Causes of Indo-Pakistani Wars over Kashmir

1. Ethnic, Religious and Ideological Differences
2. India’s devotion to secular politics versus Pakistan theocratic rule
3. Differences over Kashmir’s accession into India
4. Pakistan’s use of proxy wars to weaken Indian resolve
5. Disagreements over issue of elections in Kashmir
6. India’s resistance to third party involvement in what it sees to be a domestic issue.


Impact of Wars

1. Issue of Kashmir; seemingly unsolvable
2. History of conflict
3. Significance of treaties and pact, especially Simla Agreement
4. Nuclear weapons
5. Cross-border terrorism
6. Role of religious Fundamentalists



Characteristics of South Asian Region

1. Indo-centric
a. Civilization link
b. History
c. Conflict and cooperation is usually between India and another state.
2. Asymmetric and hierarchical power structure
a. India on top
b. But got some bipolarity, especially with Pakistan joining with China




Brief History

Kashmir
- Lord Mountbatten decreed that the princely states could join either Pakistan or India. Independence was ruled out
- Muslim areas joined Pakistan, to a large extent
- Kashmir and Jammu, had a problem because while largely Muslim, Maharaja Hari Singh was Hindu.
- Tribal outbreaks – in Oct 47
- Maharaja asked Nehru for help
o Would only help if Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah gave permission, leader of secular groups
o And that Maharaja would cede to India
- 1st War
- Successful but still had to give 1/3 to Paki
- Plebiscite wanted
- Had another 2 wars over Kashmir
- Ended with Simla Agreement, which created the Line of Control (LoC)


CAUSES OF CONFLICT

Ethnicity and religion

Communal
Punjab
Sikhs

Kashmir

- Many Kashmiris would prefer to be under neither India or Pakistan, even though they are Muslim.
- 3 Problems for Kashmir’s continued problems
o 2 competing religious nationalisms. One claiming it, one suspicious of it
o corrupt and inefficient government like Abdullah Farooq (87-Jan 90)
o and centralizing tendencies of India
- Many especially young Kashmir feel discriminated against by India and follow these.
- “heroic terrorism”
- Affected relations with neighbouring states

Religious

Religion too: Hinduism and Islam are very incompatible. Islam is the youngest, simplest and most explicit. One God, Muhammad as the messenger and Quran as the message.
Hinduism however is rooted in the past. And does not have a prescribed dogma or scripture.
Accusations of the Congress being “machine politicians”.

Refugee problems of Pakistan

India-Pakistan
- Separation was contigent on the fact that the Muslims believed that they should get their own state.
- But the raison d’etre of Pakistan (a Muslim state that was viable) was eroded by West and East Pakistan splitting, leading to India to help form Bangladesh
- Problems like terrorism and gun running
- But India would like secular politics but Pakistan wants religion to play the main political structure
o Terror in Srinagar, esp.
o India believes there is a link btw Mujaheddeen, Sikh extremists and Kashmir terrorist.

Ideology

India’s secularism vs Pakistan’s theocracy
“troublesome irredenta”

Muslims always believed that they would have a strong independent state. All these were not resolved by the time they were granted independent (15 Aug 1947.)
India wanted a Secular Congress while Pakistan wanted the Muslim League

Pakistan wanted Kashmir to complete it.
India needed it to show the dominance.


Pakistan wanting to bleed India

- In terms for Pakistan – They are fearful of the region in early 1990s they spent 40% of GDP on def, India 3-4%.
- They also are not willing to use nukes
- So the best way is to keep India occupied in low intensity conflicts in Punjab and Kashmir.
- In early 1990s, 5 rounds of talks btw the 2
- Recent one was in New Delhi 1991 18 Aug

- Military Rivalry

India believes Pakistan is behind state sponsored terrorism.
Not really but Pakistan does help the militants
If something is not done Indian will continue to bleed in Kashmir etc

Siachen

- Indian exercise Brass-tacks 1986 involved 13 Divisions, 1.6m troops, for deep penetrations into Indus. River line. This would cut Pakistani into 2.
- Pakistan army moved troops to north, threatening Amritsar, Gurdaspur and Pathankot.
- Mid level war


Differences in election beliefs

Plebiscite as a way out seems unacceptable to India. They believe the accession to India is valid and legal.

