was total and irrevocable.[269]
- The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India. India claims that the constituent assembly was a representative one, and that its views were those of the Kashmiri people at the time.[note 5][272]
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue without the need for a plebiscite in the framework of UN Charter.[273][274]
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan failed to withdraw its forces from Kashmir, which was the first step in implementing the resolution.[275] India is also of the view that Resolution 47 is obsolete, since the geography and demographics of the region have permanently altered since it adoption.[276] The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter and as such is non-binding with no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[277][278]
- 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.[263]
- The state of Jammu and Kashmir was provided with significant autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India.[279]
- 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.[280]
- In a diverse country like India, disaffection and discontent are not uncommon. Indian democracy has the necessary resilience to accommodate genuine grievances within the framework of India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The Government of India has expressed its willingness to accommodate the legitimate political demands of the people of the state of Kashmir.[268]
- Insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is deliberately fuelled by Pakistan to create instability in the region.[281] 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.[282][283][284][285]
- Pakistan is trying to raise anti-India sentiment among the people of Kashmir by spreading false propaganda against India.[286] 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.[287]
- India has asked the United Nations not to leave unchallenged or unaddressed the claims of moral, political, and diplomatic support for terrorism, which were clearly in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. This is a Chapter VII resolution that makes it mandatory for member states to not provide active or passive support to terrorist organisations.[288][289] 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.
- India points out reports by human rights organisations condemning Pakistan for the lack of civic liberties in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[286][291] According to India, most regions of Pakistani Kashmir, especially Northern Areas, continue to suffer from lack of political recognition, economic development, and basic fundamental rights.[292]
- 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
Michigan State University scholar Baljit Singh, interviewing Indian foreign policy experts in 1965, found that 77 percent of them favoured discussions with Pakistan on all outstanding problems including the Kashmir dispute. However, only 17 percent were supportive of holding a plebiscite in Kashmir. The remaining 60 percent were pessimistic of a solution due to a distrust of Pakistan or a perception of threats to India's internal institutions. They contended that India's secularism was far from stable and the possibility of Kashmir separating from India or joining Pakistan would endanger Hindu–Muslim relations in India.[295]
In 2008, the death toll from the last 20 years was estimated by Indian authorities to be over 47,000.[296]
In 2017 India's Union Home Minister, Rajnath Singh, demanded that Pakistan desist from demanding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, saying: 'If at all a referendum is required, it is needed in Pakistan, where people should be asked whether they want to continue in Pakistan or are demanding the country's merger with India'.[297]
Pakistani view
Map of Kashmir as drawn by the Government of Pakistan
Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is the "jugular
vein of Pakistan" and a currently disputed territory whose final status
must be determined by the people of Kashmir.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.[301]
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, which was designed to maintain the status quo in Kashmir (although India was not signatory to the Agreement, which was signed between Pakistan and the Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir).[302][303]
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.[304 Similar allegations were also made by some human rights organisations.[306]
In short, Pakistan holds that –
- The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that Kashmir either wants to be with Pakistan or independent.[307]
- According to the two-nation theory, one of the principles 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.[308]
- The reason for India's disregard of the resolutions of the UN Security Council was given by India's Defense Minister, Kirshnan Menon, who said: "Kashmir would vote to join Pakistan and no Indian Government responsible for agreeing to plebiscite would survive.''[309]
- 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.[310]
- 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. These encounters are commonplace in Indian-administered Kashmir. The encounters go largely uninvestigated by the authorities, and the perpetrators are spared criminal prosecution.[311][312]
- Pakistan disputes claims by India with reference to the Simla Agreement that UN resolutions on Kashmir have lost their relevance. It argues that legally and politically, UN Resolutions cannot be superseded without the UN Security Council adopting a resolution to that effect. It also maintains the Simla Agreement emphasised exploring a peaceful bilateral outcome, without excluding the role of UN and other negotiations. This is based on its interpretation of Article 1(i) stating "the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries".[313]
