TWO NATION THEORY

Nation
The word “NATION” is derived from Latin route “NATUS” of “NATIO” which means “Birth” of “Born”.
Therefore, Nation implies homogeneous population of the people who are organized and blood-related.
Today the word NATION is used in a wider sense.

A Nation is a body of people who see part at least of their identity in terms of a single communal identity
with some considerable historical continuity of union, with major elements of common culture, and with a
sense of geographical location at least for a good part of those who make up the nation.

We can define nation as a people who have some common attributes of race, language, religion or
culture and united and organized by the state and by common sentiments and aspiration. A nation
becomes so only when it has a spirit or feeling of nationality.

A nation is a culturally homogeneous social group, and a politically free unit of the people, fully conscious
of its psychic life and expression in a tenacious way.

Nationality
Mazzini said:

“Every people has its special mission and that mission constitutes its nationality”.

Nation and Nationality differ in their meaning although they were used interchangeably. A nation is a
people having a sense of oneness among them and who are politically independent. In the case of
nationality it implies a psychological feeling of unity among a people, but also sense of oneness among
them. The sense of unity might be an account, of the people having common history and culture. But
nationality largely requires the element of political independence either achieved or aspired.

Secondly, a nation must have a political organization of passionate desire for such an organization. But a
nationality is a political, cultural, spiritual and unified community of a people.

A.E. Zimmern said:

“Nationality, like religion, is subjective, psychological, a condition of mind, a spiritual possession,

a way of feeling, thinking and living”.

Two Nation Theory

The two-nation theory in its simplest way means that cultural, political, religious, economic and social
dissimilarities between the two major communities, Hindus and Muslims of the Sub-continent. These
differences of outlook, in fact, were greatly instrumental in giving rise to two distinct political ideologies
which were responsible for the partition of the sub-continent into two independent states.

The two-nation theory means that the Hindus and the Muslims are two different nations. On the basis of
two-nation theory the Quaid-i-Azam demanded the partition of India into two states, a Muslim state to be
called Pakistan and the other Hindu India that is Bharat.

Evolution of Two Nation Theory

Concept of Muslims as a Nation developed before the establishment of Pakistan. Pakistan was the
product of this concept of nationhood rather than Pakistan creating a concept of nationhood.
Retrospectively the Muslim nationalism emerged with the advent of Islam that introduced new principles
pertinent to every sphere of life. It pledged the redemption of the humankind establishing a benign society
based on Qur’anic teachings. The beginning of the Muslim nationalism in the Sub-Continent may be
attributed to the first Indian who accepted Islam. The Arab traders had introduced the new religion, Islam,
in the Indian coastal areas. Muhammad bin Qasim was the first Muslim invader who conquered some part
of India and after that, Mahmud of Ghazna launched 17 attacks and opened the gate to preach Islam.
The Muslim sufi (saints) like Ali Hejveri, Miran Hussain Zanjani etc. entered Sub-Continent. They,
rejecting the vices in the Indian society, presented the pure practical picture of the teachings of Islam and
got huge conversions. Qutub-ud-Din Aibuk permanently established Muslim dynasty in India that followed
Sultanate and Mughal dynasties. Thus a strong Muslim community had emerged in India who had its own
way of life, traditions, heroes, history and culture. Islam could not be absorbed in Hinduism. Deen-e-Ilahi,
Bakhti movements, etc. created reaction amongst the Muslim ulama to preserve the pure Islamic
character and save it from external onslaught. Role of Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi and others is noteworthy.
Equality and social justice inspired conversions to Islam.

The British won over the Muslim rulers due to the industrial and scientific developments and modern war
strategy. The War of Independence (1857) was a shattering setback to the Indian Muslims who were held
responsible for the rebellion by the British. The Muslims were put into the backwardness with the help of
Hindus. This was one of the outstanding motivations that paved the way to declare the separate identity
of nationalism, the Muslim nationalism. The Muslim scholars sought to reform the teaching of Islamic law
and to promote its application in a Muslim society. The prominent name among them is Sir Syed Ahmad
Khan (1817-98) who awakened and guided his community well in time. His educational drive, the Ali-Garh
movement, proved to be the best means of social mobility for the Muslim gentry under colonial rule.

In 1885 the Indian National Congress was founded to indicate the beginning of the Indian nationalist
movement under the British. The Congress worked and helped the British rule. Sir Syed advised the
Muslims not to join it because, he thought, the Muslims were not in position to involve into the anti-
government activities. It has been argued that Sir Syed's fear of Hindu domination sowed the seeds for
the "Two Nations Theory" later espoused by the All-India Muslim League, founded in 1906 and led to its
demand for a separate state for the Muslims of India. Sir Syed argued that modern education and non-
political activities might be the key to Muslim advancement. The Ali-Garh movement produced educated
leadership who could protect the Muslims’ rights on the Western political lines.

