Kashmir Factsheet-Final-Complete Book

Kashmir Factsheet 1947-2021: The Indisputable Facts
© Islamabad Policy Research Institute

August 2021
All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-969-8721-82-4
E-ISBN 978-969-8721-81-7
Research Supervisors
Brig (Retd) Raashid Wali Janjua &
Ambassador (Retd) Asif Durrani
Research Team
Dr. Khurram Abbas, Gulshan Bibi,
Adeel Mukhtar Mirza & Hamzah Rifaat Hussain
Editor: Shamsa Nawaz

Assistant Editor: Ishtiaq Ali Mehkri
Graphic Designer/Curator
Saleha Sadaf
Acknowledgements
IPRI would like to sincerely thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), Government
of Pakistan; Survey of Pakistan; and the Research Society of International Law (RSIL),
Islamabad for facilitating this initiative and providing accurate and first-hand data.
All correspondence, including comments/queries on the published material may be

addressed to IPRI, through post or email at the following address:
Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)

Evacuee Trust Complex, 5th Floor
Sir Aga Khan Road, F-5/1, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Tel: (92 51) 9211346-49
Email: editor@ipripak.org
Printed by:
Abdul Manan Graphics
Blue Area, Islamabad
iii
ii
iii
CONTENTS Kashmir Factsheet 1947-2021: The Indisputable Facts
CONTENTS
Foreword i
Abbreviations iii
The Standstill Agreement 1
Genesis of Article 370 2
Why Article 370 matters to Kashmiris? 4
IIOJ&K Situation Since August 05 and Pakistan’s Diplomatic Efforts 6
United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) on J&K Dispute 11
Track II Initiatives/Dialogues between Pakistan & India 15
Major Political Parties of IIOJ&K 18
Mediation on Jammu & Kashmir Dispute (1947–2020) 19
i. Government-Level Initiatives 19
ii. UN Initiatives 20
iii. NGOs, Scholars and Security Experts-Led Initiatives 21
Indian Laws in Violation of International Human Rights Obligations in IIOJ&K 28
Human Rights Violations by Indian Occupied Forces in IIOJ&K 32
Political and Freedom Struggle of Kashmiris 36
International Perspective 52
I. Statements on Indian Human Rights Violation in IIOJ&K 68
Annexures
Annexure A: United Nations Security Council Resolutions 77
i. S/RES/38 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 83

ii. S/RES/39 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 84
iii. S/RES/47 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 85
iv. S/RES/51 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 90
v. S/RES/80 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 92
vi. S/RES/91 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 95
vii. S/RES/96 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 99
viii. S/RES/98 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 101
ii
ix. S/RES/122 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 103

x. S/RES/123 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 104
xi. S/RES/126 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 105
xii. S/RES/209 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 107
xiii. S/RES/210 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 108
xiv. S/RES/211 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 108
xv. S/RES/214 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 110
xvi. S/RES/215 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 110
xvii. S/RES/303 - ‘The Situation in the India/Pakistan Subcontinent’ 112
xviii. S/RES/307 - ‘The India/Pakistan Subcontinent’ 113
Annexure B: The McNaughton Proposal - 1949 115
Annexure C: The Owen Dixon Report - 1950 121
Annexure D: Statement of the President of the Security Council at the 1117th Meeting
of the Security Council (1964) Summarising the Conclusion of the
Debate on Kashmir 153
Annexure E: Bilateral Agreements 157
i. The Karachi Agreement 1949 159

ii. The Tashkent Declaration 1966 165
iii. The Simla Agreement 1972 169
iv. The Lahore Declaration 1999 172
Annexure F: Letter of Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations 2019 175
Annexure G: IHL Violations Committed by India in IIOJ&K 183
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: August 5, 2019 IIOJ&K Status 6

Table 2: Jammu and Kashmir: UN Security Council Resolutions 11
Table 3: Pak-India Track II Initiatives/Dialogues 15
Table 4: Major Political Parties of IIOJ&K 18
Table 5: Peace Proposals for Jammu & Kashmir Dispute
Table 6: Bilateral Track 23
Table 7: Indian Laws in Violation of International Human Rights
Obligations in IIOJ&K 28
Table 8: Indian Atrocities in Jammu & Kashmir (Jan. 1989-Sep.2016) 32
Table 9: Indian Atrocities in Jammu & Kashmir (Jan.-Sep.2020) 34
Table 10: Extrajudicial Killings in Jammu & Kashmir (2008-19) 35
FOREWORD
Jammu & Kashmir dispute is a primary bone of contention between

Pakistan and India since 1947. After two wars – 1948 and 1965 – and
continual standoffs, the future of Jammu & Kashmir remains in limbo.
Abrogation of Article 370 and 35-A has further complicated the
situation. Since August 5, 2019, Indian security forces have put
Kashmiris in a state of military siege. The Kashmir dispute is a United
Nations’ (UN) recognised dispute between India and Pakistan, which
no amount of Indian attempts to obfuscate the facts could relegate to
sidelines. In order to provide research community as well as common
people interested in getting a comprehensive picture of all important
events, including UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, attempts of
international mediation, Track-II initiatives and bilateral conflict
resolution attempts, the need for a ready reckoner was felt. The short
compendium of facts germane to the dispute starting from its inception
to post August 5 developments is expected to act as a useful primer for
all those who wish to consult the essential facts in a single volume. The
first edition was published in September 2020. A need was felt to update
the first edition and necessary changes have been accordingly added in
this latest edition to make the Factsheet comprehensive and updated.
Brig (Retd) Raashid Wali Janjua, SI (M)

Acting President IPRI
i
iv
ABBREVIATIONS
AII Australia India Institute
APDP Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BJP Bharatiya Janata Party
CBMs Confidence Building Measures
HRC Human Rights Council
HRW Human Rights Watch
IIOJ&K Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
MEPs Members of the European Parliament
JKLF Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front
JKCCS Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society
NC Jammu & Kashmir National Conference
J&K Jammu & Kashmir
JKPC Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference
PDP Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party
JRP Jammu Republic Party
KIIs Key Informant Interviews
LoC Line of Control
iii
MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NDPI National Democratic Party (Indian)
OIC Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
OIC-IPHRC OIC’s Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission
PIPFPD Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy
POTA Prevention of Terrorism Act
RCSS Regional Centre for Strategic Studies
RSS Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
TADA Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
UN United Nations
UNCAT UN Convention against Torture
UNCIP United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan
UNSC UN Security Council
UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolutions
UNMOGIP United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan
iv
THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT1
Identical telegrams were sent by the Prime Minister of Kashmir to Dominions of India and
Pakistan on August 12, 1947.
Telegram from the Prime Minister of Kashmir addressed to Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, States
Relations Department, Government of Pakistan, August 12, 1947:
Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreements

with Pakistan on all matters on which there exists at present moment
with outgoing British India Government. It is suggested that existing
arrangements should continue pending settlement of details and formal
execution of fresh agreements.
Reply from Government of Pakistan addressed to the Prime Minister of Kashmir, August 15,
1947:
Your telegram of the 12th. The Government of Pakistan agrees to have a

Standstill Agreement with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir for
the continuance of the existing arrangements pending settlement of
details and formal execution of fresh agreements.
Reply from Government of India:
Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister duly

authourised in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill
Agreement between Kashmir Government and India Dominion. Early
action desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and administrative
arrangements.
The representative of Kashmir did not visit Delhi and no Standstill Agreement was concluded
between the State and the Dominion of India.
1
Qaiser Javed Mian, “Resolving Kashmir Dispute under International Law,” Punjab Judicial Academy,
accessed August 31, 2020,
http://www.pja.gov.pk/system/files/Resolving_Kashmir_Dispute_Under_International_Law.pdf.
1
GENESIS OF ARTICLE 370 AND ARTICLE 35-A
Shortly after the partition of the subcontinent, Article 370 was included in the Constitution of
India in order to give autonomy to the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). As
part of the Indian Constitution by the Indian Constituent Assembly, the Article was approved on
November 26, 1949.2 Constitutionally, Article 370 accepted J&K’s special status allowing the
princely state to ‘enact its laws in all matters except defence, foreign affairs, finance and
communications.’3 Under this Article, J&K could formulate a separate constitution and have its
own flag. The Article barred citizens, other than those of Kashmiri origin, from buying land and
obtaining domicile of the princely state. Though it was meant to be an interim Article, its text
clearly stated that it:
…may only be abrogated if its detractors can garner sufficient

political support in the form of a constituent assembly.4
In 1957, however, the legislative body dissolved itself and the Supreme Court of India ruled in
2017 that Article 370 is, therefore, an unalterable part of the Indian Constitution. Later in 2018,
the Supreme Court of India gave a ruling that:
Article 370 could not be abrogated because the state-level body

that would have to approve the change went out of existence in
1957.5
According to A.G. Noorani, ‘Article 35-A was made part of the Constitution of India in 1954
through a Presidential order.’6 This Article further simplified the legal and constitutional clauses
2
India.gov.in, “The Constitution of India,” accessed September 11, 2020, https://www.india.gov.in/my-
government/constitution-india.
3
“Full Text of Document on Govt.’s Rationale behind Removal of Special Status to J&K,” Hindu, August
6, 2019, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/full-text-of-document-on-govts-rationale-behind-
removal-of-special-status-to-jk/article28821368.ece.
4
Balu G. Nair, “Abrogation of Article 370: Can the President Act without the Recommendation of the
Constituent Assembly?” Indian Law Review 3, no. 3 (2019): 254-279 (254),
https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2019.1700592.
5
Dhananjay Mahapatra, “Article 370 has Acquired Permanent Status: Supreme Court,” Times of India,
April 4, 2018, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/article-370-has-acquired-permanent-status-
supreme-court/articleshow/63603527.cms.
6
A. G. Noorani, “Article 35-A,” Dawn, August 11, 2018, https://www.dawn.com/news/1426344.
2
of Article 370 and constitutional status of J&K. It allowed the Constituent Assembly of J&K to
interpret the definition regarding the permanent citizens of the former princely state. It also
forbade non-Kashmiri citizens from ‘buying land, settling permanently, holding local government
jobs’ and securing academic scholarships on the state’s quota. 7
Article-35-A, known as the
‘Permanent Residents Law’, also barred female residents of the occupied territory from ‘property
rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision was also
extended to such women’s children.’8
On August 5, 2019, as promised in its 2019 re-election campaign, the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) - the current ruling political party of India - abolished the existing special status of Jammu
& Kashmir and revoked Article 370 in the Upper House of Parliament through a Presidential
Order. On the same day, a ‘Reorganization Bill’ was passed to administratively bifurcate the state
into two (federal) Union territories – one to be called ‘Jammu and Kashmir’ to have a state
legislature; and the other ‘Ladakh’ to be ‘ruled directly from New Delhi.’9 Subsequently, on
August 6, 2019, India’s Lower House of Parliament passed the Bill and recommended the
revocation. This was followed by accession of ‘The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act,
2019’ by the President of India on August 9, 2019.10 Through its ‘steady plotting’,11 the BJP
government applied the entire Constitution of India on IIOJ&K. The revocation of Article 370
implied that its subset Article 35-A is also annulled. By revoking Article 370, India has shown its
stringent stance on the dispute.
7
“Kashmir Special Status Explained: What Are Articles 370 and 35A?” Al Jazeera, August 5, 2019,
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-
190805054643431.html.
8
Ministry of Law and Justice, The Constitution (Application to the Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019,
G.S.R. 551 (E) (Notified on August 5, 2019), http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210049.pdf.
9
John Lunn, “Kashmir: The Effects of Revoking Article 370,” House of Commons Library, August 8,
2019, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/world-affairs/asia/kashmir-the-effects-of-revoking-article-
370/.
10
The Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019,
http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210407.pdf. The same was notified as the final Act on
October 31, 2019.
11
Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj, Kai Schultz and Hari Kumar, “India Revokes Kashmir’s Special Status,
Raising Fears of Unrest,” New York Times, August 5, 2019,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-jammu.html.
3
WHY ARTICLE 370 MATTERS TO KASHMIRIS?
The abrogation of Article 370 and 35-A has legal and political dimensions. On the legal front, the
actions have obliterated the political rights of Kashmiri Muslims. The move has also led to a
collapse of bilateral agreements on the IIOJ&K dispute between Pakistan and India.12 The Simla
Agreement and Lahore Declaration have been superseded.
On August 16, 2019, the UN Security Council discussed:
…..the volatile situation surrounding Kashmir… addressing

the issue in a meeting focused solely on the dispute, within
the UN body dedicated to resolving matters of international
peace and security, for the first time since 1965.
This is the strongest indicator of the clear and present danger of India as a violator of its
international obligations.
These illegal steps by India were taken unilaterally without the consent of Kashmiris. The
immediate reaction was anger from the locals. Mass protests broke out against the unlawful
amendments. To push back opposition and continue with its unconstitutional plans, the Indian
government used force against the Kashmiris, and stationed additional troops in Jammu and
Kashmir putting restrictions on communication channels (telephones lines, mobile and internet
connections) and movement. The political say of Kashmiris has essentially been curtailed.
Politically, the decision is also in line with New Delhi’s anti-Muslim rhetoric.13 It has forcefully
annexed IIOJ&K and is taking measures towards the territory’s assimilation. With 35-A revoked,
the restrictions on buying property in the Valley no longer exist. It has opened the area for non-
Kashmiris, in particular Hindus, to settle in the disputed territory. This a clear sign of forceful
occupation of Jammu and Kashmir by India.
12
M. Ashfaque Arain, “Implications of Abrogation of Article 370,” Nation, August 17, 2019,
https://nation.com.pk/17-Aug-2019/implications-of-abrogation-of-article-370.
13
Lunn, “Kashmir: The Effects of Revoking Article 370.”
4
In order to implement ‘The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019’, New Delhi
promulgated the ‘Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2020’ on
October 30, 2019;14 and then the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws)
Order, 2020 on March 31, 2020.15 This Order altered the definition of ‘permanent resident’,
which now enables India to settle over 2.5 million non-Kashmiri Indians in the region.16 The
Order has also amended ‘The Jammu And Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and
Recruitment) Act (Act No. XVI of 2010)’ to install bureaucrats of Indian origin in the disputed
region. The ultimate objective of such efforts by the Modi-led BJP has been to consolidate power
and control over Jammu and Kashmir’s disputed territory.
14
Ministry of Home Affairs, S.O. 3912 (E) (Notified on October 30, 2019),
http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/213522.pdf.
15
Ministry of Home Affairs, S.O. 1229 (E) (Notified on March 31, 2020),
http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2020/218978.pdf.
16
Hakeem Irfan Rashid, “Central Government Defines Domicile for J&K; Those Who Have Lived in UT
for 15 Years, Registered Migrants & Students,” Economic Times, April 1, 2020,
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/central-govt-defines-domicile-for-jk-
those-who-have-lived-in-ut-for-15-yrs-registered-migrants-students/articleshow/74923952.cms.
5
IIOJ&K Situation Since August 05 and Pakistan’s Diplomatic Efforts
Table 1: August 5, 2019 IIOJ&K Status
Before After
Article 370 granted special status to the State of J&K divided into centrally
state of J&K governed Union territories (Ladakh and
J&K)
J&K residents had dual citizenship of India J&K residents are only Indian citizens
and Kashmir
Kashmir was allowed to have its own Kashmir no longer has a separate
Constitution Constitution
Non-residents of J&K could not settle Any Indian can settle permanently in the
permanently in the state nor acquire state
immovable property
Centre’s authority was limited to finance, Centre is responsible for all matters,
defence, foreign affairs and communication including administrative and local
legislations
J&K had a separate flag J&K is forced to use the Indian flag
Article 360 was not applicable in J&K Centre can declare a financial emergency
under Article 360 in J&K
Tenure for State Assembly was 6 years Tenure for Union Territory Assembly is 5
years
Source: IPRI compilation.
6
Pakistan’s Diplomatic Efforts
Central to highlighting the illegal Indian occupation of Jammu and Kashmir are sustained
diplomatic efforts by Pakistan since the 5th August revocation of Article 370 and 35-A of the
Indian Constitution which had granted the disputed territory special status. IPRI conducted two
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with the Director General of the Kashmir Affairs Division; and
the Director of the Kashmir Cell at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) to gain understanding
of the progress and challenges to Pakistan’s Kashmir diplomacy.
The Director General of the Kashmir Affairs Division highlighted that Pakistan has garnered
considerable diplomatic force since August 5, 2019, with efforts being multifaceted and dynamic.
China’s involvement in the IIOJ&K dispute17 also dealt a severe blow to India’s credibility
internationally which has indirectly benefitted Pakistan.18
The Director of the Kashmir Cell at MoFA hailed diplomatic efforts by citing how the
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has finally called for a resolution of the Jammu and
Kashmir dispute in accordance with the UNSC resolutions.19 In an official Press release dated
May 19, 2020, the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) of the OIC
condemned and rejected the
….Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Domicile Certificate (Procedure) Rules, 2020’

which spells out new domicile rules causing ‘demographic flooding’ of non-
natives in the IoJ&K. While the world is striving to fight a global pandemic of
Covid-19, India has mischievously used the opportunity to illegally alter the
demographic composition of Muslim majority in IOJ&K.20
17
UN News, “UN Security Council Discusses Kashmir, China Urges India and Pakistan to Ease Tensions,”
August 16, 2019, https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/08/1044401. ‘Pakistan requested the Security
Council meeting on August 13, 2019 and it was subsequently called for by Permanent Member, China.’
18
(Director General of Kashmir Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs) in discussion with Hamzah Rifaat
Hussain and Gulshan Bibi, July 14, 2020.
19
(Director of the Kashmir Cell, Ministry of Foreign Affairs), in discussion with Hamzah Rifaat Hussain
and Gulshan Bibi, July 14, 2020.
20
Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) of The Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC), “OIC-IPHRC Squarely Rejects the Indian Government’s Illegal Actions to Alter the
Demographic Status of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IoJ&K) as Violative of OIC and UN
7
Pakistan has ardently called for the implementation of UNSC resolutions on IIOJ&K and
advocated for the inalienable right of the Kashmiris towards their just right to self-determination
by holding UN-supervised plebiscite. The Kashmir Cell at MoFA and its legal division, along
with the role played by the Pakistani media, is the key towards putting sustained pressure on New
Delhi. 600-800 articles have been published since August 5, 2019, on the issue; with over 1,000
protests staged across the world till February 2020 against Indian brutalities. 21 The Prime
Minister of Pakistan’s op-ed ‘The World Can’t Ignore Kashmir. We Are All in Danger’ in New
York Times on August 30, 2019,22 translated into several languages, is evidence of how the
Kashmir message has been disseminated widely. 23
Pakistan’s diplomatic success is also due to Islamabad’s ability to ‘internationalise’ the Kashmir
dispute, with the international media echoing its narrative and questioning the legality of
unilateralism, the Hindutva/ Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideology being perpetrated in
Jammu & Kashmir with gross human rights violations taking place unabatedly.
From the Human Rights Watch (HRW)24 to United States Congressional letters25 and
Security Council Resolutions and International Human Rights/Humanitarian Laws,” May 19, 2020,
https://www.oic-iphrc.org/En/web/index.php/site/view_news/?id=453.
21
(Director of the Kashmir Cell, Ministry of Foreign Affairs) in discussion with Hamzah Rifaat Hussain
and Gulshan Rafique, July 14, 2020.
22
Imran Khan, “Imran Khan: The World Can’t Ignore Kashmir. We Are All in Danger,” New York Times,
August 30, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/opinion/imran-khan-kashmir-pakistan.html.
23
24
Meenakshi Ganguly, “India Failing on Kashmiri Human Rights,” Human Rights Watch, January 17,
2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/17/india-failing-kashmiri-human-rights.
25
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, United States Congress, “Jammu and Kashmir in Context,
Letter to Ambassador Harsh Vardhan Shringla (October 24, 2019),” accessed September 1, 2020,
https://humanrightscommission.house.gov/sites/humanrightscommission.house.gov/files/documents/Cicil
line%20Letter%20to%20Ambassador%20Shringla%2010.24.19.pdf; Tom Lantos Human Rights
Commission, United States Congress, “Jammu and Kashmir in Context, Letter from Rep. John Lewis to
Secretary of State Pompeo (November 14, 2019),” accessed September 1, 2020,
https://humanrightscommission.house.gov/sites/humanrightscommission.house.gov/files/documents/201
91114_ToPompeoFrRepJohnLewis.pdf; Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, United States
Congress, “Jammu and Kashmir in Context, Letter from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to President Trump
(September 16, 2019),” accessed September 1, 2020,
90916_ToTrumpFrRepJacksonLee.pdf; Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, United States
8
hearings26 to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) members bringing the gravity of the situation to the world stage27 are examples
of Pakistan’s tireless and relentless diplomatic efforts in highlighting the plight of the Kashmiris.
The discussions at both formal and informal sessions at the 42nd (September 9-27, 2019) 28, 43rd
(February 25, 2020) 29 and 44th sessions (June 30-July 21, 2020) of the UN Human Rights Council
Congress, “Jammu and Kashmir in Context, Letter from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to Secretary of State
Pompeo (September 16, 2019),” accessed September 1, 2020,
90916_ToPompeoFrRepJacksonLee.pdf; Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, United States
Congress, “Jammu and Kashmir in Context, Letter from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to Prime Minister Modi
(September 22, 2019),” accessed September 1, 2020,
90922_ToModiFrRepJacksonLee.pdf; Servet Günerigök, “US Senators Request Assessment on Kashmir
issue,” Anadolu Agency, February 13, 2020, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-senators-request-
assessment-on-kashmir-issue/1732529; Dear Colleague, “Stand Up for Human Rights, Peace, and
Democracy in Kashmir,” accessed September 1, 2020, http://dearcolleague.us/2019/09/co-sign-letter-
stand-up-for-human-rights-peace-and-democracy-in-kashmir-2/; “US Congress Members Writes Letter
to UN over Kashmir Situation,” 92 News HD, September 24, 2019, https://92newshd.tv/us-congress-
members-writes-letter-to-un-over-kashmir-situation/#.X0tXsXkvPIU; and Aisha Mahmood, “US
Congress Members Demand Answers from Indian Ambassador Regarding Kashmir,” Business Recorder,
October 26, 2019, https://www.brecorder.com/2019/10/26/538234/us-congress-members-demand-
answers-from-indian-ambassador-regarding-kashmir/.
26
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, United States Congress, “Jammu and Kashmir in Context,”
accessed September 1, 2020, https://humanrightscommission.house.gov/events/hearings/jammu-and-
kashmir-context.
27
Riyaz ul Khaliq, “UK MPs: ‘Kashmir is an International Issue,’”Anadolu Agency, June 4, 2020,
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/uk-mps-kashmir-is-an-international-issue/1865246; Permanent Mission
of Pakistan to the United Nations & Other International Organizations, “42nd Session of Human Rights
Council. Statement by Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). General Debate on the Report of the
High Commissioner,” September 10, 2019, http://pakistanmission-un.org/?p=3022#_ftnref1; “Kashmir
under Double Lockdown despite EU Protests,” Brussels Times, June 15, 2020,
https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/116950/kashmir-under-double-lockdown-despite-eu-
protests/; and “ASEAN MPs Term Kashmir a Global Dispute,” Nation, November 6, 2019,
https://nation.com.pk/06-Nov-2019/asean-mps-term-kashmir-a-global-dispute.
28
Michelle Bachelet, “Global Update at the 42nd Session of the Human Rights Council” (speech, Geneva,
September 9, 2019), United Nations Human Rights Council,
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=24956&LangID=E; and
Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations & Other International Organizations, “Right of
Reply-General Debate-Agenda Item 2-42nd Session of the Human Rights Council-10 September 2019,”
September 10, 2019, http://pakistanmission-un.org/?p=3032.
29
Shireen M. Mazari, “Statement by Dr. Shireen M. Mazari, Minister for Human Rights, Pakistan at the
High-Level Segment of the 43rd Session of the Human Rights Council” (speech, Geneva, February 25,
2020), Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations & Other International Organizations,
http://pakistanmission-un.org/?p=3100.
9
(HRC) including virtual meetings (April 9, 2020)30 and statements on behalf of the OIC31 ‘further
reaffirms validity of UN resolutions on the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination through an
impartial plebiscite.’32
On the domestic front, the Inter-Parliamentary Forum has been vociferously denouncing India’s
unilateral actions. However, a major setback to Pakistan’s sustained diplomatic pressure has been
the onset of the global COVID-19 pandemic.33
Diplomatic efforts have not translated into concrete sanctions against India not
because of shortcomings but due to Pakistan following an incremental approach
towards dealing with the issue with the ultimate aim of ensuring that a tangible
impact on long-term policymaking on Kashmir is ensured. India is
diplomatically on the defensive as it continues to explain its position on IIOJ&K
internationally. New Delhi has so far failed in its strategy to isolate Pakistan at
multilateral forums. Our main challenge is to counter India’s economic clout in
the Western world alongside fighting misinformation through building a robust
narrative that has strategic resonance. 34
30
Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations & Other International Organizations, “Human
Rights Council Briefed on Attempts by India to Alter Demography in the Occupied Jammu and
Kashmir,” press release, April 9, 2020, http://pakistanmission-un.org/?p=3154.
31
Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations & Other International Organizations, “42nd
Session of Human Rights Council-Statement by Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)-General
Debate on the Report of the High Commissioner-10 September 2019,” September 10, 2019,
http://pakistanmission-un.org/?p=3040; and IPHRC-OIC, “OIC-IPHRC Squarely Rejects the Indian
Government’s Illegal Actions to Alter the Demographic Status of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir
(IoJ&K)...”
32
Shah Mahmood Qureshi (@SMQureshiPTI), Twitter page, August 5, 2020,
https://twitter.com/SMQureshiPTI/status/1291063203762524160.
33
34
Ibid.
10
UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS ON JAMMU AND KASHMIR

