This document provides an overview of the relationship between Pakistan and India, with a focus on the disputed region of Kashmir. It discusses:
1) The partition of British India and how Kashmir's accession became a point of contention.
2) India's diplomatic success in portraying Kashmir as an internal issue rather than an international dispute, due to its unified stance compared to divisions within Pakistan.
3) The origins of the Kashmir dispute, from the maharaja's rule to the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite that was never implemented.
4) Various proposals over the decades to resolve the dispute through compromise, such as an independent Kashmir or accepting the current line of control
2. Table of contents:
➣ Country comparison
➣ RELATIONS WITH INDIA
o Partition of the state
o The sharing of the Indus waters
o Valuation of Pakistani rupee
o War history and the Kargil crisis
➣ Reasons for India’s diplomatic success in the Kashmir dispute
➣ The origins of the Kashmir dispute
➣ Pre partition movement
➣ The boundary award
➣ The outbreak of fighting
➣ The instrument of accession
➣ Promises of a plebiscite
➣ UNSC Resolution
➣ The cause of the 1965 war
➣ The cause of the 1971 war
➣ Independent Kashmir
o Factors effecting the independence of Kashmir
o President Pervez Musharraf’s review
➣ Reference
3. Country comparison
India Pakistan
Population 1,337,365,118 199,085,847 (2016 estimate)
Area 3,287,240 km² (1,269,210 sq. mi) 881,913 km² (307,374 sq. mi)
Population
density
452/km²]
260.8/km² (555/sq. mi)
Capital New Delhi Islamabad
Largest city Mumbai Karachi
Government Federal, Parliamentary democracy Islamic, Constitutional,
Parliamentary democracy
Official
languages
Hindi, English and 20 other official
languages
Urdu, English, and other
languages
Main religions 79.8% Hinduism, 14.2% Islam, 2.3%
Christianity, 1.7% Sikhism, 0.7%
Buddhism, 0.4% Jainism (2011
Census)
95-98% Islam (80-95% Sunni,
5-20% Shi'a), 1.6% Christianity,
1.6% Hinduism, others
GDP
(nominal)
$2.384 trillion ($1,820 per capita) $270.961 billion ($1,427 per
capita)
GDP (PPP) $8.727 trillion ($6,664 per capita) $984.205 billion ($5,084 per
capita)
Military
expenditures
$51.03billion (2.3% of GDP) $5.1 billion (2.8% of GDP)
➣ RELATIONS WITH INDIA
➣ Partition of the state:
Relations between India and Pakistan remain contentious on both sides. After partition,
the state relations did not turn a new leaf, but rather remained a continuation of the relations
between Indian national congress and the all India Muslims league. Some of the rancor comes
from the frustration caused by missed opportunities. Even after securing an electoral
endorsement for partition in 1946, the Muslims league compromised by accepting the Cabinet
mission Plan for a central power between the Hindustan and Pakistan areas, controlling defense,
foreign affairs and communications.
Some writers have defended Nehru’s rejection of the Cabinet mission Plan by asserting
that it would have resulted in the creation of Pakistan. This argument would have been forceful,
4. had its rejection prevented the emergence of Pakistan. Even if the Muslim league had had the
desire to create Pakistan from the Cabinet mission plan, it did not have the means.
Kashmir:
After the creation of Pakistan, the next issue to sour Indo-Pak relations was Kashmir. In
the matter of integrating the princely states, India did not display the patience required to tackle
the issue. if India had not forcibly resisted the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan , it would have
had a more convincing case over Kashmir, India did not only resisted the accession of Junagadh,
a tragically negligible state with a Hindu majority ruled by a Muslims prince , but characterized
the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan as being against “the principle of partition”. Then finally
Prime Minister Nehru rejected president Ayyub’s offer of joint Indo-Pakistan defense against
China. Thus three decisions by Nehru eventually resulted in the emergence of a nuclear Pakistan.
The sharing of the Indus waters
After Kashmir, the next issue was the sharing of the Indus waters between India and
Pakistan. This problem was considered permanently solved but since 2004, the specter of the
Baglihahr Dam built on the Indian side has reopened the issue and again brought the World
Bank into the scene. Kashmir, however, has not only been the only problem. The 1971 war was
caused by the crises in East Pakistan, an integral part of Pakistan under international law.
Kashmir came to be discussed only during the 1972 Shimla Conference.
