The Kashmir conflict (Hindi: ?????? ????? , Urdu: ????? ????? ) is a current territorial dispute over the Kashmir region, the northwesternmost region of South Asia. The countries disputing are India, Pakistan, China, and the Kashmiri people. India claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir and as of 2010, administers approximately 43% of the region, including most of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley,Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier.
or any similar topic only for you
India’s claim is contested by Pakistan, which controls approximately 37% of Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan.
China controls 20% of Kashmir, including Aksai Chin, which it occupied following the brief Sino-Indian War of 1962, and the Trans-Karakoram Tract (also known as the Shaksam Valley), which was ceded by Pakistan in 1963. India has officially stated that it believes that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Pakistan says that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir. China states that Aksai Chin is a part of Tibet, which is a part of China. Certain Kashmiri independence groups believe that Kashmir should be independent of both India and Pakistan.
India and Pakistan have fought at least three wars over Kashmir, including the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947, 1965 and 1999. India and Pakistan have also been involved in several skirmishes over the Siachen Glacier. Since 1987, disputed State elections have resulted in some of the state’s legislative assembly forming militant wings, creating a catalyst for insurgency. The Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir has been the site of conflict between the Indian Armed Forces, militants, and separatists. India alleges these militants are supported by Pakistan.
The turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir has resulted in thousands of deaths,] but has become less deadly in recent years. There have been protest movements in Indian Administered Kashmir since 1989. The movements were created to voice Kashmir’s disputes and grievances with the Indian government, specifically the Indian Military. Elections held in 2008 were generally regarded as fair by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, had a high voter turnout in spite of calls by militants for a boycott, and led to the pro-India Jammu ; Kashmir National Conference forming the government in the state.
According to Voice of America, many analysts have interpreted the high voter turnout in this election as a sign that the people of Kashmir have endorsed Indian rule in the state. In a 2001 report titled “Pakistan’s Role in the Kashmir Insurgency” from the American RAND Corporation, the think tank noted that “the nature of the Kashmir conflict has been transformed from what was originally a secular, locally based struggle (conducted via the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front – JKLF) to one that is now largely carried out by foreign militants and rationalized in pan-Islamic religious terms. Most of the militant organizations are composed of foreign mercenaries, mostly from the Pakistani Punjab. [unreliable source? ]. In 2010, with the support of its intelligence agencies, Pakistan has been again ‘boosting’ Kashmir militants, and recruitment of ‘martyrs’ in the Pakistani state of Punjab has increased. Early history In the 18th century, Kashmir was ruled by the Muslim Pashtun Durrani Empire. In 1819, Kashmir was conquered by the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh.
Following the First Anglo-Sikh War in 1845 and 1846, Kashmir was first ceded by the Treaty of Lahore to the East India Company, and shortly after sold by the Treaty of Amritsar to Gulab Singh, Raja of Jammu, who thereafter was given the title Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. From then until the Partition of India in 1947, Kashmir was ruled by the Hindu Maharajas of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, although the majority of the population were Muslim, except in the Jammu region. Partition and dispute
In 1947, British rule in India ended with the creation of two new nations: the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan, while Britishsuzerainty 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”,so the states were 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, while having a Hindu ruler (Maharaja Hari Singh. ) On partition Pakistan expected Kashmir to be annexed to it. In October 1947, Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir and Pakistani tribals from Dir entered Kashmir, intending to liberate it fromDogra rule. Unable to withstand the invasion, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession that was accepted by the government of India on 27 October 1947. Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
After rumours that the Maharaja supported the annexation of Kashmir by India, militant Muslim revolutionaries from western Kashmir and Pakistani tribesmen made rapid advances into the Baramulla sector. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir asked the government of India to intervene. However, India and Pakistan had signed an agreement of non-intervention. Although tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered Jammu and Kashmir, there was no iron-clad legal evidence to unequivocally prove that Pakistan was officially involved.
It would have been illegal for India to unilaterally intervene in an open, official capacity unless Jammu and Kashmir officially joined the Union of India, at which point it would be possible to send in its forces and occupy the remaining parts. The Maharaja desperately needed military assistance when the Pakistani tribals reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Before their arrival into Srinagar, India argued that the Maharaja must complete negotiations for ceding Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving military aid. The agreement which ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten 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 war over Kashmir, the First Kashmir War, lasted until 1948, when India moved the issue to 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 of invaders. The UN had previously passed resolutions for setting up monitoring of the conflict in Kashmir.
