Kashmir conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For history of Kashmir before partition, see History of Jammu and Kashmir.

The disputed areas of the region of Kashmir. India claims the entire historic Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, while Pakistan claims all areas except for those administered by China.

The Treaty of Accession which shows Maharaja Hari Singh's accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India

The Kashmir conflict refers to the territorial dispute between the China, India, and Pakistan over the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. India, which claims the entire erstwhile Dogra Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, has control of approximately half the region including most of Jammu, Ladakh, and Siachen Glacier. India's claim is contested by Pakistan which controls a third of Kashmir. The Kashmiri region under Chinese control is known as Aksai Chin. In addition, China also controls the Trans-Karakoram Tract, also known as Shaksam Valley, which was ceded to it by Pakistan in 1963.

India has fought three wars with Pakistan: in 1947, 1965, and 1999 and one with China in 1962 over Kashmir. Since the 1990s, the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has been hit by confrontation between armed Islamic insurgents and the Armed Forces of India, which has resulted in thousands of deaths.

[edit] Partition, dispute and war

Shown in green is the Kashmiri region under Pakistani control. The dark-brown region represents Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir while the Aksai Chin is under Chinese occupation

The Instrument of Accession was accepted by Lord Mountbatten of India

In 1935, British rulers compelled the Dogra King of Jammu and Kashmir to lease parts of his kingdom, which were to make up the new Province of the North-West Frontier, for 60 years. This move was designed to strengthen the northern boundaries, especially from Russia.

In 1947, the British dominion of India came to an end with the creation of two new nations, India and Pakistan. Each of the 562 Indian princely states had to decide which of the two new nations to join: secular India or Islamic Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir, which had a predominantly Muslim population and a Hindu ruler, was the largest of these autonomous states and bordered both modern countries. Its ruler was the Dogra King (or Maharaja) Hari Singh. Hari Singh preferred to remain independent and sought to avoid the stress placed on him by either India and Pakistan by playing each against the other.

According to the Indian theory, Pakistani tribals (Kabailis) from North Waziristan, aided and supported by Pakistani soldiers, entered Kashmir to force the Maharajah out of power as he had avoided a vote to decide Kashmir's fate during partition. The Maharajah was not able to withstand the invasion; he decided to cede Kashmir to India. The Instrument of Accession was accepted by Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India October 27, 1947. The Indian troops then marched into Kashmir.

However, the Pakistani theory contests this narrative. It is asserted, rather, that Indian troops marched towards Kashmir amidst the tensions resulting from the indecision of the Maharajah. This ultimately forced the Maharajah to accede with India, whether willingly or unwillingly is still unclear. After hearing about Indian soldiers pouring into Kashmir, Mohammad Ali Jinnah (the founding father of Pakistan) ordered the head of the Pakistani Army, who was a British officer, to stop the undemocratic takeover of Kashmir by sending his troops to the area. This order was denied by the General on the grounds that it would have constituted an attack motion against his own British counterparts in the Indian Army. Following this, the kabaili tribesmen of northern Pakistan attacked and took control of over 1/3rd of Kashmir from the Indian army.

[edit] Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

The irregular Pakistani tribals made rapid advances into Kashmir (Baramulla sector) after the rumors that the Maharaja was going to decide for the union with India. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir asked the Government of India to intervene. However, the Government of India pointed out that India and Pakistan had signed an agreement of non-intervention (maintenance of the status quo) in Jammu and Kashmir; and although tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered Jammu and Kashmir, there was, until then, no iron-clad legal evidence to unequivocally prove that the Government of Pakistan was officially involved. It would have been illegal for India to unilaterally intervene (in an open, official capacity) unless Jammu and Kashmir officially joined the Union of India, at which point it would be possible to send in its forces and occupy the remaining parts.