DISPUTE (1948-71)
Given below is the complete list of UNSC resolutions on the Kashmir dispute from 1948-71 (see
Annexure A for complete text of each) and their brief summary as provided on the UN Security
Council Report web portal:
Table 2: Jammu and Kashmir: UN Security Council Resolutions
No. Date UNSC Brief Summary

Resolutions
1 17 January 1948 S/RES/38 This was the first resolution on the India-Pakistan
Question, which called on India and Pakistan to take
measures to improve the situation in Kashmir and to
refrain from doing anything that would aggravate it.
2 20 January 1948 S/RES/39 This resolution set up the UN Commission for India
and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate the dispute
between the two countries over Kashmir and
exercise ‘mediatory influence’.
3 21 April 1948 S/RES/47 This resolution enlarged the membership of UNCIP
and recommended measures that would bring about
a cessation of the fighting and create the proper
conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to
decide whether the State of J&K would accede to
India or Pakistan.
4 3 June 1948 S/RES/51 This resolution directed the Commission to proceed
to the areas of dispute without delay ‘with a view to
accomplishing in priority the duties assigned to it by
resolution 47.’
5 14 March 1950 S/RES/80 This resolution called on both India and Pakistan to
execute a programme of demilitarisation and
terminated UNCIP.
6 30 March 1951 S/RES/91 This resolution decided that UNMOGIP would
continue to supervise the ceasefire in Kashmir with
a mandate to observe and report, investigate
complaints of ceasefire violations and submit its
finding to each party and to the Secretary-General.35
35
This resolution made it clear that ‘final disposition of the state of J&K will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the demographic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the UN.’ The same Resolution further affirmed that ‘the convening of a
11
7 10 November 1951 S/RES/96 This resolution concerned the report of the UN

Representative on India and Pakistan and on efforts
to establish a plan for the demilitarisation. Both
India and Pakistan were recognised for their
declaration of working for a peaceful settlement,
continuation to observe a ceasefire, and their
acceptance of the principle that the accession of the
State of J&K should be determined by a free and
impartial plebiscite under the UN auspices.
8 23 December 1952 S/RES/98 This resolution urged India and Pakistan to begin
immediate negotiations under the auspices of the
UN Representative for India and Pakistan in order
to reach an agreement on the specific number of
troops.
9 24 January 1957 S/RES/122 This resolution concerned the dispute between India
and Pakistan over the territories of Jammu and
Kashmir.36
10 21 February 1957 S/RES/123 This resolution concerned the dispute between India
Kashmir. 37
11 2 December 1957 S/RES/126 This resolution concerned the dispute between India
Kashmir. 38
Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Counsel of the “All Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference” and any – assembly might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the
entire state or any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the state in accordance with the
above principle.’ In its decision under Resolution 1951, the Security Council stated ‘members of the
Security Council, at its 548th meeting held on 29th May 1951, have heard with satisfaction the assurances
of the representative of India that any constituent assembly that may be established in Srinagar is not
intended to prejudice the issues before the Security Council or to come in its way.’
36
This resolution reaffirmed the ‘affirmation in its Resolution 91 (1951) and declares that convening of
constituent assembly as recommended by the General Council of the “All Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference” of any action that assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future
shape and affiliation of the entire state to any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support
of any such action by the assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the
above principle.’
37
This resolution requests the representative of Sweden to examine with the governments of India and
Pakistan any proposals which are likely to contribute towards the settlement of the dispute. Gunnar V.
Jarring, representative of Sweden, undertook a mission pursuant to this Security Council Resolution of
February 21, 1957.
38
This resolution expresses ‘concern over the lack of progress towards a settlement of the dispute which
the Jarring Report manifests.’
12
12 4 September 1965 S/RES/209 This resolution concerned the deteriorating situation

along the ceasefire line in Kashmir. The Council
called on both India and Pakistan to take all steps
necessary to immediately cease fighting and return
to their respective sides of the line.
13 6 September 1965 S/RES/210 This resolution concerned the Secretary-General’s
report on the developments in Kashmir. The
Council called on India and Pakistan to cease
hostilities in the entire area of conflict and withdraw
all armed personnel to the positions they held before
5 August 1965.
14 20 September 1965 S/RES/211 After the calls for a cease-fire in S/RES/209 and
S/RES/2010 went unheeded, with this resolution the
Council demanded that a cease-fire take effect on 22
September with both forces withdrawing to the
positions held before 5 August.
15 27 September 1965 S/RES/214 This resolution expressed concern that the ceasefire
called for in S/RES209, S/RES/2010, and
S/RES/211 was not holding despite both India and
Pakistan agreeing to it. The Council demanded that
the parties honour their commitment, ceasefire, and
withdraw all armed personnel.
16 5 November 1965 S/RES/215 After the ceasefire called for in S/RES/209,
S/RES/210, S/RES/211, and S/RES/214 did not
materialise, the Council demanded that
representatives of India and Pakistan meet with a
representative of the Secretary-General.
17 6 December 1971 S/RES/303 Council meetings were called following
deterioration in relations between India and Pakistan
over several incidents, including J&K and in East
Pakistan. Additionally, UNMOGIP reported
violations on both sides of the Karachi Agreement
(1949).39
18 21 December 1971 S/RES/307 This resolution demanded a durable ceasefire and
cessation of hostilities until withdrawals of all
armed forces to the ceasefire line in J&K. It also
requested the Secretary-General to keep the Council
informed ‘without delay’ on developments related
39
Karachi Agreement, Pakistan-India, July 29, 1949, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-
documents/jammu-and-kashmir/. ‘This agreement establishes a ceasefire line as a complement to the
suspension of hostilities, as contained in Part I of the Security Council Resolution of 13 August 1948.
The agreement provides 30 days for the parties to vacate presently held areas to areas beyond the
ceasefire line as established by this agreement.’
13
to the implementation of the resolution.
Source: Security Council Report, “UN Documents for Jammu and Kashmir: Security Council
Resolutions,” accessed 31 August 2020,
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un_documents_type/security-council-
resolutions/?ctype=Jammu%20and%20Kashmir&cbtype=jammu-and-kashmir.
Other than these United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), the proposal by General
A.G.L. McNaughton (December 22, 1949)40 and the report of Sir Owen Dixon (1950),41 UN
Representative for India and Pakistan to the Security Council, are of key importance.
The UNCIP appointed Sir Owen Dixon to implement demilitarisation prior to a

statewide plebiscite on the basis of General McNaughton’s scheme [see
Annexure B], and to recommend solutions to the two governments. Dixon’s
efforts for a statewide plebiscite came to naught due to India’s constant rejection
of the various alternative demilitarization proposals, for which Dixon rebuked
India. Dixon, then, offered an alternative proposal, widely known as the Dixon
plan.42
40
See Annexure B for details. Proposal in Respect of Jammu and Kashmir Made by General A.G.L.
McNaughton, President of the Security Council of the United Nations, Pursuant to the Decision of the
Security Council Taken at Its 457th meeting, on 22 December, 1949 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Government of Pakistan, 2020), http://mofa.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Proposal-in-respect-of-
Jammu-and-Kashmir-made-by-General-McNaughton-on-22-December-1949.pdf.
41
See Annexure C for details. UN Representative for India and Pakistan, Report of Sir Owen Dixon, United
Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to the Security Council: Annex, report (New York: United
Nations, 1950), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/486273?ln=en; and Frederic W. Eggleston, “The
Kashmir Dispute and Sir Owen Dixon’s Report,” Australian Outlook 5, no. 1 (1951): 3-9,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10357715108443760.
42
Wikipedia, “Kashmir Conflict,” accessed August 31, 2020,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict#cite_ref-95.
14
TRACK II INITIATIVES/DIALOGUES BETWEEN PAKISTAN & INDIA
A number of unofficial initiatives were undertaken by the members of civil society, academia,
politicians and former government officials, including diplomats, military personnel and civil
servants, to break the logjam between the two countries. Their details are shared in the table
below:
Table 3: Pak-India Track II Initiatives/Dialogues
Initiatives/ Brief Background/Overview

Timeline
Neemrana ‘A group of distinguished and influential citizens from India and Pakistan
Dialogue were invited to meet at Neemrana fort in the state of Rajasthan, India. The
group identified four major issues for discussion; the Kashmir dispute,
1991 nuclear nonproliferation, conventional arms race and defence budgets, and
economic relation. The Neemrana process was initially sponsored by the
USIS and reached a state where the two sides could agree on most issues
except Kashmir.’43
Academics for ‘Academics for Peace in South Asia passed a resolution in New Delhi that
Peace in South stated that the real problems of the people of south Asia couldn’t be solved
Asia by war. It also demanded the political leaders of India and Pakistan to set in
motion the process that would ensure no occurrence of wars in future.’44
April 25, 1990
May 13, 1990 ‘Fifty eminent Pakistanis in a joint statement appealed to both India and
Pakistan to refrain seeking military solution to the issue of Kashmir. It is
irrational to expect that another, bloodier and costlier war can do so in
future.’ 45
June 27, 1990 ‘A joint statement signed by fifty-four eminent Indians and Pakistanis was
released simultaneously from Lahore and New Delhi. The joint statement
called upon the governments of India and Pakistan to reaffirm their
commitment to peaceful resolutions of all outstanding disputes, to withdraw
strike forces of both countries from the forward positions, and for
43
Tahir Ashraf, Javaid Akhtar Salyana and Md. Nasrudin Md. Akhir “Mapping of Track Two Initiatives: A
Case of Pakistan-India Conflict (1988-2001),” Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 37, no. 1 (2017): 16-
29 (23), http://pjss.bzu.edu.pk/website/journal/article/5ec42f9969775/page.
44
Moonis Ahmar, “Indo-Pakistan Normalization Process: The Role of CBMs in the Post-Cold War Era”
(ACDIS Occasional Paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, 1993), quoted in Ashraf,
Salyana and Akhir, “Mapping of Track Two Initiatives.”
45
M. Hassan, “The Culture of Confrontation,” Dawn, September 9, 1995, Karachi edition, quoted in
Ashraf, Salyana and Akhir, “Mapping of Track Two Initiatives.” See for more details, Mubashir Hasan,
“Nikhil Chakravarty and the Momentum of Peace by Dr Mubashir Hasan” (speech, New Delhi,
November 3, 2003), South Asia Citizens Web, http://www.sacw.net/peace/mubahirHasanNov2003.html.
15
normalisation of relations in all spheres in accordance with the principles of

peaceful coexistence and the UN Charter.’ 46
Pakistan-India ‘The Pakistan-India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFDP)
People’s Forum was formed on December 7, 1994 in Lahore, Pakistan. I.A. Rehman,
for Peace and Director Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and Nirmal Mukerjee, a
Democracy former Governor of the Indian Punjab were named as the two co-chairmen
(PIPFDP) of the forum. The objective was to initiate a people-to-people dialogue on
critical issues of peace and democracy.’47 So far, the forum has held multiple
dialogues with civil society and peace activists of the two countries.
Indo Pak Amity ‘The Association of People of Asia New Delhi organised a three-day Indo
Meet Pak Amity Meet on May 15-17, 1996. It was a continuation of number of
earlier non-official initiatives for Pakistan-India people-to-people dialogue
May 15-17, 1996 with a view to take measures through more intensive and in-depth studies
and discussion, for further promoting atmosphere of goodwill and improved
cultural relations.’48
Pen for Peace ‘Pen for Peace Conference was held in Karachi on November 2000. It was
Conference an initiative of Pakistani writers, poets, artists, journalists and academics
from all over the country to promote peace and harmony among nations and
November 2000 the people of the subcontinent.’49
Ottawa Dialogue ‘In April 2009, a small group of experts from India and Pakistan convened a
quiet discussion at the University of Ottawa about the state of strategic
April 2009- relations between the countries. The forum named as Ottawa Dialogue. From
ongoing that exploratory discussion, an ambitious agenda emerged pointing to the
need for sustained and facilitated dialogue on this critical matter that impacts
global security. The April 2009 talks evolved into the first long-term process
under the auspices of Ottawa Dialogue. Since then, Ottawa Dialogue has
expanded into an institution housing several dialogue initiatives covering a
range of issues.’ 50
Islamabad The Islamabad Dialogue is ‘part of Jinnah Institute’s initiative on peace
Dialogue building through Track II diplomacy between India and Pakistan.’51 Four
April 28-29, dialogues have been held between senior diplomats, parliamentarians,
2011- policy-makers and journalists from Pakistan and India.
March 2, 2015
46
Hassan, “The Culture of Confrontation,” quoted in Ashraf, Salyana and Akhir, “Mapping of Track Two
Initiatives.” See for more details, Hasan, “Nikhil Chakravarty and the Momentum of Peace by Dr
Mubashir Hasan.”
47
“Mubashar Forms Pak-India People’s Forum,” Muslim, December 8, 1994, Islamabad edition, quoted in
Ashraf, Salyana and Akhir, “Mapping of Track Two Initiatives,” 20.
48
49
Z. Abedin, “Pen for Peace Conference 2000,” News, December 10, 2000, Rawalpindi edition, quoted in
50
Ottawa Dialogue, “About Us,” accessed September 1, 2020, ottawadialogue.ca/about-us/.
51
Jinnah Institute, “Track II Dialogues: Islamabad Dialogue IV,” March 2, 2015, https://jinnah-
institute.org/event/islamabad-dialogue-iv/.
16
Chaophraya ‘The Chaophraya Dialogue is an Indo-Pak Track-II initiative jointly

Dialogue undertaken by the Jinnah Institute and Australia India Institute (AII) to
encourage informed discussion of bilateral relations and enhance stakes in
Ongoing peace. The dialogue is primarily meant to give an opportunity to members of
the policy and media communities and other groups in India and Pakistan to
interact with each other on a sustained basis. The Chaophraya Dialogue has
encouraged participants to share the conclusions of each round with their
respective governments. It has also provided a useful forum when the
official dialogue process between India and Pakistan has been frozen.’52
The most recent Dialogue was held on January 19-20, 2020. ‘It was the first
since India’s revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir on
August 5th. The dialogue themes and discussions reflected the multiple
vectors affecting the bilateral relationship, including escalation along Line of
Control, a growing deep freeze in bilateral relations, deteriorating situation
in Kashmir, and rising rhetoric in India vis-à-vis Pakistan.’53
Delhi Dialogue ‘Entering its fourth year in 2014, the dialogue is part of an India-Pakistan
Track II diplomacy initiative by the Jinnah Institute and the Center for
January 22, 2012 Dialogue and Reconciliation, which seeks to promote peace between the two
– March 14, 2014 neighbouring countries through constructive engagement and dialogue.’54
Distinguished ‘The DSS is a long-running exchange of thought leaders between India and
Speaker Series Pakistan, jointly managed by Jinnah Institute and Australia India Institute.’55
‘The Series has enabled an exchange of high-profile public speakers,
including parliamentarians, academics and policy experts.’56
52
Jinnah Institute, “Track II Dialogues: Chaophraya Dialogues 7 & 8,” October 31, 2011, https://jinnah-
institute.org/event/chaophraya-dialogues-7-8/.
53
Jinnah Institute, “Track II Dialogues: The Chao Track II,” January 30, 2020, https://jinnah-
institute.org/event/the-chao-track-ii/.
54
Jinnah Institute, “Track II Dialogues: Delhi Dialogue III,” March 16, 2014, https://jinnah-
institute.org/event/delhi-dialogue-iii/.
55
Jinnah Institute, “Track II Dialogues: Jinnah Institute’s Distinguished Speaker Series with Former Indian
Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid,” November 13, 2015, https://jinnah-institute.org/event/jinnah-
institutes-distinguished-speaker-series-with-former-indian-foreign-minister-salman-khurshid/.
56
Jinnah Institute, “Track II Dialogues: Distinguished Speaker Series: ‘RTI Law Integral to Democracy,
Says Senior Indian Civil Servant,’” June 25, 2013, https://jinnah-institute.org/event/distinguished-
speaker-series-rti-law-integral-to-democracy-says-senior-indian-civil-servant/.
17
MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES OF IIOJ&K
Table 4 provides the names of the major political parties in Jammu and Kashmir and their
leadership:
Table 4: Major Political Parties of IIOJ&K
No. Political Parties Leadership
1 All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) Mirwaiz Umar Farooq
2 Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (NC) Farooq Abdullah
3 Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference (JKPC) Sajjad Lone
4 Jammu Republic Party (JRP) Bhim Singh
5 Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party Mehbooba Mufti

(PDP)
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)
6 Mayawati
7 Jammu and Kashmir Apni Party Syed Altaf Bukhari
8 Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir (JI) Dr Hameed Fayaz
9 Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party Balwant Singh
10 Praja Parishad Jammu and Kashmir Chandermohan Sharma

Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party
11 Shabir Shah
(JKDFP)
12 Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference (JKPC) Sajjad Gani Loan
13 Dogra Swabhiman Sangathan Chaudhary Lal Singh
14 Janata Dal Nitish Kumar
15 National Democratic Party (Indian) (NDPI) Sandeep Turki
16 Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) Yasin Malik
18
MEDIATION ON JAMMU & KASHMIR DISPUTE (1947–2020)
Table 5 offers a bird’s eye picture of various peace proposals, agreements and declarations on the
Jammu & Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India and the response of the key stakeholders:
Table 5: Peace Proposals for Jammu & Kashmir Dispute
No. Peace Proposals Main Points Response by Stakeholders/

Result
Government-Level Initiatives
1 India-Pakistan Statement  Political, peaceful statement Kashmiris: Excluded

of Objectives, 1963  Addressed India and Pakistan’s Pakistan: Agreed
concerns India: Agreed57
2 Tashkent Declaration, Status quo Kashmiris: Excluded
1966 Pakistan: Agreed
(see Annexure E-ii for India: Agreed58
details)
3 Simla Agreement,  Bilateral Approach Kashmiris: Indifferent
1972  Cease Fire Line (CL) converted Pakistan: Favoured broader
(see Annexure E-iii for into Line of Control (LoC); no interpretation
details) unilateral alteration of status quo India: Favoured narrow
interpretation59
4 Lahore Declaration,  Negotiated settlement Kashmiris: Excluded
1999 through dialogue Pakistan: Agreed with
(see Annexure E-iv for reservations
details) India: Agreed60
57
Syed Rifaat Hussain, “Resolving the Kashmir Dispute: Blending Realism with Justice,” The Pakistan
Development Review 48, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 1007-1035,
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c1a/b7b4eabf4afb5bbb9230b1f16672d25755c6.pdf.
58
Ibid.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
19
5 The Musharraf Proposal  Division and demilitarisation on Kashmiris: Mixed response65

during Musharraf- geographical basis62 Pakistan: Accepted66
Manmohan Talks61  No change of borders of India: Rejected67
Kashmir63
 Free movement of people across
LoC
 After 7 or 15 years if people
agree with the arrangement, it
will be deemed as final
settlement of J&K. But if they
say no, then another mechanism
will have to be evolved to
ascertain the desire of people64
UN Initiatives
6 Owen Dixon Formula  J&K belongs to Kashmiris Kashmiris: Supported, incl.

