KASHMIR ISSUE

INTRODUCTION

Is Kashmir a dispute or an issue? In everyday discussions, even on TV talk shows and newspaper
editorials and coverage, the words 'dispute' and 'issue' are often used interchangeably while discussing the
problem of Kashmir vis-à-vis India. Before undertaking a serious and meaningful discussion on the
subject of Kashmir let it first be made clear whether it is a dispute or an issue. Dictionaries define 'dispute'
as a disagreement or argument about something important - a failure to agree. According to another
dictionary, it is "to contend in argument; to argue against something maintained, upheld, or claimed, by
another."

The Cambridge Dictionary defines 'issue' as "a subject or problem that people are thinking and talking
about." According to the Vocabulary.com Dictionary, an issue "is a current topic, sometimes
controversial, that is being discussed." The Macmillan Dictionary calls it "a subject that people discuss or
argue about, especially relating to society, politics etc."

The meanings of both words are more or less the same, but 'issue' has more weight especially when it
comes to a territorial wrangle such as over Kashmir. In the opinion of the author, the word 'wrangle' ought
to have been used instead for it means: "a dispute or argument, typically one that is long and complicated"
as is the case with Kashmir. Actually it is the longest ongoing dispute in the world. Nevertheless, it is for
the reader to decide which word to use. In the course of this chapter the words "issue" and "dispute" have
been used interchangeably, with the same meaning and weight.

What is Kashmir? It is the region in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent that is bounded by the
Uygur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang of China to the northeast and the Tibet Autonomous Region to
the east by the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab to the south, by Pakistan to the west, and by
Afghanistan to the northwest. It has a total area covering 222,200 sq. km. The Indian and Pakistani
administered portions are divided by a "Line of Control" (LOC) agreed to in 1972 at the time of the Simla
Agreement. Neither country recognizes it as an international boundary, though India is keen to turn it into
one.

Since independence, the Kashmir issue and relations with India have dominated Pakistan's foreign policy.
Kashmir was perceived as a symbol of both Pakistani and India founding idea. For Pakistan, Kashmir,
with its Muslim majority population, is a symbol of the Two-Nation Theory and should, therefore, be part
of Pakistan. It represents the unfinished agenda of Partition. India completely rejected this interpretation
from the beginning, converting its part of Kashmir into a state, albeit with special provisions for
autonomy granted through Article 370 of its Constitution. For India, Kashmir was a symbol of the secular
character of the new state that was open for all religious communities.

Three wars over the disputed territory (1947-48, 1965 and 1999) have created a situation whereby India
administers approximately half of Kashmir and Pakistan one-third of it. The remaining part of the original
state, that is Ladakh, is under Chinese control, the result of a 1962 conflict between China and India.
Pakistan has been repeatedly accused by Indian authorities, although not true, of harbouring and
supporting militants who carry out incursions across the LoC, although the intensity of such incursions
seems to have decreased since a 2003 ceasefire. Pakistan's official position on the issue of Kashmir has
been the long-standing demand that a plebiscite be held in the territory under UN Resolution 47 (1948)
and a few others.

Link of lecture on the above mentioned topic https://youtu.be/l-WPwg2vY0k

Subscribe Youtube Channel “One Paper Cracker” link is given below.

https://www.youtube.com/@onepapercracker

Join Whatsapp group for free PDF notes.

https://chat.whatsapp.com/JSEJNYdU3N5BNrmRBVjfYr

PARTITION AND THEREAFTER

Mahatama Gandhi, on May 5, 1934, said: "Knowing that Kashmir is predominantly Mussalman, it is one
day bound to become a Mussalman State."

On June 3, 1947, Lord Mountbatten Viceroy of India said in a radio broadcast:

"To my great regret, it has been impossible to obtain agreement...on any other plan that would preserve
the unity of India. But there can be no question of coercing any large areas in which one community has a
majority to live against their will, under a Government in which another community has a majority."

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on All India Radio, November-3, 1947, stated:

"We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we
have given, not only to the people of Kashmir, but to the whole world. We want it to be a fair, just
referendum and we shall accept the verdict."

By the terms agreed to by India and Pakistan prior to the partition of the sub-continent, the rulers of some
570 princely states were given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or - with certain reservations -
to remain independent. They were, however, advised to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into
consideration the geographical and ethnic issues.

Out of all the states, only three had not acceded to either India or gone immediately over to Pakistan.
These were the states of Junagadh, Hyderabad, and Kshmir. The nawab of Junagadh and the nizam of
Hyderabad were both Muslims, though most of their subjects were Hindus, and both states were
surrounded, on land, by India. The nizam of Hyderabad was hoping for independence but India sent
troops into the state in September 1948 and swiftly integrated it into the Indian union.

In order to better understand what took place in Kashmir one must first follow what happened with
Junagadh Junagadh was a state on the south-western end of Gujarat; was not contiguous to Pakistan and
other states physically separated it from Pakistan. It had an overwhelming Hindu population which
constituted more than 80 percent of its citizens, while its ruler Nawab Mahabat Khan, was a Muslim.
Mahabat Khan acceded to Pakistan on August 15, 1947 and Pakistan confirmed the acceptance of the
accession on September 15, 1947. India did not accept the accession as legitimate saying that Junagadh
was not contiguous to Pakistan and that the Hindu majority of that state wanted it to be a part of India.
The Pakistani viewpoint was that since Junagadh had a ruler and governing body who chose to accede to
Pakistan, it should be allowed to do so. Also, because Junagadh had a coastline, it could have maintained
maritime links with Pakistan even as an enclave within India.

India cut off supplies to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the frontier, and occupied
parts of the state. On October 26, 1947 the Nawab of Junagadh and his family fled to Pakistan following
clashes with Indian troops. Indian troops occupied Junagadh on November 9, 1947. In February 1948, a
plebiscite was held that almost unanimously voted for accession to India.

WAR OF 1947-48 AND UN RESOLUTIONS

The situation in Kashmir was just the reverse of the one in Junagadh. Here was a vastly Muslim majority
(80 percent) state with a Hindu as its ruler and the territory was geographically contiguous to Pakistan.
Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir. initially believed that by delaying his decision to accede to either
India or Pakistan, he could maintain the independence of Kashmir.

But, caught up in a train of events that included a revolution among his Muslim subjects along the
western borders of the state and the intervention of Pashtun tribesmen in October 1947, he allegedly
signed a an Instrument of Accession to the Indian union. The government of India made the plea that it
entered Kashmir because of this Instrument of Accession. The Instrument of Accession has never
surfaced, and it has been proved that it was never signed.

Alastair Lamb who is the author of a few books on the sub- continent including Kashmir: A Disputed
Legacy, 1846-1990, writes that in spite of his best efforts he was not able to see the original Instrument of
Accession anywhere, He claims to have even approached the National Archives in Delhi where the
original copy is supposed to be preserved but was denied access to it. He was provided with unsigned,
typed copies only. The UN also does not consider the Indian claim as legally valid: it recognizes Kashmir
as a disputed territory.

