Kashmir conflict

Kashmir conflict The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict primarily between India and Pakistan, having started just after the partition of India in 1947. China has at times played a minor role.[2] India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, including the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947 and 1965, as well as the Kargil War of 1999. The two countries have also been involved in several skirmishes over control of the Siachen Glacier. Kashmir Conflict Kashmir region 2004.jpg India claims the entire erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir based on an instrument of accession signed in 1947. Pakistan claims Jammu and Kashmir based on its majority Muslim population, whereas China claims the Shaksam Valley and Aksai Chin. Date 22 October 1947 – ongoing (69 years, 8 months, 1 week and 5 days) Location Kashmir Status Ongoing Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 Siachen conflict Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir Kargil War 1999 India–Pakistan border skirmishes 2016 Kashmir unrest Belligerents Pakistan Pakistan Rangers Pakistan Army Inter-Services Intelligence India Indian Army BSF Logo.svg Border Security Force Central Reserve Police Force Flagofraw.JPG Research and Analysis Wing Pakistan All Parties Hurriyat Conference Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Lashkar-e-Taiba Jaish-e-Mohammed Hizbul Mujahideen Harkat-ul-Mujahideen Al-Badr Supported by: Pakistan[1] Commanders and leaders General Qamar Javed Bajwa Pranab Mukherjee General Bipin Rawat General Pranav Movva Lt. Gen. P C Bhardwaj Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha Pranay Sahay Amanullah Khan Hafiz Muhammad Saeed Maulana Masood Azhar Sayeed Salahudeen Fazlur Rehman Khalil Farooq Kashmiri Arfeen Bhai (until 1998) Bakht Zameen India claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, and, as of 2010, administers approximately 43% of the region. It controls Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier[citation needed]. India's claims are contested by Pakistan, which administers approximately 37% of Jammu and Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.[3][4] China currently administers Demchok district, the Shaksgam Valley, and the Aksai Chin region. China's claim over these territories has been disputed by India since China took Aksai Chin during the Sino-Indian War of 1962.[5] The present conflict is in Kashmir Valley.[6] The root of conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian government is tied to a dispute over local autonomy[7] and based on the demand for self-determination.[8][9] Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s, and by 1988, many of the democratic reforms introduced by the Indian Government had been reversed. Non-violent channels for expressing discontent were thereafter limited and caused a dramatic increase in support for insurgents advocating violent secession from India.[7] In 1987, a disputed state election[10] created a catalyst for the insurgency when it resulted in some of the state's legislative assembly members forming armed insurgent groups.[11][12][13] In July 1988 a series of demonstrations, strikes and attacks on the Indian Government began the Kashmir Insurgency. Although thousands of people have died as a result of the turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir,[14] the conflict has become less deadly in recent years.[15][16] Protest movements created to voice Kashmir's disputes and grievances with the Indian government, specifically the Indian Military, have been active in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989.[15][16] Elections held in 2008 were generally regarded as fair by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and had a high voter turnout in spite of calls by separatist militants for a boycott. The election resulted in the creation of the pro-India Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, which then formed a government in the state.[17][18] According to Voice of America, many analysts have interpreted the high voter turnout in this election as a sign that the people of Kashmir endorsed Indian rule in the state.[19] But in 2010 unrest erupted after alleged fake encounter of local youth with security force.[20] Thousands of youths pelted security forces with rocks, burned government offices and attacked railway stations and official vehicles in steadily intensifying violence.[21] The Indian government blamed separatists and Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based militant group for stoking the 2010 protests.[22] Elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 26 years of history in Jammu and Kashmir.[23][24][25][26] However, analysts explain that the high voter turnout in Kashmir is not an endorsement of Indian rule by the Kashmiri population, rather most people vote for daily issues such as food and electricity.[27][28] An opinion poll conducted by the Chatham House international affairs think tank found that in the Kashmir valley – the mainly Muslim area in Indian Kashmir at the centre of the insurgency – support for independence varies between 74% to 95% in its various districts.[29][30] Support for remaining with India was, however, extremely high in predominantly Hindu Jammu and Buddhist Ladakh. Indian forces have committed many human rights abuses and acts of terror against Kashmiri civilian population including extrajudicial killing, rape, torture and enforced disappearances. Crimes by militants have also happened but are not comparable in scale with the crimes of Indian forces.[31] According to Amnesty International, as of June 2015, no member of the Indian military deployed in Jammu and Kashmir has been tried for human rights violations in a civilian court, although there have been military court martials held.[32] Amnesty International welcomed this move but cautioned that justice should be consistently delivered and prosecutions of security forces personnel be held in civilian courts. Amnesty International has also accused the Indian government of refusing to prosecute perpetrators of abuses in the region.[33] Kashmir's accession to India was provisional, and conditional on a plebiscite,[34] and for this reason had a different constitutional status to other Indian states.[35] In October 2015 Jammu and Kashmir High Court said that article 370 is "permanent" and Jammu and Kashmir did not merge with India the way other princely states merged but retained special status and limited sovereignty under Indian constitution.[36] In 2016 (8 July 2016 – present) unrest erupted after killing of a Hizbul Mujahideen militant Burhan Wani by Indian security forces.[37] India-Pakistan conflict Further information: Timeline of the Kashmir conflict Early history See also: History of Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) According to the mid-12th century text Rajatarangini the Kashmir Valley was formerly a lake. Hindu mythology relates that the lake was drained by the sage Kashyapa, by cutting a gap in the hills at Baramulla (Varaha-mula), and invited Brahmans to settle there. This remains the local tradition and Kashyapa is connected with the draining of the lake in traditional histories. The chief town or collection of dwellings in the valley is called Kashyapa-pura, which has been identified as Kaspapyros in Hecataeus (Apud Stephanus of Byzantium) and the Kaspatyros of Herodotus (3.102, 4.44).[38] Kashmir is also believed to be the country indicated by Ptolemy's Kaspeiria.[39] Kashmir thrived for centuries as a centre of Hindu culture.[40] During the early 1300s local leaders embraced Islam and due to the arrival of proselytizing Central Asian ulama, most Kashmiris accepted Islam by the late 1400s. Kashmir remained under Muslim rule for five centuries.