Two Sides to Every Story Kashmir Today

How Compellence by Indian and Pakistan has Prolonged the Kashmir Question
Introduction
The partition of British India into the two independent nations in August 1947 was intended to create coexisting, peaceful homelands for the Hindus and Sikhs in India and Moslems in Pakistan. Since that time, however, India and Pakistan have waged three shooting wars over the hotly disputed territories of Kashmir where each nation claims ownership. Today, an uneasy ceasefire exists along the line of control established following the first such war in 1963, but each side accuses the other of inciting new hostilities through armed provocative incursions into disputed regions of Kashmir. With both India and Pakistan possessing a nuclear arsenal with inadequate and unpredictable command and control, it is reasonable to suggest that a conventional war that started between these two belligerents may not end that way. Against this backdrop, determining why Kashmir has remained a major source of contention between these ideologically and religiously different neighbors represents a timely and valuable enterprise for policymakers. To this end, this paper presents a review of the relevant literature concerning the historic and recent uses of compellence by these two belligerents and how these actions have only served to perpetuate the conflict unto the present rather than resolve it militarily or peacefully.
Review and Analysis
Background and overview
Today, while the Demilitarized Zone that separates South and North Korea along the 38th parallel continues to receive the majority of attention from policymakers in the United States, Kashmir remains the largest and most militarized region in the world with various sections of the territory under the respective control of India (which administers portions of Kashmir and Jammu) and Pakistan (which controls the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir) as well as the de facto administration of the Aksai Chin region by China[footnoteRef:2] (please see the regional map at Appendix A). This unwieldy and seemingly untenable situation has been continuously exacerbated due to armed hostilities prosecuted by both India and Pakistan over the years which resulted in the first and second Indo-Pakistan wars in 1947 and 1963, and more recently in December 1971 when India charged Pakistan with air strikes against one of its airfields in the Western sector.[footnoteRef:3] [2: “Pakistan transnational issues.” (2018). CIA World Factbook. [online] available: https://www.cia.gov/ library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html.] [3: “A brief history of the Kashmir conflict.” (2018). The Telegraph. [online] available: https://www. telegraph.co.uk/news/1399992/A-brief-history-of-the-Kashmir-conflict.html.]
In international disputes, it is axiomatic that every story has at least two sides, and that is certainly the case with the manner in which India and Pakistan have prosecuted their respective interests and claims over Kashmir for more than a half century. There are some profoundly varying viewpoints regarding Kashmir issue due to fundamental religious and ideological difference over Pakistan and India’s competing interests and claims over Kashmir.[footnoteRef:4] The fact that this heated dispute continues to mar relations between two nuclear powers and destabilize the entire Indian subcontinent region suggests that neither side may view an end to hostilities as being in their best interests. [4: Amjad Abbas Khan and Sardar Sajid Mehmood. (2018, January-June). “Kashmir and Global Powers.” South Asian Studies 33(1), 147.]
Indeed, a resolution adopted by the nascent United Nations (UN) Security Council in January 1948 specifically called upon “the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan to take immediately all measures within their power (including public appeals to their people) calculated to improve the situation, and to refrain from making any statements and from doing or causing to be done or permitting any acts which might aggravate the situation.”[footnoteRef:5] Notwithstanding this and subsequent UN resolutions concerning Kashmir that mirrored these requests for forbearance of compellence on the part of either belligerent, there have been hundreds of minor skirmishes, dozens of significant clashes and three outright shooting wars over the years due to incursions by both Indian and Pakistan over the Kashmir problem,[footnoteRef:6] and these issues are discussed further below [5: “Resolutions adopted and decisions taken by the Security Council in 1948.” United Nations. [online] available: https://undocs.org/S/RES/38(1948).] [6: Hau K. Sum and Ravichandran Moorthy. (2013, September). “The Genesis of Kashmir Dispute.” Asian Social Science. 9(11), 155.]
