Special Report: Kashmir
Summary
Kashmir is a fiercely disputed territory claimed by both India and Pakistan. The disputed has caused tense conditions on the subcontinent that have frequently resulted in armed conflict. Although a final status agreement has yet to be reached, the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir serves as the de facto international border between the two countries. The geopolitical importance of the dispute has been confounded by both sides’ acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998. In recent years, India has accused Pakistan of backing militants that have attacked civilian and military targets inside Indian-controlled Kashmir. Despite not being able to comprehensively resolve the conflict, India and Pakistan have made some progress in recent years in agreeing to establish transportation links such as a bus service across the Line of Control.
Background: Indo-Pakistani relations and Kashmir
First Kashmir War: 1947-48
After being granted its independence in 1947, British India was partitioned into India, which had a Hindu majority, and Pakistan, which had a Muslim majority. At first, Maharaja Hari Singh was given a choice as to which state he wanted the region of Kashmir to join. Singh initially wanted Kashmir to remain independent and was hesitant to allow Kashmiris to vote on the issue. Frustrated by this, Pakistan invaded backed an invasion of Kashmir by tribal forces, eventually ordering Pakistani troops to invade as well. Singh subsequently agreed to join India and requested Indian military assistance to expel the Pakistanis. Pakistan took its case to the United Nations Security Council, arguing that Kashmir’s accession to India was illegal because the people of Kashmir were not given a vote on the issue. India also approached the Security Council, demanding that Pakistan withdraw its forces. The Security Council called for Pakistan to withdraw its troops and also called for a plebiscite to be held under U.N. auspices to determine Kashmir’s future status. Both sides nonetheless maintained their troop presence in Kashmir and a plebiscite was never held.
In 1949, India and Pakistan signed the Karachi agreement, which established a cease-fire line to be monitored by the United Nations (U.N.). The cease-fire line eventually became know as the Line of Control and demarcates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, serving as a de facto international border. Under the cease-fire agreement, Pakistan controlled one-third of Kashmir while India administered two-thirds. In 1954, Kashmir’s formal accession to India was completed.
In 1962-63, the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (U.K) sponsored talks between India and Pakistan. No agreement was reached. In 1965, India and Pakistan went to war again. Pakistan launched a covert offensive across the cease-fire line into Indian-administered Kashmir. In response, India crossed Pakistan’s international border at Lahore. After three weeks, both sides agreed to a U.N-sponsored ceasefire. Subsequent negotiations held in January 1966 in Tashkent yielded an agreement in which both sides pledged to solve their disputes through peaceful means. India returned the territory it had seized during the war.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
In 1971, Pakistan became engulfed by civil war. East Pakistan revolted against the West Pakistani army, demanding regional autonomy. The situation produced a flood of East Pakistani refugees in India. India provided support to the separatists, eventually invading East Pakistan. As a result, East Pakistan became an independent country on December 6, 1971 and subsequently changed its name to Bangladesh. The U.S. supported Pakistan during the conflict, providing arms and even sending naval forces to the region to put pressure on India. The Soviet Union, meanwhile, backed India. Neither superpower directly intervened in the conflict.
India and Pakistan signed the Simla agreement in 1972, which formally ended the war and conveyed the principles that would govern future relations between the two countries. Although the war did not directly involve the issue of Kashmir, the accord nonetheless recognized the Line of Control as the de facto border between India and Pakistan. Both sides agreed to solve future disputes through bilateral negotiations and vowed never to unilaterally alter the Line of Control irrespective of what each side considered its territory. In 1974, the Kashmiri state government reaffirmed its status as part of India. Pakistan again challenged the legitimacy of this action.
Insurgency
In 1989, an armed Muslim insurgency began in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Some insurgents wanted to merge with Pakistan while others supported Kashmiri independence. India alleged that Pakistani intelligence was providing the insurgents with logistical and material support in training camps inside Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Pakistan denied this claim, stating that it was only providing them diplomatic and moral support. The Islamist orientation of the insurgency grew increasingly radicalized as foreign mujahidden rebels arrived from Afghanistan, where they had fought the Soviets.
In 1996, India and Pakistan participated in talks covering an array of issues, including the status of Kashmir. India and Pakistan could not reach an agreement, though they committed themselves to more negotiations.
In 1998, India and Pakistan both tested nuclear weapons. The tests drew widespread condemnation from the international community. That same year, Pakistan tested a long rang missile capable of striking India. The nuclear issue confounded fears that conflict could once against erupt on the subcontinent – with even more devastating consequences.
