Kashmir issue

Questions:
 Discuss the Kashmir problem in its entirety; throwing light on its
background and prospects of possible solutions to this core issue
between India and Pakistan.

Introduction:
In August 1947 as the Indian subcontinent was becoming independent
from Britain, the rulers of the 565 Princely States, whose lands made up
two-fifths of India an a aggregated population of about 99 million, were
told by the departing imperial power to join either India or Pakistan.
There was to be no
third choice. The present-day Indian state of Jammu-Kashmir became
part of the Mogul empire under Akbar in 1586, having earlier been
under Hindu rulers. After period of Afghan rule from 1756, it was
annexed by the Sikh rulers of the Punjab in 1819. In 1920 Ranjit Singh
transferred the territory of Jammu to Gulab Singh by the Treaty of
Amritsar. Soon British supremacy was imposed and recognized, until the
Indian Independence Act of 1947. By this act the states were required to
accede either to India or to Pakistan.
In 1947 the ruler of Jammu-Kashmir, Maharajah Hari Singh, whose state
was contiguous to the two new countries, prevaricated and could not
decide on which country to accede to, preferring the status quo or full
independence, neither of which was practical at that time. He was a
Hindu-Dogra, but the state’s population was predominantly Muslim. He
signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan so that services such as
trade, travel, and communications would be uninterrupted. India did not
sign a similar agreement.
In October 1947, Pushtu tribespeople from Pakistan’s North West
Frontier Province invaded Kashmir. Worried by increasing deterioration
in law and order and mounting communal tensions, the Maharajah
asked for armed assistance from India. The viceroy, Earl Louis
Mountbatten, made clear to the Maharajah that military help could be
forthcoming only if the state were to accede to India and that this would
only be provisional pending a “referendum, plebiscite or election.”
According to the terms of Kashmir’s accession, India’s jurisdiction over
the state was to extend to external affairs, defense, and
communications. Exactly when Hari Singh signed the instrument of
accession has been deeply controversial for over 50 years. According to
official Indian accounts, Singh fled from Srinagar in the early hours of the
morning of October 26, arriving in Jammu later in the day. There he was
met by Rao Bahadar Pangunni (“VP”) Menon, representative of Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and promptly signed the instrument of
accession. On the morning of October 27, Indian troops were airlifted
into Srinagar.
Recent research from British sources has indicated that Hari Singh did
not reach Jammu until the evening of October 26 and that, due to poor
flying conditions, Menon was unable to get to Jammu until the morning
of October 27, by which time Indian troops were already arriving in
Srinagar. To support the theory that the Maharajah acceded before
Indian troops landed, Indian sources have now suggested that Hari Singh
signed an instrument of accession before he left Srinagar but that it was
not made public until later. This was because Hari Singh had not yet
agreed to include the Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Abdullah, in his future
government. To date no authentic original document has been made
available. Pakistan immediately contested the accession, suggesting that
it was fraudulent, that the Maharajah acted under duress, and that he
had no right to sign an agreement with India when the standstill
agreement with Pakistan was still in force. Pakistanis also argued that,
because Hari Singh fled from the Kashmir Valley, he was not in control of
his state and therefore not in a position to make a decision on behalf of
his people. Pakistanis claim, then and subsequently, that there is a
dispute over the state and status of Jammu-Kashmir, and the accession
issue forms a significant aspect of their argument. By stating that the
instrument of accession was signed on October 26, when it clearly was
not, Pakistanis believe that India has not shown good faith and
consequently that this invalidates
the instrument of accession. Indians argue, however, that, regardless of
the discrepancies over timing, the maharajah chose to accede to India
and he was not under duress. On the basis of Hari Singh’s accession,
India claims ownership of the entire state, including the approximately
one-third of the territory currently administered by Pakistan. In 1949
Maharajah Hari Singh was obliged by the government of India to leave
the state and hand over the government to Sheikh Abdullah. Hari Singh
died in exile in Bombay (later Mumbai) in 1962.
There were about 35,000 deaths between the outbreak of the Kashmir
insurgency in 1988 and 2005. Negotiations with Pakistan regarding the
future of this disputed territory began in July 1999. Hopes of avoiding
further violence were set back in December 2001 in an attack on the
Indian parliament by suicide bombers; 13 people died. No group claimed
responsibility, but Kashmiri separatists were blamed. Pakistani President
Pervez Musharraf’s crackdown on militants helped to bring the two
countries back from the brink of war. Tension between India and
Pakistan also increased following an attack on an Indian army base in
 Indian-occupied Kashmir on May 14, 2002. The attack, which killed 31
people, was attributed to Islamic terrorists infiltrating the Kashmir Valley
from Pakistan. It led also to widespread criticism of President Musharraf
for allegedly failing to combat terrorism in Kashmir. In February 2002, 58
Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were killed when their train was
set on fire following a confrontation with a Muslim crowd at Godhra in
Gujarat. These clashes led to three months of intense intermittent
communal rioting, during which at least 800 Muslims died from attacks
by Hindus. Relations between India and Pakistan deteriorated following
terrorist bombings in Bombay (Mumbai). Subsequently, however, Indo-
Pakistan official relations improved with the two countries embarking on
their most promising, if uncertain, attempts at peacemaking for years.
Elections of mayors, municipal corporations, councils, and committees
were held from January 8 to February 17, 2005, in India’s northern state
of Jammu-Kashmir, the first civic elections to be held in the state for 27
years. Despite calls from militant separatist groups, such as Lashkar-i-
Tolba (LiT), for a boycott of the roll and a campaign of intimidation and
violence that killed at least four candidates and six activists, turnout
averaged about 60 percent and in some districts was over 80 percent. In
the election for the Jammu municipal council, where for the first time
some 100,000 Kashmiri Pandits were on the electoral polls, the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was second only to the Indian National
Congress Party in its tally of seats. Commentators reported the civic
elections as strengthening local government institutions and tending to
undermine the influence of separatist extremists.