All India Muslim League had been founded in Dhaka to promote loyalty to the British and to protect and
advance the political rights and interests of the Muslims of India. Thus the concept of ‘separate
electorates’ was put forward to dawn a new day for the Indian Muslims.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Two-Nation Theory

In beginning Sir Syed believed in Indian Nationalism but later due to Hindi-Urdu controversy, Sir Syed’s
faith in a united India was shaken and he began to advocate the two nation theory. He made the Muslims
realize that they are separate nation. Their religion is very powerful. Muslims should demand for separate
homeland of their own.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was the first Muslim leader who used the word “NATION” for the Muslims of Sub-
continent. According to Sir Syed in India there exist two nations, the Hindus and Muslims. They could not
live together and that as the time would pass the hostility between the two-nation would grow. Sir Syed
was of the view that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations because their religion, history, culture
and civilization were different from each other.
Sir Syed’s political views could be summed up as:

1. That India was a continent, not a country.

2. That it was inhabited by a vast population of different races and different creeds.
3. That among these, Hindus and Muslims, were the major nations on the basis of nationality, religion,
customs, cultures, cultural and historical traditions.
4. After the British quit, they could not share the political power equally. That was simply impossible and
inconceivable.
5. The Indian National Congress was not acceptable to the Muslims.
6. Muslims could not accept a democratic set up of western type because with a one to four ratio of
population, they could be enslaved by the Hindus.
7. There would be a disastrous civil war if the Congress persisted in its policy of yoking together the two
nations.

The above discuss leads us to conclude that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was the staunch believer and
eminent preacher to Two-Nation Theory; on account of which, he may be called the real founder to two-
Nation Theory in sub-continent.

Allama Iqbal and Two-Nation Theory

Allama Iqbal was a great poet, philosopher and a politician. Iqbal had a sensitive heart and a deep-
thinking inquisitive mind. He was dismayed at the pathetic conditions of the Muslims in general and of the
Indian Muslims in particular.

Allama Iqbal delivered historical address at Allahabad.

“The units of Indian society are not territorial as in the European countries. India is a continent of
human groups belonging to different races speaking different languages and professing different
religions. Their behaviour is not at all determined by a common race-consciousness.”

Under such circumstances, Allama Iqbal proposed a separate state of the Muslims. In his presidential
address to the Allahabad session of the Muslim League in 1930, he said:

“Personally I would go further…. I would like to see the Punjab, North WestFrontierProvince,
Sindh and Balochistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British
Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a single consolidated North-West Indian
Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims at least of North WestIndia.”

Allama Iqbal claimed that the Muslims were a separate nation in every respect. His own words in this
regard were as follows:

“We have a population of seven crore among all nations of the sub-continent, we are the most
united. In fact, of all the nations inhabiting the country, Muslims are the only true nation according
to the most modern definition of the world.”

In short the prophecy of Iqbal acted as a spur for the Muslims of India who craved out an independent
state Pakistan for themselves, Seventeen years later (Allahabad Address 1930) on 14th August 1947.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Two-Nation Theory

Quaid-e-Azam’s struggle also based on two-nation theory: Quaid-e-Azam said:

“Difference in India between the two major nations, the Hindus and the Muslims are thousand
times greater when compared with the continent of Europe.”

Quaid-e-Azam further said:

“India is not a national state. India is not a country but a Sub-continent composed of nationalities,
the two major nations being Hindus and the Muslims whose culture and civilizations, language
and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, laws
and jurisprudence, social moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes
and ambitions, outlook on life and of life are fundamentally different. By all canons of international
law we are nation.”

In 1940, Muslim League embraced the creed of Chaudhry Rehmat Ali and the historic session on March
23, 1940 in Lahore demanded the establishment of Pakistan. On that occasion, Quaid-e-Azam in his
presidential address said:

“Islam and Hinduism are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and
distinct social orders… The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies,
social customs, literatures. They neither inter-marry nor inter-dine together and, indeed, they
belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and
conceptions.”

He refuted the claim of All Indian Nation Congress that India had only one single nation, in the name of
Indian by the following statement.

The history of the last twelve hundred years has failed to achieve the unity and has
witnessed, India always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India.

Quaid-e-Azam made the English ruler realize the fundamental deep rooted spiritual economic, social and
political differences. He said that their efforts would frustrate which they were making to bind all Indians
through central Government.

Importance of Two Nation Theory

The Two-Nation Theory served as the basis of demand for Pakistan by the Muslims in British India. There
are two major nations in British India. The Muslims are not a community but a nation with a distinctive
history, heritage, culture, civilization, and future aspirations.

The Muslims wanted to preserve and protect their distinct identity and advance their interests in India.
They wanted to order their lives in accordance with their ideals and philosophy of life without being
overwhelmed by an unsympathetic majority.

Initially, they demanded safeguards, constitutional guarantees and a federal system of government with
powers to the provinces for protection and advancement of their heritage, identity and interests. Later,
they demanded a separate state when neither the British nor the Hindu majority community was willing to
offer those guarantees and safeguards.
Kashmir Issue
Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict between India and Pakistan which started just after
partition of India.[2] India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, including the
Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947, 1965 and 1999. Furthermore, since 1984 the two countries
have also been involved in several skirmishes over control of the Siachen Glacier. India
claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir and as of 2010, administers approximately
43% of the region, including most of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen
Glacier. India's claims are contested by Pakistan, which administers approximately 37% of
Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and the northern areas of Gilgit Baltistan.[3][4]

The root of conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian Government is tied to a
dispute over local autonomy.[5] Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the
late 1970s and by 1988 many of the democratic reforms provided by the Indian
Government had been reversed. Non-violent channels for expressing discontent were
thereafter limited and caused a dramatic increase in support for insurgents advocating
violent secession from India.[5] In 1987, a disputed state election[6] created a catalyst for
the insurgency when it resulted in some of the state's legislative assembly members
forming armed insurgent groups.[7][8][9] In July 1988 a series of demonstrations, strikes
and attacks on the Indian Government began the Kashmir Insurgency.

