What are the determinants of Indian Foreign Policy with special reference to Geography and Economy NIRMALA Determinants

and Compulsions of India's Foreign Policy: According to J.N. Dixit "Foreign policy of a country is a statement of what it stands for and the role that it takes upon itself and projects to the world at large". It is seldom static. Rather it remains in a state of constant flux. Nevertheless, there are crucial ingredients that remain significant for longer times. Factors Affecting India's Foreign Policy Geographical Location: Rightly remarked by Napoleon Bonaparte "Any country's foreign policy is determined by its geography." Indias location between middle-east, south-east Asia and far-east obliged her to engage in the events of the region. A natural frontier in the form of Himalayas in the north and Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal on the three sides has considerably influenced its foreign policy. Historical Traditions India's commitment to peace from time immemorial has significantly influenced the foreign policy. Her experience of colonialism in the modern period promoted India to take a firm stand on any form of imperialism. There has been constant emphasis on the aspect of world peace and spirit of brotherhood among nations because of the fact that Indians still pin faith in the dictum "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam". Impact of Ideology: Gandhi's idea of peace and non-violence is crucially important. Nehru concretised the ideas of Gandhi into pragmatic form and channelled them into foreign policy. It was only because of rich intellectual heritage of Indian leadership that India chose to have an independent stance on her relations with other nations. Non-alignment, mixed economy etc. are outcome of ideological base provided by Indian leaders. Economic Condition: The stagnant economy at the time of independence profoundly affected India's foreign policy. The problems of poverty, health, scarcity that was outcome of British imperialism convinced the country of futility of alignments. Instead it chose to welcome assistance from all the countries. Security, Defence: After independence India inherited a weak defence system. Her military was organized on British pattern, geared to serve the interest of an alien country. It was plagued by maladministration, lack of equipments and up to date technical knowhow. Lack of capital to modernize the army led India to pursue her economic interests at the cost of security issues. However, with the passage of time, India took cognizance of these lacunae in her security. Today Indian army is one of the ablest and strongest armies in the world. Cold War: The politics of cold war and the polarization of the world into two camps remained a dominant feature of international politics, when India became independent. Under such circumstances, India opted to remain outside the blocs and pursue a policy of non alignment. In fact, this stand was soon emulated by a large number of newly emerging independent countries from Asia and Africa. Though India remained outside bloc politics, it welcomed aid and assistance from both the blocs and helped in slackening tension between them. Main Principles and Objectives of India's Foreign Policy Principles: They are in the form of guidelines to the policy makers through which India carries out its foreign relations. In essence, they are the means through which national interest is sought to be protected and promoted. (i) Non-Aligusienc Ii is India's gift to the world and has been one of the main principles which have remained integral part of India's foreign policy even after the end of cold war. The vitality of non-alignment can be realized from the fact that it has not only helped in securing friendship and cooperation, promoting world peace, etc.; but ensured independence on foreign policy issues. India and NAM countries played a vital role in cold war politics by acting as a third force to reduce the tension. (ii) Opposition to Colonialism and Imperialism: Being subjected to colonial subjugation for about 200 years, India firmly stands in opposition to any form of colonialism and imperialism. It is with this line of thinking that India played a major role in liberating the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa from colonial shackles. (iii) Supporting U.N. in Achieving World Peace: India is one of the founding members of the UN (1945). She has played a major role in its instrumentality to achieve world peace. She has always advocated that resolution of international disputes be done under the purview of U.N. (iv) Fairness of Means: Inspired by the ideas of Gandhi, India has always emphasized that their means should be used in the resolution in international disputes. She has advocated of peaceful and non-violent methods are opposes war, aggression and power policies. Panchsheel is an outgrowth of this line of thinking. (v) Friendship with AH Countries: Without being committed to military alliances, India has opted for cultivating friendly relations with other countries. For this purpose she has concluded treaties and bilateral agreements in the fields of politics, economy, culture of science and technology. Objectives : Objectives of India's foreign policy are in the nature of goals that it seeks to promote. They are not state but are influenced by time and space. This protection and preservation of territorial integrity has been one of the foremost objectives of India's foreign policy. Priority assigned to this aspect was made clear as early as Bandung Conference (1947) said, "India and other countries had been used as a pawn by other nations in their international games; now that they went emerging into independence, it was a good reminder to those nations that the newly independent nations proposed to standing their own feet and must be free to decide the own policies and play their part in the maintenance of peace". The country does not want interference in the internal affairs of other country. Communalism INDIAS NATIONAL SECURITY India is a unique nation in itself. Since the time of the Harappan Civilization, people of different religions and races came over here, and the great soil of India sleltered them all. The bounteous Indian culture adopted all their customs and festivals to and soon they incorporated here. Thus India used to nourish all kinds of religions and races from the beginning of culture and civilization. Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, Christians and many different religious communities resides in India, having businesses with each other. Everything is so simple and

satisfactory untill here. But now a problem named Communalism occurs and ruined their easy going life. So, now a question comes before us that what is Communalism ? Who gave it birth, and What for ? Communalism is originated from a French word Commune, which stands for a kind of independent state, and the national government a confederation of such states, having only limited powers. In fact, Communalism describes a broad range of social movements and social theories, which are in some way centered upon the community. It can take the form of communal living or communal property, among others. It is sometimes said to put the interests of the community above the interests of the individual, but this is usually only done on the principle that the community exists for the benefit of the individuals who participate in it. Very often, Communalism is associated with Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism, particularly with Primitive or Religious Communism. It is a practice of communal living and common ownership i.e. loyalty and commitment to the interests of ones own minority or ethnic group rather than to society as a whole. Communalism, in many parts of the world, is a modern term that describes a broad range of social movements and social theories which are in some way centered upon the community. But in South Asia, it is used to denote attempts to promote primarily religious stereotypes between groups of people identified as different communities and to stimulate violence between those groups. In modern India, the term Communalism is related to the violent activities of religious extremists. Now it designates the conflicts not only between extremist religious communities and the people of the same religion, but also between the people of different religions, regions and states. There are historical evidences of the riots, caused by Communalism. Hindu-Muslim Lat Bhairo riots 1809-1811, Hep Hep riots 1819, Hindu-Muslim Banaras and Kanpur riots 1931, Manzilgah and Sukkur riots 1940, Kolkata Hindu-Muslim riots 1946, Hindu,Sikhs-Muslim riots 1947 ( During the partition of India and Pakistan ), Sikh riots 1984, Mumbai riots 1992, Wandhama massacre 1998 ( 25 Hindu victims ), Chittisinghpura massacre 2000, Gujarat Hindu-Muslim riots 2002, Kuluchak and Marad massacres 2002, Kherlangi massacre 2006, Indore Hindu-Muslim riots 2008, are some of the fatal examples of Communalism. Communalism is a potential threat to the sovereignty, democracy, integrity, and in short the very existence of India. Communalism is a modern day phenomenon a sectarian, restrictive, and negative response to the process of modern nation building. As Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru wrote, One must never forget that communalism is a later day phenomenon which has grown up before our eyes. In a multireligious society like India the secular interests such as social, cultural, economic and political of one religion are dissimilar with the followers of other religions, and communalism raises its head when the interest of different religions are seen as mutually incompatible, hostile and antagonistic. It is said that the the foundation of communalism in India was laid by the British think tank, during the British rule over India. Communalism flourished in India and reached monstrous proportions in 1947 under British rule. But British did not create communalism. It only took advantage of socio-economic and cultural differences and amplified those differences to serve their political ends. Hence the British policy of divide and rule was planted on an earth made very fertile by those existing differences. Post 1857, British shifted to a policy of concession, counterpoise and coercion to accommodate new rising class, to counterbalance strong class and to browbeat recalcitrant class. some of the certain innocuous political trends, though not communal in themselves, obliquely led to its growth. Some tactful reasons as the derision for Congress as Hindu body and fear of majority gobbling up the minority led to the growth of communalism. And the foundation of the communal organizations like All India Muslim League (1906) and Hindu Mahasabha (1915) provided the gory feast of hatred and mistrust from which communal forces drew their sustenance and balancing justification for each other. And now after Indias independence communal forces are so deeply indexed in our beliefs, that is is hard to recognize them. This particular manifestation of the contradictions set in motion after independence, lays the objective basis on which the present concerted offensive by the communal forces has been mounted. The discontent amongst the Indian people, as a result of the crisis of the system, accumulated over the years, is growing. Discontent is affecting also the expanded and vocal middle class, drawn more from the former exploiting classes rather than from the upward mobility of the exploited classes. The domination of the consciousness of the exploiter classes combined with discontent provides fertile soil for the growth of communal ideology. Exploiting this discontent and on the basis of the perpetuation of backward consciousness, the communal forces are able today to divert this discontent into communal channels in pursuit of their political objective. the communal forces have adopted a two pronged strategy. On the one hand, they seek to generate a sort of a monolithic unity amongst the vast diversity within the community of Indians embracing Hindu religion, and, on the other, they generate hate against enemies outside of the Hindu faith, i.e. the Muslims and the Christians. The entire propaganda mechanism based on fascist techniques unleashed by them is to achieve this dual strategy. As if we talk about the solution of this monsterous problem of communalism in India, we found no easy solution to it. For we have to put a redical change in mentality, and to respect all other religions. We have to try to create a faith in all minor religious communities, that their feelings, faiths, ways, and places of worship would not be tolerated anyway. Respect of their thoughts and customs would arouse it into them. Political parties should keep themselves away from the communal issues, or the issues that enthreat the communalism. This is the only easy way, we can keep our unity and integrity safe and secure. WTO and Its Impacts on Business Posted on August 10, 2013 by Sanjay Singh World Trade Organization The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. The work of WTO moves around WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world's trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business. Why Do We Need WTO? 1. The main benefits of World Trade Organization are as follows: 2. The system helps to contribute towards international peace, by helping the trade to flow smoothly and dealing with disputes over trade issues.

3. The system allows disputes to be handled constructively. With Global boundaries evading, more and more trade is taking place, and hence, leading to more chances for disputes. To put forth to the claim, around 300 cases have been filed since inception of WTO, and without peaceful and harmonious way to resolve them, they could have led to a political crisis. 4. It's a system, which is based on rules and has nothing to do with power of the nation. 5. It gives consumers more choice and a broader range of qualities to choose from. 6. The fact that there exists a forum to handle crisis, gives confidence to nations to do more and more trade, thereby increasing the income, and stimulating economic growth.

