Jammu and Kashmir



Jammu and Kashmir

A contested Land

[pic][pic]

Matt Krensky

December 3, 2004

Introduction

The dispute between Hindu dominated India and Muslim dominated Pakistan has been marked by bloody migrations, covert military operations and a nuclear arms race. The tension is rooted in religious differences and historic turmoil. However, Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent were not always the bitter enemies that they are today. Indian culture was greatly affected by British rule, including changes in the social hierarchy that existed within Indian society. The British had difficulty keeping track of the populations over which they ruled and to organize people the British turned to the caste system. The British over-emphasized class when studying the caste system because the British themselves lived in a class centered society. Class to the British was defined by socioeconomic factors, whereas the caste system had its roots in religion. The misconceptions made by the British were adopted by many Indians as truth and soon much of the Indian population had adopted this new definition of caste. The British set up a new class of Indian leadership that consisted of Hindu men that dressed and behaved as the English did. As a result of the social classes and newly determined class-defining characteristics, animosity grew between Hindus and Muslims living in the Indian region. August 1947 marked independence for the Indian subcontinent from Britain as well as the launch of one of the most bitter rivalries on the globe. The focus of the battle has become the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir that lies between the two nations.

Partition of the Indian Subcontinent

Independence for the Indian subcontinent led immediately to the partition of the area into two sovereign nations, India and Pakistan. The leader of each of the 565 principalities, with a total population of 99 million and comprising two-thirds of India’s land, had to decide which nation to join (Kashmir Flashpoint). Millions of people packed up their homes and moved their families in large caravans to the “correct” side of the border. Hindus fled to India and Muslims to Pakistan, the confusion created mass rioting. Those unfortunate enough to live on the wrong side that refused to leave their homes were beaten, raped and murdered. The under accredited truth about partition is accurately depicted by Rajmohan Gandhi:

“We think of 1947, accurately, as the year of our independence from British rule but that is not quite how the future will look upon it. Unless I am greatly mistaken, our descendants will regard the transfer of power as less significant than the inhumanity to which many Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs allowed themselves to sink that year. It is a year of our shame, not a year of our achievement. Places in the north and east of what was still undivided India vied with one another in the capacity to kill, maim, rape, abduct, burn, loot, expel. Even if you were a boy of twelve you knew that Delhi had not scored too badly and that in Delhi the Muslims were the victims. Apart from the stories you heard and the headlines you read, you also saw columns of smoke rising from different points on the skyline; you listened to gunfire from time to time; and you fraternized with rifle-holding soldiers positioned along the terraces of the building in which you lived” (Gandhi, 1).

It has been estimated that at least half a million to as many as a million deaths occurred at the time of partition from exhaustion, starvation and murder. The scramble to relocate families left millions homeless.

The leaders of each of the 565 states chose which side of the recently hatched national rivalry to join. The decision was easily made along religious lines, Muslims states became Pakistan and Hindu and Sikh states joined India. However, there was one state, known as Jammu and Kashmir, which had conflicting interests and thus neglected to officially declare which territory it was apart of.

The Jammu and Kashmir Region and National Claims of Ownership

Jammu and Kashmir is a state with a Muslim dominated population (over 60% Muslim) that has been contested since before the time of partition. “Jammu and Kashmir, a collection of culturally distinct regions, were nominally brought under the rule of Sikhs in the early 19th Century. After the British fought the Sikhs in 1846, instead of assuming direct control over the area, Britain installed a Hindu ruler as Maharaja” (Kashmir Flashpoint). However, when the British left India and partition occurred, the Hindu Maharaja (Prince), refused to join and encouraged Kashmiri independence. The area was too diverse, including Hindu leadership and a Muslim majority, to truly belong in either nation. The Hindu leader signed a “standstill” agreement with Pakistan to maintain trade and communication in the region. India signed no such agreement with Kashmiri leadership (Kashmir Flashpoint).

A military insurgence from Pakistan led to an agreement between the Maharaja and the Indian government in which many of the governing powers of the Kashmir were given to India. Since this decision, the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been the focus of two of the three India-Pakistan wars, occurring in 1947-1948 and 1965. Most of the Kashmir remains under Indian leadership, however, “To the west of the ceasefire line, Pakistan controls roughly one third of the state. A small region, which the Pakistanis call Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir, and the Indians call Pakistani-occupied Kashmir, is semi-autonomous. The larger area, which includes the former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar, called the northern areas, is directly administered by Pakistan” (Kashmir Flashpoint). India maintains a force of between 180,000 and 350,000 troops in the Kashmir (Kashmir Flashpoint).

