Asian Affairs, 2015

Vol. XLVI, no. I, 18–31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2014.994961

WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT

VICTORIA SCHOFIELD

Victoria Schofield is a commentator and historian specialising in South Asia. She

has travelled widely in the region, and is acknowledged as one of the leading
international experts on the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir. She has
lectured on the subject in India, Pakistan, the United States, Europe and
Australia. Her books include Kashmir in the Crossfire (1996), Kashmir in
Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War (2000, 2002, 2010), Afghan
Frontier: at the Crossroads of Conflict (2003, 2010), and Bhutto: Trial and
Execution (1979, 1990). She has also written numerous articles for specialist
journals, including Asian Affairs and The Round Table: The Commonwealth
Journal of International Affairs. Schofield is a frequent contributor to BBC
World TV, BBC World Service and other news outlets including CNN, CBC
and Al Jazeera. She read Modern History at the University of Oxford and was
President of the Oxford Union in 1977. In 2004–2005 she was the Alistair
Horne Visiting Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford. This article is adapted
from a lecture given to the RSAA on 24th September 2014.

Who has not heard of the Vale of Kashmir

With its roses the brightest that earth ever gave
Its temples and grottos and fountains as clear
As the love-lightened eyes that hang over the wave?1

The oriental romance Lalla Rookh written in the 19th century by Irish poet
and songwriter Thomas Moore demonstrates an interest and love of a
region which he had never visited. So why should this distant region –
Kashmir – so important to Moore in the 19th century be of interest to
us today? Or more precisely, why should we still be concerned about
the state of Jammu and Kashmir, located where the three great mountain
ranges of the Hindu Kush Karakorams and Himalayas meet? Why am I
addressing this issue 17 years after I last spoke to the Society on
Kashmir in May 1997?

Firstly, because – since then – the ground realities have barely changed.
Yet the world has become more dangerous. Since the independence and
partition of the sub-continent in 1947 the former princely state of Jammu
and Kashmir has been regarded as a disputed territory between India and
Pakistan, the dispute arising from the fact that at independence its future
allegiance was not agreed.

© 2015 The Royal Society for Asian Affairs

 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT 19

Governed by a Hindu Maharaja, the majority of its people were Muslims

– and the provision of Britain’s partition plan in relation to the Princely
States (of which there were approximately 560, some as large as a
European country, others as small as a landed estate) was that the
rulers should be able to decide whether they would join the new dominion
of India or Pakistan. There was no expectation that any of them would
remain independent. In making up their minds, the rulers were urged to
consider their state’s geographical location and, if possible, the potential
preferences of the inhabitants. But there was to be no compulsion nor was
there any provision for representative consultation.

In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, while the history of the weeks leading
up to independence indicate that Maharaja Hari Singh wanted to retain his
state’s independence, both India and Pakistan claimed the state in its
entirety: India because its future rulers, notably Jawaharlal Nehru and
Sardar Patel, presumed that as a Dogra Hindu, the Maharajah would
choose union with majority Hindu India; Pakistan because the majority
of the inhabitants, especially those living in the Valley of Kashmir,
were Muslim. Inevitably, since both newly independent countries envi-
saged the state as coming within their respective borders, there was
bound to be conflict.

Fighting immediately broke out and within months of independence the

two countries were at war. The outcome of this first war over Kashmir,
fought from 1947 to 1949, was an uncertain ceasefire along what we
now know as the line of control (‘LOC’). Two-thirds of the state
remained under the control of India, one-third under that of Pakistan.
Pakistan held the narrow strip of land known as Azad (Free) Jammu
and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan (formerly the Northern Areas). India
retained control of the vast expanse of Ladakh, sparsely inhabited by
Buddhists and Muslims, majority Hindu Jammu and the predominantly
Muslim valley.

The recommendation first made by former Viceroy and Governor-

General Lord Mountbatten – agreed to by both Prime Minister Nehru
and Pakistan’s Governor General, Mohammed Ali Jinnah – and
endorsed by the United Nations – for a plebiscite to be held was not
enforced. Discussions over the holding of the plebiscite did, however,
introduce a vital element into the debate. Instead of the decision
being up to the governments of India and Pakistan, the proposition to
hold a plebiscite meant that the debate could not be regarded simply
20 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT

Figure 1 United Nations map of Jammu and Kashmir

as a territorial one but one about the rights of individuals to determine

their future.2

Although the state has remained de facto divided along the line of control,
the fact that its de jure position has not been resolved has meant that the
dispute has continued to fester, poisoning relations between India and
 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT 21

Pakistan, their enmity erupting again into war in 1965 and 1999, with
another war fought in 1971 over the secession of Pakistan’s eastern
wing, now Bangladesh.