WTO Stands for World Trade Organization. WTO is an international body that promotes and enforces the provisions of trade laws and regulations. The WTO has the authority to administer and police new and existing free trade agreements, to oversee world trade practices, and to settle trade disputes among member states. The WTO was established in 1994 when the members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a treaty and international trade organization, signed a new trade pact. The WTO was created to replace GATT. All of the 128 nations that were contracting parties to the new GATT pact at the end of 1994 became members of the WTO upon ratifying the GATT pact. A number of other nations have joined the WTO since then. The WTO began operation on January 1, 1995. GATT and the WTO coexisted until December 1995, when the members of GATT met for the last time. Although the WTO replaced GATT, the trade agreements established by GATT in 1994 are part of the WTO agreement. However, the WTO has a significantly broader scope than GATT. GATT regulated trade in merchandise goods. The WTO expanded the GATT agreement to include trade in services, such as international telephone service, and protections for intellectual propertythat is, creative works that can be protected legally, such as sound recordings and computer programs. The WTO is also a formally structured organization whose rules are legally binding on its member states. The organization provides a framework for international trade law. Members can refer trade disputes to the WTO where a dispute panel composed of WTO officials serves as arbitrator. Members can appeal this panels rulings to a WTO appellate body whose decisions are final. Disputes must be resolved within the time limits set by WTO rules. The WTO is based in Geneva, Switzerland, and is controlled by a General Council made up of member states ambassadors who also serve on various subsidiary and specialist committees. The ministerial conference, which meets every two years and appoints the WTOs director-general, oversees the General Council. Since its creation, the WTO has attracted criticism from those concerned about free trade and economic globalization. Opponents of the WTO argue that the organization is too powerful because it can declare the laws and regulations of sovereign nations in violation of trade rules, in effect pressuring nations to change these laws. Critics also charge that WTO trade rules do not sufficiently protect workers rights, the environment, or human health. Some groups charge that the WTO lacks democratic accountability because its hearings on trade disputes are closed to the public and press. WTO officials have dismissed arguments that the organization is undemocratic, noting that its member nations, most of which are democracies, wrote the WTO rules and selected its leadership. WTO supporters argue that it plays a critical role in helping expand world trade and raise living standards around the world. Criticism of the WTO reached an apex in late 1999, when more than 30,000 protesters disrupted a WTO summit in Seattle, Washington. The protesters called for reforms that would make the organization more responsive to consumers, workers, and environmentalists. The summit failed in its goal to set an agenda for a new round of global trade talks, largely because of disagreements between industrialized and developing nations. These disagreements focused on agricultural subsidies provided by the developed countries, particularly the European Union (EU) and the United States, to support their farmers. Developing countries objected to the extent of the subsidies, which amount to about $300 billion annually, arguing that such generous support artificially lowered world crop prices and made it difficult, if not impossible, for farmers in developing countries to compete. The failure of the richer nations to reach agreement on lowering agricultural subsidies continued to derail trade talks in the early 2000s.

IMPACT ON INDIAN BUSINESS The WTO has both favourable and non-favourable impact on the Indian economy. FAVOURABLE IMPACT 1. Increase in export earnings: Increase in export earnings can be viewed from growth in merchandise exports and growth in service exports : Growth in merchandise exports : The establishment of the WTO has increased the exports of developing countries because of reduction in tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. Indias merchandise exports have increased from 32 billion us $ (1995) to 185 billion u $ (2008-09). Growth in service exports : The WTO introduced the GATS (general Agreement on Trade in Services ) that proved beneficial for countries like India. Indias service exports increased from 5 billion us $ (1995) to 102 billion us $ (2008-09) (software services accounted) for 45% of Indias service exports) 2. Agricultural exports : Reduction of trade barriers and domestic subsidies raise the price of agricultural products in international market, India hopes to benefit from this in the form of higher export earnings from agriculture 3. Textiles and Clothing : The phasing out of the MFA will largely benefit the textiles sector. It will help the developing countries like India to increase the export of textiles and clothing. 4. Foreign Direct Investment : As per the TRIMs agreement, restrictions on foreign investment have been withdrawn by the member nations of the WTO. This has benefited developing countries by way of foreign direct investment, euro equities and portfolio investment. In 2008-09, the net foreign direct investment in India was 35 billion us $. 5. Multi-lateral rules and discipline : It is expected that fair trade conditions will be created, due to rules and discipline related to practices like anti-dumping, subsidies and countervailing measure, safeguards and dispute settlements. Such conditions will benefit India in its attempt to globalise its economy. UNFAVOURABLE IMPACT 1. TRIPs : Protection of intellectual property rights has been one of the major concerns of the WTO. As a member of the WTO, India has to comply with the TRIPs standards. However, the agreement on TRIPs goes against the Indian patent act, 1970, in the following ways: Pharmaceutical sector : Under the Indian Patent act, 1970, only process patents are granted to chemicals, drugs and medicines. Thus, a company can legally manufacture once it had the product patent. So Indian pharmaceutical companies could sell good quality products (medicines) at low prices. However under TRIPs agreement, product patents will also be granted that will raise the prices of medicines, thus keeping them out of reach of the poor people, fortunately, most of drugs manufactured in India are off patents and so will be less affected.

Agriculture : Since the agreement on TRIPs extends to agriculture as well, it will have considerable implications on Indian agriculture. T he MNG, with their huge financial resources, may also take over seed production and will eventually control food production. Since a large majority of Indian population depends on agriculture for their divelihood, these developments will have serious consequences. Micro-organisms : Under TRIPs Agreement, patenting has been extended to micro-organisms as well. This mill largely benefit MNCs and not developing countries like India. 2. TRIMs : The Agreement on TRIMs also favours developed nations as there are no rules in the agreement to formulate international rules for controlling business practices of foreign investors. Also, complying with the TRIMs agreement will contradict our objective of self reliant growth based on locally available technology and resources. 3. GATS: The Agreement on GATS will also favour the developed nations more. Thus, the rapidly growing service sector in India will now have to compete with giant foreign firms. Moreover, since foreign firms are allowed to remit their profits, dividends and royalties to their parent company, it will cause foreign exchange burden for India. 4. TARIFF Barriers and NON-TARIFF Barriers : Reduction of trade and non-tariff barriers has adversely affected the exports of various developing nations. Various Indian products have been hit by. Non- tariff barriers. These include textiles, marine products, floriculture, pharmaceuticals, basmati rice, carpets, leather goods etc. 5. LDC exports : Many member nations have agreed to provide duty frce and quota frce market access to all products originating from least developed countries. India will have to now bear the adverse effect of competing with cheap LDC exports internationally. Moreover, LDC exports will also come to the Indian market and thus compete with domestically produced goods The World Bank has made a significant contribution to India's planned economic development SIMRANJOT The World Bank has made a significant contribution to India's planned economic development through its direct as well as indirect assistance. Important aspects of the Bank's assistance are as follows: 1. Founder-Member: India is a founder-member of the Bretten Woods twins, i.e., the IMF and the World Bank; it has a permanent place on the Bank's Executive Board 2. Loans: India has been the largest recipient of development finance from the Bank. India's share in the Bank's total lending to all countries in 1988 was 15%. 3. Assistance from IDA: World Bank's subsidiary institution international development Association (IDA) provides loans from its soft window. In 1980-81, India received loans of Rs. 522 crore from IDA. This amount increased to Rs. 1198 crore in 1985-86 and to Rs. 3064 crore in 1997-98. 4. Assistance from Aid India Club: In 1950, the World Bank founded Aid India Club to provide massive assistance to finance India's developmental plans. Aid India Club is a consortium of the major lending countries, such as, U.K., U.S A., Germany, France, Japan, Canada, etc. The Aid India Club provided financial assistance to India to the tune of Rs. 1999 crore in 1980-81, which increased to Rs. 2552 crore in 1985-86 and to Rs. 9208 crore in 1997-98. 5. Purpose of Loans: The World Bank's assistance to India has been mainly for development purposes. The major projects finance by the Bank are railway, generation of power, multi-purpose projects, port development, development of aviation, iron and steel industry, coal mining, agriculture, telecommunication, etc. Besides this, the World Bank has also extended loans to the financial institutions like Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) and Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (ICICI). 6. Technical Assistance: The World Bank has also provided useful technical assistance in India's development plans. It has sent a number of missions to India to evaluate the working and progress of her Five Year Plans and to asses the foreign exchange requirements of the country. New International Economic Order From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The New International Economic Order (NIEO) was a set of proposals put forward during the 1970s by some developing countries through the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to promote their interests by improving their terms of trade, increasing development assistance, developed-country tariff reductions, and other means. It was meant to be a revision of the international economic system in favour of Third World countries, replacing the Bretton Woods system, which had benefited the leading states that had created it especially the United States. History[edit] The term was derived from the Declaration for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, and referred to a wide range of trade, financial, commodity, and debt-related issues (1 May 1974, A/RES/S6/3201).[1] This followed an agenda for discussions between industrial and developing countries, focusing on restructuring of the world's economy to permit greater participation by and benefits to developing countries (also known as the "North-South Dialogue"). Along with the declaration, a Programme of Action and a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (12 December 1974, A/RES/29/3281).[2] were also adopted. In the 1970s and 1980s, the developing countries pushed for NIEO and an accompanying set of documents to be adopted by the UN General Assembly. Subsequently, however, these norms became only of rhetorical and political value, except for some partly viable mechanisms, such as the non-legal, non-binding Restrictive Business Practice Codeadopted in 1980 and the Common Fund for Commodities which came in force in 1989. Tenets[edit] The main tenets of NIEO were: Developing countries must be entitled to regulate and control the activities of multinational corporations operating within their territory.

They must be free to nationalize or expropriate foreign property on conditions favourable to them. They must be free to set up associations of primary commodities producers similar to the OPEC; all other States must recognize this right and refrain from taking economic,military, or political measures calculated to restrict it. International trade should be based on the need to ensure stable, equitable, and remunerative prices for raw materials, generalized nonreciprocal and non-discriminatorytariff preferences, as well as transfer of technology to developing countries; and should provide economic and technical assistance without any strings attached. Resource allocation mechanisms[edit] Haggard and Simmons claimed that: A number of social mechanisms are possible to affect resource allocation in any economic order. An authoritative allocation mechanism involves direct control of resources while, at the other end of the spectrum, more market-oriented private allocation mechanisms are possible. Most of the debates within the NIEO occurred over allocation mechanisms, with the southern hemisphere countries favoring authoritative solutions. Ideology[edit] Mercantilist Ideas[edit] NIEO is based on the (French) mercantilist idea that international trade would be a zero-sum game (i.e., causes no net benefits), and on the view that it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. Some American economists challenge the idea of trade as a zero-sum game transaction.[3] Central planning vs. free markets[edit] NIEO also proposes central planning, as opposed to free markets.[4] Legacy[edit] In Matsushita et al.'s World Trade Organization, the authors explained part of the legacy of the NIEO: ... tensions and disagreements between developed and developing countries continue: the latter expect a greater degree of special treatment than industrialized countries have afforded them. This demand was expressed comprehensively in the New International Economic Order and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States promoted by UNCTAD in the 1970s. Although the Charter was never accepted by developing [sic] countries and is now dead, the political, economic, and social concerns that inspired it are still present. The Charter called for restitution for the economic and social costs of colonialism, racial discrimination, and foreign domination. It would have imposed a duty on all states to adjust the prices of exports to their imports. The realization of the New International Economic Order was an impetus for developing country support for theTokyo Round of trade negotiations. Critics of the WTO continue to state that little of substance for developing countries came out of either the Tokyo or Uruguay Rounds. Criticism[edit] Price regulation is inefficient[edit] The powerful countries of North America and Western Europe felt threatened by the NIEO and continuously tried to criticize and minimize it; according to economist Professor Harry Johnson, the most efficient way to help the poor is to transfer resources from those most able to pay to those most in need. Instead of this, NIEO proposes that those poor countries that have monopoly power should be able to extort these transfers. In practice such power has caused most harm to other poor countries.[5] Commanding prices above their natural level usually reduces consumption and thus causes unemployment among producers. Moreover, price regulation typically gives the extra income to those in control of who is allowed to produce, e.g., to governments or land-owners.[6] New International Economic Order-NIEO

Aditya Panda / Blog / 7 yrs ago / 6 AA+A++ The concept of non-alignment is directly related to the Cold War.The world was divided into two powe blocs by the time the process of decolonisation commenced.When India became independent in 1947 ,the existence of American Bloc & Soviet Bloc had already become a prominent feature of international system. The Cold War began to decline as Soviet and its alliance system also began to disintegrate.So,the focus has shifted from political to economic aspect of the Third World movement.So long as the world remains divided between North and South in the context of economic prosperity and poverty,the need for seeking economic justice will remain relevant. The demand for a just and fair economic order was first made in 1973.It was later formally resolved by the sixth special session of the United Nations General Assembly,in1974,to call for the establishment of New International Economic Order(NIEO). As the existing order favoured the developed countries of the North, the Third World countries realised its discriminatory nature. The demand for a new international economic order is being made to correct the global economic imbalance and establish equality.Global inequality expresses itself in terms of unequal trade, inequalities in levels of development and unequal consumption of energy and possesion of technology.During the colonial period colonised countries were blatantly exploited. but,even after the colonies got their independence, economic exploitation did not stop. It has taken a new form.The third world countries are being subjected to neo-colonialism which is the current manifestation of exploitation. Three important financial institutions were established ,which constitute the Economic Order of Post-Second World War period.These were: 1.International Monetary Fund(IMF) 2.International Bank for Reconstruction and Development(IBRD)