(1947-57)  Respect for self-determination APHC
 Holding of plebiscite Pakistan: Supported
(see Annex C for details) India: Initially
accepted. Later
rejected68
7 McNaughton Report  Progressive demilitarisation by India: Did not agree on
(1949) by General India and Pakistan troops
McNaughton, President  Conduct of plebiscite withdrawal
of the Security Council
(see Annex B for details) No progress69
8 UN Mediatory Report  Troop withdrawal by India and Pakistan: Minimum force
on Kashmir Pakistan (‘6000 Azad Kashmir required for law
(1952) by Dr Frank P forces & 3,500 Gilgit & and order on both
Graham Northern Scouts on Pakistan side sides
of ceasefire line. Whilst 18000 India: Minimum of 28000
force required70
61
Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, Neither a Hawk nor a Dove: An Insider’s Account of Pakistan’s Foreign
Policy (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2015), 39-48.
62
Hussain, “Resolving the Kashmir Dispute.”
63
Ibid.
64
Kasuri, Neither a Hawk nor a Dove.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
68
69
Muhammad Abdul Qadeer, “United Nations Resolutions on Kashmir and Their Relevance,” Journal of
Strategic Affairs 2, no. 1 (Summer 2017): 65- 95 (79-80).
20
Indian and State Armed Forces  No progress

and 6000 State militia on Indian
side)’
 Plebiscite option
NGOs, Scholars and Security Experts-Led Initiatives
9 Sumit Ganguly Proposal  Transform LoC into a Kashmiris: Rejected

(Indian-American recognised boundary between Pakistan: Rejected
scholar) India and Pakistan India: Supported71
10 Selig Harrison Proposal  Special Autonomous status to Kashmiris: Opposed
(American scholar) J&K Pakistan: Opposed
 Defence, foreign affairs, India: Fallback option72
communication and currency
under control of India and
Pakistan
11 Robert Wirsing  International mediation Kashmiris: Some segments
Proposal supported while
(American security others opposed
expert) Pakistan: Favoured
India: Strongly
opposed73
12 Proposal of BJP and  Opening J&K to Hindu and Kashmiris: Opposed
other Hindu nationalist Sikh settlement Pakistan: Opposed
movements India: Divided opinion74
13 Jammu and Kashmir  Independent J&K Kashmiris: Some segments
Liberation Front (JKLF) supported while
others opposed
Pakistan: Opposed
India: Opposed75
14 The Kashmir American  US mediation Kashmiris: Favoured with
Council reservations
Pakistan: Supported
India: Opposed76
15 Kashmir Study Group  Division into two self-governing Kashmiris: Favoured with
70
“Dr. Graham’s Fourth Report on Negotiations with India and Pakistan on Demilitarization Plans –
Continued Failure to Reach Agreement,” Keesing’s Record of World Events VIII-IX (London: Keesing’s
Worldwide, 1952), 12521, http://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/2626-1952-10-K-a-
AJG.pdf.
71
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
21
Formula by Farooq entities with own constitution, reservations

Kathwari citizenship, flag, legislature Pakistan: Flexible
(Kashmiri-American  Free movement / access between India: Opposed77
businessman) the two entities
 Defence joint responsibility of
India and Pakistan
16 Andorra Model by Fazal  Semi-sovereign status of J&K Kashmiris: Excluded79
Haq Qureshi  India and Pakistan will oversee Pakistan: Agreeable as
the defence, foreign affairs and fallback option80
communications India: Might be acceptable as
 Kashmiri residents will get dual an alternative to
citizenship78 independent Kashmir81
17 The Chenab Formula  Division of J&K along line of Kashmiris: Excluded83
River Chenab82 Pakistan: Likely to accept
(‘Pakistan
willing to give
up the remote
region of Ladakh
in India’s
favour’)84
India: Opposed85
18 The Good Friday  Self- determination Kashmiris: Widely discussed
Agreement (Irish of J&K87 without outright
Agreement) by  Maximum autonomy for Indian rejection
Sumantra Bose86 and Pakistani Kashmir without a Pakistan: Discussed
formal partition88 India: Possible option90
 Soft borders between two sides
of Kashmir89
77
Saman Malik, “Kashmir Talks: A Set of Formulas Available,” Dawn, December 16, 2020,
https://www.dawn.com/news/591653/kashmir-talks-a-set-of-formulas-available.
78
Moeed Yusuf and Adil Najam, “Kashmir: Ripe for Resolution?” Third World Quarterly 30, no.8 (2009):
1503-1528 (1508), doi: 10.1080/01436590903321869.
79
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
83
84
Yusuf and Najam, “Kashmir: Ripe for Resolution?”
85
86
Yusuf and Najam, “Kashmir: Ripe for Resolution?”1509.
87
88
Yusuf and Najam, “Kashmir: Ripe for Resolution?”1509.
89
Ibid.
90
22
INDIA-PAKISTAN DIPLOMACY OVER KASHMIR

Table 6: Bilateral Track
S. No Track Year
01 ‘Prime Minister Mohammad Ali Bogra’s meeting with August 1953
Nehru in August in New Delhi.’91
02 ‘Prime Minister Feroze Khan Noon’s meeting with 1958

Jawaharlal Nehru. Both agreed to settle the eastern
border between India and the former East Pakistan.’92
03 ‘Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and December 1962-1963
the Indian Foreign Minister Swaran Singh held a
marathon of six rounds of talks focusing on the central
issues of Kashmir.’93
04 Simla Agreement94 July 3, 1972
‘India and Pakistan signed an agreement that neither 1988
side will attack the other’s nuclear installations or
facilities.’95
05 ‘Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visited Pakistan.’96 July 1989
06 ‘India and Pakistan agreed informally not to attack December 1985
their nuclear sites.’97
07 ‘India and Pakistan signed an agreement about prior 1991
notification on military movements and exercise. The
agreement also provides how to prevent violations of
airspace its use for over-flights.’98
08 ‘Neemrana Dialogue Process.’99 1991
91
Syed Jaffar Ahmed, “Special Report: Parliament in Chaos 1951-1958,” Dawn, August 30, 2017.
92
Muhammad Sajjad Malik, “Pakistan-India Relations: An Analytical Perspective of Peace Efforts,”
Strategic Studies 39, No. 1 (Spring 2019): 68-72.
93
Salman Taseer, “Bhutto A Political Biography”, https://bhutto.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bhutto-a-
political-biography.pdf (accessed on April 1, 2021)
94
“Simla Agreement,” July 2, 1972, https://people.unica.it/annamariabaldussi/files/2015/04/Simla-
Agreement-July-2-1972.pdf, (accessed on April 2, 2021)
95
Muhammad Sajjad Malik, “Pakistan-India Relations: An Analytical Perspective of Peace Efforts,”
Strategic Studies 39, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 68-72.
96
‘The dawn of new era that remained a dream’, Dawn, August 21, 2016,
https://www.dawn.com/news/1278747, (accessed on April 4, 2021)
97
“India-Pakistan Non-attack Agreement,” NTI, January 1, 1991, https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-
regimes/india-pakistan-non-attack-agreement/, (Accessed on March 06, 2021).
98
Asad Hashim, “Timeline: India-Pakistan Relations”, May 27, 2014,
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/2011/06/2
011615113058224115.html (accessed on April 1, 2021)
99
Tahir Ashraf, Javaid Akhtar Salyana and Md. Nasrudin Md. Akhir, “Mapping Track Two Initiatives: A
Case of Pakistan-India Conflict (1988-2001), Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 37, No. 1 (2017): 16-
29 (23), http://pjss.bzu.edu.pk/website/journal/article/5ec42f9969775/page
23
09 A joint declaration prohibiting the use of chemical 1992

weapons was signed in New Delhi
10 Military officers from both countries met at the LoC 1996

in order to ease tensions
11 Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Lahore February 1999

and signed the Lahore Declaration with Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif
12 ‘Agra Summit was held between President Pervez July 15-16, 2001
Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee.’100
13 ‘After President Musharraf called for a ceasefire along 2003

the LoC during a UN General Assembly meeting in
September, India and Pakistan reached an agreement
to cool tensions and cease hostilities across LoC.’101
14 ‘Composite Dialogue was launched between India and 2004
Pakistan.’102
‘President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister 2006

Manmohan Singh agreed to put into place an India-
Pakistan institutional anti-terrorism mechanism.’103
15 ‘The fifth round of talks regarding the review of 2007
nuclear and ballistic missile-related CBMs was held
as part of the Composite Dialogue Process.’104
‘The second round of the Joint Anti-Terrorism
Mechanism (JATM) was also held.’105
100
Michael Krepon, “Evaluating the Vajpayee-Musharraf Meeting in Islamabad”, Stimson Centre, January
12, 2004, https://www.stimson.org/2004/evaluating-vajpayee-musharraf-meeting-islamabad/ (accessed
on April 1, 2021)
101
Asad Hashim, “Timeline: India-Pakistan Relations”, May 27, 2014,
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/2011/06/2
011615113058224115.html (accessed on April 1, 2021)
102
Ibid.
103
“Joint Statement, India-Pakistan in Havana, Cuba”, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India,
September 16, 2006, https://mea.gov.in/bilateral-
documents.htm?dtl/6339/Joint+Statement+IndiaPakistan+in+HavanaCuba (accessed on April 2, 2021)
104
Michael Krepon, “South Asia Confidence-Building Measures (CBM) Timeline”, Stimson Center, April
14, 2017, https://www.stimson.org/2017/south-asia-confidence-building-measures-cbm-timeline/
(accessed on March 30, 2021)
105
On the Second Round of the Joint Anti- Terrorism Mechanism with Pakistan
24
16 ‘An agreement called the Consular Access Agreement 2008

reached about the exchange of the list of prisoners
twice a year on the first day of January and July 3 and
a mechanism to provide consular access to held
prisoners.’106
17 ‘Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime September 2008
Minister Manmohan Singh formally announced the
opening of several trade routes between the two
countries.’107
18 ‘Cross-LoC trade commenced between India and October 2008
Pakistan.’108
19 ‘Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and the 2009
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met on the
sidelines of a Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
Summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, issuing a joint
statement charting future talks. Singh rules out,
however, the resumption of the Composite Dialogue
Process at the present time.’109
‘India and Pakistan’s foreign secretaries met in New February 2010
Delhi for talks. This meeting is followed by the two
countries’ foreign ministers meeting in Islamabad in
July.’110
20 ‘The two countries’ foreign secretaries met in February 2011
Thimpu, Bhutan, in February, and agree to resume
peace talks “on all issues.”111
21 ‘Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met in New September 2013
York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
Both the leaders agree to end tension between the
armies of both sides in the disputed Kashmir.’112
22 ‘India and Pakistan agree to release trucks held in February 12, 2014
October 19, 2007, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, https://mea.gov.in/press-

releases.htm?dtl/3255/On+the+Second+Round+of+the+Joint+Anti+Terrorism+Mechanism+with+Pakis
tan (accessed on March 27, 2021)
106
Vinod Sharma and Zia Haq, “There is a Bit of India in Every Pakistani: Zardari,”
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Nwes-Feed/India/There-is-a-bit-of-India-in-every- Pakistan-
Zardari/Article 1-353488.aspx (accessed on March 27, 2021)
107
Vinod Sharma and Zia Haq, “There is a Bit of India in Every Pakistani: Zardari,”
108
Smruti S. Pattanaik, “Cross-LoC Confidence Building Measures between India and Pakistan: A Giant
Leap or a Small Step towards Peace?” IDSA,
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/137394/CrossLoCCBMbetweenIndiaandPakistan.pdf, (accessed on April
3, 2021)
109
“India, Pakistan prime ministers’ joint statement,” Reuters, July 16, 2009.
110
Rajshree Jetly, “India and Pakistan Foreign Ministers’ Meeting: New Hopes and Expectations,” ISAS
Brief, August 1, 2011, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/132152/ISAS_Brief_209_-_Email_-
_India_and_Pakistan_Foreign_Ministers'_meeting_10082011135916.pdf, (accessed on April 3, 2021).
111
“India, Pakistan peace talks to resume,” Express Tribune, February 10, 2011.
112
Declan Walsh, “India and Pakistan Talk, but Tensions Are High,” New York Times, September 29, 2013.
25
their respective territories, ending a three-week

impasse triggered by the seizure of a truck in the
Indian Occupied Kashmir coming from across the de
facto Line of Control for allegedly carrying brown
sugar.’113
‘Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held talks with May 27, 2014
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in New
Delhi. Both sides expressed willingness to begin a
new era of bilateral relations.’114
Third Party Mediations
S. No Mediation Date
01 ‘Indus Waters Treaty 1960’115 1960
02 ‘Settlement of the Rann of Kutch Dispute’116 1965
03 Tashkent Agreement signed in January 1966 1966
04 ‘There was a crisis in 1984 due to fears in Pakistan that 1980’s

India was planning to destroy its nuclear facilities.
Another conflict situation was triggered due to a
massive military exercise by India in 1986-87, while
another dangerous situation was created due to
Kashmir violence in 1989-90. Chari, Cheema and
Cohen argue that the US intervened on all three
occasions to restore peace by bringing the situation
under control.’117
05 ‘During Kargil Crisis the US took lead to end the July 4, 1999
conflict.’118
113
“India, Pakistan agree to release detained trucks,” Hindu, February 12, 2014.
114
AnindyaSinha, “Trust relationship: The way of peace between India and Pakistan,” International
Journal of Peace and Development Studies 10, no. 3 (July-December 2019): 19-24.
115
Patricia Bauer, “Indus Water Treaty,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Indus-Waters-
Treaty, (accessed on April 4, 2021).
116
“The mysterious Rann of Kutch,” Dawn, June 3, 2009. https://www.dawn.com/news/870991/the-
mysterious-rann-of-kutch
117
“Tashkent Agreement,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Tashkent-Agreement, (accessed
on April 3, 2021).
118
Bruce Riedel, “How the 1999 Kargil conflict redefined US-India ties,” Brookings, July 24, 2019,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/07/24/how-the-1999-kargil-conflict-redefined-us-
india-ties/, (accessed on April 5, 2021).
26
06 ‘US played an important role in defusing tension in 2002

2002.’ 119
07 The US administration engaged in the Pak-India 2008

conflict after the Mumbai attack, urging both countries
to work at the highest level to preserve peace and
stability and recognising Pakistan’s efforts in
inquiry.120
08 Pulwama/Balakot Attacks:”121 Following the escalation 2019
between India and Pakistan amidst Pulwama suicide
blast and the subsequent Indian Air Force attack on a
hilltop in northeastern region of Pakistan, the United
States used its good offices to deescalate the crisis.
119
Polly Nayak and Michael Krepon, “US Crisis Management in South Asia’s Twin Peak Crisis,” Stimson,
September 2006, https://www.stimson.org/wp-content/files/file-attachments/Twin_Peaks_Crisis.pdf,
(accessed on April 1, 2021).
120
Muhammad Shafiq Ur Rahman and M Saif Ur Rehman Malik, “Prospects of Third-Party Mediation on
Kashmir Under Unipolarity,” Journal of Indian Studies 7, no. 1 (2021): 145.
121
Sitara Noor, “Pulwama/Balakot and The Evolving Role of Third Parties in India-Pakistan Crises,” South
Asian Voices, February 26, 2021, https://southasianvoices.org/pulwama-balakot-and-the-evolving-
role-of-third-parties-in-india-pakistan-crises/, (Accessed on July 25, 2021).
27
INDIAN LAWS IN VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS IN IIOJ&K
The Indian troops deployed in IIOJ&K operate under a host of black laws, which have made
Indian Armed Forces take on the role of an occupying army. These laws not only govern the
IIOJ&K region but also authorise genocide and aggression by the Indian Armed Forces. They
clearly violate the Articles of International Law pertaining to human rights. The implications of
these laws coupled with their contrast to existing international laws are highlighted in the table
below:
Table 7: Indian Laws in Violation of

International Human Rights Obligations in IIOJ&K
Indian Laws Implications Violations of

Applicable to IIOJ&K International Law
Jammu and Kashmir ‘Detention without charge is possible for Articles 9 (right against
Public Safety Act, 1978 up to one year arbitrary arrest and
detention), 19 (freedom of
Chapter III allows the government to expression), 21 (right of
forbid the circulation of harmful peaceful assembly) and 22
documents.’ (freedom of association) of
the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR)
Terrorist and Disruptive ‘Detention without charges is possible Article 9 (right against
Activities (Prevention) for 189 days. arbitrary arrest and
Act 1987 (TADA) detention) of ICCPR
Whoever advocates directly or indirectly
for cession or secession in any part of UN Convention against
India is liable to be punished. Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading
Section 20 of the Act provides that Treatment or Punishment
detainee can be in police custody up to
60 days which increases risk of torture. UN Convention against
Also the detainee need not be produced Torture (UNCAT)
before a judicial magistrate, but instead
may be produced before an executive
magistrate who is an official of police
and administrative service and is not
answerable to high court.
28
The trial can be held secretly at any place

and also keeps the identity of the
witnesses’ secret violating international
standards of fair trial.’
Armed Forces (Jammu ‘Provides the basis for the military to Article 6 of ICCPR
and Kashmir) Special suppress legitimate political activity.’
Powers Act, 1990
Jammu and Kashmir ‘The whole or part of the State can be Articles 4 and 7 of ICCPR
Disturbed Areas Act, declared disturbed by the Central
1990 government or the Governor.’
‘Provides a cover to the state machinery

for indiscriminate and unprovoked firing
at peaceful and unarmed demonstrations,
extra judicial killings and destroying the
property of Kashmiris on suspicion’
‘Section 6 gives legal immunity to

persons acting under this Act.’
Prevention of Terrorism ‘Allows detention without trial. Article 6 and 7 of ICCPR
Act, 2002 (POTA)
Declares confession before police as
evidence.
Denial of public hearing or trials.
Criminalises legitimate political dissent

and free speech.’
Geospatial Information The Bill is meant to regulate the
Regulation Bill (GIRB), acquisition, dissemination, publication
2016 and distribution of geospatial
information of India. The permission of
the Government of India would be
mandatory while adding or creating any
information related to geospatial
imagery, data acquired through space or
aerial platforms such as satellites,
aircrafts, airships, balloons or unmanned
aerial vehicles. This reintroduced the
license regime for the Kashmiri
businessmen from the Centre.
The incorporation of Indian Occupied

Kashmir (IoK) in Indian Geospatial map
generated controversies over UN
29
resolutions on Occupied Jammu and

Kashmir.
Source:http://issi.org.pk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Final-Issue-
brief-Shamsa-dated-29-6-2016.pdf
Unlawful Activities ‘Expands the definition of “terrorist” to ICCPR
(Prevention) include individuals under Section 35 and
Amendment Act, 2019 36 of Chapter VI of the Act.
(UAPA)
Seizure of property from proceeds of
terrorism under Section 25 and the
powers of officers with the rank of
inspectors and above to investigate cases
under UAPA Section 43.
A Review Committee to “de-notify” the

individual notified as a terrorist.’
Jammu & Kashmir The J&K Reorganisation Act enforced in
Reorganization Act, 2019 and the J&K Reorganization Order
2019 enforced in 2020, starkly contrast with
the decades-old constitutional and
demographic status of J&K.
The J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019,

bifurcated the Indian-held territory of
J&K into two separate Union Territories
(UT) i.e. the UT of Ladakh and the UT
of J&K.
It practically limits the autonomy of the

states legislature of J&K that was
awarded to it via Article 370 of the
Indian Constitution.
Jammu & Kashmir The Jammu and Kashmir Official
Official Language Bill, Languages Bill, 2020, was introduced in
2020 Lok Sabha on September 22, 2020. It
seeks to declare certain languages as
official languages of the Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir.
Official languages: The Bill declares

Kashmiri, Dogri, Urdu, Hindi and
English as the official languages to be
used for the official purposes of the
30
Union territory, from such date as the

Administrator of the Union territory may
notify. The Bill adds that the business in
the Legislative Assembly of the Union
territory will be transacted in these
official languages.
Use of English: The Bill clarifies that

English may continue to be used in the
Union territory for those administrative
and legislative purposes for which it was
being used before the commencement of
the Act.
Source: Compiled from the websites of National Assembly of Pakistan, Human Rights Watch and the
International Commission of Jurists.
The timeline of Indian actions, constituting grave violations of International Humanitarian Law in
IIOJ&K from a legal perspective, that attract the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949
and their Additional Protocols; the Rome Statute, 1998; and lastly, rules of Customary
International Law are given under Annex G courtesy of Research Society of International Law
(RSIL), Islamabad, Pakistan.
31
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BY INDIAN OCCUPIED FORCES IN IIOJ&K
The use of excessive and indiscriminate force by the Indian Armed Forces against civilians in
IIOJ&K continues. Since January 1989 to September 30, 2016; 94,548 Kashmiris have been
killed by the Indian security forces.122 Though, Indian atrocities have been occurring since 1989,
they began to be formally reported in 1990. A detailed record of Indian atrocities from January
1989 to September 2016, as documented by the Special Committee of the Parliament on Kashmir
and shared by the National Assembly of Pakistan123 on its website is presented below:
Table 8: Indian Atrocities in Jammu & Kashmir (Jan. 1989-Sep.2016)
Timeline Description Figures
1947-2020 Total Killings 500,000
1989-2018 Total Killings 94690
Jul 2016 to No. of people injured 9042

Feb 2017
Jul 2016 to No. of pellet gun victims 728
Feb 2017
1989 to No. of people disappeared (as quoted by the Association 8,000*

date of Parents of Disappeared Persons)
1989 to Total Percentage of Kashmiri Women suffered sexual 12% **

2017 violence
1989-2016 Enforced Disappearances/Missing Persons 10,000
1989-2016 Half Widows 1500
1989-2011 Unmarked Graves 2730
1989-2016 Number of Kashmiris Brutally Tortured by Indian 200,000

Occupied Forces
122
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Young Parliamentarians Forum and Centre for Strategic and Contemporary
Research, “Genesis of Kashmir Dispute and Humanitarian Crisis”(presented at Genesis of Kashmir
Dispute and Humanitarian Crisis Seminar, Islamabad, October 27, 2016).
123
National Assembly of Pakistan, “Draconian Laws in Indian Occupied Kashmir,” accessed September 1,
2020, http://www.na.gov.pk/en/content.php?id=90.
32
Psychological/Mental Health Issues

92%
Women
55%
1989-2016 Depression Patients
64%
Anxiety Patients
More
than
100,000
Total Patients of Psychiatry
1989-2016 Kashmiris Witnessed Explosions 65%
1989-2016 Damaged to Personal Properties 39%
1989-2016 Cross Firings 85%
1989-2016 Kashmiris have been frisked by Occupied Forces 87%
1989-2016 Sense of Insecurity among Kashmiri Population 48%
1989-2016 No. Crackdowns witnessed by Kashmiri Population 99%
1989-2016 Torture & Detention 75%

July 2016
People injured due to pellet guns 6,221
to
February
Eye injuries Suffered by Pellet Guns 1726
2017
As of Total Deployed Indian Occupied Forces in J&K
August 800,000
2019 One Indian Soldier is deployed for every 10 Kashmiris
Source: National Assembly of Pakistan, “Draconian Laws in Indian Occupied Kashmir.”
*State and Central Government of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir admits to a number of
4,000
** These cases are under-reported due to social factors. There is fear that the original figures are
much higher than reported.
A biannual report by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) on the situation of
human rights in IIOJ&K covers the period from January-June 2020:
33
Table 9: Indian Atrocities in Jammu & Kashmir (Jan.-Sep.2020)
Year 2020 January February March April May June Total
Civilians 2 3 7 9 5 6 32
Killings
Militant 17 7 7 35 15 62 143
Killings
Armed 9 3 3 17 15 7 54
Forces
Killings
No. of 11 3 3 13 10 17 57
encounters
No. of 18 14 8 21 14 32 107
Cordon &
Search
Operations
(CASOs)
Source: Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons and Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil
Society, Six Monthly Review of Human Rights Situation in Indian Administered Jammu and
Kashmir (January to June 2020), report (Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons and
Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, 2020), https://jkccs.net/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Bi-Annual-HR-Report-2020-JKCCSAPDP.pdf.
Another report prepared by JKCCS and Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP)
also presents the record of Indian atrocities in IIOJ&K. The data reveals that over the last decade
from 2008 to 2019, at least 1161 civilians were killed in an extrajudicial manner in Kashmir. The
data is presented in the table below:
34
Table 10 : Extrajudicial Killings in Jammu & Kashmir (2008-19)
Year Armed Forces Militants Civilians Yearly Total

and Police
2008 151 363 157 671
2009 117 244 99 460
2010 102 201 167 470
2011 71 101 56 228
2012 36 75 32 143
2013 82 73 48 203
2014 83 99 53 235
2015 58 106 55 219
2016 104 145 146 395
2017 125 216 108 449
2018 159 267 160 586
2019 129 159 80 366
Total 1217 2049 1161 4427
Source: Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons and Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil
Society, Annual Review of Human Rights Situation in Indian Administered Jammu and Kashmir
(January to December 2019), report (Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons and Jammu
Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, 2019), https://jkccs.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-
Annual-Human-Rights-Review.pdf.
35
POLITICAL AND FREEDOM STRUGGLE OF KASHMIRIS
Pre-Partition of the Indian Subcontinent (1930-1947)
1. In the initial years of 1930s, the people of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) initiated an
organised struggle against the then Dogra Rule.124
2. On June 21, 1931, first political organisation of J&K—All Jammu and Kashmir
Muslim Conference, under the leadership of Mir Waiz Yusuf Shah, Sheikh
Mohammad Abdullah, Chowdhury Ghulam Abbas, G. N Gilkar, Ahmad Shah Jalali
and others reiterated Kashmiris’ struggle against Dogra Rule.125
3. On July 13, 1931, the police firing on the protestors, who were protesting against the
Dogra Rule, resulted in more than two dozen deaths. To date, July 13 is observed as
‘Martyrs Day’ in J&K.126
4. On January 1932, a Civil Disobedience Movement was launched by the Muslim

