World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Kashmir conflict

Kashmir Conflict

India claims the entire erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir based on an instrument of accession signed in 1947. Pakistan claims Jammu and Kashmir based on its majority Muslim population, whereas China claims the Shaksam Valley and Aksai Chin.
Date 22 October 1947 – ongoing
(68 years, 1 month, 3 weeks and 3 days)
Location Kashmir





All Parties Hurriyat Conference
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front
Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami
Hizbul Mujahideen
Supported by:
Commanders and leaders
General Raheel Sharif Pranab Mukherjee
General Dalbir Singh Suhag
General Pranav Movva
Lt Gen P C Bhardwaj
Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha
Pranay Sahay
Amanullah Khan
Hafiz Muhammad Saeed
Maulana Masood Azhar
Sayeed Salahudeen
Fazlur Rehman Khalil
Farooq Kashmiri
Arfeen Bhai (until 1998)
Bakht Zameen

The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict between India and Pakistan which started just after partition of India.[2] India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, including the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947, 1965 and 1999. Furthermore, since 1984 the two countries have also been involved in several skirmishes over control of the Siachen Glacier. 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. India's claims are contested by Pakistan, which administers approximately 37% of Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and the northern areas of Gilgit-Baltistan.[3][4]

The root of conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian Government is tied to a dispute over local autonomy.[5] Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s and by 1988 many of the democratic reforms provided 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.[5] In 1987, a disputed state election[6] created a catalyst for the insurgency when it resulted in some of the state's legislative assembly members forming armed insurgent groups.[7][8][9] 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,[10] the conflict has become less deadly in recent years.[11][12] Protest movements created to voice Kashmir's disputes and grievances with the Indian government, specifically the Indian Military, have been active in Indian Administered Kashmir since 1989.[11][12] 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 & Kashmir National Conference, which then formed a government in the state.[13][14] 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.[15] But in 2010 unrest erupted after alleged fake encounter of local youth by security force.[16] Thousands of youths pelted security forces with rocks, burned government offices and attacked railway stations and official vehicles in steadily intensifying violence.[17] The Indian government blamed separatists and Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based militant group for stoking the 2010 protests.[18]

However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Jammu and Kashmir.[19][20][21][22]

According to Amnesty International, as of June 2015 no member of the security forces deployed in Jammu and Kashmir has been tried for human rights violations in a civilian court.[23]

In October 2015 Jammu and Kashmir High Court said that article 370 is "permanent" and Jammu & Kashmir did not merge with India the way other princely states merged but retained special status and limited sovereignty under Indian constitution.[24] According to the Pakistani newspaper Daily Pakistan, the High Court has ruled that "State has never been part of India."[25]


  • Timeline 1
    • Early history 1.1
    • Partition and invasion 1.2
    • Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 1.3
    • UN mediation 1.4
    • Sino-Indian War 1.5
    • 1965 and 1971 wars 1.6
    • 1989 popular insurgency and militancy 1.7
    • 1999 Conflict in Kargil 1.8
    • 2000s Al-Qaeda involvement 1.9
  • Reasons behind the dispute 2
    • Indian view 2.1
    • Pakistani view 2.2
    • Chinese view 2.3
  • Cross-border troubles 3
  • Water dispute 4
    • Pakistan's relation with militants 4.1
  • Human rights abuse 5
    • Indian administered Kashmir 5.1
    • Pakistan administered Kashmir 5.2
      • Azad Kashmir 5.2.1
      • Gilgit-Baltistan 5.2.2
  • Map issues 6
  • Recent developments 7
    • Efforts to end the crisis 7.1
    • 2008 militant attacks 7.2
    • 2008 Kashmir protests 7.3
    • 2008 Kashmir elections 7.4
    • 2009 Kashmir protests 7.5
    • 2010 Kashmir Unrest 7.6
    • 2014 Jammu and Kashmir Elections 7.7
    • October 2014 7.8
  • The US Presidents on Conflict 8
  • Problems Before Plebiscite 9
    • UN Resolution is not Compulsory 9.1
    • Instrument of Accession 9.2
    • 9.3 Article 370
    • "Nehru's Promise" 9.4
    • Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir 9.5
    • Private Survey 9.6
  • See also 10
  • Notes 11
  • References 12
  • Further reading 13
  • External links 14


Early history

According to the mid-12th century text Rajatarangini the valley of Kashmir was formerly a lake. Hindu mythology relates that the lake was drained by the sage Kashyapa, by cutting a gap in the hills at Baramulla (Varaha-mula), and invited Brahmans to settle there. This remains the local tradition and Kashyapa is connected with the draining of the lake in traditional histories. The chief town or collection of dwellings in the valley is called Kashyapa-pura, which has been identified as Kaspapyros in Hecataeus (Apud Stephanus of Byzantium) and the Kaspatyros of Herodotus (3.102, 4.44).[26] Kashmir is also believed to be the country indicated by Ptolemy's Kaspeiria.[27]

The Pashtun Durrani Empire ruled Kashmir in the 18th century until its 1819 conquest by the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh. The Raja of Jammu Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh Empire and an influential noble in the Sikh court, sent expeditions to various border kingdoms and ended up encircling Kashmir by 1840. Following the First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–1846), Kashmir was ceded under the Treaty of Lahore to the East India Company, which transferred it to Gulab Singh through the Treaty of Amritsar, in return for the payment of indemnity owed by the Sikh empire. Gulab Singh took the title of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. From then until the 1947 Partition of India, Kashmir was ruled by the Maharajas of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu. According to the 1941 census, the state's population was 77 percent Muslim, 20 percent Hindu and 3 percent others (Sikhs and Buddhists).[28] Despite its Muslim majority, the princely rule was an overwhelmingly Hindu state.[29]

Partition and invasion

British rule in India ended in 1947 with the creation of a new state: the Dominion of Pakistan alongside the Union of India, the successor state to British India, while British suzerainty over the 562 Indian princely states ended. According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, "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".[30] 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.

Pakistan made various efforts to persuade the Maharaja of Kashmir to join Pakistan. In July 1947, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India). The film also depicts mass rape incidents in Kunan Poshpora and Shopian as facts and alleging that Indian Security Forces were responsible.[173][174] A report from the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed that the seven people killed in 2000 by the Indian military, were innocent civilians.[175][176][177] The Indian Army has decided to try the accused in the General Court Martial.[178] It was also reported that the killings that were allegedly committed in "cold-blood" by the Army, were actually in retaliation for the murder of 36 civilians [Sikhs] by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.[178] The official stance of the Indian Army was that, according to its own investigation, 97% of the reports about human rights abuses have been found to be "fake or motivated".[179] However, there have been at least one case where civilians have been killed in 'fake encounters' by Indian army personnel for cash rewards.[180]

Our people were killed. I saw a girl tortured with cigarette butts. Another man had his eyes pulled out and his body hung on a tree. The armed separatists used a chainsaw to cut our bodies into pieces. It wasn't just the killing but the way they tortured and killed.
— A crying old Kashmiri Hindu in refugee camps of Jammu told BBC news reporter[181]

The violence was condemned and labelled as ethnic cleansing in a 2006 resolution passed by the United States Congress.[182] It stated that the Islamic terrorists infiltrated the region in 1989 and began an ethnic cleansing campaign to convert Kashmir into a Muslim state. According to the same resolution, since then nearly 400,000 Pandits were either murdered or forced to leave their ancestral homes.[183]

According to a Hindu American Foundation report, the rights and religious freedom of Islamist militants to cleanse Hindus from Kashmir. Less than 4,000 Kashmiri Hindus remain in the valley, reportedly living with daily threats of violence and terrorism.[184]

According to an op-ed published in a BBC journal, the emphasis of the movement after 1989, ″soon shifted from nationalism to Islam.″ It also claimed that the minority community of Kashmiri Pandits, who have lived in Kashmir for centuries, were forced to leave their homeland.[181]

The displaced Pandits, many of who continue to live in temporary

  • The Future of Kashmir, Matthew A. Rosenstein et al., ACDIS Swords and Ploughshares 16:1 (winter 2007-8), Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security (ACDIS) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
  • Centre for Contemporary Conflict on Kargil War
  • BBC articles on Kashmir
  • Recent Kashmir developments
  • The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict US Institute of Peace Report, June 2004
  • The Kashmir dispute-cause or symptom?
  • LoC-Line of Control situation in Kashmir
  • An outline of the history of Kashmir
  • News Coverage of Kashmir
  • Accession Document
  • ;Conflict in Kashmir: Selected Internet Resources by the Library, University of California, Berkeley, USA University of California at Berkeley Library Bibliographies and Web-Bibliographies list
  • Timeline since April 2003
  • Kashmir resolution of the European Parliament, 24 May 2007
  • "Election in Kashmir Begins Amid Boycott Calls"
  • Disputed territories of India