Following the set-up of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNCIP), the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948. The resolution imposed an immediate cease-fire and called on Pakistan to withdraw all military presence. The resolution stated that Pakistan would have no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. India would retain a minimum military presence and “the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. The ceasefire was enacted on 31 December 1948. The Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite, but Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from Kashmir, thus violating the conditions for holding the plebiscite. ] Over the next several years, the UN Security Council passed four new resolutions, revising the terms of Resolution 47 to include a synchronous withdrawal of both Indian and Pakistani troops from the region, per the recommendations of General Andrew McNaughton. To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the demilitarization of the region.
All of these were accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government. The resolutions were passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter. Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of the UN charter are considered non-binding and have no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to the 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 the Chinese administration of the region called Aksai Chin, which has continued as of November 2010.
Another smaller area, theTrans-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 Main articles: Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 In 1965 and 1971, heavy fighting broke out again between India and Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 resulted in the defeat of Pakistan and the Pakistani military’s surrender in East Pakistan.
The Simla Agreement was signed in 1972 between India and Pakistan. By this treaty, both countries agreed to settle all issues by peaceful means using mutual discussion in the framework of the UN Charter. 1989 popular insurgency and militancy Main article: Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir 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 militant wings after the election and was 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. Pakistani and Kashmiri nationalists argue that Afghan mujahideen did not leave Afghanistan in large numbers until 1992, three years after the insurgency began. Yasin Malik, a leader of one faction of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, was one of the Kashmiris to organize 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. He developed differences with one of the senior leaders, Farooq Siddiqui (alias Farooq Papa), for shunning the demand 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 in an independence movement.
Pakistan accuses the Indian army of committing serious human rights violations in Kashmir. Pakistan denies that it has or currently is supplying weapons and ammunition to the insurgents. India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir part of Pakistan They claim Pakistan is supplying munitions to the terrorists and training them in Pakistan. India states that the terrorists have been killing many citizens in Kashmir and committing human rights violations.
They deny that their own armed forces are responsible for human rights abuses. On a visit to Pakistan in 2006 current Chief Minister of Kashmir Omar Abdullah remarked that foreign militants were engaged in reckless killings and mayhem in the name of religion. Indian government has said militancy is now on the decline. The Pakistani government calls these insurgents “Kashmiri freedom fighters”, and claims that it gives only moral and diplomatic support to these insurgents, though 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 by Zardari sparked outrage amongs many Kashmiris, some of whom defied a curfew by the Indian army to burn him in effigyThere has been a “purely indigenous, purely Kashmiri” peaceful protest movement alongside the insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir since 1989. The movement was created for the same reason as the insurgency; it began with the disputed rigged elections of 1987.
The Kashmiris have grievances with the Indian government, specifically the Indian Military, which has committed human rights violations, according to the United Nations. Al-Qaeda involvement In a ‘Letter to American People’ written by Osama bin Laden in 2002, he stated that one of the reasons he was fighting America is because of its support of India on the Kashmir issue. While on a trip to Delhi in 2002, U. S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld suggested thatAl-Qaeda was active in Kashmir, though he did not have any hard evidence. 37] An investigation in 2002 unearthed evidence that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates were prospering in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir with tacit approval of Pakistan’s National Intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence. A team of Special Air Service and Delta Force was sent into Indian-administered Kashmir in 2002 to hunt for Osama bin Laden after reports that he was being sheltered by the Kashmiri militant group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. U. S. officials believed that Al-Qaeda was helping organize a campaign of terror in Kashmir in order to provoke conflict between India and Pakistan.
Their strategy was to force Pakistan to move its troops to the border with India, thereby relieving pressure on Al-Qaeda elements hiding in northwestern Pakistan. U. S. intelligence analysts say Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan-administered Kashmir are helping terrorists they had trained in Afghanistan to infiltrate Indian-administered Kashmir. Fazlur Rehman Khalil, the leader of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, signed al-Qaeda’s 1998 declaration of holy war, which called on Muslims to attack all Americans and their allies.
In 2006 Al-Qaeda claim they have established a wing in Kashmir; this worried the Indian government. Indian Army Lt. Gen. H. S. Panag, GOC-in-C Northern Command, said to reporters that the army has ruled out the presence of Al-Qaeda in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. He said that there no evidence that verifies reports from the media of an Al-Qaeda presence in the state. He stated that Al-Qaeda had strong ties with the Kashmir militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed in Pakistan. While on a visit to Pakistan in January 2010, U. S.
