Institute of Administrative Sciences

Report:
Kashmir Issue

Submitted by:
Hafiza Fatima Iqbal 15-BS-R-64
Abideen Hassan 15-BS-S-73
Farah Mushtaq 15-BS-S-84
Sana Arif 15-BS-S-90
Mahnoor 15-BS-S-100
Hamza Fayyaz 15-BS-S-108
Submitted to:
Miss Ayesha Hanif
 Kashmir Issue

Table of Contents Page no:

Kashmir-An Introduction……………………………………………..3
Wars on Kashmir……………………………………………………...7
India's Perspective……………………………………………………12
Pakistan’s Perspective………………………………………………...23
UN Involvement………………………………………………………25
Current Issues………………………………………………………....30
Leaders View on Kashmir………………………………………….....31
Conclusion………………………………………………………….....33
 Kashmir – An Introduction
Kashmir, the paradise on earth is known for its captivating and charismatic beauty. It is
enriched by three mountain ranges of the Himalayas - Karakoram, Zanaskar and Pir Panjal,
running from northwest to northeast. Forming the backdrop and locale of Kashmir, these snow
caped ranges make Kashmir look like a picture straight out of a fairytale. Dazzling rivers, serene
lakes, splendid gardens, flowering meadows, etc. are some other features of landscape of
Kashmir Valley. The breath taking beauty of Kashmir has earned it the name of "Switzerland of
East". The magnificence of Kashmir is not even denied by the Mughal Rulers.

Centering the beauty of Kashmir a Mughal emperor once said

"Gar Bar ru -e- zamin ast, Hamin Ast, Hamin Ast,Hamin Ast"
It means that if there is paradise on this earth, this is it, this is it and this is it.

Geography

Kashmir is bordered by Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and China. The region has a total area of
206,552 square miles. Mountainous, lightly populated region. The climate of Kashmir varies due
to elevation. The most populated area is the Valley of Kashmir which is located on the Indian
side. Currently, Kashmir is divided into three regions

i. one controlled by India (Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh)

ii. one controlled by Pakistan (Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir)

iii. A small area controlled by China (Aksai Chin).

Demographics

India

 The population of Kashmir Valley is 6.89 million

 The population of Jammu is 5.38 million
 The population of Ladakh is 0.227 million
Pakistan

 The population of Azad Kashmir is 4.6 million

The major group living in Kashmir includes Kashmiris, Paharis, Dogras and Ladakhis. It is a
state with Muslim majority population; Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists & Christians are minorities
Kashmir has Population of 1.25billion according to census of 2011. Islam is predicted by
about 68.3% of the total population. More than any other religion. Ladakh is the largest
region in the state with 260,000 people. Its two districts are Leh 68% Buddhist and Kargil
91% Muslim population.

Ruling History of Kashmir

In 1339, Shah Mir became the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir. For the next five centuries
Muslim monarchs ruled Kashmir region. The monarchs include the Mughals too. Mughals ruled
from 1586 to 1751. Then Kashmir was ruled by Afghan Durrani Empire. Their rule commenced
in 1751 and ended in 1819. In 1819, the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh annexed the state of Kashmir.
In 1846, after the Sikh defeat in the First Anglo-Sikh War and upon the purchase of the region
from the British, under the Treaty of Amritsar the Raja of Jammu, Gulab Singh became the new
ruler of Kashmir.

Kashmiri nationalists or the autonomists were subsequently to call this a bill of sale, not a treaty.
They considered it the act of buying and selling. Gulab Singh paid the sum of 75 lacs to the
British Government and became the Maharaja of the state of Kashmir. Gulab Singh and his
successors ruled Kashmir in a tyrannical and repressive way. From then until the partition of the
subcontinent in 1947, Kashmir was ruled by the Hindu Maharajas. But the majority of the
population was Muslim, except in the Jammu region.

What is Kashmir Conflict?

The Kashmir conflict is said to be a dispute between two nations’ .i.e. India and Pakistan, over
control of the region of Kashmir. Each country lays claim to Kashmir due to nationalism and the
controversial politics of the region. Conflicting ideologies and the contradictory behavior of both
the sates lead to the obliteration and annihilation of Kashmir. The refusal of either party to
compromise have obstructed the efforts to reach a solution. The instability and lack of any
conclusive resolution to the political dispute have left the population of Kashmir divided and
uncertain about their future.

The best possible solution to the Kashmir Conflict is the conduct of referendum, but its conduct
had been delayed from the years.

Historical Background of the Conflict

The Indian Independence Act, 1935 aimed at dividing United India into the Dominion of India
and the Dominion of Pakistan. In 1947, the dissolution of British Raj ensued. Pakistan and India
became two different sovereign territories on 14 August, 1947 and 15 August 1947 respectively.
At the time of partition, there were 562 Princely States. The rulers of the states were given the
right to make the choice regarding their accessions that either the states want to be the part of
Pakistan or India. By 15th of August majority of the states announced their decisions except
Junagadh, Hyderabad and most importantly Kashmir. At the time of partition, Kashmir was ruled
by a Hindu ruler named as Maharaja Hari Singh. 77.1% population of Kashmir was Muslim and
so they wanted to have their accession with Pakistan on the religion basis. But Maharaja held the
lust for his sole rule and doesn’t agreed to the accession with any of the two territories.

Standstill Agreement

He asked both the countries Pakistan and India to sign the Standstill Agreement. A standstill
agreement was an agreement that was to be signed between the newly independent dominions of
India and Pakistan and the princely states of the British Indian Empire prior to their integration in
the new dominions. The form of the agreement was bilateral between a dominion and a princely
state. It provided that all the administrative arrangements then existing between the British
Crown and the state would continue unaltered between the signatory dominion (India or
Pakistan) and the princely state, until new arrangements were made. Pakistan agreed to it but
India refused.

Muslim’s Insurgency

In October 1947 a Muslim revolution of freedom took place in Kashmir. Raja suppressed
Muslims by starting a brutal campaign. Pakistan supported Muslim insurgency in Kashmir.
Pakistani tribesmen from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) now known as KPK,
invaded Kashmir and this resulted into the influencing liberation movement of the Muslims of
Kashmir. Hari Singh initiated a brutal campaign against the uprising of Muslims and wanted to
suppress them.

India’s Assistance

Maharaja when analyzed the situation critically, he rushed to the Indian Government from the
fear of invasion. And demanded their assistance against Pakistan. The Maharaja desperately
needed military assistance when the Pakistani tribes reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Before
their arrival into Srinagar, India argued that the Maharaja must complete negotiations for ceding
Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving military aid. India agreed to the request
of Maharaja for armed assistance, in return for accession of the state to India. Maharaja
announced accession with India on Oct 26, 1947. Indian army entered in Kashmir through
Gurdaspur. An undeclared war b/w India and Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir started.