3.General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT) These were based on the principle of free trade and non-discrimination in international trade.But,most of the benefits of this system were enjoyed by developed countries. So,in theAlgiers Summit of NAM(1973) emphasis was laid on the unlimited rights of the developing countries to regulate their natural resources and,if necessary, to nationalise them. The concept of NIEO is not based on donor-donee relationship.It does not seek charity from the developed countries.There is a growing realisation that economic problems of developing states cannot be solved only through aid and assistance.North-South relations have to be transformed into a nutually beneficial relationship.NIEO seeks a new relationship between the developed and the developing countries on the basis of mutual reciprocity, give and take, in which ultimately the developed countries will also stand to gain.It seeks to create a futuristic and forward lookin scenario. The aim of NIEO will be to create a restructured system based on cooperation rather than confrontation.The NIEO looks at the resources of the world as common heritage of mankind.Finally,NIEO believes that peace and prosperity go together.So long as the developing coutries continue to be deprived,there can be no real and lasting peace in the world.Thus NIEO is essential for international peace and security.It is a message for a world based on social justice and free from exploitation.It will ensure adequate transsfer of technology to the developing countries to ensure all-round development.It will discoyrage Brain-Drain by providing opportunities within the country to young intellectuals,scientists,doctors etc. NIEO seeks more favourable conditions of trade for the developing countries.It wants a system in which buffer stocks would be ensured and the South-South cooperation will include economic and technological cooperation.The Third World countries are trying,under NIEO,for the IMF and World Bank decision-making to be fair and just and pro-developing countries. The United Nations,in Nov 1977,appointed an Independent Commission on Internation Development Issues called the Willy Brandt Commission.The Commission submitted a long term "Program for Survival" involving drastic changes in the global economic structure.The plan envisaged a large international energy study,a global food programme and reforms in the international monetary system.It dealt with the problems of disarmament ,refugees,environment,ecology,food,population,energy etc.The principal theme of the Brandt report was mutality of North-South interest,and called for joint efforts for a common goal. To conclude,NIEO was initially made by NAM in 1973 and formally endorsed by UN in 1974.Dialogues between North and South were initiated and continued for better monetary regulation and improved trade relations.The developing countries realised that they could not be full partners in international trade,and could not achieve their proper development until donor-donee relationship was completely changed.Economic assistance from North is important,yet nothing would be achieved without a self reliant approach.The South-South cooperation has been initiated and is being encouraged. The efforts of NIEO have made valuable contribution in making the world "a large global village",yet the economic order is still far from being just and non-discriminatory.What is needed is that the process of structural changes should be speeded up and efforts should be made for a genuine,just and fair New International Economic Order. (NIEO is a topic that ive been researching for a Paper Presentation in Hindu College,Delhi University.This is a summary of my paper...Reader's views are welcome on this issue.) Pakistan and KashmirIssue Q.4. Write a detailed note on Pakistan and Kashmir Issue Introduction Kashmir, the last of the defiant states, was the reverse of Hyderabad. It had a Hindu Ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, but his subjects were mostly Muslims, accounting to 77 percent of the total population. The Maharaja was reluctant to join either India or Pakistan. But Lord Mountbatten urged him to take a decision to join either of the states before August 15, 1947. The Maharaja asked for more time to consider his decision. In the meantime he asked the Indian and the Pakistani government to sign a standstill agreement with him. Pakistan consented but India refused. War of Kashmir 1947 The local population of Poonch began to press the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. In August 1947, they held a massive demonstration to protest against the Maharajas indecisiveness. The Maharaja panicked. He asked his Hindu paratroopers to open fire and within a matter of seconds, several hundred Muslims were killed. Rising up against this brutal action, a local barrister called Sardar Mohammad Ibrahim immediately set up the Azad Kashmir government and began to wage guerrilla warfare against the Maharaja. By October 1947, the war of Kashmir had begun in earnest. The Pathan tribesmen from the Noth West Frontier Province, wanting to avenge the deaths of their brothers, invaded the valley. On reaching the valley of Kashmir, they defeated the Maharajas troops and reached the gates of Srinagar, the capital. Maharajas Coalition with India The Maharaja sensing his defeat took refuge in Jammu whence he appealed to India to send troops to halt the onslaught of the tribesmen. India agreed on the condition that Kashmir would accede to India. On October 26, 1947, the Maharaja acceded to India. Lord Mountbatten accepted the accession on behalf of India. On October 26, 1947, India began to airlift her troops to Srinagar and launched a full-scale attack on the tribesmen. Pakistan was stunned. Despite her scant military resources, Pakistan was prepared to send in her troops but the British General Gracey, Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, was against it. Jinnah proposed an immediate ceasefire and later on a fair and free plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir Dispute and United Nations In January 1948, India took the dispute to the Security Council. There it accused Pakistan of aggression and demanded that Pakistan withdraw her tribesmen. But Pakistan held that the accession of Kashmir had been brought about by force. The government requested the Security

Council to arrange a cease-fire and asked both the tribesmen and the Indian troops to withdraw so that a free impartial plebiscite could be held to ascertain the wishes of the people of Kashmir. Indo-Pakistan War 1948 and United Nations Involvement While the Kashmir issue was still on the table, the Indian troops launched a full-scale attack and drove the tribesmen right back to the Pakistani border. Pakistan rushed her regular troops into Kashmir and a full-scale war with India ensued. She took control of the Azad Kashmir Army. But the Security Council on August 13, 1948 called for an immediate ceasefire the withdrawal of all Pakistani and Indian troops and holding of plebiscite under United Nations supervision. Both the Indian and Paksitani government accepted the resolution. In January 1949, the resolution began to be implemented. In July 1949, the ceasefire line was demarcated. Pakistans side of Kashmir consisted of some parts of Jammu, Poonch, some areas of Western Kashmir, Gilgit and a great chunk of Ladakh territory near the Chinese border in the North. India kept the valley of Kashmir, Jammu and the remainder of Ladakh territory near the Tiber border. The cease-fire has remained in existence since 1949. No plebiscite has been held and thus the Kashmir issue still remains disputed and unresolved. The 1965 War In April 1965, a clash between border patrols erupted into fighting in the Rann of Kutch, a sparsely inhabited region along the south-western Indo-Pakistan border. When the Indians withdrew, Pakistan claimed victory. Later full-scale hostilites erupted in September 1965, when India alleged that insurgents trained and supplied by Pakistan were operating in India-controlled Kashmir. Hostilities ceased three weaks later, following mediation efforts by the UN and interested countries. In January 1966, Indian and Pakistani representatives met in Tashkent, U.S.S.R., and agreed to attempt a peaceful settlement of Kashmir and their other differences. The 1971 War Indo-Pakistani relations deteriorated again when civil war erupted in Pakistan, pitting the West Pakistan army against East Pakistanis demanding autonomy and independence. In December India invaded East Pakistan in support of the East Pakistani people. The Pakistani army surrendered at Dhaka and its army of more than 90,000 became India prisoners of war. East Pakistan became the independent country of Bangladesh on 6th December 1971. Following the 1971 Indo-Pakistan conflict, President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi met in the mountain town of Shimla, India in July 1972. They agreed to a line of control in Kashmir resulting from the December 17, 1971 cease-fire, and endorsed the principle of settlement of bilateral disputes through peaceful means. Indian Troops and Siachen Glacier 1984 Indias nuclear test in 1974 generated great uncertainty in Pakistan and is generally acknowledged to have been the impetus for Pakistans nuclear weapons development program. In 1983, the Pakistani and Indian governments accused each other of aiding separatists in their respective countries, i.e., Sikhs in Indias Punjab state and Sindhis in Pakistans Sindh province. In April 1984, tensions erupted after troops were deployed to the Siachen Glacier, a high-altitude desolate area close to the China border left undemarcated by the cease-fire agreement (Karachi Agreement) signed by Pakistan and India in 1949. Tensions diminished after Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister in November 1984 and after a group of Sikh hijackers was brought to trial by Pakistan in March 1985. In December 1985, President Zia and Prime Minister Gandhi pledged not to attack each others nuclear facilities. In early 1986, the Indian and Pakistani governments began high-level talks to resolve the Siachen Glacier border dispute and to improve trade. Kashmir Insurgency 1990 Bilateral tensions increased in early 1990, when Kashmiri militants began a compaign of violence against Indian Government authority in Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequent high-level bilateral meetings relieved the tensions between India and Pakistan, but relations worsened again after the destruction of the Ayodhya Masjid by Hindu extremists in December 1992 and terrorists bombings in Bombay in March 1993. Talks between the Foreign Secretaries of both countries in January 1994 resulted in deadlock. Diplomatic Push 1996-97 In the last several years, the Indo-Pakistani relationship has veered sharply between rapprochement and conflict. After taking office in February 1997, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif moved to resume official dialogue with India. A number of meetings at the foreign secretary and Prime Ministerial level took place with positive atmospherics but little concrete progress. In a speech at the UN, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif offered to open talks on a non-aggression pact with India, proposing that both nations strike a deal to restrain their nuclear and missile capabilities. Effects of 9/11 on Kashmir If the world and the United States changed after September 11, the center of that change is the region where Pakistan is located. When it came to begin the war against terrorism Pakistan did not hesitate to do whatever it takes to fight against terrorism. United States of America appreciated the efforts of Pakistan which did not please India. So, India blamed Pakistan-based groups for the December 13, 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. In reply, General Parvez Musharrafs speech of January 12, 2002 which even Indias hawkish Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani termed four days later as path-breaking, India was caught on the back foot. National Kashmir Committee It is in this context that Pakistan launched a new political initiative on Kashmir to reaffirm its long standing policy of supporting the right of selfdetermination for the people of kashmir that is enshrined in United Nations resolutions, initially accepted even by India. Musharraf announced the formation of a National Kashmir Committee headed by a veteran Kashmiri politician, and its charter made clear the purposes behind the initiative. The challenge before the government is to promote confidence among the people in Pakistan and Kashmir regarding Pakistans efforts to project the Kashmir cause as a popular and indigenous struggle internationally. Having addressed international concerns regarding terrorism and extremism in Musharrafs January 12 speech, the United States is now more receptive to Pakistans plea and is anxious to see a dialogue on all the issues of Kashmir. Peace in South Asia and the Kashmir Dispute Pakistan believes that the establishment of durable peace in South Asia hinges on the resolution of the Kashmir Dispute in light of the security Council resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people. On March 17, 2004 Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali said the Kashmir dispute remains the core issue between India and Pakistan. The two South Asian nations have fought three wars, two of which were over the disputed kashmir region. In January this year, the two leaderships made a decision to open the dialogue process in a bid to resolve all disputes between the two sides. The Dialogue Process Pakistan always showed seriousness and sincerity towards resolution of the core issue of Kashmir by adopting several Confidence Building