Conference. On October 16, 1932, leadership of Muslim Conference (MC)
announced its conversion into National Conference (NC) which was officially
announced on June 9, 1939. The Conference played a prominent role against
autocratic rule in J&K.127
124
Tamoghna Halder, “Kashmir’s struggle did not start in 1947 and will not end today,” Aljazeera, August
15, 2019, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/8/15/kashmirs-struggle-did-not-start-in-1947-and-
will-not-end-today, (accessed on March 19, 2021).
125
Rao Farman Ali, “Freedom Struggles of Kashmir,” Institute of Public Policy Research and Development
(IPPRD), January 5, 2015, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270436966_Freedom_Struggles_
of_Kashmir, (accessed on March 20, 2021).
126
“A Chronicle of Important Events in Political History of State of Jammu & Kashmir,” Jammu and
Kashmir Liberation Cell, http://jklc.org/history-of-liberation-movement/, (accessed on March 19, 2021).
127
Bibhu Prasad Routray, “Jammu and Kashmir National Conference,” Britannica, March 04, 2021,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Jammu-and-Kashmir-National-Conference, (accessed on March 19,
2021).
36
5. On August 26, 1941, Islamic Reformist Movement was first organised in Dar-ul-
Islam (Jamaalpur), Pathankot under the leadership of Syed Ala Maududi. The
movement was given a shape of an organisation in a convention at Lahore.128
6. On August 3, 1945, National Conference adopted ‘Naya Kashmir’ programme in its

annual session at Sopre, Baramulla, for socio-economic development in J&K.129
7. On May 9, 1946, National Conference launched ‘Quit Kashmir’ movement against

Maharaja’s Rule and for the establishment of people-owned government in J&K.130
8. J&K government never accepted the Constitution of India.131
9. On July 19th, 1947, the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference split from the
Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference over differences regarding partition and
acceptance of Congress rule in the occupied territory by adopting the “Accession to
Pakistan Resolution” which demanded Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan. It is now
included in the 1974 constitution of Azad Kashmir.132
Post-Partition of the Indian Subcontinent (1947-1986)
10. After the creation of Pakistan in 1947, some elements of the Poonch and Mirpuri
populations agitated against the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh’s crackdown against
pro-Pakistan elements in Jammu and Kashmir. This included blanket bans on public
meetings and aversion to supporting the Muslim Conference. A ‘no tax’ campaign
which started off in February this year was converted into a territory wide civil
obedience campaign. The consequent result was the massacre of hundreds of people
128
Omar Khalidi, “Maulānā Mawdūdī and Hyderabad,” Islamic Studies 41, no. 1 (Spring 2002): p. 35-67.
129
Andrew Whitehead, “The Making of New Kashmir Manifesto,” Andrew Whitehead,
https://www.andrewwhitehead.net/the-making-of-the-new-kashmir-manifesto.html, (accessed on March
20, 2021).
130
“The Origins of the Quit Kashmir Movement, 1931-1947,” Oxford Islamic Studies Online,
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/focus/essay1009_quit_kashmir.html, (accessed on March
20, 2021).
131
Rao Farman Ali, “Freedom Struggles of Kashmir.”
132
WayBackMachine, “All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference”, Internet Archives, 8, 10, 2013,
accessed 19, 7, 2021.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170705020412/http://muslimconference.org.pk/pages.php?name=history.
37
in the district of Bagh in Poonch due to the hoisting of the Pakistan’s flag. By 1949
estimates amounted to 500 casualties by the 24th of September, 1949.133
11. On October 30, 1947, the Maharaja appointed Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah as
‘Head of Administration’ and constituted a 23-member ‘Emergency Council’ to deal
with the emergency.134
12. In October 1947, a mass exodus of Muslim inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir fled
to neighbouring Pakistan which resulted in the extermination of 237,000 Muslims
based on a August 10, 1948 report, published in the Times in London. Admissions
by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in letters to former Deputy Prime
Minister to India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. He underlined the involvement of
Maharaja Hari Singh with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which hinged
on the misguided notion that a zonal plebiscite for all of Kashmir is bound to be
lost.135
13. The roots of agitation from the people of Gilgit-Baltistan over being accepted as part
of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir date back to October 1947. The state
was considered to be a creation of the 1846 signing of a treaty between the British
Raj and Maharaja Gulab Singh of the Dogra dynasty. In August, 1947, the abrupt
transfer of power of the province to Maharaja by Lord Mountbatten resulted in
insecurity among Gilgit Scout ranks over being replaced by the Kashmir army in
their territory. After the October 1947 accession declaration by the Maharaja of
Kashmir to India, the Gilgit Scouts, with their Revolutionary Council initiated a
revolt against Dogra rule. This resulted in Gilgit’s liberation and by the
133
Christopher Snedden, “The forgotten Poonch uprising of 1947” accessed 7/9/2021. https://www.india-
seminar.com/2013/643/643_christopher_snedden.htm.
134
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah (New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1990), p. 9.
135
Saeed Naqvi, “The killing fields of Jammu: How Muslims become a minority in the region” Book
excerpt, Scroll.in, 10 July, 2016, accessed 19, July, 2021. https://scroll.in/article/811468/the-killing-
fields-of-jammu-when-it-was-muslims-who-were-eliminated.
38
establishment of the independent state of the Islamic Republic of Gilgit declared in

November 1947.136
14. As a result of the Gilgit Scout rebellion and the liberation of persecuted Muslims of
Jammu and Kashmir, government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which was akin to
a war council was established on October 24, 1947. The courts and Laws code for
the judicial activation and a revision of the Rules of Business took place a year later
in 1952 respectively, in clear defiance of the Indian oppression. Present day function
of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir government is grounded on foundations laid down
from 1948 onwards.137
15. On November 11, 1947, the then Prime Minister of India, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru,
while giving a public speech near Palladium cinema, Lal Chowk, Srinagar, promised
the people of J&K that they will be given the right to express their future allegiance
through plebiscite.138
16. On March 5, 1948, the Maharaja issued a proclamation to replace the Emergency
Administration by a popular Interim Government and to provide for its powers,
duties and functions, pending the formation of a fully democratic Constitution.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was appointed the Prime Minister. The Council of
Ministers was to function “on the principle of joint responsibility.” It was enjoined
to convene “a National Assembly based upon adult suffrage” to frame a
constitution. The Assembly was to submit the Constitution “through the Council of
Ministers for any acceptance.” 139
17. In the mid-1948, J&K police raided some places and claimed the recovery of 666
hand-grenades, 643 crude bombs and 83 boxes of fuses, resulting in 22 arrests.
136
Sajjad Ahmad, “History: The Gilgit- Baltistan Conundrum” Dawn, 1,11,2020, accessed 19, 2, 2021,
https://www.dawn.com/news/1587950.
137
AJ and K Official Portal, “AJ and K History”, Official Website of the AJ and K Government, History,
accessed 19, July, 2021. https://www.ajk.gov.pk/history.
138
139
“Appoint Desmond Tutu A UN Arbiter to Resolve Kashmir, Says American Council,” Frontline
Kashmir, October 29, 2011, https://frontline-kashmir.blogspot.com/2011_10_23_archive.html,
(accessed on March 21, 2021).
39
According to the alleged claim by the then authorities, the recovered explosive was
bought from Pakistan by Salim Jahangir Khan – a Srinagar resident.140
18. On October 16, 1948, Mujahid Front was launched under the patronage of Tahseer-
ul-Islam Zia (Muzaffarabad) which was led by Dr Abdul Majeed Sheikh, Haji Jalal
ud Din (Charar-e-Sharief), Abdul Salam Kutay, Wali Mohammad Shah, Ghulam
Qadir Mangnu, Ghulam Nabu Parrey, Mohi-ud-Din Shawl, Ghulam Mohammad
Bassu, Ghulam Ahmad Salroo, Ghulam Rasool Badr, Ghulam Nabi Shora, Dr.
Davood, and Abdul Rehman (Mendhar Pooch), besides numerous supporters of the
Muslim Conference.141
19. The Front declared the Instrument of Accession with India invalid. They argued that
Maharaja was not an elected public representative and, therefore, was unauthorised
for executing the instrument. Moreover, the Front also criticised the National
Conference for supporting the Instrument of Accession and propounded the struggle
for the accession of J&K to Pakistan.142
20. On May 18, 1949, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru discussed the proposed Constitution to
embody the State’s membership of the Union in a letter to Sheikh Mohammad
Abdullah. The State was to have its own Constitution and “it will be for the
Constitution Assembly of the State, when convened, to determine in respect of what
other subjects the state may accede.”143
140
Dr. Mohammad Ramzan, Marhama, Bijbehara of Anantnag, Kashmir was coordinating the acts of
armed activities in Kashmir. He was in contact with Mohammad Akram Sheikh [Bijbehara Anantnag]
an ex-soldier [Rangrut], who participated in World War-II. He was elevated to an officer after the
partition of British India and opted to join Pakistan Army with the perception that J&K will be the part
of Pakistan. Akram came to his native town and distributed some weapons among his friends saying
that they will serve the purpose of self-defense, which he had taken from the Army depot, where he was
posted. So, the weapons available with selected youth of Kashmir in general and youth of South
Kashmir in particular, including Budgam and its nearest areas towards summer Capital Srinagar were
not brought from Pakistan but arranged in a different manner as a part of anti-India anguish.
141
142
Ibid.
143
Ibid.
40
21. On June 16, 1949, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beg,
Maulana Mohammad Saeed Masoodi and Moti Ram Baigra took the pledge and
signed the register of the Members of the Constituent Assembly of India.144 Mirza
Afzal Beg was fondly referred as “Fakhr-e-Kashmir.”
22. On November 26, 1949, the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India
and replaced the Government of India Act, 1935.145
23. On November 25, 1949, the Maharaja of J&K declared that “the Constitution of
India shortly to be adopted by the Constituent Assembly and the Constitution of
India shall in so far as it is applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, govern
the Constitutional relationship between this State and the contemplated Union of
India.”146
24. On January 26, 1950, the then Indian President made the first constitutional order
(application to J&K) under Article 370 of the Constitution of India which conform
to the ‘Instrument of Accession.’ “Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a price
for India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for
sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final
arbiters of their future.”147
25. On August 20, 1951, the government rest house at Anantnag was set on fire.
Mujahid Home Front carried out such acts to congregate the anti-India sentiment.
Overall, fourteen people were arrested by the police including Shiekh Abdul
Majeed, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Shawl, Ghulam Qadir Mengnu, Ghulam Mohammad
Badr, Ghulam Nabi Shora, Wali Mohammad Shah and Abdul Salam Deva. These all
were supporters for the accession to Pakistan.148
144
Arbaz Muzaffer and Niloofar Rockay, “Article 370: Impact on Foreign Relations of India,”
International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation 5, no. 9 (2020): 65-66.
145
Fatehyab Ali Khan, “Kashmir: Last Colony in the Subcontinent,” Pakistan Horizon 43, no. 2 (April
1990): 71-85.
146
147
148
Ibid.
41
26. On September 1951, nominations for the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent
Assembly started. In August 1951, Rugunath Vaishnave filed his nomination papers
and was abducted and threatened by the National Conference (NC). NC won all 75
seats and formed the Constituent Assembly.149
27. In late October or early November 1951, the second-in command of NC Mirza
Mohammad Afzal Beg said that “we have not acceded to India as forced labourers
that we have to act as puppets in their hands. Our relationship with India is on the
basis of principles and India should respect those principles. We are prepared to
accept application of India’s Constitution to Kashmir in its entirety once we are
satisfied that grave of communalism has been dug in India!”. “I say with all respects
to our Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the
people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the
alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion.” “We have fought good
fight about Kashmir on the field of battle…in many a chancellery of the world and
in the United Nations, but, above all, we have fought this fight in the hearts and
minds of men and women of that State of Jammu and Kashmir. Because, ultimately
- I say this with all difference to this Parliament - the decision will be made in the
hearts and minds of the men and women of Kashmir; neither in this Parliament, nor
in the United Nations nor by anybody else”.150
28. On July 24, 1952, Delhi Agreement was concluded between Pundit Jawaharlal
Nehru and Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah.151
29. On June 19, 1953, the formation of pro-Pak Kashmir Political Conference took
place under the leadership of Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Karra.152
149
150
Ibid.
151
A. G. Noorani, “Review: How and Why Nehru and Abdullah Fell Out,” Economic and Political Weekly
34, no. (January 30-February 5, 1990): p. 268-272.
152
42
30. On August 8, 1953, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was arrested. Those who were
protesting against the arrest were killed in an unprovoked police firing, resulting in
the killings of hundreds.153
31. In 1954, the Constituent Assembly formally ratified the accession of the State with
India.154
32. On April 13, 1954, the customs barriers between Kashmir and India were lifted.155
33. On August 9, 1955, the Plebiscite Front took birth. It was led by Mirza Mohammad
Afzal Beg as President and Sofi Mohammad Akbar and Atta Ullah Suharwardy as
Vice Presidents.156
34. By October 1956, the Constituent Assembly had decided upon a constitution for the
State.157
35. On June 18, 1957, Bagh Ali’s group attacked a shop in Jammu’s Residency Road
coupled with four other strikes on the United Nations Military Observer Group’s
(UNMOG) camp office in Jammu and on an Indian Airlines Corporation van. As per
neutral experts in Kashmir, these groups carried out attacks as a part of armed
resistance struggle.158
36. In 1960, a Committee to support Kashmir’s resistant movement was formed by

Amanullah Khan, Mir Abdul Aziz, Abdul Khaliq Ansari, G. M. Lone, Mor Manan
and Mor Qayoom.159
37. In 1962, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation League was formed by K. H Khurshid as a
President of the party.160
153
154
Ibid.
155
Ibid.
156
Ibid.
157
158
Ibid.
159
“History of Liberation Movement,” Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Cell,
http://jklc.org/History%20of%20Liberation%20Movement.htm, (accessed on March 22, 2021).
43
38. On May 12, 1963, ‘Kashmir Independence Committee’ (KIC), headed by the
Kashmir State Council member G M Lone, was formed by local Kashmiri activists
in Azad Kashmir to oppose the proposals regarding dividing Kashmir on communal
basis by Pakistan or India’s foreign ministers.161
39. On December 27, 1963, the mysterious disappearance of Holy Relic (Sacred Hair of
the Prophet Mohammad S.A.W) preserved in Hazratbal Shrine, Srinagar triggered
the mass agitation. Action Committee was formed to trace the Moe-e-Muqaddas.162
40. On April 8, 1964, “Kashmir Conspiracy Case” against Sheikh Abdullah and others
was withdrawn by Sadiq’s government unconditionally.163
41. On June 22, 1964, Peoples Action Group emanated into a politico-religious party
called Awami Action Committee, led by Molvi Mohammad Farooq as President and
Waji Ahmad Andrabi as its General Secretary.164
42. In 1964, Youth League, Revolutionary Youth Federation and Muslim Youth
Federation (MYF) was formed to support the Right to Self-Determination
movement.165
43. In May 1964, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah visited Pakistan and addressed at
various places in Azad Kashmir like Mirpur, Muzaffarbad etc. At the time,
Plebiscite Front (PF) was established at Kohala bridge.166
160
Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada, “Pakistan: The Jammu Kashmir
Liberation League (JKLL), including its structure, mandate and activities, leaders, current status, and
treatment of its members by the Azad Kashmiri and Pakistani authorities (1994 to September 1999),”
Refworld, September 24, 1999, https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ad6e90.html, (accessed on March
22, 2021).
161
162
Ibid.
163
Surinder Mohan, “Democracy in Jammu and Kashmir 1947-2008,” World Affairs: The Journal of
International Issues 16, no. 3 (2012): 88-117.
164
“Rao Farman Ali, “Freedom Struggles of Kashmir.”
165
Ibid.
166
Ibid.
44
44. On December 21, 1964, Article 356 of the Indian Constitution was applied to J&K
by New Delhi in order to impose President’s Rule in case of the failure of State
Constitution.167
45. On January 26, 1965, the then Prime Minister of J&K Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq
announced the formation of Congress Party in J&K.168
46. In August 1965, Operation Gibraltar was launched.169
47. On August 13, 1965, National Liberation Front was formed at the residence of
Major Amanullah in Peshawar with the aim of “including armed struggle using all
forms of struggle to enable the people of Jammu & Kashmir state to determine the
future of the State as sole owners of their motherland.”170
48. On August 29, 1965, college students went on a strike to protest in front of
UNMOGIP office in Srinagar and to deliver a memorandum stating that Kashmiris
fully support their indigenous armed resistance movement.171
49. In the same year, Kashmiri youth established United Freedom Front/ Muttahida
Mahaz-e-Azadi (MMeA). Their anti-India activities resulted in the arrest of Front’s
leading members including Ehsan-ul-Haq, Ghulam Qadir Basmati, Waji Ahmad
Andrabi, Fazal Haq and Aejaz-ul-Haq.172
50. 1965 war acted as a catalyst and Kashmiri youth started formulating various
resistance cells such as Red Kashmir and Young Men’s League (Students
Federation) etc.173
167
Rao Farman Ali, “Freedom Struggles of Kashmir.
168
Surinder Mohan, “Democracy in Jammu and Kashmir 1947-2008.”
169
“Pakistan launches Operation Gibraltar, Kashmir announces Liberation War,” Dawn, September 6,
2018.
170
171
Ibid.
172
Ibid.
173
Ibid.
45
51. In 1966, the Plebiscite Front and revolutionary student groups such as Jammu
Kashmir National Liberation Front (JKNLF) called for the complete independence
of J&K.174
52. In 1971, India-Pakistan war resulted in the secession of East Pakistan and resulted in
the formation of Bangladesh.175
53. In 1972, Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan that recognised
ceasefire line of 1949 as the Line of Control (LoC). According to Simla Agreement,
the final settlement of J&K will be decided bilaterally.176
54. In 1974, Sheikh Abdullah gave the demand of self-determination and disbanded
Plebiscite Front on the instance of Indira Gandhi. In return, he was allowed to return
to Kashmir.177
55. In June 1975, the then Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi declared emergency in
India which was also extended to Kashmir ten days later. Sheikh Abdullah accepted
the position of Chief Minister and won by-elections. Syed Ali Geelani, Jamaat
Islami legislator, claimed rigging in elections. Resultantly, Abdullah banned Jamaat
Islami.178
56. In 1976, Maqbool Bhat was arrested again in Kashmir.179
57. On May 29, 1977, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) in Birmingham was
formed with the support of Amanullah Khan, Abdul Khaliq Ansari and Azad
Kashmiri diaspora in Britain.180
174
175
Onkar marwah, “India’s Military Intervention in East Pakistan, 1971-1972,” Modern South Asia 13, no.
4 (1979): 549-580.
176
“Simla Agreement,” Stimson, https://www.stimson.org/1972/simla-agreement/, (accessed on March 23,
2021).
177
178
179
Ibid.
180
Ibid.
46
58. In 1977, Sheikh Abdullah won elections with the support of the Indian
establishment. On the other hand, Jamaat Islami won only one seat in the
Assembly.181
59. On September 8, 1982, Sheikh Abdullah died.182
60. On February 11, 1984, Maqbool Bhat was hanged in Tihar Jail. Resultantly, small
group of Kashmiris planned armed movement against India and formed
underground cells.183
61. In July 1984, India started interfering in Kashmir’s politics directly and dismissed
Farooq Abdullah, son of Sheikh Abdullah, as the Chief Minister and installed his
opponent Ghulam Muhammad Shah.184
62. In 1986, Ghulam Muhammad Shah was dismissed as Chief Minister by India on the
promise of dismantling Kashmiris’ struggle and unrest by Farooq Abdullah. A
coalition government was formed by Farooq Abdullah and the Indian National
Congress in Kashmir.185
1987 Rigging of Elections and Freedom Struggle of Kashmiris (1987-2020)
63. In 1987, the Muslim United Front (MUF) jointly stood against National Conference
in elections. However, Farooq Abdullah won and became the Chief Minister due to
massive poll rigging. Young polling agents such as Yasin Malik and MUF
contestants like Yusuf Shah were arrested. Despite massive public support, MUF
won only four seats.186
64. The 1987 elections in Jammu and Kashmir were a turning point for revolutionaries
as Farooq Abdullah, Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference
181
182
Ibid.
183
Ibid.
184
185
Ibid.
186
Ibid.
47
forged an alliance with the Indian National Congress which resulted in his victory
being contentious. This lead to disillusionment among the Kashmiri youth with
agitation spearheaded by parties such as the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Ittehad-ul-
Muslimeen who under the joint alliance of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference
campaigned for independence. This resulted in the birth of a new resistance
movement based on now substitutes being acceptable to Kashmiris beyond
plebiscite.187
65. In 1988, JKLF declared armed struggle against India. Jamaat Islami, on the other
hand, asserted for the resolution of difference through constitutional means and
dialogue in its publication of Azan.188
66. In 1989, Master Ahsan Dar. Yusuf Shah, a Jamaat Islami activist and schoolteacher,
founded Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) against increasing Indian repression in
Kashmir.189
67. In 1990, Kashmiris publicly resigned from pro-India parties in response to

massacres carried out by the Indian military in January, 1990.190
68. On January 17, 1990, India dismissed Farooq Abdullah’s government and installed
Jagmohan, a bureaucrat, as the Governor, who launched widespread lockdowns on
urban neighbourhood.
69. In 1990, Indian atrocities against the Kashmiris intensified after army killed 100
demonstrators at Gawakadal Bridge over election rigging and a deteriorating
economic situation which increased independence advocacy and military defiance
against the Indian occupation forces. The resistance resulted in a considerable
187
Altaf Hussain, “Kashmir’s flawed elections” BBC South Asia, 14, September, 2002, accessed 19th, July,
2021. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2223364.stm.
188
Ibid.
189
190
Ibid.
48
amount of Hindu’s exiting the Kashmir valley with the Indian forces imposing the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to quell agitators.191
70. On January 21, 1990, 55-65 unarmed protesters were killed by the Indian troops
near Gawakadal in Srinagar.192
71. By summer 1990, India imposed Armed Forces Special Powers Act, giving a free
hand to the Indian military.193
72. On February 23, 1991, Indian soldiers entered Kunan and Poshpora, villages of
Kashmir, and raped Kashmiri women.194
73. In 1993, All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), an amalgamation of Kashmir’s

political groups, was formed to express Kashmiris’ right to self-determination.195
74. On February 22, 1994, the Parliament of India passed a resolution that claimed
Kashmir as ‘an integral’ part of India.196
75. In 1995, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (later Harkat–ul-Ansar) became a challenging force

in J&K.197
76. On March 8, 1996, Jalil Andrabi, a lawyer and human rights activist, was abducted
by the Indian military officer named Avtar Gill. Andrabi’s body was recovered from
a river later on.198
191
BBC News, “Kashmir profile- Timeline” 6th of August, 2019, accessed 19th of July, 2021.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-16069078.
192
On January 25, Indian forces kill 21 protestors in Handwara town. On March 1, Indian soldiers kill
around 50 Kashmiri protestors near Tengpora in Srinagar. In early March, an estimated one million
Kashmiris take to the streets for several days. Indian soldiers kill dozens. On March 30, JKLF chief
commander Ashfaq Wani is killed during an attack.
193
Ibid.
194
Massarrat Abid and Ayesha Ashfaq, “Atrocities on woman committed by Indian armed forces in the
Indian held Kashmir,” Pakistan Vision 17, no. 1 (2016): 247-278.
195
Surinder Mohan, “Democracy in Jammu and Kashmir 1947-2008.”
196
197
Ibid.
198
Ibid.
49
77. In September 1996, India held elections in Kashmir and Farooq Abdullah became
the Chief Minister. Jamaat boycotted the elections.199
78. In 1999, Kargil war broke out.200
79. On March 20, 2000, 35 Kashmiri Sikhs were killed by unidentified gunmen in the
village of Chattisinghpora in South Kashmir just before the visit of the then US
President Bill Clinton to India. Though India blamed Islamic militants for the attack,
but the subsequent investigations established that unidentified gunmen were local
civilians.201
80. On May 21, 2002, APHC leader, Abdul Ghani Lone, was assassinated by
unidentified gunmen.202
81. In October 2002, former Indian Home Minister of Kashmiri origin, Mufti Syed, and
his newly-created Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), won elections and form a
coalition government with the Indian Congress. PDP ran its campaign on the idea of
establishing “self-rule” in Kashmir. NC ran on the promise of re-establishing the
pre-1953 “autonomy” for Kashmir.203
82. In 2004, Syed Ali Geelani formed Tehreek-e-Hurriyat and left his position within
Jamaat Islami.204
83. In 2006, APHC led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq endorsed 4-Point Formula of Gen.
Pervaiz Musharraf.205
199
200
Ibid.
201
Luke Harding, “Killings of Sikhs clouds Clinton visit to India,” Guardian, March 20, 2000.
202
203
“Everyone Lives in Fear: Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir,” Human Rights Watch,
September 11, 2006, https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/09/11/everyone-lives-fear/patterns-impunity-
jammu-and-kashmir, (accessed on March 24, 2021).
204
Mohamad Junaid, “Kashmir: A Historical Timeline,” Adi Magazine, 2020,
https://adimagazine.com/articles/kashmir-a-historical-timeline/, (accessed on March 25, 2021).
205
Mohamad Junaid, “Kashmir: A Historical Timeline.
50
84. In 2007, JKLF launched the Safar-e-Azadi mass contact program to put pressure on
India and Pakistan to include Kashmiris in the talks. Geelani claimed that the 4-
Point Formula is an attempt to freeze the Kashmir Dispute.206
85. In 2008, land allocation for Amarnath Shrine Board’s permanent infrastructure for
the Indian pilgrims contravened the protection of land, guaranteed under Article 370
and Article 35A, which limit the ownership of land only to the permanent residents
of Kashmir.207
86. In May 2009, the rape and murder of two Kashmiri women in Shopian led to the
widespread protests across Kashmir. Independent investigations show that the
Indian forces were involved in the rape incidents. A Kashmiri human rights group
discovered 2700 unmarked mass graves across three districts of the highly-
militarised North Kashmir. The graves contain some 2900 unknown bodies, many
believed to be among the 8000 enforced disappearances that have taken place in
Kashmir since 1989.208
87. In June 2010, an eight-year-old Tufail Mattoo was killed in Srinagar when Indian
forces hit his head with a teargas shell which resulted in months-long protests.209
88. In 2013, Afzal Guru was hanged in prison on charges of attacking the Indian
Parliament in the year 2001.210
89. In 2015, a Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society report “Structures of