The Maharaja desperately needed the Indian military's help when the Pakistani tribal invaders reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Before their arrival into Srinagar, Maharaja Hari Singh completed negotiations for acceding Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving military aid. The agreement which ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten.^[4] Original Accession Document

Pakistan claims that the Maharaja acted under duress, and that the accession of Kashmir to India is invalidated by a previous agreement between India and Pakistan, to maintain the "status quo". India counters that the invasion of Kashmir by tribals, allegedly aided and instigated by the Pakistani government, had rendered the agreement null and void. India points out that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was not just the decision of the ruler Hari Singh, but also reflected the will of the people living in Jammu and Kashmir.

However, the controversy was multiplied by India's stance on the Nizam of Hyderabad. The unpopular ruler of Hyderabad was subjected to numerous protests and demonstrations. The Nizam had oppressed and brutally repressed the local populace.^[1] India rejected Hyderabad's accession to Pakistan and the people of Hyderabad gave India few troubles as it incorporated the state through police action. Pakistan believed that Hyderabad's rulers were treated unfairly in comparison to Kashmir's rulers.

The resulting war, the First Kashmir War, lasted until 1948, when India moved the issue to the UN Security Council. The UN previously had passed resolutions setting up for the monitoring of the conflict in Kashmir. The committee it set up was called the United Nations Committee for India and Pakistan. Following the set up of the UNCIP the UN security council passed resolution 47 [5] April 21, 1948. The resolution imposed that an immediate cease-fire take place and said that Pakistan should withdraw all presence and had no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. It stated that India should retain a minimum military presence and stated "that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". The cease fire took place December 31, 1948.

At that time, the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite but neither side actually removed its troops. The plebiscite never took place, leading the UN Security Council to pass several more resolutions which reaffirmed its earlier resolution.

[edit] Aftermath of war

The Treaty of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, was ratified by the popular parliament of the kingdom, dominated by the popular political party of Kashmir, the National Conference led by Sheikh Abdullah. Under the leadership of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, a Constituent Assembly of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (which was also its Legislative Assembly) had ratified the State's accession to India and had adopted a constitution [6] calling for a perpetual merger of the state with India. This constitution was promulgated 26 January 1957, making Jammu and Kashmir as the only state of India to have a separate constitution (much to the displeasure of many nationalists in India).

Pakistan still asks for a plebiscite in Kashmir under the UN. However, India is no longer willing to allow a plebiscite as it claims that the situation has changed and that a large number of the Hindus who once lived in Kashmir were forced to move out due to threat from separatist activities. It also claims that Pakistan or China are not willing to demilitarize areas occupied by them. This is mentioned as one of the conditions at the UN.

The ceasefire line is known as the Line of Control (dotted line) and is the pseudo-border between India and Pakistan in most of the Kashmir region.

[edit] Sino-Indian War

Main article: Sino-Indian War

In 1962, troops from the People's Republic of China and India clashed in territory claimed by both. China had the upper hand throughout the war, resulting in the Chinese administration of the region called Aksai Chin, which continues to date, as well as a strip along the eastern border. In addition to these lands, another smaller area, the Trans-Karakoram, was demarcated as the line of control between China and Pakistan, although parts on the Chinese side are claimed by India to be parts of Kashmir. The line that separates India from China in this region is known as the Line of Actual Control. [7]

[edit] 1965 and 1971 wars

Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

In 1965 and 1971, heavy fighting again broke out between India and Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 resulted in the defeat of Pakistan and Pakistan Military's surrender in East Pakistan (Bangladesh). The Simla Agreement was signed in 1972 between India and Pakistan. By this treaty, both countries agreed to settle all issues by peaceful means and mutual discussions in the framework of the UN Charter. The treaty is often viewed by many as having cemented the Line of Control as a permanent border between the two nations, although Pakistanis consider it temporary, pending a solution.