Measures (CBMs). World community. time and again has advised India to decrease the number of its force in Occupied Kashmir and release illegally detained Kashmiri Leadership. India never hesitated from leveling baseless allegations against Pakistan of infiltration and also did not stop massive human rights violations in Kashmir. The need is to initiate vigorous efforts from both sides in resolving the Kashmir issue. The basic important dispute between the two countries is Kashmir issue and with its resolution all the other outstanding issues would be settled very easity. Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali said that Kashmir dispute should be resolved according to the United Nations resolution and with active participation of the Kashmiris. Year 2005 Road to Peace The Prime Minister said that there wre many difficulties on road to peace but emphasized the need to take measures to promote mutual trust and find new avenues for a peaceful resolution of the lingering Kashmir dispute. The first formal visit of a faction of the separatist All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) and the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) to Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and subsequently, though unsanctioned by Indian authorities to Pakistan between June 2-16, 2005 was thus projected as a major event and development in the process of solving the Kashmir Issue. Indeed the visit strongly reiterated the fact that the APHC continues to be a faithful Pakistani proxy. After his meeting with the President Musharraf, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq declared that We want Kashmir to be divided on geographical grounds. We dont wand Kashmir to lose its identity. we support his [President Musharraf] approach. During their meeting with President Musharraf, the APHC leaders once again were assured full political, diplomatic and moral support. This tour has been helpful in understanding the viewpoint of the Kashmiri leaders. Their quest for a free hand to decide their future is valid. They have been living under brutal Indian occupation since 1948. Despite promised justice by the UN 57 years ago, they have been denied their right of self-determination. It was in fact the denial of justice and unabated Indian State-terrorism perpetrated against Kashmir. The recent visit of the APHC leaders was a significant development, which can be termed as a milestone in the process of resolving the core dispute of Kashmir between Pakistan and India peacefully. We wish both the governments to show courage, boldness and flexibility in settling the issue - See more at: http://www.guesspapers.net/2359/pakistan-and-kashmir-issue/#sthash.1rH5zLr7.dpuf The Kashmir conflict (Hindi: , Urdu: Masala- Kamr) is a territorial dispute between theGovernment of India, Kashmiri insurgent groups and the Government of Pakistan over control of the Kashmir region. Although an interstate dispute over Kashmir has existed between India and Pakistan since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947[2] an internal conflict between Kashmiri insurgents (some favouring Kashmiri accession to Pakistan, and some favouring Kashmir's complete independence.[3]) and the Government of India has constituted the main conflict and source of violence in the region since 2002. India and Pakistan have fought at least three wars over Kashmir, including the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947, 1965 and 1999and since 1984 the two countries have also been involved in several skirmishes over control of the Siachen Glacier. India claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir and as of 2010, administers approximately 43% of the region, including most ofJammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier. India's claims are contested by Pakistan, which controls approximately 37% of Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and the northern areas of Gilgit Baltistan.[4][5] The roots of the conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian Government are tied to a dispute over local autonomy.[6] Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s and by 1988 many of the democratic reforms provided by the Indian Government had been reversed and non-violent channels for expressing discontent were limited and caused a dramatic increase in support for insurgents advocating violent secession from India.[6] In 1987, a disputed State election[7] created a catalyst for the insurgency when it resulted in some of the state's legislative assembly members forming armed insurgent groups.[8][9][10] In July 1988 a series of demonstrations, strikes and attacks on the Indian Government began the Kashmir Insurgency which during the 1990s escalated into the most important internal security issue in India. The turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir has resulted in thousands of deaths,[11] but has become less deadly in recent years.[12][13]There have been protest movements in Indian Administered Kashmir since 1989. The movements were created to voice Kashmir's disputes and grievances with the Indian government, specifically the Indian Military.[12][13] Elections held in 2008 were generally regarded as fair by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, had a high voter turnout in spite of calls by militants for a boycott, and led to the pro-India Jammu & Kashmir National Conference forming the government in the state.[14][15] According to Voice of America, many analysts have interpreted the high voter turnout in this election as a sign that the people of Kashmir have endorsed Indian rule in the state.[16] However Sajjad Lone, a prominent separatist leader in Kashmir, claims that "the high turnout should not be taken as a sign that Kashmiris no longer want independence.[16] In 2009 and 2010 unrest erupted again. Contents [hide] 1 Timeline 1.1 Early history 1.2 Partition and dispute 1.3 Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 1.4 Sino-Indian War 1.5 1965 and 1971 wars 1.6 1989 popular insurgency and militancy 1.7 Al-Qaeda involvement 1.8 Conflict in Kargil 2 Reasons behind the dispute 2.1 Indian view 2.2 Pakistani view 2.3 Chinese view 2.4 Cross-border troubles

2.5 Water dispute 2.6 Pakistan's relation with militants 3 Human rights abuse 3.1 Indian administered Kashmir 3.2 Pakistan administered Kashmir 3.2.1 Azad Kashmir 3.2.2 Gilgit-Baltistan 4 Map issues 5 Recent developments 5.1 Efforts to end the crisis 5.2 2008 militant attacks 5.3 2008 Kashmir protests 5.4 2008 Kashmir elections 5.5 2009 Kashmir protests 5.6 2010 Kashmir Unrest 5.7 US President Obama on the conflict 6 See also 7 References 7.1 Further reading 8 External links Timeline Main article: Timeline of the Kashmir conflict Early history See also: History of Kashmir According to folk etymology, the name "Kashmir" means "desiccated land" (from the Sanskrit: Ka = water and shimeera = desiccate). In the Rajatarangini, a history of Kashmirwritten by Kalhana in the mid-12th century, it is stated that the valley of Kashmir was formerly a lake. According to Hindu mythology, the lake was drained by the saptarishi or sage,Kashyapa, son of Marichi, son of Brahma, by cutting the gap in the hills at Baramulla (Varaha-mula). When Kashmir had been drained, Kashyapa asked Brahmans to settle there. This is still the local tradition, and in the existing physical condition of the country, we may see some ground for the story which has taken this form. The name of Kashyapa is by history and tradition connected with the draining of the lake, and the chief town or collection of dwellings in the valley was called Kashyapapura, which has been identified withKaspapyros of Hecataeus (apud Stephanus of Byzantium) and Kaspatyros of Herodotus (3.102, 4.44).[17] Kashmir is also believed to be the country meant by Ptolemy'sKaspeiria.[18] However an earlier and well known recorded reference can be found in the writings of a Chinese Buddhist monk in the 6th Century. Hsien Tsang referred to a state called 'Kash-mi-lo' that had existed in the 1st century. In the 18th century, Kashmir was ruled by the Pashtun Durrani Empire. In 1819, Kashmir was conquered by the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh. Following the First Anglo-Sikh War in 1845 and 1846, Kashmir was first ceded by the Treaty of Lahore to the East India Company, and shortly after sold by the Treaty of Amritsar to Gulab Singh, Raja of Jammu, who thereafter was given the title Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. From then until the Partition of India in 1947, Kashmir was ruled by the Hindu Maharajas of the princely state ofKashmir and Jammu, although the majority of the population were Muslim, except in the Jammu and Ladakh region. Partition and dispute In 1947, British rule in India ended with the creation of a new state: the Dominion of Pakistan and a successor state to British India the Union of India, while British suzerainty 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",[19] so the states were 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, while having a Hindu ruler (Maharaja Hari Singh.) On partition Pakistan expected Kashmir to be annexed to it. In October 1947, Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir[20] and Pakistani tribals from Dir entered Kashmir, intending to liberate it from Dogra rule. Unable to withstand the invasion, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on 25 October 1947[21] that was accepted by the government of India on 27 October 1947.[22][23] Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 After rumours that the Maharaja supported the annexation of Kashmir by India, militant Muslim revolutionaries from western Kashmir[20] and Pakistani tribesmen made rapid advances into the Baramulla sector. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir asked the government of India to intervene. However, India and Pakistan had signed an agreement of non-intervention. Although tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered Jammu and Kashmir, there was no iron-clad legal evidence to unequivocally prove that Pakistan was officially involved.[citation needed] It would have been illegal for India to unilaterally intervene in an open, official capacity unless Jammu and Kashmir officially joined the Union of India, at which point it would be possible to send in its forces and occupy the remaining parts. The Maharaja desperately needed military assistance when the Pakistani tribals reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Before their arrival into Srinagar, India argued that the Maharaja must complete negotiations for ceding Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving military aid. The agreement which ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten of Burma.[5] In Jammu and Kashmir, National Conference volunteers worked with the Indian Army to drive out the Pakistanis.[24]

The Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to India was accepted by Viceroy Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. The resulting war over Kashmir, the First Kashmir War, lasted until 1948, when India moved the issue to the UN Security Council. Sheikh Abdullah was not in favour of India seeking UN intervention because he was sure the Indian Army could free the entire State of invaders.[24]The UN had previously passed resolutions for setting up monitoring of the conflict in Kashmir. Following the set-up of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNCIP), the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948. The resolution imposed 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 the 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.'[25] However, both India and Pakistan failed to arrive at a Truce agreement due to differences in interpretation of the procedure for and extent of demilitarisation one of them being whether the Azad Kashmiri army is to be disbanded during the truce stage or the Plebiscite stage.[26] In November 1948, The Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite, but Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from Kashmir, thus violating the conditions for holding the plebiscite.[27] In addition, the Indian Government distanced itself from its commitment to hold a plebiscite.[27] India proposed that Pakistan withdraw all its troops first, calling it a precondition for a plebiscite. Pakistan rejected on the grounds that the Kashmiris may not vote freely given the presence of Indian army and Sheikh Abdullah's friendship with the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. However, Pakistan proposed simultaneous withdrawal of all troops followed by a plebiscite under international auspices, which India rejected.[28] Hence Pakistan didn't withdraw its forces unilaterally[29] Over the next several years, the UN Security Council passed four new resolutions, revising the terms of Resolution 47 to include a synchronous withdrawal of both Indian and Pakistani troops from the region, per the recommendations of General Andrew McNaughton. To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the demilitarisation of the region. All of these were accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government.[30]The resolutions were passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[31] Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of the UN charter are considered non-binding and have no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[32] 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 the Chinese annexation of the region called Aksai Chin, 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".[33] 1965 and 1971 wars Main articles: Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 In 1965 and 1971, heavy fighting broke out again between India and Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 resulted in the defeat of Pakistan and the Pakistani military's surrender in East Pakistan, leading to the creation of Bangladesh. The Simla Agreement was signed in 1972 between India and Pakistan. By this treaty, both countries agreed to settle all issues by peaceful means using mutual discussion in the framework of the UN Charter. 1989 popular insurgency and militancy Main article: Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir In the years since 1990, the Kashmiri Muslims and the Indian government have conspired to abolish the complexities of Kashmiri civilization. The world it inhabited has vanished: the state government and the political class, the rule of law, almost all the Hindu inhabitants of the valley, alcohol, cinemas,