The most common Pakistani argument for leadership rights of Jammu and Kashmir is that the majority population of the region is Muslim. Pakistan uses this fact to claim that Jammu and Kashmir should have become part of Pakistan in 1947 when partition occurred. A supplementary argument is that “Kashmiris should be allowed to vote in a referendum on their future, following numerous UN resolutions on the issue” (Kashmir Flashpoint).

The Indian government has refuted such claims by referencing past agreements between the region in question and the great nation. “Delhi, however, does not want international debate on the issue, arguing that the Simla Agreement of 1972 provided for a resolution through bilateral talks. India points to the Instrument of Accession signed in October 1947 by the Maharaja, Hari Singh” (Kashmir Flashpoint). In 1954 the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ratified the state’s accession to India. Jammu and Kashmir went on to pass it’s own constitution in 1957, modeled after the Indian constitution. “Since that time India has regarded that part of the state which it controls as an integral part of the Indian union” (Kashmir Flashpoint).

Despite international pressures to resolve the conflict and internal separatism within Jammu and Kashmir, “[b]oth India and Pakistan reject the option of Kashmir becoming an independent state” (Kashmir Flashpoint).

Military History of the Conflict

Partition was the first of many bloody interactions between the Hindus and Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. However, it was an attack on the Kashmir by Pashtun tribesmen from Pakistan that ignited military action in the region:

“There had been persistent reports of communal violence against Muslims in the state and, supported by the Pakistani Government, they were eager to precipitate its accession to Pakistan. Troubled by the increasing deterioration in law and order and by earlier raids, culminating in the invasion of the tribesmen, the ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, requested armed assistance from India. The then Governor-General, Lord Mountbatten, believed the developing situation would be less explosive if the state were to accede to India, on the understanding that this would only be temporary prior to "a referendum, plebiscite, election". According to the terms of the Instrument of Accession, India's jurisdiction was to extend to external affairs, defense and communications” (Kashmir Flashpoint).

Despite Lord Mountbatten’s belief that the accession would only be temporary, India maintains that the 1947 agreement is of contemporary significance. This event is one of the cornerstones of India’s claim to the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. “Pakistan immediately contested the accession, suggesting that it was fraudulent, that the Maharaja acted under duress and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India when the standstill agreement with Pakistan was still in force” (Kashmir Flashpoint). Despite Pakistani protests, India has maintained it’s military presence in Jammu and Kashmir to this day.

Indian and Pakistani forces have had three major military confrontations, the first of which was the 1947-1948 war. The war was started in October of 1947 when the armed tribesmen, acting as irregular military units out of Pakistan, invaded the Kashmir. The Kashmir was in chaos; facing a revolt and invasion the Maharaja requested and received armed assistance from India. In spite of Pakistani objection, “[b]oth India and Pakistan agreed that the accession would be confirmed by a referendum once hostilities had ceased” (Kashmir Flashpoint). The Pakistani government called upon its regular army in May of 1948 to defend its borders. Meanwhile, fighting continued between Pakistan’s unorthodox troops and the Indian military. The United Nations arranged a ceasefire on Jan 1, 1949, bringing the war to an end. The UN also recommended that both nations hold the scheduled referendum to determine the future of Jammu and Kashmir. The UN established a peacekeeping force and set a ceasefire line, however, the referendum was never held.

In the early 1960’s the two nations attempted to resolve the conflict with the help of the United States and Britain. These talks were unsuccessful and in 1965 the two nations went to war again after fighting erupted between border patrols. Fighting continued along the southwestern border, with Pakistan claiming victory when India withdrew it’s troops. Fighting subsided but then escalated again in August when Pakistan “launched a covert offensive across the ceasefire line into the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. In early September, India retaliated by crossing the international border at Lahore. After three weeks, both India and Pakistan agreed to a UN-sponsored ceasefire” (Kashmir Flashpoint). The governments of India and Pakistan signed a commitment to peacefully resolve their dispute in January of 1966 and both nations withdrew their troops.

Again fighting subsided until civil war broke out between East and West Pakistan in 1971. West Pakistani troops were sent to East Pakistan to subdue a national movement for independence. In the course of the war, ten million East Pakistanis were displaced from their homes and fled to India. The Indian government responded in December and sent its own military into East Pakistan in support of the separatist movement. Indian forces caused the Pakistani army to surrender and more than 90,000 Pakistani soldiers became Indian prisoners of war. East Pakistan, renamed Bangladesh, became a sovereign nation on December 6, 1971.

Military Capabilities of India and Pakistan

The imbalance between India’s military might and the relative futility of the Pakistani army make the conflict look disastrous for Pakistan. However, in 1998 both nations demonstrated the capacity to fire long-range nuclear capable missiles that could reach cities in the neighboring country. While there is extreme international pressure to refrain from using nuclear weapons, both nations have made active threats to deploy their nuclear arsenals if attacked.