Chinese interest:
China had never accepted the British-negotiated boundary agreements in
northeastern Kashmir. This remained the case following the communist
takeover in China in 1949, although the new government did ask India—
without success—to open negotiations regarding the border. After Chinese
authority was established in Tibet and reasserted in Xinjiang, Chinese forces
penetrated into the northeastern parts of Ladakh. This was done mainly
because it allowed them to build a military road through the Aksai Chin plateau
area (completed in 1956–57) to provide better communication between
Xinjiang and western Tibet; it also gave the Chinese control of passes in the
region between India and Tibet. India’s belated discovery of this road led to
border clashes between the two countries that culminated in the Sino-Indian
war of October 1962. China has occupied the northeastern part of Ladakh since
the conflict. India refused to negotiate with China on the alignment of the
Ladakhi boundary in this area, and the incident contributed significantly to a
diplomatic rift between the two countries that began to heal only in the late
1980s. In the following decades, China worked to improve its relations with
India, but there has been no resolution to the disputed Ladakh frontier.

Roots causes of kashmir issue:

Identifying the root causes of conflict is the first step towards conflict
resolution. Why conflict actors have long been engaged in violence and what
makes a conflict protracted that any effort to have peace fall victim to mutual
paranoia?

•In the case of Kashmir, situations are often times unpredictable and more
prone to violence. The conflict of Kashmir merits to be traced back from the
Treaty of Amritsar 1846, which provided the lush green hilly and mountainous
region of Kashmir to Maharaja Gulab Singh under British colonial rule.13
Kashmir, as a Muslim majority state, was ruled by Hindu Maharajas from 1846
till 1947 and the century-old Dogra rule didn’t prove itself as favourable for the
Muslim community in Kashmir. In 1947, when partition plan was announced by
Lord Mountbatten in June 1947, it was declared that all Hindu majority areas
would form India, Muslim areas would make Pakistan and princely states will
be given the right to choose to accede either side in consideration of
predominant religion and geographical proximity.

