NUMUN XIV • 2
Introduction
The UN, and within it SPECPOL, was created in 1943. Four years later, India and Pakistan’s
independence became one of the first issues that SPECPOL was tasked with resolving. The conflict
on the Indian subcontinent is of particular interest to SPECPOL, because it is both a special political
issue, as well as continuing issue of decolonization. India and Pakistan’s disputes largely stem from
Britain’s hasty abandonment of their largest colony, leaving competing groups in both India and
Pakistan to fend for themselves.
One of the key components of this battle is territorial. Although the British Empire did
officially draw a line of demarcation between the two new nations, it was done very haphazardly.
Millions of Muslims lived outside the borders of Pakistan, and millions of Hindus and Sikhs lived
outside of India. The result was a period of massive population migration that devastated
communities, and created tension between the two states that persists to this day. Due to these
anomalies of population distribution, there are places where the line is disputed, and both India and
Pakistan lay claim to a piece land. Kashmir, over which the two nations have fought wars, remains
the most hotly contested territory between the two.
The stakes are raised in this conflict because India and Pakistan are both nuclear capable
nations. Their ongoing military disputes represent the only times two nuclear powers have engaged
each other in open combat. Although SPECPOL does not deal directly with nuclear arms, the
committee will have to keep in mind the potential fallout if relations between the two go south.
Background
The conflict between India and Pakistan erupted during the British decolonization of India
in August 1947 and is rooted in territorial, cultural, and religious differences between the two
nations. After Britain left the subcontinent, it was split into two states: India and Pakistan. India
NUMUN XIV • 3
became a primarily Hindu, secular state, while Pakistan was comprised of the provinces with a
Muslim majority, which led to riots and mass populations movements of religious groups between
the border. Jammu and Kashmir are two culturally distinct regions between the two states that were
led by a Maharaja (ruler) who was given the option to join either India or Pakistan after Britain’s
decolonization.1
However, the Maharaja hadn’t made a decision by the time Pakistan invaded Jammu and
Kashmir in October 1947. This surprise attack forced the Maharaja to accede power and defense of
the territory to India, which Pakistan rejected. In May of 1948, the Pakistani army was called to
protect Pakistan’s borders, leading to increased combat and tension among this region. The conflict
ended on January 1, 1949 because of a ceasefire collaborated by the United Nations Commission for
India and Pakistan (UNCIP), which called for a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir regarding which
nation they would join.2 This referendum was never held. Pakistanis felt they deserved claim of
Jammu-Kashmir because the majority of the population was Muslim, while India believed they
should have been given the territory because the ruler ultimately decided to give it to them.
The ceasefire created a ceasefire line, commonly referred to as the “Line of Control.” This
gave Pakistan control of 1/3 of the region: the smaller portion was semi-autonomous and the larger
region in the north was under Pakistan’s total control. In 1954, India ratified the accession of its
2/3 of Jammu and Kashmir, creating a constitution for the territory that modeled that of India.
In 1962, with the support of Britain and the US, the two nations attempted to resolve their
differences and fail. Three years later, a dispute erupted over the Rann of Kutch, a scarcely
populated region on the border between the two countries. India eventually withdrew, prompting
Pakistan to gain victory. Conflict rose up again when Pakistan invaded Jammu and Kashmir, so
1. BBC. "India-Pakistan: Troubled Relations." BBC NEWS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1947_48.stm.
2. The United Nations. "UNMOGIP Background." UNMOGIP (United Nations Military Observer
Group in India and Pakistan). http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/background.shtml.
NUMUN XIV • 4
India invaded Lahore as retaliation. Once again, the UN arranged a ceasefire after about three
weeks and the two countries met up in 1966 and agreed to resolve conflicts peacefully.
Peace lasted until the 1971 civil war between East Pakistan, who wanted autonomy, and
West Pakistan. 10 million Pakistanis fled to India, and East Pakistan became Bangladesh. Then, the
government in Kashmir agreed to be a constituent of the Indian nation in 1974, which Pakistan
rejected. 15 years later, Kashmir began to use armed resistance against the Indian government due
to an election that was believed to be rigged against Muslim political parties. Pakistan supported this
resistance, calling for a resolution via the previously proposed UN-sponsored referendum.1
Finally, in 1996, there was a widescale diplomatic push for peace through small meetings that
were held to reduce tensions between Jammu and Kashmir. This new development was interrupted
by a nuclear arms race in 1998 when both nations conducted nuclear tests. The US and other
European nations immediately placed sanctions on both countries, prompting them to reach
another accord to reduce tensions and lift sanctions. The Kargil Conflict took place in 1999, when
Pakistan again invaded Kashmir, which led to by air strikes from India. These actions caused direct
military conflict between the two states and a military coup in Pakistan by General Musharraf.3 To
this day, there continues to be tension over the Line of Control and Jammu and Kashmir.
