https://cssprepforum.

com/enumerate-the-measures-adopted-by-pakistan-to-spotlight-on-the-plight-of-
kashmiri-people-in-the-indian-occupied-jammu-and-kashmir-after-5th-august-2019/

https://na.gov.pk/en/content.php?id=89

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/kashmir-the-roads-ahead/ (solutions)

1. Background: India-Pakistan Independence and Partition

2. Princely States and the Junagadh Conflict
3. The Peculiar Case of Kashmir
4. Outbreak of Conflict in Kashmir
5. First Indo-Pakistani War (1947-1948)
6. Establishment of the Line of Control (LOC)
7. United Nations' Mediation Efforts
8. Adoption of UN Resolution 47
9. Three-Step Process to Ease Tensions
10. India's Acceptance, Pakistan's Rejection, and Failed Negotiations.

Historical Context

To understand this conflict, it is essential to look back into the history of the area. In August of 1947,
India and Pakistan were on the cusp of independence from the British. The British, led by the then
Governor-General Louis Mountbatten, divided the British India empire into the states of India and
Pakistan. The British India Empire was made up of multiple princely states (states that were allegiant to
the British but headed by a monarch) along with states directly headed by the British. At the time of the
partition, princely states had the right to choose whether they were to cede to India or Pakistan. To
quote Mountbatten, “Typically, geographical circumstance and collective interests, et cetera will be the
components to be considered[1]. In general, the Muslim majority states went to Pakistan while the
Hindu majority states went to India, although India was a secular nation.

However, Kashmir was a peculiar case. While the majority of the population was Muslim, the ruler was a
Hindu, Maharaja Hari Singh. However, this was not the only such case. The state of Junagadh was also
faced with such a conflict.  The ruler of Junagadh[2] was a Muslim, who wished to accede to Pakistan,
against the wishes of his people. Mountbatten recommended that Junagadh should go to India not only
because it was a largely populated state but also because it was completely surrounded by India.
However, the ruler ceded to Pakistan. India, enraged, annexed Junagadh on the pretext that the
Pakistani Prime minister Muhammed Ali Jinnah stated that Hindus and Muslims could not live in one
nation and because they feared riots[3].

However, when it came to the region of Kashmir, the situation unfolded differently. Although Kashmir
was a Muslim majority state headed by a Hindu ruler, Mountbatten recommended that Kashmir should
go to India.[4]This had to do with India being a secular state. But Hari Singh decided that Kashmir would
 be independent, at least for a while, because he feared that the Kashmiri Muslims would not be happy
with India while the Hindus and Sikhs would not be happy in Pakistan[5]. During this period of
ambivalence in Kashmir, there were outbursts of riots in certain districts of Kashmir against the ruler.
This eventually led to Pakistani tribesmen and militia crossing into Kashmir, in an attempt to take over
the city of Srinagar, whilst looting and plundering the region[6]. Hari Singh made a plea to India to aid
him against this anarchy and in doing so ceded Kashmir to India. This led to the First Indo-Pakistani War,
also known as the First Kashmir War that was fought between the Indian soldiers and the Pakistani
tribesmen. In 1948, Pakistani armed forces entered the war. Towards the end of 1948, both sides
solidified their positions in Kashmir. A ceasefire agreement was made and a line of control (LOC) was
established[7]. India was left with roughly two-thirds of Kashmir, while Pakistan obtained control over a
third of the region of Kashmir. This marked the first of the many wars and conflicts between these two
nations over Kashmir.

The establishment of the LOC in 1948, however, was insufficient. The United Nations then played the
role of the mediator. On the 21st of April, 1948, the Security Council passed and adopted resolution
47[8]. A commission of five members (this commission was initially established by resolution 39) was to
go to the Indian subcontinent and aid India and Pakistan in restoring peace in Kashmir. Additionally, the
commission was supposed to help these countries prepare for a plebiscite to decide Kashmir’s
accession. A three-step process was also recommended to ease tensions:

 All Pakistani nationals who entered Kashmir to fight were to be evacuated

 India was to gradually reduce its forces in the region

 India was to appoint a referendum administrator who was nominated by the UN

India accepted this resolution. However, Pakistan rejected it. This led to no withdrawal of troops and no
referendum being held. Further International negotiations were attempted in the form of the Dixon plan
among others. However, these too failed as every time either India or Pakistan rejected the terms.

1.
Kashmir's Strategic Importance in National Security
2. Indus River: The Lifeline of Pakistan and India
3. Hydroelectric Potential and Natural Resources in Kashmir
4. Geopolitical Significance: A Bridge between South Asia and Central Asia
5. Kashmir and the Belt and Road Initiative
6. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and its Impact on Kashmir
7. Kashmir: A Critical Region Amidst Three Nuclear Nations.

Kashmir’s Importance

The primary reason for this conflict between the two nations is due to how valuable Kashmir is in terms
of national security, geography and resources[9].
 The largely important Indus River flows through Kashmir. The Indus River is extremely crucial to
agriculture in Pakistan. It is especially important in the lower Indus valley region, where rainfall is
uncommon. Similarly, India depends on the Indus for irrigation. Hence, the Indus and its tributaries are
highly sought after. The nation that controls this region effectively can cut off the water supply to the
other. To manage these fears and ensure a fair distribution of the water from this river, the Indus Water
Treaty[10] came into existence on the 19th of September, 1960. Under this treaty, India has control over
the eastern tributaries of Beas, Ravi and Sutlej, while Pakistan has control over the western rivers of
Indus, Chenab and Jhelum. India has roughly 16% of the total water carried by the river while Pakistan
has the rest. However, while this treaty is in place, Pakistan still fears that in a potential conflict, India
could cut off the supply, since they control the region of Kashmir through which the Indus flows. But it is
important to note that in the previous wars, India did not choke off the water supply. Yet, from
Pakistan’s standpoint, the possibility remains, making Kashmir precious to them. Additionally, the
glaciers provide immense amounts of freshwater to the region[11].

The Kashmiri Rivers and water bodies also have the potential to generate hydroelectricity at great
magnitudes. The state of Jammu and Kashmir largely depends on hydroelectricity for its power
demands. At the moment, Kashmir only produces around 3000 megawatts of electricity. However, the
region has the potential to produce up to 16,000 megawatts of power. The Indian administration is
looking to tap into this, making Kashmir an important region. The region is also home to a plethora of
resources such as uranium, gold, oil and natural gas.

