abrogation of articles 370 & 35a of the indian constitution ... · in this paper, pakistani...

ISSN 2309-0081 Alam, Bhatti & Awan (2020)

9

I

www.irss.academyirmbr.com August 2020

International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 8 Issue.8

R S S

Abrogation of Articles 370 & 35A of the Indian Constitution:

Implications for Peace in South Asia

SUGHRA ALAM M. Phil Scholar, Department of Politics and IR, University of Sargodha- Pakistan.

Email: [email protected]

Dr. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI Associate Professor / Chairman, Department of Politics & IR, University of Sargodha- Pakistan.

Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Dr. MUHAMMAD WARIS AWAN Assistant Professor, Department of History and Pakistan Studies, GCU Faisalabad-Pakistan

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The state of Jammu and Kashmir has been the root cause of confrontation between India and Pakistan

since 1947. Both the countries, now nuclear powers, have already fought wars in 1948, 1965, and 1971 as

well as faced Kargil Conflict in 1999 on Kashmir problem. Violating the UN Security Council’s resolutions

and Shimla Agreement, India has now annexed its occupied area of Jammu and Kashmir on 5th August

2019 by abrogating article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution. Without keeping in mind sensitivities

attached to this critical issue, Indian unilateral action has aggravated an already tense environment in

South Asia. If the Kashmir problem is not addressed timely, it may initiate another war between the nuclear

rival countries Pakistan and India and this would not only destabilize the region but also spiral up to the

world.

Keywords: Kashmir Dispute, Annexation, Lockdown, Freedom Movement, Nuclear War Threat.

Introduction

The relationship between Pakistan and Indian had been strained and bitter since their inception due to the

Kashmir conflict. They fought three wars and their armed forces remained in stand-off positions on many

times because of new developments appearing from the unsolved problem of Kashmir. In early years the

UN took active part to solve the burning issue but the problem remained unsolved despite UNSC

resolutions asking for a plebiscite to determine the will of the people of Kashmir about joining with

Pakistan or India. Consequently, the situation of South Asia has been inconsistent changing from tense to

hostile. Later on, it converted into a destructive one not only for the region but for the whole world when

both rivals acquired the capabilities of nuclear arms in 1998.

When Modi government came in power in New Delhi, it aggravated already worse situation by revoking

Indian constitutional articles 370 and 35A on 5th

August 2019. India has unilaterally changed the status of

Kashmir and also converted its temporary boundaries with Pakistan and China into its international borders

defying all the UN resolutions and bilateral arrangements. In this paper, implications on peace and security

of the region would be analyzed based on immediate responses of Islamabad and Beijing on abrogation of

article 370 keeping in view the historical perspective, such as the emergence of Kashmir issue, the role of

the UN, the main root cause of confrontation in the region. In last part of the paper, the implications of this

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


10

I



R S S

an arbitrary and unilateral Indian step is discussed in detail to conclude about the evolving situation of the

region and expected threat in South East Asia as well as in the world.

The Genesis of Kashmir Problem

The State of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) was established in the result of the Treaty of Amritsar signed on 16th

March 1846 as an autonomous state under the British Raj (Hayat, 2020: 57). Then, according to the Indian

Independence Act of 1947, all princely states including the state of J&K became independent on 15th

of

August 1947 and those had the choice to join one of the two dominions of Pakistan and India or to decide to

remain independent (Hasan, 1966). However, the choice was to be used preferably keeping into

consideration the demography and geographical location of the state (Feeley, 2000).