[40] The Pashtun Durrani Empire ruled Kashmir in the 18th century until its 1819 conquest by the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh. The Raja of Jammu Gulab Singh, who was a vassal of the Sikh Empire and an influential noble in the Sikh court, sent expeditions to various border kingdoms and ended up encircling Kashmir by 1840. Following the First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–1846), Kashmir was ceded under the Treaty of Lahore to the East India Company, which transferred it to Gulab Singh through the Treaty of Amritsar, in return for the payment of indemnity owed by the Sikh empire. Gulab Singh took the title of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. From then until the 1947 Partition of India, Kashmir was ruled by the Maharajas of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu. According to the 1941 census, the state's population was 77 percent Muslim, 20 percent Hindu and 3 percent others (Sikhs and Buddhists).[41] Despite its Muslim majority, the princely rule was an overwhelmingly Hindu state.[42] The Muslim majority suffered under Hindu rule with high taxes and discrimination.[40] Partition and invasion British rule in India ended in 1947 with the creation of new states: the Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India, as the successor states to British India. The British Paramountcy over the 562 Indian princely states ended. According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States".[43] States were thereafter left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. Jammu and Kashmir, the largest of the princely states, had a predominantly Muslim population ruled by the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh. He decided to stay independent because he expected that the State's Muslims would be unhappy with accession to India, and the Hindus and Sikhs would become vulnerable if he joined Pakistan.[44][45] On 11 August, the Maharaja dismissed his prime minister Ram Chandra Kak, who had advocated independence. Observers and scholars interpret this action as a tilt towards accession to India.[46][45] Pakistanis decided to preempt this possibility by wresting Kashmir by force if necessary.[47] Pakistan made various efforts to persuade the Maharaja of Kashmir to join Pakistan. In July 1947, Mohammad Ali Jinnah is believed to have written to the Maharaja promising "every sort of favourable treatment," followed by lobbying of the State's Prime Minister by leaders of Jinnah's Muslim League party. Faced with the Maharaja's indecision on accession, the Muslim League agents clandestinely worked in Poonch to encourage the local Muslims to an armed revolt, by exploiting an internal unrest regarding economic grievances which had gained support for Muslim Conference's pro Pakistan stance in Poonch. The authorities in Pakistani Punjab waged a `private war' by obstructing supplies of fuel and essential commodities to the Jammu and Kashmir State. Later in September, Muslim League officials in the Northwest Frontier Province, including the Chief Minister Abdul Qayyum Khan, assisted and possibly organized a large-scale invasion of Kashmir by Pathan tribesmen.[48]:61[49] Several sources indicate that the plans were finalised on 12 September by the Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, based on proposals prepared by Colonel Akbar Khan and Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan. One plan called for organising an armed insurgency in the western districts of the state and the other for organising a Pushtoon tribal invasion. Both were set in motion.[50][51] The Jammu division of the state got caught up in the Partition violence. The violence in the eastern districts of Jammu that started in September, developed into a widespread `massacre' of Muslims around the October, organised by the Hindu Dogra troops of the State and perpetrated by the local Hindus, including members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and the Hindus and Sikhs displaced from the neighbouring areas of West Pakistan. The Maharaja himself was implicated in some instances. A large number of Muslims were killed. Huge number of Muslims have fled to West Pakistan, some of whom made their way to the western districts of Poonch and Mirpur, which were undergoing rebellion. Many of these Muslims believed that the Maharaja ordered the killings in Jammu and instigated the Muslims in West Pakistan to join the uprising in Poonch and help in the formation of the Azad Kashmir government.[52] The rebel forces in the western districts of Jammu got organised under the leadership of Sardar Ibrahim, a Muslim Conference leader. They took control of most of the western parts of the State by 22 October. On 24 October, they formed a provisional Azad Kashmir (free Kashmir) government based in Palandri.[53] Accession The Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to India was accepted by the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten. Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, the Maharaja's nominee for his next prime minister, visited Nehru and Patel in Delhi on 19 September, requesting essential supplies which had been blockaded by Pakistan since the beginning of September. He communicated the Maharaja's willingness to accede to India. Nehru, however, demanded that the jailed political leader, Sheikh Abdullah, be released from prison and involved in the state government. Only then would he allow the state to accede.[54][55] The Maharaja released Sheikh Abdullah on 29 September.[46] Before any further reforms were implemented, the Pakistani tribal invasion brought the matters to a head. Maharaja's troops, heavily outnumbered and outgunned and facing internal rebellions from Muslim troops, had no chance of withstanding the attack. The Maharaja made an urgent plea to Delhi for military assistance. Upon the Governor General Lord Mountbatten's insistence, India required the Maharaja to accede before it could send troops. Accordingly, the Maharaja signed an instrument of accession on 26 October 1947, which was accepted by the Governor General the next day.[56][57][58] While the Government of India accepted the accession, it added the proviso that it would be submitted to a "reference to the people" after the state is cleared of the invaders, since "only the people, not the Maharaja, could decide where Kashmiris wanted to live." It was a provisional accession.[59][60][note 1] National Conference, the largest political party in the State and headed by Sheikh Abdullah, endorsed the accession. In the words of the National Conference leader Syed Mir Qasim, India had the "legal" as well as "moral" justification to send in the army through the Maharaja's accession and the people's support of it.[61][note 2] The Indian troops, which were air lifted in the early hours of 27 October, secured the Srinagar airport. The city of Srinagar was being patrolled by the National Conference volunteers with Hindus and Sikhs moving about freely among Muslims, an "incredible sight" to visiting journalists. The National Conference also worked with the Indian Army to secure the city.[62] In the north of the state lay the Gilgit Agency, which had been leased by British India but returned to the Maharaja shortly before Independence. Gilgit's population did not favour the State's accession to India. Sensing their discontent, Major William Brown, the Maharaja's commander of the Gilgit Scouts, mutinied on 1 November 1947, overthrowing the Governor Ghansara Singh. The bloodless coup d'etat was planned by Brown to the last detail under the code name `Datta Khel'. Local leaders in Gilgit formed a provisional government (Aburi Hakoomat), naming Raja Shah Rais Khan as the president and Mirza Hassan Khan as the commander-in-chief. But, Major Brown had already telegraphed Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan asking Pakistan to take over. According to historian Yaqoob Khan Bangash, the provisional government lacked sway over the population which had intense pro-Pakistan sentiments.