Defense secretary Robert Gates stated that Al-Qaeda was seeking to destabilize the region and planning to provoke a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. In September 2009, a U. S. Drone strike reportedly killed Ilyas Kashmiri, who was the chief of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, a Kashmiri militant group associated with Al-Qaeda. Kashmiri was described by Bruce Riedel as a ‘prominent’ Al-Qaeda member, while others described him as the head of military operations for Al-Qaeda. Waziristan had now become the new battlefield for Kashmiri militants, who were now fighting NATO in support of Al-Qaeda. Ilyas Kashmiri was charged by the U. S. in a plot against Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper which was at the center of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Conflict in Kargil In mid-1999, insurgents and Pakistani soldiers from Pakistani Kashmir infiltrated into Jammu and Kashmir. During the winter season, Indian forces regularly move down to lower altitudes, as severe climatic conditions makes it almost impossible for them to guard the high peaks near the Line of Control.
The insurgents took advantage of this and occupied vacant mountain peaks of the Kargil range overlooking the highway in Indian Kashmir that connects Srinagar and Leh. By blocking the highway, they wanted to cut off the only link between the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. This resulted in a high-scale conflict between the Indian Army and the Pakistan Army. Fears of the Kargil War turning into a nuclear war provoked the then-United States President Bill Clinton to pressure Pakistan to retreat. Faced with mounting losses of personnel and posts, 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. Reasons behind the dispute The Kashmir Conflict arises from the Partition of India in 1947 into modern India and Pakistan. Both the countries have made claims to Kashmir, based on historical developments and religious affiliations of the Kashmiri people. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which lies strategically in the north-west of the subcontinent, bordering China and the former Soviet Union, was a princely state 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 Dominions. 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 and counter-incursions by Pakistan and India took place leading to a war, as a result of which the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains divided between the two countries. Administered byAreaPopulation % Muslim % Hindu % Buddhist % Other IndiaKashmir valley~4 million95%4%–– Jammu~3 million30%66%–4%
Ladakh~0. 25 million46% (Shia) –50%3% PakistanNorthern Areas~1 million99%––– Azad Kashmir~2. 6 million100%––– ChinaAksai Chin––––– ?Statistics from the BBC report. In Depth *There are roughly 1. 5 million refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir in Pakistan administered Kashmir and Pakistan UNHCR ? About 300,000 Hindus in Indian Administered Kashmir valley are internally displaced due to militancy in Kashmir CIA ? Muslims are the majority in Poonch, Rajouri, Kishtwar, and Doda districts in Jammu region. Shia Muslims make up the majority inKargil district in Ladakh region.
Two-thirds of the former princely state (known as the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir), comprising Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, and the sparsely populated Buddhist area of Ladakh are controlled by India; one-third is administered by Pakistan. The latter includes a narrow strip of land called Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, compromising the Gilgit Agency, Baltistan, and the former kingdoms of Hunza andNagar. Attempts to resolve the dispute through political discussions were unsuccessful. In September 1965, war broke out again between Pakistan and India. The United Nations alled for another cease-fire, and peace was restored once again following the Tashkent Declarationin 1966, by which both nations returned to their original positions along the demarcated line. After the 1971 war and the creation of independent Bangladesh, under the terms of the 1972 Simla Agreement between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India and Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttoof Pakistan, it was agreed that neither country would seek to alter the cease-fire line in Kashmir, which was renamed as the Line of Control, “unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations”.
Numerous violations of the Line of Control have occurred, including the incursions by insurgents and Pakistani armed forces at Kargil leading to the Kargil war. There are also sporadic clashes on the Siachen Glacier, where the Line of Control is not demarcated and both countries maintain forces at altitudes rising to 20,000 ft (6,100 m). Indian view Maharaja Hari Singh signed theInstrument of Accession in October 1947 under which he acceded the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union of India. The Indian viewpoint is succinctly summarized by Ministry of External affairs, Government of India — ?
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 26 October 1947, was completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total and irrevocable. ?The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja’s Instrument of Accession to India and had adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of 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. ?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 and does not call for a plebiscite. ?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.
India is also of the view that Resolution 47 is obsolete, since the geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered. The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council underChapter VI of the United Nations Charter. It is therefore non-binding and has no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII. ?India does not accept the two-nation theory that forms the basis of Pakistan and argues 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 significant autonomy in 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 when they signed the Simla Agreement on 2 July 1972. Indian security personnel guard JUSBRLrailway station in Anantnag, Kashmir. India has accused Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism in the region. 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. ?Insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is deliberately being fueled by Pakistan to create instability in the region.
