Kashmir the Issue of Whether the Region

Kashmir

The issue of whether the region of Kashmir should be an independent state, part of India, or part of Pakistan, has been a source of serious conflict ever since India and Pakistan were partitioned into two different countries in 1947. When that partition occurred, the two new countries were divided along largely religious lines: most residents of the new country of India was Hindi, while most residents of the new country of Pakistan were Muslim. Kashmir, however, did not have any one dominant religion that could guide its destiny. The issue of who should govern Kashmir has been a source of contention and three wars since 1947 along with persistent border disputes.

Part of the difficulty is that the two regional powers, India and Pakistan, both feel that Kashmir should be part of their respective country. However, many Kashmiris feel that Kashmir should be its own independent state and will be dissatisfied no matter which country ultimately might rule them (Kumar M., 2005). Meanwhile, since India's Prime Minister Nehru first brought the issue of Kashmir to the United Nations in 1948, it has been the longest-existing territorial dispute in front of that organization (Kumar M., 2005).

"In 1947 the majority of Kashmir's residents were Moslem. However, its ruler was Hindu. In addition, in large areas the residents were Buddhist. While Kashmir shares a border with Moslem Pakistan, along that border lived a variety of religious groups including Sikh as well as Hindu and Muslim (Kumar R., 2002). Thus while most of the region was divided along religious boundaries, Kashmir really has no one clear and dominant religion.

What M. Kunar (2005) accurately describes as "deep-rooted animosity and distrust" has made conciliatory efforts at real compromise difficult for nearly six decades (Kumar M., 2005). Because both Pakistan and India are now nuclear powers, the conflict over Kashmir makes the instability of great concern to other nations.

The history of the region is problematical. Pakistan believed that Great Britain, who was in charge of the partition of India into two states in 1947, would be on its side because it suited Great Britain's interests at the time to help ensure Pakistan's survival (Kumar R., 2002). However, Great Britain knew that the issue of Kashmir was not as clear-cut as Pakistani leaders believed it to be, and Britain's overriding goal was to disentangle itself as quickly as possible and to try avoid taking sides (Kumar R., 2002). Within three months of the partition, religious war broke out among Sikhs as well as Hindi and Muslims living in Punjab, resulting in multiple massacres, and peasants revolted in Kashmir. Pakistan, sensing that the Kashmiris might side with them, entered that war, and Pakistani tribesmen went to Kashmir to fight (Kumar R., 2002).

The Prime Minister of India, Jawararlal Nehru, hoped that a democratic election would help settle things, but Pakistan sent in troops to help the Pakistani tribesman. However, local Kashmiris supported the Indian troops who had entered the fracas (Kumar R., 2002).

Lingering hostilities between India and Pakistan after the partition persisted into the 1970's. In 1965, after the Indian government imprisoned a popular Moslem leader, Pakistan invaded Kashmir, once again erroneously believing that Kashmiris would support their actions and mount a revolt. Indian and Pakistan fought over Kashmir for a third time in 1971 after India interfered in internal Pakistani issue (whether the Eastern portion of that divided country should secede from Pakistan or not). This time, India saw a decisive victory. They captured a significant amount of Pakistani territory and captured nearly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers (Kumar R., 2002).

In all these conflicts, one important factor was continually overlooked by both Indian and Pakistan: the desires of the Kashmiri people themselves. Kashmir wanted sovereignty in 1947, but instead was given only the choice of joining Pakistan or joining India. Kashmir recognized its multi-ethnic nature and did not want to join with either country, but was not given that choice (Kumar R., 2002). While Kashmir has been informally divided between the two countries, both India and Pakistan have governed poorly, with problems including harsh repression and political corruption. A significant portion of the turmoil in Kashmir comes from the combined effects of this multi-faceted corruption and the fact that Kashmir has never sought to be a part of either India or Pakistan (Kumar M., 2005).

The Kashmiri had been difficult to provoke into taking a side since 1947. However, their anger was raised in 1987 when it became clear that the election process had been significantly corrupted by outside forces (Kumar R., 2002). The result was demonstrations for true democracy in Kashmir, protesting the rigged elections. A variety of religious and ethnic groups, including Hindu, Sunni Islam, Sufi and Buddhist, joined together in a call for self-determination (Kumar R., 2002). Unfortunately the Pakistani and Indian responses to these protests were to arrest the leaders of the movement in each country's sphere of interest (Kumar R., 2002).

This situation might have resulted in another stalemate with the two nuclear powers ignoring the wishes of the Kashmir people except for events in Afghanistan (Kumar R., 2002). Pakistan and been providing extensive military supplies to the Moslems fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. When Russia finally left, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Service now had surplus arms, and diverted them to groups working to win Moslem control of Kashmir (Kumar R., 2002). As would be expected, the Indian government responded by flooding areas sympathetic to them with their own arms and troops. Once again both sides arrested individuals seen as subversive. Muslim militias and 350,000 Indian troops squared off in the Kashmir valley (Kumar R., 2002).

The informal division in Kashmir, never formally agreed to as a permanent solution, consists of a cease-fire line that leaves Pakistan controlling some of the area and India the rest. Since religious sections consist of intermixed pockets of populations, this means that the Kashmir Valley, populated mostly by Muslims, is under Indian control (Kumar R., 2002). This is a source of consistent irritation by Pakistan, which feels that Muslims in Kashmir should be governed by the Muslim, and not the Hindi, state. There now exists in Kashmir and insurgent group supported by both Pakistani and other Islamist groups, fighting for Muslim control of Kashmir. This conflict has caused more than 70,000 deaths in the last ten years (Kumar M., 2005).

There are some signs that the current Indian and Pakistani governments would like to bring this conflict to an end. In October of 2004, Indian's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Perves Musharraf, President of Pakistan, met at the United Nations for peace talks (Kumar M., 2005). However, much of the violence in the last sixty years has been committed by groups with no direct ties to any government. In December of 2004, Islamic extremists attacked the Indian parliament, murdering many government leaders. India reasponded by moving troops and military armaments to its border with Pakistan, raising worries about nuclear war on the Indian sub-continent once again (Kumar R., 2002). European and American efforts at diplomacy eased the situation, but experts judge the peace as tenuous, and the situation is seen by them as one that could deteriorate dangerously at any time (Kumar R., 2002).