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 consciousness of Pakistan that stands in the way of full Indo-Pakistani reconciliation and future cooperation based on mutual trust and friendship.” William J. Barnds
Protracted 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
The state of Jammu and Kashmir was one of a number of Indian states that recognised British paramountcy. Prior to the withdrawal of the British from India, the state came under pressure from both India and Pakistan to join them. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh wanted to remain independent and tried to delay the issue. 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 who promptly rushed into Kashmir and thus the war had started. The accession is still questioned by the Pakistanis. The Pakistani claim is that since the majority of the Kashmiri population is Muslim, the princely state should have been given to Pakistan. The Indian claim arises from both Maharaja Hari Singh's accession, as had happened with all of the other Indian states, and also that 48% of Kashmir was Sikh, Buddhist and Hindu.
Issues
Indian entered region to protect interests as raiders (had entered 22 Oct 1947) had seized Srinagar. So Pakistan responded to “liberate” Kashmir.
UN mediated (ended 1 Jan 1949)
India lost 500 square miles.
Pakistan entered it because India had absorbed Hyderabad.
1
Religion: Congress had been unable to appease Muslims because years of colonial rule had displaced Muslims. E.g. religion etc. So Muslims were distrustful of Congress and British.
Also because there were so many Hindus, no way Muslims could win votes etc.
Universal suffrage would not benefit Muslims.
So Pakistan had to separate from India.
Ideology: linked with religion
Jawaharlal Nehru believed India was a religious country above all. However some believed the Hindus were not as religious. The 2 could not exist together.
Although there were some in the Congress who were Muslim and believed that the 2 could join together because it was un-Muslim to have divisions
So there were divisions within the Muslims as well.
Some believed that there could be a secular state while others felt there could not.
The colonials also believed that the Muslims should not have the ability to veto majority decisions
First War also came about because of problems of the colonials in dealing with certain regions.
Junagadh and Hyderabad. Both had Hindu majorities but Muslim leaders. The former opted to join Pakistan (which British made them reconsider); the latter wanted to be independent. India believed that the Hyderabad leader had violated agreements and wanted to occupy it. – leading to Pakistan entering Kashmir. Nizam, Hyderabad leader called for all Muslims to rebel. Eventually India entered it
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.
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.
2
Much of the war was fought by the countries' land forces in the region of Kashmir and along the International Border (IB) between India and Pakistan. The war also involved a limited participation from the countries' respective air forces.
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. Initially involving the border police from both nations, the disputed area soon witnessed intermittent skirmishes between the countries' armed forces firstly on March 20 and again in April 1965. In June the same year, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson successfully persuaded both countries to end hostilities and set up a tribunal to resolve the dispute. The verdict, which came later in 1968, saw Pakistan gaining only 350 square militaryes (900 km²) of the Rann of Kutch, as against Pakistansitan's original claim of 3500 sq militaryes.
After its successes in the Rann of Kutch, Pakistan, under the leadership of General Ayub Khan, is said to have believed that the Indian Army was unable to defend itself against a quick military campaign in the disputed territory of Kashmir, following a loss to China in 1962. Pakistan believed that the population of Kashmir was generally discontented with Indian rule and that a resistance movement could be ignited by a few infiltrating saboteurs. This was codenamed Operation Gibraltar.
Tashkent
In 1965 –
-
Helped by Alexei Kosygin.
-
Managed to get 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
- East and West
- Were Muslim
- But East Pakistan (Bengalis were different ethnicity and language)
- West saw Bengali Islam as tainted Hindu and in need of purification
- Not seen as equal
- 1966 - Al Pakistan National Congress called for regional autonomy for East
- The East kept pushing issue
- One problem had been because Pakistan was not democratic, and East Pakistan was under represented in military and political fields. Also Bengalis were unhappy at Urdu being the national language and so with all these differences.
- Islam was not enough to keep them unified
- East held elections and the Pakistan army, without East, cracked down on Dacca.