As recently as President Musharraf’s tenure in office (1999–2008), while

trying to initiate a peace process with India, he refused to contemplate
dividing the state along the line of control, maintaining that Pakistanis
were “allergic” to it. What he really meant was that in terms of loss of
face it was far too big a step down to accept what for over 60 years suc-
cessive governments in Pakistan – both civilian and military – had
rejected. Accepting the LOC as the international frontier also did not
take into account the aspirations of the people and the pledge that their
future allegiance would be determined by a plebiscite. Countering the
Pakistani position, the official Indian position has consistently been that
the entire state – including Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu and
Kashmir (referred to as POK or ‘Pakistan Occupied Kashmir’) – is part
of India, maps produced in India not even indicating where the LOC is
located.

This was the situation when I addressed members of the society in 1997;
this is the situation today. So the first reason why Kashmir deserves
our attention is because it is an unresolved dispute between two nations
– affecting the lives of millions. And, as the history of other trouble-
spots throughout the world has demonstrated, any dispute which is
unresolved has the potential to flare up at any time, destabilising the
region and causing immense suffering.

Nuclear powers
Secondly – and almost one might say because the relationship between
India and Pakistan has been continually hostile, both countries have
felt an essential component of their military defence has been the devel-
opment of a nuclear weapons programme. No precise data is available but
India’s arsenal is believed to consist of between 80 and 100 nuclear
weapons while Pakistan has an estimated 90 to 110.3

Although both countries have agreed not to attack each other’s nuclear
facilities, regular exchanges of their lists take place on 1 January each
year and a ‘hotline’ has been established providing early warning in
the event that an accident might be interpreted as a nuclear attack, a
state of controlled belligerency prevails. The government of India may
22 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT

have declared a no-first-use policy, but the government of Pakistan has

not. Successive administrations – be they military or civilian – have
refused to do so lest critical leverage is lost.

Thus you have a 67-year-old dispute and two potentially antagonistic

nuclearised neighbours. Any outbreak of hostilities could become
deadly – not only for the 12 million inhabitants of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir but for the lives of the 180 million and rising who live in
Pakistan and the 1 billion who live in India. And if ever there were to
be a nuclear exchange, I don’t need to add that we are not just talking
about using a big bomb, we are talking about setting in train mutual
annihilation.

Mindset
My third reason – why Kashmir is important – and this is an enhanced
development since my lecture in 1997 – is because of the dangerous dom-
estic narratives which can run in both India and Pakistan. Since 1947 the
general domestic narrative in both countries has been hostile to the other –
generations have been brought up to mistrust, dislike, hate their neigh-
bour, mainly because of the repercussions over the unresolved dispute
over Jammu and Kashmir. I remember once travelling by plane to
Gilgit and I was sitting next door to an army officer – I asked him
what he was doing posted up on the border – his immediate response
was: “we are preparing to fight India.” In today’s media-driven age,
where sound bites leading to misapprehensions often influence actions,
passions can be whipped up through any number of the media outlets,
including the omni-present social media, Facebook, Twitter and the
like. Turn on the television set in either country and invariably there
will be some confrontational rhetoric highlighting the dangers of
complacency.

In 2013 there were allegations that Pakistani soldiers had crossed the line
of control in Jammu and Kashmir and killed five Indian soldiers. I was
interviewed on the subject by Al Jazeera television and the first question
I was asked was: “do you think this incident could lead to a break down in
relations between the two countries, potentially escalating into a military
confrontation?” My immediate response was that it depended on how the
two governments handled domestic public opinion and whether they
allowed anger to get out on the streets and become part of a media
frenzy demanding retaliation or whether they were able to put the
 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT 23

circumstances of the attack in context, instigate an investigation, find out

what had happened. In the event, this incident did not escalate, but with
the dispute unresolved, there is always the possibility that – on another
occasion – it could.