From a geopolitical standpoint, Kashmir is vital as well. Kashmir serves as a bridge between South Asia
and Central Asia. For India, it is the only direct route to Central Asia and through Central Asia to Europe.
It plays a key role in the Belt and Road initiative. More importantly, it is key for the China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor (CPEC)[12]. The CPEC is a large-scale bilateral undertaking involving the development
of infrastructure in Pakistan, the establishment of transportation networks between China and Pakistan
and the creation of numerous energy projects. Many of these projects run through the Pakistan
administered Kashmir. Pakistan aims at directly connecting itself with both Central Asia and China
through Kashmir.

Kashmir is a central piece between three nuclear nations: India, Pakistan and China. At the moment, of
the original territory of Kashmir, India has control over roughly 55% of the total area, Pakistan controls
30% of the land and China controls 15% of it.

1. India's Claim on Kashmir: Legitimacy of the Instrument of Accession

2. Kashmir's Strategic Importance for India's Regional Connectivity
3. National Security Concerns: Siachen Glacier and Threats from China and Pakistan
4. China-Pakistan Nexus: Ceding of Shaksgam Valley and Gilgit
5. Surge of Indian Nationalism and Terrorist Attacks in Kashmir
6. Resentment Towards Pakistan and China for Illegitimate Claims on Indian Territory.

Kashmir from the Indian Viewpoint

According to India, Kashmir in its entirety belongs to India, and both Pakistan and China are falsely laying
claim on Indian territories. India views the instrument of accession that was signed by Maharaja Hari
Singh as legally binding, hence legally and fairly giving India Kashmir.
 As mentioned, Kashmir is India’s only path to Central Asia. India does not have access to Central Asian
and European countries directly through the land without it.

It is also extremely important to India’s national security[13]. The Siachen Glacier is the only barrier
between Pakistan and China. In the face of a conflict, without Kashmir, China and Pakistan could
combine forces, gravely endangering India. With India’s straining relationships with both China and
Pakistan, it has become wary of this.

Additionally, in 1963, Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam valley and Gilgitto China. This region was originally a
part of Pakistan administered Kashmir[14]. Some claim that this was done in order to undermine India
and in order to allow Chinese military presence in Kashmir. While India does not accept this, it is
nonetheless threatened. With China and Pakistan strengthening ties, increasing Chinese and Pakistani
troops has made this region increasingly important.

There has also been a surge of Indian nationalism lately, especially with the nationalist Bhartiya Janata
Party coming to power in 2014 with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the helm[15]. Since the inception
of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the region and India have faced numerous terrorist attacks, both by
outside terrorist groups and by local insurgents. In 2001, insurgents from this region along with
terrorists from outside attacked the Indian Parliament, killing many. There have been many incidents
such as this. The result of this has been the deaths of thousands of civilians and Indian soldiers. This has
led to feelings of resentment amongst the Indian people. Since many of these terrorists have their
camps in Pakistan, this anger is directed towards Pakistan[16]. The Indian people have been longing for
these deaths to stop and for the government to decisively deal with these acts of terror. The Indian
people have also developed feelings of anger and resentment towards primarily Pakistan but also China
for illegally taking over their territory. They believe Kashmir in its entirety belongs to India and severe
action must be taken.

1.
Pakistan's Historical Perspective: Illegitimate Cession and Religious Identity
2. Strategic Importance of Kashmir for Pakistan's Resources and Water Security
3. Kashmir as a Vital Link between Pakistan and China
4. Geopolitical Concerns: Threat to Pakistani Security and Chinese Relations
5. People's Views: Sympathy towards Kashmiris and Conflict Fatigue
6. Pakistani Government's Position: Kashmir as an Essential Part of Pakistan's Territorial
Integrity
7. Call for UN Mediation in the Kashmir Conflict.

Kashmir from the Pakistani Viewpoint

Historically, Pakistan believes that Kashmir was illegitimately ceded to India by a ruler who did not
represent the people. Additionally, since a majority of the Muslim majority states went to Pakistan, they
believe Kashmir should belong to them.

 However, Kashmir is also important to Pakistan for strategic reasons[17]. As mentioned, Kashmir has a
plethora of resources. Moreover, Pakistan is largely dependent on the Kashmiri Rivers. If India has
complete control over Kashmir, it could potentially paralyze Pakistani agriculture and induce droughts.
 Kashmir is the only direct link between Pakistan and China. China being a strong ally makes this
important, both for military reasons and for economic development. The China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor goes through Kashmir as well. Losing Kashmir would deny this direct link to Pakistan. This direct
link with China has been largely beneficial in terms of economic development.

Additionally, if India has complete control over Kashmir, India could move a large number of troops to
the edge of the border, posing a large threat to Pakistani security. Losing Kashmir would not only cut off
access to help from China but also have Indian troops present very close to important cities in Pakistan.
This could prove devastating in the time of conflict. Hence, Pakistan believes they will be at the mercy of
India if Kashmir is lost.

The general view of the people on this issue seems to be against India. Many are sympathetic towards
the Kashmiris and believe that the people’s lives can be bettered by Kashmir joining Pakistan. However,
there is a sizable population that is rather tired of this conflict and criticized the government for
investing a lot of its resources in the Kashmiri conflict.

The Pakistani administration has maintained the view that Pakistan cannot lose Kashmir. They maintain
that India has no legal or moral right over Kashmir and that Kashmir is rightly theirs. Subsequently, they
are calling for UN mediation in the region.

1. Historical Perspective: Ambivalence and Struggles for Independence

2. Kashmiri Hindus Exodus and Radicalization
3. Decades of Violence: Insurgents, Terrorists, and Armed Forces
4. Human Rights Violations and Allegations
5. The Impact of Recent Developments: Article 370 and Communication Shutdown
6. Kashmiri People's Weariness: Desire for Peace and Referendum.

Kashmir from the Kashmir viewpoint

The Kashmiri perspective is one that has been largely ignored. This conflict is one that has stemmed due
to the fact that there are those that believe Maharaja Hari Singh ceding Kashmir to India was unlawful as
he did not represent the majority. Before the partition, Kashmir had approximately 4 million people. Of
these, around 70% were Muslims, 25% were Hindus, and the remaining 5% were Buddhists and
Sikhs[18].

Even before the time of the partition, there was a rising movement against the ruler. The Muslim
Conference led by Sheik Abdullah denounced the Maharaja and claimed that he was a danger to Islam.
However, later on, the Conference lost its steam and lost a majority of its followers, causing Abdullah to
embrace secularism. Abdullah remained a prominent leader. Later on, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the future
prime minister of Pakistan, and Abdullah became fierce adversaries. This relationship with Jinnah led
him to become an ally of the Indian leaders.