Instrument of Accession

Kashmir was provisionally accepted into the Indian Union pending a free and impartial
plebiscite. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir was accepted by Lord Mountbatten, Governor
General of India, on 27 October 1947.

Important Points of Accession

 I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to the provisions of the
ACT within this state so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument
of Accession.
 I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which
the Dominion Legislatures may make laws for this state
 The terms of this my Instrument of accession shall not be varied by any amendment of
the Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 unless such amendment is accepted by
me by an Instrument supplementary to this Instrument
 I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this state and that any
reference in this Instrument to me or to the ruler of the state is to be construed as
including to my heirs and successors.
 Wars between Pakistan and India
There is no denying the fact that the Indian leadership never reconciled with the existence of
Pakistan. They opposed its creation tooth and nail on one pretext or the other but they were
unable to frustrate the strategy of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. After the creation of
Pakistan, the Indians have made continuous and concerted efforts to annihilate Pakistan. They
have succeeded in seceding East Pakistan from us. The wars between India and Pakistan have
been the wars between two ideologies though the apparent causes have been different. The
Indian government’s persistent refusal to pay heed to the world opinion on the question of
Kashmir has been another major root cause of confrontation between the two countries. The
performance of Pakistan Army in the Indo-Pak Wars has been extremely commendable. A few
glimpses in the paragraphs that follow.

Kashmir War 1947-1949

By November 1947, Supreme Commander based in New Delhi, being convinced that Indian
Cabinet was seeking to destroy and undo Pakistan by economic and military means, was forced
to resign. As the build-up of Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir continued, Pakistan Army
units were being hurriedly organized and equipped without any base for manufacture of
ammunition, signal stores, equipment or vehicles. Simultaneously, Pakistan National Guards
were raised from ex-servicemen and other volunteers along border areas to provide a second line
of defense. By February 1948 Indian build up in Jammu and Kashmir reached five brigades plus,
under two full-fledged division Headquarters. Our 101 Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Akbar
Khan was rushed into the critical front to forestall and halt the Indian offensive along Uri-
Muzaffarabad axis. In April 1948, Commander-in-Chief Pakistan Army appreciating the threats
in the north along Muzaffarabad-Kohala axis and in the south along Bhimber-Mirpur-Poonch
axis further reinforced the front with elements of 7 Division to halt the Indian offensive at
Chakothi. Reinforcements were rushed overnight to Tithwal sector to defend Muzaffarabad front
9(F) Division was also moved to reinforce 7 Division in Tithwal, Uri and Bagh sectors. 7
Division was thereafter moved to the southern front. In May Pakistan informed the United
Nations of these moves. By June, Pakistan had five brigades in Jammu and Kashmir together
with Azad Kashmir forces and elements of the para-military Frontier Corps, holding twelve
Indian brigades (with 4 to 5 battalions each) supported by armor, artillery and Indian Air Force. 
Indian summer offensive was decisively beaten and halted. Some months later, two brigades of 8
Division from Quetta further reinforced Muzaffarabad-Uri front.

 At midnight on 30 December, India asked for ceasefire with effect from 1 January 1949.
Pakistan accepted, as the fate of Jammu and Kashmir had been taken over by the United Nations.
By early 1949 Pakistan Army had completed its formative stage. It halted the Indian offensive
and prevented it from totally over-running Jammu and Kashmir, and closing up to Pakistan’s
vital border areas, thus ended the war in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan Army continued its
reorganization. An ordnance factory to produce small arms and ammunition was established at
Wah. The threat from India was by no means over. In spring of 1950 and again between July and
October 1951 the Indian Army concentrated on Pakistan‘s borders and transgressed into Azad
Kashmir and West Pakistan territory forty eight times. The Indian Air Force violated Pakistan ’s
air space thirty times thus bringing the two countries very close to another all-out war through
India ’s coercive diplomacy and interventionist strategy.

Kashmir War 1965

The Indian forces intruded into Pakistani area in the Rann of Kutch in April 1965. In a sharp and
short conflict, the Indian forces were ejected. Both the armies had fully mobilized, with eyeball
to eyeball contact. Pakistan proposed cease-fire, India accepted. An agreement was signed: the
forces disengaged. The Award by the Arbitration Tribunal vindicated Pakistan’s Position.

Past midnight on 5/6 September, without a formal declaration of war, Indian Army crossed the
international border and attacked Lahore and Kasur fronts. Pakistan Army and Pakistan Air
Force halted the attack in its tracks, inflicting heavy casualties on the aggressor. On 7 September
a single Pakistan Air Force Pilot, Squadron Leader M.M. Alam, Sitara-i-Juraat, in his F-86 Sabre
shot down five Indian Air Force attacking Hunter aircraft in a single sortie, an unbeaten world
record “On night 6/7 September three teams of our Special Services Groups were Para-dropped
on Indian Air Force bases at Pathankot, Adampur and Halwara to neutralize them. To relieve
pressure on Lahore front, on night 7/8 September, after crossing two major water obstacles in a
bold thrust, Pakistani armored and mechanized formations supported by artillery and Pakistan
Air Force overran area Khem Karn, 6 to 8 miles inside Indian territory. Vital Indian positions at
Sulemanki and across Rajasthan and Sindh were also captured in bold, swift attacks.

 At September 22, Indian asked for cease-fire in the United Nations. India’s aggression against
our international borders without a formal declaration of war had cost it, apart from heavy
personnel, material land economic losses, 1617 sq. miles of territory as compared to 446 sq.
miles of our open and undefended territory. Pakistan Army captured 20 officers, 19 Junior
Commissioned Officers, and 569 Other Ranks.

Tashkent Declaration of 1966

In Tashkent declaration it was stated that:

“The interest of peace in the region and particularly in the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent and
indeed the interests of the peoples of India and Pakistan were not served by continuance of
tensions between the two countries. It was against this background that Jammu and Kashmir was
discussed and each of the sides set forth its respective position.”
The Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and the Pakistan’s President Ayub khan met on
4th January 1966 in Tashkent. Both the leaders signed a pact which is called the Tashkent
Declaration of 1966.

This declaration was made at Ministerial level but the real fact was that all talks became useless
and no result was achieved because there was a huge difference in public and government
opinion on the Kashmir issue. The public perception and euphoria set in the minds of Pakistani
people was that Pakistan was going to won the war. But the Tashkent declaration was a negation
of the same. This declaration shocked them very much and the people started saying that
Pakistan had won the war in the battlefield but lost the war on the table.