In terms of conventional forces, India has twice the manpower of Pakistan, with a military of over a million troops. India has a similar advantage in motorized military capital in the air, land and sea. However, India has demonstrated very different goals for its’ military than those of Pakistan. While Pakistan focuses on deterring India from entering a hostile engagement, India is trying to become a power in the region and military might comes with the territory. India spends roughly six times what Pakistan does on updating its military and India is focusing on all aspects of its fighting capabilities.

The primary nations involved in the military transformation in the region are Russia and China. Russia has long supplied Asian nations with weaponry and the trend has continued in India. Recent developments have included sale of nuclear capable bombers and nuclear powered submarines to the Indian government. Recently, India and Israel have fostered a quiet relationship and talks have focuses around military capabilities.

Pakistan is at a significant disadvantage in the regional arms race and thus it has turned to China as its principal arms supplier. China has an intrinsic interest in Pakistani military capability because India and China are both emerging as potential leaders in Asia. Other countries, such as France which recently sold diesel submarines to Pakistan, supply the nation with weapons as well, but not at the same extent as China (Marcus). The two nations continue to expand military programs by billions of dollars a year, despite the extreme poverty experienced by 400 million people in the Indian subcontinent (Pennington).

Armed Insurgency in Kashmir Region

Beginning in 1989, an arms resistance to Indian rule amassed in the Kashmir. Militant groups formed in response to what Muslims viewed as a rigged election in 1987. Group’s ambitions varied as some wanted independence for the Kashmir and others were content to join Pakistan. However, all of the insurgency seemed to share the same basic goal, the removal of Indian leadership in the region. Indian and Pakistani officials argued about the extent that Pakistan supported the separatists. India claimed that Pakistan was training and arming the militants, while Pakistan maintained its’ position that it merely gave “moral and diplomatic” support.

Over the course of the 1990’s several radical Islamic groups emerged and led the movement and the focus shifted from nationalistic to secularist (Kashmir Flashpoint). The armed insurgency continues to be a major problem for Indian officials. One of the most common means of attack for the militant groups is devastating bomb attacks on military targets throughout the Kashmir. Many of the blasts have been indirectly blamed on the Islamic group Lashkar-e-Tobia. “Pakistani President-General Pervez Musharraf imposed a ban on Lashkar in January 2001 - apparently under pressure from the United States. Until then, Lashkar had never been shy of accepting responsibility for most of the armed attacks against the Indian military targets” (Kashmir Flashpoint). However often civilians are killed during these attacks and the militant groups refuse to accept responsibility for such events. President-General Musharraf, the acting leader of Pakistan, has banned four other Islamic groups. However, no significant further action has been taken to this point. India has constructed a fence along its border with Pakistan in hopes of slowing the insurgence of militant Muslims into the Kashmir region (Waldman). The events of September 11, 2001 in the United States brought attention to the martyrdom taking place in the Kashmir region. “More than 40,000 people have died in the disputed region since the armed insurgency began in 1989” (Kashmir Flashpoint).

SAARC and its Non-Involvement in the Kashmir Situation

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established on December 8, 1985 and includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and SriLanka. The association was created to promote friendship and growth in South Asia and “Cooperation in the SAARC is based on respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, noninterference in internal affairs of the Member States and mutual benefit” (SAARC). Based on these goals it seems that SAARC would be an obvious platform to negotiate a resolution to the Kashmir conflict.

However, “Decisions are taken on the basis of unanimity. Bilateral and contentious issues are excluded from the deliberations of SAARC” (SAARC). Thus, issues of such nature or not actively discussed in SAARC. “Islamabad: Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri said Sunday Kashmir could not to be part of the agenda of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) because it was a 'bilateral issue' between India and Pakistan” (Kashmir not...). The SAARC focuses on socio-economic issues such as transportation and communication. It is in the best interest of all SAARC members to resolve the disagreement over the Kashmir because of the cutting effect the situation is having on cooperation and trade in the region. However, the issue will more likely be solved in another arena, such as the United Nations.

Recent Steps Towards Peace in the Kashmir

In the past few years, India and Pakistan have taken great strides towards peace in the Indian subcontinent hopefully leading to friendly relations in the future. The first great step towards peace occurred in April of 2003 when then Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee extended a “hand of friendship” to Pakistan. This was a landmark event on the heels of an attack on Indian Parliament in 2001 that had almost sent the nations into nuclear war. Vajpayee’s April speech was the first time either nation began discussions of a peaceful resolution. In the next few months, both sides extended gestures of peace and kindness towards one another in hopes of settling the dispute.

