Conflict Resolution International Relations Human Rights Views Causes Consequences Future Prediction Conclusion

1. FINAL PROJECT
CONFLICT
RESOLUTION
THE KASHMIRCONFLICT

2. 1
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION………………………….………………………………………….2
2. CROSS BORDER TROUBLES AND WATER DISPUTES………………………5
3. VIEWS ABOUT THE DISPUTE……………………………………………………10
4. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION……………….……………………………………15
5. PARTIES INVOLVED….…………………………………………………………….21
6. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………...24
6. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………...26

3. 2
INTRODUCTION
The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict primarily between India and Pakistan, having started
just after the partition of India in 1947. China has at times played a minor role. India and
Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, including the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947 and
1965, as well as the Kargil War. The two countries have also been involved in several skirmishes
over control of the Siachen Glacier.
India claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, and, as of 2010, administers approximately
43% of the region. It controls Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier.
India's claims are contested by Pakistan, which administers approximately 37% of Kashmir,
namely Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. The present conflict is in Kashmir Valley. The root
of conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian government is tied to a dispute over
local autonomy
India’s efforts to integrate Kashmir into Indian Union did not succeed because the major
Kashmiri leaders and parties resisted these efforts. The Kashmiris want that they should
themselves decide about their political future, as committed to them by the UN Resolutions of
1948-49. Indian leadership contests this and use force to crush this demand. This has caused a
perpetual conflict between the Indian authorities and the people of Kashmir. India has been using
security establishment to control Kashmir which often resulted in human rights violations in
Kashmir. Indian actions are driven by the consideration of keeping Kashmir under its control
irrespective of the human rights or other cost. The excessive use of security forces and state
power by India has the Kashmir Valley into a “Human Tragedy.” The Indian government use
security forces and intelligence establishment to subdue Kashmirs. The Kashmiri people want
freedom from India and decide their political future on their own. This is not acceptable to India
and it use force to control Kashmiris. We remember the statement of Sardar Patel, who said,
“give Jinnah his state, it would not survive in five years, the Muslim league would be knocking
at their door begging for India’s reunification”. The interview of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali
Jinnah in “Daliy Hamdard” about Kashmir situation on Feb 3, 1946 is very important and
relevant to this article. He said: - “Although I am fully occupied with the British Indian elections
just now yet I have not forgotten the problems of Kashmir he said, I am fully conscious of the
suffering of the people there and that though the burden of the struggle against repression and
oppression was mainly to be borne by the people of Kashmir, we shall always help them in every
possible way...” He also said; “In search of an inventive approach to untangle the Kashmir Knot,
the ‘merit of the case’ was not a good starting point. Firstly, we might not agree on the merit: we
did not for over six decades. Secondly, and more importantly: complex issues are not resolved by
providing one or the other side wrong, but by identifying common causes that can be pursued
together.
GEOGRAPHICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
The state of Jammu and Kashmir comprises the regions of Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh
with approximately 10 million people. According to S.M Burke and Salim-ud-Din Quraishi, the
population figure of Jammu and Kashmir State on the eve of transfer of power, were as under:

4. 3
Jammu
Muslims 1208675 61%
Hindus 772760 39%
Kashmir
Muslims 1489988 92%
Hindus 139217 8%
JAMMU & KASHMIR PRESENT
Total Muslims in the state 3101247 77%
Total Hindus in the state 809165 21%
Total Sikhs to the state 65903
Total Buddhist in the state 40696
Total Population 4021616
The Jammu and Kashmir conflict dates back to the partition of the subcontinent in 1947. The
first India-Pakistan war over Kashmir soon after the independence resulted in the division of the
territory into Indian held “Jammu and Kashmir (comprises the regions of Kashmir valley, Jammu
and Ladakh) and the smaller area with Pakistan (Azad Kashmir plus sparsely populated regions
in the High Himalayas known as Pakistan's Northern Areas” now designated as Gilgit Baltistan.
Both India and Pakistan have contesting claims of sovereignty over the territory of Jammu and
Kashmir. They both raised their claims at the UN and also the fight for the Kashmir several times
in the past. The majority of the population of the Kashmir is now fed up with this dispute and
some of them also want to see Kashmir as an independent state. The problems between India and
Pakistan are very largely a legacy of their histories including the histories of Indian and Pakistani
nationalism. The Indian nationalism advocated a secular, pluralist India where all religions
should co-exist. The Muslim League argued that India comprised of two nations: Muslims and
Hindus and that because of irreconcilable historical, political, social and cultural differences and
contradictions. Since Indian nationalism was secular it could not concede to the idea of
Kashrnir’s accession to Pakistan. Therefore, Kashmir was held hostage to the two nationalisms.
Both of whom had held on to what parts of Kashmir they controlled and wanting control of the
rest Kashmir is a very complex dispute, it is an ethnic dispute it is a religious dispute, it is a
territorial dispute, it is a dispute over Human Rights, but above all it is a dispute about the right
of the Kashmiri people to determine their own political future. Apart from the terrible suffering
and deprivation, the people of Kashmir have suffered and are suffering. They have also paid a
terrible price. The Kashmir problem was sought not to be resolved by dialogue but by bloodshed
not by force of reason but by the reason of force. The option of plebiscite to settle the dispute of
Kashmir was originally suggested by the Indian leadership in 1947 when the dispute arose over
the accession of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir both Lord Mountbatten (the
Government General of India) and Jawaharlal Nehru. (Indian prime minister) categorically stated
the option of plebiscite to know the wishes of the dispute of Kashmir. India took the case to the
U.N and option of plebiscite was institutionalized in the two cardinal resolution of the U.N
passed in 1948-49.
However, the plebiscite was never held and India did not honor its pledge. Pakistan considers the
Indian pledges to be binding today as it was when first voluntarily made in 1947-1948. Indian

5. 4
politician have used this emotive issue to scare their public that Indian might break-up if
Kashmir separates from it. The plebiscite solution of the Kashmir issue is rejected by India and
according to the Indian perception, it smacks of the 'two nation theory' as it is based on two
nation theory which India rejects. India fears that if the Kashmiris quit India, the separatist
movements in the North East of India would be even more difficult to handle. Even Punjab and
Tamil Nadu might reopen their demand of leaving the Indian Union. That is reason why India
has deployed so heavy security forces in the valley and uses the state power and laws to suppress
the freedom movement in Kashmir.
PARTITION AND INVASION
British rule in India ended in 1947 with the creation of new states: the Dominion of Pakistan and
the Union of India, as the successor states to British India. The British Paramountcy over the 562
Indian princely states ended. According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, "the suzerainty of
His Majesty over the Indian States lapses and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the
date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States". States were
thereafter left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. Jammu and
Kashmir, the largest of the princely states, had a predominantly Muslim population ruled by the
Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh. He decided to stay independent because he expected that the State's
Muslims would be unhappy with accession to India, and the Hindus and Sikhs would become
vulnerable if he joined Pakistan. On 11 August, the Maharaja dismissed his prime minister Ram
Chandra Kak, who had advocated independence. Observers and scholars interpret this action as a
tilt towards accession to India. Pakistanis decided to preempt this possibility by wresting
Kashmir by force if necessary.
Pakistan made various efforts to persuade the Maharaja of Kashmir to join Pakistan. In July
1947, Mohammad Ali Jinnah is believed to have written to the Maharaja promising "every sort
of favorable treatment," followed by lobbying of the State's Prime Minister by leaders of Jinnah's
Muslim League party. Faced with the Maharaja's indecision on accession, the Muslim League
agents clandestinely worked in Poonch to encourage the local Muslims to an armed revolt, by
exploiting an internal unrest regarding economic grievances which had gained support for
Muslim Conference's pro Pakistan stance in Poonch. The authorities in Pakistani Punjab waged a
`private war' by obstructing supplies of fuel and essential commodities to the J&K State. Later in
September, Muslim League officials in the Northwest Frontier Province, including the Chief
Minister Abdul Qayyum Khan, assisted and possibly organized a large-scale invasion of
Kashmir by Pathan tribesmen. Several sources indicate that the plans were finalized on 12
September by the Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, based on proposals prepared by Colonel
Akbar Khan and Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan. One plan called for organising an armed
insurgency in the western districts of the state and the other for organising a Pushtoon tribal
invasion. Both were set in motion.
The Jammu division of the state got caught up in the Partition violence. Large numbers of
Hindus and Sikhs from Rawalpindi and Sialkot started arriving in March 1947, bringing
"harrowing stories of Muslim atrocities." This provoked counter-violence on Jammu Muslims,
which had "many parallels with that in Sialkot." According to scholar Ilyas Chattha, the
"Kashmiri Muslims were to pay a heavy price in September–October 1947 for the earlier
violence of West Punjab." However, Chattha also states that the "Hindu Dogra state of Jammu