External links

Web sources
  • Dr. Ijaz Hussain, 1998, Kashmir Dispute: An International Law Perspective, National Institute of Pakistan Studies
  • Alastair Lamb, Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846–1990 (Hertingfordbury, Herts: Roxford Books, 1991)
  • Kashmir Study Group, 1947–1997, the Kashmir dispute at fifty : charting paths to peace (New York, 1997)
  • Jaspreet Singh, Seventeen Tomatoes– an unprecedented look inside the world of an army camp in Kashmir (Vehicle Press; Montreal, Canada, 2004)
  • Navnita Behera, Demystifying Kashmir (Washington, D.C.: Brooking Institute Press, 2006).
  • Navnita Behera, State, identity and violence : Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (New Delhi: Manohar, 2000)
  • Sumit Ganguly, The Crisis in Kashmir (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; Cambridge : Cambridge U.P., 1997)
  • Sumantra Bose, The challenge in Kashmir : democracy, self-determination and a just peace (New Delhi: Sage, 1997)
  • Robert Johnson, A Region in Turmoil (London and New York, Reaktion, 2005)
  • Hans Köchler, The Kashmir Problem between Law and Realpolitik. Reflections on a Negotiated Settlement. Keynote speech delivered at the "Global Discourse on Kashmir 2008." European Parliament, Brussels, 1 April 2008.
  • Prem Shankar Jha, Kashmir, 1947: rival versions of history (New Delhi : Oxford University Press, 1996)
  • Manoj Joshi, The Lost Rebellion (New Delhi: Penguin India, 1999)
  • Alexander Evans, "Why Peace Won't Come to Kashmir", Current History (Vol 100, No 645) April 2001 p170-175.
  • Surinder Mohan, "Transforming the Line of Control: Bringing the 'Homeland' Back In", Asian Politics & Policy (Vol 5, No 1) January 2013 p51-75.
  • Younghusband, Francis and Molyneux, E. 1917. Kashmir. A. & C. Black, London.
  • Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in the Crossfire, I.B. Tauris, London.
  • Andrew Whitehead, A Mission in Kashmir, Penguin India, 2007
  • Muhammad Ayub, An Army; Its Role & Rule (A History of the Pakistan Army from Independence to Kargil 1947–1999). Rosedog Books, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA. 2005. ISBN 0-8059-9594-3
Partition and Post-independence
  • Drew, Federic. 1877. The Northern Barrier of India: a popular account of the Jammoo and Kashmir Territories with Illustrations.&;#8221; 1st edition: Edward Stanford, London. Reprint: Light & Life Publishers, Jammu. 1971.
Pre-independence history

Further reading

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^ a b Uppsala Conflict Data Program Conflict Encyclopedia, Conflict Summary, Conflict name: India: Kashmir, "Roots of Conflict and the emergence of Kashmir Insurgents, viewed 2013-05-29,®ionSelect=6-Central_and_Southern_Asia#
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^ a b c d
  12. ^ a b c d
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^ a b
  21. ^ a b
  22. ^ a b c
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^ E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936, Volume 4, Kashmir
  28. ^ Sumantra Bose 2003, pp. 27-28.
  29. ^ Mridu Rai 2004.
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^
  33. ^
  34. ^ Panigrahi 2009, p. 54.
  35. ^ Snedden 2013, p. 45.
  36. ^ Schofield 2003, pp. 65-67.
  37. ^ Noorani 2014, pp. 13-14.
  38. ^ Schofield 2003, pp. 67-68.
  39. ^ Schofield 2003, pp. 68-69.
  40. ^
  41. ^ Schofield 2003, p. 70.
  42. ^ Varshney 1992, p. 211.
  43. ^ Schofield 2003, pp. 70-71.
  44. ^ Schofield 2003, pp. 71-72.
  45. ^ Schofield 2003, pp. 82-85.
  46. ^ Varshney 1992, p. 212.
  47. ^
  48. ^ India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, Ramachandra Guha, Pan Macmillan, 2008, p. 654
  49. ^
  50. ^ Contours of Militancy
  51. ^
  52. ^
  53. ^ PMO in secret talks with secessionists, The Hindu, 25 January 2006
  54. ^ Malik Under Fire, Rebels Call For 'less Autocratic' JKLF, The Indian Express, 23 December 2005
  55. ^
  56. ^ a b c d
  57. ^
  58. ^ Kashmir insurgency is being 'Talibanised'Jane's Information Group, 5 October 2001
  59. ^ Foreign militants creating mayhem in Kashmir: Omar Abdullah , The Hindu, 12 March 2006
  60. ^
  61. ^
  62. ^
  63. ^ a b c
  64. ^ Osama bin Laden "letter to the American people",, 20 November 2002
  65. ^ Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America', The Guardian, 24 November 2002
  66. ^ Analysis: Is al-Qaeda in Kashmir?, BBC, 13 June 2002
  67. ^ Rumsfeld offers US technology to guard Kashmir border, The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 June 2002
  68. ^ Al Qaeda thriving in Pakistani Kashmir, The Christian Science Monitor, 2 July 2002
  69. ^ SAS joins Kashmir hunt for bin Laden, The Daily Telegraph, 23 February 2002
  70. ^ Taliban, al-Qaeda linked to Kashmir, USA Today, 29 May 2002
  71. ^ Kashmir Militant Extremists, Council on Foreign Relations, 9 July 2009
  72. ^ Al-Qaeda claim of Kashmir link worries India, The New York Times, 13 July 2006
  73. ^
  74. ^ Al Qaeda could provoke new India-Pakistan war: Gates, Dawn, 20 January 2010
  75. ^ US drones killed two terrorist leaders in Pak, Dawn, 17 September 2009
  76. ^ Chicago Man Pleads Not Guilty in Terror Cases, The New York Times, 25 January 2010
  77. ^ Al Qaeda's American Mole, Brookings Institution, 15 December 2009
  78. ^ Ilyas Kashmiri alive, lays out future terror strategy, Daily Times (Pakistan), 15 October 2009
  79. ^
  80. ^ US charges Ilyas Kashmiri in Danish newspaper plot, Dawn, 15 January 2010
  81. ^
  82. ^ a b Hardgrave, Robert. "India: The Dilemmas of Diversity", Journal of Democracy, pp. 54–65
  83. ^
  84. ^
  85. ^
  86. ^ a b
  87. ^ a b
  88. ^
  89. ^ a b
  90. ^
  91. ^ Territorial Disputes and Conflict Management: The Art of Avoiding War By Rongxing Guo page 68
  92. ^
  93. ^
  94. ^
  95. ^
  96. ^
  97. ^
  98. ^
  99. ^
  100. ^ World: South Asia Vajpayee: Pakistan a 'terrorist' state, BBC, 9 August 1999
  101. ^ "India Renews Call for U.S. to Declare Pakistan a Terrorist State", The New York Times, 17 July 2002
  102. ^ COMMENTARY: Qualifying as a terrorist state, Asia Times Online, 5 February 2002
  103. ^
  104. ^ a b
  105. ^
  107. ^ UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), United States Department of State
  109. ^
  110. ^
  111. ^
  112. ^
  113. ^ Jinnah and Kashmir, Government of Azad Kashmir
  114. ^
  115. ^
  116. ^
  117. ^
  118. ^
  119. ^
  120. ^ Kashmiris want accession to Pakistan: Attique
  121. ^
  122. ^ Srinagar
  123. ^
  124. ^
  125. ^
  126. ^
  127. ^
  128. ^
  129. ^ a b
  130. ^ a b
  131. ^
  132. ^
  133. ^
  134. ^
  135. ^
  136. ^
  137. ^ a b
  138. ^
  139. ^
  140. ^
  141. ^
  142. ^ Pakistan Reportedly Aiding Kashmir Rebels – Despite Assurances To U.S., Military Fueling India Conflict. The Washington Post.
  143. ^
  144. ^
  145. ^ a b
  146. ^
  147. ^ a b Pike, John (25 July 2002). "Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  148. ^ Does Obama understand his biggest foreign-policy challenge?, Salon, 12 December 2008
  149. ^ a b Pakistani Militants Admit Role in Siege, Official Says, The New York Times, 1 January 2009
  150. ^
  151. ^
  152. ^ a b c d
  153. ^
  154. ^
  155. ^
  156. ^
  157. ^ a b c
  158. ^
  159. ^
  160. ^
  161. ^
  162. ^
  163. ^
  164. ^
  165. ^
  166. ^
  167. ^
  168. ^
  169. ^
  170. ^
  171. ^
  172. ^ Rape in Kashmir – A Crime of War by Asia Watch, Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights
  173. ^
  174. ^
  175. ^
  176. ^
  177. ^
  178. ^ a b
  179. ^
  180. ^
  181. ^ a b c d Paradise lost. BBC News.
  182. ^ Expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the Republic of India and the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir should take immediate steps to remedy the situation of the Kashmiri Pandits and should act to ensure the physical, political, and economic security of this embattled community. HR Resolution 344, United States House of Representatives, 15 February 2006
  183. ^
  184. ^ a b
  185. ^
  186. ^
  187. ^
  188. ^
  189. ^
  190. ^
  191. ^
  192. ^ Ka Leo The Voice – Kashmir: The Predicament
  193. ^ a b c d
  194. ^
  195. ^ Wailing Woes
  196. ^ a b
  197. ^ a b c d
  198. ^ a b c
  199. ^ a b c [1]
  200. ^ [2]
  201. ^
  202. ^
  203. ^
  204. ^
  205. ^
  206. ^ a b
  207. ^
  208. ^ a b c d e Freedom in the World 2008 – Kashmir (Pakistan), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2 July 2008
  209. ^
  210. ^ EU Report Rattles Pakistan, Outlook, 8 December 2006
  211. ^ European Parliamentarians express concern for Gilgit-Baltistan, German Information Center, New Delhi, 12 April 2008
  212. ^
  213. ^
  214. ^ a b c d
  215. ^ a b c
  216. ^ a b c
  217. ^ Political unrest in Gilgit-Baltistan, Dawn, 26 July 2009
  218. ^ a b European MPs concerned at rights violations in Pakistani Kashmir, Thaindian News, 13 April 2008
  219. ^ European Parliament concerned on Gilgit-Baltistan, The Indian Express, 20 December 2009
  220. ^ Gilgit-Baltistan package termed an eyewash, Dawn, 30 August 2009
  221. ^ Discontents in Gilgit-Baltistan, Daily Times (Pakistan), 21 April 2010
  222. ^
  223. ^ Killing of youth in GB by-polls condemned, Dawn, 27 December 2009
  224. ^ The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961,
  225. ^
  226. ^
  227. ^
  228. ^ Pakistan’s Kashmir Policy after the Bush Visit to South Asia Strategic Insights Volume V, Issue 4 (April 2006) by Peter R. Lavoy
  229. ^ Kickstart Kashmir – The Times of India.
  230. ^ EU: Plebiscite not in Kashmiris' interest – 30 November 2006, Pak Observer
  231. ^ REPORT on Kashmir: present situation and future prospects Committee on Foreign Affairs Rapporteur: Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
  232. ^ Plebiscite no longer an option; Kashmir row must be resolved within two years' — — Hurriyat Conference Chairman, Mr Abdul Gani Bhat, The Hindu, 1 July 2003
  233. ^
  234. ^
  235. ^ Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency by Peter Chalk, RAND,2001-09-01
  236. ^ Why Pakistan is 'boosting Kashmir militants', BBC, 3 March 2010
  237. ^
  238. ^
  239. ^ [3]
  240. ^
  241. ^
  242. ^
  243. ^ The Indus Equation Report, Strategic Foresight Group
  244. ^
  245. ^
  246. ^
  247. ^ [4]
  248. ^
  249. ^
  250. ^
  251. ^
  252. ^
  253. ^
  254. ^
  255. ^
  256. ^
  257. ^
  258. ^
  259. ^
  260. ^
  261. ^
  262. ^
  263. ^
  264. ^ Pro-India parties to take power in Indian Kashmir, International Herald Tribune, 30 December 2008
  265. ^ Omar Abdullah sworn in, Tara Chand to be deputy CM,, 5 January 2009
  266. ^ 800 ultras active in state: Omar, The Tribune, 2 March 2009
  267. ^ The changing character of the Kashmir movement, Al Jazeera 20 July 2010
  268. ^
  269. ^
  270. ^
  271. ^
  272. ^
  273. ^ turnout in J&K from November 17, Rediff India, 2008-10-19, accessed on 2008-12-30
  274. ^ J&K assembly polls: Voters defy separatists' election boycott call, 71.28% turnout in first phase, Rediff India, 2008-12-24
  275. ^
  276. ^
  277. ^
  278. ^ a b
  279. ^ a b
  280. ^
  281. ^
  282. ^ The full Obama Interview, Time
  283. ^
  284. ^ Kashmir issue leading Obama into first 'tar pit', The Washington Times, 6 January 2009
  285. ^ Asia's Islamism engine, The Australian, 4 December 2008
  286. ^ What Should Obama Do On Kashmir, Forbes, 1 December 2008
  287. ^ A wrong role for Bill Clinton, Boston Globe, 28 December 2008
  288. ^
  289. ^ Partnering With Pakistan, The Washington Post, 28 January 2009
  290. ^ Will Kashmir Be an Obama Foreign Policy Focus?, Time 28 January 2009
  291. ^
  292. ^ "U.S. Removes Kashmir From Envoy's Mandate; India Exults", The Washington Post, 30 January 2009
  293. ^ "India warns Obama over Kashmir", Financial Times, 3 February 2009
  294. ^
  295. ^ US to sign 0 billion defence accords with India, Dawn, 17 July 2009
  296. ^
  297. ^
  298. ^ Talbott (2004), p. 162
  299. ^
  300. ^
  301. ^ One of the earliest applications of Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter was on the Kashmir dispute. Following negotiations and agreements among the parties, the Security Council adopted resolution 47 (1948) of 21 April 1948 which promised a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices to enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine whether they wish to join Pakistan or India. Foreign Minister of Pakistan, on the role of the Security Council in the Pacific Settlement of Disputes
  302. ^ 'The Kashmir issue was taken to the UN by India in January, 1948 and remained active in the UN Security Council till the late fifties The Indian complaint was filed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter and not under Chapter VII, which requires mandatory enforcement of the UN Security Council's decisions.' Kashmir policy: an overview by Shamshad Ahmad, Dawn 2004-08-05
  303. ^ "There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war by Bill Emmott, The Guardian, 2002-11-25.
  304. ^ 'Chapter VI establishes the appropriate methods of settling international disputes and the Security Council's powers in relation to them. It is generally agreed that resolutions under Chapter VI are advisory rather than binding. These resolutions have generally been operative only with the consent of all parties involved. Traditionally, the Chapter has not been interpreted to support collective intervention by member states in the affairs of another member state.'Collective Insecurities by Azeem Suterwalla. Harvard International Review
  305. ^
  306. ^
  307. ^
  308. ^
  309. ^
  310. ^
  311. ^
  312. ^
  313. ^
  314. ^
  315. ^
  316. ^
  317. ^ a b
  318. ^ a b
  319. ^
  320. ^ a b
  321. ^ a b
  322. ^ a b
  323. ^
  324. ^
  325. ^
  326. ^
  327. ^ a b
  328. ^
  329. ^
  330. ^ a b
  331. ^
  332. ^
  333. ^
  334. ^ Art 370 permanent…cannot be repealed or amended: HC, The Indian Express, 12 October 2015.
  335. ^ The importance of Article 370, The Hindu, 15 October 2015.
  336. ^
  337. ^ a b c
  338. ^ a b
  339. ^ [5]
  340. ^
  341. ^
  342. ^ a b
  343. ^
  344. ^
  345. ^
  346. ^ a b
  347. ^
  348. ^
  349. ^ a b c d e f
  350. ^
  351. ^ http://www.chathamhouse.orgs/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Asia/0510pp_kashmir.pdf
  352. ^ a b c d
  353. ^ a b c
  354. ^