•At the time of partition of the sub-continent, lobbying for the accession of
Kashmir to India or either Pakistan was started based on the country's own
interests.15 However, Radcliffe division of Gurdaspur is one of the root causes
that resulted in intense disturbance in the Kashmir issueearlier as Pakistan
considered it as sudden changing in the partition map. The situation was in
reverse as of Kashmir, Gurdaspur had a Muslim ruler and Hindu majority. The
division has further complicated the matter, firstly, not only because of the loss
of territory for Pakistan but it was the only space left for Muslim Kashmiris to
access Pakistan and secondly, the growing realization that India was thereby
assured of access to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.16 In August 1947, the
fate of the two countries was declared as independent and princely states held
back to decide which side to choose. While Maharaja was delaying his decision,
there was an indigenous revolt started taking place in the Poonch region which
was later joined by Pashtoon tribesmen and led to the first war between the
newly born states.

• Maharaja rushed to the Indian government asking for its help to curb the
revolt and India exploited the opportunity and made him sign the Treaty of
Accession. It was in this backdrop when India and Pakistan fought and ended
their first war in December 1947 with the intervention of the United Nations
on the request of India and which instantly internationalized Kashmir conflict
right at its beginning.17 On 13 August 1948, the UN Security Council (UNSC)
passed a resolution emphasizing on the removal of Pakistan’s and Indian
troops from the region. The U.N. Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan
(UNMOGIP) was also established in 1948 to monitor the ceasefire line (later
turned as Line of Control). Pakistan controls the far Northern and Western
areas of the state whereas the Kashmir valley, Jammu, and Ladakh are under
India's control.18 Not only in its resolution 1948, the UN kept emphasizing on
the conduct of free and impartial plebiscite in Kashmir which never took place
in the past 72 years.

The goals of conflicting parties:

India and Pakistan have opposing goals to each other. The goals of the
conflicting parties are, therefore, referred to as the main purpose of the
parties to be engaged in a particular conflict, and describes as, what outcome
the parties want from the conflict or resolving the conflict. To the extent,
Pakistan's goals on Kashmir are heavily depended upon its stance on Kashmir.
Pakistan’s foreign policy observes as to have peaceful relations with
neighboring countries, however, Pakistan’s goals are:

• To support Kashmiri people in their battle for freedom against Indian

brutal rule to provide justice and freedom in Jammu and Kashmir and achieve
sustained dignity of Kashmiri people,
• To have the complete resistance against violation of human rights and
uncertainty in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

• To maintain its stance on Kashmir as to settled down Kashmir conflict

peacefully without any violence.

• To achieve prosperity in the South Asian region as Kashmir economy is

predominantly agrarian.

On the other side, since independence, India has been maintaining its
claims over Kashmir. Looking with it, India's strategy towards Kashmir has
evolved in as a shrewd Kashmir policy that enables India to hold control over
the main area of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. India’s prime objectives in
Kashmir are:

• To not allow Plebiscite in Kashmir and a continued resistance over the

UN resolution 1948 as earlier it was only India who made efforts to delay the
Kashmir crisis resolution proposed by UN Security Council,

• To hold the concept of secularism in order to justify the instrument of

accession, which was signed between the Maharaja and the Indian
administration caused Kashmir conditional accession to India,

• To install a permanent pro-Indian government in the state of Jammu and

Kashmir.

Article 370 and 35(a):

Indian government abolished decades-old laws that gave a measure of
autonomy to the disputed Muslim-majority region. On 5 August 2019, Indian
parliament signed a decree abolishing Article 370 of the constitution, stripping
the significant autonomy Kashmir had enjoyed for seven decades. This move
further inflamed tensions in the Muslim-majority region of more than seven
million people and infuriated rival Pakistan.

ARTICLE 370: The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and
Kashmir state from the Indian constitution. It allows the Indian-administered
region jurisdiction to make its own laws in all matters except finance, defence,
foreign affairs and communications. It established a separate constitution and
a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders. That
means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the
country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

ARTICLE 35A: Article 35A was introduced through a presidential order in 1954
to continue the old provisions of the territory regulations under Article 370 of
the Indian constitution. The article permits the local legislature in Indian-
administered Kashmir to define permanent residents of the region. It forbids
outsiders from permanently settling, buying land, holding local government
jobs or winning education scholarships in the region. The article, referred to as
the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and
Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from
outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

While Article 35A has remained unchanged, some aspects of Article 370 have
been diluted over the decades.