Valuation of Pakistani rupee
Another problem between the India and Pakistan was the valuation of Pakistani rupee in
the face of Indian devaluation. The communal roots which broke out between Hindus and
Muslims were addressed in the Liaquat-Nehru pact of 1950, these agreements together with the
arbitration over the ran of Kutch in 1965 shows that when there has been a political will there has
been a way, and that outstanding disputes are not dictated by nature.
War history and the Kargil crisis:
As we already know War history and the Kargil crisis. The nuclear standoff of 1998 cut
through the Vajpayee, to Lahore. This was overtaken by the 1999 Cargill crisis. relations
worsened by the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament on 13 December 2001 which resulted in
military confrontation at the boarder for two years before it was called off on 12 October 2002.
This crisis caused a break in diplomatic relations since India recalled its envoy and threatened to
send back the Pakistan envoy. Simultaneously, over-flights have been banned. This has been
remedied: diplomatic relations have been re-established, over-flights have been restored, and
both armies have withdrawn from offensive positions. However, confidence-building measures
and meetings between India’s and Pakistan’s leaders have not yet led to the resolution of any
outstanding dispute, least of all Kashmir
REASONS FOR INDIAS DIPLOMATIC SUCCESS IN THE KASHMIR
DISPUTE:
5. While the arguments are in favor of Pakistan, Kashmir is in the possession of India. It is
necessary to explain why:
➣ India has done well by following the golden rules of unity faith and discipline. It
has worked at building its country’s image... Nehru was a chain smoker but it
would be difficult to find a photograph showing him smoking, because the
patriotic Indian press did not publicize even what was a fashionable practice in
those days. They revere Nehru for his role in securing India’s freedom and
disregard his errors of judgment that resulted in partition.
➣ On our part we ridicule Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan and persistently
perpetuate a completely baseless myth that he solicited an invitation from Russia,
and used it instead to maneuver an invitation from USA. Instead of appreciation
we reveal in criticizing him.
➣ Every Indian is united on the claim that Kashmir is an integral part of India, while
our own intellectuals and politicians create confusion. Some advocate a
compromise on the LoC, even giving up Kashmir altogether, some press for a
neutral or independent Kashmir. It is because of the unity of the unity of Indian
people that Kashmir problem is viewed internationally, and not as an unfulfilled
UN resolution, but as a case of cross-border terrorism. This is India’s greatest
diplomatic success and Pakistan’s greatest diplomatic failure. It was this failure
that led to Pakistan’s withdrawal from Cargill in 1999, although the comparable
Indian occupation of Siachen in 1985 occasioned no international outrage.
➣ Hardly any Indian ever blames his government for invading an integral part of
Pakistan in 1971, and violating the principle of non-interference in the internal
matters of Pakistan. On the other hand our own newspapers are replete with
biased stories of genocide in 1971. Our intellectuals constantly complains that
power was not transferred to the Awami league, the majority party in 1971, no
one advocates giving Six points to NWFP(Wana) or Baluchistan(sibi) which
would give these provinces separate currencies and provincial militias , as well as
placing the responsibility for international aid and trade directly in the hands of
provinces , completely bypassing the central govt. whether these writers are aware
of it or not , whether they are doing it with honest intent or not , it amounts to
propaganda.
What is the purpose of this propaganda? Its purpose is to take away the
will to fight. Reference will be made to some writers and their suggestions but
before we come to that stage we need to examine all aspects of the Kashmir
dispute.
THE ORIGINS OF THE Kashmir dispute.
Kashmir was one if the more than 500 princely states in India. It was ruled by a Hindu
maharaja, Hari sing, but population was overwhelmingly Muslims. It had a very strategic
location, most other states were completely surrounded by either Pakistan or India but because if
6. the division of the Punjab, Kashmir had equal access to India and Pakistan. The ruler was
inclined towards India. The people towards Pakistan.
The importance of Kashmir was clear to all, and even before the division of India was
agreed upon in principle, efforts were afoot to block the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan.
PRE-PARTITION MOVES:
On 23 January 1946, the reforms Commissioner, V.P.Menon wrote to George Abele that
Gurdaspur be excluded from Pakistan. On 15 April 1946, the brief prepared by the Cabinet
mission for talks with Jinnah proposed a Pakistan without Gurdaspur. The importance of
Gurdaspur was that it provided India with all –weather access to Kashmir. It was a Muslims
majority district. On 14 June 1947. Krishna Menon wrote to Lord Mountbatten that:
“There might be dire consequence for future of Anglo-Indian relations id Kashmir were
permitted to go to Pakistan.”