The Instrument of Accession is supposed to have been signed on October 26, 1947. The first Indian
troops to reach Kashmir are reported to have landed at Srinagar Airport on October 27. (This day is
observed in both Kashmir and Pakistan as "Black Day" .) Lamb has proved that the troops came much
before the signing of the Instrument and those were Patiala Sikhs sent by the Maharaja of Patiala to help
Maharaja Hari Singh.

This was a signal for intervention both by Pakistan, which considered the state to be a natural extension
of Pakistan, and by India, which intended to confirm the act of accession.

The reorganization of the Pakistan army was still underway when the Kashmir War was thrust on it.
Within Kashmir, the state forces had started a massacre of Muslims in Poonch. These Muslims had
relatives in the tribal areas of Pakistan who invaded Kashmir hoping to rescue their relatives. The
Pakistan army did not have the resources to halt their advance. The army was unable to control the tribals
even when they looted Muslim property in Rawalpindi.
 Localized warfare continued during 1948 and ended, through the intercession of the UN, in a ceasefire
that took effect on January 1, 1949. In July of that year, India and Pakistan defined a ceasefire line that
divided the administration of the territory. Regarded at the time as a temporary expedient, the partition
along that line still exists.

Thus, Kashmir triggered the first undeclared war between India and Pakistan, which began a little more
than two months after independence.

As noted above, Prime Minister Nehru had promised the people of Kashmir and the whole world that the
fate of Kashmir would not be decided by the accession, but by a free and impartial plebiscite of the
people of Jammu and Kashmir. India made this promise not only to the people of Kashmir but to the
international community as well. The dates on which Prime Minister Nehru repeated his promise of a
plebiscite were October 26, 1947, October 27, 1947, October 30, 1947, November 3, 1947, November 4,
1947, October 4, 1948, February 12, 1951, June 27, 1952 and August 7, 1952. Given below are some
extracts from telegrams addressed from time to time by Nehru to Pakistani leaders and the solemn pledges
that he made on the subject of Jammu and Kashmir. For the prime minister of Pakistan, dated October 27,
1947:

"I should like to make it clear that question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any
way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the
question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of
people and we adhere to this view,"

For the prime minister of Pakistan, dated October 31, 1947:

"Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored
and leave the decision regarding the future of this State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to
your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world."

For Liaquat Ali Khan, dated November 4, 1947:

"I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I made last evening. I have stated our
government's policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir. I further
stated that we have agreed on impartial international agency like United Nations supervising any
referendum."

In December 1947 Nehru himself brought the issue before the UN and suggested a referendum on
Kashmir's future status. Nehru's demand for a referendum was included in the UN resolution of April 21,
1948, which is one of the principal UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and which noted: "Both India and
Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be
decided through the democratic method of free and impartial plebiscite." O UNSC established a five-
member UN Commission for India and Pakistan and instructed it to proceed to the sub-continent and
place its good offices at the disposal of the governments of India and Pakistan "with a view to facilitating
the taking of necessary measures, both with respect to the restoration of peace and order and to holding of
a plebiscite by the two governments, acting in co-operation with one another and with the Commission."
It also laid down guidelines for both India and Pakistan to facilitate "restoration of peace and order and a
mechanism to prepare for a plebiscite."

Subsequent UNSC resolutions reiterated the same stand. The UN Commission for India and Pakistan
resolutions of August 3, 1948, and January 5, 1949, reinforced the UNSC resolutions and provided a
detailed mechanism to settle the Kashmir dispute, In its resolution of January 5, 1949, having received
acceptance from the two governments for holding a plebiscite, the Commission announced that the UN
secretary general will nominate a plebiscite administrator to be formally appointed by the government of
Jammu and Kashmir to make necessary arrangements for the plebiscite.

However, Nehru went back on his solemn pledges on February 24, 1955 on the excuse that Pakistan had
become a military ally of the US. The referendum has not been conducted to date for one reason or the
other and Indian intransigence continues.

The fact is that all the principles on the basis of which the Indian sub-continent was partitioned by the
British justify Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan: The State had a majority Muslim population, it not
only enjoyed geographical proximity with Pakistan, but also had essential economic linkages with the
territories constituting Pakistan. Kashmir is, therefore, the unfinished agenda of Partition and has been a
sore point between the two countries since then.

Link of lecture on the above mentioned topic https://youtu.be/l-WPwg2vY0k

Subscribe Youtube Channel “One Paper Cracker” link is given below.

https://www.youtube.com/@onepapercracker

Join Whatsapp group for free PDF notes.

https://chat.whatsapp.com/JSEJNYdU3N5BNrmRBVjfYr

WAR OF 1965 AND TASHKENT DECLARATION

The second India-Pakistan war, which was a manifestation of the inherent hostility between the two
neighbours, was fought over the same question in September 1965, when on the 6th of that month India
took on Pakistan by crossing the international border under cover of darkness.

But what led to the war? Hostilities in the Rann of Kutch from the beginning of the year was not the
casus belli. It so happened that India abrogated Article 370 of its Constitution (the very same Article that
it again revoked on August 5, 2019) and on December 4, 1964, enacted Articles 356/357 which in effect
was an attempt to declare that Kashmir was an integral part of India. If nothing was done, Pakistan's case
on Kashmir would have been lost by default. If Pakistan applied to the UN, it would be frustrated by a
Russian veto and if it simply sat back and let the ceasefire line become the international border then
constitutionally it would surrendering claims also to Azad Kashmir. mean

If that came about, India could link up with Afghanistan from Kashmir, encircle and crush Pakistan.
There was only one choice - to attract attention to the plight of the Kashmiris and cause international
pressure on India not to treat Kashmir as a 'sett lad issue' and to allow self-determination to Kashmiris in
line with UNSC resolutions, and Nehru's repeated promises of an impartial plebiscite.
Given this background, when tribal infiltrators went to Kashmir, Pakistan did not discourage them.
Hypothetically speaking, even if Pakistan had sent them in, this was not something new. President John F.
Kennedy, for example, had, a short while before, sent infiltrators to Cuba.

India retaliated by crossing the international border. In the war that lasted for 17 days, thousands of
people from both sides lost their lives. Many more had to leave their abodes. It is said that this was the
largest military conflict over a territorial dispute since World War II and was seriously threatening to
escalate into a much larger scale war, with the participation of other states. For instance, India was being
threatened by China that had, by then, become a close ally of Pakistan and was accusing Delhi of
aggression.

Fearing just that, the Soviet Union and the US pressurized the UN to arrange an immediate ceasefire. This
came into effect on September 23, 1965. But the ceasefire was fragile, and it was feared that the conflict
could resume at any time. Feeling the need for a more binding agreement, the Soviet premier Aleksey
Kosygin, having played a neutral role in the war, and now acting as a peace broker, invited both the
Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and the Pakistani President Ayub Khan to Tashkent.

President Ayub accepted the invitation because inter alia he was interested in improving bilateral
relations with the Soviet Union. Both belligerent parties met in Tashkent from January 4-10, 1966 at the
end of which period they signed an agreement that came to be known as the Tashkent Declaration of
1966. It obliged both countries to cease hostilities, withdraw all military forces to the positions held prior
to the start of the conflict no later than February 25, 1966; refrain from interfering in each other's internal
affairs, and resume economic and diplomatic ties. It also said that there would be an orderly transfer of
prisoners of war and the two leaders would work towards improving bilateral relations.