More realistic solution is to accept Line of Control, maybe under UN.
The Simla declaration that no force would be used to alter line seems the best way.


India not wanting 3rd party mediation

- In Soviet era, India got military and economic aid
- It had played a major role in supporting India in 1972 Simla Agreement.
- Its veto kept the thing from becoming an international problem.
- Post CW – India lost a valuable ally, but in 1993 Yeltsin signed Treaty f Peace and Friendship
- India now also looking to USA – joint naval exercises, in June 1992

India’s Security Environment
Some say that Pakistani’s seizing Indian Kargil, almost led to nuke war
Because India was disadvantaged in fighting in Kargil, it wanted to open up fronts in Punjab and Rajasthan like in previous wars.
Pakistani going nuclear


India feels less secure.

1.China is in NPT
2. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. (Pakistani tests in 1998 (could hit Dehli, Mumbai and Chennai)
3. Japan is rising
4. No more USSR
5. Economic costs of an arms race



Peace making in a Bipolar world

USA
- US chose Pakistan because India unwilling to join US’ confrontation of Communism
- Pakistan was close to Central Asia (USSR)
- But still wanted to help I/P relations
- US supplied Pakistan, but did not want them to take adv of weak India
US wanted to try to help to resolve conflict.
- Also got them to talk 1963-65 (5 times)
o 1st round at Rawalpindi
 Both kept to plebiscite issue
o 2nd round, seemed to have agreement on partition
o 3rd, Pakistani wanted territory in valley which India did not want to give up
o Later got talks on refugees
o 4/5th stalemate on issue of Valley of Kashmir to Pakistani in exchange for partition
- So in effect v little came out of these talks
- By 1979, after the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, gave Pakistani aid
- Especially under Reagan
- So determined it was to fight the SU in Afghanistan, that it gave Pakistani billions.
- And ALSO TURNED A BLIND EYE TO NUCLEAR BUILDING
- After Kargil,
- But unwilling to call Pakistani out for supporting Terrorism, because need it against Terrorism in Middle East, like Al Queda
- Unwillingness to treat Pakistani as a state sponsoring Terrorism means they may lose credibility especially with the evidence.

USSR
- more cautious than USA because it was weaker
- In the region, by the time it got interested Pakistani was US ally
- India was the only one left, but it was more valuable (even US had wanted it first)
- 1965 Wars – Rann of Kutch and Kashmir
- became arbiter by default (India did not want UK because it had criticized India’s internalization of the war.)
- Tashkent (USSR played a vital role)

UN

Pakistani believes the UN should compensate for it weaker position vis a vis India and reduce Indian hegemony
India believes UN should address common, global problems rather than narrow

But Both want to use it

1. Pacifying on Priority
a. ---UN tries not to put blame or label anyone
b. Non-condemnation
c. In 1965, India wanted Pakistani to be labeled aggressor but UN refused
d. Observation: UN Mil Observer Gp in Ind and Pakistani (UNMOGIP) and UN Ind Pakistani Oberver mission)
e. Quite successful in maintaining ceasefire

2. Problem solving on the backburner
a. Mediation
i. By 1957, mediation seemed dead
ii. Some believed it had to be done by outsider like Gunnar Jarring Sweden or Canada
1. UN lost out med role in Tashkent
2. By 1972, Simla – agreed to settle through bilateral talks
b. Plebiscite
i. UN needed India and Pakistan to trust it to conduct fair plebiscite
ii. India offered plebiscite
iii. But later was explained that this could have meant anything from elections to mere poll
iv. It was more a “wish” than anything
v. India even offered to just plebiscite its side as a ref for all. UN did not want this.
vi. Even though UN had done so in Timor 1999, South Afr in 1990, it could not work here
vii. Either not trusted or could not get parties to agree
c. Don’t resort to force




Can UN play a role. It seems India especially don’t want outsiders
UN so far has been cautious and piecemeal
It has reduce tensions by getting ceasefire
UN however, can’t force a solution. There must be will on both sides
They must yield some ground to each other
Unable to get plebiscite
Although, is the UN capable of handling one, especially with the fast changing landscape?