6. 5
and Kashmir" ordered the massacre of Muslims in the Jammu division with political motivations
to ethnically cleanse the Muslim population and to ensure a non-Muslim majority in the Jammu
region of the state.
The violence in the eastern districts of Jammu that started in September, developed into a
widespread `massacre' of Muslims around 20 October, organized by the Hindu Dogra troops of
the State and perpetrated by the local Hindus, including members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Singh, and the Hindus and Sikhs displaced from the neighboring areas of West Pakistan. The
Maharaja himself was implicated in some instances. A team of British observers commissioned
by India and Pakistan estimated 70,000 Muslims killed, whereas the Azad Kashmir Government
claimed that 200,000 Muslims were killed. About 400,000 Muslims are said to have fled to West
Pakistan, some of whom made their way to the western districts of Poonch and Mirpur, which
were undergoing rebellion. Many of these Muslims believed that the Maharaja ordered the
killings in Jammu and instigated the Muslims in West Pakistan to join the uprising in Poonch and
help in the formation of the Azad Kashmir government.
The rebel forces in the western districts of Jammu got organized under the leadership of Sardar
Ibrahim, a Muslim Conference leader. They took control of most of the western parts of the State
by 22 October. On 24 October, they formed a provisional Azad Kashmir (free Kashmir)
government based in Palandri.
INDO-PAKISTANI WAR OF 1947
Rebel forces from the western districts of the State and the Pakistani Pakhtoon tribesmen made
rapid advances into the Baramulla sector. In the Kashmir valley, National Conference volunteers
worked with the Indian Army to drive out the `raiders'. The resulting First Kashmir War lasted
until the end of 1948.
The Pakistan army made available arms, ammunition and supplies to the rebel forces who were
dubbed the `Azad Army'. Pakistani army officers `conveniently' on leave and the former officers
of the Indian National Army were recruited to command the forces. In May 1948, the Pakistani
army officially entered the conflict, in theory to defend the Pakistan borders, but it made plans to
push towards Jammu and cut the lines of communications of the Indian forces in the Mendhar
valley. C. Christine Fair notes that this was the beginning of Pakistan using irregular forces and
`asymmetric warfare' to ensure plausible deniability, which has continued ever since
CROSS-BORDER TROUBLES BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA
The border and the Line of Control separating Indian and Pakistani Kashmir passes through
some exceptionally difficult terrain. The world's highest battleground, the Siachen Glacier, is a
part of this difficult-to-man boundary. Even with 200,000 military personnel, India maintains
that it is infeasible to place enough men to guard all sections of the border throughout the various
seasons of the year. Pakistan has indirectly acquiesced its role in failing to prevent "cross-border
terrorism" when it agreed to curb such activities after intense pressure from the Bush
administration in mid-2002.The Government of Pakistan has repeatedly claimed that by
constructing a fence along the line of control, India is violating the Shimla Accord. India claims

7. 6
the construction of the fence has helped decrease armed infiltration into Indian-administered
Kashmir.
LINE OF CONTROL:
The term Line of Control (LoC) refers to the military control line between the Indian and
Pakistani controlled parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir—a line which does
not constitute a legally recognized international boundary, but is the de facto border. Originally
known as the Cease-fire Line, it was redesignated as the "Line of Control" following the Simla
Agreement, which was signed on 3 July 1972. The part of the former princely state that is under
Indian control is known as the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Pakistani-controlled part is divided into Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan. The
northernmost point of the Line of Control is known as NJ9842.
Another ceasefire line separates the Indian-controlled state of Jammu and Kashmir from the
Chinese-controlled area known as Aksai Chin. Lying further to the east, it is known as the Line
of Actual Control (LAC) and has been referred to as one of the most dangerous places in the
world.
LEGACY:
The Line of Control divided Kashmir into two parts and closed the Jhelum valley route, the only
entrance and exit of the Kashmir Valley at that time. This territorial division, which to this day
still exists, severed many villages and separated family members from each other.
POSITIONS:
 Pakistani
The Pakistan Declaration of 1933 had envisioned the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir as
one of the "five Northern units of India" that were to form the new nation of Pakistan, on the
basis of its Muslim majority. Pakistan still claims the whole of Kashmir as its own territory,
including Indian-controlled Kashmir. India has a different perspective on this interpretation
 Indian
Maharaja Hari Singh, King of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu agreed to Governor-
General Mountbatten’s suggestion to sign the Instrument of Accession India demanded accession
in return for assistance. India claimed that the whole territory of the princely state of Jammu and
Kashmir had become Indian Territory (India's official posture) due to the accession, it claims the
whole region, including Azad Kashmir territory, as its own.
KARGIL WAR:
The Kargil War, also known as the Kargil conflict, was an armed conflict between India and
Pakistan that took place between May and July 1999 in the Kargil district of Kashmir and
elsewhere along the Line of Control (LOC). In India, the conflict is also referred to as Operation
Vijay which was the name of the Indian operation to clear the Kargil sector.
Cause of war:
The cause of the war was the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into
positions on the Indian side of the LOC, which serves as the de facto border between the two
states. During the initial stages of the war, Pakistan blamed the fighting entirely on independent