Critical analysis:
For India, Kashmir has great strategic value as bordering with Afghanistan and
Pakistan; also it shares the border with China. Moreover, the importance of
Kashmir cannot be denied due to origin of major rivers of Indus Basin in the
region. Whereas, Pakistan considers Kashmir as a zone of fellow Muslims and
to promote Muslims’ cause is a responsibility of Pakistan. Since independence,
Pakistan and India, however, fought three wars over Kashmir. Following the
first war of 1947-1948, on January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed between
India and Pakistan with 2/3 of the territory under Indian control and 1/3 with
Pakistan. However, the ceasefire was intended to be temporary, but the Line
of Control remains the de-facto border between the two countries.

Moreover, the current status shows both the positions on Kashmir, as, Pakistan
is, in the favour of UN plebiscite as per the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Whereas India doesn't consider UN resolution as significant as Pakistan does.
India is claiming Kashmir as an integral part, which cannot be separated from
India. India argued upon and claimed it a bilateral matter between India and
Pakistan so disregard UN referendum which might include the voice of
Kashmir. India accuses Pakistan of supporting Kashmiri separatists in Indian
occupied Kashmir, which is a critical security issue on which many experts say
that Pakistan should act upon it accordingly and change its security policies.

Strategies and Options

In Kashmir conflict, there are mainly two options or ways. One is Kashmir
conflict resolution through negotiations and mutually agreeable solutions.
Another is to reach out the resolution through all-out War options. However,
different strategies need to be addressed while resolving any conflict. While
strategies are defined as choosing the appropriate techniques of negotiations
while the parties dealing with each other with a desire to achieve a sustainable
outcome. There are mainly 5 broader strategies that use to make negotiations
successful, manage or resolve conflicts. These are avoiding, compromising,
collaborating, competitive and accommodating. India and Pakistan are mostly
seen using avoiding or competitive strategies of negotiations.

Options for Pakistan

Pakistan has a few instruments to press its argument forward on Kashmir.

• Pakistan can and has used diplomacy to carry out symbolic acts — like
expelling India’s envoy and banning Indian television and movies — to
demonstrate downgraded ties with India. Pakistan’s diplomatic outreach has
made a lot of noise across international forums ranging from the United
Nations, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and other multilateral bodies —
but it’s unclear if it’s made much difference.

• Pakistan must vociferously agitate the violation of UN charter by India.

• By revoking the Articles 370 and 35A the Indian government had divided
the state into two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. This is
the sheer violation of bilateral agreement and the resolutions of the United
Nations.

• Pakistan can establish a political office for Indian Kashmiris in Pakistan.

Islamabad’s objective would be to give a platform to Indian Kashmiri political
groups that would amplify their propaganda value. By giving oxygen to Indian
Kashmiri political groups, Pakistan could bolster them as a suppressed voice
and host them as a people in exile in international forums.
• Pakistan could try to persuade its only ally, China, to side with its
position more stridently. Beijing was the only other actor that took issue with
New Delhi’s policy shift on Kashmir. A statement from the Chinese foreign
ministry noted that it was opposed to the move, as Beijing has territorial claims
in the western part of Kashmir along the China-India border.

Solutions for kashmir issue:

Nearly 40 proposals for a solution to the Kashmir crisis have surfaced in the
historyof post-partition India. These include turning the Line of Control (LoC)
betweenIndia and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) into an international
border,implementation of UN resolutions on Kashmir to hold a plebiscite
which will letKashmiris choose between Indian and Pakistani rule, Musharraf
Formula etc.