[edit] Rise of militancy

Main article: Terrorism in Kashmir

In 1989, a widespread armed insurgency started in Kashmir, which continues to this day. This was largely started by the large number of Afghanistani mujahideen who entered the Kashmir valley following the end of the Soviet-Afghan War.^[2] Yasin Malik, a leader of one faction of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front,along with Ashfaq Majid Wani and Bitta Karate, was one of the Kashmiris to organize militancy in Kashmir. They were together responsible for the killings of kashmiri pandits to engineer their forced exodus from the valley of kashmir.However since 1995, Malik has renounced the use of violence and calls for strictly peaceful methods to resolve the dispute^[3].

Pakistan claims these insurgents are Jammu and Kashmir citizens, and they are rising up against the Indian Army in an independence movement. It also says the Indian Army is committing serious human rights violations to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. It denies that it is giving armed help to the insurgents. India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir part of Pakistan. It believes Pakistan is giving armed help to the terrorists, and training them in Pakistan. It also says the terrorists have been killing many citizens in Kashmir, and committing human rights violations. The UN Security Council too has backed the Indian claim to be true when it rejected Pakistan's request that the council intervene in the dispute, instead asking Islamabad to crackdown on terrorist groups operating in Kashmir.^[4]. The FBI too produced evidence of Islamic terror camps operating in Pakistan^[5].

The Pakistani government calls these insurgents, "Kashmiri freedom fighters", and claims that it gives only moral and diplomatic support to these insurgents, though India and other nations ^[6] believe they are Pakistani-supported terrorists from Pakistan Administered Kashmir.

[edit] Cross-border infiltration

The border and the Line of Control separating Indian and Pakistani Kashmir passes through some exceptionally difficult terrain. The world's highest battleground, the Siachen Glacier is a part of this difficult-to-man boundary. Even with 200,000 military personnel, [8] India maintains that it is infeasible to place enough men to guard all sections of the border throughout the various seasons of the year. In fact Pakistan itself has indirectly acquiesced its role in "cross border terrorism" when it agreed to curb such activities [9] after intense pressure from the Bush administration in mid 2002.[10]

The Government of Pakistan has repeatedly claimed that by constructing a fence along the line of control, India is violating the Shimla Accord. However, India claims the construction of the fence has helped decrease armed infiltration into Indian-administered Kashmir.

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

[edit] Human rights abuse

Claims of human rights abuses have been made concerning on both the Indian Armed Forces and the Militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir. [11]. According to a MORI survey, about 45% of Kashmiris in Jammu and Kashmir believe the terrorists from Pakistan-administered Kashmir are violating human rights, and 25% believe the Indian Army is doing such. Following the opening of discussion between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, matters apparently improved. It remains to be clear whether Indian actions to control the problem have had any effect.

[edit] Reasons behind the dispute

Ever since the Partition of India in 1947, both India and Pakistan have claims over Kashmir. These claims are centered on historical incidents and on religious affiliations of the Kashmiri people.The whole Kashmir issue has caused longstanding enmity between post-Colonial India and newly created Moslem Pakistan. It arose as a direct consequence of the partition and independence of the Indian subcontinent in August 1947. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, whic lies stragegically in the northwest of the subcontinent, bordering the two largest empires China and the former Soviet Union, was a princely state ruled by Maharaja Singh. In geographical terms, the Maharaja could have joined either of the two new Dominions. As a Hindu, he had more natural affinity with India, but his population was predominatly Muslim. Although urged by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, to determine the future of his state before the transfer of power takes place, Hari Singh demurred. For over two months, the state created in the previous century by his great-grandfather, Gulab Singh, was independent.