Although thousands of people have died as a result of the turmoil in Jammu and
Kashmir,[10] the conflict has become less deadly in recent years.[11][12] Protest
movements created to voice Kashmir's disputes and grievances with the Indian government,
specifically the Indian Military, have been active in Indian Administered Kashmir since
1989.[11][12] Elections held in 2008 were generally regarded as fair by the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees and had a high voter turnout in spite of calls by separatist
militants for a boycott. The election resulted in the creation of the pro-India Jammu &
Kashmir National Conference, which then formed a government in the state.[13][14]
According to Voice of America, many analysts have interpreted the high voter turnout in this
election as a sign that the people of Kashmir endorsed Indian rule in the state.[15] But in
2010 unrest erupted after alleged fake encounter of local youth by security force.[16]
Thousands of youths pelted security forces with rocks, burned government offices and
attacked railway stations and official vehicles in steadily intensifying violence.[17] The
Indian government blamed separatists and Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based militant
group for stoking the 2010 protests.[18]

However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in
Kashmir.[19][20][21][22] European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair"
and congratulated India for its democratic system.[23][24][25] The European Parliament
also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite
calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.[23]

Contents [hide]
1 Timeline
1.1 Early history
1.2 Partition and dispute
1.3 Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
1.4 Sino-Indian War
1.5 1965 and 1971 wars
1.6 1989 popular insurgency and militancy
1.7 1999 Conflict in Kargil
1.8 2000s Al-Qaeda involvement
2 Reasons behind the dispute
2.1 Indian view
2.2 Pakistani view
3 Chinese view
3.1 Cross-border troubles
3.2 Water dispute
3.3 Pakistan's relation with militants
4 Human rights abuse
4.1 Indian administered Kashmir
4.2 Pakistan administered Kashmir
4.2.1 Azad Kashmir
4.2.2 Gilgit-Baltistan
5 Map issues
6 Recent developments
6.1 Efforts to end the crisis
6.2 2008 militant attacks
6.3 2008 Kashmir protests
6.4 2008 Kashmir elections
6.5 2009 Kashmir protests
6.6 2010 Kashmir Unrest
6.7 2014 Jammu and Kashmir Elections
6.8 October 2014
7 The US Presidents on Conflict
8 Problems Before Plebiscite
8.1 UN Resolution is not Compulsory
8.2 Instrument of Accession
8.3 Article 370
8.4 "Nehru's Promise"
8.5 Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir
8.6 Private Survey
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links
Timeline[edit]
Main article: Timeline of the Kashmir conflict
Early history[edit]
See also: History of Kashmir
According to folk etymology, the name "Kashmir" means "desiccated land" (from the
Sanskrit: Ka = water and shimira = desiccate). The mid-12th century Rajatarangini, a
history of Kashmir written by Kalhana, records that the valley of Kashmir was formerly a
lake. Hindu mythology relates that the lake was drained by the saptarishi or sage,
Kashyapa, son of Marichi, in turn the son of Brahma, who cut a gap in the hills at Baramulla
(Varaha-mula). Once Kashmir had been drained, Kashyapa invited Brahmans to settle
there. This remains the local tradition, and the physical geography of the territory suggests
that it may have some basis in fact. Kashyapa is connected with the draining of the lake in
traditional histories, with the chief town or collection of dwellings in the valley called
Kashyapa-pura, which has been identified as Kaspapyros in Hecataeus (Apud Stephanus of
Byzantium) and the Kaspatyros of Herodotus (3.102, 4.44).[26] Kashmir is also believed to
be the country indicated by Ptolemy's Kaspeiria.[27]

However, an earlier and well known recorded reference can be found in the writings of Hsien
Tsang, a 6th Century Chinese Buddhist who referred to a state called 'Kash-mi-lo' that had
existed in the 1st century.[citation needed]

The Pashtun Durrani Empire ruled Kashmir in the 18th century until its 1819 conquest by
the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh. Following the First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–1846), Kashmir was
ceded under the Treaty of Lahore to the East India Company, who sold it shortly afterwards
through the Treaty of Amritsar to Gulab Singh, Raja of Jammu, who thereafter received the
title Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. From then until the 1947 Partition of India, Kashmir
was ruled by the Hindu Maharajas of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, although the
majority of the population were Muslim, except in the Jammu and Ladakh region. However,
India which has a population five times larger than Pakistan has almost the same population
of Muslims.[28]

Partition and dispute[edit]

British rule in India ended in 1947 with the creation of a new state: the Dominion of
Pakistan alongside the Union of India, the successor state to British India, while British
suzerainty over the 562 Indian princely states ended. According to the Indian Independence
Act 1947, "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all
treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty
and the rulers of Indian States".[29] States were thereafter left to choose whether to join
India or Pakistan or to remain independent. Jammu and Kashmir, the largest of the princely
states, had a predominantly Muslim population ruled by the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh.
Following partition, Pakistan had expected the annexation of Kashmir to its territory.