Kashmir War 1971

On 21 November, Eid day, when our fatigued soldiers had been operating in the most hostile
environment for almost ten months, including a month of fasting, the Indian army felt
emboldened enough to launch a full scale invasion at over twenty fronts in the east, west and
north of East Pakistan. Divisions attacked our brigade positions; brigades attacked our battalion,
company and platoon positions, supported by their armor, artillery and air force. When most of
our defensive positions, rooted to the ground, could not be overrun, Indian forces after suffering
heavy casualties resorted to outflanking moves. The aggressors could not capture, till the cease-
fire; on 16 December, a single town except Jessore, which was not defended for strategic
reasons. For the Pakistani soldiers this was their finest hour, fighting against heavy odds with
their backs to the wall inflicting heavy casualties, bloodied but unbowed” when an Indian
commander, through a messenger asked for our Jamalpur battalion to surrender, encircled by two
brigades, the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Sultan Ahmad, Sitara-i-Juraat of 31
Baloch replied kin a message wrapped around a bullet which read, “I want to tell you that the
fighting you have seen so far is very little; in fact the fighting has not even started. So let us stop
negotiating and start the fight.”

The attack was halted in the tracks, inflicting heavy casualties. 8 (Independent) Armored Brigade
(Brigadier Mohammad Ahmed, Sitara-i-Juraat) effectively blocked and destroyed enemy
penetration our minefield and saved Zafarwal from being outflanked by enemy armor. In Jammu
and Kashmir, Chhamb, Lahore, Kasur, Sulemanki and Rajasthan sectors, war was carried into
Indian Territory, with success at some points, not so successfully at others due to inadequate
forces and air support. For the Pakistan Army, Navy and Air Force this conflict was their finest
hour. Fighting against overwhelming odds in both wings of the country raged with full fury.
Before our counter offensive could be launched in West Pakistan, India asked for cease-fire in
the United Nations. The Ghazis and Shaheeds proved in their supreme hour of trial all the
military virtues of Faith, Honor, Velour, Fortitude, Endurance, Loyalty, Group Cohesion and
Unlimited Liability, and above all, the spirit of Jihad.   On 4 December 1971, the United States
moved a draft resolution calling for cease-fire and withdrawal of Indian forces, which was
vetoed by United States of Southern Russia. Thereafter, another six resolutions including one by
China were introduced calling for cease-fire and withdrawal of forces, some of which were
accepted by Pakistan authorities. However, due to behind the scene political machinations by
India and her allies their passage and implementation was stalled till Dhaka fell on 16 December
1971 and the cease-fire had been perfidiously converted to surrender.” I took a careful look at the
documents and was aghast to see the heading – which read Instrument of ‘Surrender’……”
writes Lieutenant General J.F.R.Jacob, Chief of Staff, Indian, Eastern Army. (Lieutenant General
J.F.R.Jacob, “Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation).
Flawed national and operational strategy proved to; be disastrous for Pakistan, both politically
and militarily. Power, national and operational strategy, the methodology of crisis and conflict
management, and higher direction of war in which we had been found wanting in 1971.

Kargil War 1999

The Kargil War also known as Kargil Conflict between India and Pakistan that took place

between May and July 1999 in the Kargil district of Kashmir and elsewhere along the Line of
Control (LOC).

The cause of the war was the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into
positions on the Indian side of the LOC, which serves as the de facto border between the two
states. Pakistan first occupied Indian Territory in Kargil District but later on in about two months
Indian troops retook most of the ridges and after that United States put pressure on Pakistan to
withdraw forces from Indian Territory. So as a result Pakistan had to surrender and India got the
victory.

Violation of International Human Rights Law

o International Human Rights Law prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life under any
circumstances.
o The government of India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR).
o Article 6 of ICCPR expressly prohibits derogation from the right to life, thus even the
time of emergency.
o The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also prohibits torture
and other forms of cruel inhuman and degrading treatment.
o Article 4 and 7 of ICCPR explicitly ban torture even in time of national emergency or
when the security of the state is threatened.

Estimation of People Killed and Abducted in Kashmir

Here's what the data says. 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. The 21,323 militants were
killed in operations by security forces and include both Kashmiri and foreign militants. And of
the 5,369 members of the security forces, around 1,500 are Kashmiri policemen

The records also show another slaughter that has gone on ceaselessly since 1990, a slaughter that
nobody comments on, nobody laments: of Kashmiris killed by militants since 1990. Of the
13,226 civilians killed by militants, 11,461 were shot and 1,765 died in grenade blasts and
explosions

The only thing these records establish is that one lakh people haven`t died in Kashmir
insurgency. What they help prove is that minus the some 4,000 jawans of the Army, BSF and the
CRPF and the 5,000 odd "Mehman Mujahideen" from Pakistan, 34,000 Kashmiri men and
women have died violent painful deaths as militants, mainstreamers, moderates or mukhbirs.

Enforced Disappearance

Enforced disappearance is abduction or kidnapping, carried out by state agents or organized

groups. Authorities neither accepted the responsibility for the dead nor account for where about
the victim. Youth are randomly arrested and taken to the unknown locations by security
agencies. They are either killed in encounters or tortured in jails and later buried or thrown in
rivers or lakes. Enforced disappearance is a serious violation of fundamental Human Rights.

India’s Perspective over Kashmir

At the core of Indian position on Kashmir is New Delhi claims that the decision of Maharaja
Hari Singh to accede to Indian Union regardless of its circumstances is Final & Legal and it
cannot be disputed. If there is any “Unfinished” business of partition, it is the requirement that
Pakistan relinquish control of that part of Jammu & Kashmir that is illegally occupied. The Will
of people does not to be ascertained only through Plebiscite. The problem of Kashmir according
to India, is one of the terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. The targets are Muslims in Kashmir,
belying Pakistan’s argument that it is concerned about the welfare of Muslims in Kashmir. While
India wants to resolve all the outstanding issues with Pakistan through a process of dialogue but
the integrity and sovereignty of India cannot be a matter of discussion.
The Indian Policy towards Kashmir operates at three distinct levels: local, bilateral and
International. At the local level, the principal Indian goal is to crush the Kashmir resistance by
massive use of force on the one hand and manipulating the difference among different Kashmiri
resistance group on the other.

At the bilateral Indo-Pakistan level, India while expressing its willingness to discuss all
outstanding issues with Pakistan has tended to avoid conducting any meaningful dialogue with
Pakistan regarding Kashmir that involves a movement away from the stated Indian position that
Kashmir is an Integral part of India.

At the International level Indian policy on Kashmir is primarily aimed at three objectives:
deflecting the Pakistan campaign alleging human rights violations in Kashmir, emphasizing that
Shimla agreement provides the only viable forum to settle the Kashmir issue, and discrediting
the Kashmiri resistance movement as a “terrorist activity” sponsored by Pakistan.