-
India happy
3
-
Their ‘values’ were winning
-
Nehru and Indira Gandhi were both supportive of democracy
-
As were their successors
-
It supported the Awami League (Bengali)
-
But it only overtly got involved because of refugees
-
US$700m a year
-
And the influx threatened the ethnic
-
The East Pakistanis were unwelcomed due to
-
1. Added to population of already overpopulated state
-
2. Ethnicity (they were different to the West Bengals)
-
Therefore while at first the Indians did not want to get involved in the separation in Pakistan, they soon had no choice.
-
Had to ask Pakistan to stop hostilities (in Pakistan’s own region)
-
May 1971, India began to train and arm Bangladeshis
-
India also got international pressure
-
Foreign Minister went on tour to Moscow, Paris, Washington etc
-
Put pressure on Pakistan
-
Ended multinational aid
-
Ended bilateral trade especially between Pakistan and US. On July 15, USA cut of military aid to Pakistan
-
􀃆 Pakistan could not continue its operations in East Pakistan
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 achieved nothing
-
so believed India would give in nothing
-
by late 50s, after non-aligned movement, 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
However,
Sometimes both sides cooperated
-
Sep 1960 – Indus Waters Treaty
4
Also cooperated in talks -
By 1962, talks between Nehru and Pakistan
6 rounds btw Dec 62 and May 63
- Rawalpindi December – both side held positions
- New Dehli, 16 -19 Jan - Pakistan wanted a plebiscite, India instead wanted partition, and a “no war” declaration. Pakistan accepted this as a draft
- Karachi 8-10 Feb - Could not decide on line of partition as Pakistan extended line
- Calcutta 12-14 mar - Failed as Pakistan had ceded Indian Kashmir areas to PRC
- Karachi 22-25 Apr - Nothing else achieved
- 14-16 May – Bhutto (Pakistan FP) wanted removal of Indian troops replaced by UN and get a vote. India refused
Bilateral talks therefore gets no where. Although this seems the only way to proceed, bilateral negotiations may not always work
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.
The Indo-Pakistani conflict was sparked by the Bangladesh Liberation war, a conflict between the traditionally dominant West Pakistanis and the majority East Pakistanis. The war ignited after the 1970 Pakistani election, in which the East Pakistani Awami League won 167 of 169 seats in East Pakistan, thus securing a simple majority in the 313-seat lower house of the Pakistani parliament. Awami League leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman presented Six Points and claimed the right to form the government. After the leader of the Pakistan People's Party, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, refused to give premiership of Pakistan to Mujibur, President Yahya Khan called in the military, which was made up largely of West Pakistanis.
Mass arrests of dissidents began, and attempts were made to disarm East Pakistani soldiers and police. After several days of strikes and non-cooperation movements, Pakistani military cracked down on Dhaka on the night of March 25, 1971. The Awami League was banished, and many members fled into exile in India. Mujib was arrested and taken to West Pakistan.
5
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. The Bangladesh-India border was opened to allow the tortured and panic-stricken Bangladeshis safe shelter in India. The governments of West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura established refugee camps along the border. Exiled Bangladeshi army officers and voluntary workers from India immediately started using these camps for the recruitment and training of Mukti Bahini guerrillas.
As the massacres in East Pakistan escalated, an estimated 10 militarylion refugees fled to India, causing financial hardship and instability in the country. The United States, a long and close ally of Pakistan, continued to ship arms and supplies to West Pakistan.
Indira Gandhi launched a diplomatic offensive in the early fall of 1971 touring Europe, and was successful in getting both the United Kingdom and France to break with the United States, and block any pro-Pakistan directives in the United Nations security council. Gandhi's 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, and decreasing the possibility that the People's Republic of China would become involved in the conflict. China, an ally of Pakistan, had been providing moral support, but little military aid, and did not advance troops to its border with India.
Operation of the Mukti Bahini caused severe casualties to the Pakistani Army, which was in control of all district headquarters. As the flow of refugees swelled to a tide, the economic costs for India began to escalate. India began providing support including weapons and training for the Mukti Bahini, and began shelling military targets in East Pakistan.