Hari Singh, the maharaja of Kashmir, initially believed that by delaying his decision 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, he signed an instrument of accession on 25 October
1947[30] to the Indian union. This was the 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.[31]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947[edit]

Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
After rumours that the Maharaja supported the annexation of Kashmir by India, militant
Muslims from western Kashmir[31] and Pakistani tribesmen made rapid advances into the
Baramulla sector. Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh asked the government of India to
intervene. However, India and Pakistan had signed a non-intervention agreement. Although
tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered Jammu and Kashmir, there was no solid legal
evidence to unequivocally prove that Pakistan was officially involved.[citation needed] 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.

By the time Pakistani tribesmen reached the outskirts of Srinagar, the Maharaja desperately
needed military assistance. Before the tribesmen's arrived, India argued that the Maharaja
must complete negotiations to cede Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for military
aid. The subsequent cession agreement was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten
of Burma.[1] In Jammu and Kashmir, National Conference volunteers worked with the
Indian Army to drive out the Pakistanis.[32]

The Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to India was accepted by Viceroy Louis

Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.
The resulting First Kashmir War lasted until 1948, when India sought resolution of the issue
at the UN Security Council. Sheikh Abdullah was not in favour of India seeking UN
intervention because he was sure the Indian Army could free the entire state from
invaders.[32] Following the set-up of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan
(UNCIP), the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948. The measure
imposed an immediate cease-fire and called on the Government of Pakistan 'to secure the
withdrawal from the state of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not
normally resident therein who have entered the state for the purpose of fighting.' It also
asked Government of India to reduce its forces to minimum strength, after which the
circumstances for holding a plebiscite should be put into effect 'on the question of Accession
of the state to India or Pakistan.'[33] However, both India and Pakistan failed to arrive at a
truce agreement due to differences over interpretation of the procedure for and the extent
of demilitarisation. One sticking point was whether the Azad Kashmiri army was to be
disbanded during the truce stage or at the plebiscite stage.[34]

In November 1948, although both the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the
plebiscite, the failure of Pakistan to withdraw its troops from Kashmir was a violation of the
agreed conditions for holding it and the process stalled.[35] Furthermore, the Indian
Government distanced itself from its previous commitment to hold a plebiscite.[35] India
then proposed that Pakistan withdraw all its troops first, calling it a precondition for a
plebiscite. Pakistan rejected the proposal on the grounds that the Kashmiris would be
unable to vote freely in the presence of the Indian army and in the light of the friendship
between Sheikh Abdullah and Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. However, Pakistan
proposed simultaneous withdrawal of all troops followed by a plebiscite under international
aegis, which India rejected.[36] As a result Pakistani forces did not unilaterally
withdraw.[37] Over the next few years, the UN Security Council passed four new
resolutions, revising the terms of Resolution 47 to include a synchronous withdrawal of both
Indian and Pakistani troops from the region on the recommendations of General Andrew
McNaughton. To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the
demilitarisation of the region. All of these were accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the
Indian government.[38] The resolutions were passed by the United Nations Security Council
under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter[39] and as such are considered non-binding
with no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[40]

Sino-Indian War[edit]
Main article: Sino-Indian War
In 1962, troops from the People's Republic of China and India clashed in territory claimed
by both. China won a swift victory in the war, resulting in Chinese annexation of the region
they call Aksai Chin and which has continued since then. Another smaller area, the Trans-
Karakoram, was demarcated as the Line of Control (LOC) between China and Pakistan,
although some of the territory on the Chinese side is claimed by India to be part of Kashmir.
The line that separates India from China in this region is known as the "Line of Actual
Control".[41]

1965 and 1971 wars[edit]

Main articles: Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and 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 the Pakistani military's
surrender in East Pakistan, leading to the creation of Bangladesh. The Simla Agreement,
signed in 1972 between India and Pakistan, allowed both countries to settle all issues by
peaceful means through mutual discussion within the framework of the UN Charter.

1989 popular insurgency and militancy[edit]

Main article: Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
“ In the years since 1990, the Kashmiri Muslims and the Indian government have conspired
to abolish the complexities of Kashmiri civilization. The world it inhabited has vanished: the
state government and the political class, the rule of law, almost all the Hindu inhabitants of
the valley, alcohol, cinemas, cricket matches, picnics by moonlight in the saffron fields,
schools, universities, an independent press, tourists and banks. In this reduction of civilian
reality, the sights of Kashmir are redefined: not the lakes and Mogul gardens, or the storied
triumphs of Kashmiri agriculture, handicrafts and cookery, but two entities that confront
each other without intermediary: the mosque and the army camp. ”
— British journalist James Buchan[42]
In 1989, a widespread popular and armed insurgency[43][44] started in Kashmir. After the
1987 state legislative assembly election, some of the results were disputed. This resulted in
the formation of militant wings and marked the beginning of the Mujahadeen insurgency,
which continues to this day.[45] India contends that the insurgency was largely started by
Afghan mujahadeen who entered the Kashmir valley following the end of the Soviet-Afghan
War.[46] Yasin Malik, a leader of one faction of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, was
one of the Kashmiris to organise militancy in Kashmir, along with Ashfaq Majid Wani and
Farooq Ahmad Dar (alias Bitta Karatay). Since 1995, Malik has renounced the use of
violence and calls for strictly peaceful methods to resolve the dispute. Malik developed
differences with one of the senior leaders, Farooq Siddiqui (alias Farooq Papa), for shunning
demands for an independent Kashmir and trying to cut a deal with the Indian Prime
Minister. This resulted in a spilt in which Bitta Karatay, Salim Nanhaji, and other senior
comrades joined Farooq Papa.[47][48] Pakistan claims these insurgents are Jammu and
Kashmir citizens, and are rising up against the Indian army as part of an independence
movement. Amnesty International has accused security forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir
of exploiting the Public Safety Act that enables them to "hold prisoners without trial". The
group argues that the law, which allows security forces to detain individuals for up to two
years without presenting charges violates prisoners' human rights.[49][50] In 2011, the
state humans right commission said it had evidence that 2,156 bodies had been buried in
40 graves over the last 20 years.[50] The authorities deny such accusations. The security
forces say the unidentified dead are militants who may have originally come from outside
India. They also say that many of the missing people have crossed into Pakistan-
administered Kashmir to engage in militancy.[50] However, according to the state human
rights commission, among the identified bodies 574 were those of "disappeared locals", and
according to Amnesty International's annual human rights report (2012) it was sufficient for
"belying the security forces' claim that they were militants".[51]