After the partition of India and Pakistan, Kashmir signed a standstill agreement with both the nations
while they decided their fate. However, with the Pakistani tribesmen attacking India, Abdullah, as a
representative to the Maharaja, went to India and sought its help, leading to Kashmir being ceded to
India.

Before the invasion, the situation in Kashmir was ambivalent. There were many who willed for Kashmir’s
independence. However, there were also those who willed to go to either India or Pakistan. Later on, in
1953, Abdullah was arrested for trying to create an independent Kashmir and having clandestine
meetings with foreign powers. In 1954, the Kashmiri Constituent Assembly ratified Kashmir’s accession
to India.

But peace did not ensue.[19] A divide arose amongst the people of Kashmir. There are also reports that
indicate that many of the Kashmiri officials had become corrupt. In 1965, Pakistan invaded Kashmir,
following a military coup that overthrew the democratic government. The result of this was the rise of
anti-Pakistan feelings in Kashmir. By this time, Kashmiri leaders seemed to have changed their tune, with
many contents with their accession to India.

Beginning in 1980, there was a rapid Islamization of Kashmir. Names of cities were changed and
propaganda was spread. Those of other religions were denounced as ‘spies’ or ‘outsiders.’ There is
evidence suggesting nations like Saudi Arabia influenced and aided this spread. This was the beginning
of the violence in the region.

The first large-scale act of violence was the exodus of the Kashmiri Hindus[20]. Thousands of Kashmiri
Hindus were killed and forced to flee by Muslim mobs and Hindu temples were destroyed. Before this
exodus, there were about 600,000 Hindus living in the region. By the end of it, there were only around
2000 to 3000 remaining. There was a spread of radical Islam, where violence was encouraged against
those of other religions. Children were recruited by insurgency groups and trained in violence. People
were encouraged to sell their belongings in order to finance the purchases of weapons. Thus, began the
coming decades of violence and propaganda led by insurgency groups.

Since then, the violence and bloodshed in this region have only continued. Insurgent groups, terrorist
organizations, Pakistani forces and Indian forces have constantly found themselves in conflict, leading to
the deaths of thousands. As a result, there has been a significant increase in the number of military
personnel and equipment in the region. There has also been a steady rise in domestic terrorism.[21]

On the other hand, this combination of military personnel, insurgents and terrorists have resulted in
human rights violations. Allegations have included the suppression of freedom of speech mass
homicides, kidnappings, torture and sexual violence amongst others. The accused have included
insurgent and terrorist groups, the Pakistani military, and the Indian military. More recently, the Indian
government had completely cut off all means of communications and detained political leaders as a
preemptive move to maintain law and order after the amendment of article 370 (explained in more
detail in the following section). While the Indian government claims to have done it for the preservation
of peace, many have criticized this as a violation of human rights. In fact, internet services were cut for
213 days. International and domestic actors including organizations like Amnesty International have
called for an end of human rights abuses in Kashmir[22]. 

At the moment, it is safe to say, the Kashmiri people are tired of the decades of conflict and
violence[23]. On one hand, there are constant attacks by insurgent groups and terrorist organizations.
On the other, there is an increased presence of military troops. There are reports of human rights
 violations by these troops. The Kashmiri people want an end to this constant violence by all the groups
present. Increasingly, more Kashmiris are in support of the referendum that was supposed to have taken
place during the partition. Additionally, there is an increasing number of people in support of an
independent Kashmir.

Recent events :

1. Pulwama Attack and Escalating Tensions (February 2019)

2. Revocation of Article 370: Stripping Special Status of Jammu and Kashmir (October
2019)
3. Controversial Decision and Human Rights Concerns
4. Strained Relations with Kashmir and Anti-India Sentiments
5. International Response: Support for India's Decision.

Recent Events

On the 14th of February, 2019, a convoy of vehicles carrying India’s Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
was attacked by a suicide bomber in Pulwama, killing 40 CRPF troops. Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan
based terrorist group. India blamed Pakistan to be responsible for the attack. However, Pakistan denied
any involvement with the attack[24].

Immediately, tensions flared between the two countries. In response to the attack, Indian fighter jets
crossed the border and bombed the alleged Jaish-E-Mohammed bases in the Pakistani town of Balakot.
Pakistan retaliated by conducting an airstrike on India, but there were no casualties. During a dogfight,
an Indian fighter plane was shot down and the pilot who landed in Pakistan was captured. The world
was at its edge, and the two nations were at the brink of war. However, after negotiations, the tensions
were eased and the pilot was returned to India.

In October of 2019, the Indian government led by Narendra Modi revoked Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution[25]. Article 370 was intended to be a temporary provision that gave the state of Jammu
and Kashmir a special status. According to this, Jammu and Kashmir were allowed a certain degree of
autonomy[26]. Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to have its own constitution, the ability to create its
own laws and its own flag. However, the government of India would have control over matters such as
defense and foreign affairs. Due to this, Indians from other states were not allowed to buy land or settle
in this state. Additionally, if a woman marries someone from an outside state, she loses her property
rights.

The Modi government argued that this was intended to be a temporary provision and that it has been
seven decades since. They also claimed that the article is discriminatory in nature and that it hindered
development. Consequently, after returning for a second term, Modi amended this article. The state of
Jammu and Kashmir has now lost its special rights. The region is now broken up into the ‘union
territories’ or federally administered areas of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.

However, this move was largely controversial. Anticipating intense reactions to this and citing the
perseveration of law and order, the Indian government mobilized large numbers of military personnel
into the region. Communication systems such as the internet were cut off. The chief minister of the state
and other prominent political leaders were detained preemptively. News agencies were curfewed and
 the entire region was under lockdown. Human rights groups have criticized these moves as human rights
violations. Pakistan strongly condemned this decision and said that it will exercise all possible options to
counter the illegal steps.” Pakistan withdrew its ambassador to India and suspended trade.

Moreover, this move served to strain the already strained relation with Kashmir. Many Kashmiris were
enraged by the restrictions placed on them, leading to more anti-India sentiments. To add to this, many
Kashmiris believe that this is the Hindu nationalist government’s attempt to make Kashmir a Hindu state.

But, the international response to this move was largely favorable to India. Many nations expressed
their support and remarked that this was a situation of India dealing with its internal matters.

