Assignment no:1

International law

Submitted by:
Batool Afzal
Submitted to:
Mam Fakhra
Major course:
International Relations
Roll number:
2025122021
Submission Date:
27 March 2023
Topic
Belligerent occupation with case study of
Kashmir
Lahore college women university
Intro:
Kashmir is the oldest and the most significant dispute between Pakistan and India. Various
efforts could not resolve this problem. The two countries have fought wars which undermined
their bilateral relations. India tried to strengthen its control of Kashmir by use of force have
always been questioned by Pakistan. Both have fought over Kashmir in 1947-48 and 1965. They
formalized the original ceasefire line as the Line of Control in the Shimla Agreement, but this
did not prevent further clashes in 1999 on the Siachen Glacier, which is beyond the Line of
Control. India and Pakistan were at the risk of war again in 2002.

History:
When India and Pakistan got independence from British rule in 1947, the different
princely rulers were able to choose which state to join. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh,
was the Hindu ruler of a majority Muslim state. He signed an interim "standstill" agreement to
keep transport and other services with Pakistan. In
October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan occupy Kashmir,
spurred by reports of attacks on Muslims and frustrated by
Hari Singh's delaying tactics. The Maharaja asked for
Indian help. India's governor-general, Lord Mountbatten,
believed peace would best be obey by Kashmir's joining
India on a temporary basis, pending a vote on its ultimate
status. Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession that
month, give up control over foreign and defense policy to
India. Indian troops took two-thirds of the territory, and Pakistan control the northern remainder.
The entry of Indian troops first remains a major reason of dispute between India and Pakistan.
Pakistan is firm that the Maharaja could not have signed before the troops arrived, and that
Maharaja and India had ignored the "standstill" agreement with Pakistan. Pakistan demands a
plebiscite to decide the status of Kashmir, while India argues that, by voting in successive Indian
state and national elections, Kashmiris have confirmed their accession to India. Pakistan cites
various UN resolutions in favor of a UN plebiscite, while India says the Shimla Agreement of
1972 binds the two countries to solve the issue on a state-to-state basis. Both fought wars over
Kashmir in 1947-48 and 1965.

Belligerent occupation:
The international law of belligerent occupation defined that
the occupying power exercises provisional and temporary control over foreign territory.
Under the partition plan Kashmir was given the options to become independent or to join India
or Pakistan. Hari Singh, initially wanted Kashmir to become independent. But when tribesmen
from Pakistan seek to invade the region, he agreed to join India in October 1947. India’s first
PM, Jawahar Lal Nehru sent troops to protect Kashmir from Pakistani invasion. As a result, Hari
Singh signed an instrument to accede the state to the Indian dominion. Article 370, which
assured Kashmir’s autonomy in the Indian Union, was also added to the Indian constitution as a
direct outcome of the instrument .Unfortunately, it became clear in next decades that India had
no intention of protecting Kashmir’s autonomy. At first, Nehru promised multiple times to hold a
poll to determine the faith of Jammu and Kashmir.
. Since October 1947, India and Pakistan fought many wars over Kashmir, both claiming to have
the best interests of the local population in mind. But they jointly suppressed Kashmiri voices
that criticize the actions of both countries and want independence.
India illegally occupied Kashmir on 27 October 1947.
Since then, it has maintained a tight grip through its
armed forces and harsh laws. In 1989, Kashmiris rose
as a whole to secure their freedom but were brutally
crushed. On 8 July 2016, Popular youth Kashmiri
leader Burhan Wani and the whole of Illegally Indian
Occupied Kashmir (IIOK) came out in streets to
protest. Indian forces aggressively used pellet guns on
the unarmed Kashmiri youth, as a result of
whichalmost500 Kashmiris were martyred while 3,600
have been permanently blinded.

On 5 August 2019, Narendra Modi’s fascist regime took the unprecedented step of abrogating
Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution, which had provided autonomy to Kashmir and
annexed it as part of Indian Union. Kashmiri leaders were placed under house arrest while the
Valley remains in a state of lockdown. India has also passed domicile laws allowing non-locals
to permanently reside and buy property and land in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as adding Hindi
as an official language proposes to change the demographics of the state entirely. In doing so,
India is transferring its own civilian population into the occupied territory in violation of Article
49 by creating a favorable legal and factual framework for settlement. The Modi government has
also proposed Kashmiri pandit (Hindu) settlements in Jammu and Kashmir as well as soldiers’
colonies for retired members of the Armed Forces.
. India not only resorted to brutal methods of
oppression, such as physical violence, torture,
fake encounters, rape and unlawful prosecutions,
it also concocted an alternative history, twisting
data and facts to turn Indian public opinion
against the plight of Kashmiri Muslims.
Meanwhile, Pakistan was no innocent supporter
of the Kashmiri struggle, as one of its former
Presidents, Pervez Musharraf, openly admitted
that the state supported and trained armed groups
active in the valley, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba in
the 1990s.
Conclusion:
The political history of Kashmir since 1947 shows that the Kashmiri’s have resisted Indian’s
efforts to integrate Kashmir fully into Indian federation. The Kashmiri’s have faced the wrath of
Indian’s security forces but they did not change their mind on the future of Kashmir. India must
honour the pledges that the question of Kashmir would be decided in accordance with the wishes
of the Kashmiris. Both Indian and Pakistan had accepted that the acquisition of accession would
be decided through the democratic method of free and impartial plebiscite.
References:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Amnesty international annual report 2004. (2004, may). Retrieved from Amnesty
international

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/0004/2004/en/

Abdul Majid_v31_no1_jan-jun2016.pdf

https://tribune.com.pk/indian-illegally-occupied-jammu-and-kashmir-iiojk
https://mofa.gov.pk/pakistan-marks-75-years-of-indian-illegal-and-forcible-occupation-of-
jammu-and-kashmir/
https://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/20/indian-occupied-kashmir/
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/28/indian-occupied-kashmir-on-international-radar/amp/