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. 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 organizations. Specifically, it has pointed out that the Pakistani government continues to support various terrorist organizations, such as Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, in direct violation of this resolution. India points out reports by human rights organizations condemning Pakistan for the lack of civic liberties in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. 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. Pakistani view Map of Kashmir as drawn by the Government of Pakistan Pakistan’s claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession.
Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population. Pakistan accuses India of hypocrisy, as it refused to recognize the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan and Hyderabad’s independence, on the grounds that those two states had Hindu majorities (in fact, India had occupied and forcibly integrated those two territories). Since he had fled Kashmir due to Pakistani invasion, Pakistan asserts that the Maharaja held no authority in determining Kashmir’s future.
Pakistan argues that even if the Maharaja had any authority in determining the plight of Kashmir, he signed the Instrument of Accession under duress, thus invalidating the legitimacy of his actions. Pakistan 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).
From 1990 to 1999, some organizations reported that the Indian Armed Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias were responsible for the deaths 4,501 Kashmiri civilians. Also from 1990 to 1999, there were records of 4,242 women between the ages of 7–70 being raped. Similar allegations were also made by some human rights organizations. 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. According to the two-nation theory, which is one of the theories that is cited for the partition that created India and Pakistan, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority. ?India has shown disregard to the resolutions of the UN 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. ?The Kashmiri people have now been forced by circumstances to uphold their right of self-determination through militancy.
Pakistan claims to give the Kashmiri insurgents moral, ethical and military support (see 1999 Kargil Conflict). ?Recent protests in Indian-administered Kashmir attracted a large number of people to massive rallies that took place to oppose Indian control of the state. ] ? Pakistan points to the violence that accompanies elections in Indian Kashmir and the anti Indian sentiments expressed by some people in the state. ?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. ?Pakistan points towards reports from the United Nations which condemn India for its human rights violations against Kashmiri people. ] Human rights organizations have strongly condemned Indian troops for widespread rape and murder of innocent civilians while accusing these civilians of being militants. ?Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari stated in October 2008 that Kashmiri ‘freedom fighters’ were terrorists.
His remarks were met with widespread condemnation across Pakistan and Kashmir, including from prominent politicians. ?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. ] Chinese view See also: Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute ?China did not accept the boundaries of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu north of the Aksai Chin and the Karakoram that were proposed by the British. China settled its border disputes with Pakistan in the Trans Karakoram Tract in 1963 with the provision that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the Kashmir dispute. Cross-border troubles The border and the Line of Control separating Indian and Pakistani Kashmir passes through some exceptionally difficult terrain. The world’s highest battleground, the Siachen Glacier, is a part of this difficult-to-man boundary. Even with 200,000 military personnel, India maintains that it is infeasible to place enough men to guard all sections of the border throughout the various seasons of the year.
Pakistan has indirectly acquiesced its role in failing to prevent “cross border terrorism” when it agreed to curb such activities after intense pressure from the Bush administration in mid 2002. The Government of Pakistan has repeatedly claimed that by constructing a fence along the line of control, India is violating the Shimla Accord. India claims the construction of the fence has helped decrease armed infiltration into Indian-administered Kashmir. In 2002, Pakistani President and Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf promised to check infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir. Water dispute
Another reason for the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the origin point for many rivers and tributaries of the Indus River basin. They include the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which primarily flow into Pakistan while other branches—the Ravi, Beas, and the Sutlej—irrigate northern India. The Boundary Award of 1947 meant that the headwaters of Pakistani irrigation systems were in Indian territory. Pakistan has been apprehensive that in a dire need, India (under whose portion of Kashmir lies the origins and passage of these rivers) would withhold the flow and thus choke the agrarian economy of Pakistan.
The Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960 resolved most of these disputes over water, calling for mutual cooperation in this regard. But the treaty faced issues raised by Pakistan over the construction of dams on the Indian side which limit water flow to the Pakistani side. Human rights abuse Indian administered Kashmir In Jammu and Kashmir, the Islamic insurgency has specifically targeted the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit minority and violated their human rights. 400,000 Kashmiri Hindus have either been murdered or displaced. U. S. ongressman Frank Pallone stated “The conflict in Kashmir cannot be separated from the global war against terrorism, over the past fifteen years militant forces, including elements of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, have used violence against the Kashmiri Pandits in an effort to institute Islamic rule in this region”. Indian Army Lt. Gen. H. S. Panag, GOC-in-C Northern Command told reporters that the army has ruled out the presence of Al-Qaeda in Jammu and Kashmir, and that there is no evidentce that confirms an Al Qaeda presence in the state.