[63] Pakistan's Political Agent, Khan Mohammad Alam Khan, arrived on 16 November and took over the administration of Gilgit.[64][65] Bangash believes the people of Gilgit Agency, Hunza and Nagar declared their wish to join Pakistan.[66] Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 Rebel forces from the western districts of the State and the Pakistani Pakhtoon tribesmen[note 3][note 4] made rapid advances into the Baramulla sector. In the Kashmir valley, National Conference volunteers worked with the Indian Army to drive out the `raiders'.[note 5] The resulting First Kashmir War lasted until the end of 1948. The Pakistan army made available arms, ammunition and supplies to the rebel forces who were dubbed the `Azad Army'. Pakistani army officers `conveniently' on leave and the former officers of the Indian National Army were recruited to command the forces. In May 1948, the Pakistani army officially entered the conflict, in theory to defend the Pakistan borders, but it made plans to push towards Jammu and cut the lines of communications of the Indian forces in the Mendhar valley.[67] C. Christine Fair notes that this was the beginning of Pakistan using irregular forces and `asymmetric warfare' to ensure plausible deniability, which has continued ever since.[68] On 1 November 1947, Mountbatten flew to Lahore for a conference with Jinnah, proposing that, in all the princely States where the ruler did not accede to a Dominion corresponding to the majority population (which would have included Junagadh, Hyderabad as well as Kashmir), the accession should be decided by an `impartial reference to the will of the people'. Jinnah rejected the offer. According to Indian scholar A. G. Noorani Jinnah ended up squandering his leverage.[69] According to Jinnah, India acquired the accession through "fraud and violence."[70] A plebiscite was unnecessary and states should accede according to their majority population. He was willing to urge Junagadh to accede to India in return for Kashmir. For a plebiscite, Jinnah demanded simultaneous troop withdrawal for he felt that 'the average Muslim would never have the courage to vote for Pakistan' in the presence of Indian troops and with Sheikh Abdullah in power. When Mountbatten countered that the plebiscite could be conducted by the United Nations, Jinnah, hoping that the invasion would succeed and Pakistan might lose a plebiscite, again rejected the proposal, stating that the Governors Generals should conduct it instead. Mountbatten noted that it was untenable given his constitutional position and India did not accept Jinnah's demand of removing Sheikh Abdullah.[71] Prime Ministers Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan met again in December, when Nehru informed Khan of India's intention to refer the dispute to the United Nations under article 35 of the UN Charter, which allows the member states to bring to the Security Council attention situations `likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace'.[72] Nehru and other Indian leaders were afraid since 1947 that the "temporary" accession to India might act as an irritant to the bulk of the Muslims of Kashmir. Secretary in Patel’s Ministry of States, V.P. Menon, admitted in an interview in 1964 that India had been absolutely dishonest on the issue of plebiscite.[73] A.G. Noorani blames many Indian and Pakistani leaders for the misery of Kashmiri people but says that Nehru was the main culprit.[74] UN mediation India sought resolution of the issue at the UN Security Council, despite Sheikh Abdullah's opposition to it.[note 5] Following the set-up of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948. The measure called for an immediate cease-fire and called on the Government of Pakistan 'to secure the withdrawal from the state of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the state for the purpose of fighting.' It also asked Government of India to reduce its forces to minimum strength, after which the circumstances for holding a plebiscite should be put into effect 'on the question of Accession of the state to India or Pakistan.' However, it was not until 1 January 1949 that the ceasefire could be put into effect, signed by General Douglas Gracey on behalf of Pakistan and General Roy Bucher on behalf of India.[75] However, both India and Pakistan failed to arrive at a truce agreement due to differences over interpretation of the procedure for and the extent of demilitarisation. One sticking point was whether the Azad Kashmiri army was to be disbanded during the truce stage or at the plebiscite stage.[76] The UNCIP made three visits to the subcontinent between 1948 and 1949, trying to find a solution agreeable to both India and Pakistan.[77] It reported to the Security Council in August 1948 that "the presence of troops of Pakistan" inside Kashmir represented a "material change" in the situation. A two-part process was proposed for the withdrawal of forces. In the first part, Pakistan was to withdraw its forces as well as other Pakistani nationals from the state. In the second part, "when the Commission shall have notified the Government of India" that Pakistani withdrawal has been completed, India was to withdraw the bulk of its forces. After both the withdrawals were completed, a plebiscite would be held.[78] The resolution was accepted by India but effectively rejected by Pakistan.[note 6] The Indian government considered itself to be under legal possession of Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of the accession of the state. The assistance given by Pakistan to the rebel forces and the Pakhtoon tribes was held to be a hostile act and the further involvement of the Pakistan army was taken to be an invasion of Indian territory. From the Indian perspective, the plebiscite was meant to confirm the accession, which was in all respects already complete, and Pakistan could not aspire to an equal footing with India in the contest.[79] The Pakistan government held that the state of Jammu and Kashmir had executed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan which precluded it from entering into agreements with other countries. It also held that the Maharaja had no authority left to execute accession because his people had revolted and he had to flee the capital. It believed that the Azad Kashmir movement as well as the tribal incursions were indigenous and spontaneous, and Pakistan's assistance to them was not open to criticism.[80] In short, India required an asymmetric treatment of the two countries in the withdrawal arrangements, regarding Pakistan as an `aggressor', whereas Pakistan insisted on parity. The UN mediators tended towards parity, which was not to India's satisfaction.[81] In the end, no withdrawal was ever carried out, India insisting that Pakistan had to withdraw first, and Pakistan contending that there was no guarantee that India would withdraw afterwards.[82] No agreement could be reached between the two countries on the process of demilitarisation.[note 7] Scholars have commented that the failure of the Security Council efforts of mediation owed to the fact that the Council regarded the issue as a purely political dispute without investigating its legal underpinnings.[note 8] Declassified British papers indicate that Britain and US had let their Cold War calculations influence their policy in the UN, disregarding the merits of the case.