IMPACT OF CONFLICT

Pakistan sees Kashmir as the key issue while India sees it as 1 of many issues. Can’t resolve this

India-Pakistan Security Dilemma

“Kashmir remains the single most bitter historical memory in the national conciousness of Pakistan that stands in the way of full Indo-Pakistani reconciliation and future cooperation based on mutual trust and friendship.” William J. Barnds


Potracted Conflict

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 sometimes known as the First Kashmir War was a war fought between India and Pakistan over the region of Kashmir from 1947 to 1948. It was the first of four wars fought among the two newly independent nations

Cause of War

Prior to the withdrawal of the British from India, the state came under pressure from both India and Pakistan to join them.

However at the time of British withdrawal the state was invaded by a concentrated force of Pro-Pakistan Tribals from North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and regular Pakistani soldiers. This forced him to accede Kashmir to India

The Pakistani claim is that since the majority of the Kashmiri population is Muslim, the princely state should have been given to Pakistan.

Religion: Congress had been unable to appease Muslims because years of colonial rule had displaced Muslims

Consequences
Following the end of the war and the ceasefire India had managed to acquire two thirds of Kashmir while Pakistan had a third of the region. The Indians retained control of the relatively wealthy and populous Kashmir Valley, and a majority of the population.
The number of casualties in the war are estimated to 2,000 for both sides. In 1957, this area became the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the India union.
The cease fire line has over the years become a de facto division of the state. (LoC)

Second Kashmir War

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, also known as the Second Kashmir War, was the culmination of a series of skirmishes that occurred between April 1965 and September 1965 between India and Pakistan. The war lasted five weeks, resulted in thousands of casualties on both sides and ended in a United Nations (UN) mandated ceasefire. It is generally accepted that the war began following the failure of Pakistan's "Operation Gibraltar" which was designed to infiltrate and invade Jammu and Kashmir.
Fighting broke out between India and Pakistan in an area known as the Rann of Kutch, a barren region in the Indian state of Gujarat

Consequences

Pakistan tried to internationalise issue

Pact signed at Tashkent (helped by Alexei Kosigyn) in 1965
- Got Pakistan to concede Indian portion but India had to give up certain strategic locations it had captured
- However in Pakistan, there was a fallout. Student protests, and conservative leaders in the league
- And soon East Pakistan began losing enthusiasm
One problem had been because Pakistan was not democratic, and East Pakistan was under represented
Bengalis were unhappy at Urdu being the national language
- India happy
- Their ‘values’ were winning
- Nehru and Indira Gandhi were both supportive of democracy
- Another problem was refugees
- 700 mill dollars per year
- May 1971, India began to train and arm Bangladeshis
- Ended trade and aid to Pakistan and got others to do so as well.

Pakistan wants to internationalize incident
By 1954, Pakistan joined Baghdad pact to generate US support
US also provided arms
1955, joined SEATO

Pakistan wanted multilateral diplomacy
- 1953-56, bilateral diplomacy had gotten nothing
- so believed India would give in nothing
- by late 50s, after non aligned, Pakistan seemed to have better relations
- US support
- Pakistan was willing to have outside help and mediation but India did not because Kashmir was essentially its national territory and Pakistan had only gotten its region by armed conquest
- Accepting UN proposals would mean accepting that Pakistan had legality
- So failed
- India saw UN as unfair, particularly the (Gunnar) Jarring report (Sec Council President from Sweden). Pakistan saw it as useless


Third Kashmir War

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was a major military conflict between India and Pakistan. The war is closely associated with Bangladesh Liberation War (sometimes also referred to as Pakistani Civil War). There is an argument about exact dates of the war. However, the armed conflict on India's western front during the period between 3 December 1971 and 16 December 1971 is called the Indo-Pakistani War by both the Bangladeshi and Indian armies. The war ended in a crushing defeat for the Pakistani military in just a fortnight.