UNSC resolutions:

Sixty two years ago, India took Kashmir to United Nations and since then, it
is pending with the body and the conflict continues to elude a solution. The
U.Ninvolvement in the Kashmir Conflict largely lasted for 17 years (1948-
65).After theIndo-Pak war of 1965, the U.N engagement with Kashmir
continued at a verynominal level till the 3rd Pakistan-India war of 1971 and
completely ended with thesigning of the Simla Agreement in 1972, an Indo-Pak
peace agreement, which laidemphasis on adopting a bilateral framework to
solve the Kashmir imbroglio and keptthe U.N out of the picture afterwards.The
UN Security Council resolution clearly says: Both countries should
acceptceasefire; Pakistan must withdraw all troops and nationals from the
territory of J&K.And the withdrawal must take place to India’s satisfaction; and
only then India willimplement actions to determine the will of people of
Kashmir. In the UNSCresolution the word plebiscite was never used. However,
experts opined that bothcountries need to put aside the UN resolution, and
should agree on keeping allfurther disputed matters at a bilateral level.The U.N
resolutions regarding the Kashmir issue are not self-enforceable. In
other words the resolutions are recommendatory in nature and can be
enforced only if the parties to the dispute, viz. India and Pakistan, consent to
their application. Indianrefusal to implement the U.N resolutions on Kashmir
was to relegate them to themargins of the conflict.
MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO / LoC INTO INTERNATIONAL BORDER:

This means converting the Line of Control between India and Pakistan
into permanent International Border. India has been a strong supporter of this
solution, though have not put forward any of this proposal formally in any
forum. However,it is widely believed, that India will agree to the conversion of
LoC into aninternational border.However, this solution is not acceptable to
Pakistan. Pakistan feels, the main problem is the LoC and India cannot consider
the problem as a solution. Moreimportantly, the Kashmiris are against this
proposal as well, as that would permanently divide the Kashmiris.

Musharaf formula:

In 2006, the then Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf who believed that both
Indiaand Pakistan would have to make compromises and be prepared to give
up their  positions held since 1948, floated a four-point solution to Kashmir
issue whichincludes demilitarization and “self-governance with joint
supervision mechanism”..The four-point formula General Musharraf
prescribed was: Kashmir should have thesame borders but people be allowed
to move freely across the region; The regionshould have self-governance or
autonomy but not independence; Troops should bewithdrawn from the region
in a phased manner; and a joint mechanism comprisingrepresentatives from
India, Pakistan and Kashmir be set up to supervise theimplementation of such
a roadmap for Kashmir.However, he was ridiculed in his own country for
floating the proposal, India alsorejected it saying there was already self
governance in Kashmir. On the withdrawalof troops, India considered it as not
possible till the security situation in Kashmir improved. India also maintained
that the way to go forward was by increasinginteraction between people
across the borders and making them irrelevant. ButPakistan has been saying
that interaction and all other areas of cooperation betweenthe two countries
can increase only after the issue of Kashmir has been resolved.

Independence:

People of Kashmir, especially from the Valley demand complete independence

as theonly solution, from both India and Pakistan, based on the principles of
self determination. They have been quoting the promises made by Jawaharlal
Nehru inthe 1940s and the UN Security Council Resolutions.However, India
does not agree with this idea. Though Pakistan agrees in principle,in practical
approach, Islamabad is also against the independence option. Nor do allthe
regions of J&K support such an option; for example, Jammu and Ladakh
regionsdo not approve the independence option.

Autonomy:

The Indian government is strongly in favour of this option as the road ahead.
Some political parties in J&K, like the National Conference and even the PDP in
principleagree to such an idea. However, this is not agreeable to Pakistan,
militant groups,the Hurriyat and a large section of Kashmiris in the Valley.As a
part of this process, Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India,
recentlyorganized two Round Table Conferences with various sections of
people and groups in J&K; his government also set up five working groups on
different issues.

SOFTENING LoC:

In the recent years, the idea of converting the LoC into a soft border, is
gainingattention. Ever since India and Pakistan agreed to start the bus service
between thetwo Kashmirs, following the establishment of a peace process in
2004, bothgovernments have been taken numerous measures towards brining
the people from both sides closer to each other.Today, the bus service has
been expanded; trucks have started plying between twoKashmirs. It is
expected that this process will continue and include other measures.