Violence” states: “this report is a part of the continuing work to understand and
analyse the role of the Indian State in Jammu and Kashmir, an occupied territory
internationally recognised as a disputed territory between India and Pakistan, that
has resulted in a widespread and systematic violence including the disappearance of
206
207
Ibid.
208
Ibid.
209
Ibid.
210
Ibid.
51
8000+ persons, 70,000+ deaths, 6000+ unknown, unmarked and mass graves, and
countless cases of torture and sexual violence.”211
90. On July 8, 2016, Indian forces martyred Burhan Wani, whose death brought “New-
Age Militancy” in Kashmir.212
91. In 2017, India’s “Operation All Out”, intensified in South Kashmir, killing hundreds
of young Kashmiri militants and civilians.213
92. In June 2018, the governor dissolved the Legislative Assembly.214
93. On August 5, 2019, Indian government “reads down” Article 370 and revokes
Article 35A, removing the last remnants of “autonomy” and “special status”
guaranteed under the Instrument of Accession and the Delhi Agreement.215
94. In 2020, Indian government enacts a new “Domicile Law”216 for the Jammu and
Kashmir Union Territory, allowing certain classes of Indians to become permanent
residents of Kashmir.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
United Nations:
 “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
211
The International Peoples' Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-Administered Kashmir
(IPTK) and The Association of Disappeared Persons (APDP), “Structures of Violence: The Indian State
in Jammu and Kashmir,” IPTK and APDP, September 2015,
https://jkccs.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/structures-of-violence-e28093-main-report.pdf, (accessed on
March 25, 2021)
212
Mohamad Junaid, “Kashmir: A Historical Timeline.”
213
Ibid.
214
Mohamad Junaid, “Kashmir: A Historical Timeline.”
215
216
“India issues new domicile law for held Kashmir,” Dawn, April 2, 2020.
52
a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.”
(UN Security Council Resolution January 24, 1957).217
 “The life of the Kashmiris remained a Saga of poverty and oppression. Everything
and everybody was taxed. ------ The state police ruled mercilessly. For minor
offences people were thrown in jail, often without trial. As late as 1920, it was a
capital offense for a Muslim to kill a cow; later the penalty was reduced to ten years
of imprisonment and still later to seven years.” (Josef Korbel, Member UNCIP).218
 “The Indian government is responsible for human rights violations in occupied

Kashmir. The officials responsible for abuses in the occupied territory should be
punished.” (Jose Ayala Lasso, UN Human Rights Commission – November,
1995).219
 “The human rights situation in Indian held Kashmir is very gloomy.” (Mary
Robinson, UN Human Rights Commissioner – November 13, 2001).220
Heads of state/ government officials:
 ‘I challenge the Indian claim of being the “biggest democracy in the world”. If this
is, the international human rights organisations should be allowed to go into
Kashmir and see what’s happening there.’ (Fiona MacTaggart, British, MP).221
217
United Nations Digital Library, Resolution 122 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 765th
meeting in January, URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/112095?ln=en.
218
Korbel, Joseph, Danger in Kashmir, Princeton Legacy Library, 1931, Paperback 2015,
https://www.amazon.com/Danger-Kashmir-Princeton-Legacy-Library/dp/0691624100.
219
Summary of Mr. Ayala Lasso’s report on the 53 rd session of the Commission on Human Rights, 10
March 1997, pp. 9-33. https://search.archives.un.org/uploads/r/united-nations-
archives/6/2/5/625951a7ea4c600690a936b2a48abc663a0ef9f2f8f7a394bb88414dad9690d3/S-1093-
0130-06-00012.pdf.
220
Dawn News, Call to stop HR abuses in Kashmir, November 20 2001, URL:
https://www.dawn.com/news/7178/call-to-stop-hr-abuses-in-kashmir.
221
Parallel Parliament, Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent, Debate between Andrew Griffiths and
Fiona Mactaggart, 15th September 2011, URL: https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/andrew-
griffiths/vs/fiona-mactaggart/parliament/2010.
53
 “My experiences convinced me that there is an attempt by the Indian security

forces to eradicate virtually all male Kashmiris between the ages of 10 and 35.”
(Max Madden, British MP – October 1, 1990).222
 “The US Administration should forcefully condemn India’s tyrannical behaviour

in occupied Kashmir and demand immediate release of political prisoners.” (Dan
Burton, US Congressman – April 25, 1996).223
 “It is really heart breaking to see what is happening in Indian occupied Kashmir.
(Hank Brown, US Senator – August 7, 1996).224
 “After having a five day visit to the Valley, I am now in a better position to
understand the unsatisfactory situation and measures being taken by the Indian
forces to suppress the free will of the Kashmiri people.” (Robin Cook, British MP –
November 7, 1996).225
 “India should be persuaded to give the right of self-determination to the Kashmiri

people.” (US Senator Harry Reid – September 16, 1999).226
 “We will continue supporting Kashmiri people for their right to self-
determination.” (President Khatami of Iran – OIC Summit, December, 1998).227
222
Sanjay Suri, J and K Is Part Of India….. No, It Is A Disputed Territory, Outlook India, 27 October 1997,
URL: https://magazine.outlookindia.com/story/quotjampk-is-part-of-indiano-it-is-a-disputed-
territoryquot/204475.
223
Tania Anand, Anti- India lobby gains momentum in the US, India Today, 15 November 1993, Updated
July 22, 2013, URL: https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/international/story/19931115-anti-india-
lobby-gains-momentum-in-us-811801-1993-11-15.
224
UPI Archives, US Senator Hank Brown visits Kashmir, 5 th August 1996, URL:
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/08/05/US-Senator-Hank-Brown-visits-Kashmir/3238839217600/.
225
Sanjay Suri, J and K Is Part Of India….. No, It Is A Disputed Territory, Outlook India, 27 October 1997,
URL: https://magazine.outlookindia.com/story/quotjampk-is-part-of-indiano-it-is-a-disputed-
territoryquot/204475.
226
Profile of Senator Harry Reid, CONGRESS.GOV, URL: https://www.congress.gov/member/harry-
reid/R000146?r=5&q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%5B%22104%22%2C106%5D%2C%22subject%22
%3A%22International+Affairs%22%7D.
227
Final Communique of the Twenty Fifth Session of the Islamic Conference Of Foreign Ministers, 15-17
March, 1998, https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4302&refID=1208.
54
 “The Kashmiri people are waging a just struggle for freedom.” (Rauf Denktash,
President Turkish Cyprus – November, 1998).228
 “We hope India will take the steps necessary to address the human rights violations
taking place there (in Kashmir).” (US Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth –
May 20, 2000).229
 “Kashmir issue is a blot on our claim to be a civilised society. Human rights

continue to be abused systematically; sufferings and torture continue on daily basis
in Indian held Kashmir.” (John Stevenson, British MP – February 5, 2002).230
 The US is bound to take notice of the human rights violations in the held Kashmir.
(US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage- December. 07, 2003).231
 “India is not permitting the people of Kashmir to have a vote, to determine their
destiny by vote. This will be over if the people of Kashmir will be given the right
to determine their destiny with a vote.” (US Congressman Dana Rohrabachar, at
the House Committee on International Relations – October 30, 2003).232
 “Kashmir is one of the most dangerous and tragic places in the world. A
referendum is the most logical way to find out the will of the Kashmiri people.”
(Madeline Albright, Former US Secretary of State. – December 3, 2003).233
228
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Call for peace from Turkish side Rauf Denktas
Proposes Confederation In Cyprus, 31 August 1998, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/_p_call-for-peace-from-
the-turkish-side_br_rauf-denktas-proposes-confederation-in-cyprus_br_31-august-1998__p_.en.mfa.
229
Karl F. Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Remarks, Howard University,
Washington, DC February 2, 2000, https://1997 2001.state.gov/policy_remarks/2000/000202_
inderfurth_sausa.html.
230
Dawn News Report, British MPs slam HR abuses in Kashmir, February 8, 2002,
https://www.dawn.com/news/19644/british-mps-slam-hr-abuses-in-kashmir.
231
US Department of State Archive, Interview by Pakistan Television, Richard L. Armitage, Deputy
Secretary of State, Residence of the U.S. Ambassador, Islamabad, Pakistan, May 2003, https://2001-
2009.state.gov/s/d/former/armitage/remarks/20436.htm.
232
Anwar Iqbal, US Congressman demands plebiscite, Dawn, October 3, 2003,
https://www.dawn.com/news/122557/us-congressman-demands-plebiscite.
233
Dawn News Report, Albright calls for Kashmir plebiscite, December 14, 2003,
https://www.dawn.com/news/129512/albright-calls-for-kashmir-plebiscite.
55
 “Kashmir today is locked in a death struggle for survival and the right of self-
determination. This historic valley of beauty has become a valley of death. A
country of thirteen million inhabitants face on daily basis the bullets and brutality
of an occupation army of Indian soldiers.” (Prof. William Baker –October 30,
2006).234
Other condemnations
 “India is allowing “gross and systematic human rights abuses in Kashmir”, in held
Kashmir the authorities have clearly abandoned the rule of law for rule by the gun.”
(Asia Watch – May, 1991).235
 “The government forces have systematically violated international human rights law
by using lethal force against peaceful demonstrators.” (Asia Watch, 1991).236
 “The methods employed by the Indian security forces at detention centers are
“barbaric, inhuman and imaginatively vicious”. (Federation Internationale Des
Ligues Deroits Del’ Home, 1993).237
 “In their efforts to crush the insurgency, Indian forces in Kashmir have engaged in
massive human rights violations, including extra-judicial executions, rape, torture
and deliberate assaults on health care workers… Indian government forces have
systematically violated international human rights and humanitarian law. Among the
worst of these has been the summary execution of hundreds of detainees in the
234
Muslim Mirror, Killings in Kashmir: Is there really no one to be blamed? November 12, 2018,
https://muslimmirror.com/eng/killings-in-kashmir-is-there-really-no-one-to-be-blamed/.
235
Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Nov.,1992), pp. 637-640 (4 pages), Published By: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
236
Ibid.
237
Strategic Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Summer 1996), pp. 5-47 (43 pages), Published By: Institute of Strategic
Studies Islamabad.
56
custody of the security forces in Kashmir. Such killings are carried out as a matter of
policy.” (Joint Report of Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Right, 1993).238
 “Torture was practiced systematically in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab, where its
occurrence was facilitated by illegal, incommunicado and secret detentions.
‘Disappearances of scores of suspected political activists were reported from Jammu
and Kashmir and Punjab, and hundreds of political activists were allegedly extra
judicially executed.” (Amnesty International – March, 1993).239
 “The brutality of torture in Jammu and Kashmir defies belief. It has left people
mutilated and disabled for life. The severity of torture meted out by Indian security
forces in Jammu and Kashmir is the main reason for appalling number of deaths in
custody of young men picked up by the army or the paramilitary forces during
crackdown operations in villages and other areas to identify suspected
“militants”………Local journalists and media personnel persistently complain of
harassment by government forces.” (Amnesty International – December, 1993).240
 “Rape is not uncommon and there is evidence of its employment as an instrument of

terror. The infamous mass-rape by the Indian army at Kunan Poshpora was reported
widely in the Press both in India and abroad. It is to date the most sickening
example of the brutal excesses of the security forces against the women of the
region. There have been numerous examples of rape, of molestations, of sexual
humiliation.” (FIDH – Paris based Human Rights Group).241
238
Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch World Report 1993 - India, 1 January 1993, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/467fca6917.html.
239
Amnesty International India, Sopore: a case study of extrajudicial killings in Jammu and Kashmir, April
1993, AI Index: ASA 20/17/93, Distr: SC/CO, pp. 1-10,
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/188000/asa200171993en.pdf.
240
Ibid.
241
Lubna Mohiuddin, Pakistan Horizon Vol. 50, No. 2 (April 1997), pp. 75-97 (23 pages), Published By:
Pakistan Institute of International Affairs.
57
 “Events in occupied Kashmir remained among the most serious human rights
situation in Asia.” (Human Rights Watch World – January 21, 1995).242
 “Indian security forces are responsible for many human rights abuses in occupied
Kashmir…….. Para-military forces are deployed throughout India and have
committed significant human rights abuses particularly in Jammu and Kashmir.”
(US State Department, 1995).243
 “Thousands of allegations of torture and deaths in custody have been reported in

Jammu and Kashmir since early 1990.” (Amnesty International, 1995).244
 “The stigma associated with rape and the fact that it often occurs in remote places
means that this abuse is under reported… Rape has been systematically used as a
means of punishing women suspected of being sympathetic or related to alleged
militants (as well as) a weapon in the security forces’ efforts to intimidate and
humiliate the local population.” (Amnesty International Report, 1995).245
 “Indian security forces are responsible for human rights abuses in occupied
Kashmir.” (US State Department – February 2, 1995).246
 “Violations of human rights and humanitarian law by regular security forces – the
army, the Border Security Force (BSF) and the Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF) – have also continued. These violations include deliberate killing of
detainees in the custody of the security forces in Kashmir and reprisal killings of
civilians… Indian security personnel in the Indian held Kashmir have also been
242
Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir, 1 March
1995, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a8254.html.
243
United States Department of State, U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices
1995 - India, 30 January 1996, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6aa3a28.html.
244
Research, India: Torture and Deaths in Custody in Jammu and Kashmir ( Includes Correction: Number
of Custodial Deaths Amended to 706), Amnesty International, 31 January, 1995, Index Number: ASA
20/001/1995, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa20/001/1995/en/.
245
Ibid.
246
1995 - India, 30 January 1996, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6aa3a28.html.
58
responsible for rape as a counter insurgency tactic.” (Human Rights Watch/Asia –

May, 1996).247
 “Human rights conditions in occupied Kashmir have deteriorated as a result of a

new policy of the Indian government to arm and protect irregular militias to carry
out its counter-insurgency operations... Indian forces have in effect sub-contracted
some of their abusive tactics to groups with no official accountability. The extra
judicial killings, abductions and assaults committed by these groups against
suspected militants are instead described as resulting from “inter-group rivalries”.
Since the conflict in Kashmir began in 1990, the Indian government has attempted
to discredit militant organisations by claiming that the uprising was provoked by
Pakistan and was not indigenous in origin.” (Human Rights Watch Reports,
1996).248
 “India should ensure that all political prisoners are tried promptly and fairly and all
allegations of torture and deaths in custody are investigated and justice brought to
those responsible.” (Amnesty International – December 13, 1996).249
 “Several state-sponsored militia commonly referred to as “renegades” in Jammu and

Kashmir were serving as India’s secret army and they were involved in widespread
human rights abuse attacks on journalists, human rights activists and medical
workers.” (Human Rights Watch – Report titled “India’s Secret Army in Kashmir:
New Patterns of Abuse” – January 13, 1997).250
 “The Indian government forces commit serious violations of Humanitarian Law

(H&L) in Occupied Kashmir. The Muslim majority population in the Kashmir
247
Human Rights Watch, India’s Secret Army in Kashmir, New Patterns of Abuse Emerge in the Conflict,
May 1996, Vol. 8, No. 4 (C), https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1996/India2.htm.
248
May 1996, Vol. 8, No. 4 (C), https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1996/India2.htm..
249
Research, India: Human Rights Abuses in the Election Period in Jammu and Kashmir, Amnesty
International, 5 September, 1996, Index number: ASA 20/039/1996, https://www.amnesty.org/en/
documents/ASA20/039/1996/en/.
250
May 1996, Vol. 8, No. 4 (C), https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1996/India2.htm.
59
Valley suffers from the repressive tactics of the security forces.” (US State
Department Report, 1997).251
 “Access to redress for victims of human rights violations, a right guaranteed under
international law, is being denied to victims in Jammu and Kashmir.” (Amnesty
International – May, 1997).252
 “In an effort to gain an economic advantage in a potentially sizable market, the

international community is condoning India’s human rights record more particularly
in Kashmir as well as ignoring their moral responsibility to demand an end to all
government- directed-and-sponsored massive abuses in Kashmir… India also
maintained its reputation as one of the dangerous places in the world for human
rights activists.” (Human Rights Watch, 1997).253
 “Serious human rights abuses, extra-judicial executions and other political killings
and excessive use of force by security forces in Jammu and Kashmir and other
northern states; torture and rape by police and other agents of Government, deaths of
suspects in police custody, arbitrary arrest are rampant.” (US Department Report –
January 30, 1998).254
 “The OIC upholds the fundamental human rights of the people of Kashmir and the
exercise of the right to self-determination in accordance with relevant UN
251
Parama Sinha Palit, The Kashmir Policy of the United States: A Study of Perceptions, Conflicts and
Dilemmas, IDSA Journal, September 2001, Vol. XXV No.6, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.
edu/olj/sa/sa_sep01pap01.html.
252
Research, India: High Time to Put an End to Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, Amnesty International,
14 May 1997, Index number: ASA 20/024/1997, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/
160000/asa200241997en.pdf.
253
Human Rights Watch, Behind the Kashmir Conflict: Abuses by Indian Security Forces and Militant
Groups Continue, 1 July 1999, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/45d0609b2.html.
254
1998 - India, 26 February 1999, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6aa7d8.html.
60
resolutions and condemn the massive violations of their human rights.” (OIC
Summit Declaration – March 24, 1999).255
 “Government agencies fund, exchange intelligence with and direct operations of

counter-militants as part of the counterinsurgency effort.” (US Statement
Department Report on Human Rights, 1999).256
 “The escalation in fighting has made it urgent that the international community put
pressure on India to end widespread human rights violations by its security forces in
Kashmir… In their effort to curb support for pro-independence militants, Indian
security forces have resorted to extra-judicial executions, “disappearances”, torture
and rape.” (Human Rights Watch, 1999).257
 “Renegades, while usually acting in conjunction with any of these agencies are also
reported to have actively taken people into their custody and “disappeared” them.”
(Amnesty International Report, 1999).258
 “Massive human rights violations are going on in occupied Kashmir.” (Amnesty