8. 7
Kashmiri insurgents, but documents left behind by casualties and later statements by Pakistan's
Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff showed involvement of Pakistani paramilitary forces,
led by General Ashraf Rashid.
The Indian Army, later supported by the Indian Air Force, recaptured a majority of the positions
on the Indian side of the LOC infiltrated by the Pakistani troops and militants. Facing
international diplomatic opposition, the Pakistani forces withdrew from the remaining Indian
positions along the LOC. The war is one of the most recent examples of high-altitude warfare in
mountainous terrain, which posed significant logistical problems for the combating sides.
CONFLICT EVENTS
Date (1999) Event
3 May Pakistani intrusion in Kargil reported by local shepherds
5 May Indian Army patrol sent up; Five Indian soldiers captured and tortured to
death.
9 May Heavy shelling by Pakistan Army damages ammunition dump in Kargil
10 May Infiltrations first noticed in Dras, Kaksar, and Mushkoh sectors
Mid-May Indian Army moves in more troops from Kashmir Valley to Kargil Sector
26 May IAF launches air strikes against infiltrators
27 May IAF loses two fighters – MiG-21 and MiG-27; Flt Lt Nachiketa taken POW
28 May IAF MI-17 shot down by Pakistan; four air crew dead
1 June Pakistan steps up attacks; bombs NH 1A
5 June Indian Army releases documents recovered from three Pakistani soldiers
indicating Pakistan's involvement
6 June Indian Army launches major offensive in Kargil
9 June Indian Army re-captures two key positions in the Batalic sector
11 June India releases intercepts of conversation between Pakistani Army
Chief Gen Pervez Musharraf, while on a visit to China and Chief of
General Staff Lt Gen Aziz Khan in Rawalpindi, as proof of Pakistani
Army's involvement
13 June Indian Army secures Tololing in Dras
15 June U.S. President Bill Clinton, in a telephonic conversation, asks Pakistani
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to pull out from Kargil
29 June Indian Army captures two vital posts: Point 5060 and Point 5100 near
Tiger Hill
2 July Indian Army launches three-pronged attack in Kargil
4 July Indian Army recaptures Tiger Hill after an 11-hour battle
5 July Indian Army takes control of Dras. Sharif announces Pakistani army's
withdrawal from Kargil following his meeting with Clinton
7 July India recaptures Jubar Heights in Batalik
11 July Pakistan begins pullout; India captures key peaks in Batalik
14 July Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee declares Operation Vijay a
success. Government sets condition for talks with Pakistan
26 July Kargil conflict officially comes to an end. Indian Army announces
complete eviction of Pakistani intruders.

9. 8
WATER DISPUTE:
Another reason for the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the source of many rivers and
tributaries in the Indus River basin. This basin is divided between Pakistan, which has about 60
percent of the catchment area, India with about 20 percent, Afghanistan with 5 percent and
around 15 percent in China (Tibet autonomous region). The river tributaries are the Jhelum and
Chenab rivers, which primarily flow into Pakistan, while other branches—the Ravi, Beas, and
the Sutlej—irrigate northern India.
The Indus is a river system that sustains communities in India and Pakistan. Both have
extensively dammed the Indus River for irrigation of their crops and hydro-electricity systems. In
arbitrating the conflict in 1947, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, decided to demarcate the territories as he was
unable to give to one or the other the control over the river as it was a main economic resource
for both areas.
The Line of Control (LoC) was recognized as an international border establishing that India
would have control over the upper riparian and Pakistan over the lower riparian of the Indus and
its tributaries. Despite appearing to be separate issues, the Kashmir dispute and the dispute over
the water control are in reality related and the fight over the water remains one of the main
problems in establishing good relations between the two countries.
In 1948, Eugene Black, then president of the World Bank, offered his services to solve the
tension over water control. In the early days of independence, the fact that India was able to shut
off the Central Bari Doab Canals at the time of the sowing season, causing significant damage to
Pakistan's crops. Nevertheless, military and political clashes over Kashmir in the early years of
independence appear to have been more about ideology and sovereignty rather than over the
sharing of water resources. However, the minister of Pakistan has stated the opposite.
INDUS WATER TREATY:
The Indus Waters Treaty was signed by both countries in September 1960, giving exclusive
rights over the three western rivers of the Indus river system (Jhelum, Chenab and Indus) to
Pakistan, and over the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Ravi and Beas) to India, as long as this does
not reduce or delay the supply to Pakistan. India therefore maintains that they are not willing to
break the established regulations and they see no more problems with this issue.
PAKISTAN'S RELATION WITH MILITANTS:
India has furnished documentary evidence to the United Nations that Pakistan supports Kashmiri
militants, leading to a ban on some terrorist organizations, which Pakistan has yet to enforce.
Former President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of the Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf stated in
an interview in London, that the Pakistani government indeed helped to form underground
militant groups and "turned a blind eye" towards their existence.
According to former Indian Prime-minister Manmohan Singh, one of the main reasons behind
the conflict was Pakistan's "terror-induced coercion". He further stated at a Joint Press
Conference with United States President Barack Obama in New Delhi that India is not afraid of
resolving all the issues with Pakistan including that of Kashmir "but it is our request that you
cannot simultaneously be talking and at the same time the terror machine is as active as ever

10. 9
before. Once Pakistan moves away from this terror-induced coercion, we will be very happy to
engage productively with Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues.
In 2009, the President of Pakistan Asif Zardari asserted at a conference in Islamabad that
Pakistan had indeed created Islamic militant groups as a strategic tool for use in its geostrategic
agenda and "to attack Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir". Former President of Pakistan and
the ex-chief of the Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf also stated in an interview that Pakistani
government helped to form underground militant groups to fight against Indian troops in Jammu
and Kashmir and "turned a blind eye" towards their existence because it wanted to force India to
enter negotiations.
The British Government have formally accepted that there is a clear connection between
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and three major militant outfits operating in Jammu
and Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. The militants
are provided with "weapons, training, advice and planning assistance" in Punjab and Kashmir by
the ISI which is "coordinating the shipment of arms from the Pakistani side of Kashmir to the
Indian side, where Muslim insurgents are waging a protracted war".
Throughout the 1990s, the ISI maintained its relationship with extremist networks and militants
that it had established during the Afghan war to utilize in its campaign against Indian forces in
Kashmir. Joint Intelligence/North (JIN) has been accused of conducting operations in Jammu
and Kashmir and also Afghanistan.
The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau (JSIB) provides communications support to groups in
Kashmir. According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, both former members of the
National Security Council, the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalizing young
men in the Madrassas of Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by
Al-Qaeda and from there moving them into Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks.
Reportedly, about RS.24 million are paid out per month by the ISI to fund its activities in Jammu
and Kashmir .Pro-Pakistani groups were reportedly favored over other militant groups. Creation
of six militant groups in Kashmir, which included Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), was aided by the ISI.
According to American Intelligence officials, ISI is still providing protection and help to LeT.
The Pakistan Army and ISI also LeT volunteers to surreptitiously penetrate from Pakistan
Administrated Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir. In the past, Indian authorities have alleged
several times that Pakistan has been involved in training and arming underground militant groups
to fight Indian forces in Kashmir.
REASONS BEHIND THE DISPUTE
The Kashmir Conflict arose from the Partition of British India in 1947 into modern India and
Pakistan. Both countries subsequently made claims to Kashmir, based on the history and
religious affiliations of the Kashmiri people. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which
lies strategically in the north-west of the subcontinent bordering Afghanistan and China, was
formerly ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh under the paramountcy of British India. In geographical
and legal terms, the Maharaja could have joined either of the two new countries. Although urged
by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, to determine the future of his state before the