THE ROAD AHEAD:

Although the incidents of terrorist violence have decreased in Jammu and

Kashmir,the situation still cannot said to be normal. In the recent past, there
have been manyincidents of public unrest which indicate that a lot still needs
to be done to restorecomplete normalcy in Kashmir valley.Kashmir conflict is a
serious issue. It involves hundreds and thousands of innocent people whose
lives have been caught in the conflict. Around 40,000 children have become
orphans and 25,000 women have become widows; 100,000 people have
beenkilled; it is a conflict about the people and their lives, the loss of precious
humanlives, the loss of ethnic minority of Kashmiri Pandit Hindu who fled
Kashmir valleyin 1990 when the conflict started in late 1980’s.At present, there
is lack of trust between two major stakeholders, i.e., India andPakistan. The
need of the hour is to restore that trust. Therefore it is important thatthe two
nuclear powers should work towards making bridges of friendship that canlast
forever. Both need to work together sincerely and rebuild mutual trust
withouttaking any preconceived positions to arrive at a solution which is
democratic, justand in favour of the people of the region.

 One cannot ignore the fact thatresolution of Kashmir is greatly important for a
long-lasting peace andstability in South Asia.

LoC should also be converted into the line of peace and free movement of
peopleand goods needs to be encouraged; it is equally important to encourage
andstrengthen the groups which have stakes in promoting peace, normalcy
and stabilityin the region like tourists, traders, intellectuals, students,
historians, divided families,artists, theatrists, writers etc.To begin with, both
India and Pakistan can sit together and take up some joint projects which can
provide win-win situation for both the parties e.g. promotingtrade and tourism
and which will lead to new employment opportunities for theunemployed
youth who are otherwise dragged into vicious circle of violence by theforces
inimical to peace and tranquility in the region.Topmost priority need to be
given to re-opening channels of communication betweenIndia and Pakistan at
the earliest. Both need to continue with their dialogue over theKashmir issue.
Both the countries have time and again agreed to the fact thatviolence is not
solution to the conflict and both of them have to talk to each other.

Wars on kashmir:
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947:

 Maharaja supported the annexation of Kashmir by India, militant

Muslims from western Kashmir and Pakistani tribesmen made rapid
advances into the Baramulla sector.
 Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh asked the government of India to
intervene. However, India and Pakistan had signed a non-intervention
agreement.
 Before the tribesmen's arrived, India argued that the Maharaja must
complete negotiations to cede Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange
 for military aid. The subsequent cession agreement was signed by the
Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten of Burma.
 In Jammu and Kashmir, National Conference volunteers worked with the
Indian Army to drive out the Pakistanis.
 The Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to India was accepted by
Viceroy Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.
 The resulting First Kashmir War lasted until 1948, when India sought
resolution of the issue at the UN Security Council.
 Sheikh Abdullah was not in favour of India seeking UN intervention
because he was sure the Indian Army could free the entire state from
invaders.
 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
 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, 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.

End of war:

 In November 1948, although both the Indian and Pakistani

governments agreed to hold the plebiscite, the failure of Pakistan to
withdraw its troops from Kashmir was a violation of the agreed
conditions for holding it and the process stalled.
 Furthermore, the Indian Government distanced itself from its
previous commitment to hold a plebiscite.
 India then proposed that Pakistan withdraw all its troops first, calling
it a precondition for a plebiscite.
  Pakistan rejected the proposal on the grounds that the Kashmiris
would be unable to vote freely in the presence of the Indian army
and in the light of the friendship between Sheikh Abdullah and Indian
Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.
 However, Pakistan proposed simultaneous withdrawal of all troops
followed by a plebiscite under international aegis, which India
rejected.

United nations security council:

 As a result Pakistani forces did not unilaterally withdraw.Over the

next few years, the UN Security Council passed four new resolutions,
revising the terms of Resolution 47 to include a synchronous
withdrawal of both Indian and Pakistani troops from the region on
the recommendations of General Andrew McNaughton. 
 To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the
demilitarisation of the region.
 All of these were accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian
government.
 The resolutions were passed by the United Nations Security Council
under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter and as such are
considered non-binding with no mandatory enforceability, as
opposed to resolutions passed under Chapter VII.

Sino-Indian War:

 In 1962, troops from the People's Republic of China and India clashed
in territory claimed by both. China won a swift victory in the war,
resulting in 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"

1965 and 1971 Wars:

  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 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.