At that time the Muslims were aggregately 77 per cent of the total population of J&K which were desirous

of joining Pakistan but the Hindu Maharaja Hari Sing was applying delaying tactics with the connivance of

New Delhi and was trying to find an appropriate time for joining India (The Pakistan Times, Sep 27, 1947),

as some events clearly showed preconceived designs of Maharaja and Indian government. For example,

Gandhi‟s special visit to Srinagar on 1st August 1947, (Korbel, 1966: 60), and the objectionable Radcliffe

Award, about which Lord Birdwood (1956: 74) claimed that if the whole the Muslim majority district of

Gurdaspur had been included in Pakistan, the position of Indian forces would have been unsafe which were

sent to J&K for its occupation. Even M. C. Mahajan (1963: 116), the former prime minister of J&K once

conceded that if those tehsils had been allotted to Pakistan, there would have been no link road between

J&K and India. The state would be encircled in the Pakistani area and its accession to India would have

been impossible. He further wrote that before 15th

August, Maharaja preferred to keep the state

independent. However, later on, he changed his opinion in favour of accession with India (Mahajan, 1963:

142-143). Former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Ch. Muhammad Ali (1973: 265) describes that whatever

alteration was made in the boundary map; happened between the two dates, 8th

and 12th

August 1947.

Meanwhile, Despite Maharaja‟s Standstill Agreement with Pakistan, both India and Pakistan were trying

for the accession of Kashmir through various means (Snedden, 2012: 12). On the other hand, Maharaja‟s

forces alongwith Sikh forces began their operation to silenced the Muslim voice (Bazaz, 1954: 325). In the

reaction of those atrocities, the Muslims of Punch and Mirpur started resistance movement on 8th

August

1947, against the Dogra Raj, as their forefathers had struggled against the autocratic rule of the state in the

1930s (Snedden, 2012: 30). Soon 60,000 ex-soldiers joined the resistance movement namely Poonch

rebellion (Singh, 1974: 13). So it is a fact that the conflict was triggered by domestic resistance contrary to

the Indian version of external intervention (Snedden, 2012: 77). During that rebellion, forces of the state

started the massacre of the Muslims attacking freedom fighters (Birdwood, 1956: 50). Almost five million

Muslims were removed up from the state either murdering them ruthlessly or mostly being pushed out of

J&K to western Punjab (Stephens, 1963: 200).

After that massacre Afridi and Mahsood Tribesmen entered J&K on 22nd

October 1947 to save their

Kashmiri brothers from annihilation., the freedom fighters announced an independent Government namely

Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) on 24th

October 1947 after liberating some territories. Seeing the retreat of

his forces, Maharaja required help from the Indian Government. Consequently, he signed a controversial

document on 26th

October 1947. It was no decision but manoeuvring and „a last vacillation‟ as mentioned

by Korbel, a member of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) (Korbel, 1966).

On 27th

October 1947, Mountbatten accepted the letter of accession subject to the will of the people. To

camouflage the real design and violation of the principles of partition, the Indian Government made a

promise to pacify the people of Kashmir as well as the Government of Pakistan (Korbel, 1966: 71). Prime

Minister Jawaharlal Nehru sent a telegram to Liaquat Ali Khan, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, which

says that the accession of J&K must be decided by the wishes of people of the state (Hasan, 1966: 104). On

30th

October 1947, the Government of Pakistan declared the accession to India a fraudulent which was

against the will of the people of Kashmir and declared that Pakistan would never recognize the Instrument


11

I



R S S

of Accession (Burke & Ziring, 1990: 27). Some of the writers were of the view that the accession was

permanent and final (Khan A., 1994) but others declared it temporary and conditional (Bose, 1997: 27).

In this paper, Pakistani administered area is referred to as AJK, Indian held areas as IHK, while the term

J&K or Kashmir is herewith used for the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir comprising of Dogra Raj area.

Kashmir Dispute and United Nations Resolutions

The armed struggle within J&K ultimately turned into a war between India and Pakistan. Realizing its

defeat, India rushed to the UN Security Council (UNSC) and requested for a ceasefire on 1st January 1948

invoking article 35 of chapter VI (relating to a peaceful settlement of disputes) of the UN charter. After

discussing the situation, UNSC passed Resolution no. 39 on 20th

January 1948, under which UNCIP was

established for facts finding and Resolution no. 47 on 21st April 1948, was adopted advising both parties

that tribesmen and Indian troops should be withdrawn from J&K, an interim government should be formed

and peace should be restored with the help of UNCIP in J&K for a free and fair plebiscite.