In accordance with the terms of the Declaration, both sides commenced talks at the ministerial level in the
first week of March 1966. Although no result was achieved as there was a difference of opinion over the
Kashmir issue, diplomatic exchanges continued for the next few months.

Unfortunately, within a few hours of signing the Declaration, Prime Minister Shastri passed away
because of a sudden "heart attack" under rather mysterious circumstances while still at Tashkent. There
were speculations that he was poisoned. After his death, the

Declaration was not taken seriously by India although it was endorsed by the Indian National Congress
Party and the Communist Party of India. Opposition parties claimed that the Agreement had demoralized
the country because it did not contain a no-war pact or any renunciation of guerrilla aggression in
Kashmir. The fact is that there was no direct reference to Kashmir in the Declaration.

It was a rather short Declaration of nine clauses only with an indirect reference to Kashmir in clause II
which stated that it was "agreed that all armed personnel of the two countries shall be withdrawn not later
than February 25, 1966 to the positions they held prior to August 5, 1965, and both sides shall observe the
ceasefire terms on the ceasefire line."

The people of Pakistan had formed the impression that had the war continued, Pakistan would have surely
won it. Therefore, their expectations from the Tashkent Summit were very high. And when news about
the details of the Declaration reached them, it resulted in a shock. Things further worsened when instead
of taking the public into confidence over the reasons for the Declaration, Ayub Khan refused to comment
on the details and went into seclusion.
Demonstrations and rioting erupted at various places throughout the country. People were of the view that
they had won the war on the battlefield but lost it on the table.

WAR OF 1971 AND SIMLA AGREEMENT

The shaky peace between the two countries following the signing of the Tashkent Declaration did not last
for more than seven years when they again went to war in December 1971. Despite its successes to
arrange a ceasefire in 1949 and 1965, the UN could not adopt a resolution to stop the Indian aggression in
the former East Pakistan resulting in the dismemberment of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh.
(This is covered in more detail in Chapter XI "Relations with India since 1947").

Following the dismemberment of Pakistan, an agreement was signed between India and Pakistan on July
2, 1972 at Simla and is, therefore, called the Simla Agreement. The Agreement was a comprehensive
blueprint for good neighbourly relations between the two countries. Not only did they agree to put an end
to "conflict and confrontation" but also to work for the "promotion of a friendly and harmonious
relationship and the establishment of durable Peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may
henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing talk of advancing the welfare of their
peoples."

One of the clauses of the Agreement pertained to Kashmir and said that both sides agreed that the LoC
"resulting from the ceasefire 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 or the use of
force in violation of this Line." The ceasefire line was thus converted into the Line of Control.

Some commentators have negated the Agreement believing it to have compromised the position of
Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. A perusal of the Agreement would prove that this is not the case because,
first, although the words "the right of self-determination" are missing from the Agreement, these are
implied in sub-Section I of Section One which says: "The principles and purposes of the Charter of the
UN shall govern the relations between the two countries." A study of said Charter shows that Article One
is about "equal rights and self-determination of peoples," while Article Two is about "prohibition of threat
or use of force in international relations." Therefore, this has a strong bearing on the Kashmir issue,
especially where the points of the rights of self-determination of Kashmiris and the territorial integrity of
Kashmir are concerned.

Secondly, the objective part of the Simla Agreement says that both the signatories are resolved to "put an
end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations." It does not mean the
negation of the right of self-determination of Kashmiris.

Thirdly, when the objective part of the Agreement says, "both the signatories shall work for the
promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship to establish peace in the sub-continent," it does not
mean they do so at the cost of the right of self- determination of Kashmiris. In short, notwithstanding the
actions taken by both the signatories, the right of self-determination of Kashmiris is intact, inviolable and
irrefutable.

Section Five of the Agreement says: "In Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control resulting from the
ceasefire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized
position of either side." This shows that through the Agreement India ditched its own claim that Kashmir
was its integral part.

Section Seven says: "Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually
convenient time in the future and that, in the meantime, the representatives of the two sides will meet to
discuss further modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalization of
relati including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement
of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations." This statement indicates that
notwithstanding the stance of India domestically for the consumption of its people, India admitted that the
final settlement of the Kashmir issue was still pending.

SIACHEN CONFLICT 1984

Barring allegations of violations of ceasefire on both sides, there were no momentous developments in
Kashmir until 1984 when Indian troops occupied the Siachen Glacier. In 1949, following the war of 1948,
military representatives from sides signed the UN- mediated Karachi Agreement that provided for the
establishment of the ceasefire line. The line was demarcated up to point NJ9842 at the foot of the Siachen
Glacier, in the extreme north of the territory under the control of both countries.

The terrain was not demarcated beyond this point simply because UN officials didn't visualize either
country ever disputing such a barren and hostile region. Known also as the world's highest battlefield, the
Siachen Glacier is located in the eastern mountain range of the Himalayas huddled next to the borders of
Pakistan, India and China. The region includes the world's second-longest glacier, stretching an
impressive 76 km.

Until 1984, there was no military presence on the glaciers, but in April 1984, the Indian army initiated a
secret, clandestine operation ("Operation Meghdoot') and captured around 1,600 sq. km. of territory
including some top posts at the Siachen Glacier and its tributary glaciers which compelled Pakistan to
move its troops into the strategic region of northern Kashmir. Since then, troops from both sides are
stationed at Siachen and have launched various combat operations in an attempt to take strategic
positions, although a ceasefire came into effect in 2003.

Weather, nature and difficult terrain have proved to be the biggest enemies here claiming about 70
percent of the lives on both sides - much more than skirmishes between the two enemy troops. It is said
that one Pakistani soldier dies every fourth day while one Indian passes away every second day mostly
from frostbite, avalanches, and other effects of the extreme environment. Both sides are said to maintain a
presence of about 3,000 troops each.

Asif Zardari visited Siachen as the president of Pakistan in the company of the then army chief Gen.
Ashfaq Kayani in 2012. Both expressed their commitment to resolve the conflict as early as possible.
From the Indian side prime ministers Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi have both paid a visit as did
their president, Abdul Kalam. But neither of them expressed any interest in the peaceful resolution of the
conflict.

US observers feel that the Siachen conflict "made no military or political sense." Stephen Cohen, an
American political scientist and professor of security studies who was considered to be a prominent
expert on Pakistan, India and South Asian security compared the conflict to "a struggle between two bald
men over a comb. Siachen is a symbol of the worst aspects of their relationship."
LAHORE DECLARATION 1999

Following the nuclear tests by both India and Pakistan in mid-1998, tensions ran very high. Feeling the
need to diffuse the situation, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee gave his acceptance to an
invitation extended by his Pakistani counterpart Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in March 1998 that was
pending, for an official visit to Pakistan. Arrangements were made and the Indian prime minister arrived
in Lahore on a two-day visit on the inaugural journey of the newly established Lahore-Delhi bus service
on February 20, 1999, Nawaz Sharif received him at the Wagah Border.

Vajpayee was the first Indian prime minister to visit Pakistan since Rajeev Gandhi's visit in 1989 and the
first ever prime minister to visit Lahore since Nehru's visit in 1951.