11. 10
transfer of power took place, Singh demurred. In October 1947, incursions by Pakistan took
place leading to a war, as a result of which the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains divided
between India and Pakistan.
Two-thirds of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, comprising Jammu, the Kashmir
Valley, and the sparsely populated Buddhist area of Ladakh are controlled by India while one-
third is administered by Pakistan. The latter includes a narrow strip of land called Azad Kashmir
and the Northern Areas, comprising the Gilgit Agency, Baltistan, and the former kingdoms of
Hunza and Nagar. Attempts to resolve the dispute through political discussions have been
unsuccessful. In September 1965, war again broke out between Pakistan and India. The United
Nations called for another cease-fire, and peace was restored following the Tashkent Declaration
in 1966, by which both nations returned to their original positions along the demarcated line.
After the 1971 war and the creation of independent Bangladesh under the terms of the 1972
Simla Agreement between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of
Pakistan, it was agreed that neither country would seek to alter the cease-fire line in Kashmir,
which was renamed as the Line of Control, "unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and
legal interpretations".
Numerous violations of the Line of Control have occurred, including incursions by insurgents
and Pakistani armed forces at Kargil leading to the Kargil war. There have also been sporadic
clashes on the Siachen Glacier, where the Line of Control is not demarcated and both countries
maintain forces at altitudes rising to 20,000 ft. (6,100 m), with the Indian forces serving at higher
altitudes.
INDIAN VIEW
Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession in October 1947 under which he
acceded the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union
of India.
India has officially stated that it believes that Kashmir to be an integral part of India, though the
then Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, stated after the 2010 Kashmir Unrest that his
government was willing to grant autonomy to the region within the purview of Indian
constitution if there was consensus among political parties on this issue. The Indian viewpoint is
succinctly summarized by Ministry of External affairs, Government of India—
 India holds that the Instrument of Accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the
Union of India, signed by Maharaja Hari Singh (erstwhile ruler of the State) on
25 October 1947 and executed on 27 October 1947 between the ruler of Kashmir and the
Governor General of India was a legal act and completely valid in terms of the
Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) as well as under
international law and as such was total and irrevocable.
 The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the
Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and adopted a constitution for the state that
called for a perpetual merger of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India. India
claims that the constituent assembly was a representative one, and that its views were
those of the Kashmiri people at the time.

12. 11
 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding
all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the
dispute through mutual dialogue without the need for a plebiscite in the framework of UN
Charter.
 United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan
failed to withdraw its forces from Kashmir, which was the first step in implementing the
resolution. India is also of the view that Resolution 47 is obsolete, since the geography
and demographics of the region have permanently altered since it adoption. The
resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the
United Nations Charter and as such is non-binding with no mandatory enforceability, as
opposed to resolutions passed under Chapter VII.
 India does not accept the two-nation theory that forms the basis of Pakistan's claims and
considers that Kashmir, despite being a Muslim-majority state, is in many ways an
"integral part" of secular India.
 The state of Jammu and Kashmir was provided with significant autonomy under Article
370 of the Constitution of India.
 All differences between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir, need to be settled through
bilateral negotiations as agreed to by the two countries under the Simla Agreement signed
on 2 July 1972.
Additional Indian viewpoints regarding the broader debate over the Kashmir conflict include –
 In a diverse country like India, disaffection and discontent are not uncommon. Indian
democracy has the necessary resilience to accommodate genuine grievances within the
framework of India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The Government of India has
expressed its willingness to accommodate the legitimate political demands of the people
of the state of Kashmir.
 Insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is deliberately fuelled by Pakistan to create
instability in the region. The Government of India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of
waging a proxy war in Kashmir by providing weapons and financial assistance to terrorist
groups in the region.
 Pakistan is trying to raise anti-India sentiment among the people of Kashmir by spreading
false propaganda against India. According to the state government of Jammu and
Kashmir, Pakistani radio and television channels deliberately spread "hate and venom"
against India to alter Kashmiri opinion.
 India has asked the United Nations not to leave unchallenged or unaddressed the claims
of moral, political, and diplomatic support for terrorism, which were clearly in
contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. This is a Chapter VII
resolution that makes it mandatory for member states to not provide active or passive
support to terrorist organizations. Specifically, it has pointed out that the Pakistani
government continues to support various terrorist organizations, such as Jaish-e-
Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, in direct violation of this resolution.
 India points out reports by human rights organizations condemning Pakistan for the lack
of civil liberties in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. According to India, most regions of
Pakistani Kashmir, especially Northern Areas, continue to suffer from lack of political
recognition, economic development, and basic fundamental rights.

13. 12
 Karan Singh, the son of the last ruler of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, has
said that the Instrument of Accession signed by his father was the same as signed by
other states. He opined that Kashmir was therefore a part of India, and that its special
status granted by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution stemmed from the fact that it had
its own constitution.
According to a poll in an Indian newspaper Indians were keener to keep control of Kashmir than
Pakistanis. 67% of urban Indians want New Delhi to be in full control of Kashmir.
Michigan State University scholar Baljit Singh, interviewing Indian foreign policy experts in
1965, found that 77 percent of them favored discussions with Pakistan on all outstanding
problems including the Kashmir dispute. However, only 17 percent were supportive of holding a
plebiscite in Kashmir. The remaining 60 percent were pessimistic of a solution due to a distrust
of Pakistan or a perception of threats to India's internal institutions. They contended that India's
secularism was far from stable and the possibility of Kashmir separating from India or joining
Pakistan would endanger Hindu–Muslim relations in India.
In 2008, the death toll from the last 20 years was estimated by Indian authorities to be over
47,000.
PAKISTANI VIEW
Map of Kashmir as drawn by the
Government of Pakistan
Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is the "jugular vein of Pakistan" and a currently disputed
territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir. Pakistan's claims to
the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the
Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was
regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to
suppress the population.
Pakistan 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, which was signed between Pakistan and the Hindu ruler of Jammu
and Kashmir).
From 1990 to 1999, some organizations reported that the Indian Armed Forces, its paramilitary
groups, and counter-insurgent militias were responsible for the deaths of 4,501 Kashmiri
civilians. During the same period, there were records of 4,242 women between the ages of 7–70
being raped. Similar allegations were also made by some human rights organizations.

14. 13
In short, Pakistan holds that –
 The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish
to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that Kashmir either wants to be
with Pakistan or independent.
 According to the two-nation theory, one of the principles that is cited for the partition
that created India and Pakistan, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a
Muslim majority.
 India has shown disregard for the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the United
Nations Commission in India and Pakistan by failing to hold a plebiscite to determine the
future allegiance of the state.
 The reason for India's disregard of the resolutions of the UN Security Council was given
by India's Defense Minister, Kirshnan Menon, who said: "Kashmir would vote to join
Pakistan and no Indian Government responsible for agreeing to plebiscite would survive.''
 Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian
Army, because it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a hereditary ruler and was
merely a British appointee, after the British defeated Ranjit Singh who ruled the area
before the British conquest. Pakistan has noted the widespread use of extrajudicial
killings in Indian-administered Kashmir carried out by Indian security forces while
claiming they were caught up in encounters with militants. These encounters are
commonplace in Indian-administered Kashmir. The encounters go largely uninvestigated
by the authorities, and the perpetrators are spared criminal prosecution.
 Pakistan disputes claims by India with reference to the Simla Agreement that UN
resolutions on Kashmir have lost their relevance. It argues that legally and politically, UN
Resolutions cannot be superseded without the UN Security Council adopting a resolution
to that effect. It also maintains the Simla Agreement emphasized exploring a peaceful
bilateral outcome, without excluding the role of UN and other negotiations. This is based
on its interpretation of Article 1(i) stating "the principles and purposes of the Charter of
the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries".
Human rights organizations have strongly condemned Indian troops for widespread rape and
murder of innocent civilians while accusing these civilians of being militants.
 The Chenab formula was a compromise proposed in the 1960s, in which the Kashmir
valley and other Muslim-dominated areas north of the Chenab River would go to
Pakistan, and Jammu and other Hindu-dominated regions would go to India.
A poll by an Indian newspaper shows 48% of Pakistanis want Islamabad in full control of
Kashmir. 47% of Pakistanis support Kashmiri independence.
Former Pakistani president General Pervez Musharraf on 16 October 2014 said that Pakistan
needs to incite those fighting in Kashmir, "We have source (in Kashmir) besides the (Pakistan)