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
6
-
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
-
E.g. In Bengal other things were more important than religion e.g. language and race
-
This made it harder for their claim on Kashmir
-
If it could not even keep its own how could they get Kashmir.
-
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
-
For Pakistan, now it did not have to defend East Pakistan but could no longer tie down Indian forces in the region
-
Left them with 2 alternatives for future war – had to fight in India or make sure India costs were high
-
With India’s adv, it made sense for Pakistan to nuclear up
-
For India, the border became more porous and so smuggling became a problem
-
Also thought it could have a subservient state like Bhutan
-
But increasing contentious relations
-
Continued immigrant problem
-
And riots like Assam 1983 and West Bengal 1992
-
Because of these immigrants
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
-
Abdullah’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.
7
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 but if they vote to be independent or join Pakistan, what about the minorities?
Plus Pakistan continues to train and arm Kashmir insurgents
2.
Concede valley to Pakistan
But same problem as 1. And also it might strengthen Sikhs and other insurgents.
Could lead to vicious Hindu backlash in northern India.
And reduce India political power
While secular system seemed to be “winning” still needed some playing of the ethnic politics.
3.
Shared sovereignty but this has many problems – defense? Which is responsible for civil disorder? Collection of revenue?
4.
Autonomy. But this will entail decades of centralization
Since Dec 1971, when India and Pakistan fought their last war area has been in ‘violent peace’
No wars but limited confrontations
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 Pakistan 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.
8
Kargil
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
Showed that LoC had to be sacrosanct
Carried out by General Pervez Musharraf – crossed into Kargil (Indian Sector) with about 800-1000 men in 1999. Threatened Srinagar-Leh national highway 1A ( lifeline between Kashmir valley and Ladakh) and India’s hold over Siachen glacier area
India saw it – and 2 recon teams went missing after looking
Led to conflict
But the leaders remained in contact on phone – Vajpayee told Musharraf that all possible steps would be taken to remove intruders (this was 2 days after Indian air strikes)
Talks failed
India did not escalate too much due to international pressure, more than nuclear of Pakistan.
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 territory as Pakistan 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.
Keeping Peace
2 options after Kargil
1. Both sides build up and station troops (non-cooperative, antagonistic)- preferred?
2. Cooperative, non-antagonistic
From 1 – 3 problems
1.
Expensive
2.
Don’t have the tech means to observe and patrol
3.
could lead to bigger problems
9
From 2
1.
But both sides don’t have the experience in the art and science of cooperative monitoring
2.
Also the coup posed problems – Gen Musharraf seen as a hawk (mastermind of Kargil?)
Seen as dictator
3.
Possible need for third party. It was no longer merely a domestic issue.
The contemporary district of Kargil was one of the districts of Ladakh Wazarat/Province before the Partition of Ladakh in 1947. The other two districts of Ladakh Wazarat were Skardo Baltistan and Leh Central Ladakh. Today, Kargil is one of the districts of Ladakh region in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Kargil lies on the line of control facing Pakistan Controlled Kashmir's region of Baltistan. Zanskar is part of Kargil district along with Suru, Wakha and Dras valleys
With a population of 140,000 Kargil is the only Muslim majority district in Ladakh. Of total population, 85% are Muslim, of which 73% follow Shia Islam. Most of the district's Muslims are found in Kargil town, Drass, Wakha and the lower Suru valley. The remainder 14% are followers of Tibetan Buddhism and Bön, mostly found in Zanskar with small populations in the upper Suru valley (Rangdum) and around Shergol and Mulbekh. Another 1% of the population follow Hinduism and Sikhism.