India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered
Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir a part of Pakistan.[50][52]
They claim Pakistan supplies munitions to the terrorists and trains them in Pakistan. India
states that the terrorists have killed many citizens in Kashmir and committed human rights
violations whilst denying that their own armed forces are responsible for human rights
abuses. On a visit to Pakistan in 2006, current Chief Minister of Kashmir Omar Abdullah
remarked that foreign militants were engaged in reckless killings and mayhem in the name
of religion.[53] The Indian government has said militancy is now on the decline.[when?][12]

The Pakistani government calls these insurgents "Kashmiri freedom fighters", and claims
that it provides them only moral and diplomatic support, although India[54] believes they
are Pakistan-supported terrorists from Pakistan Administered Kashmir. In October 2008,
President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan called the Kashmir separatists "terrorists" in an
interview with The Wall Street Journal.[55] These comments sparked outrage amongst
many Kashmiris, some of whom defied a curfew imposed by the Indian army to burn him in
effigy.[56]

In 2008, pro-separatist leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq told the Washington Post that there has
been a "purely indigenous, purely Kashmiri"[11] peaceful protest movement alongside the
insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir since 1989. The movement was created for the
same reason as the insurgency and began after the disputed election of 1987. According to
the United Nations, the Kashmiris have grievances with the Indian government, specifically
the Indian Military, which has committed human rights violations, .[11][12][57]

1999 Conflict in Kargil[edit]

Location of conflict.
Main article: Kargil War
In mid-1999, insurgents and Pakistani soldiers from Pakistani Kashmir infiltrated Jammu
and Kashmir. During the winter season, Indian forces regularly move down to lower
altitudes, as severe climatic conditions makes it almost impossible for them to guard the
high peaks near the Line of Control. The insurgents took advantage of this and occupied
vacant mountain peaks in the Kargil range overlooking the highway in Indian Kashmir that
connects Srinagar and Leh. By blocking the highway, they could cut off the only link
between the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. This resulted in a large-scale conflict between the
Indian and Pakistani armies.

Fears of the Kargil War turning into a nuclear war provoked the then-United States
President Bill Clinton to pressure Pakistan to retreat. The Pakistan Army withdrew their
remaining troops from the area, ending the conflict. India reclaimed control of the peaks,
which they now patrol and monitor all year long.

2000s Al-Qaeda involvement[edit]

Main article: Al-Qaeda
See also: Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden
In a 'Letter to American People' written by Osama bin Laden in 2002, he stated that one of
the reasons he was fighting America was because of its support for India on the Kashmir
issue.[58][59] While on a trip to Delhi in 2002, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
suggested that Al-Qaeda was active in Kashmir, though he did not have any hard
evidence.[60][61] An investigation by a Christian Science Monitor reporter in 2002 claimed
to have unearthed evidence that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates were prospering in Pakistan-
administered Kashmir with tacit approval of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency
(ISI).[62] In 2002, a team comprising Special Air Service and Delta Force personnel was
sent into Indian-administered Kashmir to hunt for Osama bin Laden after reports that he
was being sheltered by the Kashmiri militant group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen.[63] US officials
believed that Al-Qaeda was helping organise a campaign of terror in Kashmir to provoke
conflict between India and Pakistan. Their strategy was to force Pakistan to move its troops
to the border with India, thereby relieving pressure on Al-Qaeda elements hiding in
northwestern Pakistan. US intelligence analysts say Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives in
Pakistan-administered Kashmir are helping terrorists trained in Afghanistan to infiltrate
Indian-administered Kashmir.[64] Fazlur Rehman Khalil, the leader of the Harkat-ul-
Mujahideen, signed al-Qaeda's 1998 declaration of holy war, which called on Muslims to
attack all Americans and their allies.[65] In 2006 Al-Qaeda claim they have established a
wing in Kashmir, which worried the Indian government.[66] Indian Army Lieutenant General
H.S. Panag, GOC-in-C Northern Command, told reporters that the army has ruled out the
presence of Al-Qaeda in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. He said that there no
evidence to verify media reports of an Al-Qaeda presence in the state. He ruled out Al-
Qaeda ties with the militant groups in Kashmir including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-
Mohammed. However, he stated that they had information about Al Qaeda's strong ties with
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed operations in Pakistan.[67] While on a visit to
Pakistan in January 2010, US Defense secretary Robert Gates stated that Al-Qaeda was
seeking to destabilise the region and planning to provoke a nuclear war between India and
Pakistan.[68]