15. 14
army…People in Kashmir are fighting against (India). We just need to incite them," Musharraf
told a TV channel.
In 2015 Pakistan’s outgoing National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz said that Pakistan wished to
have third party mediation on Kashmir, but it was unlikely to happen unless by international
pressure. "Under Shimla Accord it was decided that India and Pakistan would resolve their
disputes bilaterally," Aziz said. "Such bilateral talks have not yielded any results for the last 40
years. So then what is the solution?"
CHINESE VIEW
China states that Aksai Chin is an integral part of China and does not recognize the inclusion of
Aksai Chin as part of the Kashmir region.
 China did not accept the boundaries of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, north of
Aksai Chin and the Karakoram as proposed by the British.
 China settled its border disputes with Pakistan under the 1963 Trans Karakoram Tract
with the provision that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the Kashmir
dispute.
KASHMIRI VIEWS
Scholar Andrew Whitehead states that Kashmiris view Kashmir as having been ruled by their
own in 1586. Since then, they believe, it has been ruled in succession by the Mughals, Afghans,
Sikhs, Dogras and, lately, the Indian government. Whitehead states that this is only partly true:
the Mughals lavished much affection and resources on Kashmir, the Dogras made Srinagar their
capital next only to their native Jammu city, and through much of the post-independence India,
Kashmiri Muslims headed the state government. Yet Kashmiris bear an 'acute sense of grievance'
that they were not in control of their own fate for centuries.
 A. G. Noorani, a constitutional expert, says the people of Kashmir are ‘very much’ a
party to the dispute.
 According to an opinion poll conducted by Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
in 2007, 87% of people in mainly Muslim Srinagar want independence, whereas 95% of
the people in the mainly Hindu Jammu city think the state should be part of India. The
Kashmir Valley is the only region of the former princely state where the majority of the
population is unhappy with its current status. The Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of
Ladakh are content under Indian administration. Muslims of Azad Kashmir and Northern
Areas are content under Pakistani administration. Kashmir Valley's Muslims want to
change their national status to independence.
 Scholar A.G. Noorani testifies that Kashmiris want a plebiscite to achieve freedom.
Zutshi states the people of Poonch and Gilgit may have had a chance to determine their
future but the Kashmiri was lost in the process.
 Since the 1947 accession of Kashmir was provisional and conditional on the wishes of
the people, Kashmiris' right to determine their future was recognized. Noorani notes that
state elections do not satisfy this requirement.
 Kashmiris assert that except for 1977 and 1983 elections, no state election has been fair.
According to scholar Sumantra Bose, India was determined to stop fair elections since
that would have meant that elections would be won by those unfriendly to India.

16. 15
 The Kashmiri people have still not been able to exercise the right to self-determination
and this was the conclusion of the International Commission of Jurists in 1994.
 Ayesha Pervez writes in The Hindu that high voter turnout in Kashmir cannot be
interpreted as a sign of acceptance of Indian rule. Voters vote due to varying factors such
as development, effective local governance and economy.
 The Hurriyat parties do not want to participate in elections under the framework of the
Indian Constitution. Elections held by India are seen as a diversion from the main issue of
self-determination.
 Kashmiri opponents to Indian rule maintain that India has stationed 600,000 Indian
troops in what is the highest ratio of troops to civilian density in the world.
 Kashmiri scholars say that India's military occupation inflicts violence and humiliation on
Kashmiris. Indian forces are responsible for human rights abuses and terror against the
local population and have killed tens of thousands of civilians. India's state forces have
used rape as a cultural weapon of war against Kashmiris and rape has extraordinarily high
incidence in Kashmir as compared to other conflict zones of the world. Militants are also
guilty of crimes but their crimes cannot be compared with the scale of abuses by Indian
forces for which justice is yet to be delivered.
 Kashmiri scholars say that India's reneging on promise of plebiscite, violations of
constitutional provisions of Kashmir's autonomy and subversion of the democratic
process led to the rebellion of 1989–1990.
 According to scholar Mridu Rai, the majority of Kashmiri Muslims believe they are
scarcely better off under Indian rule than the 101 years of Dogra rule.
 According to lawyer and human rights activist K. Balagopal, Kashmiris have a distinct
sense of identity and this identity is certainly not irreligious, as Islam is very much a part
of the identity that Kashmiris feel strongly for. He opined that, if only non-religious
identities deserve support, then no national self-determination movement can be
supported, because there is no national identity – at least in the Third World – devoid of
the religious dimension. Balagopal says that if India and Pakistan cannot guarantee
existence and peaceful development of independent Kashmir then Kashmiris may well
choose Pakistan because of religious affinity and social and economic links. But if both
can guarantee existence and peaceful development then most Kashmiris would prefer
independent Kashmir.
HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Human rights abuses in the Kashmir state are an ongoing issue. The abuses range from mass
killings, enforced disappearances, torture, rape and sexual abuse to political repression and
suppression of freedom of speech. The Indian Army, central reserve police force, border security
personnel and various separatist militant groups have been accused and held accountable for
committing severe human rights abuses against Kashmiri civilians. Crimes by militants are not
comparable with the larger scale of abuse by Indian state forces. Some rights groups say close to
100,000 people have died since 1989 but revised figures from Indian sources state the number of
civilians killed due to the Kashmiri insurgency has been estimated to range from 16,725 to
47,000 civilians while 3,642 civilians were killed by security forces. Statement by Jammu and
Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society is that 70,000 plus killings, 8000 plus forced disappearances,
mass torture and sexual violence, majority committed by Indian armed forces, has had zero
prosecution in civilian courts. India accuses the Pakistan Army for abusing human rights

17. 16
in Jammu and Kashmir by violating ceasefire and keep on killing Kashmiri civilians, a claim
which is totally rejected by Pakistan who blames Indian army for the violation of LoC.
In a 1993 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Indian security forces "assaulted civilians
during search operations, tortured and summarily executed detainees in custody and murdered
civilians in reprisal attacks"; according to the report, militants had also targeted civilians, but to a
lesser extent than security forces. Rape was regularly used as a means to "punish and humiliate"
communities. It is used as a weapon of war by the state against the population. A 2010 US state
department report stated that the Indian army in Jammu and Kashmir had carried
out extrajudicial killings of civilians and suspected insurgents. The report also described killings
and abuse being carried out by insurgents and separatists. In 2010, statistics presented to the
Indian government's Cabinet Committee on Security showed that for the first time since the
1980s, the number of civilian deaths attributed to the Indian forces was higher than those
attributed to terrorist actions. The Indian Army claims that 97% of the reports about the human
rights abuse have been found to be "fake or motivated" based on the investigation performed by
the Army. However, a report by the US State Department said, "Indian authorities use Armed
Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to avoid holding its security forces responsible for the
deaths of civilians in Jammu and Kashmir."
Militant violence led by Jammu Kashmir Liberation front has caused ethnic cleansing of several
hundred thousands of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits, who before their exodus comprised an estimated
3% of the Kashmir valley's population. According to Asia Watch, the militant organizations
forced the Hindus residing in the Kashmir valley to flee and become refugees in Delhi and
Jammu. There is controversy regarding whether Pandits left due to fear of violence or were
encouraged by the government to leave in order to undermine the support for militant
movements. It is claimed that Kashmiri militants have been assisted and supported by
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The chief perpetrators were the Jammu & Kashmir
Liberation Front and the Hizbul Mujahidin. Ethnic cleansing continued till a vast majority of
the Kashmiri Pandits were evicted out of the valley after having suffered many acts of violence,
including sexual assault on women, arson, torture and extortion of property. Some of the
separatist leaders in Kashmir reject these allegations. The Indian government is attempting to
reinstate the displaced Pandits in Kashmir. The remnants of Kashmiri Pandits have been living
in Jammu, but most of them believe that, until the violence ceases, returning to Kashmir is not an
option.
INDIAN ARMED FORCES
Thousands of Kashmiris have reported to be killed by Indian security forces in custody,
extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances and these human right violations are said to
be carried out by Indian security forces under total impunity. Civilians including women and
children have been killed in "reprisal" attacks by Indian security forces. International NGO's as
well as the US State Department have documented human rights abuses including
disappearances, torture and arbitrary executions carried out during India's counter terrorism
operations United Nations has expressed serious concerns over large number of killings by
Indian security forces. Human Rights groups have also accused the Indian security forces of
using child soldiers, although the Indian government denies this allegation. Torture, widely used