The Lahore Declaration, signed by the two prime ministers on February 21, stated that they had inter alia
agreed that their respective governments "shall intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the
issue of Jammu and Kashmir." It committed both countries to the principles and purposes of the Charter
of the UN, and the universally accepted principles of peaceful co-existence. Both governments
condemned terrorism and committed themselves to non-interference in each other's internal affairs and to
the objectives of SAARC and promote human rights. Subsequently, the Declaration was duly ratified by
the parliaments of both countries.

While addressing a citizens' reception at the Governor House on February 21, Vajpayee said: "We have
suffered enmity for so long now is the time for friendship. I know how to win this friendship; difficult
decisions would have to be made, a solution of the Kashmir problem would have to be found, but we are
ready." Nawaz Sharif, in his speech on the occasion, also was of the opinion that both the countries would
have to move beyond their traditional positions on Kashmir.

The Summit was declared a genuine breakthrough in bilateral relations. At a joint press conference at the
close of the visit the two leaders reiterated that the dialogue on Kashmir would continue and the people
should wait for the outcome which both prime ministers indicated to be hopefully positive. Reportedly,
they were going to devise a formula under which the eastern side of Chenab River, the Hindu majority
areas, would go to India whereas the northern areas and Azad Kashmir would be part of Pakistan and the
issue regarding Kashmir valley would be dealt by the maximum autonomy formula presented by the
Kashmir Study Group and would be given priority.

Three developments vitiated the spirit and goodwill that had generated between the two prime ministers.
First, in mid-April 1999, Vajpayee's government fell due to a no-confidence vote followed by fresh
general elections in May 1999 hampering the process of continued dialogue. Secondly, end April India
test-fired its Agni II and Trishul missiles to which Pakistan responded by testing Ghouri II and Shaheen. 0
Last, but not least, a severe blow to the peace process was caused by the Kargil War in May-June 1999.
The Lahore Declaration had bright prospects for peace in the region and lasting solution to disputes
including Jammu and Kashmir. But that was not to be.

KARGIL WAR 1999

Next in order of wars and skirmishes concerning Kashmir was the Kargil conflict of 1999. It is recalled
that before the partition of the sub-continent, Kargil was part of Gilgit-Baltistan. The war of 1948 resulted
in most of the Kargil region coming under Indian control and after the war of 1971, the remaining areas,
including strategic military posts, also passed into Indian territory. Kargil is the only district that has a
Muslim majority. Today, Kargil town lies on the LoC. Like other areas up in the Himalayas, it has long
and cold winters with temperatures often dropping to-40 degrees C.

Kargil was, in a manner of speaking, the reverse of Siachen. Before the advent of the severe winter
season, it was customary for troops from both sides to withdraw from the mountains to lower ground and
return to claim their respective positions in the spring. When Pakistani troops went to take up their
positions on the Siachen Glacier in 1984, the Indians had beaten them to it and had taken control of the
areas usually under Pakistani control. That led to the Siachen conflict which persists even today. In the
winter of 1998 the Indian troops, as per practice, vacated the area of Kargil and came down. But in May
1999 when they went back to take up their positions of the previous autumn, they found them occupied by
Pakistani mujahideen and Kashmiri fighters.

The area that witnessed the infiltration and fighting is a 160 km long stretch overlooking a vital highway
connecting Srinagar to Leh on the Indian side of the LoC. The idea perhaps was to sever the highway link
to Leh as well as the Indian supply line to Siachen and cause Indian forces to withdraw from the Siachen
Glacier and force India into negotiating a settlement of the broader Kashmir dispute.

It was also believed that any tension in the region would internationalize the Kashmir issue, helping
Pakistan to secure a speedy resolution. Some writers have speculated that the operation may have been in
retaliation to India's "Operation Meghdoot" in 1984 that seized much of Siachen Glacier.

Within Pakistani ranks there is a degree of controversy about the Kargil operation. On one hand, in a
disclosure made by then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, he was unaware of the preparation of the intrusion,
and it was an urgent phone call from Vajpayee that informed him about the situation.

In response to this, Musharraf asserted, and he has also made this amply clear in his book In the Line of
Fire that first there was no offensive operation planned - moving to the unoccupied gaps along the LoC
was not a violation of any agreement. Secondly, the army briefed the prime minister in Skardu on January
29, 1999 and later in Kel on February 5, 1999. Musharraf claims that during these briefings their
defensive manoeuvre was explained as a response to all that was happening on the Indian side.
Subsequently, the prime minister was also briefed on March 12 at the Directorate General ISI and later in
detail by the director general of Military Operations on May 17, on June 2 and lastly on June 22.

Ostensibly Nawaz Sharif came under pressure from the US, rushed to Washington and met with President
Clinton on July 4, 1999 where he agreed to withdraw the Pakistan-backed troops and most of the fighting
came to a gradual halt with it fully ending on July 26. The military leadership is believed to have felt let
down by the prime minister's decision to withdraw the troops. However, Sharif is on record as having said
that it was the army chief who requested him to withdraw the troops. With Sharif placing the onus of the
Kargil attacks squarely on General Musharraf, there was an atmosphere of uneasiness between the two.
Obviously, the military and the civil government were not on "one page" in this venture.

Pakistan's army, it is said, won the Kargil War militarily but did not win it diplomatically as well as
politically. Clinton applauded India for not crossing the LoC and escalating the conflict into an all-out
war. The other G-8 nations also supported India and criticized the Pakistani violation of the LoC at their
Cologne Summit. The EU was also opposed to the violation of the LoC. China did not intervene in
Pakistan's favour, insisting instead on a pull out of forces to the LoC and settling border issues peacefully.
Other organizations like the ASEAN Regional Forum too did not side with Pakistan's position.
 Vajpayee's comments on the Kargil War were full of feelings and emotions when he met Pakistani
Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz whom Nawaz Sharif had dispatched to India immediately following the
breakout of the war. Said he: "I had travelled to Pakistan with such sincerity and with high hope for a
durable peace between India and Pakistan. The real casualty of the Kargil crisis is the trust between the
two countries."

The thaw that had come to be seen in the tense relations between India and Pakistan following the Lahore
Summit and hopes of a peaceful settlement of bilateral problems that had been plaguing the two countries
since 1947, lost impetus with the Kargil War. Relations between the two were completely transformed as
a result thereof.

Though the Kargil War had brought the Kashmir dispute into international focus - which was one of the
aims of Pakistan - it had done so in negative circumstances that eroded its credibility, since the infiltration
came just after a peace process between the two countries was underway.

Two soldiers, Captain Sher Khan and Havaldar Lalak Jan, were awarded the Nishan-e-Haider for their
role in the Kargil War. Another 90 soldiers were also given gallantry awards, most of them posthumously.

Link of lecture on the above mentioned topic https://youtu.be/l-WPwg2vY0k

Subscribe Youtube Channel “One Paper Cracker” link is given below.

https://www.youtube.com/@onepapercracker

Join Whatsapp group for free PDF notes.

https://chat.whatsapp.com/JSEJNYdU3N5BNrmRBVjfYr

THE WATER DISPUTE

Water is a basic human right because it is essential for human survival. Water management between India
and Pakistan is yet another treacherous and tumultuous peril that is further exasperating their already
fragile and frail relations.