There was already serious unrest amongst the Muslims, especially in the Poonch area, who were fighting for the state's accession to newly formed country Pakistan. In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan's Afghania province invaded the valley of Kashmir. The Government of Pakistan maintained that the invasion was a spontaneous incursion in response to repression by the Maharaja's state forces of the local Muslim population. When the Maharaja requested assistance from the Government of India, Lord Mountbatten, who had become India's Governor General, argued that the provision of assistance to an independent state could lead to an inter-Dominion War. He therefore advised that Hari Singh should first accede to the Union of India and recommended that the issue should be resolved by a referendum of the people. Hari Singh agreed to this suggestion but limited India's jurdisdiction to external affairs, communcations and currency. On 27th October 1947, Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar. Efforts to reach a peaceful settlement through dialogue between New Delhi and Karachi failed; resistance from "Azad" (Freedom) fighters against the Kashmiri state forces and Indian occupying soliders intensified, spreading to Ladakh, Baltistan and Gilgit. The Pakistani army offically entered the war in May 1948 on the grounds that the presence of Indian troops in Kashmir constituted a great threat to Pakistan's own national security.

The Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, reffered the dispute to the United Nations, and a cease-fire was agreed on 1 January 1949. According to resolutions passed by the UN Security Council, both Pakistan and Bharat agreed that a plebiscite should be held to determine the will of the people. The plebiscite has, however, never ever been held since as of this day. The Regional state remains bitterly divided on the ground; two-thirds of it (known as the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir) compromising Jammu, the Valley of Kashmir and the sparsely populated Buddhist area of Ladakh are illegally controlled by India; however one-third is administered by Pakistan as the Free state (government). This area includes a narrow strip of land, called the Azad Kashmir part of the old state, which is all part of the disputed territory, including the Northern Areas, compromising the Gilgit Agency, and Baltistan (PAK) and the former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar. Tension amongst the two countries over the very status of Kashmir was exacerabated by increasing further Kashmiri isolation and more Indian control of the administration of the state to the east of the ceasefire line. After the dismissal of the pro-Autonomist Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Abdullah, in 1953, successive Cheif Ministers acquiesced in the state's intergration into the Indian Union of states. Attempts to resolve the 'core issue' through political discussion were unsuccessful. In September 1965 war broke out again between Islamabad and Delhi. The United Nations called for a yet another cease-fire and peace was restored once again following the Tashkent Declaration in 1966, by which both nations returned to their original poistions along the demarcated line. After the 1971 civil war and the legal creation of independent Bangladesh, from the eastern wing according to the terms of the 1972 Simla Agreement, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India and Quaid-e-AwamZulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan; the ruling President agreed that, in the Territory of Kashmir; neither side would seek to alter the Ceasefire line, which was renamed as the Line of Control, "unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations".

In 1989 Kashmiri activists, who had become disenchanted with the political process as a means of expressing dissent, mounted an armed insurgency in the valley. The movement, which gained momentum through out 1990, was severely repressed by the Indian authorities, who substantially increased their unlawful military presence in the vale and throughout the entire state under its immoral occupation was and is put under direct Governor's rule. Pakistan condemned India for human rights abuses and gave diplomatic and moral support to the supressed Kashmiri brethen, urging that they must be allowed their right of self determination. The Government of Pakistan has not, however so far endorsed the "third option" of complete independence and the militants remain divided in their objectives. Of the major factions, the Hizbul Mujaheddin strongly supports accession only to unified Pakistan, while the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front is fighting for self governence towards total seperation of the entire state from the two larger neighbours as it existed prior to 1947. The Government of India has not permitted any such dialogue which contemplates the departure of the area from the country, pointing out that the movement is not widely supported by the peoples of Ladakh nor Jammu according to New Delhi only. It has also attempted to "normalise" the situation in the valley and the surrounding areas close and near the Pakistani troops facing each other and by holding elections to the occupied state's legislative assembley, but the Freedom Fighters and Kashmiri millitants and even political activists, who oppose union of any kind with the Republic of India, insisting that the so-called elections are no substitute for a promised plebscite. While the very issue itself is unresolved, on the the west the status of Azad Kashmir and Jammu and the the Northern Areas of Northern Pakistan also remains undecided, since the administration of Islamabad the Federal government there has not even readily formally constitutionally intergrated these areas as part of Pakistan; although they are "integral part", in order not to jeopardise its demand for the long term future of the entire region including of course Indian occupied Kashmir to be decided accordingly by the UN Resloutions.

