Understanding The Kashmir Issue

Understanding the Kashmir Issue

The Origin

The Kashmir dispute dates from 1947. The partition of the Indian sub-continent along religious lines led to the formation of India and Pakistan. However, there remained the problem of over 650 states, run by princes, existing within the two newly independent countries. Theoretically these princely states had the option of deciding which country to join, or of remaining independent. In practice, the restive population of each province proved decisive.

Although many princes wanted to be "independent" (which would have meant hereditary monarchies and no hope for democracy) they had to succumb to their people's protests which turned violent in many provinces. Because of its location, Kashmir could choose to join either India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, was Hindu while most of his subjects were Muslim. Unable to decide which nation Kashmir should join, Hari Singh chose to remain neutral.

On October 1947, as Pakistan sent in Muslim tribesmen to attack at the gates of the capital Srinagar. Hari Singh appealed to the Indian government for military assistance and fled to India. He signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding Kashmir to India on October 26. Indian and Pakistani forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. At this stage, as the accession of Kashmir was legal, India should have gone ahead and pushed the invaders back. But that was not to be. Both the Indian and Pakistani army those days were still under the British control and they had a handshake at today's Line of Control and cease fire was declared. The best stance that India should have taken those days was to use the legality of Instrument of Accession to fight for Kashmir. India referred the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January, this is considered as a major blunder of then PM of India, Mr. Jwaharlal Nehru. Nehru got Article 370 inserted, which gives special status to Jammu and Kashmir, in the original copy of the constitution. This was strongly opposed by B.R. Ambedkar, chairman of the drafting committee of the constitution. Then Home Minister of India Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel wanted to capture whole of Kashmir even if the full blown war is declared and carried out. Sardar Patel was of the view that the territory of India could not be compromised under any fancy idea of world peace or statesmanship. This was perhaps the first dilemma which the newly formed India faced.

UN Resolution on Kashmir

In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its forces. Once this happened, a "free and fair" plebiscite was to be held to allow the Kashmiri people to decide their future. India, having taken the issue to the UN, was confident of winning a plebiscite, since the most influential Kashmiri mass leader, Sheikh Abdullah, was firmly on its side. An emergency government was formed on October 30, 1948 with Sheikh Abdullah as the Prime Minister. Pakistan ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting, holding on to the portion of Kashmir under its control. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed, with 65 per cent of the territory under Indian control and the remainder with Pakistan.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 are:

Resolution recommended a three-step process for the resolution of the dispute.

Step 1: Pakistan was asked to withdraw all its nationals from Kashmir.

Step 2: India was asked to progressively reduce its forces to the minimum level required for law and order.

Step 3: India was asked to appoint a plebiscite administrator nominated by the United Nations who would conduct a free and impartial plebiscite.

The resolution was adopted paragraph by paragraph; no vote on the resolution as a whole was taken.

Both India and Pakistan raised objections to the Resolution. However, they welcomed mediation by the UN Commission. Through its mediation, the Commission amplified and amended the Security Council Resolution, adopting two resolutions of its own, which were accepted by both India and Pakistan. Subsequently, a cease-fire was achieved by the Commission at the beginning of 1949. However, a truce was not achieved due to disagreements over the process of demilitarisation. After considerable efforts, the Commission declared its failure in December 1949.

Note: According to the resolution, every step is to be performed compulsorily in the sequential manner. But Pakistan never removed its "Nationals" from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and the process could never start. Rather ironically, Pakistan has been blaming India of not holding a free and fair plebiscite. As per the resolution, the Plebiscite is to be carried out only after the withdrawal of Pakistani Nationals from the Kashmir including Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Also, after the mass exodus of minorities from Kashmir valley due to targetted attacks, India has claimed that the demography of the region is being deliberately changed and holding free and fair elections will be farce and will not give true picture of all the region which also included Buddhist Ladakh and Hindu dominated Jammu.

In 1957, Kashmir was formally incorporated into the Indian Union. It was granted a special status under Article 370 of India's constitution, which ensures, among other things, that non-Kashmiri Indians cannot buy property there.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, including the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947 and 1965, as well as the Kargil War(1999). The two countries have also been involved in several skirmishes over control of the Siachen Glacier.