On 27 March 1971, Ziaur Rahman, a rebellious major in the Pakistani army, declared the independence of Bangladesh on behalf of Mujibur. In April, exiled Awami League leaders formed a government-in-exile in Boiddonathtola of Meherpur. The East Pakistan Rifles, an elite paramilitary force, defected to the rebellion. A guerrilla troop of civilians, the Mukti Bahini, was formed to help the Bangladesh Army

India involved
On 27 March 1971, the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, expressed full support of her government to the Bangladeshi struggle for freedom

Helped establish refugee camps

Indira Gandhi launched a diplomatic offensive in the early fall of 1971.
greatest coup was on 9 August when she signed a twenty-year treaty of friendship and co-operation with the Soviet Union, greatly shocking the United States

Consequences

War showed the importance of the Irredentist feelings
- Pakistan had to act for fear of Kashmir going to India fully
- However, the problem for Pakistan was that there was now division within Pakistan
- Left East Pakistan exposed
- East Pakistan began to see the whole thing as a West Pakistan thing that they were being made to pay the price for
- Bengali Nationalism in East Pakistan
- Also the 2nd War, gave problems – Pakistan had successfully courted US but after War US began getting out on region with embargoes for both sides
- 2nd War also showed both sides willing to use all force
- Also the cease fire was too quick. While Pakistan could hold its own, there was a possibility in that India’s potential in Indus would help in a longer war, so maybe just delaying the inevitable.

Impact
- Ideology in Pakistan suffered a hit
- Showed that they are no more willing for an independent Kashmir as India. While they say they want a plebiscite but they also really don’t want the result to be neutral
- India saw this as a triumph f its own democracy
- Its ideology was winning – should be religiously neutral

After 1971
- Both abjured the use of force to resolve Kashmir in Simla Agreement of 1972
- 1972 Mrs Gandhi had overwhelming electoral support-
- Felt confident to deal with Sheikh Mohd Abdullah – making him Chief Minister and giving the area some semblance of political legitimacy
- But the accord also called for Kashmir being a “constituent state” of India
- And decisions were only legitimate with agreement of the President
- Abdulah’s National Conference won elections in 1974 (the fairest so far)
- His son took over but not as charismatic as him (Farooq Abdullah, a doctor)
- In 1983, there were elections and he refused to enter into an alliance with the Congress
- This infuriated Mrs Gandhi and ultimately succeeding in removing him
- She engineered a series of defections from his party and claimed he no longer had support
- Not an isolated case as the Congress was no longer powerful in the localities, so Gandhi continued to threaten the local power bases.

After Farooq was dismissed, The next generation of Kashmiris became more cognizant of the political realities.

As a result there has been insurgency – Problems has to be solved
India has 4 solutions
1. Old one – plebiscite
Plus Pakistan continues to train and arm Kashmir insurgents
2. Concede valley to Pakistan
But same problem
While secular system seemed to be “winning” still needed some playing of the ethnic politics
3. Shared sovereignty but this has many problems
4. Autonomy. But this will entail decades of centralization
3 Crises 83-84, 86-87, 90

1. Reports that India would attack Pakistani nuclear facilities and Islamabad threatened the same.

2. India conducted Brasstacks, biggest exercise ever near border. Pakistan fearing the worse deployed defensively operation Sledgehammer, then India responded with Op Trident. Peaceful end but shortly afterwards India declared nuclear ability.

3. Pakistan had biggest exercise, Zarb-i-Momin in late 1989. Soon there was insurgency in Kashmir and were working out of Pakistan. India accused Pak of training them and threatened to cross the border in carrying out ‘hot pursuits’. This was seen as a hostile act as Pakistan would threaten to militarise the nuclear arsenal.

So they had history of threatening use of nuclear weapons, despite not always having them ready but no one could be sure.