1989 popular insurgency and militancy:

 In 1989, a widespread popular and armed insurgency started in

Kashmir. After the 1987 state legislative assembly election, some of
the results were disputed.
 This resulted in the formation of militant wings and marked the
beginning of the Mujahadeen insurgency, which continues to this
day.
 India contends that the insurgency was largely started by Afghan
mujahadeen who entered the Kashmir valley following the end of the
Soviet-Afghan War.
 Yasin Malik, a leader of Huriyat party of the Jammu Kashmir
Liberation Front, was one of the Kashmiris to organise militancy in
Kashmir, along with Ashfaq Majid Wani and Farooq Ahmad Dar (alias
Bitta Karatay).
 Since 1995, Malik has renounced the use of violence and calls for
strictly peaceful methods to resolve the dispute. Malik developed
differences with one of the senior leaders, Farooq Siddiqui (alias
Farooq Papa), for shunning demands for an independent Kashmir and
trying to cut a deal with the Indian Prime Minister.
 This resulted in a spilt in which Bitta Karatay, Salim Nanhaji, and
other senior comrades joined Farooq Papa.
  Pakistan claims these insurgents are Jammu and Kashmir citizens, and
are rising up against the Indian army as part of an independence
movement.
 Amnesty International has accused security forces in Indian-
controlled Kashmir of exploiting the Public Safety Act that enables
them to "hold prisoners without trial".
 India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from
Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make
Jammu and Kashmir a part of Pakistan.
 The Pakistani government calls these insurgents "Kashmiri freedom
fighters", and claims that it provides them only moral and diplomatic
support, although India believes they are Pakistan-supported
terrorists from Pakistan Administered Kashmir.
 In October 2008, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan called the
Kashmir separatists "terrorists" in an interview with The Wall Street
Journal. These comments sparked outrage amongst many Kashmiris,
some of whom defied a curfew imposed by the Indian army to burn
him in effigy.

1999 Conflict in Kargil:

 In mid-1999, 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.
 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.
 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.

2000s Al-Qaeda involvement:

 Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden In a

'Letter to American People' written by Osama bin Laden in 2002, he
stated that one of the reasons he was fighting America was because of
its support for India on the Kashmir issue.
 While on a trip to Delhi in 2002, US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld suggested that Al-Qaeda was active in Kashmir, though he did
not have any hard evidence.
 An investigation by a Christian Science Monitor reporter in 2002 claimed
to have unearthed evidence that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates were
prospering in Pakistan-administered Kashmir with tacit approval of
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).
 In 2002, a team comprising Special Air Service and Delta Force personnel
was sent into Indian-administered Kashmir to hunt for Osama bin Laden
after reports that he was being sheltered by the Kashmiri militant group
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen.
 US intelligence analysts say Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan-
administered Kashmir are helping terrorists trained in Afghanistan to
infiltrate Indian-administered Kashmir.
 In 2006 Al-Qaeda claim they have established a wing in Kashmir, which
worried the Indian government. 
 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.

Indian view:

 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 1947and
executed on 27 October 1947 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.
 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.
 The state of Jammu and Kashmir was provided with significant
autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India.
 All differences between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir,
need to be settled through bilateral negotiations as agreed to by
the two countries under the Simla Agreement signed on 2 July
1972.[88]
 The Government of India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of
waging a proxy war in Kashmir by providing weapons and financial
assistance to terrorist groups in the region.
 Pakistan is trying to raise anti-India sentiment among the people
of Kashmir by spreading false propaganda against India.
 According to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir,
Pakistani radio and television channels deliberately spread "hate
and venom" against India to alter Kashmiri opinion.
 The UN Chapter VII resolution that makes it mandatory for
member states to not provide active or passive support to
terrorist organisations
 Specifically, it has pointed out that the Pakistani government
continues to support various terrorist organisations, such as Jaish-
e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, in direct violation of this
resolution.
 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. In 2008,
 the death toll from the last 20 years was estimated by Indian
authorities to be over 47,000.