Compellence by India from Pakistan’s perspective
In many ways, the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir resembles a schoolyard fight between two young children with each side claiming the other struck first in an effort to justify their own subsequent compellence. In fact, and perhaps not surprisingly, even the modern scholarship concerning these issues is based on each country’s respective claims to the Kashmir territory. For example, two Pakistani researchers, Majid and Hussain (2016), argue that the Kashmiri people initially elected to become part of Pakistan as part of their right of self determination, and cite India’s recalcitrance as the source of today’s conflict. In this regard, Majid and Hussain emphasize that, “India's efforts to integrate Kashmir into Indian Union did not succeed because the major Kashmiri leaders and parties resisted these efforts. The Kashmiris want that they should themselves decide about their political future, as committed to them by the UN Resolutions of 1948-49. Indian leadership uses force to crush this demand [which] has caused a perpetual conflict between the Indian authorities and the people of Kashmir.”[footnoteRef:7] From this perspective, then, it is the continuing acts of compellence on the part of the Indian government that are responsible for the Kashmir problem. [7: Abdul Majid and Mahboob Hussain. (2016, January-June). “Kashmir: A Conflict between India and Pakistan.” South Asian Studies 31(1), 149-]
Moreover, Majid and Hussain go on to specifically charge the Indian government with ongoing acts of compellence that have been carefully intended to provoke an armed response by Pakistan. For instance, according to Majid and Hussain, “India has been using its security establishment to control Kashmir which often resulted in human rights violations in Kashmir. Indian actions are driven by the consideration of keeping Kashmir under its control irrespective of the human rights or other cost. The excessive use of security forces and state power by India has transformed the Kashmir Valley into a ‘Human Tragedy.’”[footnoteRef:8] Likewise, other Arab scholars have also weighed in on the Kashmir issue by placing the blame squarely on the actions by the Indian government over the years. For example, a study by other Pakistani researchers even charges India with repeatedly misguiding and misinforming the international community about its relentless compellence in Kashmir in ways that have prevented the implementation of the UN’s resolutions for self-determination for the Kashmiri people.[footnoteRef:9] [8: Majid and Hussain (2016), 150.] [9: Amjad Abbas Khan and Sardar Sajid Mehmood. (2018, January-June). “Kashmir and Global Powers.” South Asian Studies 33(1): 147 ]
While these charges may appear hyperbolic at first blush, Khan and Mehmood (2018) point out that the UN is heavily influenced by Western powers in general and the United States and its allies in particular and these powerbrokers have been lied to by the Indian government concerning their interests in Kashmir. In this regard, Khan and Mehmood recently claimed that the, “[The] international community has been miss-briefed [sic] by India that Kashmir is her internal problem [but it is] Pakistan's point of view that it is a matter of right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir.”[footnoteRef:10] Furthermore, Kkan and Mehmood allege that the Indian government has consistently and hypocritically contradicted its position with respect to Kashmir being an “internal problem” for Indian policymakers to resolve unilaterally. As Khan and Mehmood argue that Kashmir “is a dispute between both countries as admitted by Indian leaders themselves in various commitments made by them on different occasions.” [footnoteRef:11] [10: Khan andMehmood (2018), 147.] [11: Khan and Mehmood (2018), 148.]
As noted above, however, China exercises direct influence on regions of Kashmir and the territory’s geographic proximity to the Russian Federation and other regional countries suggests that the Kashmir problem is far more than a bipolar issue. Notwithstanding this consideration, though, Khan and Mehmood conclude that, “Unfortunately, because of unsupportive and irresponsible policy of world powers, Kashmir is longest unresolved issue on the agenda of UN. But after the murder of Burhan Wani, mass human rights violations and China-Pakistan Economic Corridor [which passes through disputed Kashmir territory], the conflict has come to a limelight again.”[footnoteRef:12] [12: Khan and Mehmood (2018), 148.]