- 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.[317]
Former Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf on 16 October 2014 said that Pakistan needs to incite those fighting in Kashmir,[318][319] "We have source (in Kashmir) besides the (Pakistan) army…People in Kashmir are fighting against (India). We just need to incite them," Musharraf told a TV channel.[318][319]
In 2015 Pakistan's outgoing National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz said that Pakistan wished to have third party mediation on Kashmir, but it was unlikely to happen unless by international pressure.[320] "Under Shimla Accord it was decided that India and Pakistan would resolve their disputes bilaterally," Aziz said. "Such bilateral talks have not yielded any results for the last 40 years. So then what is the solution?"[320]
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.[citation needed]- 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.[321]
- 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.[322]
Kashmiri views
Scholar Andrew Whitehead states that Kashmiris view Kashmir as having been ruled by their own in 1586. Since then, they believe, it has been ruled in succession by the Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs, Dogras and, lately, the Indian government. Whitehead states that this is only partly true: the Mughals lavished much affection and resources on Kashmir, the Dogras made Srinagar their capital next only to their native Jammu city, and through much of the post-independence India, Kashmiri Muslims headed the state government. Yet Kashmiris bear an 'acute sense of grievance' that they were not in control of their own fate for centurues.[323]- A. G. Noorani, a constitutional expert, says the people of Kashmir are 'very much' a party to the dispute.[324]
- According to an opinion poll conducted by Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in 2007, 87% of people in mainly Muslim Srinagar want independence, whereas 95% of the people in the mainly Hindu Jammu city think the state should be part of India.[325] The Kashmir Valley is the only region of the former princely state where the majority of the population is unhappy with its current status. The Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh are content under Indian administration. Muslims of Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas are content under Pakistani administration. Kashmir Valley's Muslims want to change their national status to independence.[326]
- Scholar A.G. Noorani testifies that Kashmiris want a plebiscite to achieve freedom.[327] Zutshi states the people of Poonch and Gilgit may have had a chance to determine their future but the Kashmiri was lost in the process.[328]
- Since the 1947 accession of Kashmir to India was provisional and conditional on the wishes of the people,[329] the Kashmiris' right to determine their future was recognised.[330] Noorani notes that state elections do not satisfy this requirement.[331]
- Kashmiris assert that except for 1977 and 1983 elections, no state election has been fair.[201] According to scholar Sumantra Bose, India was determined to stop fair elections since that would have meant that elections would be won by those unfriendly to India.[194]
- The Kashmiri people have still not been able to exercise the right to self-determination and this was the conclusion of the International Commission of Jurists in 1994.[332]
- Ayesha Parvez writes in The Hindu that high voter turnout in Kashmir cannot be interpreted as a sign of acceptance of Indian rule. Voters vote due to varying factors such as development, effective local governance and economy.[333]
- The Hurriyat parties do not want to participate in elections under the framework of the Indian Constitution. Elections held by India are seen as a diversion from the main issue of self-determination.[334]
- Kashmiri opponents to Indian rule maintain that India has stationed 600,000 Indian troops in what is the highest ratio of troops to civilian density in the world.[334]
- Kashmiri scholars say that India's military occupation inflicts violence and humiliation on Kashmiris. Indian forces are responsible for human rights abuses and terror against the local population and have killed tens of thousands of civilians. India's state forces have used rape as a cultural weapon of war against Kashmiris and rape has extraordinarily high incidence in Kashmir as compared to other conflict zones of the world.[335] Militants are also guilty of crimes but their crimes cannot be compared with the scale of abuses by Indian forces for which justice is yet to be delivered.[33]
- Kashmiri scholars say that India's reneging on promise of plebiscite, violations of constitutional provisions of Kashmir's autonomy and subversion of the democratic process led to the rebellion of 1989–1990.[336]
- According to scholar Mridu Rai, the majority of Kashmiri Muslims believe they are scarcely better off under Indian rule than the 101 years of Dogra rule.[337]
- According to lawyer and human rights activist K. Balagopal, Kashmiris have a distinct sense of identity and this identity is certainly not irreligious, as Islam is very much a part of the identity that Kashmiris feel strongly for. He opined that if only non-religious identities deserve support, then no national self-determination movement can be supported, because there is no national identity – at least in the Third World – devoid of the religious dimension. Balagopal says that if India and Pakistan cannot guarantee existence and peaceful development of independent Kashmir then Kashmiris may well choose Pakistan because of religious affinity and social and economic links. But if both can guarantee existence and peaceful development then most Kashmiris would prefer independent Kashmir.
With affection,
Ruben