  1. ^ Panigrahi (2009, p. 54) "According to Mir Qasim, Nehru was unwilling to send Indian army. He was insistent that the Government could not send its forces at the request of the Maharaja "although he wanted to accede to India", unless the accession was endorsed by the people of Kashmir... Sheikh Abduallah who was listening to the debate from an anteroom scribbled a note for Nehru requesting him to send the army to save Kashmir from the invaders.
  2. ^ Snedden (2013, pp. 46–47): "[O]n 28 October [1947], The Times, while referring to the anti-Indian `raiding forces', was still able to identify four elements among the 3,000 or so `Muslim rebels and tribesmen' in J&K: 1) `Muslim League agents and agitators from Pakistan'; 2) `villagers who have raised the Pakistan flag and attacked Kashmir officials'; 3) `Pathan [Pakhtoon] tribesmen'; 4) `Muslim deserters from Kashmir State forces who have taken their arms with them'."
  3. ^ Snedden (2013, p. 68): Nehru informed [the Chief Ministers] that `the actual tribesmen among the raiders are probably limited in numbers, the rest are ex-servicemen [of Poonch]'.
  4. ^ a b c
  5. ^ Korbel (1953, p. 502): "Though India accepted the resolution, Pakistan attached to its acceptance so many reservations, qualifications and assumptions as to make its answer `tantamount to rejection'.
  6. ^ Korbel (1953, pp. 506–507): "When a further Security Council resolution urged the governments of India and Pakistan to agree within thirty days on the demilitarization of Kashmir, on the basis of Dr. Graham's recommendation, Pakistan once more accepted and India once more refused....Dr. Graham met the Indian request for retaining in Kashmir 21,000 men, but continued to propose 6,000 soldiers on the Azad side. Pakistan could not accept the first provision and India continued to insist on its stand concerning the Azad forces. The meeting, which ended in failure, was accompanied by bitter comments in the newspapers of both India and Pakistan about United Nations intervention in the Kashmir dispute."
  7. ^
    • Korbel (1953, p. 507): "With the hindsight of six years, the Council's approach, though impartial and fair, appears to have been inadequate in that it did not reflect the gravity of the Kashmir situation.... The Security Council did not deal with either of these arguments [India's assumption of the legal validity of the accession and Pakistan's refusal to recognize its validity]. Nor did it consider the possibility of asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the juridical aspect of the conflict under Article 96 of the Charter. Nor did it invoke any provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter, which deals with `acts of aggression'."
    • Subbiah (2004, p. 180): "From the beginning, the Security Council framed the problem as primarily a political dispute rather than looking to a major legal underpinning of the dispute: the Instrument of Accession's validity or lack thereof."
  8. ^
    • Ankit (2013, p. 276): To Cadogan [Britain's permanent representative at the UN], irrespective of “whether forces in question are organised or disorganised or whether they are controlled by, or enjoy the convenience of, Government of Pakistan,” India was entitled to take measures for self-defence: repelling invaders, pursuing invaders into Pakistan under Article 51 of the UN Charter and charging Pakistan as aggressor under Article 35.
    • Ankit (2013, p. 279): Mountbatten, too, pleaded directly with Attlee along political as well as personal lines: "I am convinced that this attitude of the United States and the United Kingdom is completely wrong and will have far reaching results. Any prestige I may previously have had with my Government has of course been largely lost by my having insisted that they should make a reference to the United Nations with the assurance that they would get a square deal there."