Importance of Kashmir for India

From a strategic point of view, the mountains of Kashmir act as natural barriers to any invading
army. Keeping control of those peaks is crucial to India's national safety on a whole. Pakistani
army took control of one of these peaks (Tiger Hill, Kargil) during the Kargil War. Indian
soldiers went to an extreme to wrestle it back, because of its strategic importance. Let’s say India
gives away Kashmir to Pakistan. With all the natural barriers removed, the Pakistani army then
has a clear run into internal parts of India, and well today it’s Kashmir, tomorrow they might
want Punjab.

Economics

Kashmir is an amazing source of tourism revenue with eye-catching and mesmerizing

landscapes.

Water Diplomacy

India’s loses its bargaining power through water diplomacy. India will lose out on its bargaining
power with river water of Indus forever. Pakistan will gain the ownership of the whole of Indus
river system and Indians cannot keep Pakistan on its toes showing the carrot and stick called
Indus River.

Another scenario is that even though Pakistan has control over the river it will respect Indus
treaty but still there will not be any bargaining power with India as Pakistan will have it.

Effect on Northwest Regions of India

In India, Indus is a major river system supporting the country's northwest: Punjab, Haryana and
Rajasthan which are water deficient areas .Punjab produces more than 20 per cent of India's
wheat and is known as the "bread basket" of the Republic of India. Thus any external control
over the Indus River will be disastrous to the food security of India. This may lead to drought
like condition in India

Another scenario is that Pakistan will not do anything to disturb the already working water
sharing agreement. Pakistan may reach this stand out of humanitarian considerations or fear of
war with India.

Investments

A lot of resources has been invested by India in Kashmir - from the BRO building
roads in nearly unsurpassable locations to one of the highest rail roads in the world.
Losing control of those and giving them up to Pakistan is not a palatable option.

India and its Hydro Power Stations

India will lose its control over the hydroelectric power generated in Kashmir to Pakistan.
Pakistan will refuse to share it with India. This will lead to an immediate power shortage in
Northern states of India especially in summer season. All sectors in need of electricity will suffer
badly.

Another scenario is that some agreements will be reached through which Pakistan will sell the
power generated by Indian built Hydro power stations to India at a higher rate with no
investment from Pakistan. This will be a loss for India but it will be forced to accept it as India
cannot afford a power crisis.
The major reason behind the existence of the various dams that exist in the state of Jammu and
Kashmir is the generation of power. The major dams that exist in the state of Jammu and
Kashmir are Salal Project, Chutak Hydroelectric Project, Uri Hydroelectric Dam, Baglihar Dam
and Dumkhar Hydroelectric Dam.

Salal Project of Jammu and Kashmir

The major dam that contributes in the major power generation in the state of Jammu and
Kashmir is the Salal Project and Baglihar Dam. The Power station that is linked to this dam has
capability of generation 690 MW of electricity that leads to 3101 million units of power every
year.

The Chenab River that exists in Udhampur district serves the power station built on it. The
project is handled by National Hydroelectric Power Corporation. The states that are benefitted by
this project are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi,
Rajasthan and Chandigarh. 115 MW of power is generated individually by each unit and there
are total six units.

Baglihar Dam of Jammu and Kashmir

The construction of the project was initialized in the year 1992 but was approved in the year
1996 and only in the year 1999 its construction began on the Chenab River located in the
southern part of Doda district. This dam was named as Baglihar Hydroelectric Power Project.

The total cost incurred in building the dam was around 1 billion US dollars. The construction of
the dam was partially completed in the year 2004. The project was finalized on 10th October in
2008.

The Baglihar Dam in Jammu and Kashmir that is capable of generating a total of 900 MW of
power supports power for various states that are neighboring to the state of Jammu and Kashmir
as declared by the Prime Minister on India.

Chutak Hydroelectric Project

River Suru that is a tributary of river Indus serves the Chutak Hydroelectric Power Plant. This
plant is located in the district of Kargil. The barrage has been built in the village Sarze village
while power generating plant is located on the banks of Suru River in village Chutak. The project
commissioning started in the year 2006 on 23rd September while in the year 2012 in the month
of November the initial three generating units were installed and made operational. The
remaining one generator was made operational in the year 2013 in January.

The project was developed and commissioned by National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited respectively. BHEL unit in Bhopal supplied the turbines while
the Bangalore unit was responsible for supplying the control equipment. The commissioning of
the project was commenced by the Northern unit of BHEL Power sector. So in current time there
are total of four units that are operational.

Dumkhar Hydroelectric Dam

The project Dumkhar Hydroelectric Dam is42 meters in height while 220 meters long and is
made of concrete built on river Indus that has FRL 2856 meters and MDDL 2853 meters.

Uri Hydroelectric Dam

The power generating plant that has been built on the river Jhelum in URI area of district
Baramula located in state of Jammu and Kashmir. This plant is a 480 MW hydroelectric power
generating plant. The project has been built by cutting the hill rocks and building a 10 km long
tunnel. The dam built on the river is not too large.

The various power generating projects that are operational in the state of Jammu and Kashmir
supports the adjoining states too. These dams are also major attraction for the tourists who come
to visit state of Jammu and Kashmir. The power generating plant that has been built on the river
Jhelum in URI area of district Baramula located in state of Jammu and Kashmir. This plant is a
480 MW hydroelectric power generating plant. The project has been built by cutting the hill
rocks and building a 10 km long tunnel. The dam built on the river is not too large.
The various power generating projects that are operational in the state of Jammu and Kashmir
supports the adjoining states too. These dams are also major attraction for the tourists who come
to visit state of Jammu and Kashmir.

India will lose its control over the hydroelectric power generated in Kashmir to Pakistan.

India, a Secular State

It is important symbolically for India to have a Muslim majority state. It shows that India is a
secular country not a Hindu state.

Appointment of UN Mediator (1950)

On April 12, 1950, Sir Owen Dixon, a judge of Australian High Court, was appointed as UN
mediator by the Security Council. On July 20 to 24, 1950, he held a tripartite conference of the
Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan. It was an attempt to find a
solution of the Kashmir dispute but he was unable to bring the parties to settlement. The parties
did not come to reconciliation.

Dixon’s Report (1950)

Sir Owen Dixon arrived in India on 3rd May 1950. He immediately undertook a comprehensive
tour of Jammu and Kashmir State on both sides of ceasefire line and held discussions with local
leaders besides the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan. He made some practical suggestions
about the solution of the problem in the light of actual realities. Sir Owen Dixon submitted his
report on Kashmir to the Security Council on September 15, 1950. His report included following
two alternatives to an overall plebiscite:

(1) A plebiscite be taken “by sections or areas” and the allocation of each section or area be
made according to the result of the vote.