Fortunately in the last decade since a ceasefire was declared in 2003,

although the situation on the line of control remains tense – with frequent
cross-border encounters – it seems that both governments have realised
that they cannot afford to let such incidents be blown out of all proportion
so that people come out on the streets demanding war.

But restraint is a daily challenge. And, as has already been experienced, it

is all too easy for non-state actors to take centre stage by taking the law into
their own hands: the attack on the Delhi Parliament in 2001 just after the
‘9/11’ attacks in New York and Washington nearly brought India and
Pakistan to the brink of war. The border was closed and both armies mobi-
lised along their international frontier. Maps of both countries were pro-
duced in the international newspapers indicating where a nuclear strike
might or might not take place. Yet again, the inhabitants of the state
bore the brunt of India’s wrath. I was in the Valley of Kashmir in the
spring of 2002 and witnessed first hand the repercussions for the Kashmiris
– internet facilities were shut down, mobile phones cut off – curfew was
implemented, and the security forces were even more visible on the streets.

A similar hiatus in relations occurred after 2008 when 12 coordinated

bombing attacks were made across the city of Mumbai, killing 164
people and wounding over 300. The damage to Indo-Pakistani relations
was instant and far-reaching. Soon after the attack, I listened to the
well-known Indian commentator Shashi Tharoor making it very clear
that if there were to be another such attack in the immediate future, the
demand for war against Pakistan would be unstoppable.4

Of course this is not the mind-set of every Indian, nor indeed every Pakis-
tani, and there are numerous think tanks and academic groups all working
towards creating better relations. But as we know, anywhere in the world
it only takes a very small minority – for their own misguided objectives –
using the unresolved Kashmir issue as a beacon to attract support – to
sabotage diplomatic relations and consequently the peace and stability
of the region. And every time this happens, there is even less prospect
for the inhabitants of the state to get the peace and justice they deserve.
The Kashmir issue, as usual, gets relegated to the ‘back burner’ – too
hot too handle.
24 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT

After Mumbai 2008, it took the best part of five years for a thaw to take
place in the relationship between India and Pakistan – even now there is
every likelihood that if there were to be another Mumbai or a Chennai –
once more using the unresolved Kashmir issue as the root cause of the
failed Indo-Pakistan relationship – relations would again be severed.
Obviously, the best way to guard against this dangerous scenario is to
focus on resolving the Kashmir issue – once and for all – to work out a
just and fair resolution which could be termed a ‘win-win’ for all con-
cerned parties and to create a peace dividend rather than one which per-
petually promotes enmity.

Human rights
Fourthly, and this in fact could have been first, not fourth, Kashmir
deserves our attention because of the tremendous suffering which has
taken place in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The insurgency which
began in 1989 against the Indian government forces has been one of
the most under-reported armed conflicts; while world attention has
been focused on other trouble-spots, most obviously Afghanistan, Iraq,
Syria and also Ukraine, Kashmir rarely attracts international attention.
The region is perceived to be inaccessible, the government of India
more benign, Pakistan more volatile. Yet the fallout from the state of
Jammu and Kashmir’s unresolved status has had tremendous conse-
quences for the people, claiming the lives of thousands of both civilians,
military personnel and militants.

Statistics are difficult to verify and are frequently contested, but it is

believed that over the past 30 years an estimated 80,000–100,000 have
died, mostly young men. At least 10,000 have disappeared, which poten-
tially leaves an equivalent number of half-widows – women who cannot
remarry, as well as mothers who are bereaved. There are thousands of
orphans. Thousands have been tortured, women raped. The psychological
impact of the trauma which people have faced has barely been measured,
let alone treated. And here I would recommend the brilliant play The
Djinns of Eidgah, written by Indian playwright and journalist Abishek
Majumdar, which portrays the experiences of ordinary citizens –
Ashrafi and Bilal – orphans caught up in the fight for azadi5 as well as
that of the soldiers deployed to the region to suppress the movement.6
If you want to understand more about the emotional status of Kashmiris
in the valley, I consider The Djinns of Eidgah a ‘must read’.
 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT 25

Let me also read from a real-life interview I held with Dr Rashid in the
Bone and Joint hospital in 1994 which typifies the experiences of
many. This incident happened at a time when it was commonly believed
that there was no family in the valley who had not lost a family member.
My brother was 25 years old. He was running a cosmetics shop. The Border Secur-
ity Forces came and took him. In front of my father and family he was killed.
Someone had pointed him out as being a militant. He was not armed and in the
news that evening they gave that there was an encounter, when there was no
encounter at all.7

A whole generation of Kashmiri Pandits – relatively few in number but

nonetheless all of whose individual lives merit the same attention –
have had to live away from the valley, having left their homes in fear
of their lives in 1990. Their suffering must also be considered. While
the more fortunate were able to live in their homes in New Delhi or else-
where in India, thousands of the less well-off have been living indefinitely
in camps outside Jammu. They too have felt the impact of the state’s unre-
solved status which has put their own lives on hold.