Western interest in the Kashmir issue and Indo-Pak relations, especially that of the US and the UK, has been heightened by the proliferation of weapons in the area as well as concern that a regional dispute, which has religious overtones, could probably one day become a flash point for a major conflict in the voatile area. Both Governments are known to possess nuclear capabilitiy. Numerous violations of the Line of Control as well as sporadic clashes on the Siachen Glacier since 1984, the most northerly point, where both countries maintain forces at altitudes rising to 20,000 ft, add to Western concern for the stability of the hostile part. Although the Indian government is determined to counter the insurgency, any settlement which does not accommodate the interests of the disaffected suffering oppressed Kashmiris seems bound to fail. Pakistan is also unlikely to relinquish its concern for an issue which directly affects its own geo strategic and political understanding.

[edit] Indian view

The Indian claim centers on the agreement between the Dogra Maharaja Hari Singh, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Lord Mountbatten according to which the erstwhile Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of the Union of India through the Instrument of Accession. It also focuses on India's claim of secular society, an ideology that is not meant to factor religion into governance of major policy and thus considers it irrelevant in a boundary dispute. The Indian viewpoint is generally the official viewpoint used and supported by the United Nations and its client countries^{[citation needed]}. Another argument by India is that, in India, minorities are very well integrated, with some members of the minority communities holding positions of power and influence in India. Even though more than 80% of India's population practices Hinduism, the President of India, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, is a Muslim while Sonia Gandhi, the parliamentary leader of the ruling Congress Party, is a Roman Catholic. The current prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh, is a Sikh. Indians also maintain that Kashmiris would be better off in India because they claim that Muslims are better off in India than in any other non-Muslim nation.^{[citation needed]}

Thus, to briefly summarize the Indian viewpoint:

• For a UN Resolution subscribing Plebiscite monitored by any third neutral party, Pakistan should first vacate its part of Kashmir.

• The democratically elected Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's instrument of Accession to India and had adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of the state with the Indian Union.

• India does not accept the Two Nation Theory that forms the basis of Pakistan.

• The state of Jammu and Kashmir is made autonomous by the article 370 of the Constitution of India.

• India and many countries including the USA [12] alleges that most of the terrorists operating in Kashmir are themselves Pakistanis from Pakistan Administered Kashmir and that Pakistan has been involved in State sponsored terrorism.

• Pakistan's covert designs on Kashmir like the failed Operation Gibraltar and Kargil War proves that Pakistan often resorts to force to settle the issue of Kashmir. [13]

• India states that despite Pakistan being named as an "Islamic Republic", Pakistan has been responsible for one of the worst genocide of Muslims by any government in recent history when it killed millions of its own countrymen in East Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities.

• India also cites the violent repressions of Balochs and other internal sectarian violences in Pakistan among fellow Muslims as further proof that Pakistan is incapable of a cohesive existence even with Muslim majority and that its concern over Muslims in Kashmir is nothing more than shedding crocodile tears^[7].

• The Indian Government believes that Pakistan has used the Kashmir issue more as "a diversionary tactic" from internal and external issues and that the "survival of Pakistan depends how effectively it can keep the pot boiling" ^[8]

• India regard Pakistan's claim to Kashmir based largely on religion alone to be no longer correct because now India has more Muslims than Pakistan.^[9]

• India also points to articles and US reports^[10] which show that the terrorists are funded mostly by Pakistan as well as through criminal means like from the illegal sale of arms and narcotics as well as through circulating counterfeit currency in India. India argues that since many Kashmiri terrorists are also known to resort to unlawful rackets like extortion and bank robberies to fund their activities,^[11] they are nothing more than felons under the guise of "freedom fighters".^[12]

== ===Pakistani view===[14] Pakistan 's principled position on Jammu and Kashmir is based on the UN Security Council Resolutions, which provide that the final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people. Pakistan is committed to this position until the three parties to the dispute, Pakistan , India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir arrive at some mutually acceptable final settlement.