Kargil War
In 1999, the prime ministers of the two countries signed the Lahore accord, which committed each side to intensifying efforts to solve the Kashmir dispute. That same year, however, the issue of Pakistani support for the insurgency in Indian-controlled Kashmir once again came to the fore. India accused Pakistan of sending troops to support insurgents in Kargil on the Indian side of the Line of Control. India also alleged that these troops and militants had secured peaks that would allow Pakistan to control a strategic highway that links Jammu and Kashmir. This highway is critical to India’s civilian and military infrastructure. India carried out air strikes against the Pakistani-backed forces. Under pressure from the U.S., Pakistan called for insurgent groups to pull back from the Line of Control. Some groups complied, while others refused until the Indian military defeated them. Although Pakistan denied allowing its troops to cross the Line of Control, later evidence suggests a high degree of coordination between the Pakistani military and the insurgents inside Indian territory. Tens of thousands of people on both sides of the Line of Control fled their homes during the fighting.
Later in 1999, an Indian airliner was hijacked en route from Katmandu, Nepal to New Delhi. The hijackers demanded the release of over 40 Kashmiri militants as ransom. India eventually released three of the militants and accused Pakistani intelligence of orchestrating the hijacking.
In 2000, India announced that it would be pulling back its military forces from the Line of Control in an effort to ease regional tensions. In response, Pakistan’s president Musharraf expressed his willingness to engage in talks with India. India, however, rejected his offer because it did not want to legitimize Musharraf’s military government nor did it want to hold talks until Pakistan stopped backing Kashmiri militants. In 2001, however, India invited Pakistan’s president to New Delhi. At the meeting, Pakistan argued that relations between the two countries could not improve until the issue of Kashmir was addressed. India responded that the issue was too difficult to solve at that time and that the two sides would have to address other issues, such as trade, before dealing with Kashmir. The talks failed to yield an agreement.
Although Pakistan’s cooperation in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks brought about more friendly relations between Pakistan in the West, the situation along the Line of Control continued to worsen. In October 2001, militants attacked the Kashmiri assembly in Srinagar, killing 38 people. On December 2001, militants attacked India’s Parliament House in New Delhi, killing 14 people. India accused Pakistan of allowing the terrorist groups responsible for the attacks to operate on Pakistani territory. Pakistan denied the allegations and vowed to respond to an attack by India. Both sides began to amass troops along the border, heightening fears that conflict was imminent. The U.S. put pressure on the two sides to take actions to calm the situation.
In February 2002, Pakistani troops shot down an aircraft carrying a senior Indian military commander near Kargil. In May 2002, an attack on an army camp in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed 30 people. Both sides began to exchange fire across the Line of Control, sparking more international concern.
In June 2002, a regional security summit was held in Kazakhstan as tensions between the two countries continued to rise. India refused to reach an agreement until Pakistan took steps to stop cross-border terrorism. Later that year, both countries agreed to a cease-fire along the Line of Control.
In early 2004, India and Pakistan initiated a composite dialogue on all issues between them, including Kashmir. These were their first formal talks in three years. Since then, some positive developments have occurred. In April 2005, a bus line between the Srinagar and Muzaffarabad has started service. The bus line allowed families divided across the Line of Control to meet for the first time since 1956. Despite this, many Kashmiri families remain frustrated that bureaucratic procedures have allowed only a relatively small number of individuals to cross the border.
President Musharraf shocked many observers in October 2004 when he suggested that the two countries “think outside the box” and even consider an arrangement in which India and Pakistan would jointly govern a demilitarized Kashmir. President Musharraf also stated that he would be wiling to withdraw Pakistan’s demand for a plebiscite.
On October 8, 2005, the region experienced a devastating earthquake. It quickly became clear that restrictions on crossing the Line of Control were hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid. On October 30, 2005, only day after a terrorist attack killed 61 in Delhi, both countries agreed to open five crossing points along the Line of Control to facilitate relief efforts and allow people to visit their families. This was to be the first opening of the border since the conflict began. Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control were required to submit applications before they would be allowed to travel to the other side. Both countries disagreed about the process of exchanging lists of people who would be allowed to cross.
In January 2006, India and Pakistan stated committed themselves to having more talks on Kashmir.
In April 2006, a terrorist attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir left 35 Hindus dead just stays before a meeting between the Indian prime minister and Kashmiri separatists. India alleged that a terrorist group based in Pakistan was behind the attack. In May 2006, India and Pakistan reached a trade agreement that allows trucks to travel from Srinagar and Muzaffarabad across the Line of Control.