18. 17
by Indian security, the severity described as beyond comprehension by amnesty international has
been responsible for the huge number of deaths in custody The Telegraph, citing a Wiki Leaks
report quotes the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that Indian security forces
were physically abusing detainees by beatings, electrocutions and sexual interference. These
detainees weren't Islamic insurgents or Pakistani-backed insurgents but civilians, in contrast to
India's continual allegations of Pakistani involvement. The detainees were "connected to or
believed to have information about the insurgents". According to ICRC, 681 of the 1296
detainees whom it interviewed claimed torture. US officials have been quoted reporting
"terrorism investigations and court cases tend to rely upon confessions, many of which are
obtained under duress if not beatings, threats, or in some cases torture." Amnesty International
accused security forces of exploiting the Armed Forces Special Powers Act that enables them to
"hold prisoners without trial". The group argues that the law, which allows security to detain
individuals for as many as two years "without presenting charges, violating prisoners’ human
rights".
INDIAN ARMY
The soldiers of the 4th Rajputana Rifles of the Indian Army on 23 February 1991 launched a
search operation in a village Kunan Poshpora, in the Kupwara district of Jammu and Kashmir
and allegedly gang raped 53 women of all ages. Later on an interview of victims and
eyewitnesses was documented into a short film Ocean of Tears which was prevented from its
broadcast. Nevertheless, the Indian committee that led a thorough investigation concluded that
the allegations were "grossly exaggerated" and the incident was "a massive hoax orchestrated by
militant groups and their sympathizers and mentors in Kashmir and abroad as a part of
sustained and cleverly contrived strategy of psychological warfare and as an entry point for rein
scribing Kashmir on the International Agenda as a Human rights issue." However, Human
Rights organizations including Human Rights Watch have reported that the number of raped
women could be as high as 80 The Indian Army is also accused of many massacres such
as Bomai Killing, 2009, Gawakadal massacre, 2006 Kulgam massacre, Zakoora And Tengpora
Massacre, 1990, Sopore massacre. They also didn‘t spared the health care system of the valley.
The major hospitals witnessed the crackdowns and army men even entered the operation theatres
in search of terrorist patients.
BORDER SECURITY FORCE
On 22 October 1993, the 13th Battalion of the Border Security Forces was accused of arbitrarily
firing on a crowd and killing 37 civilians in Bijbehara The number of reported dead and
wounded vary by source. Amnesty International reported that at least 51 people died and 200
were wounded on that day.
The Indian government conducted two official enquiries and the National Human Rights
Commission of India (NHRC) conducted a third. In March 1994 the government indicted the
Border Security Force (BSF) for firing into the crowd "without provocation" and charged 13
BSF officers with murder. In another incident which took place at Handwara on 25 January
1990, 9 protesters were killed by the same unit.
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
During the Amarnath land transfer controversy more than 40 unarmed protesters were killed by
the personals of Central Reserve Police Force. At least 300 were detained under Public Safety

19. 18
Act, including teenagers. The same practice was again repeated by the personals of the Central
Reserve Police Force, during the 2010 Kashmir Unrest, which resulted in 112 deaths, including
many teenager protesters at various incidents.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP
The Special Operations Group was raised in 1994 for counter terrorism. A volunteer force
mainly came for promotions and cash rewards, comprising police officers and policemen from
the Jammu and Kashmir Police. The group is accused of torture and custodial killings. A Senior
Superintendent of this group and his deputy are among the 11 personals, who were convicted for
a fake encounter, which killed a local carpenter, and was labeled as a militant to get the
promotions and rewards.
ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL POWERS) ACT, 1958
In July 1990 Indian Armed Forces were given special powers under an Armed Forces (Special
Powers) Act (AFSPA) that gives protection to Indian Armed Forces personnel from being
prosecuted. The law provides them a shield, when committing human rights violations and has
been criticized by Human Rights Watch as being wrongly used by the forces. This law is widely
condemned by human rights groups. United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights Navanethem Pillay has urged India to repeal AFSPA and to investigate the
disappearances in Kashmir.
In the recent revelations on 24, September 2013 made by the former Indian army chief General
V. K. Singh said that, the state politicians of Jammu and Kashmir are being funded by the army
secret service to keep the general public at calm and this activity is there since the partition. He
also stated that the secret service paid a bribe to a politician to topple the state government which
was pushing for AFSPA repeal.
According to the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), in an area that is proclaimed as
"disturbed", an officer of the armed forces has powers to:
Fire upon or use other kinds of force even if it causes death, against the person who is acting
against law or order in the disturbed area for the maintenance of public order, after giving such
due warning.
Destroy any arms dump, prepared or fortified position or shelter or training camp from which
armed attacks are made by the armed volunteers or armed gangs or absconders wanted for any
offence
To arrest without a warrant anyone who has committed cognizable offences or is reasonably
suspected of having done so and may use force if needed for the arrest.
To enter and search any premise in order to make such arrests, or to recover any person
wrongfully restrained or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances and seize it.
Stop and search any vehicle or vessel reasonably suspected to be carrying such person or
weapons.
Any person arrested and taken into custody under this Act shall be made over to the officer in
charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the
circumstances occasioning the arrest.
Army officers have legal immunity for their actions. There can be no prosecution, suit or any
other legal proceeding against anyone acting under that law. Nor is the government's judgment
on why an area is found to be disturbed subject to judicial review.

20. 19
Protection of persons acting in good faith under this Act from prosecution, suit or other legal
proceedings, except with the sanction of the Central Government, in exercise of the powers
conferred by this Act.
FAKE ENCOUNTERS
Hundreds of civilian's including women and children have been reported to be extrajudicial
executed by Indian security forces and killings concealed as fake encounters. Despite
government denial, Indian security officials have reportedly confessed to human right watch of
widespread occurrence of fake encounters and its encouragement for awards and promotions.
According to a BBC interview with an anonymous security person, 'fake encounter' killings are
those in which security personnel kill someone in cold blood while claiming that the casualty
occurred in a gun battle. It also asserts that the security personnel are Kashmiris and "even
surrendered militants". In 2010 three men were reported missing proceeding these missing
reports 3 men claimed to be militants were killed in a staged gun battle the army also claimed
they had found Pakistani currency among the dead. The major was subsequently suspended and a
senior soldier transferred from his post. In 2011, a Special Police Officer and an Indian
Army Jawan were charged by the Kashmir police for murder of a civilian whom the duo had
killed in an encounter claiming that he was a topLashkar-e-Taiba militant.
DISAPPEARANCES
Indian security forces have been implicated in many reports for enforced disappearances of
thousands of Kashmiris where the security forces deny having their information and/or custody.
This is often in association with torture or extrajudicial killing. The number of men disappeared
have been so many to have a new term "half-widows" for their wives who end up impoverished.
Human right activists estimate the number of disappeared over eight thousand, last seen in
government detention. These are believed to be dumped in thousands of mass graves across
Kashmir
MASS GRAVES
Mass graves have been identified all over Kashmir by human right activists believed to contain
bodies of thousands of Kashmiris of enforced disappearances. A state human rights commission
inquiry confirmed there are thousands of bullet-ridden bodies buried in unmarked graves in
Jammu and Kashmir. Of the 2730 bodies uncovered in 4 of the 14 districts, 574 bodies were
identified as missing locals in contrast to the Indian government’s insistence that all the graves
belong to foreign militants According to a new deposition submitted by Parvez Imroz and his
field workers asserted that the total number of unmarked graves were about 6,000. The British
parliament commented on the recent discovery and expressed its sadness and regret of over
6,000 unmarked graves Christof Heyns, a special reporter on extrajudicial executions, has
warned India that “all of these draconian laws had no place in a functioning democracy and
should be scrapped.”
EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS BY SECURITY PERSONNEL
In a 1994 report, Human Rights Watch described summary executions of detainees as a
"hallmark" of counter-insurgency operations by Indian security forces in Kashmir. The report
further stated that such extrajudicial killings were often administered within hours of arrest, and
were carried out not as aberrations but as a "matter of policy". In a 1995 report, Amnesty