Menon had asked Mount batten not to keep his letter, but preserved it. On 17 June 1947,
V.P.Menon again favored Gurdaspur becoming a part of India.
THE BOUNDARY AWARD:
we have seen in the section on the national struggle that Arthur Henderson, H.C. Beau
mount, Sir Ian Scott and other gave evidence that Redcliff altered the awards at the behest of
Lord Mountbatten. In the first installment, Gurdaspur was given to India and in the second
installment Ferozepur and zira were also given to India, all three were Muslims majority districts.
When liaquat Ali Khan sent Chaudhry Muhammad Ali to Lord Ismay to protest, he blandly
denied any such changes.
THE OUTBREAK OF FIGHTING:
The conflict began when the Dogra state forces started terrorizing Muslims in the Poonch
district of Kashmir. Tribal Pathans who had relatives in Poonch, mounted an attack to rescue the
Muslims. This is what is described as Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir. The genocide at Poonch is
suppressed from all accounts published in India. It is alleged that all people of NWFP had not
wanted accession to Pakistan here we see them trying to rescue Muslims in Kashmir. The
Pakistan army had yet to complete its reorganization, and it could not risk interfering with the
tribal pathans. It is true that there progress was ultimately barred by the Indian army. We must
reflect that whatever areas of Kashmir we have, are the result of these tribal incursion.
THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION:
It is alleged that frightened by the tribal reprisal, Maharaja Hari Singh signed an
instrument of accession to India. After it was signed, the Indian army entered Kashmir to combat
the tribal. Alastair Lamb has established that the maharaja never signed an instrument of
accession and that such a document does not exist. Nevertheless, as we have seen above, when
the Muslims ruler of Hindu majority Junagadh acceded to Pakistan, India militarily blocked the
7. accession saying that such an accession was against the principle underlying partition. Having
made such an assertion, India could not have accepted the accession of Kashmir.
PROMISSES OF A PLEBISCITE:
At the time India accepted the supposed accession of Kashmir, it also stated that the final
disposition of Kashmir would depend on a free and impartial plebiscite of the people of Jammu
and Kashmir. India made this promise not only to the people of Kashmir but to the international
community as well. The dates on which Nehru repeated his promise of a plebiscite were 26
October 1947, 27 October 1947, 30 October 1947, 2 November 1947, 12 February 1951, 27 June
1952 and 7 August 1952. Despite these repeated promises it is now claimed by India that
Kashmir is its integral part. On 3 November 1947, Nehru had assured Liaquat that: “we have
agreed to an impartial international agency like the UN supervising any referendum.” Thus any
international election held by India is not valid.
Nehru went back on his solemn pledges on 24 February 1955 on the excuse that Pakistan
had become a military ally of the USA.
UNSC RESOLUTIONS:
The UNSC (United Nation Security Council) resolution which says that the accession of
Kashmir will be decided by a free and impartial plebiscite was passed on 21 April 1948 and
reiterated on 5 January 1949. Any election held by Indian authorities in Kashmir cannot replace
the provision of a free and impartial plebiscite. Hence, it cannot be asserted by India that
Kashmir is its integral part. Such An assertion is not upheld by international law. In 1957 the UN
resolved that this step was in conflict with a plebiscite.
The cause of the 1965 war:
The cause of the 1965 war was Kashmir. The Indian parliament had taken steps to
integrate Kashmir into India constitutionally. Before 1965 India had kept up the pretense of the
autonomy of Kashmir. The head of the Kashmir administration had been designated prime
minister, now he was designated chief minister, like the head of any province in India. Pakistan
sent infiltrators inside Kashmir, just as president john Kennedy sent infiltrators inside Cuba, with
equally disastrous results. Most of the infiltrators were arrested. Pakistan had took this desperate
step because of it had remained silent, it would have acquiesced to the integration of Kashmir
into India. As Ayyub had replied, “India had no legal title to Kashmir, hence instruction was not
aggression.
When friction along ceasefire line increased, kargil fell to India. As stated earlier, Cargill
was a part of Pakistan until 1971. The only point to stress is that Pakistan’s reoccupation of
Cargill in 1999 set off a crisis whereas the 1965 fall of kargil to India did not.