Pakistan 's principled position on Jammu and Kashmir is based on the UN Security Council Resolutions, which provide that the final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people. Pakistan is committed to this position until the three parties to the dispute, Pakistan , India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir arrive at some mutually acceptable final settlement.

Pakistan has always emphasized the necessity of a meaningful, constructive and result oriented dialogue to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Pakistan maintains that rigidity and aggression must give way to accommodation and flexibility.

In their struggle for self-determination, the Kashmiri people have undergone untold sufferings and hardship over the years. Pakistan believes that the Kashmiri people must be associated with the Pakistan-India dialogue process for arriving at a sustainable solution. Their legitimate aspirations cannot be ignored and must be accommodated in any just and durable solution.

Thus, to summarize the Pakistani viewpoint,

• According to the two-nation theory by which Pakistan was formed, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority (it should be noted that India does not accept the Two-Nation Theory).
• India has shown disregard to the resolutions of the UN (by not holding a plebiscite). India however asserts that since 1947 the demographics of Pakistani side of Kashmir has been altered with generations of non-Kashmiris allowed to take residence in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. This, India believes, would heavily influence any voting in favour of Pakistan, rendering the idea of a free and fair plebiscite impossible.^[13]
• The Kashmiri people have now been forced by the circumstances to rise against the repression of the Indian army and uphold their right of self-determination through terrorism and fundamentalism. Pakistan just gives the Kashmiri freedom-fighters moral, ethical and military support (see 1999 Kargil Conflict).

Pakistan itself has not been under democratically elected governments for most of its history.

[edit] Water dispute

Another reason behind the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the origin point for many rivers and tributaries of the Indus River basin. They include Jhelum and Chenab which primarily flow into Pakistan while other branches - the Ravi, Beas and the Sutlej irrigate northern India. Pakistan has been apprehensive that in a dire need India under whose portion of Kashmir lies the origins and passage of the said rivers, would use its strategic advantage and withhold the flow and thus choke the agrarian economy of Pakistan. The Boundary Award of 1947 meant that the headworks of the chief irrigation systems of Pakistan were left located in Indian Territory. Essentially this is seen as a veto power held by India over Pakistan agriculture. The Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960 resolved most of these disputes over the sharing of water, calling for mutual cooperation in this regard. This treaty faced issues raised by Pakistan over the construction of dams on the Indian side which limit water to the Pakistani side.

Many historians^{[citation needed]} agree that the failure of Pakistan to take the much more fertile areas of Kashmir during the initial conflict (First Kashmir War) has cost them dearly. This is because the area occupied by Pakistan is much less fertile and less strategic a point given India's unlimited access to the most critical resource of all: water. The Kashmir issue, thus, is both about land and water.

[edit] Map issues

As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir as part of their territory, regardless of actual control. It is illegal in India to exclude all or part of Kashmir in a map. It is also illegal in Pakistan not to include the state of Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistani territory, leading to many arguments and disputes. Non-participants often use the Line of Control and the Line of Actual Control as the depicted boundaries, as is done in the CIA World Factbook, and the region is often marked out in hashmarks, although the Indian government strictly opposes such practices. When Microsoft released a map in Windows 95 and MapPoint 2002, a controversy was raised because it did not show all of Kashmir as part of India as per Indian claim. [15]