International Report – April 22, 2000).259
 “India should release immediately all the Kashmiri leaders and political workers
imprisoned in its jails and also revise the Public Safety Act to bring it in line with
the laid down international standards for the protection of human rights… New
tactics were being adopted for the harassment of opponents in occupied Kashmir
and all political and civic right had been usurped. The Amnesty International is
255
Official OIC Final Declaration, March 1999, https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4362&refID=
1224.
256
1998 - India, 26 February 1999, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6aa7d8.html.
257
Human Rights Watch, Behind the Kashmir Conflict, Abuses by Indian Security Forces and Militant
Groups Continue, 1999, https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/intl-law.htm.
258
Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 1999 - India, 1 January 1999, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6aa0a34.html.
259
Research, India: A Trail of Unlawful Killings in Jammu and Kashmir: Chithisinghpora and its
Aftermath, Amnesty International, 14 June 2000, Index number: ASA 20/024/2000, https://www.
amnesty.org/en/documents/asa20/024/2000/en/.
61
aware of numerous such cases in which the detenus are being kept under unlawful
detention without a trial since 1990.” (Amnesty International – May, 2000).260
 “The United States must take up with India the civilian sufferings as a result of
human rights violations in Kashmir.” (Amnesty International – September 16,
2000).261
 “We reaffirm our solidarity and support for the right of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir to self-determination.” (OIC Summit, Doha – November, 2000).262
 “The US Government should play its vigorous diplomatic role on Kashmir in sharp
contrast to India’s known stand of settling all its disputes with Pakistan bilaterally,
free from any kind of foreign intervention.” (Asia Foundation, San Francisco –
February 23, 2001).263
 “The State has shown little disregard for the lives and physical integrity of the
people in Jammu and Kashmir. When investigations of human rights violations do
take place, officials have obstructed the course of the investigation by withholding
evidence or refusing to obey court orders to attend hearings. In other instances, key
witnesses and complainants have received threats to their lives if they appear in
court.” (Amnesty International – April, 2001).264
260
Research, India: A Trail of Unlawful Killings in Jammu and Kashmir: Chithisinghpora and its
Aftermath, Amnesty International, 14 June 2000, Index number: ASA 20/024/2000, https://www.
amnesty.org/en/documents/asa20/024/2000/en/.
261
Muhammad Tahir Tabassum, Political Situation in Kashmir and Role of the United Nations, SCS
Journal, Studies of Changing Societies: Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus, Vol.1’ (2) 2012, pp.2-
25.
262
Raja Amir Hanif, Pakistan, OIC and the Challenges of Muslim World, JPUHS, University of the
Punjab, Vol. 21, No.1, January-June 2014, http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/HistoryPStudies/PDF-
FILES/5%20Raja%20Amir%20Hanif_v27No1june2014.pdf.
263
Vasantha Arora, Asia Foundation favors US role in Kashmir dispute, The Times of India, 22 February
2001, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/asia-foundation-favors-us-role-in-kashmir-
dispute/articleshow/22055086.cms.
264
Research, India: Impunity Must End in Jammu and Kashmir, Amnesty International, 22 April 2001,
Index number: ASA 20/023/2001, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ASA20/023/2001/en/.
62
 “The situation will continue to deteriorate unless India ends widespread human
rights violations by its security forces in Kashmir… The Indian government to
ensure that all reports of extra-judicial executions, “disappearances”, deaths in
custody, torture, and rape by security forces and unofficial paramilitary forces in
Kashmir are promptly investigated and prosecuted.” (Human Rights Watch –
November 20, 2001).265
 “The gross violation of human rights by Indian army in occupied Kashmir is

terrorism against unarmed Kashmiri people. International human rights
organisations should be allowed to have access to the occupied Kashmir.”
(International Seminar organised by human rights organisations, Geneva, 2003).266
 “We urge the government to immediately establish an official inquiry into the
disappearances, which have occurred in Jammu Kashmir since 1989.” (Amnesty
International – September, 2003).267
 “People under alien domination, colonial rule or foreign occupation have the right to
struggle for self-determination. This struggle may not be equal with terrorism.”
(NAM Summit Putra Jaya – October, 2003).268
 “OIC supports the struggle of the Kashmir people for their right to self-
determination.” (OIC Secretary General Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz at UN Human
Rights Commission – March, 2004).269
265
Human Rights Watch, India Human Rights Development, World Report, 2001,
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k1/asia/india.html.
266
Farooq Kathwari, 2nd Pugwash Workshop on South Asian Security, Pugwash Meeting no. 282, Geneva,
Switzerland, 16-18 May 2003, https://pugwashconferences.files.wordpress.com/2003/05/200305_
geneva_kathwari_paper.pdf.
267
Research, India/Kashmir: Safeguard the Lives of Civilians, Amnesty International, 24 March 2003,
Index number: ASA 20/013/2003, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/104000/asa
200132003en.pdf.
268
Final Communique, Tenth Session of the Islamic Summit Conference, Session of Knowledge and
Morality for the Progress of Ummah, Putrajaya Malaysia, 16-17 October 2003,
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/78F5DF4ED4C1652185256DE800547C44.
269
Ibid.
63
 “The excessive use of force by the armed forces as well as arbitrary arrests and
disappearance in occupied Kashmir besides religiously motivated violence against
Christians and Muslims continues in India.” (US State Department Report – May,
2004).270
 “Torture, rape, deaths in custody, extra judicial executions and disappearances have
been perpetrated by agents of the state with impunity. … The human rights abuses
in the Kashmir Valley are facilitated by laws, which provide the security forces with
virtual immunity from prosecution for acts “done in good faith”. (Amnesty
International – May, 2004). 271
 “India Pakistan and people of Kashmir should resolve the Kashmir issue. We are
concerned, because it (Kashmir) has been a flashpoint… There is a huge military
presence (in the State) with approximately one soldier to every 10 civilians. I was
amazed at the concentration of Indian troops in the Valley, which I have not seen
anywhere else in the world. Kashmir has been turned into the most beautiful prison
in the world… The struggle of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is indigenous and
their involvement in the dialogue process is a must. The custodial killings of
innocent Kashmiris by Indian troops’ stands at 17 per day.” (Adhoc Delegation of
European Parliament, comprising John Cushnahan, David Bowe and other MEPs,
after visit to IOK, 2004).272
 “The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which remains enforced in occupied
Kashmir and north east region of India, should be repealed. The law violates
International Human Rights laws by giving the security forces wide-ranging powers
270
Wajahat Habibullah, The Political Economy of the Kashmir Conflict Opportunities for Economic
Peacebuilding and for U.S. Policy, USIP, June 2004, pp.1-16, https://www.usip.org/sites/default/
files/resources/sr121.pdf.
271
Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2006 - India, 23 May 2006, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/447ff7ab2.html.
272
European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report of Ad Hoc Delegation Visits to Kashmir,
2004, pp.1-10, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/ad%20hoc%20
delegation %20report-kashmir/ad%20hoc%20delegation%20report-kashmiren.pdf.
64
and has facilitated grave human right abuses.” (Amnesty International – May 5,
2005). 273
 “Steps should be taken to end continued Human rights violations by Indian troops in
occupied Kashmir.” (Human Rights Watch – July 18, 2005).274
 “The Indian military agencies involved in torture, arbitrary detentions and summary
executions, must be brought to judicial accountability… Thousands of Kashmiris
are still missing in custody after they were detained by military forces.” (Human
Rights Watch – Open letter to the Indian Premier – July 19, 2005).275
 “In Indian held Kashmir, military, paramilitary and police forces continue their
practice of torturing detainees, leading to custodial killing. … The European Union
to spotlight human rights violations by India.” (Human Rights Watch – November
21, 2005).276
 “The human rights abuses continued despite tentative moves towards political
settlement. The impact on women and children of longstanding conflict across the
region is severe.” (Amnesty International Report – 2005).277
 “The Indian government’s failure to account for these abuses and take rigorous
action against those members of its forces responsible for murder, rape and torture
amounts to a policy of condoning human rights violations by the security forces.
273
Amnesty International India, Briefing on the Armed Forces ( Special Power) Act, 1958, AI Index: ASA
20/025/2005, p.5.
274
Human Rights Watch, Everyone Lives in Fear Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, Vol. 18,
No. 11 (C), September 2006.
275
Human Rights Watch, Letter from HRW to the National Human Rights Commission of India, 1
November 2005, https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/11/01/letter-human-rights-watch-national-human-
rights-commission-india,
276
Human Rights Watch, Everyone Lives in Fear Patters of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, 11
September 2006, https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/09/11/everyone-lives-fear/patterns-impunity-jammu-
and-kashmir.
277
Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2005 - Pakistan , 25 May 2005, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/429b27f120.html.
65
Among the worst of these violations have been the summary executions of hundreds
of detainees in the custody of the security forces in occupied Kashmir. Such killings
are carried out as a matter of policy.” (Asia Watch & Physicians for Human Rights
Report, 2005).278
 “According to the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons around 10,000

Kashmiris have disappeared at the hands of Indian security forces since the current
phase of the struggle started in 1989.” (US State Department Report, 2005).279
 “The United Nations should take appropriate steps for access of the world media
and human rights organisations to the Indian held Kashmir to monitor the grave
human rights violations in the Valley.” (Brad Adams, Executive Director, Human
Rights Watch – 2006).280
 “Situation in Kashmir is not stable. It can become a flash point any time…. Unless
the Indian forces are withdrawn, it is not possible to stop the human rights
violations.” (International Crisis Group, Washington – June 15, 2006).281
 “Kashmiris continue to live in constant fear as perpetrators of human rights abuses

among Indian soldiers go escort… Indian government has effectively given its
troops free rein. The work of both the National Human Rights Commission and the
State Human Rights Commission in occupied Kashmir is severely hampered by
laws that prohibit them from directly investigating human rights abuses carried out
by Indian troops…. The UN Human Rights Council should appoint Rapporteur to
278
Muhammad Tahir Tabassum, Political Situation in Kashmir and Role of the United Nations, SCS
Journal, Studies of Changing Societies: Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus, Vol.1’ (2) 2012,
pp.2-25.
279
US State Department Diplomacy in Action, 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Released
online in January 2009, https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/index.htm.
280
Human Rights Watch, Pakistan: ‘ Free Kashmir’ Far From Free Government Opponents Face Torture,
Censorship and Political Repression, 21 September 2006,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/21/pakistan-free-kashmir-far-free.
281
International Crisis Group, India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Stabilising a Cold Peace, Asia Briefing N 51,
Islamabad/ Brussels, 15 June 2006, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources
/29CB1B0282655397C125718E00494D9A-icg-ind-pak-15jun.pdf.
66
regularly publish public reports on human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir.”
(Human Rights Watch Report, 2006). 282
Statements in Post August 5, 2019 era:
 2019; In a statement, Amnesty International said New Delhi's unilateral decision

to revoke Article 370 of the Constitution without consulting the state's
inhabitants was likely to inflame prevailing tensions, alienate the local
population and increase the risk of further human rights violations amidst a
complete clampdown on civil liberties and communications blackout.283
 “I call upon the government to take preventive measures to protect children, by

ending the use of pellets against children, ensuring that children are not
associated in any way to security forces, and endorsing the Safe Schools
Declaration and the Vancouver Principles,” United Nations Secretary General
Antonio Guterres said in the UN Report on Children 2021.284
 “We are concerned that the annulment of Article 370 of the Constitution of
India on August 5, 2019, which accords a special status to Jammu-Kashmir
could further increase existing tensions”. (Turkish Foreign Ministry) 285
 India has “invaded and occupied” Jammu and Kashmir and asked New Delhi to
work with Pakistan to resolve the issue. (Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohamad September 30, 2019)286
282
Human Rights Watch, Everyone Lives in Fear Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir, Vol. 18,
No. 11 (C), September 2006.
283
Shuriah Niazi, Amnesty slams India over Kashmir move, Anadolu Agency, 5 August, 2019,
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/amnesty-slams-india-over-kashmir-move-/1550218.
284
Hilal Mir, UN chief concerned about ‘grave violations’ against Kashmiri children, Anadolu Agency, 29
June 2021, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/un-chief-concerned-about-grave-violations-against-
kashmiri-children/2289271.
285
Zehra Nur Düz and Gözde Bayar, “Turkey expresses concern over India's Kashmir move”, Anadolu
Agency, August 05, 2019. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkey-expresses-concern-over-indias-
kashmir-move/1550386 (accessed July 29, 2021)
286
Web Desk, “India ‘invaded and occupied’ Kashmir, says Malaysian PM at UN General Assembly”, The
Hindu, September 30, 2019. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/malaysian-pm-raises-kashmir-
67
STATEMENTS ON INDIAN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION

IN IIOJ&K
Findings of the Human Rights Watch (HRW), published in 1993:287
 In their efforts to crush the militant separatist movement in Kashmir, Indian

government forces have systematically violated international human rights and
humanitarian law. Among the worst of these violations have been the summary
executions of hundreds of detainees in the custody of the security forces in Kashmir.
Such killings are carried out as a matter of policy.
 Indian army soldiers and federal paramilitary troops of the Central Reserve Police
Force (CRPF) and the Border Security Force (BSF) have been also engaged in
frequent reprisal attacks against the civilians also, opening fire in the crowded
markets and residential areas, and burning down entire neighbourhoods. During
search operations, the security forces have routinely assaulted civilians.
 Torture is practiced to coerce detainees to reveal information about suspected

militants or to confess to militant activity. It is also used to punish detainees who are
believed to support or sympathise with the militants and to create a climate of
political repression. The practice of torture is facilitated by the fact that detainees are
generally held in temporary detention centers, controlled by the various security
forces, without access to the courts, relatives or medical care.
 Methods of torture include severe beatings, electric shock, suspension by the feet or
hands, stretching the legs apart, burning with heated objects, sexual molestation and
psychological deprivation and humiliation. One common form of torture involves
crushing the leg muscles with a heavy wooden roller.
issue-at-unga-alleges-india-invaded-and-occupied-kashmir/article29555394.ece (accessed July 29,

2021)
287
Patricia Gossman and Human Rights Watch. Asia Watch, The Human Rights Crisis in Kashmir, (New
York: Human Rights Watch, 1993).
68
 Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during

which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces
search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in
collective punishment against civilians by assaulting residents and burning their
homes. Rape is used as a means of targeting women whom the security forces
accuse of being militant sympathisers; in raping them, the security forces are
attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community.
 Health professionals in Kashmir have frequently been detained, assaulted and

harassed while attempting to perform their duties. In some of the worst incidents of
abuse, the security forces have deliberately prevented ambulance drivers from
transporting injured persons to hospitals for emergency care.
 Security forces have also repeatedly raided hospitals and other medical facilities,
even pediatric and obstetric hospitals. During these raids, the security personnel
have forced doctors at gunpoint to identify recent trauma patients. Because of their
injuries, the security forces have suspected these patients of militant activity. Injured
patients have been arrested from hospitals, in some cases after being disconnected
from intravenous medications or other treatments.
 The strict night curfew imposed on the towns and villages of the Kashmir valley has
also seriously impaired health services. Because the neutrality of medical transport
is not respected by government security forces, ambulances cannot travel at night.
Thus, physicians cannot attend to medical emergencies that occur after dark,
including cases unrelated to the conflict, and individuals’ cases may undergo life-
threatening delays before receiving medical care.
 The steps the Indian government has taken to confront that threat have resulted in
grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Moreover, the
Indian authorities have done little to curb these abuses. Members of the Indian army
and security forces are seldom prosecuted for human rights violations in Kashmir. In
69
the rare cases in which investigations have taken place, the most severe punishments
for abuses have generally been limited to dismissals or suspensions from duty.
Findings of the US State Department Report – August, 03, 2010288
 “Major human rights problems included reported extrajudicial killings of persons in

custody, killings of protesters, and torture and rape by police and other security
forces. Investigations into individual abuses and legal punishment for perpetrators
occurred, but for many abuses, a lack of accountability due to weak law
enforcement, a lack of trained police, and an overburdened court system created an
atmosphere of impunity; lengthy court backlogs prolong the latter. Poor prison
conditions and lengthy detentions were significant problems.”
Systemic Torture in Kashmir – WikiLeaks – 16 December, 2010289
 The dispatches, obtained by website WikiLeaks, reveal that US diplomats in Delhi

were briefed in 2005 by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about
the use of electrocution, beatings and sexual humiliation against hundreds of
detainees. Other cables show that as recently as 2007, American diplomats were
concerned about widespread human rights abuses by Indian security forces, who
they said relied on torture for confessions. The embassy reported the ICRC
concluded that India "condones torture" and that the torture victims were civilians as
militants were routinely killed. It also reported that the ICRC had become frustrated
with the Indian government which, they said, had not acted to halt the "continued
ill-treatment of detainees."
288
US State Department, 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (2010).
289
Jason Burke, "WikiLeaks cables: India accused of systematic use of torture in Kashmir," The Guardian,
December 16, 2010.
70
UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights statements on Indian Laws in IIOJ&K –

July 09, 2012290
 “All of these Draconian Laws had no place in a functioning democracy and should
be scrapped.”
UK House of Commons Statement – January 17, 2012291
 “This House notes with sadness and regret the discovery of over 6,000 unmarked
graves in the area of demarcation known as the Line-of-Control on the border
between the Indian and Pakistani controlled Kashmir; further notes that this
discovery was the focus of a recent Crossing Continents programme entitled Graves
of Kashmir produced by BBC Radio 4; believes that these graves, the majority of
which appear to be the bodies of unknown young men, constitute a large proportion
of the estimated 8,000 to 10,000 who disappeared during the conflict in Kashmir,
one of the heaviest militarised zones in the world; and calls on the Government to
press for co-operation on this matter between the governments of India and
Pakistan, and for the early use of forensic and DNA techniques to investigate and
establish the identify of those in the graves so that relatives may finally know the
fate of loved ones.”
Report by Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN – May, 2012292
 “The practice of torture is even more widespread and condoned in conflict areas,
where it is routinely and violently used, leading to physical and mental disability or
impotence. Common methods of torture in Kashmir and the North-East include:
assault, placement of an iron rod on the legs on which many persons sit, placement
of a burning stove between the legs and administration of electric shocks to the
genitals. A communication of the ICRC with US officials confirmed the widespread
use of torture in Kashmir.”
290
Cathy Scott-Clark, "The mass graves of Kashmir," The Guardian, July 9, 2012.
291
House of Commons, Kashmir Graves | EDM 2607 (London: UK Parliament, 2012).
292
Human Rights in India - Status Report 2012, (Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN,
2012).
71
 “In Kashmir, justice evades well-known cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearance”
 “The use of supposedly ‘non-lethal’ weapons like ‘tear gas shells’, ‘pellet guns’,
‘rubber bullets’, ‘mock bombs’ and custodial torture have caused serious injuries,
physical and mental disability and even death.”
 “In Kashmir, agricultural land, particularly in border districts, is occupied by armed

forces for camps or temporary shelters, denying farmers access to their lands and
seriously affecting their livelihood.”
 “J&K has only one juvenile home for boys at Ranbir Singh (R.S.) Pura in Jammu.
Juvenile girls are sent to police lock-ups or prisons in the absence of a single
juvenile home for girls in J&K. Juveniles in Kashmir are detained with adults in
prisons and tried as adults due to non-implementation of the J&K Juvenile Justice
Act, 1997”.
Findings of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, published in 2018:293
 Since late 1980s, a variety of armed groups has been actively operating in the Indian
state of Jammu and Kashmir, and there has been documented evidence of these
groups committing a wide range of human rights abuses, including kidnappings and
killings of the civilians and sexual violence.
 Impunity for human rights violations and lack of access to justice are key human
rights challenges in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Special laws in force in
the state, such as the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990
(AFSPA) and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA), have created
293
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human
Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir from June 2016 to April
2018, and General Human Rights Concerns in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit -Baltistan, (2018).
72
structures that obstruct the normal course of law, impede accountability and
jeopardise the right to remedy for victims of human rights violations.
 Over 1,000 people were detained under the PSA between March 2016 and August
2017. Human Rights groups had warned Jammu and Kashmir authorities that minors
were being arrested under the PSA in 2016 and 2017.
 During the 2016 unrest, there were numerous reports of attacks on, and obstruction
of, basic medical services that had a severe impact on the injured and general
civilian population in Kashmir. Human Rights groups claimed that days-long
curfews and communications blockades also had a major impact on people and their
access to medical care in Kashmir.
 The Kashmir region experienced frequent communications blockades during the

2016 unrest as the state government suspended mobile and internet services on
multiple occasions. In 2016, the authorities in Jammu and Kashmir imposed
restrictions on freedom of expression, targeting media and journalists.
 Widespread protests, long periods of curfew and frequent strikes in 2016 and 2017
had a cumulative impact on students and their right to education.
 Impunity for enforced or involuntary disappearances in Kashmir continues as there

has been little movement towards credibly investigating complaints including into
alleged sites of mass graves in the Kashmir Valley and Jammu region.
 Authorities have failed to independently investigate and prosecute allegations of

sexual violence by the security forces personnel.
UN Commissioner for Human Rights statement on Human Rights Violations in

Kashmir – August, 03, 2018294
294
News Desk, "UN rights chief says he stands by report on HR violations in Kashmir," Pakistan Today,
August 3, 2018.
73
 “If 6,000 people were struck by pellets in New Delhi or in Mumbai, it would be
front-page news. Why is it that if you have that number in the (Kashmir) valley
somehow then that is something that should not be occupying the attention of the
international community. We have to continue to press for access in the region
because then any discrepancy will be sorted out. We are still waiting for the access
to be given.”
US ‘very concerned’ by reports of detentions in IOK: State Department – August

30, 2019295
 A spokesperson of the US State Department said, “We continue to be very

concerned by reports of detentions and the continued restrictions on the residents of
the region. We urge respect for human rights, compliance with legal procedures, and
inclusive dialogue with those affected. We continue to call for calm and restraint,
including on rhetoric. We call on all parties to maintain peace and stability along the
Line of Control. We continue to support direct dialogue between India and Pakistan
on Kashmir and other issues of concern. The US notes the broader implications of
the developments in [occupied] Jammu and Kashmir and the potential for increased
instability in the region.”
Barrister Imran Hussain, British MP statement on Human Rights Violations in

Kashmir – August, 27, 2019296
 “The situation [in occupied Kashmir] at the moment should concern the entire
international community. The step taken by the Indian government is, firstly, a
violation of their own constitution; secondly, it is a violation of different UN
resolutions; and thirdly, it is in direct contravention of numerous international
obligations that all states have, and in particular Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, We wholly condemn [the usage of such language]. I wanted to say this
295
News Desk, "US ‘very concerned’ by reports of detentions in IOK: State Dept," Pakistan Today, August
30, 2019.
296
News Desk, "No one believes Indian narrative on Kashmir, says AJK president," Pakistan Today,
August 27, 2019.
74
in Pakistan and in Azad Kashmir, I warn those people that use this very
irresponsible language and they should refrain from using it. This is provocative
language and it is being used on an international level; it is wholly inappropriate.
We demand from the international community, and will also bring this up in the
British parliament, that the injustice against Kashmiris must stop and must stop
immediately.”
EU diplomats reject Indian invitation of ‘guided tour’ to held Kashmir – January

9, 2020297
 Ambassadors from the European countries rejected India’s invitation for a two-day
visit to occupied Kashmir, seeking instead the “freedom to meet the people
unescorted.” According to NDTV, European diplomats said they didn’t want a
“guided tour” of the occupied territory and “would visit later and meet the people
they want to meet.”
297
News Desk, "EU diplomats reject Indian invitation of ‘guided tour’ to held Kashmir," Pakistan Today,
January 9, 2020.
75
ANNEXURES
76
Annexure A
United Nations Security Council Resolutions
77
78
79
80
81
82
S/RES/38 & S/RES/39 & S/RES 47 & S/RES/51
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 38, “The India-Pakistan Question,” January 17, 1948,
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_38.pdf.
83
84
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 47, “The India-Pakistan Question,” April 21, 1948,
85
86
87
88
89
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 51, “The India-Pakistan Question,” June 3, 1948,
90
91
S/RES/80
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 80, “The India-Pakistan Question,” March 14, 1950,
92
93
94
S/RES/91 & S/RES/96
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 91, “The India-Pakistan Question,” March 30, 1951,
95
96
97
98
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 96, “The India-Pakistan Question,” November 10, 1951,
99
100
S/RES/98
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 98, “The India-Pakistan Question,” December 23, 1952,
101
102
S/RES/122 & S/RES/123 & S/RES/126
103
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 123, “The India-Pakistan Question,” February 21, 1957,
104
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 126, “The India-Pakistan Question,” December 2, 1957,
105
106
S/RES/209 & S/RES/210 & S/RES/211 & S/RES/214 & S/RES/215
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 209, “The India-Pakistan Question,” September 4, 1965,
107
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 210, “The India-Pakistan Question,” September 6, 1965,
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_210.pdf;
and United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 211, “The India-Pakistan Question,” September 20, 1965,
108
109
Sources: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 214, “The India-Pakistan Question,” September 27, 1965,
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_214.pdf;
and United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 215, “The India-Pakistan Question,” November 5, 1965,
110
111
S/RES/303
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 303, “The Situation in the India/Pakistan Subcontinent,”
December 6, 1971, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-
CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_303.pdf.
112
S/RES/307
Source: United Nations Security Council (SC), Resolution 307, “The India/Pakistan Subcontinent,” December 21, 1971,
113
114
Annexure B
The McNaughton Proposal - 1949
115
116
Proposal in respect of Jammu and Kashmir made by General A.G.L. McNaughton,