On 13th

August 1948, a comprehensive resolution for the enforcement of a ceasefire and holding a free and

fair plebiscite was passed. Another UNSC resolution was adopted on 5th

January 1949 under which

nomination of plebiscite administrator was made. Despite making ceasefire and subsequently, establishing

a ceasefire line on 27th

July 1949, withdrawal of armed forces never took place owing to one excuse or the

other on the part of India (Howley, 1991). When UNCIP reported its failure to the UNSC, the council

appointed Sir Owen Dixon and then De Frank Graham as a UN representative for the solution of the

Kashmir dispute but they also failed to achieve the goal.

India’s Manoeuvering and UN Response

When India could not get a favourable decision from the UN, it incorporated the Indian occupied territory

(IHK) into its Constitution, openly violating the resolutions of the UNSC, by introducing Article 370

(projecting special status of IHK) of the Indian Constitution. Though special status awarded by article 370

was diluted through 47 Presidential Orders yet it successfully protected the identity of Kashmiris (Noorani,

2014: 46). When the Constitutional Assembly of IHK was convened in 1951 to formulate the constitution

for the state, UNSC instantly adopted resolution 91of 1951, clarifying the fact that no such action or a body

could determine the future of people of J&K instead of the plebiscite conducted by UN. Similarly, when the

Assembly ratified the affiliation of the state with India, the Security Council declared the action

unacceptable through its Resolution 122 of 1957. The UNSC resolutions particularly those of 91 and 122

are very much clear that such participation or representation could not be considered as a substitute for a

UN conducted plebiscite. It is noteworthy that the Assembly of IHK was dissolved in January 1957 (Bose,

2009: 166).

Kashmir Issue as a Bone of Contention

The UNO remained unable to solve Kashmir crises in subsequent years mainly due to rivalries of cold war

age (Schlesinger, 2002: 482). Once again border clashes between India and Pakistan started (Ganguly,

1997: 08) and in the wake of Operation Gibraltar in Kashmir initiated by Pakistan (Bamzai, 1994: 834), the

2nd war between Pakistan and India started on 6th

September 1965, which was fought over the Kashmir

issue. The war was also stopped under the auspices of the UN through Tashkent Declaration (1966).

Having an old animosity, India raised an armed rebellion in East Pakistan by supporting Mukti Bahini

during political chaos in Pakistan, as PM Modi had officially admitted (The News, June 8, 2015).

Afterwards, with the connivance of the USSR, it attacked Pakistan in 1971, resultantly Pakistan had to face

a great tragedy on 16th

December 1971, by losing its one wing, East Pakistan (Salik, 1977). After that war,

the Simla Agreement was concluded on 2nd

July 1972, under which it was accorded that mutual conflicts

would be resolved through bilateralism observing the UN Charter (Sattar, 2020) and a Line of Control

(LOC) as the de facto border was demarcated (Khan F., 2001: 376).


12

I



R S S

Though India has acquired nuclear capability in 1974 (Khan F., 2001, p. 367), it conducted Nuclear Tests

on 11th

and 13th

May 1998. In response, Pakistan had to show its cards, testing five devices on 28th

May,

and one device on 30th

May 1998. In this way, the score was settled to keep India in its limits (Sattar, 2020:

237). The lingering Kashmir conflict between Pakistan and India turned to its precarious stage after

explosions of 1998 (Ataov, 2001). After those explosions, UNSC asked both countries to refrain from

further tests and to find solutions to mutual conflicts including Kashmir that was the root cause of such

tensions by its resolution 1172 of 6th

June 1998. (Sattar, 2020: 241).