[note 9] Dixon Plan Sir Owen Dixon, UN mediator The 1950s saw the mediation by Sir Owen Dixon, the UN-appointed mediator, who came the closest to solving the Kashmir dispute in the eyes of many commentators. Dixon arrived in the subcontinent in May 1950 and, after a visit to Kashmir, proposed a summit between India and Pakistan. The summit lasted five days, at the end of which Dixon declared a statewide plebiscite was impossible. Dixon summarized that people in Jammu and Ladakh were clearly in favour of India; equally clearly, those in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas wanted to be part of Pakistan. This left the Kashmir Valley and 'perhaps some adjacent country' around Muzaffarabad in uncertain political terrain. Nehru then proposed a partition-cum-plebiscite plan: Jammu and Ladakh would go to India, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas to Pakistan, and a plebiscite would be held in the Kashmir Valley. Dixon favoured the plan, which bears his name till this day. Concurrently, Dixon did express concern that the Kashmiris, not being high-spirited people, may vote under fear or improper influences.[83] The sticking point was that Dixon proposed, following Liaquat Ali Khan's objections, that Sheikh Abdullah administration should be held in "commission" (in abeyance) while the plebiscite was held. This was not acceptable to India.[85] At that point, Dixon lost patience and declared failure.[86] Dixon concluded that India would not agree to provisions governing the plebiscite that guard against influence and abuse ensuring a free and fair plebiscite.[87][88] The US ambassador Loy Henderson reported, "Dixon, however, had offered no alternative. He had taken [the] position there could be no fair plebiscite under Abdullah regime. It was on this issue and nothing else [that] discussions had broken down. [Government of India] was still willing to discuss direct with [Government of Pakistan] ... solution involving partition with plebiscite in Vale..." Dixon's premature withdrawal has been criticised, but perhaps Dixon had not realised how close he had come to solving the dispute.[89] 1950 military standoff In July 1950, Sheikh Abdullah sought to introduce far-reaching land reforms, but the Prince Regent Karan Singh insisted that they had to be carried out by a Legislative Assembly. Abdullah then proposed electing a Constituent Assembly, which was approved in April 1951. Abdullah wanted the Constituent Assembly to decide the State's accession. But this was not agreed to by the Prime Minister of India, he stated that such "underhand dealing" would be very bad, as the matter was being decided by the UN. Around this time, the Korean War broke out and the West grew anxious about defending the Middle East from possible communist attacks. They sought Pakistani help but were aware that Pakistan desired guarantees of security against an Indian attack. The international scene was in a flux.[90] Towards the end of 1950, sections of Pakistani leaders grew impatient about the lack of progress in the UN, and raised a hue and cry. The Prime Minister of North-West Frontier Province promised a jehad by the Pashtun population of Pakistan. The governor of Punjab declared that the "whole of Asia would be engulfed in a war". The calls for a holy war reverberated through the Pakistani society. India grew anxious and raised the issue with the western powers. Receiving no response, following a rash of violent incidents in Kashmir Valley in June 1951 and reports of Pakistani troop movements, India decided to move its troops to the border. According to Nehru, "our lack of proper defenses on our frontiers would itself be an invitation to attack." A military stand-off ensued, lasting from mid-July 1951 till the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan in October 1951. India resisted pressures from western powers for standing down, claiming that the troop deployment was a necessary deterrent. Meanwhile, the elections to the Constituent Assembly passed off peacefully, the Assembly convening on 31 October.[91] However, the peace was short-lived. Later by 1953, Sheikh Abdullah fell out with the Indian government. He was dismissed and imprisoned in August 1953. His former deputy, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed as the prime minister, and Indian security forces were deployed in the Valley to control the streets.[92][93] Nehru's plebiscite offer With India's "abridged authority" in Kashmir, Nehru decided that a settlement must be found since India could not hold Kashmir "at the point of a bayonet". He asserted several times since 1947 that only Kashmiris have the right decide their own future. Starting in July 1953, he made a renewed push on the plebiscite option in discussions with Pakistan. In August he proposed that a plebiscite administrator be appointed within six months. Other than demanding that the plebiscite administrator not be from one of the major powers, he placed no other conditions. Reversing his earlier policies, he suggested that the plebiscite could be held in all regions of the state and the state would be partitioned on the basis of the results. He was open to a "different approach" to the scaling back of troops in the State so as to allow a free vote.[92][93][note 10] Withdrawal of the plebiscite offer However, by now, Pakistan was moving in a different direction. Using the opening created by the Korean War, Pakistan was aggressively pursuing American military aid. Two days after Liaquat Ali Khan's assassination, Pakistani military delegation was in Washington to get as much military equipment as it could. The delegation expressed Pakistan's readiness to participate in defending the Middle East even if the US were to pay no attention to Pakistan's security against India. Pakistan regarded India's behaviour during the military stand-off as "aggressive", as one that needed a military response.[95] As the US-Pakistan Mutual Defence Pact was taking shape in September 1953, Nehru warned Pakistan that it has to choose between winning Kashmir through a plebiscite or pursuing a military alliance with the US. If such a pact were to be concluded, Nehru said, the situation would change dramatically and "all problems would be seen in a new light". Consequently, when the pact was concluded in May 1954, Nehru withdrew the plebiscite offer and declared that the status quo was the only remaining option.[96] Nehru's withdrawal from the plebiscite option came a major blow to all concerned.[97] Some have suggested that India was never seriously intent on holding a plebiscite and the withdrawal came to signify a vindication of their belief.[101] Scholar Mahesh Shankar, who studied the matter in detail, finds that there is no basis for such an assessment. He cites numerous public and private statements of Nehru to demonstrate that he was intent on holding a plebiscite even after Sheikh Abdullah was imprisoned and India's chances of winning the plebiscite presumably became negligible.[102]Shankar believes the reason for withdrawing from the "plebiscite offer" was that Nehru became thoroughly disillusioned with Pakistan's "bona fides", its policy of "venom and enmity against India",[103] its "neurotic mood and hostile actions",[103] the strong mood of jehad at the highest echelons in Pakistan,[103] its inability to formally agree to a plebiscite for two months after the offer was made,[104] and its policy based on "threat and bullying" where "appeasement only leads to more bullying".[104] "Any surrender" by India to "this kind of aggression would lead to continuing aggression elsewhere".[104] The US–Pakistan pact was seen as a yet another step in this direction. It was expected to "facilitate and encourage aggression".[105] The military pact made the prospect of losing Kashmir strategically unacceptable as it made Pakistan the predominant security threat to India.[106] The militarily stronger Pakistan expected to speak to India from a position of strength, engulfed in a talk of jehad.[107] India's response had to be, in Nehru's view, an even greater firmness to deny Pakistan its perception of an increased bargaining strength.