Kargil (1999)

First conflict where both declared nuclear capability
First time one of them crossed line of control (LoC)
It was the bloodiest and did not end with peace treaty – needed third party – USA

The Kargil War, also known as the Kargil conflict, was an armed conflict between India and Pakistan that took place between May and July 1999 in the Kargil district of Kashmir. The cause of the war was the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into positions on the Indian side of the Line of Control, which serves as the de facto border between the two nations. Pakistan blamed the fighting entirely on independent Kashmiri insurgents; however, documents left behind by casualties and later statements by Pakistan's Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff showed involvement of Pakistani paramilitary forces. The Indian Army, supported by the air force, attacked the Pakistani positions and, with international diplomatic support, eventually forced a Pakistani withdrawal across the Line of Control (LoC).
(Read through readings for details)

Significance
1. Kargil was different as it was the 1st crisis where both had nuclear.
Openly declared in May 1998
2. Also the 1st time since 1971 that 1 side occupied terr as Pak crossing the Line of Control (LoC) signaled a major break out and challenged the stability
3. Different because it was longest and bloodiest and did not end with a bilateral peace. Had to bring in USA.


The Kargil episode challenged 2 myths:
1. That going nuclear ended all conflict. Actually ended the stability it was believed to bring
2. Also that the LoC is not sacrosanct – Actually it is now considered inviolable.



Significance of Simla

The Simla Treaty, popularly known as the Simla Pact or the Simla Agreement, was signed between India and Pakistan on July 2, 1972

- cemented the Line of Control (As of December 17, 1971)
- conceived steps to be taken for further normalization of mutual relations
- Need for bilateral realtions
Though it has not prevented the relationship between the two countries from deteriorating to the point of armed conflict (most recently in the Kargil War). The treaty was signed in Simla, India, by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the President of Pakistan, and Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India.
Line of Control
Runs 740km from Sangam (near Jammu) to point 9842 (short for Siachen Glacier) was demarcated as the 6 point reference from Simla.

Inability to get peaceful resolution

Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif

1990 – PM
Party was the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad supported by Pakistan Muslim League
Before his rise to power USA was pressuring Pakistan on nuclear

- George Bush said that Pakistan had to roll back its programme to 1990 levels, sign NPT and allow inspections or US won’t sign aid agreements
- Pakistan claimed nuclear programme was peaceful and refused inspection
- Pakistan proposed 5 Nation Conference on Proliferation in South Asia with Pakistan, India, US, SU, China
- Towards India
o Tried to improve relations
o Meeting with Narsimha Rao
o Signed agreement to ease tensions along line of control and to give advance notice of aircraft
o But nothing to stop Pakistan support of militant and terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir
o Continues to internationalize issue in violation of Simla.


Both attain nuclear weapons

By 1998 both had already tested nuclear weapons.
As early as 1974, India had alreadt detonated PNE (peaceful nuclear explosion)

Post USSR
- Nuclear issues: Pakistan proposed a 5 nation conference to solve nuclear issue. India rejected
- Pakistan had gotten Hatif misslile from China.
- India – Prithvi (Surface to surface), Agni (domestic produced long range 2500km), Trishul, Nag missiles
- In 1990 US put pressure on Pakistan to stop, but Pakistan counter with 5 nation proposal to solve issue.
- Rejected by India.
- India felt especially threatened by Pakistan and US. Also very wary of China
- China, as a permanent member of UN Security Council had power, and this position made its nuclear position stable.

“The arms race between Ind and Pakistan, poses most probable use of of WMD”, 1992, CIA director James Woolsey.