Nearly 30 years since the insurgency began, the state remains militarised.
People cannot travel freely, they are a long way from enjoying the same
liberty of movement which we – living in Europe and the United States –
take for granted. Curfews are frequently imposed; people cannot be sure
of returning home at night. They cannot be certain of going to a court of
law and getting justice; the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)
means that the authorities have the right to arrest and hold anyone sus-
pected of ‘terrorist’ activities.8 Journalists are under constant duress
and so a true picture of what is happening rarely reaches the rest of the
world.

And so the fourth reason why Kashmir is important is the humanitarian

aspect. Yes, there are other humanitarian tragedies in the world but that
is not a good enough reason for Kashmir to be neglected. One of the
reasons why I started to write about Kashmir over 20 years ago was
because I felt that so much had been talked about the dispute in relation
to India and Pakistan on a diplomatic level but the heart and soul of
the issue – how it had affected the people in the region – was missing
from the narrative. This is why I travelled to Kashmir and wrote my
first book – Kashmir in the Crossfire, published in 1996. I am dismayed
to say that much of what I wrote is as relevant today as it was then.
My book – Kashmir in Conflict in paperback – is now in its fourth
revised edition.
26 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT

Resources
Fifthly, the Kashmir issue is important because of the use (or waste) of
valuable resources. It is almost impossible to quantify how much
money has been spent in terms of military defence for both conventional
and nuclear weapons which both countries can ill afford because of their
continuing enmity. India may be booming but I hasten to add that only a
fragment of its society is booming. In 2012, the World Bank estimated
that 21.9 per cent of the total Indian population, now at 1 billion, still
live at the poverty line.9 Poverty in Pakistan has the same gloomy stat-
istics, over a fifth of the population living on $1.25 a day.10 Moreover,
Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan is extremely unpredictable,
and so the expense of fortifying its eastern frontier against India is a
luxury its government should not need to have to afford. And by compari-
son, think of the hostility which existed between France and Germany
after the Second World War; think now of the ease with which one can
now travel from one country to the other.

In both India and Pakistan millions rather than thousands are illiterate.
The allocation of resources for health and education is way below that
for weapons. With their rising populations, both countries are sitting on
a demographic time bomb. They are also facing the prospect of tremen-
dous water shortages. And as we know, chronic deprivation also brings its
own frustrations and problems.

The inability of India and Pakistan to trade openly without restrictions has
been estimated to take about two per cent off their annual GDP growth
rate. How much wealthier could both countries be in 25 years if trade
could flow more freely? How much more money could therefore be
spent on poverty eradication and development? How much wealthier
could Jammu and Kashmir be in a peaceful environment?

These five reasons – the waste of economic resources which could be

spent on health, education and development, the humanitarian suffering,
the danger of inflamed public opinion spiralling out of control, the nuclear
potential of both India and Pakistan and the fact that there is an unre-
solved dispute between two neighbours – are all reasons why it is not
just important but imperative for the Kashmir issue to be resolved peace-
fully and fairly.

No other issue of contention – be it the pain and trauma still felt over par-
tition, the unresolved territorial dispute over Sir Creek,11 the anger over the
 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT 27

role Pakistanis believe India played in the creation of independent Bangla-

desh, the dispute over the Siachen glacier high up in the Himalayas where
more soldiers die of frostbite than military confrontation, or rivalry in
Afghanistan – has the potential to foster animosity between two large
and important neighbours, which, in turn, has led to great suffering and
uncertainty for the people living in Jammu and Kashmir.