1. Current Stalemate: India and Pakistan's Firm Positions

2. India's International Support and Unlikely Withdrawal
3. Pakistan's Strategic Interests and Unwillingness to Compromise
4. Uncertainty of Kashmiri Independence and the Fear of Anarchy
5. Unlikelihood of a Fair Referendum and Absence of International Involvement
6. Rising Demographic for Peace and Anti-Terror Measures
7. Bleak Future Outlook but a Glimmer of Hope for Improvement.

Future Outlook and Conflict Resolution

Both India and Pakistan strongly believe that Kashmir rightfully belongs to them. It is hard to discredit
either side’s arguments. Additionally, Kashmir is incredibly valuable to both nations. It is hard to
imagine, that either country would willingly surrender Kashmir. It is certain that thousands of Kashmiris
and soldiers have faced and continue to face atrocities. There are also reports of human rights violations
in the region. In both Pakistan and India there is increasing sympathy for the Kashmiris. However, at the
current moment, there is little hope for change in this region.

Of late, India has gained a lot of international support as well. Rapidly growing as an economy and as a
military power, India has become a desirable ally and trade partner for many. We can look to the
amendment of Article 370 as an example of this. Most nations were in support of India’s decision. We
can speculate that going forward this international support will only continue. India faces little
international pressure to renegotiate the terms of Kashmir with Pakistan. Pakistan on the other hand
was under scrutiny. Multiple nations have called for Pakistan to withdraw its support of terrorist
activities and funding terrorist organizations. Pakistan certainly faces the brunt of international scrutiny
in this matter.

India has little reason to withdraw from this conflict. Kashmir is very valuable to India. Future plans of
channeling hydroelectricity and the abundance of natural resources make it so. Additionally, with
nationalist and anti -Pakistan sentiments rising in India, a majority of the people would not want to lose
Kashmir. The Modi nationalist government’s persona of being hard negotiators and tough and decisive
on foreign matters was a significant factor in them winning the elections. In fact, Modi’s overwhelming
victory for his second term is credited by many to his swift and decisive retaliation on the terrorist
camps in Pakistan. To add to this, India has not faced severe economic or political repercussions due to
the Kashmiri conflict. Hence, in the coming future, given the current events, it is extremely unlikely that
India will change its stance on Kashmir. On the contrary, India seems to be moving towards completely
integrating Kashmir into itself.

Similarly, Pakistan is unlikely to change its stance. Kashmir is very valuable to Pakistan. Its beneficial
relationship with China depends on it. Kashmir is the key to important rivers that fuel Pakistani
agriculture. Although Pakistan has been under international scrutiny, there has not been significant
pressure. While Pakistan may be weaker in terms of military strength, it too is a nuclear power. In the
case of a war, mutually assured destruction is a guarantee. Additionally, China has had straining
relations with India as well and is an ally. Hence, the chances of an Indian invasion are low. Although the
Pakistani economy is declining, losing Kashmir would only serve to damage the economy.

Although there is a cry for independence in Kashmir, it is unclear as to whether it is a majority.

Additionally, there are fears around the world that an independent Kashmir would not last. An
independent Kashmir would be surrounded by three nuclear states and plagued with multiple terrorist
organizations. It would be bound to rely on one of the three powers. Analysts predict that an
independent Kashmir would quickly crumble under anarchy and terrorism. There are fears that such a
nation would simply become another terrorist-ruled state. Both India and Pakistan are unlikely to let this
happen.

It is unlikely that we will see a referendum either[27]. It would be reasonable to believe that a fair
referendum would be hard to achieve. Additionally, the Kashmiri sentiments seemed to have changed,
during the partition, a sizable portion of Kashmiri were pro- India. However, given the current events
and the surge of anti-India sentiments amongst the Kashmiris, it is hard to say which side the Kashmiris
are leaning towards. India has no reason to change its position on Kashmir. Hence, since their victory is
not guaranteed through a referendum, they would have little reason to call for a referendum. India has
wanted no international involvement in this matter.

However, the plight of the Kashmiris is heard more than ever now. In both countries, there is a rising
demographic that wants to end the loss of lives and sorrow that Kashmir has become synonymous with.
As the world is increasing the measures taken against terrorism, we can hope that Kashmir too can one
day be free of it. The global stage is keeping a close watch on Kashmir and many organizations are going
in to better the situation. Some are calling to make the line of control the official border. While this is
certainly more likely than India or Pakistan entirely giving up Kashmir, the odds still remain low. For
reasons described, it is hard to see this happen especially, in the absence of a mutually hurting
stalemate. Both nations are likely to drag out this issue until they no longer can. Either way, while the
future looks bleak, the hope that there will be an improvement still remains.

Resolution of Kashmir Dispute

Following are the recommendations forwarded in “Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir” released
by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 14 June 2018:

To the Human Rights Council:

Consider the findings of this report, including the possible establishment of a commission of inquiry to conduct a
comprehensive independent international investigation into allegations of human rights violations in Kashmir.
To the authorities in India:
(a) Fully respect India’s international human rights law obligations in Indian-Administered Kashmir,
(b) Urgently repeal the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990; and, in the meantime,
immediately remove the requirement for prior central government permission to prosecute security forces personnel
accused of human rights violations in civilian courts;
(c) Establish independent, impartial and credible investigations to probe all civilian killings which have occurred
since July 2016, as well as obstruction of medical services during the 2016 unrest, arson attacks against schools and
incidents of excessive use of force by security forces including serious injuries caused by the use of the pellet-firing
shotguns;
(d) Investigate all deaths that have occurred in the context of security operations in Jammu and Kashmir following
the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India;
(e) Investigate all cases of abuses committed by armed groups in Jammu and Kashmir, including the killings of
minority Kashmiri Hindus since the late 1980s;
(f) Provide reparations and rehabilitation to all individuals injured and the family of those killed in the context of
security operations;
(g) Investigate and prosecute all cases of sexual violence allegedly perpetrated by state and non-state actors, and
provide reparations to victims;
(h) Bring into compliance with international human rights standards all Indian laws and standard operating
procedures relating to the use of force by law-enforcement and security entities, particularly the use of firearms:
immediately order the end of the use of pellet-firing shotguns in Jammu and Kashmir for the purpose of crowd
control;
(i) Amend the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 to ensure its compliance with international human rights
law;
(j) Release or, if appropriate, charge under applicable criminal offences all those held under administrative detention
and ensure the full respect of standards of due process and fair trial guaranteed under International law;
(k) Treat any person below the age of 18 who is arrested in a manner consistent with the Convention on the Rights
of the Child;
(l) Investigate all blanket bans or restrictions on access to the Internet and mobile telephone networks that were
imposed in 2016, and ensure that such restrictions are not imposed in the future;
(m) End restrictions on the movement of journalists and arbitrary bans on the publication of newspapers in Jammu
and Kashmir.
(n) Ensure independent, impartial and credible investigations into all unmarked graves in the state of Jammu and
Kashmir as directed by the State Human Rights Commission; if necessary, seek assistance from the Government of
India and /or the international community. Expand the competence of the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights
Commission to investigate all human rights violations and abuses in the state, including those allegedly committed
by central security forces;
(o) Ratify the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional
Protocol, and introduce enabling domestic laws as recommended during India’s UPR in 2008, 2012 and 2017;
(p) In line with its standing invitation to the Special Procedures, accept the invitation requests of the almost 20
mandates that have made such requests; in particular, accept the request of the Working Group on Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearances and facilitate its visit to India, including to Jammu and Kashmir;
(q) Fully respect the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir as protected under international law.
To the Government of Pakistan:
(a) Fully respect international human rights law obligations in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir;
(b) End the misuse of anti-terror legislation to persecute those engaging in peaceful political and civil activities and
expressions of dissent, and amend the Anti-Terrorism Act to bring it in line with international human rights
standards, including by incorporating human rights safeguards;
(c) Federal and local authorities should amend sections of the Interim Constitution of Azad Jammu Kashmir and
other relevant legislation that limit the rights to freedoms of expression and opinion, and peaceful assembly and
association;
(d) Immediately release from prison or house arrest any political activists, journalists and other civil society actors
who have been convicted for peacefully expressing their opinions;
(e) Federal and local authorities should amend the constitutions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan to
 end the criminalization of the Ahmadiyya Muslims and to allow to them to freely and safely exercise their freedom
of religion or belief;
(f) Abolish blasphemy provisions in Azad Jammu Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan to facilitate the enjoyment of
freedom of religion and belief by all people;
(g) Fully respect the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir as protected under international law.

1. Kashmir: A Critical Issue in South Asian Security

2. Potential Escalation to Conventional and Nuclear Conflict
3. Diplomatic Efforts to Address the Kashmir Crisis 3.1. Change in American Position on
Kashmir 3.2. Encouragement of Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) 3.3. Use of
Incentives and Sanctions for Nuclear Dialogue
4. Limited Progress and Persistent Complexity 4.1. Unresolved Kashmir Crisis 4.2.
Ineffectiveness of Existing CBMs 4.3. Lack of Progress in Nuclear Dialogue 4.4. Escalating
Nuclear Arms Race in South Asia
5. A Call for a Sophisticated Strategy
6. Developing a Strategic Approach to Resolution.

Kashmir and South Asian Security

Since late 1989 the Kashmir problem has become intimately linked to the larger question of war and
peace in South Asia. A virtual insurrection among Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley, and in Srinagar, the
largest city in the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir-created a serious crisis between New
Delhi and Islamabad. From that date onward the United States, echoing the Pakistani argument that the
only point of conflict between India and Pakistan was Kashmir, has regarded the disputed state as one of
the few places in the world where large-scale war could break out soon. American officials and experts
have built a scenario that leads, ultimately, to the horror of nuclear weapons falling on Indian and
Pakistani cities. According to this scenario a local crisis in Kashmir could trigger off a military response by
either India or Pakistan; then, the other side will overreact, leading to a direct clash between regular
Indian and Pakistani forces; after that, the war could escalate to an exchange of nuclear weapons, since
both states are thought now to be nuclear-capable-even if they do not have deployed nuclear forces. 2 In
a refinement of the scenario, it has been argued that even the suspicion of escalation might lead to a
nuclear strike, presumably by the weaker or more vulnerable of the two countries (in this case, Pakistan)
since it would not want to risk having its small nuclear forces destroyed in an Indian pre-emptive attack.

This scenario has led to a great deal of diplomatic activity, much of it by American officials, and very
recently (September, 1994) by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. There have been three
strands to to this diplomacy. First, the Kashmiri problem has been addressed directly by several
American officials. In a series of speeches and informal addresses, the traditional American position on
Kashmir was subtly altered, so that the US now openly declares all of Kashmir to be disputed territory (in
the past the US had never publicly challenged the legitimacy of the accession of Kashmir to India, only
its wisdom). Second, both India and Pakistan were urged to engage in additional “confidence building
 measures”—CBMs—that might prevent, or slow down the escalation process described above; third,
both incentives and sanctions have been wielded, in an attempt to get the two countries to talk directly
about their nuclear weapons programs.3

It can be said that after four years none of these efforts have shown significant results. The Kashmir
crisis is no closer to resolution than it was in 1990; there have been a few new CBMs introduced into
South Asia, but there is some indication that the old ones have fallen into disuse or distrust; the nuclear
dialogue that was to have begun a number of years ago has yet to commence, and public statements by
officials and former officials on both sides seem to indicate a slow escalation of the nuclear arms race in
South Asia, not any serious official dialogue on containing or managing it.

This chapter takes a somewhat different view than that of American officials and many strategists and
journalists who see Kashmir as a “flashpoint” that could lead to conventional war and even a nuclear
exchange.4 Without belittling the importance of the Kashmir problem, it argues, first, that this crisis is far
more complex than has been admitted by most American officials, and, therefore, that resolving the
crisis—and addressing the supplementary problems of nuclear proliferation and regional distrust require
a more sophisticated strategy than has hitherto been apparent. This chapter offers a strategic overview
of the Kashmir crisis. It differs from other recent studies in that its primary focus is on a strategy for
achieving a solution, not on the merit of individual solutions. 5

How old is this fight?