By characterizing the death of Burhan Wani as a “murder,” though, Khan and Memood are also engaging in the same type of misleading, one-sided rhetoric that they argue the Indian government is using to perpetuate rather than peacefully resolve the Kashmir problem. In reality, Burhan Wani was far more than an innocent bystander. In this regard, Riwaz Wani (2016, no reported relation) advises that Burhan Wani was actually “the 22-year-old Hizb al-Mujahedin commander [who] called for a new attempt at jihad against India and held a powerful appeal for a young generation in Kashmir.”[footnoteRef:13] [13: Riwaz Wani, (2016, August 19). “Kashmir's Viral Militant: How a Rebel's Death Fuelled New Conflict.” New Statesman 145(5328), 13.]
The incident in question occurred on July 8, 2016 when a joint operation by paramilitary and law enforcement authorities killed the highly popular Burhan Wani and two of his rebel associates. Reports of the Wani’s death quickly circulated via social media through the subcontinent but especially in Kashmir. The reaction to his death was immediate, intense and widespread throughout Kashmir and Pakistan. During the ensuing mass protests in Kashmir and Pakistan, more than 4,000 security personnel and more nearly as many civilians have been killed and thousands more injured, many of them severely. Since that time, photographs of Wani have widely circulated and have become the new symbol for “Kashmir's deepening alienation from India and a role model for young people for whom guns seem to be the only route to a better future.”[footnoteRef:14] Against this backdrop, it would seem that the jury is in and India is the only belligerent guilty of acts of compellence, but the Indian government paints a far different picture and these issues are discussed further below. [14: Wani (2016), 14.]
Compellence by Pakistan from India’s perspective
From the perspective of the Indian government, Kashmir willingly became part of India following partition and the people there are not only satisfied with this decision, an overwhelming majority of them want to remain part of the far more prosperous India in the future. Therefore, any of its actions since Kashmir’s accession in 1947 are legitimate responses to acts of compellence on the part of Pakistan. For instance, one India advocacy group emphasizes that:
[The] people of Kashmir are largely happy with India. All would be well in Kashmir but for cross-border terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. The problem of Kashmir today is one of terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. People are happy with India. What happens in the Valley is not a freedom struggle but a terrorist movement stoked by Pakistan. Hence if Pakistan were to stop cross-border terrorism, normalcy would return to the Valley.[footnoteRef:15] [15: “Kashmir: Nuclear flashpoint.” (2018). Kashmir Library. [online] available: http://www.kashmir library.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_chapters/indian-position.shtml.]
These observations are consistent with the perspective that the Indian government is not engaged in compellence in its action towards Kashmir but is rather exercising its legitimate sovereign rights to protect it territory and its citizens. In sum, it is the longstanding position of the Indian government that:
1. Kashmir is an integral part of India and the resolution of the problem is therefore an internal issue;
2. Notwithstanding Pakistan’s calls for strict adherence to the conduct of a plebiscite, democratic elections are also a legitimate and more appropriate way for the people of Kashmir to formally communicate their preferences for their future in the modern age; and,
3. The problems in Kashmir are the direct result of compellence, including most especially acts of cross-border terrorism, which are sponsored by Pakistan’s government.[footnoteRef:16] [16: Kashmir: Nuclear flashpoint. (2018) ]
Furthermore, even the language used by political leaders in India to characterize the situation in Kashmir underscores the above-listed views. For instance, the terms, “terrorism” and “insurgency” are routinely used with the international media when referring to violent clashes in Kashmir. Like their Arab counterparts, Hindu researchers also place the lion’s share of the blame for the Kashmir problem squarely on the Pakistan government’s refusal to negotiate in good faith. Indeed, one authority (bringing to mind once again the schoolyard fight between two children analogy described above), maintains that “Pakistan” started it long ago and India is simply standing up for itself. Citing the decision in 1947 by Maharaja Hari Singh, the then-princely ruler of Kashmir to delay making a decision concerning the region’s future alliance with either Pakistan or India until the British had completed their withdrawal of troops, Sum and Mortev report that, “But at a time when the Pathen tribesmen from Pakistan's north western regions invaded Kashmir, he was unable to prevent his princely state from this alien invasion and therefore he finally requested Indian Government to render necessary military support.”[footnoteRef:17] The reference to “alien invasion” is telling in the extreme, and helps explain the Indian government’s efforts to characterize its efforts in Kashmir as necessary responses to Pakistani acts of compellence. [17: Sum and Moorthy (2013), 156.]