cricket matches, picnics by moonlight in the saffron fields, schools, universities, an independent press, tourists and banks. In this reduction of civilian reality, the sights of Kashmir are redefined: not the lakes and Mogul gardens, or the storied triumphs of Kashmiri agriculture, handicrafts and cookery, but two entities that confront each other without intermediary: the mosque and the army camp. British journalist James Buchan[34] In 1989, a widespread popular and armed insurgency[35][36] started in Kashmir. After the 1987 State legislative assembly election, some of the results were disputed. This resulted in the formation of militant wings after the election and was the beginning of the Mujahadeen insurgency, which continues to this day.[37] India contends that the insurgency was largely started by Afghan mujahadeen who entered the Kashmir valley following the end of theSoviet-Afghan War.[38] Yasin Malik, a leader of one faction of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, was one of the Kashmiris to organise militancy in Kashmir, along with Ashfaq Majid Wani and Farooq Ahmad Dar (alias Bitta Karatay). Since 1995, Malik has renounced the use of violence and calls for strictly peaceful methods to resolve the dispute. He developed differences with one of the senior leaders, Farooq Siddiqui (alias Farooq Papa), for shunning the demand for an independent Kashmir and trying to cut a deal with the Indian Prime Minister. This resulted in a spilt in which Bitta Karatay, Salim Nanhaji, and other senior comrades joined Farooq Papa. [39][40] Pakistan claims these insurgents are Jammu and Kashmir citizens, and are rising up against the Indian army in an independence movement. Amnesty International accused security forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir of exploiting the Public Safety Act that enables them to "hold prisoners without trial". The group argues that the law, which allows security to detain individuals for as many as two years "without presenting charges, violating prisoners' human rights".[41][42] In 2011, the state human right commission said it had evidence that 2,156 bodies had been buried in 40 graves over the last 20-year.[42] The authorities deny such accusations. The security forces say the unidentified dead are militants who may have originally come from outside India. They also say that many of the missing people have crossed into Pakistan-administered Kashmir to engage in militancy.[42] But according to The state human rights commission, among the identified bodies 574 were those of "disappeared locals", and according to Amnesty International's annual human rights report (2012) it was sufficient for "belying the security forces' claim that they were militants".[43] India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir, a part of Pakistan.[42][44]They claim Pakistan is supplying munitions to the terrorists and training them in Pakistan. India states that the terrorists have been killing many citizens in Kashmir and committing human rights violations. They deny that their own armed forces are responsible for human rights abuses. On a visit to Pakistan in 2006 current Chief Minister of Kashmir Omar Abdullah remarked that foreign militants were engaged in reckless killings and mayhem in the name of religion.[45] Indian government has said militancy is now on the decline.[13] The Pakistani government calls these insurgents "Kashmiri freedom fighters", and claims that it gives only moral and diplomatic support to these insurgents, though India[46]believes they are Pakistan-supported terrorists from Pakistan Administered Kashmir. In October 2008, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan called the Kashmir separatists, terrorists in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.[47][dead link] These comments by Zardari sparked outrage amongst many Kashmiris, some of whom defied a curfew by the Indian army to burn him in effigy.[48] In 2008, pro-separation leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq told the Washington Post that there has been a "purely indigenous, purely Kashmiri"[12] peaceful protest movement alongside the insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir since 1989. The movement was created for the same reason as the insurgency; it began with the disputed election of 1987. The Kashmiris have grievances with the Indian government, specifically the Indian Military, which has committed human rights violations, according to the United Nations.[12][13][49] Al-Qaeda involvement Main article: Al-Qaeda See also: Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden In a 'Letter to American People' written by Osama bin Laden in 2002, he stated that one of the reasons he was fighting America is because of its support of India on the Kashmir issue.[50][51] While on a trip to Delhi in 2002, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld suggested that AlQaeda was active in Kashmir, though he did not have any hard evidence.[52][53] A journalistic investigation by a Christian Science Monitor reporter in 2002 claimed to have unearthed evidence that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates were prospering inPakistan-administered Kashmir with tacit approval of Pakistan's National Intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence.[54] A team of Special Air Service and Delta Force was sent into Indian-administered Kashmir in 2002 to hunt for Osama bin Laden after reports that he was being sheltered by the Kashmiri militant group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen.[55] US officials believed that Al-Qaeda was helping organise a campaign of terror in Kashmir to provoke conflict between India and Pakistan. Their strategy was to force Pakistan to move its troops to the border with India, thereby relieving pressure on AlQaeda elements hiding in northwestern Pakistan. US intelligence analysts say Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan-administered Kashmir are helping terrorists they had trained in Afghanistan to infiltrate Indian-administered Kashmir.[56] Fazlur Rehman Khalil, the leader of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, signed al-Qaeda's 1998 declaration of holy war, which called on Muslims to attack all Americans and their allies.[57] In 2006 Al-Qaeda claim they have established a wing in Kashmir; this worried the Indian government.[58] Indian Army Lt. Gen. H.S. Panag, GOC-in-C Northern Command, said to reporters that the army has ruled out the presence of Al-Qaeda in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. He said that there no evidence that verifies reports from the media of an Al-Qaeda presence in the state. He ruled out Al-Qaeda ties with the militant groups in Kashmir including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. However, he stated that they had information about Al Qaeda's strong ties withLashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed operational in Pakistan.[59] While on a visit to Pakistan in January 2010, US Defense secretary Robert Gates stated that Al-Qaeda was seeking to destabilise the region and planning to provoke a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.[60] In June 2011, a US Drone strike killed Ilyas Kashmiri, who was the chief of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, a Kashmiri militant group associated with AlQaeda.[61][62] Kashmiri was described by Bruce Riedel as a 'prominent' Al-Qaeda member,[63] while others described him as the head of military operations for Al-Qaeda.[64] Waziristan had now become the new battlefield for Kashmiri militants, who were now fighting NATO in support of Al-Qaeda.[65] Ilyas Kashmiri was charged by the US in a plot against Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper which was at the center of JyllandsPosten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[66] In April 2012 Farman Ali Shinwari a former member of Kashmiri separatist groupsHarkat-ulMujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami was appointed chief of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.[67]

Conflict in Kargil

Location of conflict. Main article: Kargil War In mid-1999, insurgents and Pakistani soldiers from Pakistani Kashmir infiltrated into Jammu and Kashmir. During the winter season, Indian forces regularly move down to lower altitudes, as severe climatic conditions makes it almost impossible for them to guard the high peaks near the Line of Control. The insurgents took advantage of this and occupied vacant mountain peaks of the Kargil range overlooking the highway in Indian Kashmir that connects Srinagar and Leh. By blocking the highway, they wanted to cut off the only link between the Kashmir Valley andLadakh. This resulted in a high-scale conflict between the Indian Army and the Pakistan Army. Fears of the Kargil War turning into a nuclear war provoked the then-United States President Bill Clinton to pressure Pakistan to retreat. The Pakistan Army withdrew their remaining troops from the area, ending the conflict. India reclaimed control of the peaks, which they now patrol and monitor all year long. Reasons behind the dispute The Kashmir Conflict arises from the Partition of British India in 1947 into modern India and Pakistan. Both the countries have made claims to Kashmir, based on historical developments and religious affiliations of the Kashmiri people. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which lies strategically in the north-west of the subcontinent, bordering Afghanistan and China, was a princely state ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh under the paramountcy of British India. In geographical and legal terms, the Maharaja could have joined either of the two new Dominions. Although urged by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, to determine the future of his state before the transfer of power took place, Singh demurred. In October 1947, incursions by Pakistan took place leading to a war, as a result of which the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains divided between the two countries. Administered by India Area Kashmir valley Jammu Ladakh Pakistan Northern Areas Azad Kashmir China Aksai Chin Population ~4 million ~3 million ~0.25 million ~1 million ~2.6 million % Muslim 95% 30% 46% 99% 100% % Hindu 4% 66% % Buddhist 50% % Other 4% 3%

Statistics from the BBC report. In Depth *There are roughly 1.5 million refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir in Pakistan administered Kashmir and Pakistan UNHCR A minimum of 506,000 people in Indian Administered Kashmir valley are internally displaced due to militancy in Kashmir about half of which are Hindu pandits CIA Muslims are the majority in Poonch, Rajouri, Kishtwar, and Doda districts in Jammu region. Shia Muslims make up the majority in Kargil district in Ladakh region. India does not accept the two-nation theory and considers that Kashmir, despite being a Muslim-majority state, is in many ways an "integral part" of secular India.[68] Two-thirds of the former princely state (known as the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir), comprising Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, and the sparsely populated Buddhist area ofLadakh are controlled by India; one-third is administered by Pakistan. The latter includes a narrow strip of land called Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, compromising theGilgit Agency, Baltistan, and the former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar. Attempts to resolve the dispute through political discussions were unsuccessful. In September 1965, warbroke out again between Pakistan and India. The United Nations called for another cease-fire, and peace was restored once again following the Tashkent Declaration in 1966, by which both nations returned to their original positions along the demarcated line. After the 1971 war and the creation of independent Bangladesh, under the terms of the 1972Simla Agreement between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan, it was agreed that neither country would seek to alter the cease-fire line in Kashmir, which was renamed as the Line of Control, "unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations". Numerous violations of the Line of Control have occurred, including the incursions by insurgents and Pakistani armed forces at Kargil leading to the Kargil war. There are also sporadic clashes on the Siachen Glacier, where the Line of Control is not demarcated and both countries maintain forces at altitudes rising to 20,000 ft (6,100 m), with the Indian forces serving at higher altitudes.

Indian view

Maharaja Hari Singh signed theInstrument of Accession in October 1947 under which he acceded the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union of India. India has officially stated that it believes that Kashmir is an integral part of India, though the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, stated after the 2010 Kashmir Unrest that his government was willing to grant autonomy to the region within the purview of Indian constitution if there is consensus[by whom?] on this issue.[69] The Indian viewpoint is succinctly summarised by Ministry of External affairs, Government of India[70][71] India holds that the Instrument of Accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union of India, signed by Maharaja Hari Singh (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 25 October 1947[72][73] & executed on 27 October 1947[73] between the ruler of Kashmir and the Governor General of India was a legal act, was completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total and irrevocable.[71] The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and had adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India. India claims that the Constituent assembly was a representative one, and that its views were those of the Kashmiri people at the time.[74][75] United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue and does not call for a plebiscite.[76] United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 cannot be implemented since Pakistan failed to withdraw its forces from Kashmir, which was the first step in implementing the resolution.[29] India is also of the view that Resolution 47 is obsolete, since the geography and demographics of the region have been permanently altered.[77] The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter. It is therefore non-binding and has no mandatory enforceability, as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.[31][32] India does not accept the two-nation theory that forms the basis of Pakistan and considers that Kashmir, despite being a Muslim-majority state, is in many ways an "integral part" of secular India.[68] The state of Jammu and Kashmir was provided significant autonomy in Article 370 of the Constitution of India.[78] All differences between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir, need to be settled through bilateral negotiations as agreed to by the two countries when they signed the Simla Agreement on 2 July 1972.[79] Additional Indian viewpoints regarding the broader debate over the Kashmir conflict include In a diverse country like India, disaffection and discontent are not uncommon. Indian democracy has the necessary resilience to accommodate genuine grievances within the framework of India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The Government of India has expressed its willingness to accommodate the legitimate political demands of the people of the state of Kashmir.[70] Insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is deliberately being fuelled by Pakistan to create instability in the region.[80] The Government of India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of waging a proxy war in Kashmir by providing weapons and financial assistance to terrorist groups in the region.[81][82][83][84] Pakistan is trying to raise anti-India sentiment among the people of Kashmir by spreading false propaganda against India.[85] According to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistani radio and television channels deliberately spread "hate and venom" against India to alter Kashmiri opinion.[86] India has asked the United Nations not to leave unchallenged or unaddressed the claims of moral, political, and diplomatic support for terrorism, which were clearly in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. This is a Chapter VII resolution that makes it mandatory for member states to not provide active or passive support to terrorist organisations.[87][88] Specifically, it has pointed out that the Pakistani government continues to support various terrorist organisations, such as Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, in direct violation of this resolution.[89] India points out reports by human rights organisations condemning Pakistan for the lack of civic liberties in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[85][90] According to India, most regions of Pakistani Kashmir, especially Northern Areas, continue to suffer from lack of political recognition, economic development, and basic fundamental rights.[91] Karan Singh, the son of the last ruler of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, said that the Instrument of Accession signed by his father was the same as signed by other states. He opined that Kashmir was therefore a part of India, and that its special status granted by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution stemmed from the fact that it had its own constitution.[92] Pakistani view