International repercussions
Broadening my presentation – because I am not talking simply about the
importance of the Kashmir issue in relation to India and Pakistan, I am
also talking about its importance internationally, my contention is that
the continuing failed relationship between India and Pakistan – because
of the unresolved status of Jammu and Kashmir – means that their reac-
tion to events in the region and worldwide is seen through the prism of
their respective enmity.

As the impact of the withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan in

2014 becomes more evident, the situation both in Afghanistan and in the
border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan may become further
destabilised. Because of their poor relationship, India and Pakistan are
currently in competition over what happens in Afghanistan instead of col-
laborating to help foster stability in this troubled country. Part of Paki-
stan’s concern about an Indian presence in Afghanistan stems from a
longstanding feeling of geographical vulnerability which generations of
Pakistanis have felt since independence in 1947. On numerous occasions,
I have heard Pakistani officials complain about how many consulates the
government of India has opened in Afghanistan in the post-Taliban era
since 2001. This stems directly from Pakistan’s fear of being encircled:
of having a hostile neighbour on its eastern frontier and a potentially
hostile one in the west. Countering this, I have also heard Indian officials
maintain that there is no reason why their country should not develop its
own relationship with Afghanistan as a sovereign nation.

But if Pakistan no longer felt that vulnerability because its relationship

with India was stabilised then it would not feel so threatened by Indian
actions in Afghanistan. As we know Afghanistan still has a long way to
go in terms of its own development and instead of competing for influence
the two countries could be cooperating, enabling Pakistan to focus on an
even greater threat to its stability: the activities of the Tehrik-i Taliban Paki-
stan operating in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of
28 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (the former North-West Frontier Province, or

NWFP), which, since the days of the British Empire, have never been
fully integrated into Pakistan’s administration. India also faces the
danger of ‘jihadist’ sympathisers perpetrating acts of terror within its
borders. If, through a new-found friendship, India and Pakistan could
present a united front against extremism that would be an important start
– especially as we view the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Syria.

Moreover, if only they could draw a line under their past enmity, as is
so often necessary in conflict resolution, both populations could begin
to benefit not only economically from improved trade but also socially
from cross-border exchanges and cultural and sporting activities. I have
met dozens of Pakistanis who long to see the Taj Mahal; I have also
met many Indians who would love to see the Badshahi Mosque and
the dazzling Sheesh Mahal – the Palace of Mirrors – in the Lahore
Fort. Even the relatively simple process of obtaining a visa in order
to visit relatives, attend weddings and funerals as well as being able
to go to revered places of worship could improve the quality of life
of so many, perhaps even helping to heal the wounds of partition.
As I have often said, the continuing debate over the state of Jammu
and Kashmir hides the fact that people of the same land with thousands
of years of shared history have more in common than they have
differences.

This brings me to the aspect which affects and could affect all our lives.
That there is a longstanding unresolved dispute over the state of Jammu
and Kashmir fuels disaffection, attracting recruits to fight against those
they hold responsible for not assisting in its resolution. As is now becom-
ing evident in Britain, one of the causes of modern-day alienation is
because there is a growing belief that not enough has been done to
help Muslims worldwide, which includes not only the still unresolved
issue of Palestine but also that of Kashmir. The continuing lack of pro-
gress in finding a solution to the Kashmir issue has even fostered the
belief that the reason Britain has not done more to help is because the
majority of its inhabitants are Muslims. Of course informed individuals,
academics and experts on the region will refute this as the reason, point-
ing instead to the difficulties inherent in acting as a mediator or facilitator
when one party to the dispute – India – considers that any suggestion at
mediation is interference in the internal affairs of the country. But for the
person on the street, this lack of focus on resolution has the potential to
engender hostility in both word and deed.
 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT 29

Here I am going to mention China, because many people have asked me

whether China should be involved in a negotiated settlement, given that it
has occupied the Aksai Chin in north-eastern Ladakh and a portion of the
Trans- Karakoram mountains ceded by Pakistan in 1963. While China may
be an interested party, it has to be recognised that the territory it occupies is
uninhabited and therefore the Chinese government cannot be considered to
have the same humanitarian concerns as the Indians and Pakistanis. That
said, there is no reason, if both governments of India and Pakistan found
China – devoid of any pre-colonial association – to be a suitable mediator,
given its geographical occupation of part of the state, why China should not
fulfil that role. However, for this to happen India would have to alter its
longstanding position that the Kashmir issue is an internal matter and no
mediation is necessary or desirable.