In June 2011, a US Drone strike killed Ilyas Kashmiri, chief of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, a
Kashmiri militant group associated with Al-Qaeda.[69][70] Kashmiri was described by Bruce
Riedel as a 'prominent' Al-Qaeda member,[71] while others described him as the head of
military operations for Al-Qaeda.[72] Waziristan had by then become the new battlefield for
Kashmiri militants fighting NATO in support of Al-Qaeda.[73] Ilyas Kashmiri was charged by
the US in a plot against Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper at the center of the Jyllands-
Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[74] In April 2012, Farman Ali Shinwari a former
member of Kashmiri separatist groups Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami,
was appointed chief of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.[75]

Reasons behind the dispute[edit]

The Kashmir Conflict arose from the Partition of British India in 1947 into modern India and
Pakistan. Both countries subsequently made claims to Kashmir, based on the history and
religious affiliations of the Kashmiri people. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which
lies strategically in the north-west of the subcontinent bordering Afghanistan and China,
was formerly ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh under the paramountcy of British India. In
geographical and legal terms, the Maharaja could have joined either of the two new
countries. Although urged by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, to determine the
future of his state before the transfer of power took place, Singh demurred. In October
1947, incursions by Pakistan took place leading to a war, as a result of which the state of
Jammu and Kashmir remains divided between India and Pakistan.

Administered by Area Population % Muslim % Hindu % Buddhist % Other

India Kashmir valley ~4 million 95% 4% – –
Jammu ~3 million 30% 66% – 4%
Ladakh ~0.25 million 46% – 50% 3%
Pakistan Gilgit-Baltistan ~1 million 99% – – –
Azad Kashmir ~2.6 million 100% – – –
China Aksai Chin – – – – –
Statistics from the BBC report "In Depth" *There are roughly 1.5 million refugees from
Indian-administered Kashmir in Pakistan administered Kashmir and Pakistan UNHCR
A minimum of 506,000 people in the Indian Administered Kashmir valley are internally
displaced due to militancy in Kashmir about half of who are Hindu pandits CIA
Muslims form the majority in the Poonch, Rajouri, Kishtwar, and Doda districts of the
Jammu region. Shia Muslims make up the majority in the Kargil district in the Ladakh
region.
India does not accept the two-nation theory and considers that Kashmir, despite being a
Muslim-majority state, is in many ways an "integral part" of secular India.[76] It is also
worth noting that India has a Muslim population close to 177 Million very close to Pakistan
which has a Muslim population of 178 Million.[28] In fact, as per 2001 Census Muslim
population in the State of Uttar Pradesh (in India) alone was around 30 million more than
Jammu & Kashmir which is at around 6 million.[77]
Two-thirds of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, comprising Jammu, the
Kashmir Valley, and the sparsely populated Buddhist area of Ladakh are controlled by India
while one-third is administered by Pakistan. The latter includes a narrow strip of land called
Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, comprising the Gilgit Agency, Baltistan, and the
former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar. Attempts to resolve the dispute through political
discussions have been unsuccessful. In September 1965, war again broke out between
Pakistan and India. The United Nations called for another cease-fire, and peace was
restored following the Tashkent Declaration in 1966, by which both nations returned to their
original positions along the demarcated line. After the 1971 war and the creation of
independent Bangladesh under the terms of the 1972 Simla Agreement between Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi of India and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan, it was agreed that neither
country would seek to alter the cease-fire line in Kashmir, which was renamed as the Line of
Control, "unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations".

Numerous violations of the Line of Control have occurred, including incursions by insurgents
and Pakistani armed forces at Kargil leading to the Kargil war. There have also been
sporadic clashes on the Siachen Glacier, where the Line of Control is not demarcated and
both countries maintain forces at altitudes rising to 20,000 ft (6,100 m), with the Indian
forces serving at higher altitudes.

Indian view[edit]

Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession in October 1947 under which he
acceded the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union of India.
India has officially stated that it believes that Kashmir to be an integral part of India,
though the then Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, stated after the 2010 Kashmir
Unrest that his government was willing to grant autonomy to the region within the purview
of Indian constitution if there was consensus[by whom?] on this issue.[78] The Indian
viewpoint is succinctly summarised by Ministry of External affairs, Government of
India[79][80] —

India holds that the Instrument of Accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the
Union of India, signed by Maharaja Hari Singh (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 25 October
1947[81][82] and executed on 27 October 1947[82] between the ruler of Kashmir and the
Governor General of India was a legal act and completely valid in terms of the Government
of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) as well as under international law and
as such was total and irrevocable.[80]
The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's
Instrument of Accession to India and adopted a constitution for the state that called for a
perpetual merger of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India. India claims that the
constituent assembly was a representative one, and that its views were those of the
Kashmiri people at the time.[83][84]
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all
outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute
through mutual dialogue without the need for a plebiscite.[85]
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan failed
to withdraw its forces from Kashmir, which was the first step in implementing the
resolution.[37] India is also of the view that Resolution 47 is obsolete, since the geography
and demographics of the region have permanently altered since it adoption.[86] The
resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United
Nations Charter and as such is non-binding with no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to
resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[39][40]
India does not accept the two-nation theory that forms the basis of Pakistan's claims and
considers that Kashmir, despite being a Muslim-majority state, is in many ways an "integral
part" of secular India.[76]
The state of Jammu and Kashmir was provided with significant autonomy under Article 370
of the Constitution of India.[87]
All differences between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir, need to be settled through
bilateral negotiations as agreed to by the two countries under the Simla Agreement signed
on 2 July 1972.[88]
Additional Indian viewpoints regarding the broader debate over the Kashmir conflict include
–