A great bulk of the water flowing into Pakistan comes through the territory under the present control of
India in Kashmir. Therefore, Kashmir is central to Pakistan-India tensions concerning reciprocal
disagreements over water usage. Serious long-term water shortages facing both countries, which are
expected to worsen due to global warming, have been compounded by interventions such as the
construction of barrages by India as would be seen in the points below.

When the line of demarcation was drawn between India and Pakistan at the time of partition it did not
take into consideration the natural irrigation boundaries although the irrigation canals of the Indus system
watered millions of acres of land. Out of this only five million acres were in Indian Punjab, the remaining
in West Pakistan. The catchments of the five main left bank tributaries of the Indus all lay in the Indian
hill states or in Kashmir. Kashmir contains most of the catchments of the three major rivers, the Jhelum,
Chenab and Ravi. With the partition of Punjab, the control of three rivers, the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej went
to Indian domain causing a loss of six million acres of land in West Punjab - the headworks were in India
and the canals ran through Pakistan making India the upper riparian.

On several occasions the Indian government made promises that it would not go against the due right of
Pakistan as a lower riparian country. But in reality, on some occasions not only did they threaten to cut
the flow of rivers but actually withheld water from canals that flowed into Pakistan.

The first row concerning the supply of water arose when India one- sidedly cut off the supply of water to
Pakistan in April 1948. The supply was restored only after Pakistan was compelled to sign the Inter-
Dominion Accord in May 1948 that required India to provide water to Pakistan in return for annual
payments. However, this proved to be more or less an exercise in futility and tension over the use of water
persisted.

In 1951, the matter drew international attention, and it came to be feared that both countries might resort
to armed conflict over the issue. Protracted and lingering negotiations, starting 1952, under the guidance
of the World Bank led to resolution of the matter with the signing of the Indus Water Treaty in September
1960.

As per the terms of the Treaty, the waters of the western rivers including the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab
were granted to Pakistan and those of the eastern rivers including Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej were given to
India. The Treaty was based on the water usage needs of each country and availability of water in the
Indus system. While granting India the use of some of the rivers the Treaty clearly stipulated that the
usage must allow free flow of water to Pakistan.

O The signing of the Treaty, and the co-operation and rationality displayed by the Indian and Pakistani
leadership, received global applause. Locally, however, the Treaty received mixed response. In India, the
opposition accused Nehru of being a 'sell out' by gifting the Basin to Pakistan. In addition, since India had
to pay some $173.8 million to Pakistan, this fact further annoyed the opposition and the right-wing
nationalists. In Pakistan, the story was similar, with the opposition, led by Fatima Jinnah, criticizing Ayub
for betrayal as, in their view, Pakistan lost its three rivers to India and had recognized India's right to use
the waters of the western rivers.

As a result of signing the Treaty, three multipurpose dams, Warsak, Mangla and Tarbela were built. A
system of eight link canals was also built, and the remodelling of existing canals was carried out. Five
barrages and a gated siphon were also constructed under this Treaty. A permanent Indus Water
Commission was constituted to resolve disputes between the parties. It also provided for settlement of
disputes through the International Court of Arbitration.

Numerous disputes were peacefully settled through the permanent Indus Water Commission until India
started work on the Baglihar Dam, a hydroelectric project across the Chenab River in Jammu and
Kashmir and completely disregarded Pakistan's concerns over the design of the dam. Pakistan referred the
matter to the neutral arbiter - the Commission that agreed in principle that the Indian project violated
some aspects of the Treaty. Yet, India was allowed to go ahead with the project. Pakistan agreed to the
decision of the Commission but then, in a significant challenge to the Treaty, in 2017, India completed the
building of the Kishanganga Dam in Kashmir and continued work on the Ratle hydroelectric power
station on the Chenab River. This was done despite Pakistan's objections and amid ongoing negotiations
with the World Bank over whether the designs of those projects violated the terms of the Treaty.

Pakistan took this dispute directly to the International Court of Arbitration - the first time that any dispute
under the Treaty was taken to that level. Pending a decision, a ruling by the Court in favour of India may
convince Pakistan that the Treaty is no longer in its best interests.

In the aftermath of the Pulwama attack in February 2019, Modi stated that all water presently flowing
into Pakistan from the Indian-controlled territory will be diverted to the Indian Punjab, Haryana and
Rajasthan for various uses. He also announced the formation of a task force to "review" the Treaty. If this
happens, it would indeed be putting the survival of the Treaty at risk. 0

India is involved in transgressing the terms of the Treaty. It is believed that the country is planning on
building 155 hydropower projects on Pakistani waters whose primary purpose is diverting the water flow
of the three western rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. It is reported that India has already built six
hydropower plants on the Chenab including Baglihar-I and Salal-II, Baglihar-II and Ranja- Ala-Dunadi.
Additionally, India is to kickstart more projects in the near future that include Sawalkot, Seli, Pakal Dul,
Bursar, Rattle, and Kiru.

If the waters issue is not resolved amicably between India and Pakistan or through the good offices of the
World Bank or the Arbitration Court, Pakistan would be left with only one option that it will be
compelled to exercise: to approach its good friend China to divert the water of Brahmaputra River
restricting its flow to India, in this case the lower riparian, especially since there is no water treaty or
dispute settlement mechanism between the two countries. As it is, China is already working on the
construction of a dam on one of the tributaries of the Brahmaputra. More are being considered.

For India, the Brahmaputra River is of great importance for two reasons: first, it accounts for 29 percent
of the total run-off of India's rivers. Secondly, the Brahmaputra basin possesses about 44 percent of
India's total hydropower potential. China's strategic advantage over the water of this river makes it
possible for it to counterbalance India on several issues; why not to Pakistan's advantage to force India to
grant concessions to Pakistan in the waters dispute?

It must be mentioned here in all fairness that in July 2007 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh argued for
shared use of land and water resources in Kashmir. Back channel negotiations brought both sides so close
to an agreement as never before since 1947. However, the difficult domestic situation in Pakistan in 2007
with the siege of the Red Mosque in Islamabad and the dismissal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry
raised large protests that prevented Musharraf to continue the process.

REVOCATION OF ARTICLE 370

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution allowed the state of Jammu and Kashmir a certain amount of
autonomy including its own constitution, a separate flag and freedom to make laws. Foreign affairs,
defence and communications remained the preserve of the central government. Another provision added
in 1954 under Article 370 - 35A gave special privileges to permanent residents, including state
government jobs and the exclusive right to own property in the Jammu and Kashmir. It could also bar
Indians from outside the state from purchasing property or settling there. The state defines its permanent
residents as those that are "born or settled within the state before 1911, or after having lawfully acquired
immovable property and residence in the state for not less than 10 years before that date."
Despite the fact that according to the Indian Constitution, Article 370 could only be modified with the
agreement of the "state government", legislation was rushed through the Indian parliament to approve its
end, which for over 70 years had guaranteed special privileges to the predominately Muslim region. What
was drawn up in 1947 as the foundation of Kashmir's agreement to be part of India stood revoked on
August 5, 2019. The state's constitution, as well as its penal code and state flag, was nullified. The region
is now subject to the same central laws as all other Indian territories, and people from outside the state
will be able to buy property there.