(2) Without holding a plebiscite, areas certain to vote for India and those certain to vote for
Pakistan “be allocated accordingly and the plebiscite be confined only to the uncertain area.” The
“uncertain area” according to Sir Owen Dixon appeared to be the “Vale of Kashmir” and perhaps
some adjacent country.
Pakistan accepted the proposals of Mr. Owen Dixon but India refused to accept them. Time’s
Magazine’s issue of September 4, 1950 reported the Nehru’s attitude in the following lines:

“When Sir Owen Dixon suggested that India make a compromise with Pakistan to end a three-
year old dispute over possession of the princely state of Kashmir, Pandit Nehru was outraged.
The Pandit was annoyed at Dixon’s proposal that Kashmir be partitioned and announced it was
“absolutely impossible” for the government of India to accept the mediator’s recommendation
that the famed Vale of Kashmir, strategic heart of the state, be placed under UN rule for a
plebiscite to determine whether its population wished to join India or Pakistan”.

Furthermore, said Nehru, Pakistan should have “no say in a plebiscite which is a matter
between the Indian people of Kashmir and the United Nations”.

Liaquat-Nehru Meetings in London (1951)

Liaquat Ali Khan and Pandit Nehru met in London on 16th January, 1951, during the
Common Wealth Conference. Prime Ministers of Australia, UK, Canada, New Zealand and
Ceylon (Srilanka) were also present.

Mr. Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia suggested either a Common Wealth force without
Indians or Pakistanis, or a Kashmiri force controlled by a United Nations Commissioner. Mr.
Menzies said:

“We, Common Wealth Prime Ministers have lent our best offices in this matter but so far
we haven’t succeeded.”

According to the newspaper, The Sydney Harold, Liaquat Ali Khan accepted the proposal for a
Common Wealth force. He said:

“I am sorry to say that Mr. Nehru rejected it.”

Pandit Nehru rejected the proposal. He said:

“If nationality went by religion, then the 40 million Muslims living in India and the 15
million Hindus in Pakistan might become second class citizens and almost half aliens”.
 President Ayub’s Meeting with Indian Premier

Two meetings were held. First, On September 15, 1959, Pakistan’s president Ayub khan held
meeting with Indian Prime Minister, Nehru at Delhi Airport in a bit to persuade India to settle
Kashmir Issue. Second, in May 1960, President Ayub and PM Nehru in London at
Commonwealth Conference. They discussed Kashmir Issue but no settlement could be made.
Then on September 19, 1960, PM Nehru arrived in Karachi for signing on Indus Basin
Agreement. In joint communique issued on September 23, 1960 it was expressed that Kashmir
problem be settled.

Negotiations on Kashmir Issue (1962-1963)

With reluctance, both India and Pakistan returned to the negotiating table with the specific
mandate of resolving the Kashmir issue. Accordingly, six rounds of talks were to be held
between December 1962 and May 1963. The six rounds of foreign Minister’s level talks were
started between Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto from Pakistan and Sardar Swaran Singh from India.

• The first rounds of talks were held December 26, 27 and 29, 1962.

The first round was held in Rawalpindi. The first round concluded with both parties merely
reiterating their previously-held stand with regards the plebiscite and the dispute in general.

• The second round was held from January 16-19, 1963.

The second round of talk was held at Delhi. Pakistan continued to push for a plebiscite and India
showed reluctance. India argued that the election of a democratic government in Kashmir
obviated the need for a plebiscite. Instead he proposed alternatives such as partition of Kashmir,
withdrawal of military forces, and signing a “no-war” pact between the two nations. This
proposal was accepted as a draft by Pakistan.

• The third-round talks were held from February 8-10, 1963.

This talk was held at Karachi. Discussions were held on how to delineate the boundary of
Kashmir if a partition were to take place. Bhutto greatly increased Pakistan’s territorial demand,
which was unacceptable to India, and the talks broke down.
• The fourth round was held between March 12 and 14, 1963.

This talk was held at Calcutta (now Kolkata). It started with the backdrop of Pakistan having
acceded 2,500 square miles of Indian-claimed land to China. India reacted sharply to this as
being a violation of the 1948 Security Council regulation requiring a standstill after the first war
in 1947. India suggested to re-adjustment of ceasefire line to settle dispute which Pakistan
rejected.

• The fifth round was held from April 22-25, 1963.

This round was held at Karachi. Bhutto made a weak attempt to break the deadlock when he
suggested that Pakistan would grant Indian troops transitory facilities to deal with the Chinese
threat in Ladakh if it conceded to Pakistan territorial demands. Not surprisingly, India rejected
this proposal.

• The last round was held from May 14-16, 1963.

Bhutto returned to the plebiscite question and Singh once again raised the question of the no-war
pact. Both the representatives rejected the other’s offer, with Bhutto stating that the acceptance
of a no-war pact by Pakistan would mean the conversion of the cease-fire line into an
international border which was unacceptable to him.

Pakistan’s then-foreign minister Bhutto argued before the United Nations in 1964:

Kashmir is not a piece of property, that its fate is not to be sealed or signed away through any
instrument of accession ... that [it] is rather the free will of the inhabitants ... which has to be
determined and decided.”

Reasons behind the Failure of the Session 1962-1963

Strong positional bargaining based on fixed ideology was the primary cause for the breakdown
of negotiations on the Kashmir issue, Professor Raymond Cohen in his study titled, “Negotiating
across Cultures,” laid down three elements that impact negotiations:

(1) The role of the media.

(2) The involvement of external players, and

(3) The impact of cultural differences on negotiations.

What then are the factors that affect India-Pakistan negotiations? The major difference
between the two was an institutional one. In Pakistan, the Army dominated policy making in
Islamabad, whereas in New Delhi the power was in the hands of a civilian prime minister chosen
by a popularly elected Lok Sabha. In both countries, unflattering stereotypical perceptions of
each other exist.

Simla Agreement

After the Indo Pak war 1971, Simla Agreement was signed on July 2, 1972, between Pakistan
and India on Bilateral relations in Simla the capital city of Indian state Himachal Pradesh. The
treaty was signed by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the President of Pakistan, and Indira Gandhi, the Prime
Minister of India. In Simla Agreement it was stated that:

“In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease fire of December 17,
1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either
side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal
interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of the use of force in
violation of this line.”

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of Pakistan and the Government of India
agreed on many aspects. After this treaty UN has stopped taking interest in Kashmir Issue and
asks both the countries to resolve it mutually.

PM and Foreign Ministers Meetings

The Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India met on the sideline of the SAARC summit held in
Colombo on July 29, 1998. The main subject of discussion was the resumption of dialogue.
Pursuant to the directive of their PMs, the foreign Secretaries of both the countries met twice on
July 29 and 30, 1998 to overcome the procedural as well as substantive impediments to the
resumption of Pak-India talk. No progress could be made on reaching an agreement, as India
continued to maintain its refusal.
 Lahore Declaration (Feb 21, 1999)

On August 9, 1998, Indian PM Atal Behari Vajpayee offered new talks with Pakistan. However
he stressed that dialogue has to be comprehensive and not just focused on Kashmir. On February
20, 1999 Vajpayee arrived in Lahore by bus and concluded Lahore declaration with Pakistan’s
premier Nawaz Sharif. Both the leaders agreed to invigorate their efforts to resolve all issues
including Jammu and Kashmir.