In a diverse country like India, disaffection and discontent are not uncommon. Indian
democracy has the necessary resilience to accommodate genuine grievances within the
framework of India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The Government of India has
expressed its willingness to accommodate the legitimate political demands of the people of
the state of Kashmir.[79]
Insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is deliberately fuelled by Pakistan to create instability
in the region.[89] The Government of India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of waging a
proxy war in Kashmir by providing weapons and financial assistance to terrorist groups in
the region.[90][91][92][93]
Pakistan is trying to raise anti-India sentiment among the people of Kashmir by spreading
false propaganda against India.[94] According to the state government of Jammu and
Kashmir, Pakistani radio and television channels deliberately spread "hate and venom"
against India to alter Kashmiri opinion.[95]
India has asked the United Nations not to leave unchallenged or unaddressed the claims of
moral, political, and diplomatic support for terrorism, which were clearly in contravention of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. This is a Chapter VII resolution that makes
it mandatory for member states to not provide active or passive support to terrorist
organisations.[96][97] Specifically, it has pointed out that the Pakistani government
continues to support various terrorist organisations, such as Jaish-e-Mohammad and
Lashkar-e-Taiba, in direct violation of this resolution.[98]
India points out reports by human rights organisations condemning Pakistan for the lack of
civic liberties in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[94][99] According to India, most regions of
Pakistani Kashmir, especially Northern Areas, continue to suffer from lack of political
recognition, economic development, and basic fundamental rights.[100]
Karan Singh, the son of the last ruler of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, has said
that the Instrument of Accession signed by his father was the same as signed by other
states. He opined that Kashmir was therefore a part of India, and that its special status
granted by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution stemmed from the fact that it had its own
constitution.[101]
In 2008, the death toll from the last 20 years was estimated by Indian authorities to be
over 47,000.[102]

Pakistani view[edit]

Map of Kashmir as drawn by the Government of Pakistan

Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is the "jugular vein of Pakistan"[103] and a currently
disputed territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir.
Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to
Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a
popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan maintains that
the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population.[104]

Pakistan claims that Indian forces were in Kashmir before the Instrument of Accession was
signed with India, and that therefore Indian troops were in Kashmir in violation of the
Standstill Agreement, which was designed to maintain the status quo in Kashmir (although
India was not signatory to the Agreement, which was signed between Pakistan and the
Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir).[105][106]

From 1990 to 1999, some organisations reported that the Indian Armed Forces, its
paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias were responsible for the deaths of 4,501
Kashmiri civilians. During the same period, there were records of 4,242 women between the
ages of 7–70 being raped.[107][108] Similar allegations were also made by some human
rights organisations.[109]

In short, Pakistan holds that –

The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to
remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that Kashmir either wants to be with
Pakistan or independent.[110]
According to the two-nation theory, one of the theories that is cited for the partition that
created India and Pakistan, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a
Muslim majority.
India has shown disregard for the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the United
Nations Commission in India and Pakistan by failing to hold a plebiscite to determine the
future allegiance of the state.[111]
Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian
Army, because it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a hereditary ruler and was
merely a British appointee, after the British defeated Ranjit Singh who ruled the area before
the British conquest.[112]
Pakistan has noted the widespread use of extrajudicial killings in Indian-administered
Kashmir carried out by Indian security forces while claiming they were caught up in
encounters with militants. These encounters are commonplace in Indian-administered
Kashmir. The encounters go largely uninvestigated by the authorities, and the perpetrators
are spared criminal prosecution.[113][114]
Human rights organisations have strongly condemned Indian troops for widespread rape
and murder of innocent civilians while accusing these civilians of being
militants.[115][116][117]

The Chenab formula was a compromise proposed in the 1960s, in which the Kashmir valley
and other Muslim-dominated areas north of the Chenab river would go to Pakistan, and
Jammu and other Hindu-dominated regions would go to India.[118]
Former Pakistani president General Pervez Musharraf on 16 October 2014 said that Pakistan
needs to incite those fighting in Kashmir,[119][120]“We have source (in Kashmir) besides
the (Pakistan) army…People in Kashmir are fighting against (India). We just need to incite
them,” Musharraf told a TV channel.[119][120]

A survey carried out across both Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir by
London-based thinktank Chatham House, its author claims 'is the first ever of its kind',
shows that only 2% of the respondents on the Indian side favour joining Pakistan.[121]

Chinese view[edit]
See also: Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute
China states that Aksai Chin is an integral part of China and does not recognise the inclusion
of Aksai Chin as part of the Kashmir region.[citation needed]

China did not accept the boundaries of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, north of
Aksai Chin and the Karakoram as proposed by the British.[31]
China settled its border disputes with Pakistan under the 1963 Trans Karakoram Tract with
the provision that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the Kashmir
dispute.[122]
Cross-border troubles[edit]
See also: Line of Control and Siachen Conflict
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,[123] India
maintains that it is infeasible to place enough men to guard all sections of the border
throughout the various seasons of the year. Pakistan has indirectly acquiesced its role in
failing to prevent "cross-border terrorism" when it agreed to curb such activities[124] after
intense pressure from the Bush administration in mid-2002.