The Rajya Sabha - India's upper house of parliament - passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization
Act, 2019 aimed at bifurcating the state into two union territories - Jammu and Kashmir, which will have
its own legislature, and Ladakh, which will be ruled directly by the central government and will have no
legislature of its own. A union territory is a type of administrative division in India. Unlike the states of
India, which have their own governments, union territories are federal territories governed directly by the
central government.

The Indian government justified its decision to revoke Kashmir's special status by repeatedly saying it
would end militancy in the region, which had continued with varying intensity for the past three decades.
In short, the Indian government wants to strengthen its influence over its only Muslim-majority region.

As the decision was about to be announced, Indian authorities banned public movements, shut down
schools and colleges indefinitely, and deployed almost 10,000 additional troops in Kashmir which was
already heavily militarized. Section 144 was imposed, shops and clinics were closed, and a red alert was
sounded across Jammu and Kashmir. A total communication blackout - shutting down cable TV,
landlines, cell phones and the Internet followed. Many news sources reported an effective curfew. The
government put two former chief ministers of Jammu and Kashmir- Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti
- under house arrest. The latter termed it as "the blackest day in India's democracy."

Reportedly, the plan to lay foundation for Kashmir's assimilation into the Union of India was laid first on
November 21, 2018, when the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly was dissolved. Later, on February 28,
2019, a notification was issued stating: "The Union cabinet has approved the proposal of Jammu and
Kashmir government regarding amendment to the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir)
Order, 1954 by way of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Amendment Order 2019."
From November 2019 to February 2020, Kashmir was directly run from Delhi.

By October 31, 2019, not only were the rights of permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir abolished
but the flag of Jammu and Kashmir in the government secretariat building in Srinagar was replaced with
the Indian flag.

India's drive to transform the demography of the valley of Kashmir got an impetus, when New Delhi
following the Israeli model of annexing Palestinian lands in the occupied West Bank, ventured on
establishing settlements under the cover of promoting tourism and investments. Grabbing more than
15,000 acres of land for establishing tourist resorts in the occupied valley was the first step to unleash the
process of colonising its lands.

The Pakistan government strongly condemned India for taking "illegal steps" in its decision to revoke the
special status for Kashmir. It also warned that "as the party to this international dispute, Pakistan will
exercise all possible options to counter the illegal steps." Calling the revocation a "unilateral step" it said
that it violated the UN Security Council resolutions.

TRUMP'S OFFERS OF MEDIATION

On at least four occasions, then US president Trump made offers of mediation on the Kashmir issue. The
first time was during Prime Minister Imran Khan's maiden visit to Washington on July 22, 2019, when
Trump claimed that Modi had, during a meeting on the side lines of the G-20 Summit in Osaka, Japan
sought US mediation or arbitration on Kashmir , and had asked him to "step in". Imran Khan had
informed Trump, "there are over a billion and quarter people in the sub-continent; they are held hostage to
the issue of Kashmir, and I feel that only the most powerful state, headed by President Trump, can bring
the two countries together." He added, "the US can play an important role in bringing peace in the sub-
continent. The resolution of Kashmir dispute is important for the region."

Trump's comments triggered a political storm in India, which immediately rejected the US president's
statement saying "no such request" had been made. Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar said: "I would like
to reiterate that India's position is that all issues with Pakistan shall be discussed only bilaterally and no
third party will be involved in mediation" and that "the 1972 Simla Agreement and the 1999 Lahore
Declaration would continue to be the only basis to resolve all issues between the two nations."

It is recalled that the Simla Agreement was nullified when India occupied the Siachen Glacier in 1984.
The Lahore Declaration was rendered infructuous by the failure of the Agra Summit between President
Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee (covered under Chapter 4, "Pakistan's Relations with India. ")

The second time was on August 2, 2019, when answering a question from a White House reporter about
his earlier offer to mediate on the Kashmir issue. Trump responded by saying, "if they wanted somebody
to intervene and I spoke to Pakistan about that...I spoke frankly with India about it...if they wanted me to,
I would certainly intervene."

On August 20, 2019 on the eve of his departure to France for the G-7 Summit on August 24 Trump said:
"Kashmir is a very complicated place. You have Hindus and you have Muslims and I wouldn't say they
get along so great. I will do the best I can to mediate." Earlier, the US had called for quick release of
detainees and for restoration of basic liberties in Indian Occupied Kashmir. A senior official of the US
State Department said, "we continue to be very concerned by reports of detentions, and continued
restriction on the residents of the region. We urge respect for individual rights, compliance with legal
procedures and an inclusive dialogue. We are aware of India's concerns but continue to urge that they
work as quickly yas possible to restore normalcy in the region." The fourth time Trump repeated an offer
to mediate was just before meeting Imran Khan on the side-lines of the UN General Assembly in New
York on September 23, 2019. In answer to a question, he told the media, "I would be willing to help if
both wanted. If both Pakistan, let's say, and India wanted me to do that, I am ready, willing, and able. It's
a complex issue."

NEW POLITICAL MAP OF PAKISTAN

On the eve of the first anniversary of India's unilateral decision to scrap Kashmir's special status, on
August 4, 2020, Prime Minister Imran Khan unveiled a new map of Pakistan that showed the entire
disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir as its territory.
 The new map marks the region as "Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir," as compared to its
former status as "disputed territory." A dotted line that previously marked the disputed areas has been
removed from the new map. In an address to the nation, the prime minister said that it was a historic day
for Pakistan as the cabinet, opposition and Kashmiri leadership endorsed the new map adding, "from
today, in all of Pakistan, our official map of Pakistan will be this, which has been passed by the cabinet of
Pakistan. From now on, in schools, colleges, internationally, this is the map that will appear." He
announced,"Kashmir will become part of Pakistan and this map is the first step toward it."

The map has an area titled "frontier undefined" and the words, "actual boundary in the area [...] would
ultimately be decided by the sovereign authorities concerned after the settlement of the Jammu and
Kashmir dispute." Another important change in the map is revival of Pakistan's claim on Junagadh and
Manavadar. India's claim about Sir Creek has also been rejected in the map which also shows that the
erstwhile FATA have become part of KPK province.

The new map that shows Kashmir sharing a clear border with China was obviously rejected by India.
Quoting the government of India, the country's ANI news agency said: "we have seen a so- called
'political map' of Pakistan that has been released by Prime Minister Imran Khan. This is an exercise in
political absurdity, laying untenable claims to territories in the Indian state of Gujarat and our union
territories of Jammu and Kashmir and of Ladakh."

There was no immediate comment from China. It is worth noting though that in March 2020, China
destroyed nearly 30,000 maps of India produced within the country because they depicted the irrefutable
reality of showing Arunachal Pradesh as part of India. A year earlier, in April 2019, China had, during the
course of its second Belt and Road Initiative Summit, removed maps showing Jammu and Kashmir and
Arunachal Pradesh as part of India from the BRI website.

The Malaysians said, "the implication of the new map is bound to create a strong public response
amongst Kashmiris when the complete denial of their rights for self-determination for the Kashmiris is
now confirmed."