Map of Kashmir as drawn by the Government of Pakistan Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is the "jugular vein of Pakistan"[93] and a currently disputed territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir. Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population.[94] Pakistan claims that Indian forces were in Kashmir before the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, and that therefore Indian troops were in Kashmir in violation of the Standstill Agreement, which was designed to maintain the status quo in Kashmir (although India was not signatory to the Agreement, which was signed between Pakistan and the Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir).[95][96] From 1990 to 1999, some organisations reported that the Indian Armed Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias were responsible for the deaths of 4,501 Kashmiri civilians. Also from 1990 to 1999, there were records of 4,242 women between the ages of 770 being raped.[97][98] Similar allegations were also made by some human rights organisations.[99] In short, Pakistan holds that: The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that Kashmir either wants to be with Pakistan or independent.[100] According to the two-nation theory, which is one of the theories that is cited for the partition that created India and Pakistan, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority. India has shown disregard to the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the United Nations Commission in India and Pakistan by failing to hold a plebiscite to determine the future allegiance of the state.[101] Pakistan has noted the widespread use of extrajudicial killings in Indian-administered Kashmir carried out by Indian security forces while claiming they were caught up in encounters with militants. These encounters are commonplace in Indian-administered Kashmir. The encounters go largely uninvestigated by the authorities, and the perpetrators are spared criminal prosecution.[102][103] Human rights organisations have strongly condemned Indian troops for widespread rape and murder of innocent civilians while accusing these civilians of being militants.[104][105][106] The Chenab formula was a compromise proposed in the 1960s, in which the Kashmir valley and other Muslim-dominated areas north of the Chenab river would go to Pakistan, and Jammu and other Hindu-dominated regions would go to India.[107] Chinese view See also: Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute China states that Aksai Chin is a part of China and does not recognise the addition of Aksai Chin to the Kashmir region.[citation needed] China did not accept the boundaries of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, north of the Aksai Chin and the Karakoram that were proposed by the British.[20] China settled its border disputes with Pakistan in the Trans Karakoram Tract in 1963 with the provision that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the Kashmir dispute.[108] Cross-border troubles See also: Line of Control and Siachen Conflict The border and the Line of Control separating Indian and Pakistani Kashmir passes through some exceptionally difficult terrain. The world's highest battleground, the Siachen Glacier, is a part of this difficult-to-man boundary. Even with 200,000 military personnel,[109] India maintains that it is infeasible to place enough men to guard all sections of the border throughout the various seasons of the year. Pakistan has indirectly acquiesced its role in failing to prevent "cross-border terrorism" when it agreed to curb such activities[110] after intense pressure from the Bush administration in mid-2002. The Government of Pakistan has repeatedly claimed that by constructing a fence along the line of control, India is violating the Shimla Accord. India claims the construction of the fence has helped decrease armed infiltration into Indian-administered Kashmir. In 2002, Pakistani President and Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf promised to check infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir. Water dispute

Another reason for the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the origin point for many rivers and tributaries of the Indus River basin. The river basin is divided between Pakistan, which has about 60 per cent of the catchment area, India with about 20 per cent, Afghanistan with 5 per cent and around 15 per cent in China (Tibet autonomous region). The river tributaries are the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which primarily flow into Pakistan, while other branchesthe Ravi, Beas, and the Sutlejirrigate northern India. The Indus is a river system that sustains communities in both countries India and Pakistan. They both have extensively dammed the Indus River for irrigation of their crops and hydro-electricity systems. In arbitrating the conflict in 1947 Sir Cyril Radcliffe, decided to demarcate the territories as he was unable to give to one or the other the control over the river as it was a main economic resource for both areas. The Line of Control (LoC) was recognised as an international border establishing that India would have control over the upper riparian and Pakistan over the lower riparian of Indus and its tributaries. However they might seem separate issues, the Kashmir dispute and the dispute over the water control are somehow related and the fight over the water remains as one of the main problems when establishing good relationships between the two countries. In 1948, Eugene Black, then president of the World Bank, offered his services to solve the tension around the water control. In the early days of independence, the fact that India was able to shut off the Central Bari Doab Canals at the time of the sowing season, causing significant damage to Pakistan's crops. Nevertheless, military and political clashes over Kashmir in the early years of independence appear to be more about ideology and sovereignty, rather than sharing water resources. But the minister of Pakistan stated the opposite.[111] The Indus Waters Treaty was signed by both countries in September 1960, giving exclusive rights over the three western rivers of the Indus river system (Jhelum, Chenab and Indus) to Pakistan, and over the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Ravi and Beas) to India, as long as it does not reduce or delay the supply to Pakistan. India therefore maintains that they are not willing to break the regulation established and they see no more problems with this issue. Pakistan's relation with militants India has furnished documentary evidence to the United Nations that these militants are supported by Pakistan, leading to a ban on some terrorist organisations, which Pakistan has yet to enforce.[citation needed] Former President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf, stated in an interview in London, that Pakistani government indeed helped to form underground militant groups and "turned a blind eye" towards their existence.[112] According to Indian Prime-minister Manmohan Singh, one of the main reasons behind the conflict is Pakistan's "terror-induced coercion". Indian Prime-minister Manmohan Singhstated in a Joint Press Conference with United States President Barack Obama in New Delhi that India is not afraid of resolving all the issues with Pakistan including the kashmir "but it is our request that you cannot simultaneously be talking and at the same time the terror machine is as active as ever before. Once Pakistan moves away from this terror-induced coercion, we will be very happy to engage productively with Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues."[113] In 2009, the President of Pakistan Asif Zardari asserted at a conference in Islamabad that Pakistan had indeed created Islamic militant groups as a strategic tool for use in its geostrategic agenda and "to attack Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir".[114] Former President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf also stated in an interview that Pakistani government helped to form underground militant groups to fight against Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir and "turned a blind eye" towards their existence because it wanted to force India to enter negotiations.[112] The British Government have formally accepted that there is a clear connection between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and three major militant outfits operating in Jammu and Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ulMujahideen.[115][116] The militants are provided with "weapons, training, advice and planning assistance" in Punjab and Kashmir by the ISI which is "coordinating the shipment of arms from the Pakistani side of Kashmir to the Indian side, where Muslim insurgents are waging a protracted war".[117][118] Throughout the 1990s, the ISI maintained its relationship with extremist networks and militants that it had established during the Afghan war to utilise in its campaign against Indian forces in Kashmir.[119] Joint Intelligence/North (JIN) has been accused of conducting operations in Jammu and Kashmir and also Afghanistan.[120] The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau (JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir.[120] According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon both former members of the National Security Council the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalising young men in the Madrassas in Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by AlQaeda and from there moving them into Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks.[121] Reportedly, about Rs. 24 million are paid out per month by the Inter-Services Intelligence, to fund its activities in Jammu and Kashmir.[122] ProPakistani groups were reportedly favoured over other militant groups.[122] Creation of six militant groups in Kashmir, which included Lashkar-eTaiba (LeT), was aided by the ISI.[123][124] According to American Intelligence officials, ISI is still providing protection and help to LeT.[124] The Pakistan Army and ISI also LeT volunteers to surreptitiously penetrate from Pakistan Administrated Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir.[125] Indian authorities in past has alleged several times that Pakistan was involved in training and arming underground militant groups to fight Indian forces in Kashmir.[126] Human rights abuse Main article: Human rights abuses in Kashmir Indian administered Kashmir Main article: Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir Claims of human rights abuses have been made against the Indian Armed Forces and the armed insurgents operating in Jammu and Kashmir.[127] Since 1989, over 50,000 and by some reports nearly 100,000 Kashmiris are claimed to have died during the conflict.[128] Some human rights organisations have alleged that Indian Security forces have killed hundreds of Kashmiris by indiscriminate use of force and torture, firing on demonstrations, custodial killings, encounters and detensions.[129][130][131][132] the government of India denied that torture was widespread.[130] It stated that some custodial crimes may have taken place but stated "these are few and far between".[130] According to one human rights report in Kashmir there were more than three hundred cases of "disappearances" since 1990.[133][134][135] State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has found 2,730 bodies buried into unmarked graves scattered all over Kashmir believed to contain the remains of victims of unlawful killings and enforced disappearances by Indian security forces.[136][137][138] SHRC stated that about 574 of these bodies have already been identified as those of disappeared locals.[139] SHRC also accused Indian army of forced labour.[140] According to the cables leaked by website WikiLeaks, 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.[141] The cable said Indian security forces relied on torture for

confessions and the human right abuses are believed to be condoned by the Indian government.[142] 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 the information about the unmarked graves. This action of the state was reportedly denounced by the former National Chief Information Commissioner.[143] A state government inquiry into 22 Oct 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.[144] According to a report of 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."[145] 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 also depicts mass rape incidents of Kunan Poshpora and Shopian as facts alleging that the Indian Scurity Forces are responsible.[146][147] A report from the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed that the seven people who were killed in 2000 by the Indian military, were innocent civilians.[148][149][150] The Indian Army has decided to try the accused in the General Court Martial.[151] It was also reported that the killings that were allegedly committed in "cold-blood" by the Army, were actually in retaliation to the murder of 36 civilians [Sikhs] by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000.[151] The official stance of the Indian Army was that, according to its own investigation, 97% of the reports about the human rights abuse have been found to be "fake or motivated".[152] However, there have been at least one case where civilians were killed in 'fake encounters' by Indian army personnel for cash rewards.[153] "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."

[154]

A crying old Kashmiri Hindu in refugee camps of Jammu told BBC news reporter The violence was condemned and labelled as ethnic cleansing in a 2006 resolution passed by the United States Congress.[155] It stated that the Islamic terrorists infiltrated the region in 1989 and began an ethnic cleansing campaign to convert Kashmir to a Muslim state. According to the same, since then nearly 400,000 Pandits were either murdered or forced to leave their ancestral homes.[156] According to 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.[157] According to an op-ed published in 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 had lived in Kashmir for centuries, were forced to leave their homeland.[154] The displaced Pandits, many of whom continue to live in temporary refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi, are still unable to safely return to their homeland.[157] The lead in this act of ethnic cleansing was initially taken by the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front and the Hizbul Mujahideen. And all this, according to Indian Media at least, happened at the instigation of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) by a group of Kashmiri terrorist element who were trained, armed and motivated by the ISI. Reportedly these type of organisations which subsequently came into existence after having been trained and armed by the ISI, kept the ethnic cleansing going till practically all the Kashmiri Pandits were driven out after having been subjected to numerous indignities and brutalities such as rape of women, torture, forcible seizure of property etc.[158] 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.[154] 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.[159] Jagmohan denies these allegations.[154] Reports by Indian government state 219 Kashmiri pandits were killed and around 140,000 migrated due to millitancy while over 3000 stayed in the valley [160][161] The local organisation of pandits in Kashmir, Kashmir Pandit Sangharsh Samiti claimed that 399 Kashmiri Pandit were killed by insurgents.[162][163] The CIA has reported that at least 506,000 people from Indian Administered Kashmir are internally displaced, about half of which are Hindu Pandits.[164][165] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights reports that there are roughly 1.5 million refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir, bulk of whom arrived in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and in Pakistan after the situation on the Indian side worsened in 1989 insurgency.[166] Mdecins Sans Frontires conducted a research survey in 2005. The survey states that 11.6% of the interviewees who took part in the study responded that they had been victims of sexual abuse since 1989.[167][168] 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 has called on India to "unequivocally condemn enforced disappearances" and to ensure that impartial investigation is conducted on 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.[169][170][171][172] Amnesty International criticised 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.[172] Several international agencies and the UN have reported human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir. In a recent press release the OHCHR spokesmen stated "The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is concerned about the recent violent protests in Indianadministered Kashmir that have reportedly led to civilian casualties as well as restrictions to the right to freedom of assembly and expression."[49] 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."[173] One 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."[174] There have been claims of disappearances by the police or the army in Kashmir by several human rights organisations.[175][176] Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978:[177][178] Human rights organisations have asked Indian government to repeal[179] the Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative detention for a maximum of two years without a court order."[170]