21. 20
International stated that hundreds of civilians had been victims of such killings, which were often
claimed by officers as occurring during "encounters" or "cross-fire". A 2010 US state department
report cited extrajudicial killings by security forces in areas of conflict such as Kashmir as a
major human rights problem in India.
TORTURE AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Indian security forces and police have been accused of the systematic use of torture. US officials
first showed concern regarding the widespread use of torture in 2007 where they presented
evidence to Indian diplomats. Human rights groups state that 150 top officers have participated
in torture as well as sexual violence and that the Indian government was covering up such
acts. According to Khurram Parvez, coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil
Society, there are 7,000 recorded cases of sexual violence since 1990. Omar Abdullah admitted
to registering more than 5000 rape cases since 1989 and the government says 1,326 rape cases
have been registered since 2006.
SUICIDE
According to a report, 17,000 people, mostly women, have committed suicide during the last 20
years in the Valley. According to a study by the Medecins Sans Frontieres,
“Women in Kashmir have suffered enormously since the separatist struggle became violent in
1989–90. Like the women in other conflict zones, they have been raped, tortured, maimed and
killed. A few of them were even jailed for years together. Kashmiri women are among the worst
sufferers of sexual violence in the world. ‘Sexual violence has been routinely perpetrated on
Kashmiri women, with 11.6% of respondents saying they were victims of sexual abuse’,”
At the beginning of the insurgency there were 1200 patients in the valley‘s sole mental hospital.
The hospital is now overcrowded with more than 100,000 patients
KASHMIRI INSURGENTS
Reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of
Jurists have confirmed Indian reports of systematic human rights violations by militants which
claim Jammu and Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF)
has also been blamed of carrying out human rights violations, ranging from kidnapping to ethnic
cleansing of several hundred thousand Hindu Kashmiri Pandits. A 2010 US state department
report blamed separatist insurgents in Kashmir and other parts of the country of committing
several serious abuses, including the killing of security personnel as well as civilians, and of
engaging in widespread torture, rape, beheadings, kidnapping, and extortion.
In August 2000, militant groups killed 30 Hindu pilgrims in what became known as the 2000
Amarnath pilgrimage massacre. The Indian government blamed the Lashkar-e-Taiba for the
killings. The BBC writes that "hundreds of Hindu labourers ha[d] been leaving the Kashmir
Valley" in August 2000 due to targeted killings against Hindu workers.
The rapes by Islamic militants have been reported since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. On 22
October 1947, Pashtun militants invaded Baramulla in a Pakistan army truck, and raped women
including European nuns. In March 1990, Mrs. M. N. Paul, the wife of a BSF inspector was
kidnapped, tortured and gang-raped for many days. Then her body with broken limbs was
abandoned on a road.
On April 14, 1990, Sarla Bhat (27), a Kashmiri Pandit nurse from the Soura Medical College
Hospital in Srinagar was gang-raped and then beaten to death by Islamic terrorists. Jammu

22. 21
Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) took responsibility for the crime, accusing Bhat of informing
the police about the presence of militants in the hospital.
On 6 June 1990, Girija Tickoo, a lab assistant at the Government Girls High School Trehgam,
was kidnapped and gang raped for many days. Then she was sliced at asawmill.
Prana Ganjoo was abducted with her husband in Sopore. She was gang-raped for a number of
days before the both were killed in November 1990.
Since 1991, reports of rape by Islamic miltants have increased, and there have been many cases
of the militants threatening to kill the family unless a woman is handed over to the militants.
According to the HRW, the rape victims of militants suffer ostracism and there is a "code of
silence and fear" that prevents people from reporting such abuse. According to the HRW, the
investigation of case of rape by militants is difficult because many Kashmiris are reluctant to
discuss it for the fear of violent reprisals.
The increase in number of rape cases has resulted in an increased number of abortions, leading to
one case of murder of doctor. The doctor was accused of being an informer by the Islamic groups
Hezb-ul Mujahidin and Al Jehad. In January 1991, Zarifa, daughter of Mohammed Sultan was
forcibly asked to "marry" a militant. Her brother Bashir Ahmed was killed when the family
refused, and the girl was taken away.
On 30 March 1992, armed militants demanded food and shelter from the family of the retired
truck driver Sohanlal (60) in Nai Sadak, Kralkhud. The family complied, but the militants raped
Sohanlal's daughter Archana. When he and his wife tried to stop them, Sohanlal was shot dead.
His elderly wife was also raped. Then both the women were also shot dead.
There have been many cases of militants raping the young girls by forcing them into temporary
marriages (mutah in Islamic law) – these ceremonies are called "command marriages". Shamima
Ansari was forced to marry a Hizb-ul-Mujahideen commander Farooq Ansari in Kishtwar in
2000. In 2005, a 14-year-old Gujjar girl Roubia Kousar was abducted from Lurkoti village by the
Lashkar-e-Taiba militants, and forced to marry one of them. She was gang-raped by her
"husband" and his militant friends. In December 2005, 15-year-old Zaitoon Bano of Bajoni
(Doda district) was forced to marry a Hizb-ul-Mujahideenmilitant Nazir Ahmed, after her family
was threatened with death. In 2009, a cleric Mohmmad Farooq was arrested for raping a 12-year-
old girl in Poonch district.
Many civilians have been killed due to the insurgency beginning from its outbreak in 1989. The
number of civilians killed due to the Kashmiri insurgency has been estimated to range from
16,725 to 47,000 civilians.
PARTIES INVOLVED IN KASHMIR CONFLICT
UNITED NATIONS
UNCIP (United Nations Commission for India & Pakistan)