Link of lecture on the above mentioned topic https://youtu.be/l-WPwg2vY0k

Subscribe Youtube Channel “One Paper Cracker” link is given below.

https://www.youtube.com/@onepapercracker

Join Whatsapp group for free PDF notes.

https://chat.whatsapp.com/JSEJNYdU3N5BNrmRBVjfYr

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Since the Kashmir issue has remained unresolved for seven and a half decades, analysts have offered
different solutions. One solution has been to establish an independent Kashmir. But it is forgotten that
Alexei Kosygin had turned down this option in Tashkent in January 1966 following the 1965 War. An
independent Kashmir, he had told Ayub, would fall under the influence of third parties. A "third party"
meant China. It is considered fortunate that Kosygin did not let Ayub proceed with this proposal. Once
Pakistan itself floats independent Kashmir as a solution, the only tangible result would be the
renunciation of Pakistan's claim to its side of Kashmir. It would surely invite intervention of India and
could easily spell the end of Kashmir's neutrality and this time round there may be no UN resolutions in
Pakistan's favour.

Then there are politicians who favour accepting the LoC as the permanent international border. Again,
such acceptance by Pakistan cannot result in India's renunciation of her claim over Gilgit- Baltistan. It
would provide India with a springboard to enter Afghanistan and a foothold in Afghanistan would enable
India to drive a strategic wedge between China and Pakistan.

In an interview to a journalist in October 2005, President Musharraf presented a four-point solution to

Kashmir: Kashmir will have the same borders, but people will be allowed to move freely back and forth
in the region. The region will have self-governance or autonomy, but not independence.

Troops will be withdrawn from the region in a staggered manner. A joint supervision mechanism will be
set up, with India, Pakistan and Kashmir represented.

From these points it was evident that Musharraf was willing to give up the option of a referendum in
Kashmir. When asked by an Indian journalist, he said while elaborating his first point: "therefore, the
solution lies in making the Line of Control irrelevant and this is a term I am borrowing from your
leadership, this is the word they used, and I keep saying it now."

Riaz Mohammad Khan, a former foreign secretary of Pakistan who, during his tenure in office, was also
engaged in the composite dialogue with India and is the author of a couple of good books, has, in a
newspaper article, elaborated on the four - point formula mentioned above. According to him, that effort
was the most substantive since UNSC deliberation in the early post- independence years.

It was two-pronged: first, confidence-building measures across the LoC, which led to the Muzaffarabad-
Srinagar bus service and limited commerce in local goods; and second, an attempt through a discreet back
channel for an interim solution which could ensure optimum benefit for the Kashmiri people while
protecting the essential interests of both Pakistan and India. For the first time, the two countries reduced
understanding to black and white.

However, the effort stalled in early 2007, with the judicial crisis in Pakistan which unsettled Musharraf.
He feels that it could have come to a head if the two sides had continued with the same momentum for
another one year. Later, in November 2008 the Mumbai terror attacks dealt a fatal blow to the effort.

In an interview with Indian journalist Karan Thapan for the media outlet The Wire in the second week of
October 2020, Prime Minister's Special Advisor on Security Moeed Yusaf revealed that New Delhi had
approached Islamabad for a "conversation." However, he made it clear that talks with India could only be
possible if they were trilateral with Kashmiris as a party.

Moeed said that five preconditions were necessary for any "meaningful dialogue" to take place between
the two antagonists. These included: India should release of all political prisoners in Kashmir; end its
inhuman blockade and restrictions there; rescind its domicile law that allows non-Kashmiris to settle in
the disputed territory; put an end to human rights abuses in the valley; and stop state terrorism in Pakistan.
He did not mention restoring the special status of IIOJK as one of the preconditions for restarting talks
with India.

India's desire to engage with Pakistan is to reduce the pressure it is facing in Kashmir on the political and
diplomatic front. It would be a cosmetic move on the part of Delhi to create an impression that it is
serious in resolving the Kashmir issue. No worthwhile progress has been made since then. But it is
obvious that Islamabad will not engage unless Delhi is earnest in its talks, otherwise it will be a major
setback to the Kashmir struggle.

On September 12, 2021, Pakistan unveiled a comprehensive "Dossier on Indian Human Rights
Violations in IIOJK." It contains irrefutable evidence of a wide range of human rights violations and war
crimes by Indian occupation forces in IIOJK.

The OIC held the Council of Foreign Ministers regular session in the fourth week of November 2020 (it
was scheduled to be convened in April but was postponed because of COVID-19). In a strong worded
resolution, the Council reaffirmed strong support for the Kashmir cause and categorically rejected illegal
and unilateral actions taken by India since August 5, 2019 to change the international recognized disputed
status of IIOJK. It demanded that India rescind its illegal steps.

Pakistan played host to the 48th regular session of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers in Islamabad on
March 22-23, 2022. In the Islamabad Declaration at the close of the session, the foreign ministers said,
"we declare that the final settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN Security
Council resolutions is indispensable for durable peace in South Asia. We reiterate our call on India to: a)
reverse its unilateral and illegal measures instituted since 5th August 2019; b) cease its oppression and
human rights violations against the Kashmiris in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir; c) halt
and reverse attempts to alter the demographic structure and to redraw electoral constituencies in IIOJK;
and d) take concrete and meaningful steps for full implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions
on Jammu and Kashmir."

CONCLUSION

Every Indian is united on the claim that Kashmir is an integral part of India, while Pakistani intellectuals
and politicians create confusion. Some advocate a compromise on the LoC, even giving up Kashmir
altogether, some press for neutral or independent Kashmir. It is because of the unity of the Indian people
that the Kashmir problem is viewed internationally not as an unfulfilled UN resolution, but as a case of
cross-border terrorism. This is India's greatest diplomatic success, and Pakistan's greatest diplomatic
failure. It was this failure that led to Pakistan's withdrawal from Kargil in 1999, although the comparable
Indian occupation of Siachen in 1984 occasioned no international outrage. O These wars, without any
result, prove that fighting is not the solution to the issue.

It is also well-known that the talk of holding a plebiscite under UN resolutions has proved to be a non-
starter. But nobody would want to admit it. It must also be remembered that the resolutions were passed
under Chapter of the UN Charter that does not make it binding for the Organization to implement them.

Nevertheless, it needs to be kept in mind that the UN was instrumental in ending the first Kashmir war in
1949 and the second war in 1965 but it failed to deliver peace in Kashmir. Hence, its role so far has been
limited as far as the resolution of the most serious issue between Pakistan and India is concerned. The
main reason, though, is Indian refusal to let the UN have a decisive say on Kashmir but the world body
cannot be absolved of failure as it seldom took up a moral and legal view of the situation to play a pro-
active role on Kashmir . However, the UNSC resolutions are still useful and can go a long way to address
the Kashmir issue.

Some analysts in Pakistan, including Dr Moonis Ahmar, strongly feel that the issue of Jammu and
Kashmir has lost its momentum in Pakistan's foreign policy and has almost become a forgotten case
because of the policy gap in theory and practice - meaning how the Pakistani government, despite its
claims of pursuing a proactive approach in internationalizing the Kashmir issue, has failed to call a result-
oriented meeting of the UNSC to discuss the situation in IIOJK.