A soldier guards the roadside checkpoint outside Srinagar International Airport in January 2009. Many human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch (HRW) have condemned human rights abuses in Kashmir by Indians such as "extra-judicial executions", "disappearances", and torture.[171] 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 Indian government to repeal[179] the Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative detention for a maximum of two years without a court order." [170] A 2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Indian Administered Kashmir was only 'partly free'.[169] 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.[170][171][172][180] Pakistan administered Kashmir Azad Kashmir Main article: Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir Claim of religious discrimination and restricting religious freedom in Azad Kashmir have been made against Pakistan.[181] It is also accused of systemic suppression of free speech and demonstrations against the government.[181] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights reported that a number of Islamist militant groups, including al-Qaeda, operate from bases in Pakistani-administered Kashmir with the tacit permission of Pakistani intelligence[166][181] And there have been several allegations of human rights abuse.[166] In 2006, Human rights watch (organisation) accused Pakistani intelligence agency ISI and the military of systemic torture with the purpose of "punishing" errant politicians, political activists and journalists in Azad Kashmir.[182] A report titled "Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects", which was submitted to the European Parliament by Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, was critical of the lack of human rights, justice, democracy, and Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly.[183]According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence operates in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and is accused of involvement in extensive surveillance, arbitrary arrests, torture, and murder.[181] The 2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Pakistan-administered Kashmir was 'Not free'.[181] 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".[184] After 2011 elections, The 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.[185] In December 1993 the blasphemy laws of Pakistan were extended to the Pakistan administered Kash. They are ruled directly through a chief executive Lt. Gen. Mohammed Shafiq, appointed by Islamabad with a 26-member Northern Areas Council.[186] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights reports that the status of women in Pakistani-administered Kashmir is similar to that of women in Pakistan. Women are not granted equal rights under the law, and their educational opportunities and choice of marriage partner remain "circumscribed" in Pakistan-administered kashmir. 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; the organisations had received warnings against hiring women. However, honour killings and rape occur less frequently than in other areas of Pakistan.[166] Gilgit-Baltistan The main demand of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan is a constitutional status to the region as a fifth province of Pakistan.[187][188] However, Pakistan claims that Gilgit-Baltistan cannot be given constitutional status due to Pakistan's commitment to the 1948 UN resolution.[188][189] In 2007, 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".[190] A two-day conference on Gilgit-Baltistan was held on 89 April 2008 at the European Parliament in Brussels under the auspices of the International Kashmir Alliance.[191] Several members of the European Parliament expressed concern over the human rights violation in Gilgit-Baltistan and urged the government of Pakistan to establish democratic institutions and rule of law in the area.[191][192] In 2009, the Pakistan government implemented an autonomy package for Gilgit-Baltistan which entails rights similar to those of Pakistans other provinces.[187] Gilgit-Baltistan thus gains province-like status without actually being conferred such a status constitutionally.[187][189] The direct rule by Islamabad is replaced by an elected legislative assembly and its chief minister.[187][189] There has been criticism and opposition to this move in Pakistan, India, and Pakistan administrated Kashmir.[193] The move has been dubbed as an eyewash to hide the real mechanics of power, which allegedly are under the direct control of the Pakistani federal government.[194] 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.[195] 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"[188] In December 2009, activists of nationalist Kashmiri groups staged a protest in Muzaffarabad to condemn the alleged rigging of elections and killing of a 18-year old student.[196] Map issues

United Nations' map of Jammu and Kashmir As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir territory, regardless of actual control. Due to India's Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961, it is illegal in India to exclude all or part of Kashmir in a map (or to publish any map that differs from those of the Survey of India).[197] It is illegal in Pakistan not to include the state of Jammu and Kashmir as disputed territory, as permitted by the United Nations. Non-participants often use the Line of Control and the Line of Actual Control as the depicted boundaries, as is done in the CIA World Factbook, and the region is often marked out in hashmarks. When Microsoft released a map in Windows 95 and MapPoint 2002, a controversy was raised because it did not show all of Kashmir as part of India as per the Indian claim. All the neutral and Pakistani companies claim to follow the UN's map and over 90% of all maps containing the territory of Kashmir show it as disputed territory.[198] Recent developments

Kashmir Solidarity Day on every 5th of February is celebrated in Pakistan. This banner was hung in Islamabad, Pakistan India continues to assert their sovereignty or rights over the entire region of Kashmir, while Pakistan maintains that it is a disputed territory. Pakistan argues that the status quo cannot be considered as a solution. Pakistan insists on a UN-sponsored plebiscite. Unofficially, the Pakistani leadership has indicated that they would be willing to accept alternatives such as a demilitarised Kashmir, if sovereignty of Azad Kashmir was to

be extended over the Kashmir valley, or the "Chenab" formula, by which India would retain parts of Kashmir on its side of the Chenab river, and Pakistan the other side effectively re-partitioning Kashmir on communal lines. The problem is that the population of the Pakistanadministered portion of Kashmir is for the most part ethnically, linguistically, and culturally different from the Valley of Kashmir, a part of Indian-administered Kashmir. A partition on the Chenab formula is opposed by some Kashmiri politicians, though some, such asSajjad Lone, have suggested that the non-Muslim part of Jammu and Kashmir be separated from Kashmir and handed to India. Some political analysts say that the Pakistan state policy shift and mellowing of its aggressive stance may have to do with its total failure in theKargil War and the subsequent 9/11 attacks. These events put pressure on Pakistan to alter its position on terrorism.[199] Many neutral parties to the dispute have noted that the UN resolution on Kashmir is no longer relevant.[200] The European Union has viewed that the plebiscite is not in Kashmiris' interest.[201] The report notes that the UN conditions for such a plebiscite have not been, and can no longer be, met by Pakistan.[202] The Hurriyat Conference observed in 2003 that a "plebiscite [is] no longer an option".[203] Besides the popular factions that support either parties, there is a third faction which supports independence and withdrawal of both India and Pakistan. These have been the respective stands of the parties for long, and there have been no significant changes over the years. As a result, all efforts to solve the conflict have been futile so far. In the recent revelations on 24 September 2013 made by the former Indian army chief General V. K. Singh said that, the state politicians of Jammu and Kashmir are being funded by the army secret service to keep the general public at calm and this activity is there since the partition. He also stated that the secret service paid a bribe to a politician to topple the state government which was pushing for AFSPA repeal in 2010.[204][205] In a 2001 report titled "Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency" from the American RAND Corporation, the think tank noted that "the nature of the Kashmir conflict has been transformed from what was originally a secular, locally based struggle (conducted via the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front JKLF) to one that is now largely carried out by foreign militants and rationalized in pan-Islamic religious terms." Most of the militant organisations are composed of foreign mercenaries, mostly from the Pakistani Punjab.[206] In 2010, with the support of its intelligence agencies, Pakistan has again been 'boosting' Kashmir militants, and recruitment of mujahideen in the Pakistani state of Punjab has increased.[207][208] In 2011, the FBI revealed that Pakistan's spy agency ISI paid millions of dollars into a United States-based non-governmental organisation to influence politicians and opinion-makers on the Kashmir issue and arrested Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai.[209] The Freedom in the World 2006 report categorised Indian-administered Kashmir as "partly free", and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, as well as the country of Pakistan, as "not free".[210] India claims that contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wishes to remain with India. A MORI survey found that within Indian-administered Kashmir, 61% of respondents said they felt they would be better off as Indian citizens, with 33% saying that they did not know, and the remaining 6% favouring Pakistani citizenship. However, this support for India was mainly in Ladakh and Jammu regions, not the Kashmir Valley, as only 9% of the respondents from the Kashmir Valley said that they would be better off with India.[211] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in New Delhi, 87% of respondents in the Kashmir Valley prefer independence over union with India or Pakistan.[212] However, a survey by the Chatham House in both Indian and Pakistani administered Kashmir found that support of independence was at 43% and 44% respectively.[213] The 2005 Kashmir earthquake, which killed over 80,000 people, led to India and Pakistan finalising negotiations for the opening of a road for disaster relief through Kashmir. Efforts to end the crisis The 9/11 attacks on the United States resulted in the US government wanting to restrain militancy in the world, including Pakistan. They urged Islamabad to cease infiltrations, which continue to this day, by Islamist militants into Indian-administered Kashmir. In December 2001, a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament linked to Pakistan, resulted in war threats, massive deployment, and international fears of a nuclear war in the subcontinent. After intensive diplomatic efforts by other countries, India and Pakistan began to withdraw troops from the international border on 10 June 2002, and negotiations began again.[citation needed] Effective 26 November 2003, India and Pakistan agreed to maintain a ceasefire along the undisputed international border, the disputed Line of Control, andActual Ground Position Line near Siachen glacier. This is the first such "total ceasefire" declared by both powers in nearly 15 years. In February 2004, Pakistan increased pressure on Pakistanis fighting in Indianadministered Kashmir to adhere to the ceasefire. The neighbours launched several other mutual confidence-building measures. Restarting the bus service between the Indian- and Pakistani- administered Kashmir has helped defuse the tensions between the countries. Both India and Pakistan have decided to co-operate on economic fronts. In 2005, Gen. Musharraf as well as other Pakistani sought to resolve the Kashmir issue through the Chenab Formula road map. Based on the 'Dixon Plan', the Chenab Formula assigns Ladakh to India, Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) to Pakistan; proposes plebiscite in the Kashmir Valley and splits Jammu into two-halves.[214] On 5 December 2006, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told an Indian TV channel that Pakistan would give up its claim on Kashmir if India accepted some of his peace proposals, including a phased withdrawal of troops, self-governance for locals, no changes in the borders of Kashmir, and a joint supervision mechanism involving India, Pakistan, and Kashmir.[215] Musharraf stated that he was ready to give up the United Nations' resolutions regarding Kashmir.[216] 2008 militant attacks In the week of 10 March 2008, 17 people were wounded when a blast hit the region's only highway overpass located near the Civil Secretariatthe seat of government of Indian-controlled Kashmirand the region's high court. A gun battle between security forces and militants fighting against Indian rule left five people dead and two others injured on 23 March 2008. The battle began when security forces raided a house on the outskirts of the capital city of Srinagar, housing militants. The Indian Army has been carrying out cordon-and-search operations against militants in Indian-administered Kashmir since the violence broke out in 1989. While the authorities say 43,000 persons have been killed in the violence, various rights groups and non-governmental organisations have put the figure at twice that number.[217] According to the Government of India Home Ministry, 2008 was the year with the lowest civilian casualties in 20 years, with 89 deaths, compared to a high of 1,413 in 1996.[218] 85 security personnel died in 2008 compared to 613 in 2001, while 102 militants were killed. The human rights situation improved, with only one custodial death, and no custodial disappearances. Many analysts say Pakistan's preoccupation with jihadis within its own borders explains the relative calm.[219] 2008 Kashmir protests Main article: Amarnath land transfer controversy