Then an armed clash occurred on the heights of Kargil in May 1999 which was defused by the intervention

of the US (Ataov, 2001). Similarly, on the happening of every event of sabotage such as the Indian

Parliament attack of 2001(The Hindu, December 17, 2001), Mumbai terror attacks of 2008, etc New Delhi

blamed Pakistan and built up a threatening military stand-off despite Islamabad‟s denial and condemnation

of such acts. After the Pulwama terrorist incident of February 2019, India again blamed Pakistan for the

planning of attack without any proper evidence. Indian Air Force attacked and dropped bombs at Balakot in

Pakistan claiming to destroy an alleged militant camp. In response, Pakistan Air Force hit some targets in

IHK and shut down two Indian fighter jets near the LoC on 28th

February 2019. Again the armed forces of

both countries remained high alert for some time, and the region was on the brink of nuclear war. Major

Powers and the Muslim countries have to come forward to de-escalate the situation (Sattar, 2020: 326).

Thus it is evident that because of the Kashmir dispute, Indo-Pak hostile relations always reached at the

brink of war, after each tragic event. Moreover, the bilateral efforts like Agra Summit etc. always remained

unsuccessful in this regard. (Ahmed, 2010).

Besides Indian confrontation with Pakistan, its relationship with China remained also tense because their

mutual boundary passing through Ladakh valley of J&K is not properly demarcated. From 1959 India

started construction of its military posts in China‟s area ignoring all the warnings of Beijing against

Nehru‟s Forward Policy. At last, China attacked India on 20th October 1962 and advanced up to 160

Kilometre within a short time. After giving India a humiliating lesson, China unilaterally announced a

ceasefire and withdrew its forces (Lüthi, 2012).

The Kashmir Freedom Movement of the 1990s

In 1987, the people of IHK started Tehreek-e-Azadi (Freedom Movement) which gathered rapid momentum

due to fraud in state election (Misra, 2005). India blamed Pakistan for terrorism while Pakistan laid

accusations of human rights violations and state terrorism against India. A third view is that Pakistan

exploited the existing discontent of Kashmiris (Ganguly, 1997: 16). In response, India treated the uprising

with a heavy hand. Consequently, the Kashmiri youth of IHK turn to militancy. Kashmiri activists made

militant groups like Hizbul Mujahedeen, Al-Barq, and Al-Omar, etc. Most of the participants of the

uprising were young men belonging to various towns of IHK. They were unemployed and political

opponents of the National Congress during the election of 1987. When those educated lot of engineers,

doctors, and graduates of other professions could not get a proper job, they became despondent, became

alienated to the policies of the New Delhi government, and lastly turned to militancy (Schofield, 2010:

146).

For suppressing the unrest, Indian forces under the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) made

widespread human rights violations including extrajudicial killing, rape, and torture as an instrument of

creating terror (Bamzai, 1994: 154). Indian official‟s handout showed that 19,866 Kashmiris had been

killed in those years and the number of people who could be up to 2000 went disappeared since January

1990 (Annual Report Summaries, 1999). In the meantime, the leaders of some thirty political parties and

groups formed All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) in February 1993, which has always emphasized

on the right of self- determination of Kashmiris through political movement without involving in militancy

from its inception (Sattar, 2020: 201).


13

I



R S S

Modi Government and Situation in IHK

After coming into power, Prime Minister Modi took a hard stance on Kashmir's problem, ordering harsher

repression in IHK. During the BJP government, the Indian army‟s violation across the LoC by shelling

became a normal routine. Modi had amplified Hindu‟s hatred and rage against the Muslims and also

unleashed the reign of terror in the state of IHK. The Indian security forces blasted live ammunition into the

crowds killing innocent peoples and used pellet guns blinding school children who were simply going on

the roads (Chowdhary, 2014). Since the BJP led government came to power in 2014, more than100 attacks

of mob lynching have been made by RSS and BJP activists against the minorities especially the Muslims

across the country without any impunity. The Hindutva groups do so with often Police‟s complicity and

other authorities following the policy of Ghar Wapsi (reconversion to Hinduism). Rather than prosecuting

the killers, even victims are often arrested in these crimes (USCIRF, 2020).