[edit] Recent developments

Both India and Pakistan continue to assert their sovereignty or rights over the entire region of Kashmir. In international forums however it has offered to make the Line of Control a permanent border on a number of occasions. Officially Pakistan insists on a UN sponsored plebiscite, so that the people of Kashmir will have a free say in which country all of Kashmir should be incorporated into. Unofficially, the Pakistani leadership has indicated that they would be willing to accept alternatives such as a demilitarized Kashmir, if sovereignty of Azad Kashmir was to be extended over the Kashmir valley, or the ‘Chenab’ formula, by which India would retain parts of Kashmir on its side of the Chenab river, and Pakistan the other side. Some political analysts say that Pakistan's current policy shift and mellowing down of its aggressive stance may have to do with its failure in the Kargil War and the subsequent 9/11 attacks that put pressure on Pakistan to alter its position.^[14] Further many neutral parties to the dispute, like the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, have noted that UN resolution on Kashmir is no longer relevant.^[15] Even the European Union has viewed that the plebiscite is not in Kashmiris' interest.^[16] Besides the popular factions that support either parties, there is a third faction which supports independence and withdrawal of both India and Pakistan. These have been the respective stands of the parties for long, and there have been no significant change over the years. As a result, all efforts to solve the conflict have been futile so far.

The Freedom in the World 2006 report categorized the Indian-administered Kashmir as "partly free", and Pakistan-administered Kashmir as well as the country of Pakistan "not free". [16] Also contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wish to remain with India. This was confirmed in a 2002 survey by MORI where around 61% of the respondents said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen, with only 6% preferring Pakistan instead. The rest were undecided or wished to become independent. [17]

[edit] Conflict in Kargil

Main article: Kargil War

Location of conflict.

In mid-1999 insurgents and Pakistani soldiers from Pakistani Kashmir infiltrated into Jammu and Kashmir. During the winter season, Indian forces regularly move down to lower altitudes as severe climatic conditions makes it almost impossible for them to guard the high peaks near the LoC. The insurgents took advantage of this and occupied vacant mountain peaks of the Kargil range overlooking the highway in Indian Kashmir, connecting Srinagar and Leh. By blocking the highway, they wanted to cut-off the only link between the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. This resulted in a high-scale conflict between the Indian Army and the Kashmiri insurgents.

At the same time, fears of the Kargil War turning into a nuclear war, provoked the then-US President Bill Clinton to pressure Pakistan to retreat. Faced with mounting losses of personnel and posts, Pakistan backed forces withdrew the remaining troops from the area ending the conflict. India reclaimed control of the peaks which they now patrol and monitor all year long.

[edit] Efforts to end the crisis

The 9/11 attacks on the US, resulted in the US government wanting to restrain militancy in the world, including Pakistan. Due to Indian persuasion on US Congress Members, the US urged Islamabad to cease infiltrations, which continue to this day, by Islamic fighters into Indian-held Kashmir. In December 2001, a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament linked to Pakistan resulted in war threats, massive deployment and international fears of nuclear war in the subcontinent.

After intensive diplomatic efforts by other countries, India and Pakistan began to withdraw troops from the international border June 10, 2002, and negotiations began again.^{[citation needed]} Effective November 26, 2003, India and Pakistan have agreed to maintain a ceasefire along the undisputed International Border, the disputed Line of Control, and the Siachen glacier. This is the first such "total ceasefire" declared by both nuclear powers in nearly 15 years. In February 2004, Pakistan further increased pressure on Pakistanis fighting in Indian held Kashmir to adhere to the ceasefire. The nuclear-armed neighbours also launched several other mutual confidence building measures. Restarting the bus service between the Indian- and Pakistani- administered Kashmir has helped defuse the tensions between the countries. Both India and Pakistan have also decided to cooperate on economic fronts.