 Dixon Plan

The 1950s saw the mediation by Sir Owen Dixon, the UN-appointed mediator, who came the closest to solving the Kashmir dispute in the eyes of many commentators. Dixon arrived in the subcontinent in May 1950 and, after a visit to Kashmir, proposed a summit between India and Pakistan. The summit lasted five days, at the end of which Dixon declared a statewide plebiscite was impossible. Dixon summarized that people in Jammu and Ladakh were clearly in favour of India; equally clearly, those in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas wanted to be part of Pakistan. This left the Kashmir Valley and 'perhaps some adjacent country' around Muzaffarabad in uncertain political terrain. Nehru then proposed a partition-cum-plebiscite plan: Jammu and Ladakh would go to India, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas to Pakistan, and a plebiscite would be held in the Kashmir Valley. Dixon favoured the plan, which bears his name till this day. Concurrently, Dixon did express concern that the Kashmiris, not being high-spirited people, may vote under fear or improper influences. The sticking point was that Dixon proposed, following Liaquat Ali Khan's objections, that Sheikh Abdullah administration should be held in "commission" (in abeyance) while the plebiscite was held. This was not acceptable to India.At that point, Dixon lost patience and declared failure.

Operation Gibraltar and 1965 Indo-Pakistan war

Due to its failure to seize Kashmir in 1947, Pakistan supported numerous `covert cells' in Kashmir using operatives based in its New Delhi embassy. After its military pact with the United States in the 1950s, it intensively studied guerrilla warfare through engagement with the US military. In 1965, it decided that the conditions were ripe for a successful guerilla war in Kashmir. Code named `Operation Gibraltar', companies were dispatched into Indian-administered Kashmir, the majority of whose members were razakars (volunteers) and mujahideen recruited from Pakitan-administered Kashmir and trained by the Army. These irregular forces were supported by officers and men from the paramilitary Northern Light Infantry and Azad Kashmir Rifles as well as commandos from the Special Services Group. About 30,000 infiltrators are estimated to have been dispatched in August 1965 as part of the `Operation Gibraltar'.

The plan was for the infiltrators to mingle with the local populace and incite them to rebellion. Meanwhile, guerilla warfare would commence, destroying bridges, tunnels and highways, as well as Indian Army installations and airfields, creating conditions for an `armed insurrection' in Kashmir. If the attempt failed, Pakistan hoped to have raised international attention to the Kashmir issue. Using the newly acquired sophisticated weapons through the American arms aid, Pakistan believed that it could achieve tactical victories in a quick limited war.

However, the `Operation Gibraltar' ended in failure as the Kashmiris did not revolt. Instead, they turned in infiltrators to the Indian authorities in substantial numbers, and the Indian Army ended up fighting the Pakistani Army regulars. Pakistan claimed that the captured men were Kashmiri `freedom fighters', a claim contradicted by the international media. On 1 September, Pakistan launched an attack across the Cease Fire Line, targeting Akhnoor in an effort to cut Indian communications into Kashmir. In response, India broadened the war by launching an attack on Pakistani Punjab across the international border. The war lasted till 23 September, ending in a stalemate. Following the Tashkent Agreement, both the sides withdrew to their pre-conflict positions, and agreed not to interfere in each other's internal affairs.

1971 Indo-Pakistani war and Simla Agreement

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 led to a loss for Pakistan and a military surrender in East Pakistan. Bangladesh got created as a separate state with India's support and India emerged as a clear regional power in South Asia.

A bilateral summit was held at Simla as a follow-up to the war, where India pushed for peace in South Asia. At stake were 5,139 square miles of Pakistan's territory captured by India during the conflict, and over 90,000 prisoners of war held in Bangladesh. India was ready to return them in exchange for a "durable solution" to the Kashmir issue.