The situation turned worse on the killing of a freedom movement activist Burhan Wani by Indian forces in

2017. Despite the implementation of draconian laws i.e., Ordinances of 1948; Political Safety Act 1978;

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987; Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1990; and

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002, the Indian government imposed curfew throughout the valley of IHK.

Over 100 peoples were killed and more than 17000 were injured by the armed forces‟ shooting. Hundreds

of civilians and students faced pellet-guns injuries and have lost their eyesight. (Sattar, 2020: 205). In

December 2018, former Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha conceded that India was suppressing

freedom movement by the use of brutal force in IHK (Sattar, 2020: 325). However, in its 1st term, Modi led

government could not implement complete agenda of its extremist alleys like RSS and behaved restraint

because it was a coalition government of NDA including Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Shiromani Akali Dal,

etc which were not willing to adopt Hindutva agenda, especially, construction of Ayudhia Ram Mandir, a

commitment to uniform civil code, and abrogation of article 370 (Vaishnav, 2019).

Abrogation of Article 370 on 5th August 2019

When Modi led government of BJP came in power with a sweeping majority in 2019, it immediately

started Hindutva agenda of RSS, and family of Sangh Privar (a group of Hindu right-wing associations). In

the early days of August, an immediate security clampdown was tightened in IHK, tourists were asked to

leave the valley at once, total communication blackout was imposed, all political leaders were put under

house arrest, and every type of public gathering was banned. An additional force of 38,000 soldiers was

sent in IHK to reinforce the security mechanisms which started arrests of youth (Al Jazeera, August 05,

2019). On 5th

August 2019, a presidential order C.O. 272 was issued surpassing all previous orders which

served two objectives. Firstly, it changed the procedure set out in section 3 of Article 370 to abrogate it.

According to the procedure given in section 3, the President could only abrogate the article after the

ratification of the Constituent Assembly of IHK, which does not more exist from its dissolution in 1957.

Even there was no legislative assembly of IHK because the state assembly was dissolved by the Governor

Satya Pal Malik on 21st November 2018, when Mehbooba Mufti‟s coalition partner BJP part ways on 19

th

June 2018, from her government in IHK. After then the state was being run under the Governor Raj (The

Dawn, November 22, 2018). Article 370 was almost considered permanent. It was even declared in the

verdicts of the Indian Supreme Court (Sampat Prakash vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr, 1968) and the

High Court of J&K (Ashok Kumar And Others vs President Of India And Others, 2015).

Article 370 provides special status to occupied IHK, through which the state had its constitution, separate

flag, and autonomy over state administration. Secondly, article 35A became automatically null and void by

surpassing previous constitutional (Application to IHK) order of 1954. Article 35A prevents non-Kashmiris

to purchase property in IHK and consequently saves the demographics of the state. With the abrogation of

35A, the Indian government intends to change the demographic ratio by settling outsiders in the state. Thus

a resolution regarding presidential order 272 got ratified on the same day by Indian Rajya Sabha (Upper

House of Parliament) and by the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) on the next day. Then another

presidential order C.O. 273 was issued by which the complete Indian Constitution was enforced in the state


14

I



R S S

of IHK in violation of Clause 5 and 7 of the Instrument of Accession and Article 3 of the Indian

Constitution as well as all UNSC resolutions. Because all such previous measures were declared ultra vires

by the verdicts of Indian courts, therefore, many petitions challenging the validity of the Order have also

been filed in Indian Supreme Court. These petitions are still pending in the court. However, for its legality,

there are divided opinions even in India as a constitutional expert Subhash C. Kashyap considers the