The Prime Ministers of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India; recalling
their agreement of 23 September, 1998, that an environment of peace and security is in the
supreme national interest of both sides and that the resolution of all outstanding issues, including
Jammu and Kashmir, is essential for this purpose; have agreed that their respective governments.

President Musharraf Meetings with PM Vajpayee

In July 2001, both the leaders met in Agra, but the discussion between the president Pervez
Musharraf and India PM ended without any outcome. On October 2001, terrorist attacked on
State Assembly in Srinagar killing about 30 people. India accused Pakistan for terrorist attacks.
President General Pervez Musharraf warned the Indian Government against any acts of
adventurism. On December 21, 2001 India recalled its ambassador from Pakistan and began
military buildup along the international border and along with the Line of Control (LOC) in
Kashmir. However, up to August 6, 2002, tension on the Indo-Pak border and along with the
LOC could not be defused, despite efforts made by China, USA, Britain and France as well.

India Pakistan Dialogues 2015-2016

NSA level talks were to be held on August 23.2015 in New Delhi. External Affairs Minister
Sushma Swaraj said Sartaj Aziz, Advisor to the Pakistan Prime Minister on National Security
and Foreign Affairs, dialogues will be held if Pakistan could give an assurance by midnight that
talks would be confined only to terror and that he won’t meet the Hurriyat leaders in New Delhi.
She delinked the NSA-level talks from the composite dialogue between the two countries The
Indian Express, 2015. Sartaj Aziz said “it cannot be held on the basis of the preconditions set by
India”. The Pakistani response came five hours after External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj
statement Geo News, 2015. But dialogues were again resumed with the Modhi’s visit to Pakistan.
The year 2015 ended on a surprisingly positive note for India and Pakistan, with the not-so-
friendly South Asian neighbors deciding to resume their structured talks after a gap of several
years. The two are supposed to fix a road map for regular meetings as part of a comprehensive
bilateral dialogue to discuss the long-standing dispute over the Himalayan territory of Kashmir
and other issues such as peace and security and trade and commerce. But after the Pathankot
attack Indo-Pak talks have been disturbed. The dialogues were to be held on January 15. “It is
our responsibility to uncover if our soil was used in the attack. We will do this and the ongoing
investigations will soon be completed,” Sharif told reporters The Indian Express, 2016.
Pakistani, Indian foreign secretaries may meet in February Dawn News.

Pakistan’s Perspective over Kashmir

Firstly, we’ll see the division of Kashmir between Pakistan and India. India controls the
southeast portion of Kashmir, which has the most fertile land. On the other hand, Pakistan
controls the northwest portion of Kashmir with a scarce population and harsher climate. India
territory is regulated as a state known as Jammu & Kashmir. While the territory of Pakistan is
divided into two regions i.e. Azad Kashmir or Free Kashmir, which has its own government, and
the Northern areas which are regulated directly by Pakistan. Azad Kashmir is about 4500 square
miles, and the Northern areas are about 28000 square miles.

Strategic Importance

 From Pakistan’s Point of view Kashmir is strategically located and can be used to cripple
Pakistan economically and militarily

 The strategic location of Kashmir has involved Pakistan in low-intensity conflicts and a
kind of guerilla mode of warfare with India.

 Pakistan claims Kashmir as its jugular vein, her life span, an unfinished agenda of
partition and hub of Pakistan’s ideological survival
 Importance of Kashmir for Pakistan

Kashmir is a crucial prerequisite for our survival. Kashmir is considered as a cap on the head of
Pakistan. On geo-strategic, economic and military basis, Kashmir has a great significance for
Pakistan as well. Kashmir is considered as the lifeline of Pakistan economically, as the water
from the rivers of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab originates through Kashmir is vital for Pakistan.
While the rivers of Ravi, Sutlej and Bias originates from India. As Kashmir is at the north-east
part of Pakistan so if we don’t have Jammu & Kashmir in our control so it means that the north-
east part of Pakistan is not guarded. We can anticipate a significant importance of Kashmir for
Pakistan as Military ruler Field Marshal Ayub Khan said, “canal water dispute is a matter of life
and death to Pakistan” , which also means that if the rivers and canals of Pakistan dried up then
there would be no ground defense. Similarly, on March 6, 2003 Sardar Sikander Hayat (Prime
minister of POK) in a seminar said, “without the rivers of Kashmir Pakistan will become
desert. The freedom fighters of Kashmir are in reality fighting for Pakistan’s water
security.”

Chinese Support

As without Kashmir, Silk route to China will be greatly endangered and there will be no link
with China. According to Chinese view point, China did not accept the boundaries of the
princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, north of Aksai Chin and the Karakoram that were
proposed by British. China settled its border disputes with Pakistan in the Trans Karakoram
Tract in 1963 with the provision that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the
Kashmir dispute.

Pakistan’s Stance on Kashmir Issue

Pakistan considers the Kashmir issue as an unfinished agenda. Pakistan regards it as an issue of
giving the right of self-determination to the Kashmiris, a principle also accepted by the UN
Security Council Resolution. Pakistan claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of
Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the instrument of Accession. Maharaja was regarded as a
tyrant by most Kashmiris and that he used brute forces to quash the population. Pakistan claimed
that before the instrument of Accession was signed with India, the Indian troops were in Kashmir
in violation of the Standstill Agreement. This agreement was drafted to sustain the status quo in
Kashmir. In short Pakistan holds that the popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the
Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. According to Pakistan, this means that
Kashmir either wants to be with Pakistan or independent and according to the Two-Nation
Theory, which is cited for partition that created India and Pakistan. Kashmir should have been
with Pakistan because it has a Muslim majority. India has shown disregard to the resolutions of
the UN Security Council and the United Nations Commission in India and Pakistan by failing to
hold a plebiscite to determine the future allegiance of the state. The Kashmiri people have now
been forced by circumstances to uphold their right of self-determination through militancy.
Pakistan claimed to give the Kashmiri insurgents moral, ethical and military support.