See also

  • London based leading think tank Royal Institute of International Affairs also known as Chatham House, conducted a survey both in Pakistan administered Kashmir and Indian administered Kashimir and released it in its report Kashmir:Paths to Peace on May 2010.[349][350][351][352]
  • Its author claims is the first ever of its kind, shows that only 2% of the respondents on the Indian side favour joining Pakistan and most such views were confined to Srinagar and Budgam districts. In six of the districts surveyed late last year by researchers, not a single person favoured annexation with Pakistan, a notion that remains the bedrock for the hardline separatist campaign in Kashmir.[349][352][353]
  • Survey conducted by British academic Robert Bradnock, the independent survey found that even 44 percent of people in Pakistan administered Kashmir favour independence. On Indian side of Kashmir, 55% people want to stay with India, 43% want to be independent while 2% people want to join Pakistan.[349][353]
  • This 2010 survey too demonstrated that trend, with more than half the respondents on Indian side saying the elections had improved chances for peace(later in 2014, Jammu and Kashmir elections recorded highest percentage of voters turnout).[349][352]
  • Survey said that, "These results support the already widespread view that the plebiscite options are likely to offer no solution to the dispute."[349][353]
  • "The results aren't surprising at all. I feel they re-emphasize the need to look beyond traditional positions and evaluate the contours of a solution grounded in today's realities," said Sajjad Lone on this survey, a former ally of the Hurriyat who unsuccessfully contested the 2009 Indian general elections but won in 2014 Jammu and Kashmir assembly elections.[349][352]
  • Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, second son of former Libyan dictator colonel Muammar Gaddafi, tried to rig this survey to contrive a pro-Pakistan opinion poll in Kashmir. Bradnock says that Saif returned from Pak administered Kashmir with grandiose ideas of forcing a plebiscite in Kashmir as desired by Pakistan.[354]

Private Survey

  • Article 3 of part 2 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir also says that 'Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India'.[346]
  • Ram Jethmalani, prominent lawyer, former union minister and chairman of Kashmir Committee said in Nov 2014 that, "The constitution of this state(J & K) was not formulated by the constituent assembly of India, but by its constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. That was a plebiscite. It is the constituent assembly of J&K which incorporated some provisions of the Indian Constitution. The plebiscite has therefore taken place. You(Kashmiris) are not living under the constitution of India but under the constitution which was framed by the constituent assembly(of Jammu and Kashmir) which has willingly accepted a part of the Indian constitution."[347]
  • Indian authorities also claims that people of Kashmir have voted in large percentage in recent elections in favour of this constitution and each elected legislative assembly of J & K has accepted this constitution.[348]

having solemnly resolved, in pursuance of the accession of this State to India which took place on the twenty sixth day of October, 1947, to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof, and to secure to ourselves-

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among us all;

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation;


-Preamble of Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir.[346]

Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir

  • There are many such instances where Nehru made such remarks regarding plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir.[338] Pakistan and separatist Hurriyat leaders repeatedly demand that Indian Government should fulfill "Nehru's Promise".[337][339][340]
  • Position of the Indian authorities on "Nehru's Promise": the Indian government takes the position that Nehru himself backed off from his promise in the late 1950s. Although he was Prime Minister for 17 years, he made no serious attempt for a plebiscite. His promises have been taken as a 'good political move'.[341]
  • Indian authorities say that Nehru's telegrams and speeches have no legal importance, nor it is compulsory to apply them as they were never passed by the Parliament of India. The white paper on Kashmir also does not have any legal importance as it was published in 1948 while the Constitution of India came into force into 1950 and defined Kashmir as an integral part of India as well as protecting the 'unity and integrity' of India. Constitution of India doesn't has any provision for plebiscite and 1948 white paper was against Constitution of India so it was automatically got abolished.
  • Indian authorities also says that, Nehru is not current Prime Minister of India, because policies are made on the basis of views of current Prime Minister and his cabinet which must get nod by both houses of Parliament of India.[342]
  • Any Prime Minister of India can't make decision of plebiscite unilaterally, bill of plebiscite must be passed in both houses of Parliament of India with massive 2/3rd majority then it requires assent by President of India, and if that decision is against Basic structure of Indian Constitution then Supreme Court of India can outlaw or abolish that decision.[342][343] Preamble and article 3 of part 2 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir says 'Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India'. This constitution has been adopted by elected Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly in 1956 when Nehru was Prime Minister of India.[344]
  • Daughter of Nehru, Indira Gandhi and his grandson Rajiv Gandhi were Prime Ministers of India but they themself never did any attempt to implement their forefather's 'Promise'. Instead Indira Gandhi done 1974 Indira–Sheikh accord with Shaikh Abdullah which vanished all possibilities of plebiscite.[345]

In his statement in the Lok Sabha on 31 March 1955 as published in Hindustan Times New Delhi on Ist April, 1955, Pandit Nehru said, "Kashmir is perhaps the most difficult of all these problems between India and Pakistan. We should also remember that Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir."[338] There was also a White Paper on Kashmir published by Indian government regarding plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir in 1948.

"I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign."

"I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but every where.

Nehru's statement in the Indian Parliament, 26 June 1952,[337]

"That Government of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to U.N.O. to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir at the earliest possible date."

In telegram No.413 dated 28 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nehru wrote,[337]

"Nehru's Promise"

  • Article 370 of the Indian constitution is a provision that grants special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. The article is drafted in Part XXI of the Constitution, which relates to Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions.[329]
  • Article 370 is the only link that connects Jammu and Kashmir to India.[330]
  • To implement a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir one has to amend or abolish the article 370, which is very complex procedure. The leaders of Kashmir oppose any such measure.[331][332] Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Mufti Muhammad Sayeed said, "Even Indian Parliament does not have power to scrap Article 370, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir under Indian constitution."[333]
  • The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has ruled that the Article 370 cannot be "abrogated, repealed or even amended." It explained that the clause (3) of the Article conferred power to the State's Constituent Assembly to recommend to the President on the matter of the repeal of the Article. Since the Constituent Assembly did not make such a recommendation before its dissolution in 1957, the Article 370 has taken on the features of a "permanent provision" despite being titled a temporary provision in the Constitution.[334][335]
  • Article 370 has emerged as the biggest obstacle in front of plebiscite because of its complex procedure of amendment and opposition from the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir.[330][336]

Article 370

Instrument of Accession

  • The United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 was passed by United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter.[301] Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[302][303][304]
  • In March 2001, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan during his visit to India and Pakistan,remarked that Kashmir resolutions are only advisory recommendations and comparing with those on East Timor and Iraq was like comparing apples and oranges, since those resolutions were passed under chapter VII, which make it enforceable by UNSC.[305][306][307][308][309][310] In 2003,then Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf announced that Pakistan was willing to back off from demand for UN resolutions for Kashmir.[311][312][313]
  • Moreover, India alleges that Pakistan failed to fulfill the pre-conditions by withdrawing its troops from the Kashmir region as was required under the same U.N. resolution of 13 August 1948 which discussed the plebiscite.[314][315][316]
  • Jammu and Kashmir is out of UN dispute list: In Nov 2010 the United Nations has removed Jammu and Kashmir from its list of disputed territories.[317][318][319][320]
  • It was major setback to Pakistan’s efforts to internationalise the Kashmir issue, the United Nations has excluded Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) from its list of unresolved international disputes under the observation of the UN Security Council (UNSC). Pakistan's acting envoy in the UN, Amjad Hussain Sial, has lodged a strong protest, while Indian authorities welcomed the decision.[317][318][320]
  • In 2010, United States Ambassador to India, Timothy J. Roemer said that Kashmir is an 'internal' issue of India and not to be discussed on international level rather it should be solved by bilateral talks between India and Pakistan.[321][322][323][324] He said, "The (US) President ( Barack Obama), I think was very articulate on this issue of Kashmir. This is an internal issue for India."[321][322]
  • Separatist Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani said that, "First of all when they say Kashmir is an internal issue, it is against the reality. The issue of Jammu and Kashmir is an international issue and it should be solved. As long as promises made to us are not fulfilled, this issue will remain unsolved."[325][326]

UN Resolution is not Compulsory

Problems Before Plebiscite

India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998 and the two countries each hold significant numbers of nuclear warheads.[299] India and Pakistan fought two wars over the issue of Kashmir in 1947 and 1965. These two neighbours came dangerously close to a third war during the Kargil conflict in 1999.[300]

  • In 2002, former US President, Bill Clinton described Kashmir as "the most dangerous place in the world."[296] He averted a nuclear war between India and Pakistan over the issue of Kashmir according to former US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. Talbott reveals in his book Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb that India and Pakistan came very close to a nuclear war in 1999.[297] According to Talbott, before Clinton met with Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif in 1999 to discuss the issue, US national security adviser Sandy Berger told Clinton that he could be heading into "the single most important meeting with a foreign leader of his entire presidency".[298]

In July 2009, US Assistant Secretary of State Robert O. Blake, Jr. stated that the United States had no plans to appoint any special envoy to settle the dispute, calling it an issue which needed to be sorted out bilaterally by India and Pakistan.[294] According to Dawn this will be interpreted in Pakistan as an endorsement of India's position on Kashmir that no outside power has any role in this dispute.[295]