Current Initiative
The issue of Kashmir is currently being handled on a bilateral basis absent of international mediation. The talks on Kashmir are part of broader negotiations known as the “composite dialogue” that seeks to address a wide range of bilateral issues and eventually normalize relations between the two countries. Under the composite dialogue, all issues are open for discussion. A cease-fire has been in effect along the Line of Control since November 2003. A third round of normalization talks was set to conclude in July 2006. Despite talks on Kashmir, no comprehensive agreement has been reached. In India’s view, progress needs to first be made with confidence-building measures before the political climate on the subcontinent will be ripe enough to address Kashmir. Pakistan, meanwhile, views Kashmir as the main obstacle to progress in other bilateral areas. Terrorist attacks against targets in Indian-administered Kashmir continue to threaten the productivity of negotiations.
Foreign Policy Positions of Key Players
India
As a rising global power, India seeks to prevent the dispute in Kashmir from destabilizing the region. India wants the Line of Control to be formalized as the official international border and rejects the option of Kashmir becoming an independent state. India has also consistently rejected calls for a plebiscite to be held. India believes that by participating in state elections, Kashmiri voters declared their desire to be part of India. India has resisted any efforts to include third party mediators in the negotiations, arguing that the 1972 Simla accord requires that the issue be addressed through bilateral negotiations. India has balked at Pakistan’s calls for the creation of a “roadmap for peace” similar to what has guided the Middle East peace process. India has, however, engaged in negotiations with some moderate elements of the Kashmiri separatist movement. Domestically, the Indian government has sought to remedy the frustrations of Kashmiris by focusing on economic development, promoting cross-border interactions, and granting greater political autonomy. It refuses to withdraw its security forces from Kashmir until Pakistan takes greater steps toward preventing terrorism. In March 2006, India reiterated its unwillingness to redraw the border, though it hoped to improve the political climate in Kashmir and make the border “just lines on a map.”
Pakistan
The Pakistani government believes that Kashmir should have joined with Pakistan because it had a Muslim majority. Indian-controlled Kashmir is the only state in India in which Muslims constitute a majority. Pakistan does not accept the legitimacy of the Maharaja’s accession to India. Pakistan does not want to make the Line of Control the official international border because the Kashmir Valley, which has a Muslim majority, would remain part of India. Instead, Pakistan wants to solve the conflict by holding a plebiscite to let the Kashmiri people decide their own fate, although President Musharraf hinted that he might be willing to put this demand aside in December 2005. Pakistan holds the position that Kashmiris themselves should be allowed to participate in Indo-Pak negotiations. Pakistan is currently against the option of Kashmir becoming an independent state. Pakistan denies providing logistical and material support to Kashmiri insurgents, instead arguing that the Indian military’s presence in Kashmir fuels desperation and alienation. When President Bush signed a nuclear deal with India, Pakistan expressed its hope that the U.S. would put pressure on India to find a solution to the conflict. Pakistan accuses the Indian military of committing human rights abuses in Kashmir.
China
China’s policy toward Kashmir has traditionally favored Pakistan. In the years after independence, Pakistan sought stronger ties with China in order to balance India. In 1957, Pakistan ceded a small part of its territory in Kashmir to China as a goodwill gesture. Pakistan supported China during its 1962 border war with India. China has provided Pakistan with a significant amount of weaponry, including key components of nuclear weapons. However, in recent years, as relations between India and China have improved, China has taken a more neutral stance toward the conflict. China has encouraged both sides to solve their differences peacefully and to exercise restraint. In its view, the only way to solve the conflict is through bilateral negotiation between India and Pakistan. China did not offer Pakistan its support during the Kargil conflict in 1999. Although India still claims Aksai Chin (Chinese-administered Kashmir) as its territory, both sides consider the Line of Mutual Control, which was created after the 1962 Sino-Indian Border War, the de facto international border.
Kashmir Separatist and Independence Movements
Some Kashmiris believe that Kashmir should become seeks independence from both India and Pakistan – a status Kashmir initially had after the British granted independence in 1947. Supporters of Kashmiri independence point to the fact that Kashmir is larger in geography and population than many members of the U.N. Others, however, fear that Kashmiri independence could lead to the Balkanization of the subcontinent as other regions seek to break away from India and Pakistan. After the 2005 earthquake disaster, some Kashmiris expressed anger that a lack of cooperation between India and Pakistan was slowing relief efforts. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) is the main umbrella group for Kashmiri separatism. It is currently split between a faction that favors independence and another faction that favors accession to Pakistan. The APHC has held formal talks with the Indian and Pakistani governments, although its claim to represent all Kashmiris is disputed. The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front is a secular, nationalist terrorist group that supports independence and opposes succession to Pakistan. Hindus and Buddhists generally oppose both independence and secession to Pakistan. Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control believe that any negotiations between India and Pakistan on the issue need to include a delegation of Kashmiris who represent a diverse spectrum of viewpoints.