[108] Having offered the status quo as the last option, Nehru even took that off the table once Pakistan rejected it.[108] No further commitments would be made until "India's honour as a country is not vindicated".[108] Indian writer Nirad C. Chaudhuri has observed that Pakistan's acceptance of Western support ensured its survival.[109] He believed that India intended to invade Pakistan twice or thrice during the period 1947–1954. For scholar Wayne Wilcox, Pakistan was able to find external support to counter "Hindu superiority", returning to the group security position of the early 20th century.[110] Sino-Indian War Main article: Sino-Indian War In 1962, troops from the People's Republic of China and India clashed in territory claimed by both. China won a swift victory in the war, resulting in Chinese annexation of the region they call Aksai Chin and which has continued since then. Another smaller area, the Trans-Karakoram, was demarcated as the Line of Control (LOC) between China and Pakistan, although some of the territory on the Chinese side is claimed by India to be part of Kashmir. The line that separates India from China in this region is known as the "Line of Actual Control".[111] Operation Gibraltar and 1965 Indo-Pakistani war Main articles: Operation Gibraltar, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, and Tashkent Agreement Following its failure to seize Kashmir in 1947, Pakistan supported numerous `covert cells' in Kashmir using operatives based in its New Delhi embassy. After its military pact with the United States in the 1950s, it intensively studied guerrilla warfare through engagement with the US military. In 1965, it decided that the conditions were ripe for a successful guerilla war in Kashmir. Code named `Operation Gibraltar', companies were dispatched into Indian-administered Kashmir, the majority of whose members were razakars (volunteers) and mujahideen recruited from Pakitan-administered Kashmir and trained by the Army. These irregular forces were supported by officers and men from the paramilitary Northern Light Infantry and Azad Kashmir Rifles as well as commandos from the Special Services Group. About 30,000 infiltrators are estimated to have been dispatched in August 1965 as part of the `Operation Gibraltar'.[112] The plan was for the infiltrators to mingle with the local populace and incite them to rebellion. Meanwhile, guerilla warfare would commence, destroying bridges, tunnels and highways, as well as Indian Army installations and airfields, creating conditions for an `armed insurrection' in Kashmir.[113] If the attempt failed, Pakistan hoped to have raised international attention to the Kashmir issue.[114] Using the newly acquired sophisticated weapons through the American arms aid, Pakistan believed that it could achieve tactical victories in a quick limited war.[115] However, the `Operation Gibraltar' ended in failure as the Kashmiris did not revolt. Instead, they turned in infiltrators to the Indian authorities in substantial numbers, and the Indian Army ended up fighting the Pakistani Army regulars. Pakistan claimed that the captured men were Kashmiri `freedom fighters', a claim contradicted by the international media.[116][note 11] On 1 September, Pakistan launched an attack across the Cease Fire Line, targeting Akhnoor in an effort to cut Indian communications into Kashmir. In response, India broadened the war by launching an attack on Pakistani Punjab across the international border. The war lasted till 23 September, ending in a stalemate. Following the Tashkent Agreement, both the sides withdrew to their pre-conflict positions, and agreed not to interfere in each other's internal affairs. 1971 Indo-Pakistani war and Simla Agreement Main articles: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and Simla Agreement The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 led to a loss for Pakistan and a military surrender in East Pakistan. Bangladesh got created as a separate state with India's support and India emerged as a clear regional power in South Asia.[117] A bilateral summit was held at Simla as a follow-up to the war, where India pushed for peace in South Asia.[118][119] At stake were 5,139 square miles of Pakistan's territory captured by India during the conflict, and over 90,000 prisoners of war held in Bangladesh. India was ready to return them in exchange for a "durable solution" to the Kashmir issue. Diplomat J. N. Dixit states that the negotiations at Simla were painful and tortuous, and almost broke down. The deadlock was broken in a personal meeting between the Prime Ministers Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi, where Bhutto acknowledged that the Kashmir issue should be finally resolved and removed as a hurdle in India-Pakistan relations; that the cease-fire line, to be renamed the Line of Control, could be gradually converted into a de jure border between India and Pakistan; and that he would take steps to integrate the Pakistani-controlled portions of Jammu and Kashmir into the federal territories of Pakistan.[118] However, he requested that the formal declaration of the Agreement should not include a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute as it would endanger his fledgling civilian government and bring in military and other hardline elements into power in Pakistan.[120] Accordingly, the Simla Agreement was formulated and signed by the two countries, whereby the countries resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations and to maintain the sanctity of the Line of Control. Multilateral negotiations were not ruled out, but they were conditional upon both sides agreeing to them.[121]:49–50 To India, this meant an end to the UN or other multilateral negotiations. However Pakistan reinterpreted the wording in the light of a reference to the "UN charter" in the agreement, and maintained that it could still approach the UN. The United States, United Kingdom and most Western governments agree with India's interpretation.[122] The Simla Agreement also stated that the two sides would meet again for establishing durable peace. Reportedly Bhutto asked for time to prepare the people of Pakistan and the National Assembly for a final settlement. Indian commentators state that he reneged on the promise. Bhutto told the National Assembly on 14 July that he forged an equal agreement from an unequal beginning and that he did not compromise on the right of self-determination for Jammu and Kashmir. The envisioned meeting never occurred.[123] Internal conflict Post-1987 insurgency in Indian administered Kashmir Reasons behind the dispute Cross-border troubles Pakistan's relation with militants Water dispute Human rights abuses Main article: Human rights abuses in Kashmir Indian administered Kashmir Main article: Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir Further information: Rape in the Kashmir conflict Human rights abuses such as extrajudicial killings and rapes have been committed by Indian forces in Kashmir. Militants have also committed crimes but their crimes pale in comparison to the crimes of Indian forces.[31] Crimes by state forces are done inside Kashmir Valley which is the location of the present conflict.[319] The 2010 Chatham House opinion poll of the people of Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir found that overall concern, in the entire state, over human rights abuses was 43%.[320] In the surveyed districts of the Muslim majority Kashmir Valley, where the desire for Independence is strongest,[321] there was a high rate of concern over human rights abuses. (88% in Baramulla, 87% in Srinagar, 73% in Anantnag and 55% in Badgam).[320] However, in the Hindu majority and Buddhist majority areas of the state, where pro-India sentiment is extremely strong,[321] concern over human rights abuses was low (only 3% in Jammu expressed concerns over human rights abuses).