  • 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.[282] He said he had talked to Bill Clinton about it, as Clinton has experience as a mediator. In an editorial in The Washington Times, Selig S Harrison,[283] director of the Asia Programme at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars called it Obama's first foreign policy mistake.[284] In an editorial, The Australian called Obama's idea to appoint a presidential negotiator "a very stupid and dangerous move indeed".[285] 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".[286] The Boston Globe called the idea of appointing Bill Clinton as an envoy to Kashmir "a mistake".[287] President Obama subsequently appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.[288] President Asif Ali Zardari hoped that Holbrooke would help mediate to resolve the Kashmir issue.[289] Kashmir was later removed from Holbrooke's mandate.[290] "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.[291] 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."[292] 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.[293]

The US Presidents on Conflict

In October 2014, Indian and Pakistani troops traded gunfire over their border in the divided Himalayan region of Kashmir, killing at least four civilians and worsening tensions between the longtime rivals, officials on both sides have said. The small-arms and mortar exchanges – which Indian officials called the worst violation of a 2003 ceasefire – left 18 civilians wounded in India and another three in Pakistan. Tens of thousands of people fled their homes on both sides after the violence erupted on 5 October. Official reports state that nine civilians in Pakistan and seven in India were killed in three nights of fighting.[281]

October 2014

The European Parliament, on the behalf of European Union, welcomed the smooth conduct of the State Legislative Elections in the Jammu and Kashmir.[278] The EU in its message said that, "The high voter turnout figure proves that democracy is firmly rooted in India. The EU would like to congratulate India and its democratic system for conduct of fair elections, unmarred by violence, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir".[278][279][280] The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.[279]

J & K 2014 elections voters turnout
Date Seats Turnout
Tuesday 25 November 15 71.28%
Tuesday 2 December 18 71%
Tuesday 9 December 16 58.89%
Sunday 14 December 18 49%
Saturday 20 December 20 76%
Total 87 65.23%
Voting phases in 2014 Jammu & Kashmir Assembly Elections

Phase wise voting percentage is as follow:

The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 was held in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in five phases from November 25 to December 20, 2014. Despite repeated boycott calls by separarist Hurriyat leaders,[272] elections recorded highest voters turnout in last 25 years, that is more than 65% which is more than usual voting percentage in other states of India.[20][21][22]

2014 Jammu and Kashmir Elections

The 2010 Kashmir unrest was series of protests in the Muslim majority Kashmir Valley in Jammu and Kashmir which started in June 2010. These protests involved the 'Quit Jammu Kashmir Movement' launched by the Hurriyat Conference led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who had called for the complete demilitarisation of Jammu and Kashmir. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference made this call to protest, citing human rights abuses by Indian troops.[268] Chief Minister Omar Abdullah attributed the 2010 unrest to the fake encounter staged by the military in Machil. Protesters shouted pro-independence slogans, defied curfews, attacked security forces with stones and burnt police vehicles and government buildings.[269][270] The Jammu and Kashmir Police and Indian para-military forces fired live ammunition on the protesters, resulting in 112 deaths, including many teenagers. The protests subsided after the Indian government announced a package of measures aimed at defusing the tensions in September 2010.[271]

2010 Kashmir Unrest

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 perpetrators. A judicial enquiry by a retired High Court official confirmed the suspicion, but a CBI enquiry reversed their conclusion. This gave fresh impetus to popular agitation against India. Significantly, the unity between the separatist parties was lacking this time.[267]

2009 Kashmir protests

In March 2009, Abdullah stated that only 800 militants were active in the state and out of these only 30% were Kashmiris.[266]

State elections were held in Indian administered Kashmir in seven phases, starting on 17 November and finishing on 24 December 2008. In spite of calls by separatists for a boycott, an unusually high turnout of more than 60% was recorded.[261][262] The National Conference party, which was founded by Sheikh Abdullah and is regarded as pro-India, emerged with a majority of the seats.[263] On 30 December, the Congress Party and the National Conference agreed to form a coalition government, with Omar Abdullah as Chief Minister.[264] On 5 January 2009, Abdullah was sworn in as the eleventh Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.[265]

2008 Kashmir elections

Separatists and political party workers were believed to be behind stone-throwing incidents, which have led to retaliatory fire from the police.[257][258] An autorickshaw laden with stones meant for distribution was seized by the police in March 2009. Following the unrest in 2008, secessionist movements got a boost.[259][260]

Indian security forces and the Indian army responded quickly to keep order. More than 40 unarmed protesters were killed[252][253] and at least 300 were detained.[254] 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.[255] Pro-independence Kashmiri 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.[256] The United Nations expressed concern at India's response to peaceful protests and urged investigations be launched against Indian security personnel who had taken part in the crackdown.[63]

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.[249] This land was to be used to build a shelter to house Hindu pilgrims temporarily during their annual pilgrimage to the Amarnath temple. Such demonstrations have been aloof of the fact that the India government very regularly undertakes activities for upliftment of Muslim community (as a secular government)and very regularly donates lands and other properties to the systemized Waqf Boards.[250][251]

2008 Kashmir protests

According to the Government 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.[247] In 2008, 85 security personnel died 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.[248]

[246]March 2008. The battle began when security forces raided a house on the outskirts of the capital city of  March 2008, 17 people were wounded when a blast hit the region's only highway overpass located near the civil secretariat—the seat of government of Indian-controlled Kashmir—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  In the week of 10

2008 militant attacks

In 2005, General Musharraf as well as other Pakistani leaders sought to resolve the Kashmir issue through the Chenab Formula road map. Based on the 'Dixon Plan', the Chenab Formula assigns Ladakh to India, Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) to Pakistan, proposes a plebiscite in the Kashmir Valley and splits Jammu into two-halves.[243] 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.[244] Musharraf stated that he was ready to give up the United Nations' resolutions regarding Kashmir.[245]

After intensive diplomatic efforts by other countries, India and Pakistan began to withdraw troops from the international border on 10 June 2002, and negotiations restarted. From 26 November 2003, India and Pakistan agreed to maintain a ceasefire along the undisputed international border, the disputed Line of Control, and Actual Ground Position Line near the Siachen glacier. This was 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. Their neighbours launched several other mutual confidence-building measures. Restarting the bus service between the Indian- and Pakistani- administered Kashmir has helped defuse tensions between the countries while both India and Pakistan have decided to co-operate on economic fronts.

The 9/11 attacks on the United States resulted in the US 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 troop deployments, and international fears of a nuclear war in the subcontinent.

Efforts to end the crisis

The 2005 Kashmir earthquake, which killed over 80,000 people, led to India and Pakistan finalising negotiations for the opening of a road for disaster relief through Kashmir.

The Freedom in the World 2006 report categorised Indian-administered Kashmir as "partly free", and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, as well as the country of Pakistan, as "not free".[239] India claims that contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wishes to remain with India. A MORI survey found that within Indian-administered Kashmir, 61% of respondents said they felt they would be better off as Indian citizens, with 33% saying that they did not know, and the remaining 6% favouring Pakistani citizenship. However, this support for India was mainly in the Ladakh and Jammu regions, not the Kashmir Valley, where only 9% of the respondents said that they would be better off with India.[240] 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.[241] However, a survey by Chatham House in both Indian and Pakistani administered Kashmir found that support for independence stood at 43% and 44% respectively.[242]

In a 2001 report entitled "Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency" from the American Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai.[238]

Revelations made on 24 September 2013 by the former Indian army chief General V. K. Singh claim that the state politicians of Jammu and Kashmir are funded by the army secret service to keep the general public calm and that this activity has been going on since Partition. He also stated that the secret service paid a bribe to a politician to topple the state government, which was pushing for AFSPA repeal in 2010.[233][234]

India continues to assert its 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 and further insists on a UN-sponsored plebiscite. Unofficially, the Pakistani leadership has indicated that they would be willing to accept alternatives such as a demilitarised 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-partitioning Kashmir on communal lines. The problem with the proposal is that the population of the Pakistan-administered portion of Kashmir is for the most part ethnically, linguistically, and culturally different from the Valley of Kashmir, a part of Indian-administered Kashmir. Partition based on the Chenab formula is opposed by some Kashmiri politicians, although others, including 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.[228] Many neutral parties to the dispute have noted that the UN resolution on Kashmir is no longer relevant.[229] The European Union holds the view that the plebiscite is not in Kashmiris' interest.[230] The report notes that the UN conditions for such a plebiscite have not been, and can no longer be, met by Pakistan.[231] The Hurriyat Conference observed in 2003 that a "plebiscite [is] no longer an option".[232] Besides the popular factions that support one or other of the 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 a long while, and there have been no significant changes over the years. As a result, all efforts to solve the conflict have so far proved futile.

