KASHMIR DISPUTES, ITS CAUSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLUTION

Kashmir is beautiful valley on the earth and has a natural accession with Pakistan owing to its
river flows. It is an age back issue that is keeping two South Asian powers, India and Pakistan, at daggers
drawn for more than a half century. The most dangerous place in the world today is the Indian sub-
continent and the line of control in Kashmir. Kashmir conflict is the outcome of a process of neglect,
discrimination, suppression of Kashmir identity, and the pre-eminence of power centric approach held by
the successive regimes of India and Pakistan.

The problem of Kashmir conflict is mostly a constitutional problem. The autonomy of the Kashmiri
people was always curtailed either through the massive violations of human rights or by doing several
amendments in the constitution of state. The so called democratic system can only be successful in
Kashmir when the rights of the people will be safeguarded. The geo-strategic importance of Kashmir remained
as significant between Pakistan and India after independence.

Jawaharlal Nehru portrayed the strategic importance of Kashmir thus:

“Kashmir Northern frontier … runs in common with those of three countries’

Afghanistan, the USSR and China. Security of Kashmir…is vital to the security of
India, especially since part of the Southern boundary of Kashmir and India is
common

FOUR KEY ASPECTS OF KASHMIR DISPUTE

 Legacy of the Partition of the Sub-

continent in 1947
 Right of Self-determination
 An Internationally Recognized Dispute
 An Indigenous Freedom Struggle

WHAT ARE THE RIVAL CLAIMS?

Islamabad says Kashmir should have become part of Pakistan in 1947, because Muslims are in
the majority in the region.

Pakistan also argues that Kashmiris should be allowed to vote in a referendum on their future,
following numerous UN resolutions on the issue.

Delhi, however, does not want international debate on the issue, arguing that the SimlaAgreement
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.

Both India and Pakistan reject the option of Kashmir becoming an independent state.

WHY CONFLICT:

1. Pakistan religious closeness with Kashmiri people makes it a natural ally. The Kashmiris trust Pakistan
more than India, where religious conflicts and verbal duals attack Islam and its followers intermittently.

2. Kashmiri people think that the political reins right from 1947 till today had been puppets in the hands
of GoI.

3. Kashmiri people think that the political dispensations they had like NC-Congress and now PDP tried
and settled political scores with each other rather than looking at real socio-educational and economic
areas of growth of common Kashmiri.

4. Kashmiris think that fast emerging Hindutava ideology is taking reins of J and K, especially in Kashmir
where it is in conflicting zone. They have strong feeling that PDP has totally surrendered its
socioeconomic and political ideology to BJP that is anti-Muslims. Kashmiris are not accepting
Mehbooba’s notion of “Modi being only PM who can solve Kashmir issue” They are of the belief that if
moderate Vajpayee could not solve it, how fundamentally firm Modi can do it.

5. New generation of Kashmiris born during oppression, subjugation, conflict period have formed a firm
belief that New Delhi is the oppressor and Pakistan is the friendly nation. This can be gauged from the
fact that present conflict is being led by students, youth and women; the most dangerous proposition in
any society.

ONE CONFLICT, DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

The conflict of Jammu and Kashmir which remains unresolved even after six long decades is
being seen from different perspectives. India has a different perspective over the issue while Pakistan has
also made its stand quite clear in the past 60 years. Interestingly, the people of Jammu and Kashmir who
form a part of the complex heterogeneous society representing various religions, ethnicities, identities and
minorities including Hindus, Muslims, Gujjars, Paharis, Bakerwals, Kashmiri PanditBrahimins, Punjabis,
Buddhists, Shia Muslims, etc, also have different perspectives over the issue.

PERSPECTIVES FROM INDIA:

India's official position considers Kashmir as an "integral part" of India. The Indian
establishment’s claim to Kashmir revolves around Instrument of Accession signed between Maharaja
Hari Singh and the Government of India, according to which the erstwhile Kingdom of Jammu and
Kashmir joined the Union of India. It also focuses on India's claim of secular society, an ideology that is
not meant to factor religion into governance of major policy and thus considers it irrelevant in a boundary
dispute. India holds that Instrument of Accession is total, full and final. The Constituent assembly of
Jammu and Kashmir had also unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and
had adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of the state with the Union of
India. India claims that this body was a representative one, and that its views were those of the Kashmiri
people at the time. Besides, the UN Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand that all outstanding
issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue and
does not call for a plebiscite.