[320] According to Hon. Edolphus Towns of the American House of Representatives, around 90,000 Kashmiri Muslims have been killed by the Indian government since 1988.[322] Human Rights Watch says armed militant organizations in Kashmir have also targeted civilians, although not to the same extent as the Indian security forces.[323] Since 1989, over 50,000 people are claimed to have died during the conflict.[324] Data released in 2011 by Jammu and Kashmir government stated that, in the last 21 years, 43,460 people have been killed in the Kashmir insurgency. Of these, 21,323 are militants, 13,226 civilians killed by militants, 3,642 civilians killed by security forces, and 5,369 policemen killed by militants, according to the Jammu and Kashmir government data.[325] Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society says there have been 70,000 plus killings, a majority committed by the Indian armed forces.[326] Several international agencies and the UN have reported human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir. In a 2008 press release the OHCHR spokesmen stated "The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is concerned about the recent violent protests in Indian-administered Kashmir that have reportedly led to civilian casualties as well as restrictions to the right to freedom of assembly and expression."[204] A 1996 Human Rights Watch report accuses the Indian military and Indian-government backed paramilitaries of "committ[ing] serious and widespread human rights violations in Kashmir."[327] Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society labels the happenings in Kashmir as war crimes and genocide and have issued a statement that those responsible should be tried in court of law.[326][328] Some of the massacres by security forces include Gawakadal massacre, Zakoora and Tengpora massacre and Handwara massacre. Another such alleged massacre occurred on 6 January 1993 in the town of Sopore. TIME Magazine described the incident as such: "In retaliation for the killing of one soldier, paramilitary forces rampaged through Sopore's market, setting buildings ablaze and shooting bystanders. The Indian government pronounced the event 'unfortunate' and claimed that an ammunition dump had been hit by gunfire, setting off fires that killed most of the victims." [329] A state government inquiry into the 22 October 1993 Bijbehara killings, in which the Indian military fired on a procession and killed 40 people and injured 150, found out that the firing by the forces was 'unprovoked' and the claim of the military that it was in retaliation was 'concocted and baseless'. However, the accused are still to be punished.[330] In its report of September 2006, Human Rights Watch stated: Indian security forces claim they are fighting to protect Kashmiris from militants and Islamic extremists, while militants claim they are fighting for Kashmiri independence and to defend Muslim Kashmiris from an abusive Indian army. In reality, both sides have committed widespread and numerous human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law (or the laws of war).[324] Many human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) have condemned human rights abuses in Kashmir by Indians such as "extra-judicial executions", "disappearances", and torture.[331] The "Armed Forces Special Powers Act" grants the military, wide powers of arrest, the right to shoot to kill, and to occupy or destroy property in counterinsurgency operations. Indian officials claim that troops need such powers because the army is only deployed when national security is at serious risk from armed combatants. Such circumstances, they say, call for extraordinary measures. Human rights organisations have also asked the Indian government to repeal[332] the Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative detention for a maximum of two years without a court order."[333] A 2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Indian Administered Kashmir was only 'partly free'.[334] A recent report by Amnesty International stated that up to 20,000 people have been detained under a law called AFSPA in Indian-administered Kashmir.[333][331][335][336] Some human rights organisations have alleged that Indian Security forces have killed hundreds of Kashmiris through the indiscriminate use of force and torture, firing on demonstrations, custodial killings, encounters and detentions.[337][338][339][340] The government of India denied that torture was widespread[338] and stated that some custodial crimes may have taken place but that "these are few and far between".[338] According to cables leaked by the WikiLeaks website, US diplomats in 2005 were informed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about the use of torture and sexual humiliation against hundreds of Kashmiri detainees by the security forces.[341] The cable said Indian security forces relied on torture for confessions and that the human right abuses are believed to be condoned by the Indian government.[342] SHRC also accused Indian army of forced labour.[343] There have been claims of disappearances by the police or the army in Kashmir by several human rights organisations.[344] Human rights groups in Kashmir have documented more than three hundred cases of "disappearances" since 1990 but lawyers believe the number to be far higher because many relatives of disappeared people fear reprisal if they contact a lawyer.[345][346][347] In 2016 Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society said there are more than 8000 forced disappearances.[326] State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has found 2,730 bodies buried into unmarked graves, scattered in three districts — Bandipora, Baramulla, and Kupwara — of North Kashmir, believed to contain the remains of victims of unlawful killings and enforced disappearances by Indian security forces.[348][349][350][351] SHRC stated that about 574 of these bodies have already been identified as those of disappeared locals.[352] In 2012, the Jammu and Kashmir State government stripped its State Information Commission (SIC) department of most powers after the commission asked the government to disclose information about the unmarked graves. This state action was reportedly denounced by the former National Chief Information Commissioner.[353] Amnesty International has called on India to "unequivocally condemn enforced disappearances" and to ensure that impartial investigations are conducted into mass graves in its Kashmir region. The Indian state police confirms as many as 331 deaths while in custody and 111 enforced disappearances since 1989.[334][333][331][335] A report from the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed that the seven people killed in 2000 by the Indian military, were innocent civilians.[354][355][356] The Indian Army has decided to try the accused in the General Court Martial.[357] It was also reported that the killings that were allegedly committed in "cold-blood" by the Army, were actually in retaliation for the murder of 36 civilians [Sikhs] by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.[357] The official stance of the Indian Army was that, according to its own investigation, 97% of the reports about human rights abuses have been found to be "fake or motivated".[358] However, there have been at least one case where civilians have been killed in 'fake encounters' by Indian army personnel for cash rewards.[359] According to a report by Human Rights Watch, Indian security forces have assaulted civilians during search operations, tortured and summarily executed detainees in custody and murdered civilians in reprisal attacks. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting residents, and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community.