Massive demonstrations occurred after plans by the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir state government to transfer 100 acres (0.40 km2) of land to a trust which runs the Hindu Amarnath shrine in the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley.[220] This land was to be used to build a shelter to house Hindu pilgrims temporarily during their annual pilgrimage to the Amarnath temple. Indian security forces and the Indian army responded quickly to keep order. More than 40 unarmed protesters were killed[221][222] and at least 300 were detained.[223] The largest protests saw more than a half million people waving Pakistani flags and crying for freedom at a rally on 18 August, according to Time magazine.[224] Pro-independence Kashmir leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq warned that the peaceful uprising could lead to an upsurge in violence if India's heavy-handed crackdown on protests was not restrained.[225] The United Nations expressed concern on India's response to peaceful protests and urged investigations be launched against Indian security personnel who had taken part in the crackdown.[49] Separatists and workers of a political party were believed to be behind stone-pelting incidents, which led to retaliatory fire by the police.[226][227] An autorickshaw laden with stones meant for distribution was seized by the police in March 2009. Following the unrest in 2008, secessionist movements got a boost.[228][229] 2008 Kashmir elections Main article: Jammu and Kashmir state assembly elections, 2008 State elections were held in Indian-held Kashmir in seven phases, starting 17 November and finishing on 24 December 2008. In spite of calls by separatists for a boycott, an unusually high turnout of almost 50% was recorded.[230] The National Conference party, which was founded by Sheikh Abdullah and is regarded as pro-India, emerged with a majority of the seats.[231] On 30 December, the Congress Party and the National Conference agreed to form a coalition government, with Omar Abdullah as Chief Minister.[232] On 5 January 2009, Abdullah was sworn in as the eleventh Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.[233] In March 2009, Abdullah stated that only 800 militants were active in the state and out of these only 30% were Kashmiris.[234] 2009 Kashmir protests In 2009, protests started over the alleged rape and murder of two young women in Shopian in South Kashmir. Suspicion pointed towards the police as the perpetrators. A judicial enquiry by a retired High Court confirmed the suspicion, but a CBI enquiry reversed their conclusion. It gave a fresh impetus to the popular agitation against India. Significantly, the unity between the separatist parties was lacking this time.[235] 2010 Kashmir Unrest Main article: 2010 Kashmir Unrest

Stone pelters in Srinagar, November 2010 The 2010 Kashmir unrest were series of protests in the Muslim majority Kashmir Valley in Jammu & Kashmir which started in June 2010. These protests occurred in 'Quit Jammu Kashmir Movement' launched by Hurriyat Conference led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who had called for the complete demilitarisation of Jammu and Kashmir. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference made this call to protest, citing human rights abuses by Indian troops.[236][not specific enough to verify] Chief Minister Omar Abdullah attributed the 2010 unrest to the fake encounter staged by the military in Machil. Protesters shouting pro-independence slogans, defied curfew, attacked security forces with stones and burnt police vehicles and government buildings.[237][238] The Jammu and Kashmir Police and Indian Para-military forces fired live ammunition on the protesters, resulting in 112 deaths, including many teenagers. The protests subsided after the Indian government announced a package of measures aimed at defusing the tensions in September 2010.[239] US President Obama on the conflict In an interview with Joe Klein of Time magazine in October 2008, Barack Obama expressed his intention to try to work with India and Pakistan to resolve the crisis.[240] He said he had talked to Bill Clinton about it, as Clinton has experience being a mediator. In an editorial in The Washington Times, Selig S Harrison,[241] director of the Asia Programme at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International, called it Obama's first foreign policy mistake.[242] In an editorial, The Australian called Obama's idea to appoint a presidential negotiator "a very stupid and dangerous move indeed".[243] In an editorial in Forbes,Reihan Salam, associate editor for The Atlantic, noted "The smartest thing President Obama could do on Kashmir is probably nothing. We have to hope that India and Pakistan can work out their differences on Kashmir on their own".[244] The Boston Globe called the idea of appointing Bill Clinton as an envoy to Kashmir "a mistake".[245] President Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.[246] President Asif Ali Zardari hoped that Holbrooke would help mediate to resolve the Kashmir issue.[247] Subsequently Kashmir was removed from the mandate of Holbrooke.[248] "Eliminating ... Kashmir from his job description ... is seen as a significant diplomatic concession to India that reflects increasingly warm ties between the country and the United States," The Washington Post noted in a report.[249] Brajesh Mishra, India's former national security adviser, was quoted in the same report as saying that "No matter what government is in place, India is not going to relinquish control of Jammu and Kashmir". "That is written in stone and cannot be changed."[250] According to The Financial Times, India has warned Obama that he risks "barking up the wrong tree" if he seeks to broker a settlement between Pakistan and India over Kashmir.[251] In July 2009, US Assistant Secretary of State Robert O. Blake, Jr. stated that the United States had no plans of appointing any special envoy to settle the dispute, calling it an issue which needs to be sorted out bilaterally by India and Pakistan.[252] According to Dawn this will be interpreted in Pakistan as an endorsement of India's position on Kashmir that no outside power has any role in this dispute. [253]

Causes ofTerrorism By Nick Grothaus

In our Types of Terrorism post we laid out the different kinds of terrorism that exist. Here we discuss the causes of terrorism, or more specifically, why people become terrorists. In order to combat terrorism, we must first understand the drivers of terrorism. Identifying these drivers allows policy makers to target terrorism at its root causes rather than fight those who have already become radicalized. The causes of terrorism have been under much debate. There is evidence for and against every reason on this list however, more often than not, it is a combination of several that lead to terrorism. Below are the most common causes cited by leaders in the counterterrorism field. Causes ofTerrorism Ethno-nationalism The desire of a population to break away from a government or ruling power and create a state of their own can cause the formation of terrorist groups. In the 20th century this was seen often times with regions or states attempting to gain independence from their colonial era masters. However, as Bruce Hoffman points out inInside Terrorism, ethno-nationalist terrorism had been around decades before even the First World War. Perhaps the most notable of these groups, formed before and after WWII and inspired by the weakening of imperial powers, was the Jewish Irgun Avai Leumi who fought British rule in Palestine so as to attain the creation of a Jewish state. Today Hamas is one of the most active ethno-nationalist driven groups carrying out suicide bombings and attacks against the state of Israel with the goal of creating a Palestinian state. Chechen terrorist organizations are also ethno-nationalists for their attacks against the government and people of Russia in the attempt to form their own state. Within many countries around the globe minority groups exist wishing to garner some form of independence, if not their own state altogether. Therefore ethno-nationalism will continue to be a significant source of terrorism. It is important to recognize this and counter it with more politically inclusive processes that can mitigate the grievances of minority groups, though some will inevitably continue to employ terrorism until they achieve their desired independent nation. Alienation/Discrimination Several authors on terrorism have pointed to a sense of alienation felt by diasporas, particularly those living in Europe as a driver of terrorism. Many times these groups face discrimination in the countries they reside, leading to further feelings of isolation. They commonly move from poorer countries, particularly Muslim states in the case of Europe, to wealthier ones to go to school or find work. As Marc Sageman discusses in his bookUnderstanding Terror Networks, once in these countries they begin to feel alienated. The new host nation is substantially different than their own culture, and is usually much less community oriented. This causes alienated individuals to seek out communities with cultures like their home countries or others like themselves. These groups may become jaded towards society around them as they dont fit in and feel excluded. Growing sentiments of discrimination can lead groups to look to more conservative, and eventually, extremist ideologies. The Hamburg Cell, consisting of two of the pilots in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is a perfect example of this. The cell included a number of expatriate Muslims studying in Germany who sought out other conservative Muslims to band together when they felt homesick in a Western society that was alien to them. This started them down the trail of radicalization as they became more jaded with the world around them. Robert Leiken also discusses this phenomenon in his paper Europes Angry Muslims. Leiken points to both outsiders, Muslims who immigrated in order to study or seek asylum, and insiders, second or third generation Muslims in Europe. These groups are subjected to discriminatory social policies, such as the headscarf law in France, that then cause them to become radicalized. The problem here, particularly in the case of Europe, is that many of these expatriates who become radicalized due to alienation from being in a foreign society also hold European passports and thus can travel within Europe with increased ease, as well as enter the U.S. much easier than non-Europeans. Therefore they pose not only a threat to Europe, but also to the United States. Religion Perhaps the most commonly held belief today is that terrorism is caused by religion. Though it is not the main cause for terrorism, religion does play a significant role in driving some forms of it. As Hoffman points out inInside Terrorism, from the Thugs of ancient India that killed to terrorize in the name of the god Kali to the Jewish Zealots who cut the throats of Romans in public to combat their occupation of Israel, religion (in conjunction with political/ethno-nationalist drivers) has long been a factor of terrorism. Today religion as a part of terrorism has been mainly attributed to Islamic fundamentalism (though other examples, such as the Aum Shinrikyo cult that carried out the 1995 sarin gas attacks in Tokyo, also exist). As Sageman describes: The global Salafi jihad is a world wide religious revivalist movement with the goal of reestablishing past Muslim glory in a great Islamist state stretching from Morocco to the Philippines, eliminating present national boundaries.

As a driver of terrorism, the true danger that religious doctrine poses is its encouragement of attacks that are more violent in nature than other types of terrorism. By being promised rewards in the afterlife, terrorists are more likely to carry out suicide bombings and other such all in tactics that are harder to defend against. Socio-Economic Status Terrorists may also be driven by a sense of relative depravation and lack of upward mobility within society. Globalization and the modern media have given the have nots an acute awareness of their situation compared to the haves. As Omer Taspinar states in Fighting Radicalism, Not Terrorism, Globalization creates an acute awareness about opportunities available elsewhere. This leads to frustration, victimization, and humiliation among growing cohorts of urbanized, undereducated, and unemployed Muslim youth who are able to make comparisons across countries. Seeing the economic differences between themselves and the Western world can infuriate some in underdeveloped countries, increasing tension and hostilities. This allows terrorist organizations to gain attention and entry to societies that have felt wronged by these perceived social injustices. Unfortunately the only real way to mitigate this is through economic development of the community, country, and region, but that takes time. For the foreseeable future there will always be those that are disgruntled by the comparison of living standards of the wealthy around the world versus their own, opening the doors to frustration and anger. Thus, this driver is remarkably hard to combat as globalization allows for more mechanisms of comparison between varying global socio-economic levels. Political Grievances A lack of political inclusiveness in states or grievances against a certain political order may cause individuals to join or create terrorist groups. Left and right wing terrorists often seek to a political system. As well, many in nations with authoritarian regimes lack avenues for dissent. Frustrated expressions of political will can turn to violence as an alternative to exclusive political systems. While somewhat similar to ethnonationalist/separatist causes, these political grievances are not born from the desire to create a new state but to change the order within the current one. In his piece, Taspinar describes this as a political dimension to relative depravation. In this light he sees political Islam as a reaction to such oppressive governments and its Western supporters. With the knowledge that other people around the world live in representative governments, the anger only grows among those who live without such political representation, leading disillusioned individuals into the arms of terrorism. The implication here is that Western governments, in their support of repressive authoritarian regimes for their own national interest, have essentially made themselves targets of terrorism of an angered populace within these regimes, acting out violently as the only alternative to political expression. TheAccidental Guerrilla Finally, there is the theory put forth about the accidental guerrilla by David Kilcullen. Kilcullen describes it as such: A terrorist organization moves into an area with poor government or that is conflict ridden (he uses Al Qaeda specifically), then uses this safe haven to spread their ideologies to other areas and as a base to carry out violent acts. When outside forces then intervene to deal with the threat posed to them by this group, this causes the local population to reject the foreign invaders and ally with the terrorist group, thus creating more terrorists and popular support for terrorist movements. The cases of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq to counter Al Qaeda are the obvious examples here. This theory poses strong questions about the viability of direct intervention in pursuit of terrorist groups by Western countries, and whether it causes more harm than good. Further Readings: While the information here gives a useful overview of the causes of terrorism, there is a large amount of literature out there regarding terrorism and its causes. The following are some good books and essays for further reading