President of the Security Council of the United Nations, pursuant to the decision of
the Security Council taken at its 457th meeting, on 22 December, 1949.
The principal considerations underlying the following proposals of the President of the
Security Council of the United Nations are:
(a) To determine the future of Jammu and Kashmir by the democratic method of the free
and impartial plebiscite, to take place as early as possible; Thus to settle this issue
between the Governments of India and Pakistan in accordance with the freely
expressed will of the inhabitants, as is desired by both Governments;
(b) To preserve the substantial measure of agreement of fundamental principles which
has already been reached between the two Governments under the auspices of the
United Nations.
(c) To avoid unprofitable discussion of disputed issues of the past and to look forward
into the future towards the good-neighbourly and constructive co-operation of the
two great nations.
DEMILITARISATION PREPARATORY TO THE PLEBISCITE
2. There should be an agreed programme of progressive demilitarisation, the basic principle

of which should be the reduction of armed forces on either side of the Cease-Fire Line by
withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages as not to cause fear at any point of time
to the people on either side of the Cease-Fire Line. The aim should be to reduce the armed
personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on both side of the Cease-Fire Line to the minimum
compatible with the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and to a level sufficiently
low and with the forces so disposed that they will not constitute a restriction on the free
expression of opinion for the purposes of the plebiscite.
The programme of demilitarisation should include the withdrawal from the State of
Jammu and Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan; and the withdrawal of the regular forces of
India not required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the
Indian side of the Cease-Fire Line; also the reduction, by disbanding and disarming, of local
forces, including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the
other, the Azad Forces.
117
The "Northern Area" should also be included in the above programme of demilitarisation,
and its administration should, subject to United Nations supervision, be continued by the existing
local authorities.
SUGGESTED BASIS OF AGREEMENT
3. The Governments of India and Pakistan should reach agreement not later than 31 January
1950, in New York on the following points;
(a) The Government of Pakistan should give unconditional assurance to the Government
of India that they will deal effectively within their own borders with any possibility
of tribal incursion into Jammu and Kashmir to the end that, under no circumstances,
will tribesmen be able unlawfully to enter the State of Jammu and Kashmir from or
through the territory of Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to
keep the senior United Nations military observer informed and to satisfy him that
the arrangements to this end are and continue to be adequate.
(b) The Governments of India and Pakistan should confirm the continued and
unconditional inviolability of the "Cease-Fire Line
(c) Agreement should be reached on the basic principles of demilitarisation outlined in
paragraph 2 above.
(d) Agreement should be reached on the minimum forces required for the maintenance of
security and of local law and order, and on their general disposition.
(e) Agreement should be reached on a date by which the reduction of forces, to the level
envisaged in paragraph 2 above, is to be accomplished. Agreement should be
reached on the progressive steps to be taken in reducing and redistributing the forces
to the level envisaged in paragraph 2 above.
4. In respect to the foregoing matters, the Governments of India and Pakistan should further
agree that a United Nations representative, to be appointed by the Secretary-General of the United
Nations in agreement with the two Governments, should supervise the execution of the
progressive steps in reduction and redistribution of armed forces and that it should be the
responsibility of this United Nations representative to give assurance to the people on both sides
of the Cease-Fire Line that they have no cause for fear at any stage throughout the process.
118
The United Nations representative should have the duty and authority
(a) of interpreting the agreements reached between the parties pursuant to paragraph 3,
sub-paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) above, and
(b) of determining, in consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan

respectively, the implementation of the plan for the reduction and redistribution of
armed forces referred to in paragraph 3 (f) above.
5. When the agreed programme of demilitarisation preparatory to the plebiscite been

accomplished to the satisfaction of the United Nations representative, the Plebiscite Administrator
should proceed forthwith to exercise the functions assigned to him under the terms of UNCIP
resolution of 5 January 1949, which, together with UNCIP resolution of 13 August 1948, was
accepted by the Governments of India and Pakistan and which are now reaffirmed by these
Governments except in so far as the provisions therein contained as modified by the relevant
provisions of this document.
The functions and powers of the Plebiscite Administrator remain as set forth in UNCIP
resolution of 5 January, 1949.
6. The United Nations representative should be authorised to make any suggestions to the
Governments of India and Pakistan which, in his opinion are likely to contribute to the
expeditious and enduring solution of the Kashmir question, and to place his good offices at their
disposal.
119
120
Annexure C
The Owen Dixon Report - 1950
121
122
THE OWEN DIXON REPORT - 1950
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
Annexure D
Statement of the President of the Security Council at the 1117th Meeting of
the Security Council (1964) Summarising the Conclusion of the Debate on
Kashmir
153
154
Statement of the President of the Security Council (French Representative) made

on the 18th May, 1964, at the 1117th meeting of the Security Council (1964)
summarising the conclusion of the debate on Kashmir.
.. I ..
"(a) The members of the Council noted that this week's debate was a continuation of our
discussions of February and March on the question of Jammu and Kashmir. They recalled that
they had already, particularly during the debate in February, stated the views of their
Governments on the basic facts of the problem, including the relevant United Nations resolutions,
the question as to the juridical status of Jammu and Kashmir, and the principles of the Charter
applicable to the case. They confirmed that the statements which they had made at that time were
still valid;"
"(b) The members of the Council expressed their concern with respect to two great countries
which have everything to gain from re-establishing good relations with each other and whose
present disputes, particularly that centering upon Jammu and Kashmir, should be settled amicably
in the interest of world peace;"
"(c) The members of the Council expressed their feeling that recent developments were such as
might lead to the adoption of more flexible positions to better mutual understanding, and
therefore to a situation in which conversations between the parties concerned would have better
prospects of leading to a settlement;"
"(d) The members of the Council expressed their conviction that everything should be done to
consolidate those favourable factors and to avoid jeopardising those prospects, and that this
required an attitude of conciliatory moderation on the part of both parties and an attitude of
caution, but also of vigilant attention, on the part of the United Nations;"
"(e) The members of the Council expressed the hope that both parties would refrain from any act
which might aggravate the situation and that they would take steps calculated to re-establish an
atmosphere of moderation between the two countries and peace and harmony between the
communities;"
155
"(f) The members of the Council expressed the hope that, in the light of our recent debates, the
two countries concerned would resume their contacts in the near future with a view to settling
their disputes, particularly that centering upon Jammu and Kashmir, by negotiation."
.. II ..
"Several members of the Council expressed the view that the Secretary- General of the United
Nations might possibly give useful assistance to the parties in order to facilitate the resumption of
negotiations in the question of Jammu and Kashmir, or might help them to continue such
negotiations in the event of the latter encountering difficulties. Other members of the Council,
however, expressed the view that the negotiations between India and Pakistan might be
complicated by any outside intervention, and that even the principle of having recourse to the
Secretary-General should be a matter for agreement between the parties."
.. III ..
"The India-Pakistan question remains on the agenda of the Security Council".
156
Annexure E
Bilateral Agreements
157
158
THE KARACHI AGREEMENT 1949
159
160
161
162
163
164
THE TASHKENT DECLARATION 1966
165
166
167
168
Agreement on Bilateral Relations between the Government of India and the

Government of Pakistan
(SIMLA AGREEMENT)
Simla, 2 July 1972
1. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two
countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and
work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of
durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources
and energies to the pressing talk of advancing the welfare of their peoples.
In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have
agreed as follows:-
(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the
relations between the two countries;
(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means
through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon
between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two
countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the
organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance
of peaceful and harmonious relations;
(iii) That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and durable peace
between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful co-existence, respect
for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-interference in each
other’s internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit;
(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedevilled the relations
between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means;
169
(v) That they shall always respect each other’s national unity, territorial integrity, political
independence and sovereign equality;
That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations they will refrain from the threat or use
of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.
2. Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda
directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information
as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.
3. In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step
by step, it was agreed that;
(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land including
border posts, and air links including overflights.
(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the
other country.
(iii) Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as
possible.
(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the
necessary details.
4. In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both the
Governments agree that:
(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border.
170
(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December
17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position
of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual
differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the
threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.
(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be
completed within a period of 30 days thereof.
5. This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their
respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which
the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.
6. Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually
convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will
meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace
and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and
civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic
relations.
Sd/-
(Indira Gandhi)
Prime Minister Republic of India
Sd/-
(Zulfikar Ali Bhutto)
President Islamic Republic of Pakistan
171
THE LAHORE DECLARATION
The following is the text of the Lahore Declaration signed by the Prime Minister, Mr. A. B.
Vajpayee, and the Pakistan Prime Minister, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, in Lahore on Sunday:
The Prime Ministers of the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:
Sharing a vision of peace and stability between their countries, and of progress and prosperity for
their peoples;
Convinced that durable peace and development of harmonious relations and friendly cooperation
will serve the vital interests of the peoples of the two countries, enabling them to devote their
energies for a better future;
Recognising that the nuclear dimension of the security environment of the two countries adds to
their responsibility for avoidance of conflict between the two countries;
Committed to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and the
universally accepted principles of peaceful coexistence;
Reiterating the determination of both countries to implementing the Simla Agreement in letter
and spirit;
Committed to the objective of universal nuclear disarmament and nonproliferartion;
Convinced of the importance of mutually agreed confidence building measures for improving the
security environment;
Recalling their agreement of 23rd September, 1998, that an environment of peace and security is
in the supreme national interest of both sides and that the resolution of all outstanding issues,
including Jammu and Kashmir, is essential for this purpose;
Have agreed that their respective Governments:
 shall intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and
Kashmir.
172
 shall refrain from intervention and interference in each other's internal affairs.
 shall intensify their composite and integrated dialogue process for an early and positive
outcome of the agreed bilateral agenda.
 shall take immediate steps for reducing the risk of accidental or unauthorised use of
nuclear weapons and discuss concepts and doctrines with a view to elaborating measures
for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at prevention of
conflict.
 reaffirm their commitment to the goals and objectives of SAARC and to concert their
efforts towards the realisation of the SAARC vision for the year 2000 and beyond with a
view to promoting the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their quality
of life through accelerated economic growth, social progress and cultural development.
 reaffirm their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and their
determination to combat this menace.
 shall promote and protect all human rights and fundamental

 freedoms.
Signed at Lahore on the 21st day of February, 1999.
Atal Behari Vajpayee - Prime Minister of the Republic of India
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif - Prime Minister of the Islamic

Republic of Pakistan
173
174
Annexure F
Letter of Permanent Representative of

Pakistan to the United Nations 2019
175
176
The President of the Security Council presents her

compliments to the members of the Council and has
the honour to transmit herewith, for their
information, a copy of a letter dated 13 August
2019 from the Permanent Representative of Pakistan
to the United Nations addressed to the President of
the Security Council, and its enclosure.
This letter and its enclosure will be issued as

a document of the Security Council under the symbol
S/2019/654.
13 August 2019
177
178
179
180
181
182
Annexure G
IHL Violations Committed by India in IIOJ&K
Courtesy: Research Society of International Law (RSIL), Islamabad
183
184
RSIL DOCUMENT
IHL VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY INDIA IN INDIAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR
This section catalogues the incidents which in our opinion, constitute grave violations of
International Humanitarian Law in IOK from a legal perspective. The research team has relied on
public data available in print and electronic media and investigative reports by reputable
international organizations spanning a period of three decades from 1990 – 2019.
The timeline of Indian actions that attract the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
their Additional Protocols, the Rome Statute, 1998 and lastly rules of Customary International
Law have been laid out below. While neither Pakistan nor India have signed the Rome Statute,
many of the crimes listed therein are considered to be customary and bind all States of the world.
It is important to note that Indian atrocities in Kashmir are not limited to war crimes but may also
constitute crimes against humanity as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute. Under
international law, although war crimes only apply in the existence of an armed conflict, crimes
against humanity may be triggered in times of war and peace. War crimes may be satisfied by an
isolated attack, whereas crimes against humanity must be being widespread1 or systematic2 and
directed against a civilian population. Lastly, nearly all offences which could qualify as a crime
against humanity, would also constitute, all other conditions being met, a war crime. However,
not all war crimes are necessarily crimes against humanity, which is a higher threshold offence.3
1
“Widespread” refers to the large-scale nature of an attack, primarily reflected in the number of victims.
“Widespread” may include a massive, frequent, large-scale action, carried out collectively with
considerable seriousness and directed against a multiplicity of victims. See The Prosecutor v Jean-Paul
Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 September 1998) Para 579-580; The Prosecutor v Georges
Rutaganda (Judgment) ICTR-96-3-T (6 December 1999) Para 67-69; The Prosecutor v Alfred Musema
(Judgment) ICTR-96-13-A (27 January 2000) Para 204
2
“Systematic” refers to the organized nature of the acts of violence and the recurrence of similar
criminal conduct on a regular basis. It involves “a pattern or methodical plan” that is “thoroughly
organized and following a regular pattern.” see The Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (Opinion and Judgment)
IT-94-1-T (7 May 1997) Para 646, 648; The Prosecutor v Dragoljub Kunarac et al (Judgment) IT-96-
23-T and IT-96-23/1-T (22 February 2001) TJ, Para 429; The Prosecutor v Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
and Gérard Ntakirutimana (Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A (13 December 2004) Para
804 The Prosecutor v Jean-Paul Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 September 1998) Para 580
3
Guénaél Mattraux, International Crimes and the Ad Hoc Tribunals, Oxford University Press at p.320
185
Date Incident Violation

20 January, Treatment of Protected Persons in Occupied
1990 Territories: Article 27 of GC IV
Principle of Distinction:
Art. 48 of API, Art. 51(2) of API and Rule 1 of
CIHL
Protection of Civilian Population: Article 51

(1), (2), (3), (6) of AP I;
Principle of Proportionality: Rule 14 of CIHL;
Art. 51(5)(b) of API
Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions:

Troops from the Central Reserve Art. 147 GCIV
Police Force (CRPF) opened fire on
protestors. Eye-witnesses reported that Prosecution for War-Crimes:
demonstrators were shot from behind Art. 146 GCIV
as they turned to run away4
Acts Aimed at Spreading Terror Among the
At least thirty-five people died with Civilian Population:
some estimates putting the toll near a Art. 51(2) of API and Rule 2 of CIHL
hundred people.5
Reparations for Violations of IHL:
Rule 150 of CIHL
Treatment of Protected Persons:

Art. 27 GCIV
Inviolability of Rights:
Art. 47 GCIV
War Crime of Wilful Killing and

Intentionally Directing Attacks Against
Civilians Population or against Individual
civilians not taking direct part in hostilities –
Article 8 (2)(a)(i) and Article 8 (2)(b)(i) of the
Rome Statute
4
Human Rights Watch (HRW), ‘Everyone Lives in Fear – Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and
Kashmir’, 11 September 2006
5
Ibid
186
May, 1990 The 69th Battalion of the CRPF 4

opened fire on the crowd killing
576
Treatment of Protected Persons in
Occupied Territories: Article 27 of
GC IV
17, 18,
Principle of Distinction: 34
Art. 48 of API, Art. 51(2) of API and
Rule 1 of CIHL
14
Grave Breaches of the Geneva
Conventions:
Art. 147 GCIV
18, 19
Protection of Civilian Population:
Article 51 (1), (2), (3), (6) of AP I;
Principle of Proportionality: Rule 35
14 of CIHL
Prosecution for War-Crimes:

Art. 146 GCIV 13, 14
Acts Aimed at Spreading Terror

Among the Civilian Population:
Art. 51(2) of API and Rule 2 of CIHL 18, 34

Rule 150 of CIHL
Treatment of Protected Persons: 39

Art. 27 GCIV
Inviolability of Rights: 4
Art. 47 GCIV

Intentionally Directing Attacks 8
Against Civilians Population or
against Individual civilians not
taking direct part in hostilities –
Article 8 (2)(a)(i) and Article 8
(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute.
6
Tavleen Singh, Kashmir: A Tragedy of Errors (New Delhi: Viking, 1995),; Medical Authorities
certified that 35 people died in the event (Asia Watch (now Human Rights Watch/Asia), Kashmir
Under Siege (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1991) at p. 158)
187
29
22 October, Treatment of Protected Persons in 4

1993 Occupied Territories: Article 27 of
GC IV
Principle of Distinction:
Art. 48 of API, Art. 51(2) of API and
Rule 1 of CIHL 17, 18,
34
Conventions:
Art. 147 GCIV 14
Protection of Civilian Population:

Article 51 (1), (2), (3), (6) of AP I;
18, 19
Principle of Proportionality: Rule
Thirty-seven people were killed
14 of CIHL
by Firing of the 74th Battalion
Border Security Force to
35
disperse more than ten thousand
people marching in Jammu and
Art. 146 GCIV
Kashmir.7
Acts Aimed at Spreading Terror 13, 14
The Government reported thirty
Among the Civilian Population:
seven people died in the
Art. 51(2) of API and Rule 2 of CIHL
incident.8
18
Rule 150 of CIHL

Art. 27 GCIV
39
Art. 47 GCIV

Intentionally Directing Attacks 4
taking direct part in hostilities – 8
(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute
7
Asia Watch (now Human Rights Watch/Asia), Kashmir Under Siege (New York: Human Rights
Watch, 1991)
8
“10 years on, Bejbehara massacre victims await ‘healing touch,’” Kashmir Times, October 20, 2003,
[online] http://kashmir.ahrchk.net/mainfile.php/news/200210/294/ (retrieved March 17, 2005).
188
29
Incident of 23 “On the night of February 23, Treatment of Protected Persons: 4
February 1991, 1991, personnel of the 4 Article 27 of GC IV
since then Rajputana Rifles of the Indian Grave Breaches of GC: Article 147 14
unprosecuted, Army cordoned off the two of GC IV
report in villages Kunan and Poshpora in Individual responsibility, Collective 5
Hindustan north Kashmir’s Kupwara Penalties, Pillage, Reprisals: Article
Times 8 district during an anti- 33 of GC IV
February 2016; insurgency operation and Military Authority Over the 42
Report on allegedly gangraped at least 23 Territory of the Hostile State -
AlJazeera 24 women – with some estimates Regulations: Article 56 of HC IV 21
December 2016 placing it at around 40.”9 Collective Punishments: Article
“Twenty-five years have passed 75(2)(d) of AP I 23
since the 1991 incident in which Protection of Women: Article 76 of
Indian army soldiers allegedly AP I 37
raped between 23 and 100 Rape and other Forms of Sexual
women in Kashmir’s Kunan Violence: Rule 93 of ICRC CIHL 38
and Poshpora villages during a Study
search operation. Collective Punishments: Rule 103
“The Indian army has denied of ICRC CIHL Study 28
the accusations and a delayed Crimes Against Humanity of Rape
investigation of the incident and any other form of sexual 30
concluded that the allegations violence of comparable gravity –
were “worthless” and no one Article 7 (1)(g) of the Rome Statute
was prosecuted for the alleged War Crime of Attacking or
crimes. Bombarding, by whatever means,
“But, in 2013, a group of 50 towns, villages, dwellings or
women petitioned the Supreme buildings which are undefended
Court of India to re-open the and which are not military
investigations. Since then, a objectives – Article 8 (2)(b)(v) of the 31
reinvestigation was ordered and Rome Statute.
the Kashmir High Court
ordered that victims be paid War Crime of Committing rape or
compensation. The state any other form of sexual violence
government and army have also constituting a grave breach of
mounted efforts to stop these the Geneva Conventions – Article 8
orders.”10 (2)(b)(xxii) of the Rome Statute.
9
Abhishek Saha, ‘Kunan Poshpora: A Forgotten Mass-Rape Case of 2 Kashmir Villages’ (8 February
2016) Hindustan Times <http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/kunan-poshpora-a-forgotten-mass-
rape-case-of-2-kashmir-villages/story-1rmD1TqawPnMMB11LQzgyJ.html>
10
Urvashi Sarkar, ‘Kashmir: A Look at the Kunan Poshpora Rapes’ (24 December 2016) AlJazeera
<http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/10/kashmir-kunan-poshpora-rapes-
161020121136644.html>; see also Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch/Asia, Press
Release, India, May 9, 1993. “Since the government crackdown against militants in Kashmir began in
189
Incidents Prohibition of Torture, Corporal

between 2004 Punishment: Art.32, 147 of GC IV 5, 14
and 2005,
report in The Grave Breaches of GC: Art.147 of
Telegraph on GC IV; 14
17 December According to a WikiLeaks Fundamental Guarantees: Articles 20, 21
2010 release in December 2016, US 75(2)(a), 75(2) of AP I;
officials were privately briefed Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and
by the ICRC in 2005 that Indian Degrading Treatment, Corporal
forces were using methods Punishment, Rape and Other 37
including electrocution, Forms of Sexual Violence: Rules 89,
physical beatings and sexual 90, 93 of ICRC CIHL Study 38
interference with hundreds of Deprivation of Liberty: CIHL Rule
detainees. 99 14
“The ICRC interviewed 1,296
detainees of whom 681 said Grave Breaches of the Geneva
they had been tortured. Conventions: 39
“Of those, 498 claimed to have Art. 147 GCIV
been electrocuted, 381 said they
were suspended from the Reparations for Violations of IHL:
ceiling, and 304 cases were Rule 150 of CIHL
described as “sexual.” 29
“A total of 294 described a War Crimes of carried out acts of
procedure in which guards Torture or Inhuman Treatment
crushed their legs by putting a and Wilfully causing Great
bar across their thighs and Suffering or Serious Injury to Body 31
sitting on it, while 181 said their and Health – Article 8 (2)(a)(i) and
legs had been pulled apart into (ii) of the Rome Statute
the splits.”11
War Crimes of Committing Rape
or Any Other Form of Sexual
Violence – Article 8 (2)(b)(xxii) of
the Rome Statute.
2008 and 2010 Two popular uprisings in 2008 Treatment of Protected Persons in 4
earnest in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel have become more frequent. Rape most
often occurs during search operations, during which the security forces frequently engage in collective
punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting
residents, and burning their homes. Rape has also occurred frequently during reprisal attacks on
civilians following militant ambushes. In some cases, the victims have been accused of providing food
or shelter to militants or have been ordered to identify their male relatives as militants. In other cases,
the motivation for the abuse is not explicit. In many attacks, the selection of victims is seemingly
arbitrary and the women, like other civilians assaulted or killed, are targeted simply because they
happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The report documents fifteen cases of rape by
Indian security forces. The investigators interviewed the victims, a gynaecologist who examined nine
of the women, and obtained medical evidence in the cases documented in the report.”
11
Nick Allen, ‘Wikileaks: India ‘Systematically Torturing Civilians in Kashmir’ (17 December 2010)
The Telegraph <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8208084/WikiLeaks-India-
systematically-torturing-civilians-in-Kashmir.html>
190
and 2010 saw the death of more Occupied Territories: Article 27 of

than 200 people, many of them GC IV
civilian protesters, killed by Protection of Civilian Population: 18, 19
Indian forces.12 Article 51 (1), (2), (3), (6) of AP I;
Principle of Distinction: 17, 18,
Art. 48 of API, Art. 51(2) of API and 34
Rule 1 of CIHL
35
Principle of Proportionality: Rule
14 of CIHL 14
Grave Breaches of the Geneva 13

Conventions:
Art. 147 GCIV
18, 34
Art. 146 GCIV 39
Acts Aimed at Spreading Terror

Among the Civilian Population: 4
Art. 51(2) of API and Rule 2 of CIHL
8
Rule 150 of CIHL

Art. 27 GCIV 29
Art. 47 GCIV

Intentionally Directing Attacks
taking direct part in hostilities –
(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute.
1989 - 2016 Jammu and Kashmir Coalition Enforced Disappearances: CIHL 38

of Civil Society and Rule 98
Association of Parents of
Disappeared Persons claim over Deprivation of Liberty: CIHL Rule 38
8,000 people have disappeared 99
since 1989.13
In 2011, Jammu and Kashmir Conventions: 14
12
BBC, ‘Why the Death of Militant Burhan Wani has Kashmiris up in Arms’ (11 July 2016)
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36762043>
13
JKCCS, “Human Rights Review 2016”, p. 5.
191
State Human Rights Art. 147 GCIV

