Written by Shobhana AhluwaliaRecently the foreign minister of Pakistan, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari brought up the controversial issue of Kashmir in a UN Security Council debate devoted to the empowerment of women on the eve of International Womens Day. India responded by castigating Pakistan for bringing up an essentially bilateral issue at an international forum. Indias Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj slammed Zardari for remarks that were “baseless and politically motivated,” as reported by the Times of India on March 8, 2023.Determining the justification for Ambassador Kambojs statement requires us to delve into the history of the conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. The conflict began in 1947 with the partition of India into two smaller nations. Whilst the population of Jammu and Kashmir was 70% Muslim, the ruler of the princely state being Hindu, Kashmir sought to become a part of the fledgling Indian nation. (Source: Wikipedia). On account of this dichotomy, Kashmir became a bone of contention between India and Pakistan and has been ever since.The unresolved issue of Kashmir has been the cause of three bitterly fought wars between India and Pakistan. In 1947 the maharaja of Kashmirs choice to make his state an integral part of India was unacceptable to Pakistan and led to an open war between the two rival nations. Hostilities ended only through an UN-mediated ceasefire establishing a Line of Control between India and Pakistan in Kashmir. However, a second war was fought between India and Pakistan in 1965 and a third in 1971 which ended with the Shimla Agreement recognising the Line of Control between the two sides.With the division of Kashmir in the aftermath of the wars, India today controls one-half of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir including Kashmir Valley, while Pakistan controls one-third of the region which includes Azad Kashmir. The administration of Kashmir has proved difficult for India since the local Muslim population is hostile towards the Indian Army and there are often violent clashes between the Kashmiri youth and the security forces.The administration of Kashmir was facilitated by the introduction of Article 370 which confers special status to Jammu and Kashmir and allows it a certain degree of autonomy, including the right to enact laws for its residents. In 2019, however, Article 370 was abrogated and the special status allotted to Kashmir was revoked by the Indian government. The steps taken by the authorities at the time of revocation such as taking into custody top political leaders to prevent violence were perceived as draconian measures and only served to increase the unpopularity of the Indian government among the people of Kashmir. In fact, this resulted in Pakistan, ever vigilant on Kashmir, accusing India of human rights abuses and the violation of the rights of the Kashmiri people.Any discussion of the administration of Kashmir by India would be incomplete without mention of the AFSPA or the Armed Forces Special Powers Act with relation to Kashmir. This act currently applicable to the whole of Kashmir was promulgated in 1990 and allows the Indian army extraordinary powers in disturbed regions such as the right to arrest without warrant thus making the Indian government even more of a foreign invading power in the eyes of the local people. Perceived human rights violations in connection with the AFSPA has also led the Pakistani government to cry wolf on many occasions and deepened the rift between the two countries on the Kashmir question.Pakistan has consistently used public forums to criticize and castigate the Indian government for its handling of the Kashmir issue and the treatment it has meted out to the people of Kashmir. The UN has been the major such international forum. However, since 1972 the UN has stopped passing resolutions on the Kashmir question taking into account Indias sensitivity on this issue and her preference that it be resolved through bilateral means.Source: WikipediaThe views written are those of the author and the publisher may or may not necessarily agree with them.