Kashmir is an ethnically diverse Himalayan region, covering around 86,000 sq miles
( 222,738 sq km), and famed for the beauty of its lakes, meadows and snow-capped
mountains.
Even before India and Pakistan won their independence from Britain in August 1947,
the area was hotly contested.
Under the partition plan provided by the Indian Independence Act, Kashmir was free to
accede to either India or Pakistan.
The maharaja (local ruler), Hari Singh, initially wanted Kashmir to become independent
- but in October 1947 chose to join India, in return for its help against an invasion of
tribesmen from Pakistan.
 Kashmir profile - Timeline
A war erupted and India approached the United Nations asking it to intervene. The
United Nations recommended holding a plebiscite to settle the question of whether the
state would join India or Pakistan. However the two countries could not agree to a deal
to demilitarise the region before the referendum could be held.
In July 1949, India and Pakistan signed an agreement to establish a ceasefire line as
recommended by the UN and the region became divided.
IMAGE SOURCE,AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Kashmir is known by some as India's Switzerland, due to its verdant fields and sweeping
mountainscapes
 A second war followed in 1965. Then in 1999, India fought a brief but bitter conflict with
Pakistani-backed forces.
By that time, India and Pakistan had both declared themselves to be nuclear powers.
Today, Delhi and Islamabad both claim Kashmir in full, but control only parts of it -
territories recognised internationally as "Indian-administered Kashmir" and "Pakistan-
administered Kashmir".
Why is there so much unrest in the Indian-administered part?
An armed revolt has been waged against Indian rule in the region for three decades,
claiming tens of thousands of lives.
India blames Pakistan for stirring the unrest by backing separatist militants in Kashmir -
a charge its neighbour denies.
Now a sudden change to Kashmir's status on the Indian side has created further
apprehension.
Indian-administered Kashmir has held a special position within the country historically,
thanks to Article 370 - a clause in the constitution which gave it significant autonomy,
including its own constitution, a separate flag, and independence over all matters except
foreign affairs, defence and communications.
 Why a special law on Kashmir is controversial
 What happened in Kashmir and why it matters

On 5 August, India revoked that seven-decade-long privileged status - as the governing

party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had promised in its 2019 election manifesto.
The Hindu nationalist BJP has long opposed Article 370 and had repeatedly called for
its abolishment.
Telephone networks and the internet were cut off in the region in the days before the
presidential order was announced. Public gatherings were banned, and tens of
thousands of troops were sent in. Tourists were told to leave Kashmir under warnings of
a terror threat.
Media caption,

Baramulla resident: 'Our livelihood is affected, nobody is at peace'

Two former chief ministers of Jammu and Kashmir - the Indian state which
encompasses the disputed territory - were placed under house arrest.
One of them, Mehbooba Mufti, said the move would "make India an occupational force in
Jammu and Kashmir," and that "today marks the darkest day in Indian democracy".
Skip twitter post by Mehbooba Mufti

Allow Twitter content?

This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is
loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s
cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content
choose ‘accept and continue’.
Accept and continue
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
End of twitter post by Mehbooba Mufti
 Pakistan fiercely condemned the development, branding it "illegal" and vowing to
"exercise all possible options" against it.
It downgraded diplomatic ties with India and suspended all trade. India responded by
saying they "regretted" Pakistan's statement and reiterating that Article 370 was an
internal matter as it did not interfere with the boundaries of the territory.
Within Kashmir, opinions about the territory's rightful allegiance are diverse and strongly
held. Many do not want it to be governed by India, preferring either independence or
union with Pakistan instead.
Religion is one factor: Jammu and Kashmir is more than 60% Muslim, making it the only
state within India where Muslims are in the majority.
Critics of the BJP fear this move is designed to change the state's demographic make-
up of - by giving people from the rest of the country to right to acquire property and
settle there permanently.
Ms Mufti told the BBC: "They just want to occupy our land and want to make this
Muslim-majority state like any other state and reduce us to a minority and disempower
us totally."
Feelings of disenfranchisement have been aggravated in Indian-administered Kashmir
by high unemployment, and complaints of human rights abuses by security forces
battling street protesters and fighting insurgents.
IMAGE SOURCE,EPA
Image caption,
Former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti has accused India of betraying Kashmir

Anti-India sentiment in the state has ebbed and flowed since 1989, but the region
witnessed a fresh wave of violence after the death of 22-year-old militant leader Burhan
Wani in July 2016. He died in a battle with security forces, sparking massive protests
across the valley.
Wani - whose social media videos were popular among young people - is largely
credited with reviving and legitimising the image of militancy in the region.
 The teenager blinded by pellets in Kashmir
 'Modi's Kashmir move will fuel resentment'
 WATCH: The boy drawing Kashmir's conflict

Thousands attended Wani's funeral, which was held in his hometown of Tral, about
40km (25 miles) south of the city of Srinagar. Following the funeral, people clashed with
troops and it set off a deadly cycle of violence that lasted for days.
More than 30 civilians died, and others were injured in the clashes. Since then, violence
has been on the rise in the state.
More than 500 people were killed in 2018 - including civilians, security forces and
militants - the highest toll in a decade.
 Weren't there high hopes for peace in the new century?
India and Pakistan did indeed agree a ceasefire in 2003 after years of bloodshed along
the de facto border (also known as the Line of Control).
Pakistan later promised to stop funding insurgents in the territory, while India offered
them an amnesty if they renounced militancy.
In 2014, India's current Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power promising a tough
line on Pakistan, but also showed interest in holding peace talks.
Nawaz Sharif, then prime minister of Pakistan, attended Mr Modi's swearing-in
ceremony in Delhi.
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Pakistan and India's prime ministers promised peace in 2014

But a year later, India blamed Pakistan-based groups for an attack on its airbase in
Pathankot in the northern state of Punjab. Mr Modi also cancelled a scheduled visit to the
Pakistani capital, Islamabad, for a regional summit in 2017. Since then, there hasn't been
any progress in talks between the neighbours.
Are we back to square one?
The bloody summer of street protests in Indian-administered Kashmir in 2016 had
already dimmed hopes for a lasting peace in the region.
Then, in June 2018, the state government there was upended when Mr Modi's BJP
pulled out of a coalition government run by Ms Mufti's People's Democratic Party.
Jammu and Kashmir was since under direct rule from Delhi, which fuelled further anger.
The deaths of more than 40 Indian soldiers in a suicide attack on 14 February, 2019
have ended any hope of a thaw in the immediate future. India blamed Pakistan-based
militant groups for the violence - the deadliest targeting Indian soldiers in Kashmir since
the insurgency began three decades ago.
Following the bombing, India said it would take "all possible diplomatic steps" to isolate
Pakistan from the international community.
On 26 February, it launched air strikes in Pakistani territory which it said targeted
militant bases.
 Pakistan shows off disputed air strike site
 Pakistan's dilemma over anti-India militants

Pakistan denied the raids had caused major damage or casualties but promised to
respond, fuelling fears of confrontation. A day later it said it had shot down two Indian
Air Force jets in its airspace, and captured a fighter pilot - who was later returned
unharmed to India.
Media caption,

Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was handed over to Indian officials near a
border crossing with Pakistan
Kashmir remains one of the most militarised zones in the world.
 So what happens next?
India's parliament has now passed a bill splitting Indian-administered Kashmir into two
territories governed directly by Delhi: Jammu and Kashmir, and remote, mountainous
Ladakh.
China, which shares a disputed border with India in Ladakh, has objected to the
reorganisation and accused Delhi of undermining its territorial sovereignty.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan has vowed to challenge India's actions at the UN
security council, and take the matter to the International Criminal Court.
In an ominous warning, he said: "If the world does not act today... (if) the developed
world does not uphold its own laws, then things will go to a place that we will not be
responsible for."
But Delhi insists that there is no "external implication" to its decision to reorganise the
state as it has not changed the Line of Control or boundaries of the region.
US President Donald Trump has offered to mediate in the crisis - an overture that Delhi
has rejected.