Commission (SHRC) conducted
its investigation, after the Reparations for Violations of IHL:
government failing to do so, Rule 150 of CIHL
wherein they identified 574 39
bodies out of 2,156 bodies.14 Crime Against Humanity for the
act of Enforced Disappearances of
Persons – Article 7 (1)(i) of the
Rome Statute.
28
8 July 2016 – Treatment of Protected Persons in
November Occupied Territories: Article 27 of 4
2016 Crackdown against protestors, GC IV
leaving more than 100 civilians Protection of Civilian Population: 18, 19
dead and thousands injured, Article 51 (1), (2), (3), (6) of AP I;
mostly at the hands of Indian Principle of Distinction Art. 48 of
government forces.15 API, Art. 51(2) of API Rule 1 of 18, 34
Within five days of 8th July, 57 CIHL
civilians were killed in action Principle of Proportionality: Rule 35
by the governmental forces. 14 of CIHL
Protestors were picked up by Grave Breaches of the Geneva 14
the army and tortured.16 Conventions: 13
During this period, the State Art. 147 GCIV
government has reported that
9,042 people had been injured Prosecution for War-Crimes: 18, 34
during protests in the same Art. 146 GCIV
period including through
injuries sustained from the use Acts Aimed at Spreading Terror 39
of bullets, metal pellets and Among the Civilian Population:
chemical shells.17 Art. 51(2) of API and Rule 2 of CIHL
Investigations into the incidents 4
has still not culminated into any Reparations for Violations of IHL:
prosecutions. Rule 150 of CIHL 8
Treatment of Protected Persons: 5, 14
14
Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission,
“Enquiry Report of Unmarked Graves in north Kashmir” (SHRC/PIW/2011/1000), 2 July 2011.
Available from http://kashmirglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/enquiry-report-of-unmarked-
graves-in-north-kashmir.pdf.
15
AP, ‘Burhan Wani has become what India long Feared’ (7 September 2016) Dawn News
<https://www.dawn.com/news/1282425>; Soutik Biswas, ‘Is India Losing Kashmir?’ (26 April 2017)
BBC News http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-39702303>
16
“Inside the camp, they were tortured. One of the boys later told me about how they were made to stand
naked, abused, spat on, and beaten with guns, sticks and belts till their bodies bled. They were given
death threats and some were even made to jump naked in the river.” Basharat Ali, ‘I’ll Never Forget
the Day Burhan Wani was Killed’ (5 February 2016) Dawn News
<https://www.dawn.com/news/1292605>
17
Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. Unstarred A.Q. No.330, Annexure-A.
192
Art. 27 GCIV
14
Art. 47 GCIV
37
Prohibition of Torture, Corporal
Punishment: Art.32, 147 of GC IV
Grave Breaches of GC: Art.147 of 38
GC IV;
Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment, Corporal 5, 21
Punishment, Rape and Other
Forms of Sexual Violence: Rules 89,
90, 93 of ICRC CIHL Study 16
Deprivation of Liberty: CIHL Rule
99
29
Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment
Art. 32 of GCIV, Art. 75(2)(ii) of
API
Weapons causing Superfluous 29

Injury or unnecessary suffering:
Art. 35(2) of API18
29
War Crime for the Commission of
Torture or Inhuman Treatment –
Article 8 (2)(a)(ii) of the Rome 29
Statute
War Crimes for the Commission of
Wilful Killing and Intentionally
Directing Attacks against Civilian
Population or Against Civilians not 31
Directly taking part in Hostilities –
(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute. 27
Unlawful Confinement of Persons –
Article 8 (2)(a)(vii) 28
Wilfully causing great Suffering or
Serious Injury to the body or
health – Article 8 (2)(a)(iii) of the
Rome Statute
War Crime for the Employment of
methods of warfare which are of a
18
Referred to as a ‘cardinal principle’ of ‘international humanitarian law’ by the International Court of
Justice ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion at para 238
193
nature to cause superfluous injury

or unnecessary suffering – Article 8
(2)(b)(xx)
Crimes Against Humanity for the
Commission of Murder – Article 7
(1)(a) of the Rome Statute
Crime Against Humanity for the
Commission of Torture – Article 7
(1)(f) of the Rome Statute.
mid-August Prohibition of Torture, Corporal
2016 Punishment, Grave Breaches of 5, 14
GC: Articles 32, 147 of GC IV;
Fundamental Guarantees: Articles 21
75(2)(a), 75(2) of AP I;
Degrading Treatment, Corporal 37
Punishment: Rules 89, 90 of ICRC
Indian soldiers forced their way
CIHL Study
into dozens of homes in Shaar-
Protection of Civilian Population / 18, 19
i-Shalli, driving dozens of men
Indiscriminate and
into the town square.
disproportionate attacks: Articles
Over the next five hours, they
51(4)(a), 51(5)(b) of AP I;
beat the men so brutally that
Principle of Distinction between 34, 35
one villager died.19
Civilians and Combatants,
In a separate incident, a lecturer
Indiscriminate attacks,
is beaten to death by the army
Proportionality in attack: Rules 1, 16
personnel.20
11, 14 of ICRC CIHL Study
Hundreds blinded as Indian
Weapons causing Superfluous
paramilitary rained bullets and
millions of buckshot pellets on
Art. 35(2) of API22
protesting crowds;21 including a
28
14-year old girl who
consequently lost vision in both
Commission of Inhumane acts or
eyes.
intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body 29
or to mental or physical health –
Article 7 (1)(k) of the Rome Statute
Wilfully Causing Great Suffering
or Serious Injury to Body or health 31
– Article 8 (2)(b)(iii) of the Rome
19
AP, ‘Burhan Wani has become what India long Feared’ (7 September 2016) Dawn News
<https://www.dawn.com/news/1282425>
20
Amnesty International Annual Report 2016/2017
21
Mirza Waheed, ‘A Cruel April in Kashmir’ (25 April 2017) The New York Times
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/a-cruel-april-in-kashmir.html?_r=0>
22
194
Statute.
Employing Weapons, Projectiles
and material and Methods of
Warfare which are of a nature to
cause Superfluous Injury or
Unnecessary Suffering – Article 8
(2)(b)(xx) of the Rome Statute.
September A Kashmiri human rights Provisions related to Assigned 6, 7, 11,
2016 activist was arrested and Residence and Internment of 12
detained for over two months Civilians: Articles 41, 42, 43, 78, 79,
on spurious grounds and then 80 of GC IV;
prevented from traveling to Fundamental Guarantees: Article 21
Geneva, Switzerland to attend a 75(3) of AP I;
UN Human Rights Council Deprivation of Liberty: Rule 99 of 38
session.23 IRC CIHL Study.
28 September In last few weeks, 69 people Treatment of Protected Persons in 4
2016 killed by indiscriminate use of Occupied Territories: Article 27 of
pellet guns, around 4500 GC IV
injured. Deliberate targeting the Protection of Civilian Population /
victims on the face, especially Indiscriminate and 18, 19
in the eyes, which is against disproportionate attacks: Articles
official procedures. 51(4)(a), 51(5)(b) of AP I;
Indian security personnel grab a Principle of Distinction between
5-year old boy and insert a Civilians and Combatants, 34, 35
sharp metal object in his left Indiscriminate attacks,
eye, thereby blinding him, Proportionality in attack: Rules 1, 5, 14
alleging that he had hurled 11, 14 of ICRC CIHL Study;
abuses at them. Prohibition of Torture, Corporal 23
Punishment, Grave Breaches of
GC: Articles 32, 147 of GC IV; 20, 21
Protection of Children: Article
77(1) of AP I;
Fundamental Guarantees: Articles 37
75(2)(a), 75(2) of AP I;
Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and 16
Degrading Treatment, Corporal
CIHL Study 27
Art. 35(2) of API24

Commission of Murder – Article 7 28
23
Amnesty International Annual Report, 2016/2017
24
195

Commission of Inhumane Acts or
Intentionally Causing great
Suffering or Serious Injury to Body 29
or to Mental or Physical Health –
Article 7 (1)(k) of the Rome Statute

Wilful Killing, Torture or Inhuman 29
Treatment, and Wilfully Causing
Great Suffering or Serious Injury
to Body or Health – Article 8
(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rome 31
Statute.

against a Civilian Population or
Civilians not taking Direct Part in
Hostilities – Article 8 (2)(b)(i) of the
Rome Statute

Weapons, Projectiles and Material
and Methods of Warfare which are
of a Nature to cause Superfluous
Injury or Unnecessary Suffering –
Article 8 (2)(b)(xx) of the Rome
Statute.
October 2016 Nearly 500025 people including Provisions related to Assigned 6, 7, 11,
children, were placed under Residence and Internment of 12
administrative detention.26 The Civilians: Articles 41, 42, 43, 78, 79,
figure was 1000 people under 80 of GC IV;
the Jammu and Kashmir Public Protection of Children: Article 77 23, 24
Safety Act between March 2016 (1) and (4) of AP I;
and August 2017 as obtained Fundamental Guarantees: Article 21
through an application under 75(3) of AP I;
the Right to Information Act.27 Deprivation of Liberty: Rule 99 of 38
Human Rights Watch has ICRC CIHL Study
reported that between July 9th to War Crime for the Commission of
October 6th of 2016 authorities Unlawful Deportation or Transfer 29
have detained over 400 people, or Unlawful Confinement of
25
Mirza Waheed, ‘India’s Crackdown in Kashmir: Is this the World’s First Mass Blinding?’ (8
November 2016) The Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/08/india-crackdown-
in-kashmir-is-this-worlds-first-mass-blinding>
26
Amnesty International Annual Report, 2016/2017
27
RTI application by the Jammu and Kashmir RTI Movement. Available from
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/blog/no-rules-sops-for-ordering-preventive-detentions-under-jk-
psa.
196
including children, under the Persons – Article 8 (2)(a)(vii) of the

Jammu and Kashmir Public Rome Statute.
Safety Act28
July 2016 - Schools forced to close for 4 Measures related to Child Welfare: 2-3
November months, with at least 32 schools Article 24 of GC IV;
2016 burned down and several taken
over by paramilitary forces who Children: Article 50 of GC IV; 9-10
set up camps inside.29
General Protection of Civilian 19
Objects: Article 52 of AP I
Military Authority over the 42
Territory of the Hostile State:
Article 56 of HC IV
The Principle of Distinction
between Civilian Objects and 34, 36
Military Objectives, Public and
Private Property in Occupied 14
Territory: Rules 7 and 51 of ICRC
CIHL Study
Conventions: 29
Art. 147 of GCIV
Extensive Destruction and
Appropriation of Property, not
justified by Military Necessity and
Carried out Unlawfully and
Wantonly – Article 8 (2)(a)(iv) of 30
the Rome Statute.
War Crime for the Commission for
against Buildings dedicated to
Education, provided that they are
not a Military Necessity – Article 8
(2)(b)(ix) of the Rome Statute.
August- According to a civil society Measures related to Child Welfare: 2-3
November, report, central police forces Article 24 of GC IV;
2016 occupied at least seven schools
in the Kashmir Valley.30 Children: Article 50 of GC IV; 9-10
Grave Breaches of the Geneva 34

Conventions:
Art. 147 of GCIV 19
28
Human Rights Watch, ‘Cease Wrongful Detentions in Jammu and Kashmir’ (October 15, 2016)
29
Human Rights Watch, Annual Report 2016, Country Summary: India (January 2017)
30
Amnesty International, “Children’s right to education must be protected in Kashmir”, 4 November
2016. Available from https://amnesty.org.in/news-update/childrens-right-education-must-protected-
kashmir/.
197
Military Authority over the
Article 56 of HC IV 34, 36
The Principle of Distinction
between Civilian Objects and
Private Property in Occupied
Territory: Rules 7 and 51 of ICRC 2
CIHL Study

Extensive Appropriation of
Property, not Justified by Military
Necessity and Carried out
Unlawfully and Wantonly – Article
8 (2)(a)(iv) of the Rome Statute.
2016 In the 10 districts of Jammu and Treatment of Protected Persons in 4
Kashmir 1,726 people were Occupied Territories: Article 27 of
injured by pellets.31 GC IV
Protection of Civilian Population /
Indiscriminate and 18, 19
51(4)(a), 51(5)(b) of AP I;
Proportionality in attack: Rules 1,
11, 14 of ICRC CIHL Study; 5, 34
Punishment, Grave Breaches of 23
Protection of Children: Article 21
77(1) of AP I;
Fundamental Guarantees: Articles
75(2)(a), 75(2) of AP I; 37
CIHL Study
Injury or unnecessary suffering: 29
Art. 35(2) of API32

31
OHCHR Report (page 22)
32
198
or Serious Injury to Body or

Health – Article 8 (2)(a)(iii) of the 31
Rome Statute

and Methods of Warfare which are 28
Statute.

Commission of Inhumane Acts or
Intentionally Causing great
Suffering or Serious Injury to Body
or to Mental or Physical Health –
Article 7 (1)(k) of the Rome Statute.
2017 It was reported by the UN that Measures related to Child Welfare: 2-3
government reports confirmed Article 24 of GC IV;
the military use of four schools Children: Article 50 of GC IV; 9-10
for several weeks.33
Military Authority over the 42
Article 56 of HC IV
The Principle of Distinction 34, 56
CIHL Study

Extensive Appropriation of
Property, not Justified by Military
Necessity and Carried out
Unlawfully and Wantonly – Article
8 (2)(a)(iv) of the Rome Statute.
1989-2017 143 cases of rape have been Treatment of Protected Persons: 4
documented.34 Article 27 of GC IV
33
A/72/361- S/2017/821, Children and Armed Conflict, Report of the Secretary-General para 204
34
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the Situation of Human
Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir from June 2016 to April
2018, and General Human Rights Concerns in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan 14 June
2018,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IN/DevelopmentsInKashmirJune2016ToApril2018.pdf
199
Grave Breaches of GC: Article 147 14

of GC IV
Individual responsibility, Collective 5
Penalties, Pillage, Reprisals: Article
33 of GC IV 42
Military Authority Over the
Territory of the Hostile State - 21
Regulations: Article 56 of HC IV
Collective Punishments: Article 23
75(2)(d) of AP I
Protection of Women: Article 76 of 37
AP I
Rape and other Forms of Sexual
Violence: Rule 93 of ICRC CIHL 38
Study
Collective Punishments: Rule 103 31

of ICRC CIHL Study
Rape or Any other form of sexual 28
violence – Article 8 (2)(b)(xxii) of
the Rome Statute
Crimes Against Humanity of Rape
and any other form of sexual
violence of comparable gravity –
Article 7 (1)(g) of the Rome Statute.
9 April 2017 Indian troops shoot at, beat and Treatment of Protected Persons in
blind protestors who were Occupied Territories: Article 27 of 4
throwing stones at the polling GC IV
booths. This resulted in the Prohibition of Torture, Corporal
killing of 8 civilians, including Punishment, Grave Breaches of 5, 14
a 12-year old boy who was shot GC: Articles 32, 147 of GC IV;
in the back of his head; and Fundamental Guarantees: Articles 21
around 20 people shot with 75(2)(a), 75(2) of AP I;
pellets in their eyes. Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and
CIHL Study
Protection of Civilian Population / 18, 19
Indiscriminate and
51(4)(a), 51(5)(b) of AP I;
Proportionality in attack: Rules 1, 16
11, 14 of ICRC CIHL Study
200
Injury or unnecessary suffering: 23-24

Art. 35(2) of API35
Protection of Children
Art. 77 of API
War Crime for the Commission of 29
Wilful Killing, Torture or Inhuman
Treatment, and Wilfully Causing
Great Suffering or Serious Injury
to Body or Health – Article 8 29
(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rome
Statute.

against a Civilian Population or 31
Rome Statute.
Statute.
12 April 2017 A 26-year old shawl weaver Treatment of Protected Persons in 4

Farooq Ahmad Dar is assaulted Occupied Territories: Article 27 of
by Indian troops while returning GC IV
from funeral prayers, wounding Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and
his hands and arms. Degrading Treatment, Corporal 37
He is then tied up to the front of Punishment: Rules 89, 90 of ICRC
an army jeep, strapped on a CIHL Study
handwritten placard and Protection of the Civilian
paraded through several villages Population (human shields,
for hours as a live trophy – a spreading fear among the civilian 17, 18,
‘human shield’ against the population, distinction) Basic Rule, 19, 21
stone-pelting. Fundamental Guarantees: Articles,
A soldier can be heard saying 51(1), (2), and (7); 48 and 75(2) of
through a public address AP I
system, “Those who throw
stones will meet the same fate.” Human Shields, Violence aimed at 34, 37,
Spreading Terror among the 38
Civilian Population, The Principle
of Distinction between Civilians
and Combatants, Torture and
35
201
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment: Rules 97, 2, 1, 90 of 29
ICRC CIHL Study

Torture or Inhuman Treatment, 29
and Wilfully Causing Great
Suffering or serious injury to body
or health – Article 8 (2)(a)(ii) and
(iii) of the Rome Statute
31
Against Individual Civilian not
taking Direct Part in Hostilities –
Article 8 (2)(b)(i) of the Rome
Statute
Outrages upon Personal Dignity, in
Particular Humiliating and
Degrading Treatment – Article 8
(2)(b)(xxi) of the Rome Statute.
15 April 2017 3 civilians killed, including a Treatment of Protected Persons in 4
17-year old street vendor whose Occupied Territories: Article 27 of
forehead was cracked open with GC IV
a bullet. Basic Rule, Protection of Civilian 17, 18
A college is raided by Population: Articles 48, 51 of AP I
paramilitary forces in full gear, General Protection of Civilian 19
accompanied by an armoured Objects: Article 52 of AP I
vehicle, injuring around 50 Military Authority over the 42
students. Territory of the Hostile State:
Article 56 of HC IV
Principle of Distinction between 34
Civilians and Combatants: Rule 1
of ICRC CIHL Study
Violence aimed at Spreading 34
Terror among the Civilian
Population: Rule 2 of ICRC CIHL
Study;
The Principle of Distinction 34, 36
Military Objectives, Public and 14
CIHL Study
Grave Breaches: Art. 147 of GCIV 27
Children: Art. 77 of API
Crime against Humanity for the 29
Commission of Murder – Article 7
202

Wilful Killing – Article 8 (2)(a)(i) of
the Rome Statute 29
against a Civilian Population or
Civilians not taking Direct Part in 29
Rome Statute
against Civilian Objects that are
not Military Objectives – Article 8
(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute.
20 April 2017 Graphic videos surface showing Treatment of Protected Persons in 4
soldiers torturing boys inside an Occupied Territories: Article 27 of
army vehicle as they’re GC IV;
exhorted to shout anti-Pakistan Measures related to Child Welfare: 2
slogans. Article 24 of GC IV;
Protection of Children: Article 77 23
(1) and (4) of AP I;
Deprivation of Liberty: Rule 99 of 38
ICRC CIHL Study
Protection of the Civilian
Population (spreading fear among 18, 19,
the civilian population, distinction) 21
Basic Rule, Fundamental
Guarantees: Articles, 51(1) and (7);
48 and 75(2) of AP I
Violence aimed at Spreading
Terror among the Civilian 34, 37
Population, The Principle of
Distinction between Civilians and 14
Combatants, Torture and Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment: 27
Rules 2, 1, 90 of ICRC CIHL Study
Grave Breaches: Art. 147 of GCIV
Crime Against Humanity for the 29
Offence of Torture – Article 7 (1)(b)
of the Rome Statute
Torture or Inhuman Treatment – 30
Article 8 (2)(a)(ii) of the Rome
Statute
Unlawful Deportation or Transfer
or Unlawful Confinement of
Persons – Article 8 (2)(a)(vii) of the
Rome Statute.
1 April, 2018 40 people injured and 35 hit in Treatment of Protected Persons in 4
203
the eyes by Pellet Guns in Occupied Territories: Article 27 of

Shopian and Anantnag GC IV
districts.36 Prohibition of Torture, Corporal
Punishment, Grave Breaches of 5, 14
Fundamental Guarantees: Articles 20, 21
75(2)(a), 75(2) of AP I;
Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and 37
Degrading Treatment, Corporal
CIHL Study 18, 19
Protection of Civilian Population /
Indiscriminate and
51(4)(a), 51(5)(b) of AP I;
34, 35
Principle of Distinction between
Indiscriminate attacks, 16
Proportionality in attack: Rules 1,
11, 14 of ICRC CIHL Study 23
Art. 35(2) of API37
29
Protection of Children
Art. 77 of API
or Serious Injury to body or Health 29
– Article 8 (2)(a)(iii) of the Rome
Statute.
against a Civilian Population or 31
Rome Statute.

Statute.
36
OHCHR Report (page 24)
37
204
17 February, Houses were destroyed in the 34, 18

Acts aimed at spreading terror
2019 village of Pinglan.
among the civilian population:
Rule 2 of CIHL; Art. 51(2) of
120 Villagers were exposed to
Additional Protocol I
tear gas and alleged beatings.
17, 18
Distinguishing between Civilian
Reuters also reported that at
objects and Military Objectives:
least four villagers were made
Art. 48 and 52(2) of API
to act as human shields,
wherein they were sent into
Removal of Civilians from the
buildings where local fighters 19.1,
vicinity of Military Objectives
might be hiding.38 35.1
Art. 58(a) of API; Rule 24 of CIHL
Riot Control Agents as Method of

36.1, 44
Warfare
Rule 75 CIHL; Art. I(5) of the
Convention on the Prohibition of the
Development, Production,
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical
Weapons and on Their Destruction39
5, 14
Punishment: Art.32, 147 of GC IV
Using Civilians as Human Shields:
Art. 28 GCIV, Art. 51(7) API, Rule
4, 19,
97 of CIHL Rules.
38
Source: Research Society of International Law (RSIL), Islamabad, Pakistan.
38
https://www.dawn.com/news/1479440/indian-troops-use-locals-as-shields-in-held-kashmir-encounters
39
Whilst it is permitted in an armed conflict during law enforcement as per Art. II(9)(d), the facts do not
indicate any such use.
205
206

Kashmir Factsheet-Final-Complete Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kashmir Factsheet-Final-Complete Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kashmir Factsheet 1947-2021: The Indisputable Facts

© Islamabad Policy Research Institute

All rights reserved.

Editor: Shamsa Nawaz

All correspondence, including comments/queries on the published material may be

Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)

The Standstill Agreement 1

Genesis of Article 370 2

Why Article 370 matters to Kashmiris? 4

IIOJ&K Situation Since August 05 and Pakistan’s Diplomatic Efforts 6

United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) on J&K Dispute 11

Track II Initiatives/Dialogues between Pakistan & India 15

Major Political Parties of IIOJ&K 18

Mediation on Jammu & Kashmir Dispute (1947–2020) 19

i. S/RES/38 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 83

ix. S/RES/122 - ‘The India-Pakistan Question’ 103

Annexure B: The McNaughton Proposal - 1949 115

Annexure C: The Owen Dixon Report - 1950 121

Annexure E: Bilateral Agreements 157

i. The Karachi Agreement 1949 159

Annexure G: IHL Violations Committed by India in IIOJ&K 183

Table 1: August 5, 2019 IIOJ&K Status 6

Jammu & Kashmir dispute is a primary bone of contention between

Brig (Retd) Raashid Wali Janjua, SI (M)

AII Australia India Institute

APDP Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BJP Bharatiya Janata Party

CBMs Confidence Building Measures

HRC Human Rights Council

HRW Human Rights Watch

IIOJ&K Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

MEPs Members of the European Parliament

JKLF Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front

JKCCS Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society

NC Jammu & Kashmir National Conference

J&K Jammu & Kashmir

JKPC Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference

PDP Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party

JRP Jammu Republic Party

KIIs Key Informant Interviews

LoC Line of Control

MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs

NDPI National Democratic Party (Indian)

OIC Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

OIC-IPHRC OIC’s Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission

PIPFPD Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy

POTA Prevention of Terrorism Act

RCSS Regional Centre for Strategic Studies

RSS Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

TADA Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act

UNCAT UN Convention against Torture

UNCIP United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan

UNSC UN Security Council

UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolutions

UNMOGIP United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan

THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT1

Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreements

Your telegram of the 12th. The Government of Pakistan agrees to have a

Reply from Government of India:

Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister duly

GENESIS OF ARTICLE 370 AND ARTICLE 35-A