Its Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan failed to withdraw its forces from
Kashmir which was the first step in implementing the resolution. Now the resolution is obsolete since the
geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered. India also believes that the
insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is deliberately being fueled by Pakistan to create instability in the
region. The Government of India has repeatedly asked the international community to declare Pakistan as
a sponsor of terrorism. India does not accept the two-nation theory that forms the basis of Pakistan and
argues that Kashmir, despite being a Muslim-majority state, is in many ways an "integral part" of secular
India. India points to the recent state-assembly elections held in phases in November-December 2008.
High turn-outs were seen in spite of calls for boycott by Kashmiri separatists.

India also maintains that all differences between India and Pakistan including Kashmir need to be
settled through bilateral negotiations as agreed to by the two countries when they signed the Simla
Agreement on July 2, 1972.

Indian Dealing with Kashmir: Three Levels

 India is suppressing Kashmiri indigenous freedom struggle by using of force

 India is using callous (cruel) State Power in the form of state terrorism.
 Massive human rights atrocities and violations of Kashmiris
Local Level  Trying to change the ethnic, religious and geographical realities of occupied
Kashmir.

 India avoids to discuss Kashmir issue with Pakistan

 Reject the formula of Dixon for Kashmir solution.
Bilateral Level  Using delaying tactics to settle Kashmir issue with Pakistan
 Desire to designate LoC as an international border

 India denies the Kashmiri right of self determination under the UN charter.
International  Deny the collective rights of Kashmiri people
Level  Try to divert Kashmir conflict as an internal problem of India.
 India also rejects the any third party mediation in resolving Kashmir issue

PERSPECTIVES FROM PAKISTAN:

Pakistan does not accept the claims of Indian government regarding the Instrument of Accession.
Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader and was regarded as a tyrant by most
Kashmiris and thus had no moral authority to sign Instrument of Accession. Pakistan also argues that
even if the Maharaja had any authority in determining the plight of Kashmir, he signed the Instrument of
Accession under duress, thus invalidating the legitimacy of his actions. Pakistan also claims that Indian
forces were in Kashmir before the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, and that therefore
Indian troops were in Kashmir in violation of the Standstill Agreement, which was designed to maintain
the status quo in Kashmir (although India was not signatory to the Agreement, signed between Pakistan
and the Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir).

Pakistan also argues that the armed conflict in Kashmir clearly shows that it is an “indigenous
freedom struggle and Kashmiri people do not want to remain within India”. Another argument is that as
per two-nation theory which resulted in the partition of the Indian subcontinent on the basis of a having a
Hindu state and a Muslim state, and resulted in the creation of Muslim Pakistan, Kashmir should have
been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority. Pakistan also believes that India has shown
disregard to the resolutions of the UN by not holding a plebiscite.

INDEPENDENCE:

People of Kashmir, especially from the Valley demand complete independence as the only
solution, from both India and Pakistan, based on the principles of self determination. They have been
quoting the promises made by Jawaharlal Nehru in the 1940s and the UN Security Council Resolutions.
However, India does not agree with this idea. Though Pakistan agrees in principle, in practical approach,
Islamabad is also against the independence option. Nor do all the regions of J&K support such an option;
for example, Jammu and Ladakh regions do not approve the independence option.

Major Constraints in Solving Kashmir Problem

 Ethnic identities and political deadlock  Diversion of the issue from political to
in Kashmir politics militancy
 Political alienation of people of Jammu  India discontinued the peace process
and Kashmir saying that Pakistan does not act against
 India stereotyped standing that the militant groups.
Kashmir is an integral part of India  Leadership Crisis in Kashmir
 Domestic compulsion of Pakistan  Politics of fear between India and
politics particularly rift of civil- Pakistan
military relations  Non State actors

ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The group identified seven key issues and recommendations.

1) Election of Representatives:
(a) India and Pakistan must engage freely elected representatives of the Kashmiri people as full and equal
partners in all Kashmir negotiations.

(b) Full political freedoms throughout Kashmir must be honored, including freedom of assembly, speech,
and press. Kashmir must be open to the international community, with open access to foreign
organizations for monitoring elections.

(c) There must be an end to the practice of disqualification of candidates for public office who decline to
pledge allegiance to India and/or accession to either India or Pakistan.

2) Third-Party Mediation:

(a) President Bush should appoint a special envoy of international standing to adopt the role of a
facilitator in promoting Kashmir talks.

(b) The guiding principle for U.S. government policy on the resolution of this conflict must be based on
previous international commitments and the core American values of human rights, justice and the rule of
law.

3) Justice, Prisoners and Refugees:

(a) Release all detainees who are held in custody without charges.

(b) Create conducive conditions to allow the peaceful return of all refugees to Kashmir.

(c) Provide access to investigative press and agencies’ records and to the premises of interrogation and
detention centers.