1. The Indecision of Maharaja Hari Singh and the Revolt in Poonch

2. Pashtun Tribesmen's Infiltration and the Request for India's Military Help
3. Signing of the Document of Accession and Indian Army's Intervention
4. Promise of a Plebiscite and UN Mediation
5. The Ceasefire and the Unheld Plebiscite
6. Division of Territory: The Ceasefire Line and Its Consequences

The Birth of the Kashmir Conflict: 1947-1949

Pakistan and India were born on August 14 and 15, 1947,

respectively, amidst violence, confusion, and chaos. The ruler of
Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, continued to remain undecided on
accession, entertained ideas of independence, and even, for a short
time, courted Pakistan, which, unlike India, was promising a
continuation of his royal privileges. In the meantime, a revolt against
the ruler’s authority had broken out in Poonch, a district in the western
part of the state, and by October 1947, with the help of Pakistan, the
rebels had declared the formation of “Azad Kashmir.” To make
matters worse for the ruler, on October 21, 1947, several thousand
Pashtun tribesmen from the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan
infiltrated the north and northwest region of the princely state,
ostensibly to assist their ethnic brethren in Gilgit, who were also
engaged in a popular rebellion against Maharaja Hari Singh. Although
the Pakistani government claimed that this incursion was not
supported by the Pakistani army, there is evidence to suggest that
Pakistani regular forces accompanied and equipped the rebels. The
ruler cabled Delhi to ask for India’s military help, since it was
becoming clear that the rebels were headed straight for Srinagar, the
capital of Kashmir. Before India sent its forces to Srinagar, the
beleaguered ruler was asked to make up his mind regarding
accession; he signed the document of accession to India, which was
accepted by Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of British India and the
Governor-General of the Dominion of India, on October 27, 1947.

The Indian army landed in Srinagar soon after, and with the help of
the National Conference, headed by Sheikh Abdullah (who had been
sworn in as Prime Minister of Kashmir by India), regained the military
initiative against the raiders. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of
India, declared that his government pledged to hold a referendum in
Kashmir once the combat was over to allow the people of Jammu and
Kashmir to decide whether they wanted to join India or Pakistan. As
the fighting between the two sides raged into 1948, the United
Nations, at the request of India, which was hoping for an international
condemnation of Pakistan’s incursion into Kashmir, entered the
picture to play a mediating role between the two countries. In August
1948, it adopted a resolution calling on both India and Pakistan to
withdraw their troops from the region and to reach a ceasefire
agreement in Kashmir, with the ultimate aim of holding a plebiscite in
the region. The ceasefire finally came into effect on January 1, 1949,
but a plebiscite was not held. While Pakistan accuses India of
betraying the people of Kashmir by not holding the plebiscite, India
counters by accusing Pakistan of not withdrawing its troops from the
region, which it argues was a prerequisite of the UN resolution for the
plebiscite to be held.

The ceasefire line (renamed the line of control in 1972) gave India
sixty-three percent of the territory of the original princely state of
Jammu and Kashmir, including the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and most
 of Jammu (now the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir). Pakistan
gained a part of Jammu (now Azad Kashmir in Pakistan) and the
remote areas of Gilgit and Baltistan (now the Northern Areas of
Pakistan). The contours of the Kashmir dispute between India and
Pakistan had been laid out.
1. Wars over Kashmir since 1949: 1965, 1971, and 1999
2. India's Attempt to Make LOC the Permanent Border
3. Pakistan's Rejection and Claim of the Entire Princely State
4. The Significance of Kashmir for Pakistan's Ideological Raison-d'etre
5. Kashmir as Evidence of India's Secular Credentials
6. Territorial Anxieties Reflected in Official Maps of India and Pakistan

Indo-Pak Dispute over Kashmir since 1949

India and Pakistan have fought several wars over Kashmir since 1949
—in 1965, 1971 (Kashmir was only an ancillary battlefield in this
particular war), and most recently in 1999. These wars have brought
about remarkably little change in the placement of the line of control
(LOC). While India officially claims the entire territory of the erstwhile
princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, it has made several attempts to
make the LOC into a permanent border. Pakistan, on the other hand,
not only rejects this idea, claiming the entire erstwhile princely state on
the basis of its Muslim-majority population, but also accuses India of
reneging on its promise of plebiscite. The positions of the two
countries and the rhetoric accompanying them have remained
unchanged over the decades.
 Offical map of Pakistan.
Image source: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Pakistani% 20official
%20map/sic1223/map_pakistanUse.jpg.

The Pakistani official map is without a

northeastern border, literally unbounded.
Instead, the words ‘frontier undecided’ curve
around the map’s northeastern edge . . .
Let us return to our original questions here: What are India’s and
Pakistan’s implacable ideological positions over this region, and why
do the countries continue to hold on to them? What is so special about
Kashmir? For both countries, the main cause of disagreement is the
Valley of Kashmir, with its capital at Srinagar, and the Kashmiri-
speaking, majority Muslim population. For the Pakistani state,
particularly its military, Kashmir represents the unfinished business of
partition, through which Pakistan itself as a home for the
subcontinent’s Muslims came into existence. Kashmir as a Muslim-
majority state, contiguous to Pakistan, is critical to Pakistan’s
ideological raison-d’etre and is therefore considered an integral part of
Pakistan. This has allowed the Pakistani military to foment tensions
 with India over the region and by extension legitimize its claim over
power and resources in Pakistan. For India, which adopted a
constitution in 1950 and became a secular republic, the presence of
Muslim-majority Kashmir within the union provided evidence of the
country’s secular credentials. While the Congress Party continues to
hold to this credo, Hindu nationalist organizations have used
Kashmir’s unsettled status within the Indian union for their own
political purposes by taking a more belligerent stance towards
Kashmir’s Muslim population, the insurgency, and Pakistan.