23. 22
Established upon the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 39 (1948), the
United Nations Commission for India & Pakistan (UNCIP) served as the first international
meditative measure for this dispute. Both parties initially objected to the mission and mandate of
the UNCIP, thus it was amended and enacted with United Nations Security Council Resolution
47 (1948). In the amended statement, the UNCIP recognizes strict
Principles of impartiality, and reiterates its mandate as a non--‐interception based force. The goal
of the UNCIP is to assist the conflicted nations, specifically India and Pakistan in reaching an
accord over the disputed state. The UNCIP conducts decisions through adopting resolutions.1
The members of the UNCIP first arrived in the region on July 7th, 1948 with the consent of both
parties. The ceasefire between India and Pakistan on January 1st, 1949 was proposed
In the resolution unanimously adopted on November 9th, 1948 by the UNCIP. Part III of the
resolution is as follows:
“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the
future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with
the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both
Governments agree to enterinto consultations with the Commission to determine fair and
equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.”
The commission branched out to further create the United Nations Military Observer Group in
India & Pakistan.
UNMOGIP (United Nations Military Observer Group in India &Pakistan)
The United Nations Military Observer Group in India & Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was formed to
serve the UNCIP in finding preventative and mitigating measures in the region. The full mandate
of the UNMOGIP also encompassed investigating, reporting, and resolving the dispute,
especially through the usage of observers, as well as assisting the Military Adviser to the
UNCIP. The first unofficial mission was embarked upon in January 1949 with the first team of
unarmed military observers supervising the mission area of Kashmir and Jammu.2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
USA happened to become the third party in this regional conflict owing to its dialogue with India on the
Sino- Indian border issues. Prior to the active conflict, the Indian government was working on bettering
its relations with United States to create a positive opinion on India in United States, as it was planning on
further strengthening its relations with US, while also asking for several forms of aids from US in order to
gain an upper hand in the border dispute with China. The United States government negatively to the
pleas of Indian government when India requested several troops and armaments too help support India’s
offensive against China.i
Then afterwards, Indian government turned to Soviet Union for help, which the
Soviet Union did provide after US rejected India’s request.
Despite its passive stance, the United States clearly voiced its opinion regarding the border
dispute by stating that China’s acts were “a blatant projection of aggressive Chinese

24. 23
communism” and were signs of Chinese hostility. Yet, the United States also stands firmly by
the idea that any large--‐scale Chinese military aggression or intervention necessitates a nuclear
weapon--‐based intervention by the United States.
BRITISH EMPIRE
Before the partition, India and Pakistan were directed by East India Company. Following the
partition of India and Pakistan, the United Kingdom continued to play a significant role in the
region in multiple aspects.
First and foremost, UK provided consultancy on the issues of unification, partition, alliance, and
independence of many states in the sub- continent. Some high ranking British officials also opted
to stay in the region. These British officials worked either in government of army branches or
were directly involved in trying to find a way to resolve Kashmir Conflict.
Currently, the United Kingdom maintains a relatively distanced approach to the issue, following
the discharge of the East India Company in the area. After the first Indo-Pakistan War, there is
yet to be any direct form of contact or initiation by the United Kingdom towards neither India
nor Pakistan.
USSR
Currently the Soviet Union maintains a state of neutrality on the issue between India and
Pakistan, and has not carried out any other actions following the military aid gift to
India.
INDIA LOSING IN KASHMIR
During a November 2014 visit to Kashmir, discussions with locals revealed that Kashmiris point
to the Indian government’s policies for the resurgence in violence. Many were of the opinion that
India has not been honest in resolving the political problem of Kashmir. “India asked us to give
up arms and come to the table, and we did it. What happened next? Nothing,” said one Kashmiri.
“When the situation in Kashmir was bad during the ‘90s, India repeatedly said that dialogue is
the way forward to the Kashmir problem and not violence. And now that India has strengthened
its hold here, they say there is no political problem at all,” said another.
People usually point to civilian uprisings in 2008, 2009, and 2010 as the major turning points.
Local disgruntlement towards India intensified among the general public after hundreds of
civilian youths were killed during these protests. India could have done some damage control by
punishing the cops involved in shooting at the unarmed protesters and by following
the recommendations of a government-appointed panel. Instead, the government chose to
disregard the recommendations and continued to insist that Kashmir was an “internal issue.”
India’s policies of curbing political space for Kashmiris by keeping the massively popular
Hurriyat leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Shabir Shah and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq under
constant and repeated detention has further damaged its reputation with the local population. In

25. 24
September 2015, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) had invited Geelani to its
annual meeting of foreign ministers in New York – India responded by suspending his passport
for four weeks out of concerns that he would have raised the Kashmir issue.
India has repeatedly used the Public Safety Act (PSA) – deemed “a lawless law” by Amnesty
International – to detain Kashmiri political leaders like Masrat Alam, who, on Dec. 31, 2015,
was arrested for the 31st time under the law. The detention came immediately after Alam’s
release from jail following a High Court order overturning his earlier detention under the same
law. In 2015 alone, 634 people, of whom 231 were students and 17 were minors,
were arrested for anti-India demonstrations in Kashmir. The demolition of the offices of the
Kashmir University Students Union, the imposition of a ban on student politics, and the
repeated clampdown on internet and mobile SMS services have alienated Kashmiri youths in
particular.
While the Vajpayee government welcomed any opportunities for dialogue –
even allowing separatist Hurriyat leaders to hold talks with Pakistan – the current Modi
government has taken a different approach. Modi has prohibited the Hurriyat leaders from
meeting with Pakistani officials, citing the prohibition as a pre-condition for talks with Pakistan.
This resulted in the cancellation of a meeting between the national security advisers of the two
countries after Pakistan rejected the pre-condition. To many Kashmiris, India’s insistence on this
pre-condition seemed to embody an effort to deny them a voice in the dispute. The repeated calls
by various civil society and human rights groups for the repeal of draconian laws such as
the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) – which gives sweeping impunity to the armed
forces of India operating in Kashmir – have been met with a cold shoulder, as the Indian army
has staunchly opposed any attempts to repeal it.
At a time when the Islamic State is threatening to expand into Kashmir – even though it
has found no buyers there for its message, thus far – there still remains a chance that the angry
and agitated people who turn out in huge numbers at militant funerals could fall prey to its
propaganda in order to fight the Indian establishment. For India to end this long quagmire of
armed conflict with Kashmiris, it must shift away from its current policy and allow political
space for Kashmiris. It should repeal its draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers)
Act and the Public Safety Act and punish soldiers involved in human rights violations. And,
finally, India should work with Kashmiris and Pakistan alike to reach a viable solution so that
peace may prevail. But until India realizes the damage it has done, the streets of Kashmir will
reverberate with chants in support of its supposed martyrs, much like they did during the funeral
procession of Abu Qasim.
CONCLUSION
Currently, India and Pakistan are in a stand‐off state regarding Kashmir. Both nations maintain
their respective parts of Kashmir on either side of the Ceasefire Line. While the

26. 25
Azad Army is recuperating and attempting to incite unrest amongst citizens, India is further
militarizing the Kashmir region, especially areas close to the Ceasefire Line, while also working
to integrate Kashmir into the Indian rule and lifestyle. It can be said that both nations are
currently in a state of extremely alert tranquility.
With tensions still high in the region, the future of the regions face great risks. Conflicts have
reigned the region, including countless wars and deaths, spanning from the partition period.
Though many attempts at peace have been made, the best results yielded stalemate.
A review of previous attempts include international interventions, binding resolutions passed by
the Security Council, bilateral talks, unilateral actions, demilitarization, and so forth.
The solution lies in the independence of Jammu and Kashmir. This would result in the retraction
of the claims of both Pakistan and India on the region as a whole. Within this, all military
personnel, political and economic claims would also be lifted. The state would also be
internationally recognized, locally represented, and run. In regards to this aspect, economic
independence, unbiased state representation and citizens with conflicting identities must be
established.

27. 26
REFERENCES
 https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/.../The_Kashmir_Conflict_A_Kashmiri_Perspective.pdf.
 www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._6;_June_2011/21.pdf
 www.ndu.edu.pk/issra/issra_pub/articles/.../07-Legal-Perspective-of-Kashmir.pdf
 https://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/kashmir/conflict
 www.telegraph.co.uk
 https://www.thoughtco.com
 thediplomat.com/2016/09/kashmirs-problems-need-a-political-solution