President Order 272 as a sound and legal one whereas another expert AG Noorani called it „an illegal

decision, akin to committing fraud‟ (Pandey, 2019). Not only the constitution experts like Jaideep Gupta,

Viplav Sharma, and a Journalist Arundat Ray, Rohan Venkatarama Krishnan, etc expressed reservation on

the procedure adopted for the bill, but several Indian political parties, intellectuals, and analysts are also not

in favour of this move. The Kashmiri politician voiced more aggressively against the unilateral action of

BJP. According to Mehbooba Mufti, it has pushed Kashmiris against the wall and Omar Abdullah says that

this decision has betrayed the Kashmiries. So it will give dangerous consequences (EFSAS, 2019).

Except for BJP like-minded personalities, many analysts think that the initiative for the annexation of IHK

by revoking article 370 and 35A is not for benefits of Kashmiris such as claimed by New Delhi but it is for

the supremacy of Hindus and suppression of Muslims, according to BJP's long-standing agenda (Fair,

2019). For example, Indian Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) enforced in December 2019 mainly

discriminates Muslims with other minority migrants, although secularism is a part of the Indian

Constitution (Kakkar, 2020). BJP likeminded authors considered that article 370 is an unjust law,

favouring only Muslim population in IHK, at the cost of Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist, etc. While other

experts think that annexation is a disastrous, as P. Chidambaram, a senior leader of Congress Party said in

Parliament session on 6th

August 2019, that it is a 'catastrophic step,' having serious consequences for the

future generations. Similarly, opposition leader Ghulam Nabbi Azad called the step a 'matter of shame' for

the centre (Pandey, 2019). A former Indian parliamentarian Brinda Karat says that the home of Kashmiris

has been broken forcefully. They are fearful and outraged. So they can't be integrated with India through

this coercive action of the Modi government (EFSAS, 2019).

Implications of the Abrogation of Article 370

Under the agenda of RSS, the ruling BJP‟s manifesto includes a vital point of integrating IHK into the

Indian Union by abrogating article 370 from the Constitution (BJP Manifesto, 2019: 12). SO, the BJP has

immediately enforced the point according to its manifesto projecting Hindu nationalist ideology, or

Hindutva (USCIRF, 2020). This racist attitude of the ruling party has multiple implications. First, there is a

fear of a new freedom movement that may lead to unprecedented violence whenever the prevailing

lockdown would be relaxed. Thus, the Indian action in Kashmir could backfire badly and New Delhi‟s

crackdown could bring the whole region spinning into instability (Kugelman, 2019). Second, Indian forces

may use lethal weapons to curb the insurgency and may go to genocide. Third, India would change the

demographic ratio in the state for the conversion of the Muslim majority into a minority which has long

been agenda of RSS. The BJP authorities have presently granted reportedly 25,000 domicile certificate of

IHK to non-Kashmiris under „Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Domicile Certificate (Procedure) 2020‟. By

this move, BJP's policy of turning the Muslim into a minority in IHK is quite evident (Dawn June 28,

2020). Fourth, India would propagate the Hindutva ideology with the help of RSS activists.

As former RAW head, A. S. Dulat shows his concern that how next-generation would face an existential

threat, Modi‟s rule poses to Kashmir, which is out to erase both its Muslim and Kashmiri character and

goes far beyond repealing of Article 370 (Noorani, 2020). Fifth, India will relegate Kashmiris to the level

of a third-grade citizen by denying them equal opportunities. Moreover, as an ultimate step for diverting

attention from internal matters, an exasperated India could start a war with Pakistan by accusing Pakistan of

its support for the Kashmiries freedom movement (Minhas, Ahmad, & Khan, 2019). If such confrontation

started between the two nuclear countries it will cross the thresh-hold of traditional weapons due to the

fascist mindset of India. Then it will not only devastate the region but also will spiral out up to the world.