Kargil remained relatively obscure right until the Partition of India when the issue of Kashmir became the focal point and resulted in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. There were pitched battles fought around Kargil which saw the entire area initially coming under Pakistan control before most of it being reclaimed by Indian troops and remained with India after the ceasefire. It again saw some action in the Second Kashmir War with India managing to wrest back the reminder of the Kargil area twice. The first capture was on May 17, 1965, when skirmishes broke out in Rann of Kutch, but had to be returned as per UNMOGIP treatise. On August 15, the same year Kargil fell to Indian forces, though it was once again returned as part of the Tashkent Agreement. However in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 the entire Kargil region including key posts was captured for good by Indian troops. In order to straighten out the line of control in the area, the Indian Army launched night attacks when the ground temperatures sank to below -17º and about 15 enemy posts located at height of 16,000 feet and more were captured. After Pakistan forces lost the war and agreed to the Shimla Agreement, Kargil and other strategic areas nearby remained with India. Kargil became a separate district in the Ladakh region during the year 1979 when it was bifurcated from the Leh ditrict.
The area shot into the spotlight in spring of 1999, under a covert plan hatched by the then Army Chief Musharraf, armed infiltrators from Pakistan, aided by the Pakistani army, occupied vacant high posts belonging to India in the Kargil and Drass regions. The result was a limited scale conflict (Kargil War) between both nuclear equipped nations that ended with India regaining the Kargil region through military power and diplomatic pressure.
10
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 militaryitants 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).
The war is one of the most recent examples of high altitude warfare in mountainous terrain, and posed significant logistical problems for the combating sides. This was the first ground war between the two countries after they had developed nuclear weapons. (India and Pakistan both test-detonated fission devices in May 1998, though the first Indian nuclear test was conducted in 1974.) The conflict led to heightened tensions between the two nations and increased defence spending on the part of India. In Pakistan, the aftermath caused instability to the government and the economy, and on October 12, 1999 a coup d'etat by the military placed army chief Pervez Musharraf in power.
One of the main concerns in the international community during the Kargil crisis was that both neighbours had access to weapons of mass destruction, and if the war intensified, it could have led to nuclear war. Both countries had tested their nuclear capability a year before in 1998; India conducted its first test in 1974 while it was Pakistan's first-ever nuclear test. Many pundits believed the tests to be an indication of the escalating stakes in the scenario in South Asia. With the outbreak of clashes in Kashmir just a year after the nuclear tests, many nations took notice of the conflict and desired to end it.
The first hint of the possible use of a nuclear bomb was on May 31 when Pakistani foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmad made a statement warning that an escalation of the limited conflict could lead Pakistan to use "any weapon" in its arsenal. This was immediately interpreted as an obvious threat of a nuclear retaliation by Pakistan in the event of an extended war, and the leader of Pakistan's senate noted, "The purpose of developing weapons becomes meaningless if they are not used when they are needed." Many such ambiguous statements from officials of both countries were viewed as an impending nuclear crisis. The limited nuclear arsenals of both sides, paradoxically could have led to 'tactical' nuclear warfare in the belief that a nuclear strike would not have ended in total nuclear warfare with mutual assured destruction, as could have occurred between the United States, the USSR or the People's Republic of China. Some experts believe that following nuclear tests in 1998, Pakistani military was emboldened by its nuclear deterrent cover to markedly increase coercion against India.
The nature of the India-Pakistan conflict took a more sinister proportion when the U.S. received intelligence that Pakistani nuclear warheads were being moved towards the border. Bill Clinton tried to dissuade Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif from nuclear
11
brinkmanship, even threatening Pakistan of dire consequences. According to a White House official, Sharif seemed to be genuinely surprised by this supposed missile movement and responded that India was probably planning the same. This was later confirmed in an article in May 2000, which stated that India too had readied at least five nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Sensing a deteriorating military scenario, diplomatic isolation, and the risks of a larger conventional and nuclear war, Sharif ordered the Pakistani army to vacate the Kargil heights. He later claimed in his official biography that General Pervez Musharraf had moved nuclear warheads without informing him. Recently however, Pervez Musharraf revealed in his memoirs that Pakistan’s nuclear delivery system was not operational during the Kargil war; something that would have put Pakistan under serious disadvantage if the conflict went nuclear.