Accordingly, the Simla Agreement was formulated and signed by the two countries, whereby the countries resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations and to maintain the sanctity of the Line of Control. Multilateral negotiations were not ruled out, but they were conditional upon both sides agreeing to them

Recent Developments

As Kashmir issue is the main highlight amongst other differences between India and Pakistan, there has been a rise of violent incidents.

India has been the victim of the use of cross-border terrorism by the State of Pakistan and its intelligence agencies since 1956 to achieve their strategic objectives, which are three in number. First, to create a religious divide between the Hindus, who are in a majority, and the Muslims, who are in a substantial minority. Second, to keep the Indian State destabilised and preoccupied with internal security tasks in order to hamper the economic development of the country. And third, to annex the State of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), which is an integral part of India.

Pakistan has been following a policy of a"thousand cuts," against India. Though for Pakistan it has been a cheap option, it has created a sort of siege mentality within India. This policy of "thousand cuts" means to harm India regularly by terrorist attacks that finally India bleeds to death. This policy was taken by Pakistan after loosing 1971 war. Pakistan acknowledged that it cannot defeat India in a conventional military war, so this was the "cheap option" available. At the root of this policy of Pakistan, is its military and the ISI, who do not want improved relations with India. Good relations with India militates against any rationale for Pakistan to have such a large military, which otherwise is a heavy burden on the country's economy. It is often observed by diplomats that it is Pakistan military that eventually decides Pakistan's foreign policy in general and policy towards India in particular.

Unfortunately, India's response to counter this, "cheap option" has been increased deployment on the borders etc. It has perpetuated to the siege defence mentality and resulted in heavy deployment of armed forces which is seen as only as a reactionary measure to the problem. It was the first time that India conducted the "Surgical Strike" into the territory of Pakistan. The option of surgical strikes was taken in the wake of increase in infiltration bids , the DGMO (Director General of Military Operations) informed. Terrorists had begun gathering in large numbers along the LoC with the objective of crossing the border and targeting locations in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as other metros. In such a scenario surgical strikes was considered the best option to deal with the threat. Nearly 10 days after the Uri attack that claimed 18 jawans, India carried out surgical strikes in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, inflicting heavy casualties on terrorists and 'those protecting them" and indicating a change of stand on the rules of engagement on the disputed line of control

Some of the Recent Terrorist attacks in India were:

7 July 2015	2015 Gurdaspur attack in Dina Nagar, Gurdaspur district	Punjab
2 January 2016	2016 Pathankot attack in Pathankot Air Force Station, Pathankot	Punjab
25 June 2016	2016 Pampore attack	Pampore
5 August 2016	2016 Kokrajhar Attack.	Kokrajhar, Assam
18 September 2016	2016 Uri attack	Uri, J&K
3 October 2016	2016 Baramulla attack	Baramulla, J&K
6 October 2016	2016 Handwara attack at rashtriya riffles camp	Handwara, J&K
29 November 2016	2016 Nagrota Attack	Nagrota J&K
March 7, 2017	2017 Bhopal–Ujjain Passenger train bombing	Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Thses terrorist attacks have been claimed by various terrorist organisations operating from the Pakistani side of the border. India has always maintained the fact that Pakistan funded terror organisations are behind many such tragic terror incidents.

From Unilateral to Triangular Problem

China already occupies a large part of Ladakh in the north-eastern part of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1962, Pakistan had ceded a large part of the territory to Bejing in the west of Jammu and Kashmir. Moreover, China had started its first trans-border infrastructure project in Kashmir, the Karakoram Highway, way back in the 1960s. As the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) )deepens the integration between Pakistan occupied Kashmir and China, Beijing looms larger than ever before over J&K, triangular nature of the Kashmir question can no longer be masked.

Separatist groups in Kashmir are aided by Pakistan, which is a Chinese ally. With the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, Beijing is investing billions of dollars along a belt that passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) — an Indian territory illegally occupied by Pakistan. India didn’t participate in the BRF as China failed to address its concerns over the PoK area.

For India, the creation of economic corridor in via Gilgit Baltistan (POK) which is a disputed territory and claimed by India, creates an issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity. China h as totally failed to address India's concern over the territory. This has become the main reason for India to oppose CPEC and OBOR.