15

I



R S S

As for as, Pakistan is concerned, it is a major stakeholder of the Kashmir issue. Thus, Pakistan has

immediately rejected the Indian unilateral step and announced that it would exercise all options to face

Indian aggression (The Economic Times, August 05, 2019). On 6th

August 2019, the National Assembly of

Pakistan adopted a resolution in which Indian annexation was rejected outrightly and the world powers

were urged to take notice of Indian violation of UNSC resolutions. Then Pakistan has downgraded

diplomatic mission with India. It has also banned bilateral trade and closed transport services. Prime

Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, mentioned the possibility of military confrontation between „two

nuclear-armed states‟ if the world community failed to intervene. While addressing the UN General

Assembly on 27th

September 2019, he raised the possibility of a bloodbath in IHK when current

lockdown would ultimately be lifted. He said there would be a reaction of Indian oppressive actions;

Pakistan would be accused of it; two nuclear-armed neighbours would come face to face as we came in

February 2019 after the Pulwama incident. (The Nation, September 28, 2019). Pakistani foreign office

held meetings with diplomats of big powers and that of friendly countries to inform them of the sensitivity

of the Kashmir crises. Pakistan has requested UNSC and Human Rights Council to establish a fact-finding

commission for Indian oppression in IHK. Describing the worsening situation on LoC about cross-border

shelling, Pakistani Foreign Offices stated that Indian army has committed 882 ceasefire violations in the

past four months of 2020, targeting innocent civilians in AJK. While India claimed that targets were gun

posts and launch pads to prevent the infiltrators. In response Pakistani Foreign Office outrightly rejected the

Indian claims as delusional and anti-Pakistan rhetoric, reaffirming the moral and diplomatic support of

Kashmiris for their self-determination according to UNSC resolutions (The Nation, April 29, 2020).

Pakistan has also asked the UN to ascertain the Indian false claim of so-called launch pads in AJK through

its military observers (The Dawn, May 04, 2020). The blame game of accusations and counter-accusations

as well as Indian aggressive acts and Pakistani counter-acts, is continuously going on. Pakistani

government has also approved a new political map showing IHK as its part, disputed territory - final status

to be decided in line with relevant UNSC resolutions on 4th

August 2020. This was done for asserting

Pakistani position and rejection of Indian claim on Kashmir through its new map. It is also a befitting

response to Indian map launched on 31st October 2019, showing Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan as its part

(The Dawn, August 05, 2020).

Besides Pakistan, China is a partner of the Kashmir dispute on the annexation of Ladakh of IHK, because

Beijing has also a claim on a part of the Ladakh Valley. That is why China has also announced the Indian

Act as unacceptable and void because it is damaging its territorial integrity and threatening its strategic

interests. On changing the status of the disputed area of Ladakh as well as a Line of Actual Control (LAC)

by abrogating article 370 on 5th August 2019, India started improving 255 Kilometer long Daulat Beg Oldie

road of military-operational significance and an airbase along the LAC, ignoring the warning of Beijing to

stop the construction work (BBC News, June 16, 2020). Then a new map of India showing the disputed area

of Ladakh and even Aksai Chin as the union territory of India compelled China for giving immediate

response to prevent illegal Indian measures. Consequently, China moved People‟s Liberation Army (PLA)

troops towards LAC, leading to a violent clash with Indian army personnel in the Pangong Tso region on 5th

May 2020, (The Times of India, June 6, 2020). Besides other skirmishes, on 15th

June 2020 again a more

violent clash occurred between two nuclear-armed countries in Galwan Valley, in which at least 20 Indian

soldiers were killed. China has accused Indian troops of attacking PLA personnel (The Global Times, June

17, 2020), the Indian side has rejected the Chinese claim. Though both sides are showing intentions of de-

escalation.and top military brass of India and China has met on 6th

June and 22nd

June 2020, to defuse the

situation (The Dawn, June 25, 2020), yet military stand-off is increasing towards higher level (BBC News

June 17, 2020). Army sources claim that PLA is present in “aggressive posturing” in Pangong Tso Lake,