It is noteworthy that India’s response to the formal request by the then-leader of Kashmir was preconditioned on Kashmir’s accession to India, but the maharaja’s hands were essentially tied by this point and he approved the Instrument of Accession to India on October 26, 1947.[footnoteRef:18] Following its accession, India provided the promised military support to the maharaja on October 27, 1947, and succeeded in reclaiming two-thirds of the Kashmir region that had been occupied by Pakistani tribesmen. Despite this early success in reclaiming this territory, another one-third of the region remained controlled by Pakistan and this is where the situation essentially remains today. It is also noteworthy that the first ceasefire agreed to by the governments of India and Pakistan was the direct result of India’s appeal to the UN, thereby conferring some degree of initial legitimacy to its claims over Kashmir.[footnoteRef:19] [18: Sum and Moorthy (2013), 156.] [19: Sum and Moorthy (2013), 157.]
Conclusion
Given that the U.S. Revolutionary War was started by a single shot “heard ‘round the world,” the U.S. Civil War was started by a single cannon ball, and World War I was started with a handgun, it is reasonable to conclude that a nuclear-fueled World War III Armageddon could be started by someone simply throwing a rock across the border in Kashmir. The research showed that following the partition of British India in 1947, the independent states of India and Pakistan were created to give homelands to Hindus and Sikhs in the former and Muslims in the latter. When the princely ruler of Kashmir acceded to India in late 1947 and India dispatched military forces to protect its newly acquired territories, the stage was set for another 71 years of violence that has recently intensified. The research also showed that Pakistan characterizes India’s presence as illegal and their efforts to help the Kashmiri people exercise their right of self determination are justified. Conversely, the Indian government asserts that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that any efforts by Pakistan to reclaim a single square inch of land are violative of its sovereign national rights. Despite efforts by the United Nations and the international community to bring some sanity to bear on the Kashmir problem, the historical record is replete with examples of nations that have willingly marched off to war when they believed their cause was sufficiently just. In the final analysis, it is therefore also reasonable to conclude that the international community will ignore the situation in Kashmir at its peril, and the effects of another all-out war between Indian and Pakistan will have truly global implications.
References
“A brief history of the Kashmir conflict.” (2018). The Telegraph. [online] available: https://www. telegraph.co.uk/news/1399992/A-brief-history-of-the-Kashmir-conflict.html.
Khan, Amjad Abbas and Mehmood, Sardar Sajid. (2018, January-June). “Kashmir and Global Powers.” South Asian Studies 33(1), 147-152.
“Kashmir: Nuclear flashpoint.” (2018). Kashmir Library. [online] available: http://www. kashmir library.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_chapters/indian-position.shtml.
Majid, Abdul and Hussain, Mahboob. (2016, January-June). “Kashmir: A Conflict between India and Pakistan.” South Asian Studies 31(1), 149-151-
“Pakistan transnational issues.” (2018). CIA World Factbook. [online] available: https://www.cia.gov/ library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html
“Resolutions adopted and decisions taken by the Security Council in 1948.” United Nations. [online] available: https://undocs.org/S/RES/38(1948).
Sum, Hau K. and Moorthy, Ravichandran (2013, September). “The Genesis of Kashmir Dispute.” Asian Social Science. 9(11), 155-159.
Wani, Riwaz. (2016, August 19). “Kashmir's Viral Militant: How a Rebel's Death Fuelled New Conflict.” New Statesman 145(5328), 13-14.

Appendix A
Map of the Kashmir territory


Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Kashmir_map.jpg/800px-Kashmir_map.jpg