The cause of the 1971 war:
The 1971 war did not take place because of Kashmir but at the Shimla Summit, India
tried to take advantage of Pakistan’s military defeat to impose a unilateral solution for Kashmir.
8. The simla agreement could also be concluded because in a skirmish after the ceasefire in 1971,
Pakistan was able to take the Lipa Valley in Kashmir. On 5 February 1973, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
called for a strike which was observed on both sides of the LoC. This was a signal that Pakistan
had not surrendered in Kashmir.
Barring the allegations of ceasefire violations on both sides, there were not momentous
development until 1985 when Indian troops occupied the Siachen Heights. In a similar action
Pakistan occupied kargil in 1999 but because of hostile world opinion had to pull out.
Independent Kashmir.
Since the conflict has remained unresolved for more than 50 years, certain commentators
have offered different solutions. One solution has been to establish an independent Kashmir. It is
forgotten that Alexei Kosygin had turned down this option in Tashkent, an independent Kashmir,
he told Ayyub, would fall under the influence of third parties. An American representative
identified the third party as China it is again fortunate that Kosygin did not let Ayyub proceed
with this proposal. Once Pakistan itself floats independent Kashmir as a solution the only
tangible result would be the renunciation of Pakistan’s claim to its side of Kashmir. India’s initial
promise to hold a plebiscite had also appeared as reassuring and reasonable solution, but when
sufficient time had elapsed after the ceasefire, that solution proved elusive.
Factors effecting the independence of Kashmir:
How long a united and independent Kashmir can remain free depends on factors much
beyond Pakistan’s control. When the dismissal of his PM by the king of Nepal can cause India to
feel affronted, when it claims that Bangladesh is harboring terrorist, a much more innocuous
development in an independent Kashmir may cause India to intervene. This could spell the end
Kashmir’s neutrality and this time round there may be no UN resolution in Pakistan’s favor.
President Pervez Musharraf’s review:
President Pervez Musharraf also tried to propose a satisfice solution to Kashmir. on 18
December 2003, he said that Pakistan could move have way from demanding a plebiscite under
UN resolution; he thought both countries could move from their stated positions , reacting the
peace activist Pervez Hood boy proposed accepting the LoC as the border. Perhaps Pervez
Musharraf was fazed by the US describing his willingness to set aside the UN resolution as a
“constructive development”. Since then the president has clarified that flexibility has to be
mutual. At present such prospects are bleak. Nevertheless there is no reason for Pakistan to blink
first, if India compromises an outpost, if Pakistan compromises on Kashmir, it compromises on
its sovereignty.
There was scarcely any evidence when President Pervez Musharraf gave an exclusive
interview to Prannoy Roy, on 5 December 2005. The president reiterated his four point solution
to Kashmir. He had put it forward to in an October 2005 interview also but he interrupted
watching the unfolding of his plan. The four point formula is clearly carried in the 5 December
2005 interview:
9. ➣ Kashmir will have the same borders but people will be allowed to move freely
back and forth in the region.
➣ The region will have self-governance or autonomy, but not independence.
➣ Troops will be withdrawn from the region in a staggered manner.
➣ A joint supervision mechanism will be set up, with India, Pakistan and Kashmir
represented.
The president was still asked just as he unfolded these four points, weather he was giving
up the UN resolution, although that is inherent in the four points. Explaining the first
point he said: “therefore the solution lies in making the LoC irrelevant and this is a term
I am borrowing from your leadership , this is the word they used and I kept saying it
now”.it needs to be realized that from making the LoC irrelevant to making the
international border irrelevant is but a short step. When the Indian leadership asserts that
redrawing of boundaries out of the question, it clearly means that it makes no such
distinctions. This too, is a position which has solidified gradually. Previously Swaran
Singh had complained that Pakistan had not reciprocated on this point: “India has
proposed ceding to Pakistan 110000 square kilometers of a total of 275000, whereas
Pakistan had not even ceded Jammu – a state where there was a majority of Hindus”.
So not only was a redrawing of borders proposed, it was proposed to be redrawn
on religious lines. The second position, autonomy has been tried at least constitutionally,
on both sides, but it had led nowhere near a solution. The third point, demilitarization,
was the point on which the earliest Kashmir negotiations had failed. The fourth point is
impractical as it was also ruled out, even though the British Commonwealth PMs had
offered the troops and money to inaugurate this idyllic arrangement.