The main reason for the failure of bilateral efforts so far has been the absence of any institutional
framework to address tensions and conflicts. The second reason is the deep mistrust between the two
countries. Failure of the UN and bilateral channel provides space for the exercise of other options. Since
third-party mediation has a track record of success, it could be used to address the Kashmir issue. In fact,
in the prevailing atmosphere, one is left with third-party mediation as the only other option, which has a
history the potential to resolve all Pak-India disputes, especially Kashmir, peacefully.

India should also revisit its stance and recognize the importance of third-party mediation. It should also
let the UN use its good offices in helping to resolve the Kashmir dispute, which is vital for regional peace
and good ties between the two countries. For, despite its failure, the UN is still the most effective forum
to highlight the tensions between Pakistan and India and provide support for the implementation of its
resolutions.

It is evident that the PII government and Pakistan's army chief desire normalization with India.
Unfortunately, this sentiment is not reciprocated, although Pakistan's gesture of opening the Kartarpur
Corridor put New Delhi temporarily on the defensive.

Had Pakistan participated in the Kuala Lumpur Summit in mid- December 2019, the Kashmir issue
would have been on the top of the agenda because Iran, Malaysia and Turkey have rendered their support
for the Kashmir cause. But Pakistan let them down despite agreeing to participate and withdrew under
Saudi pressure at the 11th hour.

Normalization with India is highly unlikely so long as it continues its oppression in occupied Kashmir
and refuses to resume a comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan. To defend Kashmiris fundamental rights,
Pakistan must launch an international diplomatic and media campaign to project and condemn India's
human rights violations in occupied Kashmir.

The long and short of the whole issue is that both countries have to sit across the table and find an
amicable solution for the dispute cannot be allowed to linger on and on with the fate of millions of people
hanging in the balance. Relations between the two cannot improve unless and until the issue of Kashmir
is resolved to the mutual satisfaction of India and Pakistan and the people of the region. The problem is
that the revocation of Article 370 bringing about a change in Jammu and Kashmir's status has in effect
closed the door on any possibility of bilateral dialogue for the time being.

With the revocation of Article 370 India has removed Indian-occupied Kashmir from the agenda of the
bilateral dialogue process as conceived in the Simla Accords. And even if talks take place in the near
future, the new constitutional position of Indian-controlled Kashmir will make any potential settlement
difficult.

There is no way India will reverse its Jammu and Kashmir policy unless Pakistan takes a firm stand on
the Kashmiris' struggle for emancipation. Without taking any risks Pakistan should not expect
 India to end its military occupation, and without pursuing a courageous stance the Muslims of Indian-
occupied Kashmir cannot be liberated.

In response to Indian actions, Pakistan had only raised a muffled voice that lacked the punch required to
stir the international nest into action. It went to the UN. The issue was discussed in the Security Council
at least three times during 2020. But by that time India had already turned the tide of world opinion in its
favour not because of the seriousness of the issue but for Pakistan's corruption-ridden image and its
budgetary survival , dependent on the IMF. From then on, India trampled the rights of its Muslim
population throughout the country with impunity. Modi was decorated in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, two
of Pakistan's strategic partners.

Pakistan's diplomatic option is now limited to approaching the international community and to knocking
at the door of international forums. Pakistan and the international community cannot remain insensitive to
the appalling Kashmiri predicament and Kashmiri alienation under Indian occupation, which is bound to
erupt into a widespread insurgency as soon as the draconian lockdown crumbles, which it must.

When that happens, the focus is likely to tum to the immutable parameters of self-governance and self-
determination, the primary goal of the long Kashmiri quest for freedom and preservation of the Kashmiri
identity...

Pakistan must also stand ready to face any Indian adventurism in Azad Kashmir.

In the opinion of certain analysts, Pakistan has, by releasing the new map, conveyed a strong geo-
political message. It reflects a forward and aggressive policy on Kashmir to counter Indian rhetoric
negating UN resolutions and bilateral commitments. However, keeping some areas undefined, Pakistan
probably intends to leave some space for any future settlement. This step will not only keep the region a
flashpoint for domestic politics but will also internationalize it warranting peaceful solution or
multilateral interference in case of any Indian misadventure.

In the desperate measures that Modi has been adopting vis-à-vis Kashmir, India seems to be the biggest
loser. While Kashmiris are at the risk of genocide, Modi's actions have infused a new life into the
separatist movement and as Indian security forces go on the offensive, the Kashmiri resistance movement
gains momentum.

Modi's doings have achieved nothing other than sounding a death knell to Indian pluralism, transforming
a medium-level insurgency into a high-level one, and establishing India's status as an aggressor state
among the comity of nations.

India's long-held view that the Kashmir issue would be resolved bilaterally as decided in the Simla
Agreement is in conflict with Article 103 of the UN Charter. Said Article stipulates: "In the event of a
conflict between the obligations of the members of the UN and their obligations under any other
international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail." Revocation of
Kashmir's special status is India's attempt to argue over Kashmir's status as a disputed territory. However,
it does not have any legal value as according to Article 25 of the UN Charter, India is still bound to carry
out decisions of the UNSC that rejected India's unilateral actions in its August 6, 2019 consultative
meeting on Kashmir.
 Martin Luther King once wrote, "hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies" violence, and toughness
multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction." It would help Modi disabuse himself of the
idea that violence may make Kashmiris abandon the idea of freedom. He has already done an irreversible
damage to Indian democracy and pluralism.

Lasting peace and stability in South Asia is contingent upon resolving the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in
accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people. The onus is on
India to stop its reign of terror in IIOJK and reverse its illegal actions to create an enabling ambience for
peace. The international community must help achieve this objective.

The conflict over Kashmir is soluble only if a pragmatic, realistic and tangible strategy is established to
help set the stage to put the issue on the road to a just and durable settlement. History will testify that the
final settlement of the Kashmir conflict will undoubtedly bring peace and security not only to the disputed
region but also to the whole of South Asia.

But, if a stage to a solution to the problem is to be set, violence by the Indian armed forces in Kashmir
needs to be brought to a quick end. The future status of Kashmir must be determined by the will of the
people of the territory as championed by world powers since way back in 1947-48, and their wishes must
be ascertained under the supervision and control of the UN because the history of the last75 years testifies
to the fact that bilateral talks between India and Pakistan have always been fruitless.

Since both India and Pakistan have lost faith and do not trust each other, the time has come when there
must be third-party mediation, facilitation or engagement to make sure that talks between the two remain
focused. There should not be any preconditions from any party other than a commitment to non-violence
and to negotiations. The talks must be tripartite in nature as the dispute primarily involves three parties:
India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. However, for all this to happen, India must first rescind the
Domicile Law, which was enacted in 2020 simply to change the demography of Jammu and Kashmir.

Link of lecture on the above mentioned topic https://youtu.be/l-WPwg2vY0k

Subscribe Youtube Channel “One Paper Cracker” link is given below.

https://www.youtube.com/@onepapercracker

Join Whatsapp group for free PDF notes.

https://chat.whatsapp.com/JSEJNYdU3N5BNrmRBVjfYr