On Dec. 5, 2006, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told an Indian TV channel that Pakistan would give up its claim on Kashmir if India accepted some of his peace proposals, including a phased withdrawal of troops, self-governance for locals, no changes in the borders of Kashmir, and a joint supervision mechanism involving India, Pakistan and Kashmir, the BBC reported.[18] Musharraf also stated that he was ready to give up the United Nation resolutions regarding Kashmir[19] Pakistani spokesperson Tasneem Aslam also reiterated that Kashmir was never considered an "integral part" of Pakistan.[20]

[edit] Recent events

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

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• List of topics on the land and the people of Jammu and Kashmir
• History of Jammu and Kashmir
• Timeline of the Kashmir conflict
• Kashmiriyat - a socio-cultural ethos of religious harmony and Kashmiri consciousness.
• Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) to the Country / Dominion of India
• Indo-Pakistani Wars
• Trans-Karakoram Tract
• Aksai Chin
• Kargil War or the Indo-Pakistani War of 1999
• LOC Kargil, a 2003 Bollywood war film based on "Kargil War"
• Terrorism in Kashmir
• Indian Kashmir barrier

[edit] Further reading

• Drew, Federic. 1877. “The Northern Barrier of India: a popular account of the Jammoo and Kashmir Territories with Illustrations.&;#8221; 1st edition: Edward Stanford, London. Reprint: Light & Life Publishers, Jammu. 1971.
• Dr. Ijaz Hussain, 1998, Kashmir Dispute: An International Law Perspective, National Institute of Pakistan Studies
• Alastair Lamb, Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846-1990 (Hertingfordbury, Herts: Roxford Books, 1991)
• Kashmir Study Group, 1947-1997, the Kashmir dispute at fifty : charting paths to peace (New York, 1997)
• Jaspreet Singh, Seventeen Tomatoes -- an unprecedented look inside the world of an army camp in Kashmir (Vehicule Press; Montreal, Canada, 2004)
• Navnita Behera, State, identity and violence : Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (New Delhi: Manohar, 2000)
• Sumit Ganguly, The Crisis in Kashmir (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; Cambridge : Cambridge U.P., 1997)
• Sumantra Bose, The challenge in Kashmir : democracy, self-determination and a just peace (New Delhi: Sage, 1997)
• Robert Johnson, 'A Region in Turmoil' (London and New York, Reaktion, 2005)

• Prem Shankar Jha, Kashmir, 1947: rival versions of history (New Delhi : Oxford University Press, 1996)
• Manoj Joshi, The Lost Rebellion (New Delhi: Penguin India, 1999)
• Alexander Evans, Why Peace Won't Come to Kashmir, Current History (Vol 100, No 645) April 2001 p170-175.
• Younghusband, Francis and Molyneux, E. 1917. Kashmir. A. & C. Black, London.
• Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict I.B. Tauris, London.
• Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in the Crossfire, I.B. Tauris, London.

[edit] External links

• Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF)
• Legal Documents related to Kashmir including treaties
• Centre for Contemporary Conflict on Kargil War
• BBC articles on Kashmir
• Recent Kashmir developments
• JASHN-E-AZADI - How We Celebrate Freedom, a feature length documentary which explores the implications of the struggle for Azadi, freedom, in the Kashmir valley.
• The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict U.S. Institute of Peace Report, June 2004
• The Jammu and Kashmir issue-from Indian perspective
• A peep into Kashmir History-from a Kashmiri perspective
• The Kashmir dispute-cause or symptom?-from Pakistani perspective
• LoC-Line of Control situation in Kashmir-from Pakistani perspective
• Jammu & Kashmir-The Basic Facts-from Indian perspective
• Introduction of the Kashmir dispute-from Indian perspective
• An outline of the history of Kashmir-from Indian perspective
• Images of Muzaffarabad (Capital City of Pakistani controlled Kashmir)
• Images of Pakistan controlled Kashmir
• UN Resolutions on Kashmir
• News Coverage of Kashmir
• Jammu & Kashmir on The Indian Analyst News, Analysis, and Opinion from Indian perspective
• Conflict in Kashmir: Selected Internet Resources by the Library, University of California, Berkeley, USA; University of California at Berkeley Library Bibliographies and Web-Bibliographies list