What is also evident is that any attempt at resolution will fail if a repre-
sentative voice from amongst the inhabitants of the state is not included.
It is that voice or voices which remain the key to a solution over
and above what the governments of India and Pakistan might decide –
including representatives from all the state’s component parts from the
most populous Valley of Kashmir, to Ladakh and Jammu, Gilgit-Baltistan
and Azad Jammu and Kashmir in all the richness of their diversity. I always
remember Kashmiri political leader Shabir Shah saying to me that the
Simla (Shimla) Agreement in 1972 signed by former Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi and former President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto failed to resolve
the Kashmir issue because there was no provision to include the views
of the ‘sons of the soil’.12

In the present day a useful aide-memoire is the report prepared in 2010 by

Chatham House: Kashmir: Paths to Peace. Although this survey was not
fully comprehensive, for the first time it gave an indication of the con-
cerns of the various regions – in terms of both the peoples’ political
aspirations and their economic vulnerabilities.13

Changing scenarios
In 2014, it has to be recognised that the nature of the dispute – to which
country should the state of Jammu and Kashmir owe political allegiance –
has changed from what it was in 1947. At that time the choice was envi-
saged as being a simple decision whether the entire state would join either
India or Pakistan. Today, despite public posturing and rhetoric, no one,
officially or unofficially, truthfully believes that what was expected at
30 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT

partition in 1947 will now become a reality. Despite India’s claim that the
whole state is an integral part of India and Pakistan’s belief that the whole
state should have become part of Pakistan in 1947, the prospect of the
whole state becoming either part of Pakistan or part of India is now an
illusion. And unless both governments of India and Pakistan were to
agree to cede the respective parts of the state they control, there is also
no foreseeable prospect of re-instituting the independent state that
Jammu and Kashmir once was, consensus amongst the inhabitants also
being a prerequisite.

In conclusion, I want to cite a conversation I had with an Indian civil

servant, Ashok Jaitley, nearly 20 years ago – even before my 1997
lecture – who was sympathetic to the emotional wishes of the Kashmiris,
if not to their geographical ambitions. “[Azadi] is not a geographical
concept but an emotional one, the freedom to be themselves with dignity
and self-respect wherever they can get it.”14 The challenge, if we are
talking about resolution, is how – in today’s world – that dignity and
self-respect can be achieved before another non-state ‘terrorist’ or frustrated
‘freedom fighter’ takes the law into their own hands, with perhaps more
deadly consequences for us all.

NOTES

1. Thomas Moore, Lalla Rookh. London: Darf Publishers Ltd, 1986, p. 256.
2. Resolution adopted by UNCIP on 13 August 1948. Document no. S/1100, para. 75,
dated 9 November 1948.
3. ‘Nuclear weapons, who has what?’ http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/03/
world/nuclear-weapon-states/.
4. Shashi Tharoor, meeting, Asia House, London, 21 January 2009.
5. The term azadi means ‘liberation’ or ‘freedom’ amongst activists in Indian-adminis-
tered Kashmir.
6. Abishek Majumdar, The Djinns of Eidgah. Oberon Modern Plays, 2013.
7. Dr Rashid, interview, Srinagar, April 1994, quoted in Schofield, Kashmir in Con-
flict. IB Tauris, 2010, p. 182.
8. See for example, Amnesty International, Arbitrary and Unlawful Detentions in
Jammu and Kashmir must end, 10 July 2013. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/
info/ASA20/032/2013/en.
9. http://data.worldbank.org/country/india.
10. http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/PAK.
11. A strip of territory disputed between India and Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch Marsh-
land in Sindh.
12. Shabir Shah, interview, Srinagar, 5 April 1995 quoted in Schofield, Kashmir in the
Crossfire. IB Tauris, 1996, p. 290. The Simla Agreement between the two leaders
 WHY KASHMIR IS STILL IMPORTANT 31

was negotiated following the secession of Bangladesh in 1971. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
was President of Pakistan until the negotiated Constitution of 1973.
13. Kashmir: Paths to Peace. www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/109338
[accessed 26 November 2014.]
14. Ashok Jaitley, telephone interview, New Delhi, 11 April 1995, quoted in Schofield,
Kashmir in the Crossfire. IB Tauris, 1996, p. 279.
Copyright of Asian Affairs is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.