4) Open and Transparent Administration:

(a) Provide freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration, withdraw all repressive laws.

(b) Establish an independent mechanism for a neutral third-party investigation of human rights violations,
including massacres like those in AmarnathYatra and Chattisinghpora.

(c) All government proceedings and records must be accessible to the public and the press and non-
government institutions, both local and international.

5) Open Borders for Trade:

(a) Open the Srinagar-Muzzafarabd-Muree Road and make Kashmir’s Cease-Fire Line permeable to
permit the 13 million people of Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and Gilgit to forge the understanding necessary
for productive negotiations toward a Kashmir settlement.

6) Demilitarization:

(a) There must be an immediate and complete cessation of all military and militant action. Disband
government-sponsored militant gangs like “Ikhwan.”

(b) The military presence in towns and villages must be withdrawn; military personnel must be restricted
to cantonment areas. Bunkers and barricades in towns and villages should be dismantled.
(c) Phased withdrawal of the military to the pre-1947 boundary should commence with the goal of
making the entire area “fire-arm” free.

7) Economic Reparations:

(a) Provide just compensation for loss of life and destroyed private property.

(b) Allow international agencies to sponsor local projects to promote sustainable economic development.

Possible Solution
1- Musharraf Plan for the Solution of Kashmir

In 2006 Pakistan’s president Musharraf suggested for the solution of Kashmir problem to India in with three
following dimensions:

 The form of demilitarization

 Self-governance
 Joint-management of J&K by the two countries.

India responded with the proposal of consultative mechanism between the two Kashmir. It raised the hopes of the
resolution of Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan reached near to a framework for a
settlement based on the following:

 LoC between two Kashmirs will not be changed.

 LoC will be open for transportation
 Both India and Pakistan will grant autonomy to Kashmir under their control
 The issues of trade, tourism, water resources, environment and education between the two Kashmirs
will be managed through a ‘Consultative Mechanism’.
 A gradual reduction in the strength of troops by India and Pakistan stationed in Kashmir

2- UN Resolutions: The Plebiscite Option

The UN Security Council resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, proposed the plebiscite option for
resolving the Kashmir dispute.

 The cease-fire
 The Secretary-General of the UN would nominate a Plebiscite Administrator,
 On implementation of the ceasefire both countries withdrawal its troops from Kashmir
 Finally, conduct a referendum under the UN

3- The UN Trusteeship Option

 Generally, this option proposes that Kashmir should be placed under UN Trusteeship and then plebiscite
may be held for the final resolution of the dispute.
 It is argued that this will provide a face-saving for India, and will also give Kashmiris, on both sides of the
Line of Control, enough time to come up with a joint option.

The JKLF Chairman, Amanullah Khan in December 1993, proposed four points’ agenda for Kashmir
solution:
 1. Complete withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani troops and civil administration both occupied and Azad
Kashmir
2. The reunification of Indian and Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir
3. Placement of the State under UN control for five to ten years
4. Finally plebiscite
4-The Dixon Plan

This proposal was first given by UN Representative, Sir Owen Dixon, in his report of 1950-51 called the ‘Dixon
Report’. It proposed the idea of holding regional plebiscites, instead of a general plebiscite as proposed in the UN
resolutions. The Owen Dixon Plan proposed the division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into four main regions:

 Jammu
 Ladakh
 The Valley of Kashmir including Azad Kashmir
 Gilgit-Baltistan

He proposed that of the four regions, Jammu and Ladakh should go accepted to India and the Northern Areas of
Pakistan. He concluded that in the Valley a plebiscite might be held to decide about its future. Pakistan did not
outrightly reject the proposal but was in favour of a general plebiscite in the whole of Jammu and Kashmir. India, on
the other hand, regarded Jammu and Kashmir as a unit of the Indian Federation

5- The Independence Option

 The pre-Partition status of the Jammu and Kashmir State is to be restored

 An independent state established.

References
 Dr. Ijaz Hussain, Kashmir Dispute: An International Law Perspective, National Institute of
Pakistan Studies, 1998, pp. 141-152.

 Dr. Shireen M. Mazari, ‘Kashmir in the new Pre-emptive doctrines’, The News, (Islamabad),
October 2, 2002.

 Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, Solving the Kashmir Dispute: Is there a way out (Michigan: University of
Michigan Press, 2010), 06-20.

 Mervaiz Umer Farooq, “Kashmir: Challenges and Prospects: Resolution of Kashmir Issue”,
(Conference held by Muslim Institute Islamabad on March 26-27, 2014).

 Mahnaz Z. Ispahani, Roads and Rivals: The political uses of access in borderland of asia (New
York: Cornell University Press, 1989), 153.