Pakistan view:

 Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of

Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession.
 Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was
regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris.
 Pakistan maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the
population.
 Pakistan 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,
 From 1990 to 1999, some organisations reported that the Indian Armed
Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias were
responsible for the deaths of 4,501 Kashmiri civilians. During the same
period, there were records of 4,242 women between the ages of 7-70
being raped
 The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people
no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means
that Kashmir either wants to be with Pakistan or independent.
 According to the two-nation theory, 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.
 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.
 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.
  Human rights organisations have strongly condemned Indian troops for
widespread rape and murder of innocent civilians while accusing these
civilians of being militants.
 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. 
 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.

Chinese view:

 China states that Aksai Chin is an integral part of China and does not
recognise the inclusion of Aksai Chin as part of the Kashmir region
 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.
 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.

Cross-border troubles (Siachen Conflict):

The world's highest battleground, the Siachen Glacier, is a part of this difficult-
to-man boundary.

The Siachen glacier is the highest battleground on earth, where India and
Pakistan have fought intermittently since April 13, 1984. Both countries
maintain permanent military presence in the region at a height of over 6,000
metres (20,000 ft). More than 2000 people have died in this inhospitable
terrain, mostly due to weather extremes and the natural hazards of mountain
warfare. 

The conflict in Siachen stems from the incompletely demarcated territory on

the map beyond the map coordinate known as NJ9842. The 1972 Simla
Agreement did not clearly mention who controlled the glacier, merely stating
that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed “thence north to
the glaciers.” UN officials presumed there would be no dispute between India
and Pakistan over such a cold and barren region.

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.

 Line Of Control Conflicts:

The border and the Line of Control separating Indian and Pakistani Kashmir
passes through some exceptionally difficult terrain.

Water dispute:

 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.
 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
 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.
 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.

United nations plebiscite:

First Prime Minister of Inida Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru said, in a detailed
statement to the Constituent Assembly of India, that the will of the Kashmiris
should be fulfilled under the supervision of the United Nations. On December
31, 1947, India filed a complaint against Pakistani aggression with the United
Nations. The U.N. passed resolutions asking for the withdrawal of Pakistani
troops from the occupied territory in Kashmir, for the reduction in the number
of Indian troops in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and finally for a plebiscite
to ascertain the wishes of the people of Kashmir with regard to their political
affiliations.

In this regard UN established UNCIP and UNMGOIP. But since then no

plebiscite could be held because of the lack of cooperation by both sides. India
says that Pakistan should first withdraw its forces from Azad Kashmir and
Pakistan holds India responsible for not allowing Kashmiris to ascertain their
will. After so many years UN resolution is still seeking its implementation,
which has very less prospects in near future to be implemented in its lateral
spirit. One another drawback of this resolution is that it doesn’t give Kashmiris
an option to decide for their independent state and for this reason it is not
wrong to claim that under current circumstances the solution of UN Plebiscite
has lost its importance and can no more be considered as a viable solution to
the problem. Because, if according to the current resolution a plebiscite would
be held, It will only ask for the accession with either Pakistan or India, which is
not going to be accepted by the either side, if the decision goes against one of
them. In this regard, it is important to include option of independence in the
current UN resolution, only then it could be considered as a plausible solution.

United nations trusteeship program:

There is a proposal that to resolve the issue of Kashmir for some time the
territory may be placed under control of trusteeship of United Nations and
after a period of ten to fifteen years the matter may be referred to the people
for the final verdict with regard to future status of the State. This arrangement
will provide a face-saving arrangement for India, and will also give Kashmiris,
on both sides of Line of Control, enough time to decide their future without
any pressure or compulsion from any country or group”.

 But this option is not workable until both India and Pakistan agree to
withdraw their forces from the occupied areas. Secondly India has
outrageously and repeatedly refused the involvement of any third party and
always argues that this is a bilateral issue and only India and Pakistan should
solve it. On the other hand it would be difficult for Pakistan to dismantle all the
military establishments and especially the militant groups would not agree to
the presence of any International forces because then they have to disarm and
stop militancy. So this option doesn’t look practical under current situation.