Pakistan’s Position

 Kashmir rightfully belongs to Pakistan due to their religious and economic ties
 Pakistan does not provide material aid to any terrorists or insurgents in Kashmir
 In accordance with the UN Security Council, Pakistan considers India’s claim to
Kashmir invalid
 The Kashmir people should be allowed to choose between Pakistani and Indian control
through plebiscite
 Pakistan has been in the favor of Kashmir since its separation from the Indian
Subcontinent. The people of Pakistan has been residing on Kashmir’s civilian population
on the stance that “Kashmir banega Pakistan” and else if it can’t be resolved in this way
then it should be separated from the both India and Pakistan
Current Perspective of Pakistan

President of Pakistan and other relevant authorities inside the Pakistan have been working
together on some platforms in order to bring social reforms in Kashmir. For this Reason,
President Mamnoon Hussain and President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko
have had a bilateral meeting at Aiwan e Sadr in order to sort out problems in the Kashmir
conflict and to maintain to good and friendly relations with its neighbor country. They want to
put this problem in to the eyes of higher authorities of the world specifically UN which has been
acting as a mediator in the issue since its inception. The reason of doing this is that, they want
higher authorities to ask India to stop attacking the residents of Pakistan and Kashmir as well to
stop the killing of innocent people.

United Nations Involvement in Kashmir Dispute

Short Background

In 1947, India and Pakistan became independent. Under the scheme of partition by Indian
Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir was free to accede to India or Pakistan. Its accession to
India became a matter of dispute between the two countries. The first battle was fought in the
same year to liberate Kashmir.

UN Resolution

India lodged a complaint under Article 35 (Chapter VI) of the U.N Charter in the U.N Security
Council on January 1, 1948, charging Pakistan with “aiding and abetting” tribal invasion of
Jammu and Kashmir which it said had acceded to Indian Union through an instrument of
accession signed by the ruler Maharaja Hari Singh.

In its first resolution of 17 January 1948, Security Council called upon India and Pakistan to
exercise restraint. Three days later through another resolution (Resolution 39), it created the UN
Commission for Indian and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate the dispute and mediate between the
two countries. Following were the Members of Commission:

 Argentina
 Belgium
 USA
 Columbia
 Czechoslovakia
In another resolution (Resolution 47) of April 21, 1948, SC called for cessation of hostilities,
withdrawal of all Pakistani troops and tribesmen and bulk of Indian troops (except for a minimal
number required for maintaining law and order), allowing return of refugees, release of political
prisoners and holding of a U.N supervised Plebiscite in the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir
under a plebiscite administrator to determine the aspirations of her people. It was supported by
another resolution of June 3, 1948. Following the cease-fire of hostilities, it also established the
United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to monitor the
cease-fire line.

Role of UNCIP and UNMOGIP

After deliberations with Indian and Pakistani leadership in July 1948, the UNCIP produced a
proposal calling for an immediate cease-fire. 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.
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 demilitarization. One sticking point was
whether the Azad Kashmiri army was to be disbanded during the truce stage or at the plebiscite
stage.

The UNCIP made three visits to the subcontinent between 1948 and 1949, trying to find a
solution agreeable to both India and Pakistan. 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. The resolution was accepted by India
but effectively rejected by Pakistan.

India took this issue to the UN Security Council on 1 January, and passed resolution 39 (1948),
established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate the
issue and mediate between two countries. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on
April 1948. The measure imposed on immediate cease-fire and called on the Government of
Pakistan, it also called 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 and Pakistan. It also established the United Nations Military
Observer Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), arrived in the mission area in January 1949
to monitor the cease-fire line.

Security Council President General A. G. L McNaughton’s mediation in December 1949 failed

to manage an agreement between the two sides. He had suggested demilitarization of Kashmir as
precursor to impartial plebiscite. Owen Dixon replaced UNCIP in 1950, pursued demilitarization
proposal but failed and proposed “regional plebiscite” now known as Dixon Plan. It suggested
(a) holding a Plebiscite in the whole State of Jammu & Kashmir, region by region (b) holding a
Plebiscite only in regions which were 'doubtful', the rest would constitute those regions that were
expected to vote definitely for accession either to India or Pakistan. The doubtful region was
meant to be the Valley of Kashmir. After the failure of Owen Dixon, Frank Graham was
inducted to continue the effort of mediation as a U.N representative. Graham unsuccessfully
worked from 1951 to 1953 when the buck was passed on to. Gunnar Jarring in 1957, but again
with no success.

In the wake of the termination of the mandate of UNCIP, the U.N Security Council
passed Resolution 91 on 30 March, 1951, which established the United Nations Military
Observer Group in India & Pakistan to monitor the ceasefire line (now called Line of Control,
the border that divides Indian and Pakistani controlled parts of Kashmir) in Kashmir. Its task was
to observe and report the violation of cease-fire and submit its findings to each party and to the
Secretary-General. The UNMOGIP still maintains its presence in both Indian-administered-
Kashmir and Pakistan-administered-Kashmir.

Later Developments on Kashmir Issue

On 23 January 1957, Jammu & Kashmir led by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad adopted a
constitution for the State and a resolution ratifying the State's accession with India. Pakistan
raised the issue in the U.N Security Council and a day after, the UNSC passed a resolution which
reiterated the earlier U.N resolutions on Kashmir that called for a final settlement of the dispute
"in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of free and
impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the U.N". Thus the 1957 U.N resolution
deemed any constitutional change undertaken by India within Indian-administered-Kashmir as
irrelevant to the resolution of Kashmir conflict.

In 1962, the Kashmir Question was again debated in the U.N Security Council. However, it
failed to pass a resolution in view of a Soviet veto, which discouraged the UNSC from pursuing
the Kashmir question thereafter.

The last UNSC resolution (307) that dealt with Kashmir was passed in the wake of the India–
Pakistan war of 1971, where Kashmir was not at the center of the conflict between the two
countries. With signing of Shimla Peace Accord between India and Pakistan in 1972, which laid
stress on “bilateral solutions to the Kashmir issue,” the U.N involvement in Kashmir was in
reality dead.

India contended that with the formation of Line of Control, the mandate of the UNMOGIP had
expired. But Pakistan supported its continuation interpreting it as reflection of disputed nature of
Kashmir. Since 1972 India has not reported to the UNMOGIP whereas Pakistan has continued to
report Indian violations of the LOC to the observer group. With its limited mandate, the group
has played virtually no role in the conflict after 1972.

The most recent U.N effort to engage with Kashmir came during the Indo-Pak border
confrontation of 2002, when India mobilized half a million troops along its border with Pakistan
to pressurize Pakistan to stop aiding insurgents in Kashmir. U.N Secretary General Kofi Anan's
efforts to mediate during the crisis were snubbed by India. Kofi Annan was not allowed to visit
India and to placate Indian fears Annan stated that U.N resolutions on Kashmir were not
"enforceable in a mandatory sweep". It meant that no power could enforce UN Resolutions on
Kashmir unless both India and Pakistan were prepared for it. Worthwhile to note is that owing to
negligence of Indian authorities, the peaceful march of a million Kashmir’s to the office of the
UN Observers in Sonwar, Srinagar on March 1, 1990 was the outcome of that negligence.

We should take into consideration UN’s failure in resolving Kashmir issue. There is the need
that we seek an answer the question as to why the United Nations failed to act on the resolutions
it had passed in regard to Kashmir issue. I can think of a few reasons.

1. Kashmir question was profiled at the UN as a territorial dispute between India and
Pakistan and not a struggle of the people of J&K for full freedom and Independent. No
country in the world is interested whether J&K becomes a part of India or Pakistan. If
they forge relations with either of the two countries in line with their national interests.

2. India is bigger than Pakistan in size and in population. World countries’ regional,
commercial and international relations with India are stronger than Pakistan.

3. During Cold War era Pakistan remained camp follower of America-led imperialist camp.
Therefore Socialist countries and the Soviet Union (of those days) did not lend any
support to Pakistan in the matter of Kashmir. Not only that, Soviet Union at least thrice
vetoed UN Resolutions that were tilted towards Pakistan.

Current Situation in Kashmir

Normal life remained paralyzed for the 108th consecutive day in the Kashmir Valley due to
curfew, restrictions and strike. Meanwhile, normal life continued to remain affected in Kashmir
for the 108th straight day on Monday. Shops, petrol pumps and other business establishments
remained shutting, while public transport remained off the roads. Schools, colleges and other
educational institutions also continued to remain closed across the Valley.

Curbs on the movement of people across the Valley have been imposed by the puppet forces of
India. Clashes broke out yesterday (Sunday) in Maisuma for the first time during the current
uprising when protesters demanded medical aid for incarcerated Jammu and Kashmir Liberation
Front (JKLF) chief Yasin Malik who has been detained in Central Jail Srinagar.

Dozens of women and men staged a protest in Maisuma locality of Srinagar to demand medical
aid to the ailing leader. Witnesses said that police chased away the protesters and detained some
to break up the protesters. At least 15 person including a 12 years old boy was injured after
government forces resorted to tear-smoke and pellet shelling in Palhalan Pattan area of North
Kashmir’s Baramulla district. Eyewitnesses said that shortly after the culmination of pro-
freedom rally government forces reached on spot and in a bid to disperse the people fired pellets
and tear-smoke shells. Witnesses added that 15 people suffered pellet injuries that were taken to
Sub-District Hospital Pattan. Six of the injured including a 12 year old boy were referred to
SMHS Hospital Srinagar.

Clashes between the government forces and protesters erupted in a Shopian village in south
Kashmir on Saturday. With more than 100 days-long unrest showing no signs of ending, Indian
authorities warned people against venturing out in the night and have also instructed shops and
businesses to remain shut.

Previously, in occupied Kashmir, six civilians including a boy were killed and several others
injured due to the firing of Indian forces on peaceful protesters in Srinagar, Budgam and
Islamabad districts. Five protesters were killed after security forces fired on protesters in
Beerwah area of Budgam district. Another youth from Anantnag district of South Kashmir died
during clashes with the security forces today. Dozens of people have been injured in the protests.
The Valley is on a boil following the killing of Burhan Wani on July 8. More than 100 innocent
Kashmiris have been killed and thousands others have been injured in the clashes that began on
July 9.Besides killing of more than 100 people, over 8,000 people have been injured so far due to
the firing of pellets, bullets and teargas shells by Indian troops and police personnel on peaceful
protesters across the Kashmir Valley.

Leaders View on Kashmir Dispute

Kashmir Dispute has always been a bone of contention for both Pakistan and India. Many
Pakistani politicians have expressed their perspective and stance on the Kashmir Issue.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

At the meeting of Security Council of the United Nations on 22nd September, 1965 Mr. Zulfiqar
Ali Bhutto as the foreign minister of Pakistan addresses the Security Council:

“Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India, it has never been an integral part of
India. Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan. It is more a
part of Pakistan than it can ever be with India with all her elegance and all her extravagant
words. The People of Jammu and Kashmir are part of People of Pakistan in blood, in flesh,
in life, in culture, in geography, in history in every way and in every firm, irrespective of
our size and resources.”

General Mohammad Pervez Musharraf

One attempt regarding solution of Kashmir issue was made during Musharraf era. In 2006
General Musharraf who believed both Pakistan and India would have to retreat from positions
held since 1948 came up with four point formula.

This four-point solution to Kashmir issue included demilitarization and “self-governance with
joint supervision mechanism”.

The four-point formula of Musharraf included:

1. Kashmir should have the same borders but free movement across the region be
allowed for people on both side of LoC.
2. There should be self-governance or autonomy but not independence.
3. Region should be demilitarized i.e. withdrawal of troops from the region.
4. A mechanism should be devised jointly so that the road map for Kashmir is
implemented smoothly.

Thus Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf, had diluted the Pakistani position significantly.
Musharraf 4 point formula brought four major shifts in Pakistan decades long stand on Kashmir.

These five major changes are:

1. Setting aside the U.N.’s resolutions on plebiscite.

2. Self-governance substation for self-determination.
3. Forsaking religion as a criterion.
 4. Accepting the Line of Control (LoC) provided it is combined with joint
management, an issue pre-eminently liable to compromise.

Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif

Recently, On October 3rd 2016, at the Parliamentary Parties Conference at the Prime Minister’s
Secretariat in Islamabad. The meeting was chaired by PM Nawaz Sharif to formulate a
unanimous response on occupied Kashmir and the situation along LoC.

The prominent leaders Mr. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Maulana Fazal Ur Rehman, Farooq Sattar,
Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Shireen Mazari participated in the conference as party
representatives of PPP, JUI, MQM and PTI.

PM Nawaz Sharif addressed at the conference:

“Kashmiris and Pakistani are inseparable. We will leave no stone unturned to highlight
Kashmiri’s plight across International Forum, We stand united on matters of national
importance, particularly Kashmir. Kashmiri’s freedom movement would not be
suppressed by Indian brutalities anymore.”

Conclusion
In the past, the United Nations held it session and passed a resolution unanimously to hold a
plebiscite to elicit the opinion of the people of Kashmir on the issue and their verdict was to be
final. But India kept on creating hurdles in the way of putting the resolution as a whole in
execution and ultimately succeeded in undermining the importance of Resolution. The UN later
on deputed many Commissions for the settlement of Kashmir Dispute but it went all in vain due
to the constant interference by the Indian government.

This issue can only be resolved by free and fair plebiscite by Security Council of the United
Nations and without any interference by both the countries. The people of Kashmir have their
right to either announce their annexation with India, Pakistan or either remain as an independent
state.
Therefore, The UN resolution on Kashmir should be followed by holding plebiscite, mentioning
three options.

1. Pakistan

2. India

3. Independence