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

In 2002, Pakistani President and Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf promised to check
infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir.[citation needed]

Water dispute[edit]
Another reason for the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the source of many rivers
and tributaries in the Indus River basin. This basin is divided between Pakistan, which has
about 60 percent of the catchment area, India with about 20 percent, Afghanistan with 5
percent and around 15 percent in China (Tibet autonomous region). The river tributaries are
the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which primarily flow into Pakistan, while other branches—the
Ravi, Beas, and the Sutlej—irrigate northern India.

The Indus is a river system that sustains communities in India and Pakistan. Both have
extensively dammed the Indus River for irrigation of their crops and hydro-electricity
systems. In arbitrating the conflict in 1947, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, decided to demarcate the
territories as he was unable to give to one or the other the control over the river as it was a
main economic resource for both areas. The Line of Control (LoC) was recognised as an
international border establishing that India would have control over the upper riparian and
Pakistan over the lower riparian of the Indus and its tributaries. Despite appearing to be
separate issues, the Kashmir dispute and the dispute over the water control are in reality
related and the fight over the water remains one of the main problems in establishing good
relations between the two countries.

In 1948, Eugene Black, then president of the World Bank, offered his services to solve the
tension over water control. In the early days of independence, the fact that India was able
to shut off the Central Bari Doab Canals at the time of the sowing season, causing
significant damage to Pakistan's crops. Nevertheless, military and political clashes over
Kashmir in the early years of independence appear to have been more about ideology and
sovereignty rather than over the sharing of water resources. However, the minister of
Pakistan has stated the opposite.[125]

The Indus Waters Treaty was signed by both countries in September 1960, giving exclusive
rights over the three western rivers of the Indus river system (Jhelum, Chenab and Indus)
to Pakistan, and over the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Ravi and Beas) to India, as long as
this does not reduce or delay the supply to Pakistan. India therefore maintains that they are
not willing to break the established regulations and they see no more problems with this
issue.
Pakistan's relation with militants[edit]
India has furnished documentary evidence to the United Nations that Pakistan supports
Kashmiri militants, leading to a ban on some terrorist organisations, which Pakistan has yet
to enforce.[citation needed] Former President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of the Pakistan
military Pervez Musharraf, stated in an interview in London, that the Pakistani government
indeed helped to form underground militant groups and "turned a blind eye" towards their
existence.[126]

According to former Indian Prime-minister Manmohan Singh, one of the main reasons
behind the conflict was Pakistan's "terror-induced coercion". He further stated at a Joint
Press Conference with United States President Barack Obama in New Delhi that India is not
afraid of resolving all the issues with Pakistan including that of Kashmir "but it is our
request that you cannot simultaneously be talking and at the same time the terror machine
is as active as ever before. Once Pakistan moves away from this terror-induced coercion, we
will be very happy to engage productively with Pakistan to resolve all outstanding
issues."[127]

In 2009, the President of Pakistan Asif Zardari asserted at a conference in Islamabad that
Pakistan had indeed created Islamic militant groups as a strategic tool for use in its
geostrategic agenda and "to attack Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir".[128] Former
President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of the Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf also stated
in an interview that Pakistani government helped to form underground militant groups to
fight against Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir and "turned a blind eye" towards their
existence because it wanted to force India to enter negotiations.[126] The British
Government have formally accepted that there is a clear connection between Pakistan's
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and three major militant outfits operating in Jammu and
Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen.[129][130] The
militants are provided with "weapons, training, advice and planning assistance" in Punjab
and Kashmir by the ISI which is "coordinating the shipment of arms from the Pakistani side
of Kashmir to the Indian side, where Muslim insurgents are waging a protracted
war".[131][132]

Throughout the 1990s, the ISI maintained its relationship with extremist networks and
militants that it had established during the Afghan war to utilise in its campaign against
Indian forces in Kashmir.[133] Joint Intelligence/North (JIN) has been accused of
conducting operations in Jammu and Kashmir and also Afghanistan.[134] The Joint Signal
Intelligence Bureau (JSIB) provide communications support to groups in Kashmir.[134]
According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, both former members of the National
Security Council, the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalising young men
in the Madrassas of Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by
Al-Qaeda and from there moving them into Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks.[135]

Reportedly, about Rs. 24 million are paid out per month by the ISI to fund its activities in
Jammu and Kashmir.[136] Pro-Pakistani groups were reportedly favoured over other
militant groups.[136] Creation of six militant groups in Kashmir, which included Lashkar-e-
Taiba (LeT), was aided by the ISI.[137][138] According to American Intelligence officials,
ISI is still providing protection and help to LeT.[138] The Pakistan Army and ISI also LeT
volunteers to surreptitiously penetrate from Pakistan Administrated Kashmir to Jammu and
Kashmir.