[360] The allegation of mass rape incidents as well as forced disappearances are reflected in a Kashmiri short documentary film by an Independent Kashmiri film-maker, the Ocean of Tears produced by a non-governmental non-profit organisation called the Public Service Broadcasting Trust of India and approved by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India). The film depicts mass rape incidents in Kunan Poshpora and Shopian as facts and alleges that Indian Security Forces were responsible.[361][362] Médecins Sans Frontières conducted a research survey in 2005 that found 11.6% of the interviewees who took part had been victims of sexual abuse since 1989.[363][364] This empirical study found that witnesses to rape in Kashmir was comparatively far higher than the other conflict zones such as Sierra Lone and Sri Lanka. 63% of people had heard of rape and 13% of the people had witnessed a rape. Dr Seema Kazi holds the security forces more responsible for raping than militants due to rape by the former being larger in scale and frequency. In areas of militant activity the security forces use rape to destroy morale of Kashmiri resistance.[365] Dr Seema Kazi says these rapes cannot be ignored as rare occurrences nor should be ignored the documented acknowledgement of individual soldiers that they were ordered to rape.[366] Kazi explains rape in Kashmir as a cultural weapon of war: In the particular context of Kashmir where an ethnic Muslim minority population is subject to the repressive dominance of a predominantly Hindu State, the sexual appropriation of Kashmiri women by State security forces exploits the cultural logic of rape whereby the sexual dishonour of individual women is coterminous with the subjection and subordination of Kashmiri men and the community at large.[367] Former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court noted in his report on human rights in Kashmir: ''It is hard to escape the conclusion that the security forces who are overwhelmingly Hindu and Sikh, see it as their duty to beat an alien population into submission.''[368] Some surveys have found that in the Kashmir region itself (where the bulk of separatist and Indian military activity is concentrated), popular perception holds that the Indian Armed Forces are more to blame for human rights violations than the separatist groups. Amnesty International criticized the Indian Military regarding an incident on 22 April 1996, when several armed forces personnel forcibly entered the house of a 32-year-old woman in the village of Wawoosa in the Rangreth district of Jammu and Kashmir. They reportedly molested her 12-year-old daughter and raped her other three daughters, aged 14, 16, and 18. When another woman attempted to prevent the soldiers from attacking her two daughters, she was beaten. Soldiers reportedly told her 17-year-old daughter to remove her clothes so that they could check whether she was hiding a gun. They molested her before leaving the house.[335] According to an op-ed published in a BBC journal, the emphasis of the movement after 1989, ″soon shifted from nationalism to Islam.″ It also claimed that the minority community of Kashmiri Pandits, who have lived in Kashmir for centuries, were forced to leave their homeland.[369] Reports by the Indian government state 219 Kashmiri pandits were killed and around 140,000 migrated due to millitancy while over 3000 remained in the valley.[370][371] The local organisation of Pandits in Kashmir, Kashmir Pandit Sangharsh Samiti claimed that 399 Kashmiri Pandits were killed by insurgents.[372][373] Al Jazeera states that 650 Pandits were murdered by militants.[374] Human Rights Watch also blamed Pakistan for supporting militants in Kashmir, in same 2006 report it says, "There is considerable evidence that over many years Pakistan has provided Kashmiri militants with training, weapons, funding and sanctuary. Pakistan remains accountable for abuses committed by militants that it has armed and trained."[324][375][376] Our people were killed. I saw a girl tortured with cigarette butts. Another man had his eyes pulled out and his body hung on a tree. The armed separatists used a chainsaw to cut our bodies into pieces. It wasn't just the killing but the way they tortured and killed. — A crying old Kashmiri Hindu in refugee camps of Jammu told BBC news reporter[369] The violence was condemned and labelled as ethnic cleansing in a 2006 resolution passed by the United States Congress.[377] It stated that the Islamic terrorists infiltrated the region in 1989 and began an ethnic cleansing campaign to convert Kashmir into a Muslim state. According to the same resolution, since then nearly 400,000 Pandits were either murdered or forced to leave their ancestral homes.[378] According to a Hindu American Foundation report, the rights and religious freedom of Kashmiri Hindus have been severely curtailed since 1989, when there was an organised and systematic campaign by Islamist militants to cleanse Hindus from Kashmir. Less than 4,000 Kashmiri Hindus remain in the valley, reportedly living with daily threats of violence and terrorism.[379] Sanjay Tickoo, who heads the KPSS, an organisation which looks after Pandits who remain in the Valley, says the situation is complex. On one hand the community did face intimidation and violence but on the other hand he says there was no genocide or mass murder as suggested by Pandits who are based outside of Kashmir.[374] The displaced Pandits, many of who continue to live in temporary refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi, are still unable to safely return to their homeland.[379] The lead in this act of ethnic cleansing was initially taken by the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front and the Hizbul Mujahideen. According to Indian media, all this happened at the instigation of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) by a group of Kashmiri terrorist elements who were trained, armed and motivated by the ISI. Reportedly, organisations trained and armed by the ISI continued this ethnic cleansing until practically all the Kashmiri Pandits were driven out after having been subjected to numerous indignities and brutalities such as rape of their women, torture, forcible seizure of property etc.[380] The separatists in Kashmir deny these allegations. The Indian government is also trying to reinstate the displaced Pandits in Kashmir. Tahir, the district commander of a separatist Islamic group in Kashmir, stated: "We want the Kashmiri Pandits to come back. They are our brothers. We will try to protect them." But the majority of the Pandits, who have been living in pitiable conditions in Jammu, believe that, until insurgency ceases to exist, return is not possible.[369] Mustafa Kamal, brother of Union Minister Farooq Abdullah, blamed security forces, former Jammu and Kashmir governor Jagmohan and PDP leader Mufti Sayeed for forcing the migration of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley.[381] Jagmohan denies these allegations.[369] Pro-India politician Abdul Rashid says Pandits forced the migration on themselves so Muslims can be killed. He says the plan was to leave Muslims alone and bulldoze them freely.[382] The CIA has reported that at least 506,000 people from Indian Administered Kashmir are internally displaced, about half of who are Hindu Pandits.[383][384] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCR) reports that there are roughly 1.5 million refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir, the bulk of who arrived in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and in Pakistan after the situation on the Indian side worsened in 1989 insurgency.