Current Situation
Kashmir Border Conflict
Currently, India controls the southeastern part of Kashmir, known as Jammu and Kashmir,
which makes up approximately 45% of the territory. Pakistan controls the three areas known as
Azad Kashmir, Gilgit, and Baltistan, which make up about 35% of the territory. The last 20% of
3BBC.
"India-Pakistan: Troubled Relations." BBC NEWS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1947_48.stm NUMUN XIV • 5
Kashmir, known as Aksai Chin, is controlled by China. Though a line of control separates the areas
controlled by Pakistan and India, each country still seeks possession the Kashmir region in its
entirety.4 In addition to political borders, Kashmir is also divided along ethnic and religious lines.
The majority of Kashmir’s population is Muslim, with 99% of the inhabitants of Azad Kashmir
practicing Islam. In Jammu, however, 67% percent of the inhabitants practice Hinduism. In the
southwestern portion of Kashmir, known as Ladakhi, most inhabitants are Buddhist.5
6
India maintains that Jammu and Kashmir legally chose to become part of India in 1948, and
that India’s ownership of this state cannot be disputed. Additionally, India believes that Pakistan
should relinquish all control of Kashmir, as India sees this as illegal occupation7. Pakistan, however,
believes that Kashmir is disputed territory, because the decision to become part of India was made
under extreme duress. Though Pakistan urges India to comply with the resolution issued by the
4. “Kashmir Fast Facts” CNN News, accessed October 19th, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/world/kashmir-fast-facts/
5. “Kashmir Region” New World Encyclopedia, accessed October 20th, 2016
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kashmir_Region#Religion
6. “Kashmir Maps” University of Texas Libraries, accessed October 19th, 2016
https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir_disputed_2003.jpg
7. “A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir: Indian Position” Embassy of India, Washington D.C.,
accessed on October 19th, 2016 http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_files/Indian_Position.html NUMUN XIV • 6
United Nations Security Council in 1948, which states that the people should hold a direct vote as to
which state they wish to permanently join, India has not yet cooperated.8 Instead, India asserts that
holding a direct vote is not necessary because the Kashmiri people already participate in Indian
elections, and have therefore proven themselves an integral part of the nation.9
Although peace talks have resumed since the terror attacks in 2008,10 the Kashmir region is
by no means stable. The line of control is one of the most heavily militarized borders in the world; it
is continuously marred by violence from both sides. As recent as September of 2016, violence
erupted in the Kashmir Valley after the death of militant leader Burhan Muzaffar, a Muslim who
protested Indian control of the Kashmir Valley. Despite India’s government labelling Wani as a
terrorist, many Muslim separatists in the Kashmir Valley saw him as a hero for their cause. The
protests that have been occurring after his death are some of the most violent Kashmir has seen in
years.11 India accuses Pakistan of sponsoring terrorist activities to destabilize the Kashmir region,12
yet Pakistan owes Kashmir’s unstable climate to human rights violations by the Indian military.13
The question of how Kashmir should be divided persists as strongly today as it has for
decades. Out of the many solutions proposed by different parties, not one has been found
satisfactory by both India and Pakistan. One solution accepted by India, the United States, and the
United Kingdom is making the line of control the permanent border, with a few minor adjustments.
Though India is willing to let Pakistan keep the land it already controls for the sake of this solution,
Pakistan is unwilling to accept that the Kashmir Valley, which has a population made up of 95%
Muslims, would be part of India. Another solution, more favorable to Pakistan, is that the entire
8. “Kashmir Dispute: Background” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, accessed on October
19th, 2016 http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_files/Pak_position.htm
9. “A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir: Indian Position”
10. “Kashmir Fast Facts”
11. “Why the death of militant Burhan Wani has Kashmiris up in arms” BBC News, accessed on October 20th,
2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36762043
12. “A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir: Indian Position”
13. “Kashmir Dispute: Background”
NUMUN XIV • 7
Kashmir region would join Pakistan through a direct vote, due to its majority Muslim population.
This however, would both disregard movements for Kashmiri independence, and the considerable
population of Buddhists and Hindus living in Kashmir, who have not shown any desire to become
part of Pakistan. Using this same logic, Muslim inhabitants of Kashmir also resist solutions that
involve the region completely joining India. Other solutions involve all or parts of Kashmir
becoming independent, which would involve both Pakistan and India giving up territory, something
that both nations are very resistant to doing. Additional concerns include the economic viability of
an independent Kashmir, and the political representation of those who wish to remain part of either
India or Pakistan.14
The Nuclear Issue
Another key facet of the current conflict between India and Pakistan lies in the nuclear
arsenals of the two nations; never before have two countries been poised so precariously at the brink
of nuclear war. The two nuclear powers have come dangerously close to unleashing their weapons
against each other on several occasions in recent years. In response to these flares in hostilities
between the countries, India has enacted a “no first use” policy, pledging never to offensively initiate
use of nuclear weapons against another nation.15 Despite ongoing pressure from the international
community, Pakistan has not adopted a “no first use” platform, instead holding a policy of “no first
attack,” indicating that, although unwilling to push any nuclear offensive, Pakistan is willing to
respond to any threat with nuclear force should the Pakistani government deem it necessary.16
14. “The Future of Kashmir?” BBC News, accessed on October 20th, 2016
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/
15. "Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine." Indianembassy.org.
Embassy of India, 17 Aug. 1999. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_1999.html
16. "Pakistan." Nti.org. Nuclear Threat Initiative, 2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/pakistan/nuclear/ NUMUN XIV • 8
Despite repeated claims from both nations that—in part due to their “no first use” and “no
first attack” policies—nuclear weapons are only intended as a deterrent, the threat of nuclear war
between the two nations remains a pivotal concern for the global community. The detonation of
nuclear weapons in the Indo-Pakistani region threatens the lives of millions of people, and
surrounding nations—most notably the nuclear weapon-wielding China—are only likely to escalate
the conflict in the face of full blown nuclear war. 1718 Furthermore, neither India nor Pakistan has the
infrastructural development necessary to fully respond to the fallout of nuclear weapon use; the
fallout of any nuclear conflict would kill huge numbers of people.
In recent years, the conflict between India and Pakistan has fluctuated through various
stages of instability. Through the early 21st century, India aggressively annexed Pakistani land via the
“Cold Start” doctrine, taking over small amounts of Pakistani-owned land along the India-Pakistan
border, but never threatening enough to evoke a nuclear response.19 This policy served to further the
nuclear arms race between nations, with Pakistan amassing a significant number of “battlefield
nukes,” short-range nuclear missiles designed to serve as a deterrent against further Cold Start
initiatives by India.20 While these weapons served to limit Indian territorial acquisitions in 2013, their
existence only furthers the likelihood of an eventual nuclear conflict.
Border skirmishes along the disputed Kashmir territory also carry with them the threat of
nuclear response. Minor disputes from 2011 through 2015 heightened tensions between the two
nations, and each successive conflict only escalated the possibility of nuclear weapon use. In 2014,
17. Palash Gosh, "India-Pakistan Nuclear War Could Kill 2 Billion." Ibtimes.com. International Business Times,
12 Dec. 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. http://www.ibtimes.com/india-pakistan-nuclear-war-would-kill-2-billion-people-endcivilization-report-1503604
18. Dilip Hiro, "Where Local Conflict Could Have Nuclear Consequences." Thenation.com. The Nation, 04 Apr.
2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. https://www.thenation.com/article/where-local-conflict-could-have-nuclear-consequences/
19. Walter C.III Ladwig, "A Cold Start for Hot Wars? The Indian Army's New Limited War Doctrine."
Http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Winter 2007. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17972/cold_start_for_hot_wars_the_indian_armys_new_limited_war_
doctrine.html
20 "Pakistan and the Nasr Missile." Indian Defence News. N.p., 29 Sept. 2015. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2015/09/pakistan-and-nasr-missile.html NUMUN XIV • 9
Sartaj Aziz, Pakistani Advisor to the Prime Minister penned a letter to United Nations SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon, highlighting India’s aggressive advances along the Kashmir boundary. 21
Unfortunately, the note and corresponding discussion in the United Nations only served to further
destabilize the situation, and the looming threat of nuclear war dominated the uneasy truces of this
period.22
As of 2016, the conflict seems to again be poised to erupt. Both India and Pakistan are
armed with vast arsenals of nuclear weapons, and skirmishes across Kashmir in September of 2016
have left both nations in heightened states of alert.23 The situation does not seem on track for a
peaceful resolution; Pakistan has expressly stated its willingness to engage in a “forceful response” to
any act of Indian aggression, and India has declared that it will take action against any Pakistani
assaults. 24 Furthermore, in response to the September skirmishes, Pakistani Defense Minister
Khawaja Asif noted that “[Pakistan had] not made an atomic device to display in a showcase,”
making overtly clear the possibility of true nuclear conflict.25 As of October 2016, both nations are
locked in a deadly spiral of conflict, with the possibility of nuclear war looming just overhead.26
21. "LoC Violations: Pakistan Writes Letter to UNSG Ban Ki-moon." Indiablooms.com. India Blooms News
Service, Oct. 2014. Web. 22 Oct. 2016, http://indiablooms.com/ibns_new/news-details/N/4915/loc-violationspakistan-writes-letter-to-unsg-ban-ki-moon.html
22. "No Let Up In India-Pak Hostilities On LOC." Thecitizen.in. The Citizen: India's 1st Independent Online
Daily, 7 Sept. 2015. Web. 22 Oct. 2016, http://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/OldNewsPage/?Id=5048
23. Sophia Saifi, Huizhong Wu, and Ben Westcott, "Kashmir: Pakistan Calls Emergency Meeting amid
'deteriorating Situation,'" CNN, 30 Sept. 2016, accessed October 20, 2016
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/29/homepage2/kashmir-pakistani-soliders-killed-india-surgical-strikes/index.html
24. Tom Batchelor, "Pakistan Threatens India With Nuclear War." Http://www.express.co.uk. Sunday Express, 29
Sept. 2016, accessed 22 Oct. 2016, http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715838/Pakistan-threatens-India-nuclearwar-Kashmir-dispute-heightens-tensions
25. Sarah Dean, "'We Have Not Made an Atomic Device to Display in a Showcase': Pakistan Threatens to
Destroy India with a Nuclear Bomb as Kashmir Crisis Edges Closer to the Brink," Mail Online, Associated Newspapers,
30 Sept. 2016, accessed Oct. 2016, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3815272/We-not-atomic-device-displayshowcase-Pakistan-threatens-destroy-India-nuclear-bomb-Kashmir-crisis-edges-closer-brink.html
26. Abheet Singh Sethi,"The Global Cost of India-Pakistan Nuclear War," Indiaspend.com, Business-Standard, 30
Sept. 2016, accessed 22 Oct. 2016, http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/the-global-cost-of-indiapakistan-nuclear-war-116092900377_1.html NUMUN XIV • 10
Bloc Positions
NATO-Aligned Bloc
Although Pakistan is not a NATO nation, it has a long history of receiving political support
from the United States in exchange for giving military support to NATO’s member countries.
Pakistan played an important role in supplying and fighting the NATO War in Afghanistan, and as a
result, NATO nations have begun to back Pakistan up in their international disputes. However, this
relationship has its limits. The US generally considers Pakistan and unreliable ally, and part of their
continued involvement is due to their desire to prevent Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from falling into
the hands of terrorist groups. NATO aligned countries are not vociferously supportive of Pakistan,
but will support it to a certain degree to keep their government stable.
Russia-China Bloc
Although Russia and China are not officially allied, they tend to work together on the
Security Council, and that tacit partnership extends to the General Assemblies. Since Pakistan is,
ostensibly, aligned with the United States, Russia and China tend to seek out Indian support to
counteract American influence in Central Asia. Nations that tend to be close to either major power,
or tend to oppose the United States in general, will likely find themselves in agreement that India’s
diplomatic goals are just. However, this bloc is not without tension. China and India are also
regional rivals on occasion, and there is no official alliance binding these countries together.
Anti-colonial Bloc
Every country in the world outside of Europe has experienced colonialism some way in the
last 200 years. With most colonies officially liberated by the 1970s, these nations form an important
part of SPECPOL’s mission, and an important voting bloc. This group of nations, largely in Africa
and South America, has the goal of continuing the long and complicated process of decolonization.
NUMUN XIV • 11
Although they have no unified position in regards to India or Pakistan, they will look to see which
side puts forwards a better plan for furthering decolonization and creating stability for the future.
Questions to Consider
1. How has the history of India and Pakistan been impacted by colonialism?
2. Was the drawing of the line of demarcation by the UK legitimate?
3. How can SPECPOL take into account the needs of local communities involved in this
dispute?
4. What say should the people of Kashmir have in this discussion?
5. What say should the people of India and Pakistan have in this discussion?
6. What do the wars already fought between the two mean for the modern day?
7. Is there a present threat of another border war?
8. What would be proof of a territorial claim to a place like Kashmir?
9. Is achieving stability more important that achieving justice?
10. How does the threat of nuclear war change this debate?
11. Should political instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan inform SPECPOL’s decision on this
topic?
12. Has either nation committed humanitarian abuses in their portion of Kashmir, and if so,
what does that change?
13. Is this a debate about decolonization, or a debate about territorial disputes?
14. How can SPECOL help reduce tensions between the two states?
15. Is a permanent solution to this issue possible?
NUMUN XIV • 12
Bibliography
“A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir: Indian Position” Embassy of India, Washington
D.C., accessed on October 19th, 2016
http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_files/Indian_Position.html
Batchelor, Tom. "Pakistan Threatens India With Nuclear War." Http://www.express.co.uk. Sunday
Express, 29 Sept. 2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715838/Pakistan-threatens-India-nuclear-war-Kashmirdispute-heightens-tensions
Dean, Sarah. "'We Have Not Made an Atomic Device to Display in a Showcase': Pakistan Threatens
to Destroy India with a Nuclear Bomb as Kashmir Crisis Edges Closer to the Brink ." Mail Online.
Associated Newspapers, 30 Sept. 2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3815272/We-not-atomic-device-display-showcasePakistan-threatens-destroy-India-nuclear-bomb-Kashmir-crisis-edges-closer-brink.html
"Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine." Indianembassy.org.
Embassy of India, 17 Aug. 1999. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_1999.html
Ghosh, Palash. "India-Pakistan Nuclear War Could Kill 2 Billion." Ibtimes.com. International Business
Times, 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. http://www.ibtimes.com/india-pakistan-nuclear-warwould-kill-2-billion-people-end-civilization-report-1503604
Hiro, Dilip. "Where Local Conflict Could Have Nuclear Consequences." Thenation.com. The Nation,
04 Apr. 2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. https://www.thenation.com/article/where-local-conflict-couldhave-nuclear-consequences/
“Kashmir Dispute: Background” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, accessed on
October 19th, 2016
http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_files/Pak_position.htm
“Kashmir Fast Facts” CNN News, accessed October 19th, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/world/kashmir-fast-facts/
“Kashmir Maps” University of Texas Libraries, accessed October 19th, 2016
https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir_disputed_2003.jpg
Ladwig, Walter C., III. "A Cold Start for Hot Wars? The Indian Army's New Limited War
Doctrine." Http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
Winter 2007. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17972/cold_start_for_hot_wars_the_indian_armys
_new_limited_war_doctrine.html
NUMUN XIV • 13
“LoC Violations: Pakistan Writes Letter to UNSG Ban Ki-moon." Indiablooms.com. India Blooms
News Service, Oct. 2014. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. http://indiablooms.com/ibns_new/newsdetails/N/4915/loc-violations-pakistan-writes-letter-to-unsg-ban-ki-moon.html
"No Let Up In India-Pak Hostilities On LOC." Thecitizen.in. The Citizen: India's 1st Independent
Online Daily, 7 Sept. 2015. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/OldNewsPage/?Id=5048
"Pakistan." Nti.org. Nuclear Threat Initiative, 2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/pakistan/nuclear/
"Pakistan and the Nasr Missile." Indian Defence News. N.p., 29 Sept. 2015. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2015/09/pakistan-and-nasr-missile.html
Saifi, Sophia, Huizhong Wu, and Ben Westcott. "Kashmir: Pakistan Calls Emergency Meeting amid
'deteriorating Situation'" Http://edition.cnn.com. CNN, 30 Sept. 2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/29/homepage2/kashmir-pakistani-soliders-killed-india-surgicalstrikes/index.html
“The Future of Kashmir?” BBC News, accessed on October 20th, 2016
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/