With nuclear issues, Pakistan-India cannot be treated as merely bilaterally

Terrorism
Terrorism in Kashmir has existed in various forms, mainly in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian-controlled side of the disputed territory of Kashmir, which has been the target of a campaign of terrorism and militancy by all sides of the conflict. Thousands of lives have been lost since 1989 due both, to the intensified insurgency and the Indian military. Those dead include civilians, Indian security forces, Kashmiri and non Kashmiri militants and Islamic terrorists.
India claims most of the separatist terrorist groups are based in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir (also known as Azad Kashmir). Some like the All Parties Hurriyat Conference and the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, demand an independent Kashmir. Other groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed favour a Pakistani-Kashmir.
According to U.S. Intelligence, Al-Qaeda also has a main base in Pakistani Kashmir and is helping to foment terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.
According to a report by the Government of India in the year 2000, 31,000 Indian civilians had lost their lives due to the insurgency. Human rights groups and local NGOs put the total figure at more than 84,000.
Kashmir continues to remain as the most volatile region in the world with an average of 2,500 incidents every year.
According to an Indian estimate in 2005 there were about 2,000 militants in the Kashmir valley alone; 1,200 of them belong to the Hizbul Mujahideen
India claims it is the presence of these numerous anti-India insurgent groups that has compelled New Delhi to deploy massive number of troops in Jammu and Kashmir for the task of counter insurgency. New Delhi has never made an official count, but military analysts estimate that anywhere from 30,000 to nearly 33,000 security personnel.
Terrorist groups
India says that over the last two years, a terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Toiba has split into two factions: Al Mansurin and Al Nasirin. Another new group reported to have emerged is the Save Kashmir Movement. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly known as Harkat-ul-Ansar) and Lashkar-e-Toiba are believed to be operating from Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir and Muridke, Pakistan respectively. Other less well known groups are the Freedom Force and Farzandan-e-Milat. A smaller group, Al-Badr, has been active in Kashmir for many years and is still believed to be functioning. All Parties Hurriyat Conference, an organisation that uses moderate means to press for the rights of the Kashmiris, is often considered as the mediator between New Delhi and insurgent groups
Pakistani involvement
According to Indian authorities, Kashmiri terrorists are sponsored by Pakistan; an allegation which Islamabad strongly denies. However a report by Human Rights Watch group confirms the Indian view stating that "There is compelling evidence that elements of the Pakistani government have sponsored a significant flow of arms to Kashmiri militants, as well as an extensive training program."
The UN Security Council has also confirmed the existence of terrorist groups based in [Pakistani] Kashmir and urged Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups which had been operating in Kashmir and killing innocent people.
Pakistan describes some of these separatists as "freedom fighters" and says that it supports their effort for the cause of the Kashmiris only morally. Pakistan however admits that there has been 'cross border infiltration of militants' across the line of controls LOC.
Human Rights
Militants are accused of following a policy of ethnic cleansing against the Kashmir populace. Many Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits have been killed in Kashmir over the years. Human rights organisations put the figure of the number killed since the late 80's at 80,000. Tens of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits have emigrated as a result of the violence.
Estimates of the displaced varies from 170,000 to 700,000. Local politicians have suffered the brunt of aggression. Incidents of rape, kidnapping, looting, rioting, and money laundering have increased since insurgency intensified in the 1980's. The Jammu and Kashmir provincial government stated in 2003, that a total of 3,744 people had 'disappeared' since 1989. However, human rights activists put the total figure at more than 8,000. Those who are targeted mainly include women, children and local politicians.
More than 120 local politicians have lost their lives, 15 of whom were members of Kashmir State Assembly.
Examples of Terror
• Attack on Jammu & Kashmir State Assembly - A car bomb exploded near the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly on October 1, 2001, killing 27 people on an attack that was blamed on Kashmiri separatists. It was one of the most prominent attacks against India apart from on the Indian Parliament in December 2001. No Kashmiri government official was killed or injured during the incident.
• Wandhama Massacre - In January 1998, 24 Kashmiri Pandits living in the city Wandhama were killed by Kashmiri Militants. According to the testimony of one of the survivors, the militants dressed themselves as officers of the Indian Army, entered their houses and then started firing blindly. The incident was significant because it coincided with former US president Bill Clinton's visit to India and New Delhi used the massacre to present a case against the alleged Pakistan-supported terrorism in Kashmir.
• Sangrampora Killings - On March 22, 1997, 7 Kashmiri Pandits were killed in Sangrampora village in the Budgam district.
• On October 1, 2001, a bombing at the Legislative Assembly in Srinagar killed 38.