Additionally, the threat of WMD included a suspected use of chemical and even biological weapons. Pakistan accused India of using chemical weapons and incendiary weapons such as napalm against the Kashmiri fighters. India, on the other hand, showcased a cache of gas masks, among other firearms, as proof that Pakistan may have been prepared to use non-conventional weapons. One militaryitant group even claimed to possess chemical weapons; this was later found to be a hoax, and even the gas masks were most likely intended by the Pakistanis as protection from an Indian attack. The Pakistani allegations of India using banned chemicals in its bombs were proven to be unfounded by the U.S. administration at the time and the OPCW.
Occupation by Pakistan
Because of the extreme winter weather in Kashmir, it was common practice for the Indian and Pakistan Army to abandon forward posts and reoccupy them in the spring. That particular spring, the Pakistan Army reoccupied the forward posts before the scheduled time.
Infiltration and military build-up.
In early May 1999, the Pakistan Army deliberately decided to occupy the Kargil posts within Indian border, numbering around 130, and thus control the area. Troops from the elite Special Services Group as well as four to seven battalions of the Northern Light Infantry (a paramilitary regiment not part of the regular Pakistani army at that time) backed by Kashmiri guerrillas and Afghan mercenaries covertly and overtly set up bases on the vantage points of the Indian-controlled region. Initially, these incursions were not spotted due to the heavy artillery fire by Pakistan across the Line of Control, which provided cover for the infiltrators. But by the second week of May, the ambushing of an Indian patrol team, acting on a tip-off by a local shepherd in the Batalik sector, led to the exposure of the infiltration. Initially with little knowledge of the nature or extent of the encroachment, the Indian troops in the area claimed that they would evict them within a few days. However, reports of infiltration elsewhere along the LoC made it clear that the entire plan of attack was on a much bigger scale. The total area seized by the ingress is generally accepted to between 130 km2 - 200 km2; Musharraf however, stated that 500 Mi2 (1,300 km2) of Indian territory was occupied.
12
The Government of India responded with Operation Vijay, a mobilisation of 200,000 Indian troops. However, because of the nature of the terrain, division and corps operations could not be mounted; the scale of most fighting was at the regimental or battalion level. In effect, two divisions of the Indian Army, numbering 20,000, plus several thousand from the Indian Paramilitary Forces and the air force were deployed in the conflict zone. The total number of Indian soldiers that were involved in the military operation on the Kargil-Drass sector was thus close to 30,000. The number of infiltrators, including those providing logistical backup, has been put at approximately 5,000 at the height of the conflict. This figure includes troops from Pakistan-administered Kashmir that were involved in the war providing additional artillery support
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.
The treaty followed from the war between the two nations in the previous year that had led to the independence of East Pakistan as Bangladesh. The agreement laid down the principles that should govern their future relations. It also conceived steps to be taken for further normalization of mutual relations. Most importantly, it bound the two countries "to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations". It also cemented the Line of Control as something close to a permanent border. "In Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from threat or the use of force in violation of this Line." The agreement also paved the way for diplomatic recognition of Bangladesh by Pakistan. As a gesture of goodwill India decided not to try 93,000 Pakistan Prisoners of War for war crimes and released them.
The treaty has been the basis of all subsequent bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, 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.
While it was just a point to show existing troop presence, it has become a de facto border. (especially can be seen by international outcry in Kargil)
13
-
If India had not been able to block them and there was no international response, could have escalated
-
If India had tried to escalate matters then Pakistan would have responded (bringing the nuclear threshold nearer)
-
And even though the Indian have more troops (twice as large) and 2.5 times artillery it is not prepared for these kinds of wars. Took 3 weeks to build up
-
LoC could become a real border but this seems unlikely
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 viewed itself as self reliant
-
Would not compromise sovereignty
-
Pakistan proposed 5 Nation Conference on Proliferation in South Asia with Pakistan, India, US, SU, China
- Towards India
- Tried to improve relations
- Meeting with Narsimha Rao
- Signed agreement to ease tensions along line of control and to give advance notice of aircraft
- But nothing to stop Pakistan support of militants and terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir
- Continues to internationalize issue in violation of Simla
- Involves Mid East and Central Asia.
For Pakistan, from Jinnah to Musharraf, the Pakistan always willing to faced down Indians.