In November of 2003, both sides agreed to a ceasefire in the Kashmir and along the entire India-Pakistan border. In early 2004 national leaders from both sides met for the first time in three years. A ban on nuclear tests was renewed between the two nations in June 2004 as the two sides continue to subdue hostilities. In late 2004 the leaders of the two nations began discussing options to solve the dispute (Kashmir Flashpoint).

Resolving the Dispute Over the Kashmir

Though the SAARC will not discuss possible resolutions to the Indo-Pakistani conflict, peace talks have begun in recent months. However, there appear to be significant differences in the vision each side has for the future of the Kashmir. While this is no surprise, it is important that the two nations come together in their goals for the region for there to be any hope of reconciliation in the near future. Primary goals already set by both sides include a weakening of the line of control separating the two sides of the Kashmir and the creation of a bus service from each regions capital to the other. Small steps must first be taken towards peace before discussions can escalate.

President-General Musharraf submitted proposals on behalf of Pakistan to India in November of 2004. Included in Musharraf’s solution was a request that territory be yielded to Pakistan. However, in meetings between Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Singh has refused to redraw any boundaries separating the two nations. Conversely, Kashmiris refuse to turn the Line of Control into a permanent border (Kashmiris will not...). This will be a major sticking point for any negotiations between the two nations. Both sides agree that Kashmiris need greater autonomy so that they can manage their own affairs. Many believe that Musharraf is acting hastily while Singh is overly cautious. The most promising event has been that both sides have ruled out military action as a means to an end of the conflict. In November 2004, India began withdrawing some of its troops based in the Indian-controlled region of the Kashmir because the Indian government believes that the security situation in the region has improved. India is reducing, but not removing its military presence in the region.

On December 3, 2004 President-General Musharraf “offered to set aside Pakistani demands for a referendum in the disputed territory in return for a serious dialogue with India” (Kashmir Flashpoint). Musharraf has show incredible flexibility and a real desire to settle the dispute, however, Singh has been less active in search of a peaceful end to the conflict. Musharraf’s decision to withdraw his demand that territory be given to Pakistan could disappoint Muslims around the conflict area.

Conclusion

The situation in the Kashmir has improved tremendously over the past two years. However, absolute peace and possible sovereignty for the region is still on the horizon. There are many possible options to resolve the conflict, and each side has demonstrated certain criteria necessary for a solution. The recent steps taken by Pakistani President-General Musharraf provide promise that the disagreement may soon be settled. Based on the current trajectory of discussions between India and Pakistan it is not unfair to expect the nations to settle the dispute within the next few years.

Bibliography

Abbas, Zaffar. “Analysis: Musharraf’s Kashmir risk.” News.BBC.co.uk. < .

bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3330809.stm>

A Brief On SAARC. Saarc-. Nov. 18, 2004.

Gamel, Kim. “Pakistan, India leaders promise to explore settlement for Kashmir.” The

Associated Press. Sept. 24, 2004.

Gandhi, Rajmohan. Eight Lives: a study of the Hindu-Muslim Encounter. State

University of New York Press, 1986.

“India, Pakistan and Kashmir.” . Sept. 2004.

“Int'l conference adopts five resolutions on Kashmir.” The Pakistan Newswire. Oct. 27,

2004

Kashmir Flashpoint. News.BBC.co.uk. Nov. 3 – Dec. 3. <

/2/hi/in_depth/south_asia/2002/kashmir_flashpoint/>

Kashmir Not Part Of SAARC. Jammu-. Nov. 3, 2004.

“Kashmir resolution years away.” The Pakistan Newswire. Nov. 10, 2004

“Kashmiris will not accept converting LOC into permanent border : Kashmir conference

resolution.” The Pakistan Newswire. June 7, 2004

Marcus, Jonathan. “India-Pakistan military balance.” News.BBC.co.uk. < .

bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1735912.stm>

Majumder, Sanjoy. “Analysis: Making determined progress.” News.BBC.co.uk. < http://

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3631550.stm>

Pennington, Matthew. “South Asian arms race speeds on despite India-Pakistan peace

process.” The Associated Press. Sept. 3, 2004.

“Shaukat reiterates Pak resolve for Kashmir resolution.” The Pakistan Newswire. Sept. 3,

2004.

Waldman, Amy. “India and Pakistan: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors.” The New

York Times. July 4 2004.

-----------------------

Figure 1: Pre-Partition Map of India

Figure 3: Lord Mountbatten

Figure 2: Indian military presence in Kashmir

Figure 4: Map of Kashmir Pre-Partition



Figure 5: East Pakistan

Figure 6: Indian Air Force

Figure 7: Military Imbalance

Figure 8/9: Above: Insurgency attacks continue

Below: Police capture two militants

Figure 10: 12th SAARC summit



Figure 11: Musharraf works towards a resolution

Figure 12: Indian soldiers leave the Kashmir

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download