You are on page 1of 3

Brycen Waters Professor Hejnova International Relations Position Paper October 23, 2012 I, along with the government

of the Republic of India, stand strong on our stance that Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian nation and it will remain so long after this conflict with our neighbor to the north, Pakistan. This conflict has created a strained relationship between these two countries dating back to their initial formation in 1947 at the end of the British Colonial Period.1 With the creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan, there have been issues over who would become the dominant influence in the disputed areas of Kashmir. While Pakistan desires control of the area due to religious connections (the dominant religion in both areas is Muslim), India has shown to be more of a benefit to the area economically and politically. India alone, it was argued, had the economic strength to develop Kashmirs so far untapped waterpower potential and mineral resources. Historical and cultural ties were adduced as evidence that Kashmir was and had always been an integral part of India.2Due to its crucial location as a gateway to Central Asia, India would be able to utilize the resources of Kashmir and increase their influence outside of its borders while maintaining a natural defense to the north from Afghanistan, China, and other Central Asian powers. Also, Pakistan is known as a state sponsor of terrorism and has openly supported Al Qaeda along with various other Kashmir extremistterror groups. More than once these terrorist connections have directly raised the risk of provoking war between India and Pakistan. More than a million soldiers deployed, eyeball to eyeball, along the border, with the ever-present threat of a confrontation that could escalate to nuclear war. Despite repeated promises, Pakistan has not broken its links to these Kashmiri groups, which still operate both in Kashmir proper and throughout India.3On the issue of nuclear weapons, Pakistan serves as a larger threat because of its refusal to be in adherence with various non-proliferation treaties along with its questionable nuclear transactions with China. Even though India is not a signatory of Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, negotiations have been made, such as the U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, which exemplify the Indian peaceful atomic energy stance. In this treaty the U.S. was able to supply India with civilian nuclear material for solely peaceful energy use (India agreed to various terms which prohibit weaponizing the material) due to their rapid industrialization and large population increase.4What India desires is for a removal of all troops (Pakistan and Indian) from the borders and area of Kashmir and continued peace talks between the two countries with the overall outcome of continued role of the Indian government in Kashmir, while avoiding nuclear war at all costs. Peace talks and the eventual resolution of the Kashmir Conflict would eventually make Pakistan a safer state. The resolution of the major outstanding conflict [] would reduce the arms race between the two countries and the risk of nuclear conflict. And it would remove the need for Pakistan to find allies, such as the Taliban, Le. T. and al Qaeda, to fight asymmetric

1 2

Su mit Gan gu li, "Wi ll Ka shmir St op In dia 's Ris e?, " Fo reign Affair s , 85, n o. 4 (2006 ): 45 -56. Alice Thorner, "The Kashmir Conflict," Middle East Journal , 3, no. 1 (1949): 17 -30. 3 Bruce Riedel, "Pakistan and Terror: The Eye of the Storm," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 618 (2008): 31 -45. 4 Mist ry Din sha w, "Dip lomacy, Domesti c Politic s, and the U. S. -In dia Nuc lear Agreement, " A sian Survey , 46, no. 5 (2006): 675 -698.

warfare against India.5 The Indian government firmly recognizes the threat the peace talks present with the possibility of continued conflict, given their nature over the past decades. With this in mind, India also desires the ending of the Pakistani support of terrorist organizations. Unless this is achieved, it is certain the likelihood of war will remain prevalent between these two countries.

Riedel, "Pakistan and Terror,43.

Bibliography Dinshaw, Mistry. "Diplomacy, Domestic Politics, and the U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement." Asian Survey . 46. no. 5 (2006): 675-698. Ganguli, Sumit. "Will Kashmir Stop India's Rise?." Foreign Affairs . 85. no. 4 (2006): 45-56. Riedel, Bruce. "Pakistan and Terror: The Eye of the Storm."Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 618. (2008): 31-45. Thorner, Alice. "The Kashmir Conflict." Middle East Journal. 3. no. 1 (1949): 17-30.