The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs, Inc.
Security Council
Conflict in Kashmir
Director: Gillian Carroll
© 2007 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA)
This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model
United Nations 2007. Use for other purposes is not permitted
without the express written consent of IDIA. For more
information, please write us at [email protected]
Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1
Demographics of the Kashmir Region ________________________________________________ 2
Early History of the Conflict ________________________________________________________ 4
Recent History ______________________________________________________________ 22
Current Status ______________________________________________________________ 27
UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) ________________________ 30
Key Positions _______________________________________________________________ 31
United States of America __________________________________________________________ 31
Russia__________________________________________________________________________ 32
China __________________________________________________________________________ 33
United Kingdom _________________________________________________________________ 34
France _________________________________________________________________________ 34
Other Positions __________________________________________________________________ 35
Summary___________________________________________________________________ 36
Works Cited ________________________________________________________________ 37
Rutgers Model United Nations
1
Introduction
Since their declaration as sovereign states, India and Pakistan have both made
claims to the region of Kashmir, located along the international border shared by the two
countries. The competing claims stem from historical, religious, and political ties. While
Pakistan asserts that the majority Muslim population in Kashmir should be incorporated
into their Islamic state, India contends that their
secular government promotes the diversity and
tolerance necessary in a region that is shared by
Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. India moreover
claims that they have a legal right to Kashmir
dating back to 1947 when the province was
incorporated into the state through the Treaty of
Accession, a document that Pakistan views as
invalid.
The conflict over rights to Kashmir
resulted in a war between the two states, ended by a United Nations-mandated ceasefire,
and the Security Council determined that the fate of Kashmir was to be decided through a
plebiscite. The plebiscite, however, never occurred, and tensions over Kashmir
continued. In the years following 1947, India and Pakistan fought several wars over
Kashmir, with no party sustaining substantial gains or losses in terms of territory. The
region of Kashmir became divided into different sections, each administered by a
different country. By 1972, the Line of Control was established at Simla, demarcating
the border between India and Pakistan within Kashmir.
During the mid-1980s militant groups became active in the Indian area of
Kashmir, attempting to convey a political message through the use of violence and terror.
India has consistently accused Pakistan of sponsoring these militant terrorist groups by
providing training and arms. Violence continued to escalate in the region causing the
Indian government to employ repressive measures in an attempt to control the volatile
situation in Kashmir. The situation became even graver in 1998 when both India and
Rutgers Model United Nations
2
Pakistan successfully tested nuclear weapons. Nuclear capability brought world attention
and since that time Kashmir has been considered a nuclear flashpoint in Southeast Asia.
While nuclear technology curbed the possibility of full-scale war between India and
Proxy War:
a war instigated by a major power that does
not itself participate.
Source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Pakistan, it did not mitigate the potential for
contained proxy wars. In 1999, Pakistan moved
troops into the mountains near Kargil, located in
Kashmir.
The
internationally
community
condemned this maneuver as overtly aggressive and India responded forcefully. The
Kargil War was a seriously detriment to Indo-Pakistani relations, which only suffered
further following a December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, allegedly carried out
by Pakistan-backed militants.
India mobilized forces and sent a contingent to the
Kashmir region to defend its territory. When Pakistan responded in kind, there was
serious speculation regarding the use of nuclear weapons within the conflict.
The standoff served as a clear indicator that relations between India and Pakistan
needed to improve. By January 2004, the heads of state met to discuss way in which to
normalize and improve relations, including ways to peacefully resolve the Kashmir
conflict. Since that time, negotiations have continued with some progress toward a
resolution, however, violence continues in Kashmir and mistrust often shadows the
discussions. The world community presses for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and
encourages both countries to exercise caution and moderation, especially considering
each nation’s nuclear status.
Demographics of the Kashmir Region
Kashmir is a disputed region of the northwestern Indian subcontinent that covers
approximately 85,800 square miles.
In the northeast it is bordered by the Uygur
Autonomous Region of Xinjiang and to the east it is bound by the Tibet Autonomous
Region, both of these areas are part of China. To the south of Kashmir are the Indian
states of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, to the west is Pakistan, and the northwest
Afghanistan. The northern and western portions of Kashmir are administered by Pakistan
Rutgers Model United Nations
3
and consist of Azad Kashmir, Gilgit, and Baltistan. Gilgit and Balistan comprise a
territory called the Northern Areas. The southern and southeastern areas of Kashmir
form Jammu and Kashmir, and Indian state, and comprise about two thirds of the region
of Kashmir.1 The capitals of Jammu and Kashmir are Srinagar and Jammu, depending on
the season. The areas of Kashmir administered by India and Pakistan are divided by a
“line of control” established in 1972. The inhabitants of the Jammu region are both
Muslim and Hindu, with the former being concentrated in the west and the latter found in
the eastern area of the province. In Jammu, Hindi, Punjabi, and Dogri are the most
commonly spoken languages. The people located in the Vale of Kashmir and the
Pakistani provinces are predominantly Muslim and speak both Urdu and Kashmiri. The
easternmost part of Kashmir is called Ladakh and is controlled by the Chinese, and the
area is the least populated area within the region of Kashmir, primarily inhabited by
Tibetans who practice Buddism and speak Balti and Ladakhi.2
The Kashmir region was initially an important religious center for Hinduism and
Buddhism. During the mid-12th Century, Kashmir came under the rule of Muslim leaders
starting the line of Salatin-i-Kashmiri.3 Since that time, Kashmir has been predominantly
Muslim. A 1901 census taken by the British Empire found that Muslims comprised
74.16 per cent of the state of Kashmir while Hindus accounted for 23.72 per cent and
Buddhists 1.21 per cent. The Hindu population was primarily concentrated in Jammu,
where they composed slightly less than half of the population.4 In 2003 the Muslim
presence in the Kashmir Valley constituted ninety-five per cent of the total population
while the Hindus comprised only four per cent.5
1
Still, within the Jammu section
“Kashmir.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Aug. 2007
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-214224>.
2
Ibid.
3
Imperial Gazetteer of India. Volume 15. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1908. 93-95.
4
Ibid.. 99-102.
5
Rai, Mridu. Hindu Ruler, Muslim Subjects: Islam and the History of Kashmir. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. 2004. 320 pages. 37.
Rutgers Model United Nations
4
specifically, Hindus outnumbered Muslims as the former comprised sixty-six per cent of
the population and Muslims just thirty per cent.6
Early History of the Conflict
In 1947, the dominion of India achieved independence from the United Kingdom
and the territory was divided into two new states, India and Pakistan. India declared
itself a secular regime while Pakistan adopted an Islamic government. The 565 Indian
princely states that existed under British rule chose which of the two newly formed
nations to join. The region of Jammu and Kashmir was the largest of the provinces in
question and geographically situated between modern India and Pakistan, bordering both
countries, making its territory appealing to both states. Geography was not the only
factor causing the dispute, however, as religious division was an important concern.
Maharaja:
A ruler of a big state, ranking above a raja, usually some
subordinate rajas pay tribute to him.
Source: www.sikhism.com/books/khalsagenerals/glossary.htm
Jammu
and
Kashmir
was
predominantly Muslim while the
maharaja of the province, Hari
Singh, was Hindu.
Hari Singh
wished to remain independent from both India and Pakistan and endeavored to play the
two powers against each other in order to avoid reaching a final decision.7
The events that followed partition are a point of contention between the two
parties, as each presents its own version of the occurrences. India maintains that Pashtun
Pakistani tribal people from the North West Frontier province entered Kashmir to foment
a Muslim rebellion against the maharaja in response to his taxation policies in the Punch
district. India contends that the tribal rebels received support and supplies from Pakistani
soldiers. The Indian government moreover claims that the Kabailis invasion was an
attempt to overthrow the maharajah rather than a demonstration of protest over taxation
policy. They suggest that Pakistan sought Hari Singh’s removal because he did not vote
6
“In Depth: The Future of Kashmir.” BBC News. 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/default.stm.
7
Schofield, Victoria. “Kashmir: The Origins of the Dispute.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 16 January 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1762146.stm
Rutgers Model United Nations
during partition.
5
The invasion drastically weakened the maharajah’s authority in
Kashmir and he sought military aid from India. India initially refused to provide formal
aid, maintaining that it would violate the non-aggression
Lord Mountbatten
agreement that it made with Pakistan in regards to Jammu
and Kashmir. If Jammu and Kashmir was an Indian
territory, forces would enter the province and occupy the
area to protect it from the Pakistani insurgents. According
to India, Hari Singh agreed to cede the province as
Pakistani tribes reached Srinagar.
The Instrument of
Accession was the official document that transferred
Kashmir into Indian domain. On 27 October 1947 Lord
Mountbatten, governor-general of India, accepted the
document thus rendering Kashmir an Indian territory.8
The Pakistani account of these events differs as they claim Indian aggression,
purporting that its army began moving troops toward Kashmir following the indecision of
partition. Pakistan was alarmed by this maneuver and was further distressed when India
began taking measures to incorporate Kashmir into its bureaucratic and federal system.
Pakistan asserts that the maharajah agreed to sign the Treaty of Accession under
compulsion, in their minds invalidating the agreement. Moreover, Pakistan maintains that
the maharajah relinquished his right to cede Kashmir upon fleeing from the province.9
Pakistan is adamant that their military was not involved in the tribal invasion. According
to Pakistan, head of state Mohammad Ali Jinnah ordered the head of the Pakistani army
to send troops to support the tribal invasion already underway. However, this order was
entirely in response to Indian advances toward Kashmir, and more importantly the order
was denied. The head of the Pakistani army, a British general, would not send troops to
8
Schofield, Victoria. “Kashmir: The Origins of the Dispute.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 16 January 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1762146.stm.
9
Ibid.
Rutgers Model United Nations
6
intercede in Kashmir on behalf of the Muslim rebellion because he refused to attack his
British counterparts in the Indian Army.
The conflict in Kashmir escalated into a full war, known as the First Kashmir War.
In 1948, India brought the issue before the United Nations Security Council which had
previously passed resolutions regarding the conflict in Kashmir. The Committee for
India and Pakistan was formed with the purpose of monitoring the situation. When India
brought the issue to the attention of the Security Council, the body passed Resolution 47
on 21 April 1948 calling for an immediate cease-fire.10 The resolution required Pakistan
to withdraw from Kashmir and asserted that Pakistan held no authority over the
governance of Jammu and Kashmir, while suggesting that India maintain only minimal
military presence in the area. Most importantly, the resolution stated that “the question of
the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through the
democratic method of a free and impartial
Plebiscite:
A device of direct democracy whereby the electorate
can pronounce, usually for or against, some measure
put before it by a government. Also known as a
referendum.
Source: www.photius.com/countries/brazil/glossary/
plebiscite.”11 The UN mandated ceasefire
occurred on 31 December 1948 and a legal
border within Kashmir known as the Line
of Control emerged between India and
Pakistan. While both India and Pakistan agreed to the mandated plebiscite, it never took
place. Moreover, despite the ceasefire, neither India nor Pakistan removed troops from
the disputed territory.
The UN responded by passing additional resolutions that
reaffirmed the position of its earlier resolutions, however, these had little impact.
Despite Pakistani objection, the Treaty of Accession was ratified and India
asserted what it felt was its right under the agreement. The Constituent Assembly of
Jammu and Kashmir approved the accession and also adopted a constitution that outlined
10
“A Comprehensive Note on Jammu and Kashmir: The United Nations.” Embassy of India, Washington D.C.
Accessed 2 July 2007. http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Kashmir/Kashmir_MEA/UN.html.
11
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) on the India-Pakistan Question. Adopted 21 April 1948.
Document No. S/726. http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm.
Rutgers Model United Nations
7
a perpetual merger with India.12 It is noteworthy that Jammu and Kashmir is the only
state of India to have its own constitution. Although hostilities officially ceased, tension
remained between India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir.
While hostilities with Pakistan ceased, India faced new problems with neighboring
China regarding control of specific regions within Jammu and Kashmir. The conflict
arose over a disputed area of Kashmir known as Arunachal Pradesh, located along the
Himalayas on the India-China border between Burma and Bhutan.
Due to its
mountainous landscape it was largely uninhabited. Later, both parties also laid claim to
the region of Aksai Chin, located at the Western end of the India-China border,
broadening the scope of the conflict. The dispute between the two countries arose due to
ambiguities regarding the border dating back to 1913. In that year, a conference was held
at Simla for Great Britain (India was still a colony), China, and Tibet to meet and discuss
the Sino-India border. The British delegate, Henry McMahon, proposed that the boundary
be demarcated by the crest of the Himalayas but did not provide China with a map of this
border or any details. The Chinese rejected the proposal and the conference ended.
McMahon decided to negotiate the border directly with Tibet although he had been
instructed by his superiors not to negotiate bilaterally with Tibet. Great Britain was
actually forbidden from entering such negotiations by the Anglo-Russian Convention of
1907, calling into question the legality of the talks and their resulting agreement.13
Still, an agreement was signed in secret, without the knowledge of the Chinese.
Henceforth, India has asserted that the border agreement made at Simla intended for the
demarcation to be the highest ridges of the Himalayas and contends that India thus has
claims north of the McMahon line. India views the Himalayas as the natural border for
the country, since it is likewise the geographical border of the Indian subcontinent. India
began drawing maps that including ridges of the Himalayas formerly considered within
Chinese domain as part of India. China protested that the area in question has historical
12
“Historical Chronology of Jammu and Kashmir State.” Kashmir Information Network. 2001. Accessed July 2007.
http://www.kashmir-information.com/chronology.html.
13
Calvin, James Barnard. “The China-India Border War (1962).” Marine Corps Command and Staff College. April
1984. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm.
Rutgers Model United Nations
8
cultural and geographic ties to Tibet and continues to maintain this position. China
viewed the border agreement as illegitimate and responded by placing boundary markers
south of the McMahon Line, an area that India considered its legal territory. While China
stated that it did not claim any Indian territory, official maps marked approximately
120,000 square kilometers of land as Chinese over which India also declared ownership.
Each party saw the other’s actions as an encroachment upon the geographical integrity of
their country and a threat to their security.14
During 1959, a series of border skirmishes indicated that the situation was
growing tenuous.15 Each nation became more entrenched in their position. China believed
India’s inflexibility over border questions to be opposition to their Tibet policy and
responded by refusing to remove troops from Aksai Chin. India, however, would not
negotiate until the Chinese withdrew these troops, a stance that garnered support within
the international community. To counter the presence of Chinese troops patrolling in the
disputed area and south of the McMahon line, India initiated its “Forward Policy,” the
goal of which was to build outposts behind the Chinese patrol troops and cut off their
supplies, thus forcing them to retreat. India eventually constructed sixty such outposts,
forty-three of which were located north of the McMahon line. Forward Policy was also
intended to show that there was Indian occupation in the previously uninhabited region,
thus providing the country with a claim to the land. While Forward Policy met with
initial success, Chinese forces soon stopped retreating and instead countered the Indian
maneuver to regain an advantageous position.16
By 1962, military incidents along the border were increasingly common, however
Indian politicians believed that there would not be a war with China. India deeply
miscalculated the situation and as a result was militarily unprepared when on 10 October
1962 the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) opened fire on fifty Indian troops.
14
Sinha, P.B., A.A. Athale, and S. Prasad, ed. “History of the Conflict with China, 1962.” History Division,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 1992.
15
Noorani, AG. “Perseverance in Peace Process.” Frontline: India’s National Magazine. Volume 20, Issue 17. 16
August 2003. http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2017/stories/20030829001604900.htm
16
Garver, John W. “China’s Decision for War with India in 1962.” Harvard.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf.
Rutgers Model United Nations
9
The Chinese justified the attack stating that the Indian soldiers were on Chinese soil. The
Chinese staged successful attacks along the border and by November the PLA occupied
both Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. Armed conflict on 19 November 1962 when
China declared a unilateral ceasefire to go into effect the following day.
China
voluntarily withdrew to behind its prewar border, now known as the Line of Actual
Control. While China returned the territory they captured during the fighting, they
maintained control of the disputed areas they claimed prior to the war. India protested
and continues to assert that land on the Chinese side of the Line of Actual Control
belongs to the province of Jammu and Kashmir.17
India moved from conflict with China into a second war with Pakistan. The
Second Kashmir War was the result of a series of military incidents along the disputed
border between April and September 1965. Full fighting broke out following when
Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar was unsuccessful in invading and capturing Jammu and
Kashmir. Pakistan was confident that India was weakened from its 1962 engagement
with China and would thus be unable to defend Kashmir against capture, and also worked
under the assumption that the people of Kashmir were unhappy with Indian rule and
believed that fostering agitation could lead to overthrow of the government. The
Pakistani insurgents responsible for infiltrating Kashmir and fomenting rebellion were
quickly discovered, largely due to the contribution of the Kashmiri people. Operation
Gibraltar was a complete failure.18
In response to Pakistan’s attempted subversion, on 15 August 1965 Indian troops
crossed the ceasefire line and attacked the area of Kashmir administered by Pakistan.
The Pakistani account of the war asserts that India’s attack was unprovoked. While
India’s campaign was initially successful in gaining important positions in the northern
sector of Kashmir, within weeks Pakistan countered and made gains of its own in areas
such as Tithwal, Uri, and Punch. Moreover, despite the devastating failure of Operation
17
Calvin, James Barnard. “The China-India Border War (1962).” Marine Corps Command and Staff College. April
1984. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm.
18
Amin, Agha Humayun. Grand Slam: A Battle of Lost Opportunities. Defense Journal: Pakistan. 2000.
http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm.
Rutgers Model United Nations
10
Gibraltar, Pakistan chose to launch an ambitious counter strike against India to regain
territory in Kashmir. The attack was titled “Operation Grand Slam” and was designed to
occupy Akhnoor, a town in Jammu of strategic importance to India. Capturing Akhnoor
would allow Pakistan to interdict Indian supply lines and drastically limit Indian
communications. The operation was initially successful as Pakistan had the advantage of
greater troop numbers and the element of surprise. India retaliated using its air force to
attack Pakistan further south of Kashmir. Pakistan was never captured Akhnoor and
India realized the significance of air power.19
It was not until 6 September 1965 that the international border was actually
penetrated as prior land attacks were confined to the disputed area of Kashmir.20 Indian
troops crossed the Ichhogil Canal and moved deeper into Pakistan, but were soon pushed
back by the Pakistani air force. The following days were characterized by battles in
which both parties incurred heavy losses and neither made substantial gains.
The
stalemate continued until 20 September 1965 when the UN Security Council passed a
unanimous resolution mandating an unconditional ceasefire from both nations.21 On 22
September, the war ended. The peace conference was held in Tashkent, where Indian
Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan agreed that each
state would withdraw and adopt its pre-war lines by 25 Feburuary 1966.22 The war lasted
just five weeks but led to thousands of casualties for both India and Pakistan.
Additionally, the war was inconclusive as the situation in Kashmir remained unchanged.
The Second Kashmir War was an important international issue at the time with
major world powers taking a stance on the war. The United States supplied arms and
ammunitions to both nations, especially Pakistan.
America gave each country the
weaponry to arm them against communist insurgence, however, the United States did not
19
Amin, Agha Humayun. Grand Slam: A Battle of Lost Opportunities. Defense Journal: Pakistan. 2000.
http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm.
20
“Indo-Pak War [September, 1965]: Lahore Offensive.” Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A
Multimedia Journey. 1 June 2003. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=5
21
United Nations Security Council Resolution 211 (1965). The India Pakistan Question. Adopted 20 September
1965. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/222/82/IMG/NR022282.pdf?OpenElement
22
“Indo-Pak War [September, 1965].” Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A Multimedia Journey. 1
June 2003. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=6
Rutgers Model United Nations
11
intend for the two nations to use the military aid against each other. During the war, the
United States implemented an arms embargo by which neither country received weapons,
a development that was particularly detrimental to Pakistan. Following America’s lead,
other NATO allies also ceased providing military equipment to the warring countries.23
The Soviet Union remained neutral throughout the war and eventually hosted the peace
talks in Tashkent. Pakistan found support from other Islamic countries; China also lent
support to Pakistan, an alliance that caused India considerable unease. India had recently
fought a war against China and if the
Pakistani ally were to enter the Second
Kashmir War, India would be forced to
fight on two fronts.24
Meanwhile,
India had few allies due to its
membership
in
the
Non-Aligned
Non-Aligned Movement:
The Non-Aligned Movement, or NAM is an international
organization of over 100 states which consider themselves
not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc.
NAM focuses on national struggles for independence, the
eradication of poverty, economic development and
opposing colonialism, imperialism, and neo-colonialism.
They represent 55% of the planet's people and nearly twothirds of the UN's membership.
Movement, and could not definitively count on aid from any outside source.
The ceasefire, which was generally unpopular in both Pakistan and India, lasted
for just six years of tenuous peace before war broke out once more in 1971. In the early
months of 1971 Pakistan was already fully embroiled in domestic political and civil
conflict. Pakistan was traditionally divided in to West and East, with the former being
the dominant group despite the latter’s majority. When the 1970 elections resulted in
victory for the East Pakistanis, the government in place refused to relinquish power.25
The President, Yahya Khan, alerted the military and a campaign to arrest dissidents was
initiated. The Pakistani army was comprised primarily of soldiers from the West, who
endeavored to disarm East Pakistani troops. While the Pakistani government attempted
to suppress radicals, the rebellion was fomenting in East leading to the declaration of East
Pakistani independence on 27 March 1971, (although some contend that the actual
23
Gill, John H. “Dissuasion and Confrontation: U.S. Policy in India-Pakistan Crises.” Strategic Insights, Volume III,
Issue 10. October 2004. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/oct/gillOct04.asp
24
Power, Jonathan. “Pakistan and India Play With Nuclear Fire.” The Transnational Foundation for Peace and
Future Research. 12 August 1998. http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/1998/pow12-08.html
25
“General Elections 1970.” Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A Multimedia Journey. 1 June 2003.
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A140&Pg=2
Rutgers Model United Nations
announcement was made over the radio on 26 March).26
12
With that, the state of
Bangladesh was born. The Pakistani government ardently rejected the independence
movement and used brutal force, killing or displacing hundreds of thousands of
Bangladeshis.27
India was involved in the Bangladeshi Liberation War from the moment East
Pakistan declared its independence. India shared a border with Bangladesh and allowed
refugees entrance into the country. Nearly ten million refugees fled to India, causing
significant shortages in India, however, Indian support for her neighbor continued.
Camps were established predominantly in the Indian state of West Bengal to provide
India Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi
shelter and basic necessities to the Bangladeshis. Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi used her diplomatic clout to gain
support for the Bangladeshi cause abroad.
While
Pakistan had the critical support of the United States and
China, India countered by garnering sympathy for
Bangladesh in other members of the Security Council
such as France and Great Britain. With support within
the Security Council divided, the Soviet Union became
critical in determining how the United Nations would
respond to the conflict. Gandhi shocked the world when
she signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union in August 1971,
making it increasingly unlikely that either China or the United States would become
directly involved in the conflict due to concerns that the Soviet Union would in turn enter
the war.28
Although India clearly played a principle role in the Bangladeshi Liberation War,
it was not until 3 December 1971 that actual hostility broke out between longtime
26
“Declaration of Independence.” Virtual Bangladesh. 1 May 2005.
http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/declaration.html
27
“Bangladesh: The War for Bangladeshi Independence, 1971.” Library of Congress Country Studies. September
1988. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0027)
28
“Bangladesh War of Independence.” Wars of the World. OnWar.com 16 December 2000.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr70/fbangladesh1971.htm
Rutgers Model United Nations
13
opponents India and Pakistan. In response to a massive buildup of Indian troops along
the Bangladesh border, Pakistan launched a preemptive air assault on Indian bases.
While many airfields in northwest India were struck, they recovered within hours and
pilots were flying sorties to Pakistan the same day.
The Indian Army joined the
Bangladeshi guerilla army creating the “Allied Forces.” The following day the joint
force responded with an air, sea, and land assault against the Pakistani army occupying
Bangladesh. The Pakistani president ordered the army to capture land in northwest India
to use as a bargaining chip to regain land they anticipated losing in East Pakistan. The
Indian Army drove the Pakistani Army out of northwest and gained five thousand square
miles of territory within Pakistani administered Kashmir. Fighting continued on land,
sea, and air for two weeks.29 During this period, both the United States and the Soviet
Union sent naval forces to the area. America dispatched the USS Enterprise, a nuclear
capable vessel, to the Bay of Bengal. The Soviets responded by dispatching a submarine
and several ships, also armed with nuclear missiles, to the Indian Ocean. The conflict
between India and Pakistan brought the world to the verge of nuclear engagement during
the Cold War.30 The Indo-Pakistani war ended after only a fortnight, however, the
Pakistani forces incurred great losses and were forced to surrender. The following day,
17 December 1971, India imposed a unilateral ceasefire. Months later India and Pakistan
met and signed the Simla Accord. The 2 July 1972 agreement mandated that each party
would respect the ceasefire line and commit to solving the question of Kashmir “by
peaceful means.” Simla did not provide any final settlement regarding the dispute and
did not outline a time frame for resolving the matter. Simla has been the base for all
discussions regarding Kashmir between India and Pakistan, although the agreement was
fairly vague.31
29
“Bangladesh War of Independence.” Wars of the World. OnWar.com 16 December 2000.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr70/fbangladesh1971.htm
30
Shalom, Stephen R. “The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo-Pak War of 1971.” Source: "The U.S. Response to
Humanitarian Crises," Z Magazine, Sept. 1991. http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue47/articles/a07.htm
31
“Background.” Behind the Kashmir Conflict: Abuses by Indian Security Forces and Militant Groups Continue.
Human Rights Watch. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/back.htm.
Rutgers Model United Nations
14
By 1986 discontent within Kashmir was growing. The ruling party of Jammu and
Kashmir, the National Conference, was known to be a corrupt organization. The party
leaders brokered a deal with the heads of India’s Congress Party that was widely
perceived as undermining Kashmiri autonomy. A new party was formed, the Muslim
United Front, and it quickly found extensive support, particularly among the Kashmiri
independence movement, Kashmiri youth, and Jama’at-i Islami, a pro-Pakistan Islamic
political group. The Muslim United Front was positioned to gain representation in
government during the 1987 state elections, however when the elections occurred, there
fraud allowed the National Conference to gain an easy victory. Following the elections
there was a crackdown on the Muslim United Front and hundreds of its leaders and
supporters were arrested. Still, support for the Muslim United Front grew. Moreover,
following the elections militant groups began forming. Some of these groups sought an
independent Kashmir while others wanted the territory to be incorporated into the
Pakistani state. The militant groups crossed into Pakistan to receive training and acquire
weapons. The militant groups reportedly use AK-47 and AK-56 rifles, machine guns,
revolvers, and landmines allegedly sold by the Pakistani government. The government
denies these claims, however their credibility is questionable. By the late 1980s, the
region was engulfed in violence as the militant groups wreaked havoc. Many of the
militants assassinated National Conference leaders while others targeted Hindus.32
Elections in 1989 led to additional terrorist activity among the militant groups,
especially the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, founded by Yasin Malik. Bombs
were detonated at government buildings, on busses, and at the homes of state officials.
The militant groups oversaw a statewide boycott of the national parliamentary elections
in November 1989.
The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front also kidnapped the
daughter of the Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed and used her to broker the
release of five detained militants. These terrorist actions, compounded with dissent
against the state and national government, compelled India to take a strong stance against
32
“Background.” Human Rights Watch.
Rutgers Model United Nations
15
the militants. The Indian government believed that the militants were not citizens of
Jammu and Kashmir but actually insurgents from Pakistan-administered Kashmir
attempting to overthrow the state government.
On 19 January 1990 the central
government adopted a system of direct rule over Kashmir. The Indian government’s
efforts to suppress the militant groups were brutal, with violence directed at both
militants and civilians alike. Unarmed demonstrators were fired upon, prisoners were
unlawfully executed, and civilian massacres occurred. The Indian security forces also
used surrendered or captured militants for counterinsurgency operations and allowed
them to commit serious crimes, many against human rights activists and journalists. The
militant groups also committed human rights abuses, murdering and kidnapping Hindu
civilians and assassinating government officials and civil servants. Citing uncontrollable
violence, the government encouraged the Hindu Kashmiri population, known as
“Pandits” to leave the Kashmir valley. With the help of the government more than
100,000 Pandits fled to other areas of the country. Escalated tensions within Kashmir
caused many to fear that India and Pakistan would fight yet another war.33
While formal engagement was avoided, violence continued as militant
organizations continued to fight the Indian government.
The All Parties Hurryiyat
Conference was founded in 1993 to serve as a political voice for those seeking
independence within Kashmir. The Conference encompassed the leaders of all the
various political and military groups seeking independence.
The organization has
enjoyed only limited success because of internal rivalries and speculation of corruption.
The independence movement thus lacked a cohesive voice to express its goals in addition
to a channel through which to negotiate. With the independence movement seemingly
stalled, parliamentary elections were held in the Kashmir in May 1996, for the first time
since 1989. The militant groups staged a boycott, but Indian troops forced voters to go to
the polls. Still, a large number voted voluntarily, and the National Conference deemed
the results sufficient as a mandate to govern. The first state government since 1990 was
33
“Background.” Human Rights Watch.
Rutgers Model United Nations
16
formed with Farooq Abdullah as its chief minister. Unfortunately, he and his colleagues
were the same individuals responsible for the fraudulent state elections held in 1987.34
On 11 and 12 May 1998, a new and dangerous element was added to the dispute
over Jammu and Kashmir.
The Indian government successfully tested five nuclear
devices, and three weeks after Pakistan in turn detonated its own device.
These
developments shocked the international community and led to enormous criticism. Many
countries that provide aid and conduct trade relations with India and Pakistan imposed
sanctions to convey their disapproval. The world feared that the conflict between the two
nations would become a nuclear showdown. In the months following the tests, shelling
and gunfire between Indian and Pakistani troops along the Line of Control increased. As
concern mounted it became clear that the Kashmir issue needed to be addressed
bilaterally. The prime ministers of both countries met and signed the Lahore Declaration,
which committed the two parties to reopen discussion on Jammu and Kashmir and to
notify each other of future weapons tests.
Following the agreement, each country
continued to further its arms program, however, they did adhere to conditions of the
declaration and inform the other party of such tests. On 11 April 1999 India tested the
long-range missile. Pakistan responded just four days later, shooting long and medium
range missiles. On 16 April India again carried out a ballistic missile test causing
international speculation that the Asian subcontinent was descending into a Cold War
style arms race.35
Nuclear capability was seen differently by India and Pakistan. Whereas India
believed that nuclear weapons would lead to security and peace due to their deterrent
effect, Pakistan reasoned that nuclear weapons would merely change the nature of the
fighting. Nuclear weapons deter full-scale conventional war but do not prevent proxy
wars. A small-scale war erupted between India and Pakistan in May 1999, creating
worldwide anxiety over the use of nuclear force. The conflict occurred when Pakistan
attempted to use military force against India by deploying approximately 2,000 regular
34
35
Ibid.
“Background.” Human Rights Watch.
Rutgers Model United Nations
17
and irregular troops over the Line of Control near Kargil. Due to its mountainous locale
and severe climate, Kargil is only sparsely patrolled during several months of the year.
The Pakistani operation moved into this area, which overlooked the Sringar-Leh
highway. The road was vital for transporting supplies and personnel in northern Kashmir
and blocking the route was an indirect attack on Indian garrisons in Ladakh and the
Siachen Glacier. The Pakistani operation would also redirect some of the Indian army’s
attention from Kashmir to Kargil, hopefully providing support to the militants.36
India viewed the Pakistani aggression as especially egregious as it came in the
wake of the Lahore Agreement. The international community agreed that the attack was
unwarranted and even Pakistan’s traditional allies, America and China refused to offer
support. India perceived Pakistan’s attack as a flagrant violation of its sovereignty and
quickly countered with massive force.37 Operation Vijay mobilized 200,000 Indian troops
and deployed more than 20,000 soldiers to the conflict zone. The numerical advantage
India possessed was obvious, as Pakistan’s force never comprised more than 5,000, even
at the height of the conflict.38 Over the course of two months, Indian troops slowly
retook the mountains, despite the obvious strategic advantage that Pakistan held by
having the higher ground.39 India declined to escalate the conflict as the army did not
cross the Line of Control or the international border into Pakistani territory.40 On 4 July
1999 Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif met with American President Bill Clinton in
Washington D.C. where he pledged to withdraw the Pakistani regular and irregular
troops. Following the agreement, most fighting ceased although extremist militants
continued to fight. India launched a final round of attacks on these lingering militants the
last week of July and the war officially ended on 26 July 1999, and is commemorated as
Kargil Victory Day in India. At the conclusion of the war, the Line of Control was
36
Hoyt, Timothy D. Politics, Proximity and Paranoia: The Evolution of Kashmir as a Nuclear Flashpoint. 16.
Ibid., 16.
38
Qadir, Shaukat. “An Analysis of the Kargil Conflict 1999.” Royal United Services Institute for Defence and
Security Studies. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/JA00199.pdf
39
Malik, VP. “Kargil: Where Defence Met Diplomacy.” The Indian Express. 25 July 2002.
http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2002/07/25o03.htm
40
Hoyt ,16.
37
Rutgers Model United Nations
18
identical to that outlined in the 1972 Simla Accord as no territory was gained or lost by
India. While nuclear weapons were not used during the conflict, they played a significant
role and it is reported that both countries alerted their nuclear weapons delivery systems
during the war.41
The Kargil Conflict was beneficial for India, however, severely detrimental to the
political, social, and economic situation in Pakistan. In India the stock market rose
drastically thanks to a surge in technology stocks, and from the end of the Kargil War
until early 2000 the economy of India was bullish. Moreover, the Indian public saw a rise
in patriotic sentiment.42
The government cut ties with Pakistan and determined to
increase military preparedness rather than rely on nuclear capabilities.
The Kargil
Conflict also compelled India to complete construction of a fence along the Line of
Control. The Indian Border Security Force assembled the fence throughout the night so
as to avoid confrontation with Pakistani forces. According to India, Pakistan sees the
Line of Control as a working boundary and does not wish to see the 197-kilometer stretch
fenced because it provides them easy access to fuel the insurgency in Kashmir. India
accuses Pakistan of taking advantage of the open border for gun-running and intelligencegathering. While India made progress with the fence, however, certain areas were not
completed because of the openness of their location and the danger associated with
construction.43
Kargil also helped India diplomatically as it improved relations with the United
States, a traditional ally of Pakistan. Relations with America developed even further
following the 11 September 2001 attacks. India’s relationship with Israel was also
strengthened during the Kargil War as Israel provided weapons and military satellite
intelligence. In 2000 this friendship was solidified when the Indian Home Minister
visited Israel. Both Israel and India perceive religious fundamentalist terrorism as a
41
Ibid.
Ganguly, Meenakshi. “The Spoils of War.” TIME. Vol. 155 No. 14. 10 April 2000.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0410/india.kargil.html
43
Vinayak, Ramesh. “Fencing Duel.” India Today. 21 April 2001. http://www.indiatoday.com/webexclusive/dispatch/20010421/vinayak.html
42
Rutgers Model United Nations
19
grave threat and seek to curb its strength worldwide. As with the United States, the
attacks of 11 September 2001 deepened India’s relationship with Israel.44
The Kargil War was detrimental to Pakistan’s already fledgling economy as it
faced international censure and domestic uncertainty. The war was damaging to public
opinion and the government worsened the situation by refusing to recognize soldiers
killed in action.45 The government’s denial caused outrage and resulted in protested
within the Northern Areas.46 The Pakistani public was also shocked by the defeat and
retreat of the troops at Kargil because official reports of the war projected victory.47
Additionally, immediately following the Kargil War, an incident occurred that benefited
India while further injuring Pakistan. On 10 August 1999 India shot down a Pakistani
naval plane. Pakistan claims that debris from the crash was found on the Pakistani side of
the border and that the plane was unarmed, and that the plane was on a routine training
mission.48 India responded that the plane seemed hostile, was not following international
protocol, and did not respond to warnings. Additionally, India asserted that the plane was
in violation of an Indo-Pakistani agreement from 1991, which stipulated military aircraft
not fly within ten kilometers of the border.49 Pakistan insisted that it was India that
violated international law and filed a grievance with the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) seeking USD $60 million in reparations. India’s legal representation responded to
the suit by arguing that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction over the case. In 1974 India filed an
exemption with the court precluding it from hearing cases between India and other
44
Raman, Sunil. “Sharon’s Historic India Visit.” BBC World Service Hindi Section. 8 September 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3088780.stm
45
“Pakistan Refuses to Take Even Officers' Bodies” Rediff on the Net. 11 July 1999.
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jul/11karg1.htm
46
Khan, M. Ilyas. “Second-Class Citizens.” The Herald (Pakistan). July 2000.
http://www.warbirds.in/downloads/HeraldKargil.pdf.
47
Ahmed, Samina. “Diplomatic Fiasco: Pakistan's Failure on the Diplomatic Front Nullifies its Gains on the
Battlefield.” Newsline 11, no. 1 (July 1999): 37-38.
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=STPP&ctype=article&item_id=438.
48
“Application Instituting Proceeding: Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India).” International Court of
Justice. Filed 21 September 1999. General List No. 119. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/7123.pdf.
49
“Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises.” Research Programs:
South Asia Program. The Henry L. Stimson Center. Accessed July 2007.
http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216.
Rutgers Model United Nations
20
Commonwealth States.50 On 21 June 2000, the court agreed that the ICJ did not have
jurisdiction, a result that was a major victory for India.51
The failure of the Kargil expedition compounded with the embarrassment of the
Atlantique incident led to political problems for Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif. Facing
criticism from his opponents and dissention within his own party, Sharif attempted to
consolidate power by sacking General Pervez Musharraf, who had been involved in the
Kargil incursion.52 The army did not accept Sharif’s dismissal of Musharraf and on 12
October 1999 began a systematic takeover of the government. As Musharraf returned
from Sri Lanka, a coup was already underway. Installations across the country were
seized and the prime minister’s residence was surrounded.53
When Musharraf
disembarked from the plane he assumed control of the government. The bloodless coup
drew much international criticism and little support. The United States called for the
constitution of Pakistan to be respected.
American President Bill Clinton stated,
“Pakistan's interest would be served by a prompt return to civilian rule and restoration of
the democratic process.”54 The European Union and the Commonwealth took a more
critical stance. The EU deferred the signing of a partnership treaty with Pakistan until the
return of civilian rule and the Commonwealth warned that Pakistan’s membership would
be suspended if the military did not relinquish power. Australia, Germany, and the United
Kingdom called for respect of the Pakistani constitution and restoration of democracy.
Only Saudi Arabia voiced support of the Pakistani military regime.55
India’s immediate response to the coup d’etat was to alert the military. The
government expressed its “grave concern” and assured the public that they were carefully
50
Ibid.
Staff Reporter. “Govt Comments Sought in Atlantique Case.” Dawn: the Internet Edition. 17 July 2002.
http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/17/nat32.htm.
52
“Pakistan’s Coup: Why the Army Acted.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 13 October 1999.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/473297.stm
53
“Pakistan Army Seizes Power.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 12 October 1999.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/472511.stm
54
“Clinton Urges Return to Civilian Rule.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 14 October 1999.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/473507.stm.
55
“Musharraf Promises ‘True Democracy.’” World: South Asia. BBC News. 17 October 1999.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/477358.stm
51
Rutgers Model United Nations
21
monitoring the situation.56 Although Musharraf promised to use nuclear restraint and
declared a unilateral de-escalation of the military along the Kashmir border, India
remained suspicious. Musharraf only announced the withdrawal of troops sent to the area
in “the recent past” and furthermore beseeched India to “end repression of Kashmiris.”57
The coup caused India to question stability with the Pakistani government.
These
concerns, combined with a rise in Pakistani militarism led the Indian government to
increase its military budget by twenty-eight per cent in early 2000.58 Musharraf’s pledges
for a demilitarized Kashmir were not actualized and the violence actually expanded in
March 2000. India accused Pakistan of supporting two “terrorist outfits” that massacred
at least 35 Sikhs. Pakistan denied the link and alleged that India was exploiting the
violence for political gain. The attack was the first major act of violence directed at the
Sikh population despite the long history of violence in the Kashmir region. The Sikhs are
concentrated in a few villages and towns and are largely isolated from the conflict.
According to Kashmiri police, gunmen wearing combat uniforms perpetrated the attacks
on the village of Chati Singhpura Matten late at night. The residents were forced into the
street and the men were separated from the women. The residents were informed that
there was a “crackdown.” The gunmen fired upon the men and dozens were killed. The
police said that the attackers spoke Urdu, a language commonly used in both Kashmir
and Pakistan. The attacks occurred during President Clinton’s visit to India. The Indian
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee referred to the attack as “ethnic cleansing.”
Pakistan hoped that the United States would intercede to resolve the Kashmir conflict,
and there was speculation that the attack was perpetrated to call attention to the issue.
Meanwhile, the Sikhs protested the killings en masse as 15,000 gathered in Jammu
demanding protection of minorities.59
56
“US Calls for Democracy in Pakistan.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 12 October 1999.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/472803.stm
57
“Musharraf Promises ‘True Democracy.’”
58
Taylor, Paul D. India and Pakistan. Naval War College Review. Summer 2001. Vol. 54, Issue 3. Academic Search
Premier.
59
“India Blames Pakistan-Backed Militants for Kashmir Massacre.” CNN. 21 March 2000.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/03/21/kashmir.attack.03/index.html
Rutgers Model United Nations
22
Recent History
The terrorist attacks perpetrated against the United States on 11 September 2001
changed the context of the conflict between India and Pakistan.
America made a
commitment to wage an international war on terrorism, meaning that the United States
strove to curb fundamentalist terror worldwide, including within Pakistan. The American
sponsored War on Terror, however, also sought the cooperation of Pakistan in pursing alQaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.
It was in this new atmosphere of the international War on Terror that India and
Pakistan experienced a prolonged standoff that brought the two countries to the verge of
nuclear war. On 13 December 2001 five gunmen entered the Indian Parliament by
disguising a vehicle with Home Ministry and Parliament decals.60 After crashing into the
car of Indian Vice President Krishan Kant, the gunmen exited the car and opened fire.
The vice president’s security team returned fire and closed the gates of the compound.
All five terrorists were killed, including one who was equipped with a suicide vest. Five
policemen, a parliamentary security guard, and a gardener were also killed in addition to
the eighteen wounded. The terrorists failed to kill or wound any government officials.
The attack was immediately condemned and the following day the Indian government
placed responsibility on Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, both of which are
militant groups based out of Pakistan. India made numerous arrests in relation to the
attacks and convicted four members of Jaish-e-Mohammed for contributing to the
terrorist plot on the Parliament.61
India also sent a demand to the Pakistani High
Commissioner to India that Pakistan stop the activities of terrorist groups operating in
India. India further ordered that Pakistan arrest the leadership of militant groups and
60
Suggu, Kanchana. “The militants had the home ministry and special Parliament label.” Rediff on the Net. 13
December 2001. http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/dec/13parl14.htm.
61
Mody, Anjali. “Four Accused in Parliament Attack Case Convicted.” The Hindu. Online Edition. 17 December
2002. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/12/17/stories/2002121705260100.htm.
Rutgers Model United Nations
23
eliminate their funding.62 On 20 December India sent troops to Kashmir and Punjab,
despite calls from the United Nations to act in moderation.
Pakistan responded to India’s massive troop deployment in kind by sending troops
to the Kashmir border. Many Pakistani troops were previously patrolling the Afghan
border in efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. By the first week of 2002, both India
and Pakistan positioned ballistic missiles near the borders. Violence once again erupted
in Kashmir as mortar and artillery fire broke out.63 The border was lined with 500,000
Indian troops and 120,000 Pakistani troops and tensions were especially high.64 President
Musharraf delivered a speech on 12 January 2002 designed to neutralize the situation by
stating that Pakistan would address extremism domestically. He stated, however, that
Pakistan had a claim to Kashmir.65 The speech helped slightly, but troops remained
along the border waiting for the next move. On 14 May 2002 tension erupted as three
gunmen killed thirty-four people in Jammu. Most of the slain were the families of army
officers serving in Kashmir. The incident became known as the Kaluchak Massacre and
deeply angered the Indian army who wished to respond by attacking Pakistani military
installations.66 On 18 May, the Pakistani ambassador was removed from India upon the
host country’s demand. That same day, artillery fire in Jammu between the two countries
became especially hostile causing many civilians to flee the village for their lives.67
Through the end of May, violence between the two countries grew, and the threat of
nuclear war loomed as neither country would agree that they would not use the weapon
during the conflict. Attempts by Soviet Premier Vladimir Putin to mediate a solution
failed. The issued started to defuse by mid-June when air restrictions over India lifted
62
“Govt blames LeT for Parliament attack, asks Pak to restrain terrorist outfits.” Rediff on the Net. 14 December
2001. http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/dec/14parl12.htm.
63
Mody.
64
“2002 – Kashmir Crisis.” Military. GlobalSecurity.org. Accessed July 2007.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kashmir-2002.htm.
65
“2002 – Kashmir Crisis.”
66
Coll, Steve. “The Stand-Off.” The New Yorker. 13 February 2006.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/13/060213fa_fact_coll
67
“India Expels Pakistan's Ambassador.” CBC News: World. 18 May 2002.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/05/18/india_pak020518.html.
Rutgers Model United Nations
24
and Indian ships vacated the coast of Pakistan.68 Over the following months, tensions
cooled and be October 2002 India and Pakistan demobilized their troops along the
Kashmiri border. A cease-fire agreement was signed in 2003.
Following the 2003 ceasefire, further steps were taken the following year to build
a peace within Kashmir. In early January 2004 Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee and
Pakistani President Musharraf met for the first time since 2001 and agreed to open
bilateral talks on a variety of issues, including Kashmir. During summer 2004 the two
parties discussed Jammu and Kashmir, confidence building measures, economic
cooperation, terrorism, drug trafficking, and promoting friendly relations. In the fall of
2004 Pakistani Prime Minister Shaikat Aziz visited India and an agreement was made to
reopen the railroad between the two countries within a year. While a bus system was also
proposed late in 2004, the countries could not agree on travel documentation for the
commuters, but pledged to meet again. After a series of meetings the bus service was
settled and actualized just over a year later.
Also important in late 2004 was the
agreement between Indian Border Security Forces and Pakistani Rangers wherein
authority over border disputes was delegated to area commanders. On the last day of
2004, India and Pakistan provided each other with information regarding their nuclear
installations and facilities as a confidence building measure under the Agreement on the
Prohibition of Attack Against Nuclear Installations and Facilities.69
Despite such
confidence building measures, India still expressed concern over that fate of Pakistan’s
nuclear arsenal were Musharraf to be deposed.
On 19 January 2005, India addressed Pakistan regarding the violation of the
ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir after firing broke out from across the border. Pakistan
urged militant groups to respect the ceasefire. Still, despite progress, in March 2005 India
reported that Pakistan “built bunkers and reinforced defense structures in Tanghdar,
Batalike, Kargil, and Nowshera sectors since the November 2003 ceasefire along the Line
68
“India-Pakistan Conflict.” Military. GlobalSecurity.org. Accessed July 2007.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak.htm.
69
Manjunath KS. Indo-Pak Peace Process Chronology of Events 2004-05. IPCS Special Report 96, Janurary 2006.
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. http://www.ipcs.org/IPCS-Special-Report-06.pdf. 31.
Rutgers Model United Nations
25
of Control.”70 Diplomatic channels remained open between Pakistan and India and on 17
April 2005 President Musharraf arrived in New Delhi.
After the leaders met the
following day, they announced that the peace process was “irreversible” and further
agreed to expand transport and communications across Kashmir. The same week, Indian
and Pakistani border forces stated that “significant progress” was made on “sensitive and
delicate” topics. For instance, joint verification and maintenance was granted for the area
along the international border and both parties committed to upholding the status quo on
the disputed territory.71 Throughout June 2005, however, Pakistan and India could not
agree to bring peace to the Siachen Glacier as Pakistan insisted India cease its aggressive
stance and withdraw its troops to the borders held at the time of the Simla Agreement in
1972. In August 2005 Pakistan was still demanding a reduction of Indian troops in
Jammu and Kashmir, however, India decided that month to reinforce deployments along
the Line of Control by providing more troops and weapons. This maneuver frustrated
Pakistan, which had been expecting India to remove its troops from the region. India
conveyed that its troops would remain in the area because Pakistan made no move to
remove its troops. Once more in September 2005 India and Pakistan pledged to resolve
the issue of Jammu and Kashmir through peaceful means and asserted that terrorism
would not be permitted to halt the process. Days following this joint statement India
insisted that if Pakistan were able to curb the entry of terrorists into Jammu and Kashmir
and limit their activity then there could be “movement forward.” In a positive
development, a high ranking commander within the Pakistan-backed Hizb-ul-Mujahideen
militant group crossed the Line of Control and laid down his arms before the Indian
Army on 29 September 2005.72
On 9 October 2005 tragedy struck South Asia as an enormous earthquake shook
the region causing major devastation. Pakistan was hit especially hard as damage was the
worst in Pakistan-administered Kashmir where more than 1,000 were killed. The natural
70
Manjunath. 29.
Ibid., 28.
72
Ibid., 14.
71
Rutgers Model United Nations
26
disaster served to promote the peace process in Kashmir. In the days following the quake,
Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was prepared to deliver aid to Pakistanadministered Kashmir as it was easier for India to access the area than Pakistan. India
provided relief aid and also allowed Pakistan to fly within a kilometer of the airspace
above the Line of Control to reach isolated areas in need of assistance.
expressed its gratitude for the relief assistance provided by India.
Pakistan
Despite the
cooperation fostered by the quake, India still advised its military to be alert so as to
prevent militants from capitalizing on the chaos and instability following the earthquake.
Pakistan expressed its willingness to allow Kashmiris living on both sides of the Line of
Control to cross the border in order to aid each other in reconstruction and relief efforts.
On 30 October 2005 an agreement was reached that opened foot crossings at five distinct
locations along the Line of Control to allow Kashmiris to access the other side. The
crossing was scheduled to open 7 November but it was delayed.73
Despite cooperation on earthquake relief, setbacks still occurred in the peace
process. On 31 October 2005 explosions in New Delhi that killed fifty-nine people were
linked to external terrorist groups opposing Indian rule in Kashmir. While India did not
let this impede upon relief efforts, Prime Minister Singh informed Musharraf personally
that he was “disturbed” by the indication of “external linkages” to the attacks.74 Pakistan
in turn responded by calling for the self-determination of the Kashmiris under the
supervision of the United Nations. India was not receptive to such proposals given
increased violence in the region following infiltration of many militants during the
aftermath of the earthquake. In December 2005, President Musharraf publicly stated that
Pakistan would relinquish its claim on Jammu and Kashmir if India accepted the current
borders, gradually removed troops, and allowed for self-government on a local level.75
Despite progress made by the governments of India and Pakistan, violence continued. On
20 July 2005 a car bomb exploded in Srinagar killing four. The militant group Hizbul
73
Manjunath. 10.
Ibid., 9.
75
“Musharraf Pushes Kashmir Proposal.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 5 December 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6208660.stm.
74
Rutgers Model United Nations
27
Mujahideen perpetrated the attack.76 India stated that such attacks would harm the peace
process, while Pakistani Prime Minister Aziz insisted that the country would continue to
seek a resolution to its issues with neighboring India regardless of their “negative
statements.”77
Current Status
In early 2006 a delegation from India visited Pakistan on a diplomatic mission and
toured areas of Pakistan-administered Kashmir struck by the 2005 earthquake. While
many greeted the Indian delegation warmly, some militant groups within the area
objected to their presence. During the visit, President Musharraf again stressed his plan
to bring self-government to Kashmir by affording it semi-autonomy. According to his
proposal, Kashmir would hold its own elections and have its own prime ministers,
however would not have full independence. Musharraf made clear that demilitarization
would be required before self-governance could occur. Hurriyat leaders were not in favor
of Musharraf’s proposal because it falls short of allowing the region full independence.
The Hurriyat, however, still takes its queue from Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir
because their policies are more attuned to Islamabad than New Dehli.78 The question of
independence in Kashmir is complex. Originally, a United Nations mandated plebiscite
was supposed to occur in order to determine the fate of the region, however, this course
of action has consistently been rejected by India. While Pakistan has repeatedly called
for a plebiscite and condemned India for betraying its agreement, it is obvious that
Pakistan has never considered a fully autonomous Kashmir a realistic option. Moreover,
while there is a movement for independence within Kashmir, it is questionable whether
an autonomous Kashmir Valley would be advantageous to its occupants. The cultural,
ethnic, and religious diversity within the region create differences that would be difficult
76
Bukhari, Shujaat. “Four Killed in Kashmir Blast.” The Hindu. 21 July 2005.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2005072111230100.htm&date=2005/07/21/&prd=th&
77
Manjunath. 24.
78
Sadiq, Mohd. “Jammu and Kashmir: Important Events and Developments During 2006.” J&K Insights. Jammu
and Kashmir: The Complete Knowledge Base. 31 December 2006. http://www.jammukashmir.com/insights/insight20061231a.html.
Rutgers Model United Nations
28
to overcome in order to form a single state. Moreover, many minorities in Kashmir, such
as the Buddhists and Hindus, have never supported the independence movement or
accession to Pakistan. These issues raise the question of if and how a plebiscite should
be conducted.79
Spring 2006 brought lengthy discussion on the subject of Kashmir as nongovernmental organizations such as Pugwash and the Centre for Dialogue and
Reconciliation organized intra-Kashmir, cross-border conferences in which leaders could
meet. The hosts offered recommendations that they hoped proved helpful in facilitating
productive discussion. G.M. Shah, a prominent political figure in Jammu and Kashmir
also organized such a conference to focus on “Peace and Solution.” Juxtaposed to the
spirit of the conferences that occurred in spring 2006 was the massacre of 1 May. In the
early hours militants gathered civilians outside their homes in a small village and
massacred 35 Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir in the worst attacks since the 2003
ceasefire. India reasoned that the violence was an attempt to derail the peace process, as
the attacks occurred days after Indian government officials met with Pakistani
representatives to discuss opening the Line of Control for cargo trucks and days before
the Indian government was scheduled to meet with the separatists.80 Other militant
terrorist attacks were carried out in late May in response to the prime minister’s Round
Table Conference on Kashmir. The most severe attack relating to the conflict in several
years occurred in summer 2006, not in Kashmir but in Mumbai. On 7 July 2006 more
than 190 people were killed and some 700 people injured by explosions on seven
commuter trains. The plot was carried out by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and received strong
public condemnation from Musharraf who called terrorism the “bane of our times.”81
These attacks demonstrate that the violence in Kashmir has grown beyond the control of
79
Schofield, Victoria. “Kashmir’s Forgotten Plebiscite.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 17 January 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1766582.stm.
80
“Kashmir on Strike Over Killings.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 2 May 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4963858.stm.
81
“At least 174 Killed in Indian Train Blasts.” CNN: World. 12 July 2006.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/11/mumbai.blasts/.
Rutgers Model United Nations
29
the Pakistani government; he militant groups have developed into powerful entities with
rigid goals and cannot be easily manipulated by the Pakistani government.
In mid-September Prime Minister Singh met with President Musharraf in Cuba for
additional peace talks. During the meeting, the leaders agreed to cooperate in order to
defeat terrorism. This seemingly simple agreement is actual diplomatically significant as
it conveys that India is recognizing militant groups conducting terrorist activities in
Kashmir are linked to Pakistan, but not necessarily the Pakistani government. This is an
important step considering that India often holds the Pakistani establishment responsible
for Kashmir’s terror. While the meeting in Cuba helped facilitate the continuance of the
peace process, it was also greeted with disapproval from many within India’s opposition
party who felt that the move was weak and unnecessary.82 Still, the Cuba meeting
restored hope that peace was attainable following the Mumbai bombings. A surprising
development in December 2006 also bodes well for hope at a resolution to the Kashmir
conflict in the near future. President Musharraf gave an interview in which he suggested
that Pakistan could potentially relinquish its claim to Jammu and Kashmir so long as
Pakistan retain control of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. He proposed that the conflict
be resolved by giving people from across the region of Kashmir freedom of movement
and allowing self-government while not granting full independence. He explained that
for a solution to be achieved, troops must be removed and replaced with a joint IndoPakistani mechanism to supervise the region. Musharraf’s recommendations are
considered telling of how much progress has been made in peace negotiations.83
The year 2007 has seen a rise in volatility and instability in Pakistan, yet despite
these developments, the leadership of each party appears confident that the peace process
will stay on track. These assurances come even in the face of militant groups’ rejection of
Musharraf’s proposals for the future of Pakistan. Musharraf is recently facing dissent not
only from extremists but also from moderates. He is considering the cancellation of the
82
Majumder, Sanjoy. “Rivals Look to Break Fresh Ground.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 18 September 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/5357038.stm.
83
Malhotra, Jyoti. “Kashmir: Is agreement in sight?” World: South Asia. BBC News. 7 December 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/6217734.stm.
Rutgers Model United Nations
30
upcoming 2007 elections in an effort to consolidate power. The international community
is uncertain regarding the situation as they seek to balance their support for democratic
institutions with their interest in a secure and stable Pakistan. This concern becomes
especially important considering the elements of international terrorism and nuclear
weapons.84
UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
On 20 January 1948 the Security Council established the United Nations
Commission for Indian and Pakistan (UNCIP) for the purpose of investigating and
mediating the dispute over Kashmir. The commission was originally only a three-member
force but was expanded in 21 April 1948 to include the use of observers. The first group
of UN military observers arrived in Kashmir weeks following the ceasefire on 24 January
1949 forming the foundation of the United Nations Military Observer Group for India
and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). Months later on 18 July 1949, the Karachi Agreement was
signed establishing the cease-fire line that the observers would be patrolling. When the
UNCIP expired, the Security Council decided that UNMOGIP maintain its supervision of
the cease-fire line in Kashmir making the body an independent operation directed by the
chief military observer.
The primary activities conducted by the UNMOGIP were
observing the situation and making reports, investigating complaints and violations, and
compiling its findings for presentation to the involved parties and the United Nations
secretary-general.85 The observer group remains located along the ceasefire line and
headquartered in Rawalpindi and Srinagar (depending on the season). The force is
composed of forty-four military observers, twenty-one international civilian personnel,
and forty-six local civilian staff. The military components of the force are from Chile,
Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Uruguay. Since
the inception of the observer group there have been eleven fatalities.
84
UNMOGIP
Blitzer, Wolf. “The Situation Room.” CNN. XM Radio Channel 122. 17 August 2007.
United Nations Military Observer Group India and Pakistan. United Nations Peace Keeping Operations. George
Mason University. 30 November 1994. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-po/resourcebk/mission/unmogip.html#t1.
85
Rutgers Model United Nations
31
functions using appropriations from the United Nations regular budget and receive
approximately USD $15.8 million annually.86
Thus far, the Security Council has passed eighteen resolutions either directly or
tangentially relating to Kashmir. The most recent such resolution was 1172, passed in
1998 to address the presence of nuclear weapons in South Asia and urge Pakistan and
India to find peaceful solutions to the issues that cause tension between them, including
Kashmir. Through many of its early resolutions on the subject, including those past in
1948, 1950, 1951, and 1957, the Security Council decided that the “final disposition” of
Jammu and Kashmir would be established in accordance with the will of the Kashmiri
people as determined by a UN-administered plebiscite. As mentioned, the plebiscite
never occurred.87 Currently, India and Pakistan maintain that the plebiscite is not in the
best interest of the Kashmiri people. India suggests that the UN resolutions calling for a
plebiscite have lost their relevance considering that it has been fifty years since a
Kashmiri plebiscite was first considered.
Key Positions
United States of America
The United States has played an important role in the Kashmir conflict. While the
United States traditionally was a devoted ally of Pakistan, this did not give Pakistan
license to act unchecked. For instance, America refused to support Pakistan’s obvious
aggression during the Kargil incursion and instead applauded India’s exercise of restraint.
American foreign policy also took a drastic shift following the attacks of 11 September
2001. The American government conveyed a powerful message to the world community
that extremist terrorism in any form would not be tolerated. The United States put
pressure on Pakistan to curb the activities of Muslim terrorists and curb militancy within
86
“India and Pakistan - UNMOGIP - Facts and Figures.” Peace and Security Section of the Department of Public
Information. Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed July 2007.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/facts.html.
87
“Kashmir in the United Nations.” Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government: Frequently Asked Questions. 3 April
2005. http://www.ajk.gov.pk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2276&Itemid=135.
Rutgers Model United Nations
32
the country. With regard to Kashmir, the American government is encouraged that India
and Pakistan have taken steps toward bringing peace to the region and hope to the
Kashmiri people. The United States contends that the conflict cannot be solved through
violence, but only through diplomacy.88 American President George W. Bush visited
India in March 2006 and announced that India and Pakistan are presented with “a historic
opportunity to work toward lasting peace.” The president went on to say that both
countries need to “step up and lead” and commended Musharraf particularly for his
leadership thus far. Musharraf was pleased with President Bush’s interest in the topic
considering that the Pakistani President requested that America remained involved in
reaching a conclusion to the Kashmir dispute.89 Despite the United States’ position that
violence is not the answer, America sells weapons to both India90 and Pakistan.91 The
United States is also important economically to both India and Pakistan. The United
States accounts for 17.4 per cent of India’s exports and 5.9 per cent of their imports.92
Approximately 21.2 per cent of Pakistan’s exports are bound for the United States and
6.4% of their imports are from America.93
Russia
Russia is traditionally supportive of India on the issue of Kashmir, and expresses
support for India’s peace initiatives and hopes that Pakistan will respond in a constructive
manner. In return for its support on the issue of Kashmir, India maintains that Russian
action in Chechnya is necessary for the protection of territorial integrity. The two states
share “complete identity of views” on terrorism and wants stronger action taken against
those countries that provide aid to terrorists through financial means, training, or
88
Kronstadt, K. “India-US Relations.” Issue Brief for Congress. 29 January 2003.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/17323.pdf.
89
“Bush urges end to Kashmir conflict.” CNN: World. 4 March 2006.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/bush.kashmir/index.html.
90
Bindra, Satinder and Ram Ramgopal. “U.S. to boost arms sales to India.” CNN: World. 3 March 2006.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/02/bush.india.fri/index.html.
91
Manjunath. 28.
92
“India.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 2007. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/in.html#Econ
93
“Pakistan.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 2007. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/pk.html#Econ
Rutgers Model United Nations
33
supplies. The two countries also agree that “international action against terrorism cannot
be selective, but has to be uniform, comprehensive, continuous, and multifaceted.”94
Russia has supported resolutions drafted by India at the United Nations that deal with
preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction.
China
Despite early involvement within the conflict, China has distanced itself from the
issue of Kashmir within the last two decades. As China and India normalized relations,
the government in Beijing determined that neutrality was the most prudent course of
action. Since then, China has attempted to maintain its historically good relations with
Pakistan while also developing a relationship with India. China conducts trade with both
India and Pakistan. Approximately 13.7 per cent of Pakistan’s exports are from China
and 5.4 per cent of Pakistan’s exports are directed toward China.95 China is responsible
for 7.9 per cent of India’s exports and 8.5 per cent of India’s imports come from China.96
China is supportive of the positive developments between Pakistan and India and sees a
resolution to the conflict as progress toward achieving peace and stability within the
region. China feels that the matter should be solved bilaterally and through solely
peaceful means. Pakistan and India’s acquisition of nuclear weapons further solidified
China’s insistence that a peaceful solution must be brokered. Given China’s physical
proximity to the parties involved, there is extreme concern that nuclear war in the region
could produce horrific consequences for China. The issue of Aksai Chin also gives
China a personal stake in the fate of the region of Kashmir. Approximately 35,000 square
kilometers are claimed by both India and China. This area is called Ladaakh, Kashmir.
While the sparsely populated piece of land presents no conflict at the moment, it is
94
Radyuhin, Vladimir. “Russia Backs India on Terrorism, Kashmir.”
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2003111402791100.htm&date=2003/11/14/&prd=th&
95
CIA World Factbook: Pakistan.
96
CIA World Factbook: India.
Rutgers Model United Nations
34
important to consider China’s potential involvement in the matter.97
United Kingdom
The official position of the United Kingdom on the Kashmir issue is full support
of the “ongoing composite dialogue process between India and Pakistan.”
The
government encourages the parties to come to a lasting resolution and stresses the
importance of involving the Kashmiri people in forming a solution. The UK also calls
for all “external support” for violence to stop. The external support mentioned in the
United Kingdom’s policy is in reference to the widespread allegation that the Pakistani
government supports militant terrorist groups operating in Kashmir.
The United
Kingdom also seeks the improvement of human rights in the region.98 As the former
colonial possessor of both India and Pakistan the United Kingdom has a unique position
within the debate over Kashmir. The United Kingdom has sold weapons to both India
and Pakistan.99 The United Kingdom is also an import trade partner for both India and
Pakistan, accounting for 4.4 per cent of Indian exports100 and 5.1 per cent of Pakistani
exports.101
France
France condemns terrorist attacks with Jammu and Kashmir and seeks a resolution
to the conflict.102 France encourages both parties to exercise restraint and approach the
issue diplomatically. The state asserts that there is no militaristic answer to the question
of Kashmir and that it can only be addressed through dialogue.103
97
Yuan, Jing-dong. “China’s Kashmir Policy.” Association for Asian Research. 7 October 2005.
http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2740.html.
98
“Country Profiles: Pakistan.” Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 20 February 2000.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&
a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019041564003.
99
Davies, Mark. “Straw defends arms sales change.” 9 July 2002. BBC News: World Edition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2110081.stm.
100
CIA Factbook: India.
101
CIA Factbook: Pakistan.
102
“Daily Press Briefing.” Embassy of France in the United States. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 24 March 2003.
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/briefing/us240303.asp#3.
103
“France urges calm over Kashmir.” BBC News. World: South Asia. 1 November 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1631658.stm.
Rutgers Model United Nations
35
Other Positions
The European Union, comprised of states including Belgium, Italy, and Slovakia,
is supportive of a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir dispute, and supports democratic
institutions, having been angered by the Pakistani military coup that brought General
Musharraf to power. The EU has refused to enter into partnership negotiations with
Pakistan until civilian rule was restored. It is important to the European Union that the
Kashmiri people are afforded human rights and respect. Also, given their position on
nuclear temperance it is important to the member states of the European Union that both
India and Pakistan commit to a peaceful solution so as to avoid sparking nuclear conflict.
Moreover, ensuring the security of their nuclear arsenals is an important consideration.
Based on its experiences, the African Union supports the peaceful resolution of the
conflict and asserts that such a dispute cannot be resolved through violence. Based on
conflicts within its own continent, the African Union also deeply respects human rights
and seeks to ensure that they are protected in Kashmir. Member states of the African
Union currently serving on the Security Council include: the Republic of Congo, Ghana,
and South Africa.
The Organization of American States, which includes Panama and Peru, often
takes its queue from America regarding international affairs in which Latin American
stakes are not directly involved. The OAS also considers solving the Kashmir question
peacefully of the utmost importance and rejects the use of violence between India and
Pakistan.
The Organization of Islamic Countries, of which Indonesia and Qatar are both
members, express its support to the inalienable rights of the Kashmiri people and call for
the United Nations to grant them self-determination as outlined by its Charter.104
104
Manjunath. 4.
Rutgers Model United Nations
36
Summary
The disputed Kashmir region has been a source of tension between Pakistan and
India for sixty years. During the course of that time, several wars have been fought over
the disputed territory, and for over two decades, violent militant groups have operated
within Jammu and Kashmir, allegedly with the support of the Pakistani government.
These militant groups have conducted terrorist activities directed at both the government
and civilians. The Indian government reacted with force, escalating tension in the area.
The dynamic of the situation changed drastically when both parties developed nuclear
capabilities. In 2001-2002, there was a prolonged standoff along the Line of Control
between the two parties, causing serious concern in the international community that the
use of nuclear weapons could be a reality. Relations between India and Pakistan have
improved in recent years, however, hesitancy still exists within both nations. Moreover,
while some progress has been made toward bringing a resolution to the Kashmir conflict,
violence in the region still exists.
Rutgers Model United Nations
37
Works Cited
“2002 – Kashmir Crisis.” Military. GlobalSecurity.org. Accessed July 2007.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kashmir-2002.htm.
“A Comprehensive Note on Jammu and Kashmir: The United Nations.” Embassy of
India, Washington D.C. Accessed 2 July 2007.
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Kashmir/Kashmir_MEA/UN.html.
“Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises.”
Research Programs: South Asia Program. The Henry L. Stimson Center. Accessed
July 2007. http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216.
Ahmed, Samina. "Diplomatic Fiasco: Pakistan's Failure on the Diplomatic Front Nullifies
its Gains on the Battlefield." Newsline 11, no. 1 (July 1999): 37-38.
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=STPP&ctype=article&item
_id=43.
Amin, Agha Humayun. Grand Slam: A Battle of Lost Opportunities. Defense Journal:
Pakistan. 2000. http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm.
“Application Instituting Proceeding: Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v.
India).” International Court of Justice. Filed 21 September 1999. General List No.
119. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/7123.pdf.
“At least 174 Killed in Indian Train Blasts.” CNN: World. 12 July 2006.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/11/mumbai.blasts/.
“Background.” Behind the Kashmir Conflict: Abuses by Indian Security Forces and
Militant Groups Continue. Human Rights Watch.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/back.htm.
“Bangladesh: The War for Bangladeshi Independence, 1971.” Library of Congress
Country Studies. September 1988. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0027).
“Bangladesh War of Independence.” Wars of the World. OnWar.com 16 December 2000.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr70/fbangladesh1971.htm.
Bindra, Satinder and Ram Ramgopal. “U.S. to boost arms sales to India.” CNN: World. 3
March 2006.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/02/bush.india.fri/index.html.
Rutgers Model United Nations
38
Blitzer, Wolf. “The Situation Room.” CNN. XM Radio Channel 122. 17 August 2007.
Bukhari, Shujaat. “Four Killed in Kashmir Blast.” The Hindu. 21 July 2005.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2005072111230100.ht
m&date=2005/07/21/&prd=th&.
“Bush urges end to Kashmir conflict.” CNN: World. 4 March 2006.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/bush.kashmir/index.html.
Calvin, James Barnard. “The China-India Border War (1962).” Marine Corps Command
and Staff College. April 1984.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm.
“Clinton Urges Return to Civilian Rule.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 14 October
1999. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/473507.stm.
Coll, Steve. “The Stand-Off.” The New Yorker. 13 February 2006.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/13/060213fa_fact_coll
“Country Profiles: Pakistan.” Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 20 February 2000.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage
&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019041564003.
“Daily Press Briefing.” Embassy of France in the United States. Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. 24 March 2003. http://www.ambafranceus.org/news/briefing/us240303.asp#3.
Davies, Mark. “Straw defends arms sales change.” 9 July 2002. BBC News: World
Edition. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2110081.stm.
“Declaration of Independence.” Virtual Bangladesh. 1 May 2005.
http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/declaration.html.
“France urges calm over Kashmir.” BBC News. World: South Asia. 1 November 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1631658.stm.
Ganguly, Meenakshi. “The Spoils of War.” TIME. Vol. 155 No. 14. 10 April 2000.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0410/india.kargil.html.
Garver, John W. “China’s Decision for War with India in 1962.” Harvard.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf.
Rutgers Model United Nations
39
“General Elections 1970.” Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A Multimedia
Journey. 1 June 2003.
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A140&Pg=2.
Gill, John H. “Dissuasion and Confrontation: U.S. Policy in India-Pakistan Crises.”
Strategic Insights, Volume III, Issue 10. October 2004.
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/oct/gillOct04.asp.
“Govt blames LeT for Parliament attack, asks Pak to restrain terrorist outfits.” Rediff on
the Net. 14 December 2001. http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/dec/14parl12.htm.
“Historical Chronology of Jammu and Kashmir State.” Kashmir Information Network.
2001. Accessed July 2007. http://www.kashmir-information.com/chronology.html.
Hoyt, Timothy D. Politics, Proximity and Paranoia: The Evolution of Kashmir as a
Nuclear Flashpoint. Academic Search Premier.
Imperial Gazetteer of India. Volume 15. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1908.
“In Depth: The Future of Kashmir.” BBC News. 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/default.st
m.
“India.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 2007.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html#Econ
“India and Pakistan - UNMOGIP - Facts and Figures.” Peace and Security Section of the
Department of Public Information. Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
Accessed July 2007. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/facts.html.
“India Blames Pakistan-Backed Militants for Kashmir Massacre.” CNN. 21 March 2000.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/03/21/kashmir.attack.03/index.html
“India Expels Pakistan's Ambassador.” CBC News: World. 18 May 2002.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/05/18/india_pak020518.html.
“India-Pakistan Conflict.” Military. GlobalSecurity.org. Accessed July 2007.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak.htm.
“Indo-Pak War [September, 1965].” Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A
Multimedia Journey. 1 June 2003.
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=6
Rutgers Model United Nations
40
“Indo-Pak War [September, 1965]: Lahore Offensive.” Timeline: Events 1958-1969.
Story Of Pakistan: A Multimedia Journey. 1 June 2003.
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=5
“Kashmir.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
14 Aug. 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-214224>.
“Kashmir in the United Nations.” Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government: Frequently
Asked Questions. 3 April 2005.
http://www.ajk.gov.pk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2276
&Itemid=135.
“Kashmir on Strike Over Killings.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 2 May 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4963858.stm.
Khan, M. Ilyas. “Second-Class Citizens.” The Herald (Pakistan). July 2000.
http://www.warbirds.in/downloads/HeraldKargil.pdf.
Kronstadt, K. “India-US Relations.” Issue Brief for Congress. 29 January 2003.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/17323.pdf.
Lodhi, Aasiya. “Neighbours Concerned About Stability.” World: South Asia. BBC News.
13 October 1999. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/473825.stm.
Malhotra, Jyoti. “Kashmir: Is agreement in sight?” World: South Asia. BBC News. 7
December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//1/hi/world/south_asia/6217734.stm.
Majumder, Sanjoy. “Rivals Look to Break Fresh Ground.” World: South Asia. BBC
News. 18 September 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//1/hi/world/south_asia/5357038.stm.
Manjunath KS. Indo-Pak Peace Process Chronology of Events 2004-05. IPCS Special
Report 96, Janurary 2006. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
http://www.ipcs.org/IPCS-Special-Report-06.pdf.
“Members States Information.” Organization of the Islamic Conference. Accessed July
2007. http://www.oic-oci.org/.
Malik, VP. “Kargil: Where Defence Met Diplomacy.” The Indian Express. 25 July 2002.
http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2002/07/25o03.htm
Rutgers Model United Nations
41
Mody, Anjali. “Four Accused in Parliament Attack Case Convicted.” The Hindu. Online
Edition. 17 December 2002.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/12/17/stories/2002121705260100.htm.
“Musharraf Promises ‘True Democracy.’” World: South Asia. BBC News. 17 October
1999. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/477358.stm.
“Musharraf Pushes Kashmir Proposal.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 5 December
2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6208660.stm.
Noorani, AG. “Perseverance in Peace Process.” Frontline: India’s National Magazine.
Volume 20, Issue 17. 16 August 2003.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2017/stories/20030829001604900.htm.
“Pakistan.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 2007.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html#Econ.
“Pakistan Army Seizes Power.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 12 October 1999.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/472511.stm.
“Pakistan Refuses to Take Even Officers' Bodies” Rediff on the Net. 11 July 1999.
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jul/11karg1.htm
“Pakistan’s Coup: Why the Army Acted.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 13 October
1999. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/473297.stm.
Power, Jonathan. “Pakistan and India Play With Nuclear Fire.” The Transnational
Foundation for Peace and Future Research. 12 August 1998.
http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/1998/pow12-08.html.
Qadir, Shaukat. “An Analysis of the Kargil Conflict 1999.” Royal United Services
Institute for Defence and Security Studies.
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/JA00199.pdf.
Radyuhin, Vladimir. “Russia Backs India on Terrorism, Kashmir.”
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2003111402791100.ht
m&date=2003/11/14/&prd=th&.
Rai, Mridu. Hindu Ruler, Muslim Subjects: Islam and the History of Kashmir. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press. 2004. 320 pages.
Rutgers Model United Nations
42
Raman, Sunil. “Sharon’s Historic India Visit.” BBC World Service Hindi Section. 8
September 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3088780.stm.
Sadiq, Mohd. “Jammu and Kashmir: Important Events and Developments During 2006.”
J&K Insights. Jammu and Kashmir: The Complete Knowledge Base. 31 December
2006. http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insights/insight20061231a.html.
Schofield, Victoria. “Kashmir: The Origins of the Dispute.” World: South Asia. BBC
News. 16 January 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1762146.stm.
Schofield, Victoria. “Kashmir’s Forgotten Plebiscite.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 17
January 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1766582.stm.
Shalom, Stephen R. “The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo-Pak War of 1971.” Source:
"The U.S. Response to Humanitarian Crises," Z Magazine, Sept. 1991.
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue47/articles/a07.htm.
Sinha, P.B., A.A. Athale, and S. Prasad, ed. “History of the Conflict with China, 1962.”
History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 1992.
Staff Reporter. “Govt Comments Sought in Atlantique Case.” Dawn: the Internet Edition.
17 July 2002. http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/17/nat32.htm.
Suggu, Kanchana. “The militants had the home ministry and special Parliament label.”
Rediff on the Net. 13 December 2001.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/dec/13parl14.htm.
Taylor, Paul D. India and Pakistan. Naval War College Review. Summer 2001. Vol. 54,
Issue 3. Academic Search Premier.
Vinayak, Ramesh. “Fencing Duel.” India Today. 21 April 2001. http://www.indiatoday.com/webexclusive/dispatch/20010421/vinayak.html
“United Nations Military Observer Group India and Pakistan.” United Nations Peace
Keeping Operations. George Mason University. 30 November 1994.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-po/resource-bk/mission/unmogip.html#t1.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) on the India-Pakistan Question.
Adopted 21 April 1948. Document No. S/726. http://www.kashmiricc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm.
Rutgers Model United Nations
43
United Nations Security Council Resolution 211 (1965). The India Pakistan Question.
Adopted 20 September 1965.
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/222/82/IMG/NR022282.p
df?OpenElement
“US Calls for Democracy in Pakistan.” World: South Asia. BBC News. 12 October 1999.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/472803.stm.
Yuan, Jing-dong. “China’s Kashmir Policy.” Association for Asian Research. 7 October
2005. http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2740.html.