The violence was condemned and labeled as ethnic cleansing in a 2006 resolution passed by the United States Congress. In 2009, the Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to recognize 14 September 2007 as Martyrs Day to acknowledge ethnic cleansing and campaigns of terror inflicted on non-Muslim minorities of Jammu and Kashmir by militants seeking to establish an independent Islamic Kashmir.  The CIA has reported about 300,000 Pandit Hindus and over 100,000 Kashmiri Muslims from Indian Administered Kashmir are internally displaced due to the insurgency.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights reports that there are roughly 1. 5 million refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and in Pakistan. Claims of human rights abuses have been made against the Indian Armed Forces and the armed militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir. A 2005 study conducted by Medecins Sans Frontieres found that Kashmiri women are among the worst sufferers of sexual violence in the world, with 11. 6% of respondents reporting that they had been victims of sexual abuse.
Some surveys have found that in the Kashmir region itself (where the bulk of separatist and Indian military activity is concentrated), popular perception holds that the Indian Armed Forces are more to blame for human rights violations than the separatist groups. According to the MORI survey of 2002, in Kashmir only 2% of respondents believed that the militant groups were guilty of widespread human rights abuses, while 64% believed that Indian troops were guilty of the same. This trend was reversed in other parts of the state.
Amnesty International has called on India to “unequivocally condemn enforced disappearances” and to ensure that impartial investigation is conducted on mass graves in its Kashmir region. The Indian state police confirms as many as 331 deaths while in custody and 111 enforced disappearances since 1989. Amnesty International criticised the Indian Military regarding an incident on 22 April 1996, when several armed forces personnel forcibly entered the house of a 32-year-old woman in the village of Wawoosa in the Rangreth district of Jammu and Kashmir.
They reportedly molested her 12-year-old daughter and raped her other three daughters, aged 14, 16, and 18. When another woman attempted to prevent the soldiers from attacking her two daughters, she was beaten. Soldiers reportedly told her 17-year-old daughter to remove her clothes so that they could check whether she was hiding a gun. They molested her before leaving the house. Several international agencies and the UN have reported human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir.
In a recent press release the OHCHR spokesmen stated “The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is concerned about the recent violent protests in Indian-administered Kashmir that have reportedly led to civilian casualties as well as restrictions to the right to freedom of assembly and expression. ” A 1996 Human Rights Watch report accuses the Indian military and Indian-government backed paramilitaries of “committ[ing] serious and widespread human rights violations in Kashmir. ] One such alleged massacre occurred on 6 January 1993 in the town ofSopore. TIME Magazine described the incident as such: “In retaliation for the killing of one soldier, paramilitary forces rampaged through Sopore’s market, setting buildings ablaze and shooting bystanders. The Indian government pronounced the event ‘unfortunate’ and claimed that an ammunition dump had been hit by gunfire, setting off fires that killed most of the victims. ” There have been claims of disappearances by the police or the army in Kashmir by several man rights organizations.
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978: Human rights organizations have asked Indian government to repealthe Public Safety Act, since “a detainee may be held in administrative detention for a maximum of two years without a court order. ” A soldier guards the roadside checkpoint outside Srinagar International Airport in January 2009. Many human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch(HRW) have condemned human rights abuses in Kashmir by Indians such as “extra-judicial executions”, “disappearances”, and torture. The “Armed Forces Special Powers Act” grants the military wide powers of arrest, the right to shoot to kill, and to occupy or destroy property in counterinsurgency operations. Indian officials claim that troops need such powers because the army is only deployed when national security is at serious risk from armed combatants. Such circumstances, they say, call for extraordinary measures. Human rights organizations have also asked Indian government to repeal the Public Safety Act, since “a detainee may be held in administrative detention for a maximum of two years without a court order. A 2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Indian Administered Kashmirwas only ‘partly free’.   Pakistan administered Kashmir Pakistan, an Islamic Republic, imposes multiple restrictions on peoples’ religious freedom in areas of Kashmir under its control. Shiasand Ismailis are subject to discrimination and have been targets of sectarian violence. The majority of the population of the Northern Areas is Shia, unlike the rest of Pakistan, in which the majority is Sunni.
The constitution of Azad Kashmir specifically prohibits activities that may be prejudicial to the state’s accession to Pakistan, and as such regularly suppresses demonstrations against the government. A number of Islamist militant groups operate in this area including Al-Qaeda, with tacit permission from Pakistan’s intelligence. ] As in Indian administered Kashmir, there have been allegations of human rights abuse. The Balawaristan National Front has a stated goal of seeking independence from Pakistan.