The official maps of India and Pakistan express the territorial anxieties
of the two countries over the region. The Pakistani official map is
without a northeastern border, literally unbounded. Instead, the words
‘frontier undecided’ curve around the map’s northeastern edge, even
as the words ‘disputed territory’ stamped across Jammu and Kashmir
challenge India’s claims to the region and proclaim the business of
partition as unfinished. In the case of India, official maps simply claim
the entire region of the erstwhile princely state as an integral part of
India, thus belying Pakistan’s claim of the region as disputed territory.
1. Emergence of Insurgency in Kashmir (1989)
2. Background of Political Repression and Loss of Democratic Rights
3. Sheikh Abdullah and the Growing Unpopularity in Jammu Region
4. 1987 Elections and the Rise of Disillusionment with Indian State
5. Formation of Separatist Organizations - JKLF and Hizbul Mujahideen
6. Complexities of the Kashmiri Insurgency - Azaadi and Freedom
7. Hijacking of the Insurgency by Radical Islamic Groups
8. Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad's Agenda in Kashmir
9. Challenges for the New Government in Kashmir (2009)
10. The Search for Peace and Resolution in Kashmir

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989

It is important to remember that the Kashmir issue is not simply a

dispute over territory between India and Pakistan. Rather, this dispute
is a far more complex and multidimensional problem due to the
insurgency in Kashmir, raging since 1989, with which thousands of
Indian security forces have been embroiled (several hundred
thousand are stationed in Kashmir even today). Although begun as an
indigenous movement against political repression and loss of
democratic rights, the insurgency has grown into a ground for pan-
Islamist groups such as Lashkar-i-Taiba (army of the pure) and Jaish-
e-Mohammad (army of the prophet) as well as fighters from Pakistan
and beyond, making the situation more dangerous and complicated
for all sides.

Masjid-i-Noor, a local mosque,

Srinagar. Photo courtesy of Chitralekha Zutshi.
In 1949, the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir was headed by
Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of the National Conference, who had
been sworn in as Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir by the Indian
government. He had helped the Indian army gain control of the region
and condemned Pakistani actions in invading Kashmir. At the
beginning of his tenure, Abdullah was immensely popular among the
people in Kashmir as well as with the Indian administration. He
instituted land reform measures, attempted to redistribute land to the
peasants, and built roads and infrastructure in Kashmir. In the early
1950s, although still popular in his stronghold, the Kashmir Valley,
Abdullah grew increasingly unpopular in the Jammu region as he
began to emphasize the exceptional status of Kashmir within the
Indian union. Not only had negotiations with Abdullah and other
Kashmiri leaders led to the insertion of a clause in the Indian
constitution that granted Kashmir special autonomy within the Indian
union, but Abdullah made several speeches in the early 1950s in
which he declared that Jammu and Kashmir (all of its parts) should
become an independent entity whose sovereignty would be
guaranteed by both India and Pakistan, since according to Abdullah,
the status quo would simply mean a longstanding conflict in Kashmir.

In 1953, in what became the first in a series of interventions by the

Indian state in the politics of Jammu and Kashmir, Abdullah was
dismissed and incarcerated, much to the chagrin of the people. The
feeling among the people of Kashmir, particularly the Valley
Kashmiris, that they had no control over their own fate grew steadily in
the 1950s and 60s, as Kashmir saw a series of corrupt and
authoritarian regional governments and rigged and unfair elections. By
the time the 1987 elections rolled around, a deep disillusionment with
the Indian state had already set in. These elections were massively
rigged to ensure the victory of the National Conference, which was by
then recognized as a stooge of the central government. The National
Conference’s main rival, the Muslim United Front Coalition, despite its
electoral victory, was forced to concede defeat, and its leaders were
arrested. Two of these leaders, Mohammad Yasin Malik and Yusuf
Shah (aka Syed Salahuddin), went on to found two of the most
formidable Kashmiri separatist organizations in the coming decade.

In the early years of the insurgency against the Indian state, there was
a groundswell of popular support for the movement, in particular by
young men from the Kashmir Valley, who joined the movement in
huge numbers. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF),
headed by Yasin Malik, became the main separatist organization
during this time, carrying out a number of political assassinations and
organizing massive demonstrations demanding independence
(azaadi) for Kashmir. The JKLF was soon joined by the Hizbul
Mujahideen (party of freedom fighters), a Pakistani-supported guerilla
organization led by Syed Salahuddin. India’s response to these
insurgent organizations and their supporters was brutal as security
forces cracked down on the Valley, which only added more fuel to the
insurgency.

It would be simplistic to regard this movement as a revolt of Muslim-

majority Kashmir against Hindu-majority India, as it is often portrayed.
The Kashmiris who joined this movement may have been Muslim, but
for them, this was a regional revolt against the high-handedness of the
Indian central government that could be resolved only through a
separation from India. It is important to point out, however, that
what azaadi, or freedom, meant for Kashmiris, and continues to mean
for them today, is a complicated question. Some speak in terms of
actual sovereignty for Kashmir (by which they mean the Kashmir
Valley). For others, it means more autonomy within the Indian union.
And for still others, the term encapsulates a desire that the Indian
state admit to its denial of democratic rights to Kashmiris and carry out
a sustained effort to restore these freedoms to the people of Kashmir.

More recently, especially in the past decade, the insurgency in

Kashmir has been hijacked to a significant degree by radical Islamic
groups, some of which were funded by the Pakistani military and
intelligence services as their intermediaries to foment unrest in
Kashmir, and by extension, India. Two such groups are the Lashkar-i-
Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad. Both see Kashmir as one element
in their larger goal of establishing a global Islamic state. As is evident,
from, among other things, their non-Kashmiri leadership, neither of
these groups is particularly interested in advancing the rights of
Kashmiris, although they use them as symbols of the persecution of
Muslims around the world. This aspect of the insurgency, which has
led to the infiltration into Kashmir of fighters from Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and Yemen, among other countries, has not only
subverted the popular nature of the Kashmiri insurgency, but also
made the India-Pakistan angle more difficult to settle.

In 2009, we might be entering a new and better phase of the situation

in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, since perhaps the most
free and fair assembly elections since 1977 were held in Jammu and
Kashmir at the end of 2008, and a new government headed by Chief
Minister Omar Abdullah, grandson of Sheikh Abdullah, assumed
power. Much will depend on whether this government is able to break
with the past and prove to the people that it is working for them, to not
only bring about peace and restore law and order, but also to build
infrastructure, schools, bridges, and the like, while not lining its own
pockets. Kashmiris are weary of two decades of civil war,
assassinations, disappearances, and related abuses. They are looking
to the regional government to bring them peace.