Kashmir Solidarity Day on every 5th of February is celebrated in Pakistan. This banner was hung in Islamabad, Pakistan

Recent developments

In 2010, Jammu and Kashmir was removed from the United Nations list of unresolved disputes, in a setback to Pakistan which has been asking the world body to intervene on the issue.[226][227]

As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir territory, regardless of actual control. Due to India's Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961, it is illegal in India to exclude all or part of Kashmir from a map (or to publish any map that differs from those of the Survey of India).[224] 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, while the region is often marked out in hashmarks. When Microsoft released a map in Windows 95 and MapPoint 2002, a controversy arose because it did not show all of Kashmir as part of India as per the Indian claim. All 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.[225]

United Nations' map of Jammu and Kashmir

Map issues

In December 2009, activists from nationalist Kashmiri groups staged a protest in Muzaffarabad to condemn the alleged rigging of elections and the killing of an 18-year-old student.[223]

There has been criticism and opposition to this move in Pakistan, India, and Pakistan administrated Kashmir.[220] The move has been dubbed a cover-up to hide the real mechanics of power, which allegedly are under the direct control of the Pakistani federal government.[221] The package was opposed by Pakistani Kashmiri politicians who claimed that the integration of Gilgit-Baltistan into Pakistan would undermine their case for the independence of Kashmir from India.[222] 300 activists from Kashmiri groups protested during the first Gilgit-Baltistan legislative assembly elections, with some carrying banners reading "Pakistan's expansionist designs in Gilgit-Baltistan are unacceptable"[215]

In 2009, the Pakistani government implemented an autonomy package for Gilgit-Baltistan, which entails rights similar to those of Pakistan’s other provinces.[214] Gilgit-Baltistan thus gains province-like status without actually being conferred such status constitutionally.[214][216] Direct rule by Islamabad has been replaced by an elected legislative assembly under a chief minister.[214][216]

The main demand of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan is constitutional status for the region as a fifth province of Pakistan.[214][215] However, Pakistan claims that Gilgit-Baltistan cannot be given constitutional status due to Pakistan's commitment to the 1948 UN resolution.[215][216] In 2007, the 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".[217] 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.[218] Several members of the European Parliament expressed concern over human rights violations in Gilgit-Baltistan and urged the government of Pakistan to establish democratic institutions and the rule of law in the area.[218][219]


UNCR reports that the status of women in Pakistani-administered Kashmir is similar to that of women in Pakistan. They are not granted equal rights under the law, and their educational opportunities and choice of marriage partner remain "circumscribed". Domestic violence, forced marriage, and other forms of abuse continue to be issues of concern. In May 2007, the United Nations and other aid agencies temporarily suspended their work after suspected Islamists mounted an arson attack on the home of two aid workers after the organisations had received warnings against hiring women. However, honour killings and rape occur less frequently than in other areas of Pakistan.[193]

In December 1993, the blasphemy laws of Pakistan were extended to Pakistan Administered Kashmir. The area is ruled directly through a chief executive Lt. Gen. Mohammed Shafiq, appointed by Islamabad with a 26-member Northern Areas Council.[213]

After the 2011 elections, Azad Kashmir Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan stated that there were mistakes in the voters list which have raised questions about the credibility of the elections.[212]

In 2006, Human Rights Watch accused ISI and the military of systemic torture with the purpose of "punishing" errant politicians, political activists and journalists in Azad Kashmir.[209] A report titled "Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects", submitted to the European Parliament by Emma Nicholson, was critical of the lack of human rights, justice, democracy, and Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly.[210] According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan's ISI operates in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and is accused of involvement in extensive surveillance, arbitrary arrests, torture, and murder.[208] The 2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Pakistan-administered Kashmir was 'not free'.[208] 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".[211]

Claims of religious discrimination and restrictions on religious freedom in Azad Kashmir have been made against Pakistan.[208] The country is also accused of systemic suppression of free speech and demonstrations against the government.[208] UNHCR reported that a number of Islamist militant groups, including al-Qaeda, operate from bases in Pakistani-administered Kashmir with the tacit permission of ISI[193][208] There have also been several allegations of human rights abuse.[193]

Azad Kashmir

Pakistan administered Kashmir

Many human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) have condemned human rights abuses in Kashmir by Indians such as "extra-judicial executions", "disappearances", and torture.[198] 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 organisations have also asked the Indian government to repeal[206] the Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative detention for a maximum of two years without a court order."[197] A 2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that [196] A recent report by Amnesty International stated that up to 20,000 people have been detained under a law called AFSPA in Indian-administered Kashmir.[197][198][199][207]

A soldier guards the roadside checkpoint outside Srinagar International Airport in January 2009.

[197] the Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative detention for a maximum of two years without a court order."[206] Several international agencies and the UN have reported human rights violations in

[196][197][198][199] 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.[199]

The CIA has reported that at least 506,000 people from Indian Administered Kashmir are internally displaced, about half of who are Hindu Pandits.[191][192] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCR) reports that there are roughly 1.5 million refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir, the bulk of who arrived in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and in Pakistan after the situation on the Indian side worsened in 1989 insurgency.[193]

Reports by the Indian government state 219 Kashmiri pandits were killed and around 140,000 migrated due to millitancy while over 3000 remained in the valley.[187][188] The local organisation of pandits in Kashmir, Kashmir Pandit Sangharsh Samiti claimed that 399 Kashmiri Pandits were killed by insurgents.[189][190]

Mustafa Kamal, brother of Union Minister Farooq Abdullah, blamed security forces, former Jammu and Kashmir governor Jagmohan and PDP leader Mufti Sayeed for forcing the migration of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley.[186] Jagmohan denies these allegations.[181]

[181] The separatists in Kashmir deny these allegations. The Indian government is also trying to reinstate the displaced Pandits in Kashmir. Tahir, the district commander of a separatist Islamic group in Kashmir, stated: "We want the Kashmiri Pandits to come back. They are our brothers. We will try to protect them." But the majority of the Pandits, who have been living in pitiable conditions in Jammu, believe that, until insurgency ceases to exist, return is not possible.[185] The allegation of mass rape incidents as well as forced disappearances are reflected in a Kashmiri short documentary film by an Independent Kashmiri film-maker, the

Indian security forces have assaulted civilians during search operations, tortured and summarily executed detainees in custody and murdered civilians in reprisal attacks. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting residents, and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community.[172]
, Human Rights WatchAccording to a report by

Some human rights organisations have alleged that Indian Security forces have killed hundreds of Kashmiris through the indiscriminate use of force and torture, firing on demonstrations, custodial killings, encounters and detensions.[156][157][158][159] The government of India denied that torture was widespread[157] and stated that some custodial crimes may have taken place but that "these are few and far between".[157] According to one human rights report in Kashmir there have been more than three hundred cases of "disappearances" since 1990.[160][161][162] State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has found 2,730 bodies buried into unmarked graves scattered all over Kashmir believed to contain the remains of victims of unlawful killings and enforced disappearances by Indian security forces.[163][164][165] SHRC stated that about 574 of these bodies have already been identified as those of disappeared locals.[166] SHRC also accused Indian army of forced labour.[167] According to cables leaked by the WikiLeaks website, US diplomats in 2005 were informed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about the use of torture and sexual humiliation against hundreds of Kashmiri detainees by the security forces.[168] The cable said Indian security forces relied on torture for confessions and that the human right abuses are believed to be condoned by the Indian government.[169] In 2012, the Jammu and Kashmir State government stripped its State Information Commission (SIC) department of most powers after the commission asked the government to disclose information about the unmarked graves. This state action was reportedly denounced by the former National Chief Information Commissioner.[170] A state government inquiry into the 22 October 1993 Bijbehara killings, in which the Indian military fired on a procession and killed 40 people and injured 150, found out that the firing by the forces was 'unprovoked' and the claim of the military that it was in retaliation was 'concocted and baseless'. However, the accused are still to be punished.[171]

Human Rights Watch also blamed Pakistan for supporting militants in Kashmir, in same 2006 report it says, "There is considerable evidence that over many years Pakistan has provided Kashmiri militants with training, weapons, funding and sanctuary. Pakistan remains accountable for abuses committed by militants that it has armed and trained."[152][154][155]

Indian security forces claim they are fighting to protect Kashmiris from militants and Islamic extremists, while militants claim they are fighting for Kashmiri independence and to defend Muslim Kashmiris from an abusive Indian army. In reality, both sides have committed widespread and numerous human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law (or the laws of war).[152]
stated that, Human Rights WatchIn its report of September 2006,

Claims of human rights abuses have been made against the Indian Armed Forces and armed insurgents operating in Jammu and Kashmir. Since 1989, over 50,000 people are claimed to have died during the conflict.[152] Data released in 2011 by Jammu and Kashmir government stated that, in the last 21 years, 43,460 people have been killed in the Kashmir insurgency. Of these, 21,323 are militants, 13,226 civilians killed by militants, 3,642 civilians killed by security forces, and 5,369 policemen killed by militants.[153] Human rights watch also blamed both Indian security foreces and Kashmiri separatist militants for human rights abuses.[152]

Indian administered Kashmir

Human rights abuse

In the past, Indian authorities have alleged several times that Pakistan has been involved in training and arming underground militant groups to fight Indian forces in Kashmir.[151]

Reportedly, about Rs. 24 million are paid out per month by the ISI to fund its activities in Jammu and Kashmir.[147] Pro-Pakistani groups were reportedly favoured over other militant groups.[147] Creation of six militant groups in Kashmir, which included Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), was aided by the ISI.[148][149] According to American Intelligence officials, ISI is still providing protection and help to LeT.[149] The Pakistan Army and ISI also LeT volunteers to surreptitiously penetrate from Pakistan Administrated Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir.[150]

Throughout the 1990s, the ISI maintained its relationship with extremist networks and militants that it had established during the Afghan war to utilise in its campaign against Indian forces in Kashmir.[144] Joint Intelligence/North (JIN) has been accused of conducting operations in Jammu and Kashmir and also Afghanistan.[145] The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau (JSIB) provide communications support to groups in Kashmir.[145] According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, both former members of the National Security Council, the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalising young men in the Madrassas of Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by Al-Qaeda and from there moving them into Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks.[146]

In 2009, the President of Pakistan Asif Zardari asserted at a conference in Islamabad that Pakistan had indeed created Islamic militant groups as a strategic tool for use in its geostrategic agenda and "to attack Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir".[139] Former President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of the Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf also stated in an interview that Pakistani government helped to form underground militant groups to fight against Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir and "turned a blind eye" towards their existence because it wanted to force India to enter negotiations.[137] The British Government have formally accepted that there is a clear connection between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and three major militant outfits operating in Jammu and Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen.[140][141] The militants are provided with "weapons, training, advice and planning assistance" in Punjab and Kashmir by the ISI which is "coordinating the shipment of arms from the Pakistani side of Kashmir to the Indian side, where Muslim insurgents are waging a protracted war".[142][143]

According to former Indian Prime-minister Manmohan Singh, one of the main reasons behind the conflict was Pakistan's "terror-induced coercion". He further stated at a Joint Press Conference with United States President Barack Obama in New Delhi that India is not afraid of resolving all the issues with Pakistan including that of Kashmir "but it is our request that you cannot simultaneously be talking and at the same time the terror machine is as active as ever before. Once Pakistan moves away from this terror-induced coercion, we will be very happy to engage productively with Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues."[138]

India has furnished documentary evidence to the United Nations that Pakistan supports Kashmiri militants, leading to a ban on some terrorist organisations, which Pakistan has yet to enforce. Former President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of the Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf, stated in an interview in London, that the Pakistani government indeed helped to form underground militant groups and "turned a blind eye" towards their existence.[137]

Pakistan's relation with militants

The Indus Waters Treaty was signed by both countries in September 1960, giving exclusive rights over the three western rivers of the Indus river system (Jhelum, Chenab and Indus) to Pakistan, and over the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Ravi and Beas) to India, as long as this does not reduce or delay the supply to Pakistan. India therefore maintains that they are not willing to break the established regulations and they see no more problems with this issue.

In 1948, Eugene Black, then president of the World Bank, offered his services to solve the tension over water control. In the early days of independence, the fact that India was able to shut off the Central Bari Doab Canals at the time of the sowing season, causing significant damage to Pakistan's crops. Nevertheless, military and political clashes over Kashmir in the early years of independence appear to have been more about ideology and sovereignty rather than over the sharing of water resources. However, the minister of Pakistan has stated the opposite.[136]

The Indus is a river system that sustains communities in India and Pakistan. Both have extensively dammed the Indus River for irrigation of their crops and hydro-electricity systems. In arbitrating the conflict in 1947, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, decided to demarcate the territories as he was unable to give to one or the other the control over the river as it was a main economic resource for both areas. The Line of Control (LoC) was recognised as an international border establishing that India would have control over the upper riparian and Pakistan over the lower riparian of the Indus and its tributaries. Despite appearing to be separate issues, the Kashmir dispute and the dispute over the water control are in reality related and the fight over the water remains one of the main problems in establishing good relations between the two countries.

Another reason for the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the source of many rivers and tributaries in the Indus River basin. This basin is divided between Pakistan, which has about 60 percent of the catchment area, India with about 20 percent, Afghanistan with 5 percent and around 15 percent in China (Tibet autonomous region). The river tributaries are the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which primarily flow into Pakistan, while other branches—the Ravi, Beas, and the Sutlej—irrigate northern India.

Water dispute

In 2002, Pakistani President and Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf promised to check infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir.

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.

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,[134] 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[135] after intense pressure from the Bush administration in mid-2002.

Cross-border troubles

  • 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.[132]
  • 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.[133]

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.

Chinese view

A survey carried out across both Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir by London-based thinktank Chatham House, its author claims 'is the first ever of its kind', shows that only 2% of the respondents on the Indian side favour joining Pakistan.[131]

Former Pakistani president General Pervez Musharraf on 16 October 2014 said that Pakistan needs to incite those fighting in Kashmir,[129][130] "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.[129][130]

  • 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.[128]

Human rights organisations have strongly condemned Indian troops for widespread rape and murder of innocent civilians while accusing these civilians of being militants.[125][126][127]

  • 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.[120]
  • According to the two-nation theory, one of the theories that is cited for the partition that created India and Pakistan, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority.
  • India has shown disregard for the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the United Nations Commission in India and Pakistan by failing to hold a plebiscite to determine the future allegiance of the state.[121]
  • 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.[122]
  • 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.[123][124]

In short, Pakistan holds that –

[119] From 1990 to 1999, some organisations reported that the

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).[115][116]

Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is the "jugular vein of Pakistan"[113] 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.[114]

Map of Kashmir as drawn by the Government of Pakistan

Pakistani view

In 2008, the death toll from the last 20 years was estimated by Indian authorities to be over 47,000.[112]

  • 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.[86]
  • Insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is deliberately fuelled by Pakistan to create instability in the region.[99] 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.[100][101][102][103]
  • Pakistan is trying to raise anti-India sentiment among the people of Kashmir by spreading false propaganda against India.[104] 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.[105]
  • 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 Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, in direct violation of this resolution.[108]
  • India points out reports by human rights organisations condemning Pakistan for the lack of civic liberties in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[104][109] 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.[110]
  • 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.[111]

Additional Indian viewpoints regarding the broader debate over the Kashmir conflict include –

  • 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[88][89] and executed on 27 October 1947[89] 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.[87]
  • 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 4][90]
  • 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.[91][92]
  • [95][96]
  • 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.[82]
  • The state of Jammu and Kashmir was provided with significant autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India.[97]
  • 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.[98]

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 on this issue.[85] The Indian viewpoint is succinctly summarised by Ministry of External affairs, Government of India[86][87] —

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.

Indian view

Numerous violations of the Line of Control have occurred, including incursions by insurgents and Pakistani armed forces at Kargil leading to the Kargil war. There have also been 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), with the Indian forces serving at higher altitudes.

Two-thirds of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, comprising Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, and the sparsely populated Buddhist area of Ladakh are controlled by India while one-third is administered by Pakistan. The latter includes a narrow strip of land called Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, comprising the Gilgit Agency, Baltistan, and the former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar. Attempts to resolve the dispute through political discussions have been unsuccessful. In September 1965, war again broke out between Pakistan and India. The United Nations called for another cease-fire, and peace was restored following the Tashkent Declaration in 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 Bhutto of 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".

Administered by Area Population % Muslim % Hindu % Buddhist % Other
India Kashmir valley ~4 million 95% 4%
Jammu ~3 million 30% 66% 4%
Ladakh ~0.25 million 46% 50% 3%
Pakistan Gilgit-Baltistan ~1 million 99%
Azad Kashmir ~2.6 million 100%
China Aksai 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
  • A minimum of 506,000 people in the Indian Administered Kashmir valley are internally displaced due to militancy in Kashmir about half of who are Hindu pandits CIA
  • Muslims form the majority in the Poonch, Rajouri, Kishtwar, and Doda districts of the Jammu region. Shia Muslims make up the majority in the Kargil district in the Ladakh region.
  • India does not accept the two-nation theory and considers that Kashmir, despite being a Muslim-majority state, is in many ways an "integral part" of secular India.[82] It is also worth noting that India has a Muslim population close to 177 Million very close to Pakistan which has a Muslim population of 178 Million.[83] In fact, as per 2001 Census Muslim population in the State of Uttar Pradesh (in India) alone was around 30 million more than Jammu & Kashmir which is at around 6 million.[84]

The Kashmir Conflict arose from the Partition of British India in 1947 into modern India and Pakistan. Both countries subsequently made claims to Kashmir, based on the history and religious affiliations of the Kashmiri people. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which lies strategically in the north-west of the subcontinent bordering Afghanistan and China, was formerly ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh under the paramountcy of British India. In geographical and legal terms, the Maharaja could have joined either of the two new countries. Although urged by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, to determine the future of his state before the transfer of power took place, Singh demurred. In October 1947, incursions by Pakistan took place leading to a war, as a result of which the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains divided between India and Pakistan.

Reasons behind the dispute

In June 2011, a US Drone strike killed Ilyas Kashmiri, chief of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, a Kashmiri militant group associated with Al-Qaeda.[75][76] Kashmiri was described by Bruce Riedel as a 'prominent' Al-Qaeda member,[77] while others described him as the head of military operations for Al-Qaeda.[78] Waziristan had by then become the new battlefield for Kashmiri militants fighting NATO in support of Al-Qaeda.[79] Ilyas Kashmiri was charged by the US in a plot against Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper at the center of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[80] In April 2012, Farman Ali Shinwari a former member of Kashmiri separatist groups Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, was appointed chief of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.[81]

In a 'Letter to American People' written by Taliban operatives in Pakistan-administered Kashmir are helping terrorists trained in Afghanistan to infiltrate Indian-administered Kashmir.[70] 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.[71] In 2006 Al-Qaeda claim they have established a wing in Kashmir, which worried the Indian government.[72] Indian Army Lieutenant General H.S. Panag, GOC-in-C Northern Command, told reporters that the army has ruled out the presence of Al-Qaeda in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. He said that there no evidence to verify media reports of an Al-Qaeda presence in the state. He ruled out Al-Qaeda ties with the militant groups in Kashmir including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. However, he stated that they had information about Al Qaeda's strong ties with Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed operations in Pakistan.[73] While on a visit to Pakistan in January 2010, US Defense secretary Robert Gates stated that Al-Qaeda was seeking to destabilise the region and planning to provoke a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.[74]

2000s Al-Qaeda involvement

Fears of the Kargil War turning into a nuclear war provoked the then-United States President Bill Clinton to pressure Pakistan to retreat. The Pakistan Army withdrew their remaining troops from the area, ending the conflict. India reclaimed control of the peaks, which they now patrol and monitor all year long.