Abdul Hamid Khan, chairman of the Balawaristan National Front, states that “the Pakistani administration has also been involved in efforts to alter the demographic profile of Pakistan-occupied Gilgit Baltistan, reducing the indigenous people to a minority. The Gilgit-Baltistan area is administered directly by Islamabad. The population, primarily Shia Muslims, was brought under one federally-administered territory (administered by Pakistan) on 16 November 1947, in the name of Islam. ] Other groups likeGilgit-Baltistan United Movement are demanding full autonomy for the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan. On 8 January 2005, 11 people were killed following an armed attack on a Shia leader.  A two-day conference on Gilgit Baltistan was held on 8–9 April 2008 at the European Parliament in Brussels under the auspices of the International Kashmir Alliance. Several members of the European Parliament expressed concern over the human rights violation in Gilgit Baltistan, and urged the government of Pakistan to establish democratic institutions and rule of law in the area.
Abdul Hamid Khan, speaking at the same conference, said “no democratically elected representative (from Gilgit Baltistan) was included when Karachi Agreement was signed between Pakistan and Muslim Conference leaders in 1949. “ According to Shaukat Ali, chairman of the International Kashmir Alliance, “On one hand Pakistan claims to be the champion of the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people, but she has denied the same rights under its controlled parts of Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan”. Gilgit Baltistan region has been described a “simmering cauldron of discontent”. Continued deprivation of their human rights has driven people to desperation. Many people think that they are under the colonial rule of the Pakistani government and have boycotted independence day celebrations. Since independence, the Pakistan government has made no attempts to provide basic human rights in the region and no democratic setup exists. ] A report titled “Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects”, which was submitted to the European Parliament by Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, was critical of the lack of human rights, justice, democracy, and Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly.
International Crisis Group stated that “Almost six decades after Pakistan’s independence, the constitutional status of the Federally Administered Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan), once part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and now under Pakistani control, remains undetermined, with political autonomy a distant dream. The region’s inhabitants are embittered by Islamabad’s unwillingness to devolve powers in real terms to its elected representatives, and a nationalist movement, which seeks independence, is gaining ground.
The rise of sectarian extremism is an alarming consequence of this denial of basic political rights”. In 2009, the Pakistan government implemented an autonomy package for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. The package was rejected as an “eyewash” by the Balawaristan National Front, whose spokesperson stated, “It’s meant to distract the international community from the violation of human rights in this region. ” Manzoor Hussain Parwana, chairman of the Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement, stated “The so-called provincial setup aims at concealing the human rights violations and continue the colonial control over the region. The first step was an election to elect a Gilgit-Baltistan assembly, amidst criticism of this move by Pakistan. Reuters has reported that many of the people from the region would rather join Pakistan as a province than integrate into Kashmir, but many people protested the elections, with some carrying banners reading “Pakistan’s expansionist designs in Gilgit-Baltistan are unacceptable”. ] In December 2009, activists of nationalist Kashmiri groups staged a protest in Muzaffarabad to condemn the rigging of elections and “state terrorism” by Pakistani forces.
According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence operates in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and is involved in extensive surveillance, arbitrary arrests, torture, and murder. Generally this is done with impunity and perpetrators go unpunished. Map issues United Nations’ map of Jammu and Kashmir, accepted by the Kashmiris and the Pakistani government As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir territory, regardless of actual control. It is illegal in India to exclude all or part of Kashmir in a map.
It is illegal in Pakistan not to include the state of Jammu and Kashmir as disputed territory, as permitted by the United Nations. Non-participants often use the Line of Control and the Line of Actual Control as the depicted boundaries, as is done in the CIA World Factbook, and the region is often marked out in hashmarks, although the Indian government strictly opposes such practice. When Microsoft released a map in Windows 95 and MapPoint 2002, a controversy was raised because it did not show all of Kashmir as part of India as per the Indian claim.
All the neutral and Pakistani companies claim to follow the UN’s map and over 90% of all maps containing the territory of Kashmir show it as disputed territory. The boundaries, names, and designations used on the map prepared by the United Nations o not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations, the Commonwealth Secretariat, or the publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
There is no intention to define the status Jammu and/or Kashmir, which has not yet been agreed upon by the parties. A dotted line represents the Line of Control agreed upon by the Republic of India and the Government of Pakistan since 1972. Both parties have not yet agreed upon the final status of the region, and nothing significant has been implemented since the peace process began in 2004. The Government of Pakistan maintains unprovisionally and unconditionally that the informal accession of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan or to the Republic of India remains to be decided by UN plebiscite.
It accepts the UN’s map of the territory. The Government of India states that “the external artificial boundaries of India, especially concerning the Kashmir region under its jurisdiction created by a foreign body are neither correct nor authenticated”. Recent developments India continues to assert their sovereignty or rights over the entire region of Kashmir, while Pakistan maintains that it is a disputed territory. Pakistan argues that the status quo cannot be considered as a solution. Pakistan insists on a UN sponsored plebiscite.
Unofficially, the Pakistani leadership has indicated that they would be willing to accept alternatives such as a demilitarized Kashmir, if sovereignty of Azad Kashmir was to be extended over the Kashmir valley, or the “Chenab” formula, by which India would retain parts of Kashmir on its side of the Chenab river, and Pakistan the other side – effectively re-partioning Kashmir on communal lines. The problem is that the population of the Pakistan-administered portion of Kashmir is for the most part ethnically, linguistically, and culturally different from the Vale of Kashmir part of Indian-administered Kashmir.
Therefore a Partition on the Chenab formula is opposed by most Kashmiri politicians from all spectrums, though some, such as Sajjad Lone, have suggested that the non-Muslim part of Jammu and Kashmir be separated from Kashmir and handed to India. Some political analysts say that the Pakistan state policy shift and mellowing of its aggressive stance may have to do with its total failure in the Kargil War and the subsequent 9/11 attacks. These events put pressure on Pakistan to alter its position on terrorism. Many neutral parties to the dispute have noted that the UN esolution on Kashmir is no longer relevant. The European Union has viewed that the plebiscite is not in Kashmiris’ interest. ] The report notes that the UN conditions for such a plebiscite have not been, and can no longer be, met by Pakistan. [ The Hurriyat Conference observed in 2003 that a “plebiscite no longer an option”. [ Besides the popular factions that support either parties, there is a third faction which supports independence and withdrawal of both India and Pakistan. These have been the respective stands of the parties for long, and there have been no significant change over the years.
As a result, all efforts to solve the conflict have been futile so far. The Freedom in the World 2006 report categorized Indian-administered Kashmir as “partly free”, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, as well as the country of Pakistan, as “not free”. India claims that contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wish to remain with India. A MORI survey found that within the Kashmir Valley, 9% of respondents said they felt they would be better off as Indian citizens, with 78% saying that they did not know, and the remaining 13% favouring Pakistani citizenship.
According to a 2007 poll conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in New Delhi, 87% of respondents in the Kashmir Valley prefer independence over union with India or Pakistan. The 2005 Kashmir earthquake, which killed over 80,000 people, led to India and Pakistan finalizing negotiations for the opening of a road for disaster relief through Kashmir. Efforts to end the crisis The 9/11 attacks on the United States resulted in the U. S. government wanting to restrain militancy in the world, including Pakistan.
They urged Islamabad to cease infiltrations, which continue to this day, by Islamist militants into Indian-administered Kashmir. In December 2001, a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament linked to Pakistan resulted in war threats, massive deployment, and international fears of nuclear war in the subcontinent. After intensive diplomatic efforts by other countries, India and Pakistan began to withdraw troops from the international border on 10 June 2002, and negotiations began again.
Effective 26 November 2003, India and Pakistan agreed to maintain a ceasefire along the undisputed International Border, the disputed Line of Control, and the Siachen glacier. This is the first such “total ceasefire” declared by both powers in nearly 15 years. In February 2004, Pakistan increased pressure on Pakistanis fighting in Indian-administered Kashmir to adhere to the ceasefire. The neighbours launched several other mutual confidence-building measures. Restarting the bus service between the Indian- and Pakistani- administered Kashmir has helped defuse the tensions between the countries.
Both India and Pakistan have decided to cooperate on economic fronts. On 5 December 2006, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told an Indian TV channel that Pakistan would give up its claim on Kashmir if India accepted some of his peace proposals, including a phased withdrawal of troops, self-governance for locals, no changes in the borders of Kashmir, and a joint supervision mechanism involving India, Pakistan, and Kashmir. ] Musharraf stated that he was ready to give up the United Nations’ resolutions regarding Kashmir. 2008 militant attacks
In the week of 10 March 2008, 17 people were wounded when a blast hit the region’s only highway overpass located near the Civil Secretariat—the Indian-controlled Kashmir seat of government—and the region’s high court. A gun battle between security forces and militants fighting against Indian rule left five people dead and two others injured on 23 March 2008. The battle began when security forces raided a house on the outskirts of the capital city of Srinagar. The Indian Army has been carrying out cordon-and-search operations against militants in Indian-administered Kashmir since the violence broke out in 1989.
While the authorities say 43,000 persons have been killed in the violence, various rights groups and non-governmental organizations have put the figure at twice that number. According to the Governmentt of India Home Ministry, 2008 was the year with the lowest civilian casualties in 20 years, with 89 deaths, compared to a high of 1,413 in 1996. 85 security personnel died in 2008 compared to 613 in 2001, while 102 militants were killed. The human rights situation improved, with only one custodial death, and no custodial disappearances.
Many analysts say Pakistan’s preoccupation with jihadis within its own borders explains the relative calm. 2008 Kashmir protests Massive demonstrations occurred after plans by the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir state government to transfer 100 acres (0. 40 km2) of land to a trust which runs the Hindu Amarnath shrine in the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley. This land was to be used to build a shelter to house Hindu pilgrims temporarily during their annual pilgrimage to the Amarnath temple.
Indian security forces and the Indian army responded quickly to keep order. More than 40 unarmed protesters were killed and at least 300 were detained. ] The largest protests saw more than a half million people waving Pakistani flags and crying for freedom at a rally on 18 August, according to Time magazine. Pro-independence Kashmir leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq warned that the peaceful uprising could lead to an upsurge in violence if India’s heavy-handed crackdown on protests was not restrained.
The United Nations expressed concern on India’s response to peaceful protests and urged investigations be launched against Indian security personnel who had taken part in the crackdown. Separatists and workers of a political party were believed to be behind stone-pelting incidents, which led to retaliatory fire by the police. An autorickshaw laden with stones meant for distribution was seized by the police in March 2009. Following the unrest in 2008, secessionist movements gained a boost. 2008 Kashmir elections
State Elections were held in Indian-held Kashmir in seven phases, starting 17 November and finishing on 24 December 2008. In spite of calls by separatists for a boycott, an unusually high turnout of almost 50% was recorded. The National Conference party, which was founded by Sheikh Abdullah and is regarded as pro-India, emerged with a majority of the seats. On 30 December the National Congress Partyand the National Conference agreed to form a coalition government, with Omar Abdullah as Chief Minister. On 5 January 2009 Abdullah was sworn in as the eleventh Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.
In March 2009, Abdullah stated that only 800 militants were active in the state and out of these only 30% were Kashmiris. 2009 Kashmir protests In 2009, protests started over the alleged rape and murder of two young women in Shopian in South Kashmir. Suspicion pointed towards the police as the perpretrators. A judicial enquiry by a retired High Court confirmed the suspicion, but a CBI enquiry reversed their conclusion. It gave a fresh impetus to the popular agitation against India. Significantly, the unity between the separatist parties was lacking this time.
Obama on the conflict In an interview with Joe Klein of Time magazine in October 2008 Barack Obama expressed his intention to try to work with India and Pakistan to resolve the crisis. He said he had talked to Bill Clinton about it, as Clinton has experience being a mediator. In an editorial in The Washington Times, Selig S Harrison, director of the Asia Programme at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International called it Obama’s first foreign policy mistake.
In an editorial, The Australian called Obama’s idea to appoint a presidential negotiator “a very stupid and dangerous move indeed”. In an editorial in Forbes, Reihan Salam, associate editor for The Atlantic, noted “The smartest thing President Obama could do on Kashmir is probably nothing. We have to hope that India and Pakistan can work out their differences on Kashmir on their own”. The Boston Globe called the idea of appointing Bill Clinton as an envoy to Kashmir “a mistake”. [ President Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
President Asif Ali Zardarihoped that Holbrooke would help mediate to resolve Kashmir issue. ] Subsequently Kashmir was removed from the mandate of Holbrooke. “Eliminating … Kashmir from his job description … is seen as a significant diplomatic concession to India that reflects increasingly warm ties between the country and the United States,” The Washington Post noted in a report. Brajesh Mishra, India’s former national security adviser, was quoted in the same report as saying that “No matter what government is in place, India is not going to relinquish control of Jammu and Kashmir”.
That is written in stone and cannot be changed. ” According to The Financial Times, India has warned Obama that he risks “barking up the wrong tree” if he seeks to broker a settlement between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. In July 2009, U. S. Assistant Secretary of State Robert O. Blake, Jr. stated that the United States had no plans of appointing any special envoy to settle the dispute, calling it an issue which needs to be sorted out bilaterally by India and Pakistan. According to Dawn this will be interpreted in Pakistan as an endorsement of