[385] A soldier guards the roadside checkpoint outside Srinagar International Airport in January 2009. Pakistan administered Kashmir Azad Kashmir Main article: Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir Harvardian Mehboob Makhdoomi writes that human rights violations in Pakistani administered part of Kashmir are not comparable with human rights violations in Indian administered Kashmir.[386] The 2010 Chatham House opinion poll of Azad Kashmir's people found that overall concerns about human rights abuses in 'Azad Kashmir' was 19%.[320] The district where concern over human rights abuses was greatest was Bhimber where 32% of people expressed concern over human rights abuses.[320] The lowest was in the district of Sudanhoti where concern over human rights abuses was a mere 5%.[320] Claims of religious discrimination and restrictions on religious freedom in Azad Kashmir have been made against Pakistan.[387] The country is also accused of systemic suppression of free speech and demonstrations against the government.[387] UNHCR reported that a number of Islamist militant groups, including al-Qaeda, operate from bases in Pakistani-administered Kashmir with the tacit permission of ISI[385][387] There have also been several allegations of human rights abuse.[385] In 2006, Human Rights Watch accused ISI and the military of systemic torture with the purpose of "punishing" errant politicians, political activists and journalists in Azad Kashmir.[388] A report titled "Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects", submitted to the European Parliament by Emma Nicholson, was critical of the lack of human rights, justice, democracy, and Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly.[389] According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan's ISI operates in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and is accused of involvement in extensive surveillance, arbitrary arrests, torture, and murder.[387] The 2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Pakistan-administered Kashmir was 'not free'.[387] According to Shaukat Ali, chairman of the International Kashmir Alliance, "On one hand Pakistan claims to be the champion of the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people, but she has denied the same rights under its controlled parts of Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan".[390] After the 2011 elections, Azad Kashmir Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan stated that there were mistakes in the voters list which have raised questions about the credibility of the elections.[391] In December 1993, the blasphemy laws of Pakistan were extended to Pakistan Administered Kashmir. The area is ruled directly through a chief executive Lt. Gen. Mohammed Shafiq, appointed by Islamabad with a 26-member Northern Areas Council.[392] UNCR reports that the status of women in Pakistani-administered Kashmir is similar to that of women in Pakistan. They are not granted equal rights under the law, and their educational opportunities and choice of marriage partner remain "circumscribed". Domestic violence, forced marriage, and other forms of abuse continue to be issues of concern. In May 2007, the United Nations and other aid agencies temporarily suspended their work after suspected Islamists mounted an arson attack on the home of two aid workers after the organisations had received warnings against hiring women. However, honour killings and rape occur less frequently than in other areas of Pakistan.[385] Scholar Sumantra Bose comments that the uprising remained restricted to the Indian side and did not spill over into Pakistani-administered Kashmir despite a lack of democratic freedoms on the Pakistani side. Bose offers a number of possible explanations for this. Azad Kashmir's strong pro-Pakistan allegiances and a relatively smaller population are suggested as reasons. But Bose believes that a stronger explanation was that Pakistan had itself been a military-bureaucratic state for most of its history without stable democratic institutions. According to Bose, the Kashmiri Muslims had higher expectations from India which turned out to be a "moderately successful" democracy and it was in this context that Kashmiri Muslim rage spilled over after the rigging of the elections in 1987.[393] The residents of Azad Kashmir are also mostly Punjabi, differing in ethnicity from Kashmiris in the Indian administered section of the state.[394] Gilgit-Baltistan The main demand of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan is constitutional status for the region as a fifth province of Pakistan.[395][396] However, Pakistan claims that Gilgit-Baltistan cannot be given constitutional status due to Pakistan's commitment to the 1948 UN resolution.[396][397] In 2007, the International Crisis Group stated that "Almost six decades after Pakistan's independence, the constitutional status of the Federally Administered Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan), once part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and now under Pakistani control, remains undetermined, with political autonomy a distant dream. The region's inhabitants are embittered by Islamabad's unwillingness to devolve powers in real terms to its elected representatives, and a nationalist movement, which seeks independence, is gaining ground. The rise of sectarian extremism is an alarming consequence of this denial of basic political rights".[398] A two-day conference on Gilgit-Baltistan was held on 8–9 April2008 at the European Parliament in Brussels under the auspices of the International Kashmir Alliance.[399] Several members of the European Parliament expressed concern over human rights violations in Gilgit-Baltistan and urged the government of Pakistan to establish democratic institutions and the rule of law in the area.[399][400] In 2009, the Pakistani government implemented an autonomy package for Gilgit-Baltistan, which entails rights similar to those of Pakistan’s other provinces.[395] Gilgit-Baltistan thus gains province-like status without actually being conferred such status constitutionally.[395][397] Direct rule by Islamabad has been replaced by an elected legislative assembly under a chief minister.[395][397] The 2009 reform has not satisfied locals who demand citizenship rights and it has continued to leave Gilgit Baltistan's constitutional status within Pakistan undefined; although it has added to the self-identification of the territory. According to Antia Mato Bouzas, the PPP-led Pakistani government had attempted a compromise between its official position on Kashmir and the demands of a population where the majority may have pro-Pakistan sentiments.[401] There has been criticism and opposition to this move in Pakistan, India, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[402] The move has been dubbed a cover-up to hide the real mechanics of power, which allegedly are under the direct control of the Pakistani federal government.[403] The package was opposed by Pakistani Kashmiri politicians who claimed that the integration of Gilgit-Baltistan into Pakistan would undermine their case for the independence of Kashmir from India.[404] 300 activists from Kashmiri groups protested during the first Gilgit-Baltistan legislative assembly elections, with some carrying banners reading "Pakistan's expansionist designs in Gilgit-Baltistan are unacceptable"[396] In December 2009, activists from nationalist Kashmiri groups staged a protest in Muzaffarabad to condemn the alleged rigging of elections and the killing of an 18-year-old student.[405] Map issues Recent developments The US Presidents on Conflict Issues surrounding plebiscite See also Notes References Bibliography Further reading External links RELATED ARTICLES Sheikh Abdullah Indian politician Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir Timeline of the Kashmir conflict Last edited 1 day ago by Abhishek0831996 Wikipedia Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Terms of UsePrivacyDesktop