In mid-1999, alleged insurgents and Pakistani soldiers from Pakistani Kashmir infiltrated Jammu and Kashmir. During the winter season, Indian forces regularly move down to lower altitudes, as severe climatic conditions makes it almost impossible for them to guard the high peaks near the Line of Control. This practice is followed by both India and Pakistan Army. The terrain makes it difficult for both sides to maintain a strict border control over Line of Control. The insurgents took advantage of this and occupied vacant mountain peaks in the Kargil range overlooking the highway in Indian Kashmir that connects Srinagar and Leh. By blocking the highway, they could cut off the only link between the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. This resulted in a large-scale conflict between the Indian and Pakistani armies.

Location of conflict.

1999 Conflict in Kargil

In 2008, pro-separatist leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq told the Washington Post that there has been a "purely indigenous, purely Kashmiri"[11] peaceful protest movement alongside the insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir since 1989. The movement was created for the same reason as the insurgency and began after the disputed election of 1987. According to the United Nations, the Kashmiris have grievances with the Indian government, specifically the Indian Military, which has committed human rights violations, .[11][12][63]

The Pakistani government calls these insurgents "Kashmiri freedom fighters", and claims that it provides them only moral and diplomatic support, although India[60] 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.[61] These comments sparked outrage amongst many Kashmiris, some of whom defied a curfew imposed by the Indian army to burn him in effigy.[62]

India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir a part of Pakistan.[56][58] They claim Pakistan supplies munitions to the terrorists and trains them in Pakistan. India states that the terrorists have killed many citizens in Kashmir and committed human rights violations whilst denying that their own armed forces are responsible for human rights abuses. On a visit to Pakistan in 2006, former Chief Minister of Kashmir Omar Abdullah remarked that foreign militants were engaged in reckless killings and mayhem in the name of religion.[59] The Indian government has said militancy is now on the decline.[12]

[57] However, according to the state human rights commission, among the identified bodies 574 were those of "disappeared locals", and according to Amnesty International's annual human rights report (2012) it was sufficient for "belying the security forces' claim that they were militants".[56] The authorities deny such accusations. The security forces say the unidentified dead are militants who may have originally come from outside India. They also say that many of the missing people have crossed into Pakistan-administered Kashmir to engage in militancy.[56] In 2011, the state humans right commission said it had evidence that 2,156 bodies had been buried in 40 graves over the last 20 years.[56][55] that enables them to "hold prisoners without trial". The group argues that the law, which allows security forces to detain individuals for up to two years without presenting charges violates prisoners' human rights.Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act has accused security forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir of exploiting an Amnesty International Pakistan claims these insurgents are Jammu and Kashmir citizens, and are rising up against the Indian army as part of an independence movement. [54][53] started in Kashmir. After the 1987 state legislative assembly election, some of the results were disputed. This resulted in the formation of militant wings and marked the beginning of the [50][49] In 1989, a widespread popular and armed insurgency

In the years since 1990, the Kashmiri Muslims and the Indian government have conspired to abolish the complexities of Kashmiri civilization. The world it inhabited has vanished: the state government and the political class, the rule of law, almost all the Hindu inhabitants of the valley, alcohol, cinemas, cricket matches, picnics by moonlight in the saffron fields, schools, universities, an independent press, tourists and banks. In this reduction of civilian reality, the sights of Kashmir are redefined: not the lakes and Mogul gardens, or the storied triumphs of Kashmiri agriculture, handicrafts and cookery, but two entities that confront each other without intermediary: the mosque and the army camp.
— British journalist James Buchan[48]

1989 popular insurgency and militancy

In 1965 and 1971, heavy fighting again broke out between India and Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 resulted in the defeat of Pakistan and the Pakistani military's surrender in East Pakistan, leading to the creation of Bangladesh. The Simla Agreement, signed in 1972 between India and Pakistan, allowed both countries to settle all issues by peaceful means through mutual discussion within the framework of the UN Charter.

1965 and 1971 wars

In 1962, troops from the People's Republic of China and India clashed in territory claimed by both. China won a swift victory in the war, resulting in Chinese annexation of the region they call Aksai Chin and which has continued since then. Another smaller area, the Trans-Karakoram, was demarcated as the Line of Control (LOC) between China and Pakistan, although some of the territory on the Chinese side is claimed by India to be part of Kashmir. The line that separates India from China in this region is known as the "Line of Actual Control".[47]

Sino-Indian War

Scholars have commented that the failure of the Security Council efforts of mediation owed to the fact that the Council regarded the issue as a purely political dispute without investigating its legal underpinnings.[note 7] Declassified British papers indicate that Britain and US have let their cold war calculations inlfuence their policy in the UN disregarding the merits of the case.[note 8]

In short, India required an asymmetric treatment of the two countries in the withdrawal arrangements regarding Pakistan as an `aggressor', whereas Pakistan insisted on parity. The UN mediators tended towards parity, which was not to India's satisfaction.[45] In the end, no withdrawal was ever carried out, India insisting that Pakistan had to withdraw first, and Pakistan contending that there was no guarantee that India would withdraw afterwards.[46] No agreement could be reached between the two countries on the process of demilitarisation.[note 6]

The Pakistan government held that the state of Jammu and Kashmir had executed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan which precluded it from entering into agreements with other countries. It also held that the Maharaja had no authority left to execute accession because his people had revolted and he had to flee the capital. It believed that the Azad Kashmir movement as well as the tribal incursions were indigenous and spontaneous, and Pakistan's assistance to them was not open to criticism.[44]

The Indian government considered itself to be under legal possession of Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of the accession of the state. The assistance given by Pakistan to the rebel forces and the Pakhtoon tribes was held to be a hostile act and the further involvement of the Pakistan army was taken to be an invasion of Indian territory. From the Indian perspective, the plebiscite was meant to confirm the accession, which was in all respects already complete, and Pakistan could not aspire to an equal footing with India in the contest.[43]

The UNCIP made three visits to the subcontinent between 1948 and 1949, trying to find a solution agreeable to both India and Pakistan.[41] It reported to the Security Council in August 1948 that "the presence of troops of Pakistan" inside Kashmir represented a "material change" in the situation. A two-part process was proposed for the withdrawal of forces. In the first part, Pakistan was to withdraw its forces as well as other Pakistani nationals from the state. In the second part, "when the Commission shall have notified the Government of India" that Pakistani withdrawal has been completed, India was to withdraw the bulk of its forces. After both the withdrawals were completed, a plebiscite would be held.[42] The resolution was accepted by India but effectively rejected by Pakistan.[note 5]

UN mediation

India sought resolution of the issue at the UN Security Council, despite Sheikh Abdullah's opposition to it.[note 4] Following the set-up of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948. The measure imposed an immediate cease-fire and called on the Government of Pakistan 'to secure the withdrawal from the state of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the state for the purpose of fighting.' It also asked Government of India to reduce its forces to minimum strength, after which the circumstances for holding a plebiscite should be put into effect 'on the question of Accession of the state to India or Pakistan.' However, it was not until 1 January 1949 that the ceasefire could be put into effect, signed by General Gracey on behalf of Pakistan and General Roy Bucher on behalf of India.[39] However, both India and Pakistan failed to arrive at a truce agreement due to differences over interpretation of the procedure for and the extent of demilitarisation. One sticking point was whether the Azad Kashmiri army was to be disbanded during the truce stage or at the plebiscite stage.[40]

On 1 November 1947, Mountbatten flew to Lahore for a conference with Jinnah, proposing that, in all the princely States where the ruler did not accede to a Dominion corresponding to the majority population (which would have included Junagadh, Hyderabad as well Kashmir), the accession should be decided by an `impartial reference to the will of the people'. Jinnah rejected the ofer, thereby "squandering his leverage" according to the scholar A. G. Noorani.[37] Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan met again in December, where Nehru informed Khan of India's intention to refer the dispute to the United Nations under article 35 of the UN Charter, which allows the member states to bring to the Security Council attention situations `likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace'.[38]

The Pakistan army made available arms, ammuniton and supplies to the rebel forces who were dubbed the `Azad Army'. Pakistani army officers `conveniently' on leave and the former officers of the Indian National Army were recruited to command the forces. In May 1948, the Pakistani army officially entered the conflict, in theory to defend the Pakistan borders, but it made plans to push towards Jammu and cut the lines of communications of the Indian forces in the Mehndar Valley.[36]

Rebel forces from the western districts of the State and the Pakistani Pakhtoon tribesmen[note 2][note 3] made rapid advances into the Baramulla sector. In the Kashmir valley, National Conference volunteers worked with the Indian Army to drive out the `raiders'.[note 4] The resulting First Kashmir War lasted until the end of 1948.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

Meanwhile, the rebel forces in the western districts of Jammu organized themselves under the leadership of Sardar Ibrahim, a Muslim Conference leader, and 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.[35]

Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir, initially believed that by delaying his decision he could maintain the independence of Kashmir, but, caught up in a train of events that included a revolution among his Muslim subjects along the western borders of the state and the invasion by Pashtun tribesmen, he signed an instrument of accession on 25 October 1947[32] to the Indian union in return for military aid.[33] The National Conference, the largest political party in the State, endorsed the accession. In the words of the National Conference leader Syed Mir Qasim, India had the "legal" as well as "moral" justification to send in the army through the Maharaja's accession and the people's support to it.[34][note 1]


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.