Hizbul-Mujahideen
Hizbul-Mujahideen is an Islamist militant group headquartered in Pakistani-administered Kashmir that is dedicated to Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan (although some members support full independence). The group allegedly has links to Pakistani intelligence and Pakistan’s largest Islamist party, which helped found it to challenge the secular orientation of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. Hizbul-Mujahideen has been designated as a terrorist group by the European Union (E.U.) and has carried out attacks against Indian civilian and military targets inside Kashmir.
United States
U.S. policy has sought to reduce the risk of war on the subcontinent. The U.S. favors recognizing the Line of Control as the international border between India and Pakistan. While Pakistan remains a key U.S. ally in the Global War on Terror, the U.S. has recently sought to establish a stronger strategic relationship with India. The U.S. has encouraged both countries to continue a dialogue on the issue of Kashmir and has supported small steps like establishing a bus services that operates across the Line of Control. During his March 2006 trip to India, President Bush’s only remarks on the subject of Kashmir encouraged the two countries to negotiate a resolution.
United Kingdom
The U.K. also favors recognizing the Line of Control as the international border.
United Nations
The U.N. has maintained a presence in Kashmir since the beginning of the dispute. In January 1948, the Security Council passed resolution 39, establishing the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute. Security Council resolution 47 enlarged the membership of UNCIP. Security Council resolution 91 established the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to monitor the cease-fire. UNMOGIP claims that it has a mandate to observe the 1972 cease-fire established by the Simla agreement. India disputes this mandate, arguing that UNMOGIP was only set up to monitor the 1949 Karachi agreement. India has restricted the activities of UNMOGIP monitors on the Indian side of the Line of Control. Pakistan embraces UNMOGIP’s mandate and has lodged several complaints to UNMOGIP about alleged Indian violations of the cease-fire. Given the disputed nature of the mandate, the Secretary-General has taken the position that UNMOGIP’s mandate will end when the Security Council terminates it. There are currently 43 military observers, who are supported by 22 international civilian personnel and 45 local civilian staff. Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, and Uruguay contribute military personnel to UNMOGIP.
Update (since 2006):
In early March, 2008, a blast near the Civil Secretariat – Indian-controlled Kashmir's seat of government and the region's high court -- left close to 20 people injured. Later in the month, a gun battle between security forces and Islamic militants opposed to Indian rule left five people dead and two others injured. The incident ensued following a raid on a house by security forces on the outskirts of the capital city of Srinagar. It was the latest case in an cordon and search effort bt the Indian Army against Islamic militants in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Also in 2008, the decision by the government of Indian-administered Kashmir to transfer land a Hindu shrine organization, the Amarnath Shrine Board, provoked angry and violent protests by the region's Muslim majority. The matter also spurred further acrimony stemming from the Muslim/Hindu divisions in Kashmir -- a flashpoint for conflict between mainly Hindu India and mainly Muslim Pakistan. Perhaps realizing that the matter would cause only greater hostility, State Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said the plans for the forested land would be formally revoked.
That said, the year 2008 marked the lowest number of casualties in Kashmir in 20 years with less than 90 deaths, according to India's Home Ministry. Human rights groups also noted that the human rights situation in Kashmir had improved with only one custodial death occurring and no custodial disappearances.
At the start of 2009, Ahsan Dar -- the founder of terrorism in Kashmir enclave, Hizbul Mujahideen -- was arrested. This arrest was considered a key development in the fight against terrorism in the conflict-ridden territory.
March 2009 saw protests take place in Nowhatta, resulting in the deaths of a few people and the establishment of a curfew. This was followed two months later by mass protests over the rape and murder cases of two young women in Shopian at the hands allegedly of Indian Armed Forces. The protests turned violent and police and paramilitaries were accused of opening fire on protestors in Shopian, Baramulla and Srinagar. It was not known how these developments would affect Indo-Pak relations or efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue.
In the background of the Kashmir issue has been a spate of attacks by Pakistani-based terror groups, such as Lashkar e Taiba, which has been linked to a number of terror attacks in the United Kingdom and India. The group has been said that its aspirations in Kashmir are linked with the broader jihadist efforts. But in January 2009, the terror group publicly declared that it would support a peaceful resolution in Kashmir.
Written by Ryan Holliway, Researcher and Writer, CountryWatch Inc. and Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc.
Sources: BBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, International Crisis Group, MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, Center for Strategic and International Studies, United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan.