Project title : indo pakistan relations – jammu tangle

Subject : Political science II

Faculty name : Nirmala devi

Name of the candidate : k. madhu latha

Roll no : 2018047

Semester : 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected Political
Science professor, T.Y. Nirmala Devi for giving me this golden opportunity to take up this
project regarding “INDIA PAKISTAN -JAMMU TANGLE”. I have tried my best to
collect information about the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the
given project topic.
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This project is purely Doctrinal and based on primary and secondary sources such as
websites, books, journals and internet sources. The referencing style followed in this project
is BLUE BOOK 19th Edition's format of citation. This Research process deals with
collecting and analysing information to answer questions. The Research is purely descriptive
in its boundaries of the topic
POLITICAL SCIENCE ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Kashmir was a Muslim-majority princely state, ruled by a Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh.
At the time of the partition of India, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of the state, is not a
member of the Union of India or the Dominion of Pakistan. He wanted India and Pakistan to
recognize his princely state as independent neutral country.

In the tangle web of promises and failed talks which have been the princely state of Jammu
and Kashmir, there is one constant: a steadfast belief in 1947, When India and Pakistan
achieved their independence from Britain, they have been honoured. Rather they believe that
a decision was forced upon them. Firstly, when the Maharaja, Hari Singh, acceded to India
without consultation; secondly, when the plebiscite, promoted by India and Pakistan, was
never hero. The demand for ‘Azadi’ today reflects that belief.

Sixty-four years later, the state's controversial status of South Asia, dominating Indo-Pakistan
relations and making people, with millennia of shared culture and landscape, deadly enemies.
SYNOPSIS

INTRODUCTION:
India and Pakistan forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. India referred
the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN
asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its
forces.

Once this happened, a “free and fair” plebiscite was to be held to allow the Kashmiri people
to decide their future.

India, having taken the issue to the UN, was confident of winning a plebiscite, since the most
influential Kashmir mass leader, Sheikh Abdullah, was firmly on its side. An emergency
government was formed on October 30, 1948 with Sheikh Abdullah as the Prime Minister.

Pakistan ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting, holding on to the portion of
Kashmir under its control. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed, with 65 per cent of the
territory under Indian control and the remainder with Pakistan.

The ceasefire was intended to be temporary, but the Line of Control remains the de facto
border between the two countries.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
1. Is there a space with in Kashmir society in which the democratic aspirations of the
populace of Kashmir should be nurtured?
2. Will the appointment of interlocutor by the Indian government prove to be fruitful.

OBJECTIVE STUDY:
The objective of the project is to study the reasons for the conflict that is happening in
Kashmir region and to find the solutions for this conflict.

LITERATURE REVIEW:
India Pakistan and the Kashmir Tangle

Across the Line of Control: Inside Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir

SCOPE:

The main scope of this research will be covering the diplomatic relations between India and
Pakistan.

SIGNIFICANCE
Kashmir region plays a very crucial role in the diplomacy of India and Pakistan and four wars
took place between India and Pakistan because of the dispute in Jammu and Kashmir region
Table of contents

Introduction

Creation of princely state of kashmir

Kashmir territory

First india pakistan war

India pakistan war

The shimla agreement and the line of control

Kargil conflict

India and pak open trade route across the line of control

Kashmir in indian perception

Kashmir in pakistan perception

Surgical strikes (2016)

Uri and international reaction

Pulwama attack

Conclusion
INTRODUCTION:

The separatist politics in Kashmir is, in fact, the conflict between the two uncompromising
struggles of the two ways of life and two diverse attitudes which have made Kashmir a
battlefield. While Jawahar Lal Nehru believed in unity among diverse people, Mohammad
Ali Jinnah, repudiating Nehru’s views, held that Hindus and Muslims belong to two different
religious philosophies and social customs. They neither can interdine, nor can intermarry,
hence they belong to two different, conflicting ideas and conceptions.

The problem of separatist politics in Kashmir began as Pakistan started laying claim over the
Muslim majority state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, religion-ideological factors behind
Pakistan’s claim over Kashmir can be traced back to freedom struggle of India. At the time of
Indian Independence Act, Indian National Congress believed that diverse languages, religious
and ethnic groups can co-exist in a secular state of India. However, such view of Indian
National Congress was not acceptable to Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League as Jinnah
was believer of Two Nations Theory.

Infact, both India as well as Pakistan claimed Kashmir on ideological grounds.

In the tangle web of promises and failed talks which have been the princely state of Jammu
and Kashmir, there is one constant: a steadfast belief in 1947, When India and Pakistan
achieved their independence from Britain, they have been honoured.
India and Pakistan forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. India referred
the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN
asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its
forces.

Once this happened, a “free and fair” plebiscite was to be held to allow the Kashmiri people
to decide their future.

Creation of the princely state of Kashmir – 1846:

The princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, the "Sentry State "2 of the British IndianEmpire,
bordering the three great powers in the East—the British, the Russian and theChinese—came
into existence with the ominous terms of the Treaty of Amritsar signed between Raja Gulab
Singh of Jammu and the British East India Company on 16th March 1846.

The formation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir was unique as disparate territories stripped
by the Company from Sikh Kingdom of Punjab were brought togetherto form the state. The
boundaries of the state were redrawn more for geo-political and administrative convenience
rather than on a commonality shared by the people living there. Jammu and Kashmir was,
from 1846 until 1952, a princely state of the British Empire in India and ruled by a Jamwal
Rajput Dogra Dynasty.The state was created in 1846 from the territories previously
under Sikh Empire after the First Anglo-Sikh War.

The East India Company annexed KashmirValley, Jammu, Ladakhand Gilgit Baltistan from
Sikhs, and then transferred it to Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu in return for an indemnity
payment of 7,500,000 Rupees. At the time of the British withdrawal from India, Maharaja
Hari Singh, the ruler of the state, preferred to become independent and remain neutral
between the successor dominions of India and Pakistan.

However, an uprising in the western districts of the State followed by an attack by raiders
from the neighbouring Northwest Frontier Province, supported by Pakistan, put an end to his
plans for independence. On 26 October 1947, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of
Accession joining the Dominion of India in return for military aid.The western and northern
districts presently known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan passed to the control of
Pakistan.1

Kashmir territory:

1947-48 - Kashmir's Maharaja hesitates over whether to join India or Pakistan, prompting the
two countries to go to war over the territory.
The former princely state of Kashmir has been partitioned between India and Pakistan since
1947, to the satisfaction of neither country nor the Kashmiris themselves.Failure to agree on
the status of the territory by diplomatic means has brought India and Pakistan to war on many
occasions and ignited an insurgency that continued unabated for decades.

Partition

1
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/63611/8/08_chapter%202.pdf
When India and Pakistan gained independence from British rule in 1947, the various princely
rulers were able to choose which state to join. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was the
Hindu head of a majority Muslim state sandwiched between the two countries and could not
decide. He signed an interim "standstill" agreement to maintain transport and other services
with Pakistan.
In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, spurred by reports of attacks on
Muslims and frustrated by Hari Singh's delaying tactics. The Maharaja asked for Indian
military assistance.
India's governor-general, Lord Mountbatten, believed peace would best be served by
Kashmir's joining India on a temporary basis, pending a vote on its ultimate status. Hari
Singh signed the Instrument of Accession that month, ceding control over foreign and
defence policy to India.
Pakistan ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting, holding on to the portion of
Kashmir under its control. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed, with 65 per cent of the
territory under Indian control and the remainder with Pakistan.
The ceasefire was intended to be temporary, but the Line of Control remains the de facto
border between the two countries.
Indian troops took two-thirds of the territory, and Pakistan seized the northern remainder.
China occupied eastern parts of the state in the 1950s.2In

First India – Pakistan war

do-China1962
The first Indo -Pakistan war started after armed tribesmen from Pakistan’s North west
frontier province invaded Kashmir in October 1947. Besieged both by a revolt in his state and
by the invasion, the Maharajah requested armed assistance from the government of India. In
return acceded to India handing over the powers of the defence communication and foreign
affairs.

Both India and Pakistan agreed that the accession would be confirmed by a referendum once
hostilities had ceased.

2
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11693674
Historians continue to debate the precise timing when the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir
signed the instrument of accession and the Indian army moved into the state, arguing that the
Maharaja acceded to India under duress.

In May 1948, the regular Pakistani army was called upon to protect Pakistan's borders.
Fighting continued throughout the year between Pakistani irregular troops and the Indian
army.

The war ended on 1 January 1949 when a ceasefire was arranged by the United Nations,
which recommended that both India and Pakistan should adhere to their commitment to hold
a referendum in the state. A ceasefire line was established where the two sides stopped
fighting and a UN peacekeeping force established. The referendum, however, has never been
held.

In 1954 Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India was ratified by the state's constituent
assembly. In 1957, it approved its own constitution, modelled along the Indian constitution.
Since that time India has regarded that part of the state which it controls as an integral part of
the Indian union.

To the west of the ceasefire line, Pakistan controls roughly one third of the state. A small
region, which the Pakistanis call Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir, and the Indians call
Pakistani-occupied Kashmir, is semi-autonomous. The larger area, which includes the former
kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar, called the northern areas, is directly administered by Pakistan.

In 1962-3, following the 1962 Sino-Indian war, India and Pakistan held talks under the
auspices of Britain and the US to resolve their differences over Kashmir, but without success.

The India-Pakistan War of 1965:

The second Indo-Pakistani conflict was also fought over Kashmir and started without a
formal declaration of war. The war began in August 5, 1965 and was ended Sept 22, 1965.
The war was initiated by Pakistan who since the defeat of India by China in 1962 had come
to believe that Indian military would be unable or unwilling to defend against a quick military
campaign in Kashmir, and because the Pakistani government was becoming increasingly
alarmed by Indian efforts to integrate Kashmir within India. There was also a perception that
there was widespread popular support within for Pakistani rule and that the Kashmiri people
were dissatisfied with Indian rule.
After Pakistan was successful in the Ran of Kutch earlier in 1965, Ayub Khan was pressured
by the hawks in his cabinet led by Z.A. Bhutto and the army to infiltrate the ceasefire line in
Kashmir. It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian
soldiers and so on. On August 5, 1965, 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control
dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off
by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15.
The initial battles between India and Pakistan were contained within Kashmir involving both
infantry and Armor units with each country’s air force playing major roles. It was not until
early Sept. when Pakistani forces attacked Ackhnur that the Indians escalated the conflict by
attacking targets within Pakistan itself, forcing the Pakistani forces to disengage from
Ackhnur to counter Indian attacks. Unfortunately, the battle was indecisive. By Sept 22 both
sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a
stalemate. Negotiations in Tashkent concluded in January 1966, with both sides giving up
territorial claims, withdrawing their armies from the disputed territory.

Overall, the war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory
belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy–on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft,
200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan’s army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but
a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for
Pakistan. Rise of Kashmiri nationalism: Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front is founded with the
aim of forming an independent state through the reunification of Indian-administered and
Pakistan-administered Kashmir.3

The Shimla Agreement (1972) and the Line of Control:

The third war between India and Pakistan, the so-called ‘Fourteen Days’ War’ of December
1971, was fought over Bangladesh. It was precipitated by a secessionist movement in
Pakistan’s physically-separated East Bengal province, a geographical anomaly produced in
the 1947 partition, that evolved from a civil uprising against the Punjab-dominated militarist

3
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1965.ht
regime of General Yahya Khan into a full-fledged international war of ‘national liberation’
between India and Pakistan.

During this war, India and Pakistan launched major ground and air operations at various
points along their entire western boundary, including along the CFL in Kashmir. Fighting in
the west was clearly peripheral, however, to the main event – determination via combat of
East Pakistan’s political future. Like its 1965 predecessor, this war was quickly terminated.

Unlike the earlier conflict, however, this one resulted in Pakistan’s unambiguous and
humiliating defeat as well as in the fundamental reconfiguration of South Asian political
geography. It also resulted in important modifications to the CFL in Kashmir, including
changes in its name, its location, and especially in the ground rules for policing it. Taken,
these changes dealt substantial blows to Pakistan’s position in Kashmir. The Shimla
Agreement signed in the wake of this war was no more successful, however, at lighting the
way to a lasting settlement of the Kashmir dispute than had been its Tashkent predecessor

By the time the Bangladesh war ended on 17 December, the two sides’ militaries had both
made advances across the CFL in Kashmir. Pakistan gained territory in its southern sector,
India in its central and northern sectors. Neither side’s territorial acquisitions amounted to
much, however, India gaining about 883km2 (341 sq. miles), Pakistan about 151km2 (58 sq.
miles), in both cases less than they had gained in 1965 (Lamb, 1991: 296). In the altered
circumstances emerging from Pakistan’s disastrous defeat, pressure to return to the pre-war
boundary did not exist.

On the contrary, the Indian government, fully aware of its advantageous bargaining position,
seized the opportunity not only to assert the permanence of the minor territorial modifications
that had been made to the CFL but to advance the notion that the CFL had undergone de facto
transformation into a permanent border between India and Pakistan. It sought at the same
time to curb international involvement in Kashmir and to put any future discussion between
India and Pakistan over the dispute on a strictly bilateral footing.

The Line of Control, based on positions held by the armed forces of India and Pakistan at the
time fighting ended, thus replaced the Cease-Fire Line in the official nomenclature of the
Kashmir dispute. Implied here was that the Karachi Agreement, a bilateral but
internationally brokered accord, had been replaced by a new and wholly bilateral one, and
that the Kashmir dispute itself had ceased to be an active territorial problem. So that this
point not be missed, the final sentence of the Shimla Agreement called upon the two
governments to meet to discuss “a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir” – not of the
Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

The UN Security Council had not intervened in the 1971 war. Neither had it played any role
in the Shimla negotiations. Its peacekeeping mission in Kashmir, the UNMOGIP, despite
over twenty years of service there, was not even given passing reference in the Shimla
Agreement. After this agreement, the military observer teams found their peacekeeping role,
especially on the Indian side of the LOC, to have been vastly abridged. They continued to
maintain field stations on the Indian side, but, since they were both banned from policing the
line on that side and never again asked by the Indians to investigate violations of the
ceasefire, they had little to do there.

With the original CFL technically erased, there was now neither a formal demilitarised zone
nor any formal restraint on the build-up of fortifications near the LOC. The Pakistanis, for
whom the military observers still stood as lone symbols of Security Council responsibility in
Kashmir, continued to carry on in accord with UNMOGIP’s original charter. The cold fact of
the matter, however, was that the 1971 war had altered the character of international
involvement in Kashmir – and in India’s favour. 4

Kargil Conflict:

July 26. It was on this day 19 years ago that the Indian Army recaptured all the Indian posts
in Kargil that had been occupied by Pakistan’s army. Since then, July 26 has been observed
annually to commemorate the sacrifices made by soldiers in this war. Here's all you need to
know about the Kargil war, The war took place between May and July of 1999 in Jammu and
Kashmir’s Kargil district. The conflict is believed to have been orchestrated by the then
Pakistan army chief General Pervez Musharraf without the knowledge of the then Pakistan
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. It began with the infiltration of both Pakistani troops and
terrorists into Indian territory. The infiltrators positioned themselves in key locations that
gave them a strategic advantage during the start of the conflict. Based on information from
local shepherds, the Indian Army was able to ascertain thepoints of incursion and launch
“Operation Vijay”.

4
https://thewire.in/199006/puzzle-1972-shimla-summit-india-not-impose-will/
Vijay Diwas

The Army declared the mission successful on July 26, 1999; since then the day has been
celebrated annually as Vijay Diwas.

Casualties

The victory came at a high price. The official death toll on the Indian side was 527, while that
on the Pakistani side was between 357 and 453.

The war

* Because the Pakistani soldiers and terrorists had positioned themselves at higher altitudes, it
gave them an advantage in combat, as they could fire down at advancing Indian troops.
* Pakistan shot down two Indian fighter jets while another fighter jet crashed during the
operation.
* Pakistan asked the US to intervene, but then President Bill Clinton declined to do so until
Pakistani troops were withdrawn from the Line of Control.
* As Pakistani troops withdrew, the Indian armed forces attacked the rest of the outposts,
managing to get back the last of them by July 26.

After the war

* Pakistan initially denied any role in the conflict, saying India was facing off with “Kashmiri
freedom fighters.” However, it later awarded its soldiers medals for the conflict, removing
any doubt of its involvement.

* India increased its defence spending in the budget presented the year after the Kargil
war,but it also resulted in procurement irregularities, like the one in the purchase of coffins
for the soldiers who died in combat.5

5
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm
2008 - India and Pakistan open trade route across the Line of Control for the first time
in six decades:

Trucks laden with fruit, honey, garments and spices crossed the heavily armed frontier in the
Himalayan region of Kashmir on Tuesday as India and Pakistan opened a trade route between
the two sides of the divided region for the first time in six decades. The opening of the trade
route is meant to bolster a 2004 peace agreement between the South Asian rivals. The truce
has appeared increasingly fragile in recent months amid dozens of cross-border shootings and
charges from New Delhi that Islamabad backed attacks in India.

Separatists on the Indian side, who have stepped up demands for a trade route between Indian
and Pakistani-controlled sections of Kashmir during recent mass protests Indian rule, also
hailed Tuesday’s trade opening as a victory. Kashmir has been divided between
predominantly Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan since the bloody partition of the Indian
subcontinent at independence from Britain in 1947. The nuclear-armed neighbours have
fought two of their three wars over Kashmir, and both claim it in its entirety.

The trade route follows the introduction of other confidence-building measures in recent
years, including the opening of rail and bus links between the two sides. The mood was
festive as a crowd watched the governor of India's Jammu-Kashmir state send off the 13
pickup trucks heading to the Pakistani side.Dozens of school children lined the road in
Islamabad, a town on the Indian side near the Line of Control, the de facto border in Kashmir,
where a specially designed trading post has been set up with warehouses and security checks
for the goods.

The trucks were decorated with flags and banners reading “Long live trade across the two
sides. The head of a fruit growers association said he hoped the renewed trade would
“transform the relationship between India and Pakistan to a friendlier one” and extend trade
opportunities for all.

Kashmiri separatists claimed the move as a victory. “This is the first step toward achieving
economic independence for Kashmir,” said separatist leader Mirwaiz Omer Farooq.
Sentiment against New Delhi runs deep in Jammu-Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority
state where most people favour independence or a merger with Pakistan.
Separatist groups have been fighting since 1989 to end Indian rule, leaving an estimated
68,000 people, most of them civilians, dead.6

Kashmir: An Indian Perspective on Kashmir

As far Indian perspective is concerned, Instrument of Accession signed by Hari Singh is the
chief source of it, an Integral part of India. Sheikh Abdullah, the popular leader of the state
confirmed the accession as final. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, on Independence Day
address, August 15, 2002 said that Kashmir is not a piece of land; it is a test case of
secularism in India. India has always stood the test of a secular nation. Jammu and Kashmir
are a living example of this. Mr Gopal, a writer in his article in Indian Periodical “Caravan”
published in February 1950 offered; India without Kashmir could cease to occupy a pivotal
position on the political map of Central Asia. The caravan trade routes from Central Asia to
India pass through Kashmir.

Strategically, Kashmir is vital to the security; it has been so ever since the dawn of history. Its
northern provinces give direct gateway to the North West province of Pakistan and Northern
Punjab. It is India’s only window to the Central Asian Republics of USSR in the north, China
on the East and Afghanistan on the West. As India's northernmost territory, the state of
Jammu and Kashmir provides a valuable window on the other regional powers, including
China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the nearby former Soviet republic of Tajikistan.According
to the India, the state of Kashmir since its accession to India is an integral part of the union of
India. The official Indian position argues that the future status of the state otherwise is a
domestic problem, and the talks between India and Pakistan should occur in a strictly bilateral
framework.

India has a geo-political importance of the region especially Gilgit-Baltistan, a part of

princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, presently under Pakistan’s control, because it has
physical contiguity with Afghanistan, East Turkistan and close to central Asian states. Thus,
has a great economic and strategic importance for India.

The people of Gilgit-Baltistan are not satisfied by Pakistan govt, 60% of them want
Independent Jammu and Kashmir, 30% to Pakistan and 10% people of that area wants to join
India.20 There are many other areas in Kashmir that have major geo-political significance.
One such area is the Siachen Glacier in the Karakoram Pass. It is the only barrier preventing

6
http://www.foxnews.com
Pakistani and Chinese forces from linking up in Kashmir. If Pakistan and China could link up
their militaries at Siachen, India’s national security over the entire northern frontier would be
greatly undermined. Such a link up would create a very powerful military force, consisting of
India’s two biggest rivals who have fought with India. This force would be capable of joint
and potentially decisive military action against India. That is why India spends huge funds to
the forces deployed in Siachen since 1984. Since 1984, the troops of both sides have been
entrenched in what is described as the highest and most inhospitable battlefield in the world.
The expenditure of maintaining troops at the Siachen glacier alone is approximately US $ 2
million a month. From 1984 to 2009 India and Pakistan’s military expenditure on Siachen
Glacier is $5 billion each with 1025 and 1344 deaths respectively. Strategic importance of
Kashmir which is essentially a place of natural beauty lies in its being a vast stretch of plain
land surrounded by the high Himalayan ranges which make it an ideal supply and air base for
the defence of India's Northern frontier.

Kashmir in Pakistani perception:

Strategically, Kashmir is located between three triangular nuclear weapons states of India,
Pakistan and China. From Pakistan’s perspective, Kashmir is strategically located and can be
used to cripple Pakistan’s economically and militarily. The strategic location of Kashmir has
engaged Pakistan in low-intensity conflicts, guerrilla mode of warfare with India. The
presence of Indian troops in J&K could constitute a direct threat from the rear to North West
Frontier Provence (NWFP), thus Jammu and Kashmir can be used as an offensive strategy by
the Indian many also believe that Pakistan’s military would be jeopardized if Jammu and
Kashmir went to India. Pakistan claims Kashmir as her jugular vein, her lifeline, an
unfinished agenda of partition and core of Pakistan’s ideological survival. Historically
Pakistan has viewed its dispute with India as a key determinant of its strategic behaviour in
the international arena. Kashmir has a geo-strategic, economic and military significance for
Pakistan. As for military importance is concerned, there are thirteen routes to Siachen
Glacier, the highest military base of India and Pakistan. There is only one route for
India.Without Kashmir, Silk route to China will be greatly endangered and there will be no
link with China-a time tested ally and friend of Pakistan. In 1963 Pakistan ceded illegal the
Kashmir territory of 5,180 sq. km. in Gigli to China to seek nuclear know-how from that
country. The Chinese have turned the ancient Silk-Route which passes through this area into
modern road that connects Gigli with China which is already linked with Abbottabad and
Murree in Pakistan. There will be no ground defence of Pakistan if the rivers and canals of
Pakistan are dried up. The Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1951, described the strategic value
of Kashmir to Pakistan as, Kashmir is very important it is a vital necessity for our survival.
Kashmir as you will see from this map is like a cap on the head of Pakistan. If I allow India to
have this cap on our head, then I am always at the mercy of India the strategic position of
Kashmir is such that without it Pakistan cannot defend itself against an unscrupulous
government that might come in India.

The importance of Kashmir to Pakistan as the lifeline can be well -understood by having a
look at the map of Pakistan. Three out of six rivers, which run through Pakistan, originates
from Kashmir namely Rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab whereas remaining three namely
Rivers Ravi, Sutlej and Bias originate from India. Pakistan’s agricultural life depends on
Kashmir. Economically, the waters of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, which originate through
Kashmir, are vital to the agricultural life of Pakistan. Kashmir and Canal water are Pakistan’s
life line as Military Ruler Field Marshal Muhammad Ayyub Khan believed both the Kashmir
and Canal Water Disputes are matters of life and death to Pakistan. In 1979, Pakistani Prime
Minister Z.A. Bhutto pledged to fight for a thousand years for the cause of oppressed
Kashmiri Muslims. Gilgit-Baltistan is strategically very important region because the
Karakoram Highway, the highest paved international road in the world, links Pakistan with
china. In 2009, Islamabad signed an agreement with Beijing for mega energy project in
Gilgit-Baltistan, a Neighbour of China’s Xianging province. Burzila pass which links
Kashmir valley-gilgit retained with Pakistan. This is a strategic advantage for Pakistan if her
army could descend into Kashmir Valley from Gilgit side in case of resumption of hostilities.
Kashmir is an important strategic location from where it is easy for both the countries to
attack on each other that is why both the countries have deployed heavy forces at Kashmir’s
border.

India to open talks with all parties in disputed Jammu and Kashmir:

After nearly two months of talks on formulating a common minimum programme of

governance, the Bhartiya Janata Party and the People’s Democratic Party on Tuesday
announced their alliance for forming a “popular’’ government in Kashmir. This is the first
time that the BJP will participate in governance in the border State.
The first formal announcement of the alliance came after a 45-minute meeting here between
BJP president Amit Shah and PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti at the former’s residence.
“Fortunately, we have reached an understanding,’’ Ms. Mufti said while Mr. Shah expressed
happiness that the “hurdles’’ were over. The BJP has had to neutralise pressure from the RSS
against the deal.
Neither revealed the terms of agreement on contentious issues such as Article 370 that grants
special status to J&K and withdrawal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act among others.
It was said that the contours of the CMP would be disclosed after a meeting between Prime
Minister Narendra Modi and PDP Chief Mufti Mohammad Sayeed which is likely on
Wednesday. Mr. Sayeed is slated to be the Chief Minister while the BJP is set to get the
Deputy Chief Minister’s post.
Saying that the two parties — known to hold extreme positions — had found a “middle
path’’, Ms. Mufti said that the government that will be formed will not be just about “power
sharing’’ but about “winning hearts and minds of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the
entire country.’’
She claimed that the coming together of the BJP and PDP would be different from previous
alliances since 1947 between the state and central leadership in that for the first time the
interest of the people of J&K and national interest had been kept centre stage.
“The agenda for alliance has kept in mind the priorities, aspirations, development, prosperity
and peace of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and is committed to providing a clean, non-
corrupt government in the State.’’
This is an opportunity, she said, to bridge the gap with the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Ms. Mufti was accompanied by Muzaffar Ali Baig while Mr. Shah had party general
secretary Ram Madhav, a key negotiator, by his side. The leaders did not take any questions
from journalists.7

Surgical strikes 2016

A surgical strike is a military attack intended to inflict harm on a selected target, with
minimal or no collateral damage to surrounding areas.

After running through a ramification of non-military responses to the September 18 terrorist

strike at an army camp in Uri, the Centre on Thursday announced that Indian forces had
carried out “surgical strikes” across the road of control.

7
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/bjppdp-alliance-to-form-govt-in-jk/article6929399.ece
With this, India’s subsequent steps, post-Uri, are in uncharted terrain, with New Delhi
forsaking the self-proclaimed policy of “strategic restraint” followed in the face of in advance
provocations by means of terrorists believed to be backed by Pakistan.8

The operation, that began and concluded within the early hours of Thursday, became claimed
to be a army achievement, with no injuries to the Indian para-commandos who went
throughout the LoC into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to attack numerous locations.

The choice to strike on this way turned into evidently taken after specific intelligence that
terrorist agencies were making plans assaults in India.

this can now not be the first time India has undertaken quick pass-LoC operations, however it
has in no way earlier than chosen to share information so publicly.

The terms “surgical strike” and “pre-emptive strike” used by the Centre were supposed to
bring that this was not an attack on Pakistan’s defence forces, but a focused action in
opposition to terrorists poised to wreak harm in India.

Pakistan of course has performed down the Indian operation, characterising it as an act of
routine go-border shelling. it's far welcome that New Delhi declared the strikes complete
rapidly after the operation, with the DGMO calling his Pakistani counterpart to convey that
India would not improve the conflict beyond this.

This, along with the briefings held in New Delhi for envoys of numerous nations, indicates
that the Centre wants to give up hostilities with Pakistan for the instant.

This strengthens the view that the operation was the result of pressure on the Modi
government to manufacture a sturdy response to Uri. over the past few days there was a
cascade of actions to underline that such provocations can't be accompanied with business as
normal.

The authorities reviewed the operating of the Indus Waters Treaty, declared it's flirting with
the concept of reviewing Pakistan’s most Favoured nation fame, and pulled out of the
SAARC heads’ meet to be held in Islamabad.

29 September 2016 marks a turning factor, with India sending out an unambiguous message:
it can no longer be business as usual. There are 4 motives for that:

8
https://idsa.in/issuebrief/uri-surgical-strikes-and-international-reactions_041016
Surgical strike through India is a paradigm shift in India’s technique to external threats. it is
precisely how a complicated, advanced, contemporary country would respond to such
demanding challenging situations. The singular message is that it could now not be enterprise
as standard; the message is that India is willing to give and takein its international relations
and that it can no longer be taken granted.

2nd, the Modi government has demonstrated that not anything is off the table in a negotiation
or dialogue. in the build-up to the surgical strikes last night time, it unambiguously signalled
as much: including its review of a seven-decade-old Indus Water Treaty.9

3rd, India has proven its willingness to undertake volatile manoeuvres, albeit calculated ones.
this is a dramatic shift from the past, while India’s response was often defensive; countries
like Pakistan and China frequently interpreted this pacifism for the lack of a stomach for a
fight.

Fourth, find it irresistible did in Myanmar—when it chased down an outlawed Naga terrorist
outfit—it has signalled that India has the rightnous for measured but powerful retribution.
while war as an option is extremely difficult to exercising and entails massive economic and
social expenses, surgical srikes, though unstable, are quite easier to adopt swiftly.

inside the very last analysis, it is clear that the Modi government has signalled a change in
tack. it'll be very hard to retrace the steps from here. presumably, it has worked this out in its
calculations.

Pakistan response on surgical strike is relatively unexpected because it has no longer

endorsed that India has conducted any Surgical Strike in Pak Occupied Kashmir.

international powers along with Britain and China are looking to lessen tensions between
India and Pakistan and requested each nations to exercise restraint inside the wake of surgical
strikes through Indian troops across the line of control.

Pak media ridiculed and denied surgical strike through Indian troops throughout the line of
control. china's media has proven expressions of hope and stated that each one the troubles
between the two nations can be resolved via significant communicate. British in addition to
US media do not play down the surgical strike and deem it to be paradigm shift in India’s
approach to deal with outside threats.

9
https://idsa.in/issuebrief/uri-surgical-strikes-and-international-reactions_041016
If international relations experts are to be believed, surgical strike by India will definitely
curb Pakistan sponsored terrorism.

International responses to Uri Surgical strikes

India’s diplomatic offensive launched post the Uri-attacks provided the broader context
in which its decision to carry out the surgical strike needs to be seen. The th rust to ‘name
and shame’ Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism emanating from its soil was carried out
systematically, 10 at the national, regional and global level across all fora. Indian
diplomatic representations in the 71st session of the United Nations Gen eral Assembly in
response to Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s efforts to internationalise the
Kashmir issue called out Pakistan on its “long-standing policy of sponsoring terrorism,
the consequences of which have spread well beyond our region.” In a statement intended
to provoke, the Indian response also stated that “The land of Taxila, one of the greatest
learning centres of ancient times is now host to the Ivy League of terrorism. It attracts
aspirants and apprentices from all over the world.” This was followed up by External
Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj who, in an evocative speech at the UN General
Assembly, called for the isolation of Pakistan and added that “in our midst, there are
nations that still speak the language of terrorism, that nurture it, peddle it, and export it.
To shelter terrorists has become their calling card. We must identify these nations and
hold them to account. These nations, in which UN declared terrorists roam freely, lead
processions and deliver their poisonous sermons of hate with impunity, are as culpable
as the very terrorists they harbour. Such countries should have no place in the comity of
nations.” 11
India was then quick to rally international support from the US, UK, and France, which
condemned the Uri attack, and also highlighted Pakistan’s atrocities in Balochistan,
which led the European Union to respond with a threat of punitive economic sanctions if
Islamabad did not come clean on human rights violations. In conversations with her
Indian counterpart Ajit Doval after the ‘cross-border attacks’, US National Security
Advisor Susan Rice reportedly said that, “the US expects that Pakistan take effective
action to combat and delegitimise United Nations-designated terrorist individuals and
entities, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, and their affiliates”. Media
reports suggested that the US and UK even tried to prod Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif

10
https://www.chanakyaiasacademy.com/blog/item/245-surgical-strike-by-india-in-pok-crossing-the-line-of-
control
11
https://idsa.in/issuebrief/uri-surgical-strikes-and-international-reactions_041016
to condemn the Uri attack during his meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry and
British Prime Minister Theresa May at the side-lines of the UN General Assembly.
Countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea also issued statements condemning
the incident and expressed support for India’s stand on countering terrorism
globally. Japan, in a statement condoning the incident, said: “The government of Japan
strongly condemns the terrorist attack on the Indian base in Uri, Jammu and Kashmir,
and extends its sincere condolences…Japan condemns terrorism in all forms regardless
of its purposes and strongly reiterates that no act of terrorism can be justified.” Germany
also stands “firmly on the side of India in the fight against terrorism,” according to an
official statement. 12
Key West Asian countries and members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
(OIC) also issued statements condemning the Uri terrorist attack. The Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar all issued statements on the attack.
Post Uri, the Saudi Arabian Foreign Ministry stated: “The foreign ministry expressed the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's strong condemnation and denunciation of the terrorist attack
that targeted an Indian military base in the Uri area of north Kashmir, killing and
wounding dozens.” The UAE’s “Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International
Cooperation renewed the country’s firm stand against terrorism in all its forms and
manifestations and expressed… solidarity with the Republic of India and support to all
actions it may take to confront and eradicate terrorism.” News media also reported that
the “UAE and Bahrain have, in their statements, even supported any action by India to
confront, eradicate and fight terrorism — at a time when Delhi is discussing a range of
military, diplomatic, political and economic options to retaliate against
Pakistan.” Statements from these OIC members are significant since they have
traditionally supported Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir and the OIC itself was doing so with
respect to the recent unrest in the Valley. The “OIC Secretary General Iyad Ameen
Madani [had] expressed concern over the situation in Kashmir and called for an
immediate cessation of atrocities by India, urging the Indian government for peaceful
settlement of the dispute ‘in accordance with wishes of Kashmiri people and the UNSC
resolutions’.”
In the immediate aftermath of the surgical strike, the US reiterated its support for India’s
fight in combating terrorism and sought to clarify the need for de-escalation of hostilities

12
https://www.chanakyaiasacademy.com/blog/item/245-surgical-strike-by-india-in-pok-crossing-the-line-of-
control
by both sides. Meanwhile, media reports suggested that China’s reaction to the strikes
came two days after Pakistan dispatched two special envoys on Kashmir to Beijing to
drum up support for its position. “As shared neighbour and friend to both India and
Pakistan, we are concerned about continuous confrontation and tensions between India
and Pakistan,” foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang was quoted as saying. He
added, “we call on all relevant parties to exercise restraint and refrain from actions that
would escalate tension.” However, on the side-lines, the news of China blocking a
tributary of the Brahmaputra river in Tibet at a time when India's reported decision to
suspend talks with Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty in response to the Uri attacks
did not go unnoticed. Co-incidentally, China also continued with its decision to extend
its technical "hold" on a UN resolution to ban the Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Masood
Azhar. The resolution to ban him was co-sponsored by the US, UK, France and India,
with 14 other countries acquiescing. China was the only one to block it with a te chnical
hold.13
Russia came out strongly in support of Indian action saying Moscow stood for “decisive
struggle against terrorism in all its manifestations.” The Russian Foreign Ministry
spokesperson added, in a statement, that “we expect that the Government of Pakistan
should take effective steps in order to stop the activities of terrorist groups in the
territory of the country.” In another explicit statement of support, given to a news
network, the Russian Ambassador in New Delhi, Alexander Kadakin, said, “the greatest
human rights violations take place when terrorists attack military installations and attack
peaceful civilians in India. We welcome the surgical strike. Every country has right to
defend itself.” Russian Ambassador Alexander M Kadakin’s interview to CNN-News18,
03 October 2016, Within South Asia, India found support from all its other neighbours.
After its decision to boycott the SAARC summit which was due to be held in Pakistan in
November, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Maldives and Sri Lanka all pulled out citing “concerns
on terrorism” and the lack of a “conducive atmosphere” for the forum. In fact,
Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government came out in explicit support of
India’s operations saying in a statement that “India has got all legal, internationally
accepted right to make a response to any attack on her sovereignty and her soil.” The
Afghan Ambassador to India, Shaida Mohammed Abdali, supported India’s response,
saying that “it is time to take bold action.” While official statements from the Maldives

13
https://idsa.in/issuebrief/uri-surgical-strikes-and-international-reactions_041016
government condemned international terrorism in generic terms, the Maldivian
Democratic Party (MDP) led by former President Mohamed Nasheed lauded India’s
mature response and demanded that “Pakistan (must) combat and delegitimise terr or
groups in the region.”
Keeping up the momentum on the diplomatic offensive, India’s Permanent
Representative to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin, said that while Pakistan had reached out to
the UN Chief and the 15-nation Council over the issues of the surgical strike and
Kashmir, its call for intervention by the world body has not found any resonance as there
was no further discussion on the matter. India had seized the initiative first, by briefing
top envoys of 25 countries including the US, China, Russia, the UK and France on the
‘context of the strike’ after the Indian Army had concluded its operations. 14
Pulwama attack
A suicide bombing attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama region of Jammu and Kashmir
killed 40 CRPF paramilitary troopers on February 14, 2019. Jaish-e-Mohammad had claimed
responsibility for the attack.

at least 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) paramilitary troopers were killed in the
deadliest terror attack witnessed in three decades of Kashmir’s insurgency. The surprise
attack by a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) suicide bomber left the nation in shock and anger while
Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave security forces a freehand to strike back with equal
force. On Thursday, Jaish bomber Adil Ahmed Dar, 20, rammed a SUV loaded with 350
kilograms of explosives into one of the buses -- carrying 35-40 troopers -- out of a 78-vehicle
CRPF convoy. While 40 were killed in the attack, several injured personnel continue to battle
for their lives.

Even as the nation continues to bewail the death of soldiers killed in Pulwama, many
including the grief-stricken family members of the ill-fated jawans have demanded strong
action against the Pakistan-based terror outfit.
The heinous incident has united all political parties across the country while leaders from all
over the world have condemned the dastardly attack; the United States even went on to the
extent of warning Pakistan to not harbour terrorism.
At present, the security forces in the Valley are on high alert and subsequent operations have
been launched to detain more suspects in connection with the attack.

14
https://www.chanakyaiasacademy.com/blog/item/245-surgical-strike-by-india-in-pok-crossing-the-line-of-
control
Background of Pulwama attack
The situation in Kashmir has been tense since 2014 and there have been several deadly
attacks on soldiers. In the last five years, Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed a 93 per cent
rise in death of security personnel. A chunk of these attacks have occurred in Pulwama region
of J&K. Data released by the government showed that the Valley has been witnessing regular
terror attacks in the past five years.
Data released by the Ministry of Home Affairs showed there has been a sharp rise in terror
activities including attacks between 2014 and 2018. It suggested that there has been a 176 per
cent jump in terror attacks in the Valley during the period. The state witnessed over 1,700
terrorist activities (28/month) during the last five years, showed government data.
The data presented in Lok Sabha also show that there has been a sharp spike in terror
activities since 2016. Between 2014 and 2018, a total of 1,315 people were killed in the state
due to acts of terrorism, it revealed.
While several regions in the Valley have been affected by home-grown militants, the
Pulwama district has seen a high volume of terror encounters. However, Thursday's attack
that left 40 CRPF paramilitary troopers dead is the deadliest terror attack in the Valley in the
last three decades of Kashmir’s insurgency.15

The Pulwama terror attack occurred on February 14, 2019 when a 78-vehicle convoy was
escorting over 2,500 CRPF jawans from Jammu to Srinagar. At around 3:30 pm, a Mahindra
Scorpio SUV, packed with 350 kilograms of explosives rammed into one of the buses
belonging to the convoy on the National Highway 44 at Lethipora near Avantipora town.
The surprise attack instantly blew up the bus, killing at least 40 personnel of the 76th
Battalion while others continue to battle for their lives; the injured were immediately moved
to the army base hospital in Srinagar.16
Actions taken by India in the aftermath of Pulwama attack
Indian administrators and security forces have gone into an overdrive after the devious attack
on the CRPF convoy in Pulwama. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the terror outfit has
committed a huge mistake, adding that the sacrifice of the slain soldiers will not go in vain.
Modi said the security forces have been given a freehand to retaliate against the attack at any
time they deem suitable.

15
www.indiatoday.in
16
https://www.indianembassy.org/pdf/Congress_on_Pulwama_terrorist_attack_2019_feb16.pdf
Soon after a high-level Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, Finance Minister
Arun Jaitley declared that India is withdrawing “Most Favoured Nation” status to Pakistan.
The symbolic move will further cut trade ties between the two neighbouring nations. India
has also launched a diplomatic offensive against Pakistan after the Pulwama terror attack.
According to reports, India held a briefing for envoys of 25 countries including P5 nations,
including US, China, Russia, UK and France.17
Before the briefing, Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale summoned Pakistan High
Commissioner to India Sohail Mahmood to his office and issued a very strong demarche over
the attack.
Conclusion:
I would like to conclude that it was founded in the mid-nineteenth century, the state of
Jammu and Kashmir brought together areas that are culturally, linguistically and
geographically diverse: Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan and what is now Pakistan
Occupied Kashmir. It is in this genesis, perhaps, that the seeds of the current unrest lie. And
the key to peace in this volatile region is in an understanding of this diversity. A Tangled
Web: Jammu and Kashmir attempt to do that by tracing the journey of the land from being
paradise on Earth to a paradise lost. The essays here familiarize the reader with the
conflicting views on history, politics and autonomy pertaining to the region, and examine the
various political, cultural, economic and social issues at play. As analysts and politicians,
academics and artists try to make sense of an increasingly volatile situation, A Tangled Web
offers an insightful perspective on what is undoubtedly an area of great strategic and
geopolitical significance.

As many of the key players have realized, the way forward must be through genuine
negotiation. The world – and Mumbai 2008 proved it – has become too dangerous for a
dialogue of the deaf. It will not help the inhabitants of Jammu-Kashmir, traumatized during
twenty years of conflict, to indulge in meaningless rhetoric.

To achieve closure, what must be determined is how to satisfy those Kashmiris, mainly
located in the Valley, heartland of the resistance, who are still demanding their ‘inalienable’
right of self-determination.

Kashmiris had autonomy till 1953. We had our own president, prime minister, constitution
and supreme court. Unfortunately, that was eroded by the government of India.’ In other

17
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/what-happened-at-pulwama-and-history-of-terror-
attacks-on-convoys/articleshow/68019194.cms
words, trust has been broken. Attitudes have also hardened. What one generation might have
accepted, the next might not.

Since India decided long ago what the end game was (the status quo), there has been little
latitude to discuss alternative scenarios. Although former President Musharraf embarked on
a ‘peace process’, which moved away from Pakistan’s traditional demand for a plebiscite to
be held, his insistence that formalizing the line of control into an international frontier was
not an option still conflicted with Indian insistence that it was the only option.

In 2011, as even Indian commentators realise, the problem of Kashmir lies within. As the
barometer or violence in the state rises and falls, Indian leaders must surely question the
depth of Kashmiri alienation and ask themselves why successive generations have become
disaffected. Since the demand to join Pakistan has been superseded by the demand for
‘Azadi’, Pakistan’s role must now be that of a benevolent neighbour, trying to influence India
to improve its human rights record in the Valley by demilitarizing a heavily fortified region,
whilst recognizing that Pakistan itself is unlikely to make any territorial gains. In the next
round of Indo-Pakistani talks, following those held between Pakistan’s new Foreign Minister
HinaKhari and S.M. Krishna of India, they might start with a mutual admission that there is
no question of all the state becoming either part of India or part of Pakistan, as envisaged in
1947.