Entire focus is to gain parity, especially military.
Conventional and nuclear
Pakistan – could not like India depend on internal so sought external arrangements.
1954 signed Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with USA
Also SEATO
Pakistan also opened second front against India – China
1960s and 70s – China extended 2.6b worth of aid
14
Pakistan saw it was overmatched and continued with nuclear development till 1998 – its own test
India responded in May 1998
Resource Competition – Indus canal system was planned before partition so it did not ensure equal distribution.
In 1948, India tried to control flow – problems
1947 line cut across Indus system so something had to be done
1960 – Nehru and Ayub Khan signed treaty
Indus Treaty
3 Western Rivers (Jhelum, Chenab and Indus) to Pakistan, (Ravi, the Beas and Sutlej) to India.
India could not build storages at the top
Works quite well – even during wars still held. Got frequent meetings among officials.
So is there possibility of conflict resolution? Bilateral meetings seem to offer the best hope.
This is especially true because of India not wanting outside influence for what it considers a domestic issue.
Both attain nuclear weapons
By 1998 both had already tested nuclear weapons.
As early as 1974, India had already 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 missile 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 India and Pakistan, poses most probable use of WMD”, 1992, CIA director James Woolsey.
With nuclear issues, Pakistan-India cannot be treated as merely bilaterally
15
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 militaryitancy 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 militaryitants and Islamic terrorists.
Though there had been instances of sporadic conflict in many regions for many years, intensified attacks occurred in the late 1980s, when Mujahideen fighters from Afghanistan slowly infiltrated the region, allegedly with Pakistan's help, following the end of the Soviet-Afghan War in 1989. Since then, violence has increased significantly in strength. Many separatists have carried out attacks on Indian civilians and Indian military installations in response to what they see as Indian military occupation.
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. Both the organisations no longer operate under these names after they were banned by the Indian and Pakistani government, and by other countries including the USA and UK. Of the larger militaryitant groups, the Hizbul Mujahideen, a militaryitant organisation based in Indian administered Kashmir, unlike other groups, has only kept its name. Despite casualties, the militaryitants are still believed to number thousands rather than hundreds. Several new separatist organizations have also emerged. 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.
It is hard to determine the total number of casualties. 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 (2005 figure). Militaryitancy had reached its peak in 1994 when the region saw more than 6,043 incidents and has since declined. However, 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 militaryitants in the Kashmir valley alone; 1,200 of them belong to the Hizbul Mujahideen. Not all Kashmiri separatists and militaryitant organizations share the same ideology. Some fight in the name of religion, some are pro-Pakistan and some favour an independent Kashmir. Furthermore, reports indicate that a minority of the fighters are Hindu mercenaries who have taken up arms for money.
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
16
analysts estimate that anywhere from 30,000 to nearly 33,000 security personnel are most likely involved, supported by thousands of Indian paramilitary groups such as the Rashtriya rifles, and the Romeo Force. Further consolidating Indian control in Kashmir are hundreds of counter-insurgents known collectively as the Ikhwanis. Made up of former militaryitants, the groups were abandoned by India in the early part of this decade, allowing anti-Indian militaryitants to kill some of the Ikhwanis, including the Ikhwani leader, Kukka Parray.
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-Militaryat. 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 militaryitants, as well as an extensive training program." The US government has also supported the claim that anti-India terror groups exist in Pakistan. India claims that there are also other Afghan, Egyptian, Yemeni and Bangladeshi terrorists active in Jammu and Kashmir. Other nonpartisan resources also concur stating that Pakistan’s military and Interservices Intelligence (ISI) both include personnel who sympathize with—or even assist—Islamist militaryitants adding that "ISI has provided covert but well-documented support to terrorist groups active in Kashmir, among other outfits." In a recent infiltration bid, a Pakistan Army officer was shot dead, with India citing that this was clear evidence of Pakistani involvement in the insurgency. 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 militaryitants' across the line of controls LOC.
17
Human Rights
Militaryitants 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 Militaryitants. According to the testimony of one of the survivors, the militaryitants 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.
18