Demchok, and Daulat Beg Oldi. In response, India has increased its military personnel presence in Ladakh,

Uttarakhand, Arunachal Pradesh, and north Sikkim (The Reuters, June 17, 2020). According to defence

analysts, the situation is extremely serious in an already disturbed region, as Shashank Joshi, the defence

editor at the Economist Magazine stated, „it is a watershed moment in the history of the two countries‟ (The

Dawn, June 17, 2020). Chinese military observers said that if an escalated, large scale military‟s conflict

were to happen it would be a war just like the war in 1962 (The Global Times, June 21, 2020). Another


16

I



R S S

considered opinion is that it would be more dangerous than the war of 1962 due to current age of advanced

warfare technology of electromagnetic spectrum.

Prime Minister Modi is now under pressure by the Hindu nationalists within the country and also is

depressed by the animosity of his all neighbouring countries, so he may go to any misadventure which

might worsen the regional peace and security. From current Sino-India stand-off, it has become crystal

clear that J&K conflict is not only a bilateral issue of India and Pakistan but it is a trilateral problem which

needs the attention of international community (Haider, 2020). Moreover, Pakistan, China and India are

nuclear powers. These countries have different claims on the geographical area of Kashmir. If confrontation

erupted among these countries they would initially try to remain below the nuclear threshold but there is a

chance of crossing the red line by any actor for its survival as Indian defence minister has already

announced that circumstances will decide to choose nuclear option (The Diplomat, August 18, 2019).

Ahmad (1998) while warning great powers after nuclear explosions say that Kashmir dispute and nuclear

issue are interlinked in Indo-Pak relations. The situation on LoC always remains tense; there is every

possibility of its escalating into a war between hostile neighbours which may assume nuclear shape at any

time as it is apparent from Indian aggressive attitude of Hindu nationalist leadership (Ahmad, 1998). Owing

to a tense environment in South Asia, each country will try to arm itself with modern missile technology,

anti-satellite weapons, and ballistic missile system. In this way, a new race of arms will begin which would

be dangerous for the region and the globe (Minhas, Ahmad, & Khan, 2019).

According to an Indian analyst, the conditions for military confrontation will ripen, if the situation in

Kashmir worsens and the impacts of Hindu nationalist policies especially the implementation of CAA

would be damaging to India. Pakistan's armed forces will attack when they think that India is weak and

lacks international support (Motwani, 2020). Another analysis says that the significant majority of

insurgents are not coming from Pakistan and they are, in fact, locals. Pakistan would like to assist

localized insurgency rather than it would operate from its territory; even then India might blame

Pakistan for the situation, on which it had no control. In this way, the dispute over the region will

continue to loom over Indo-Pak relations, raising the chances of confrontation between the two South

Asian nuclear powers (Worldview, 2020).

The Global Response on Abrogation of Article 370

Due to the active role of Beijing, UNSC held its closed-door session on the Kashmir issue but ended

showing its concerns without any official statement. Though the Kashmir conflict has attracted

international attention by the efforts of Pakistan yet world has not taken appropriate measures against India

on its continuous violations of human rights in IHK due to double standards of great powers and dominance

of economic interests over the international relations. Despite the lukewarm attitude of the world, Human

Rights Organizations, as well as Pakistani leadership and military, have shown his resolve to fight for the

inherent right of self-determination of Kashmiris (The News, September 06, 2019).

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) have already been

stating before the arbitrary Indian step of the annexation of IHK that continuing human rights violations

and abuses are inflicted on people in Kashmir. They have faced conflict for seven decades that has claimed

a huge number of lives. The report highlights a situation of chronic impunity for violations committed by

the Indian security forces (OHCHR, 2018). The OHCHR in its second report released on 08th

July 2019,

has noted serious human rights violations by the Indian forces with impunity in IHK and the commission

asked the Indian government to respect the right of self-determination of Kashmiris. India rejected the

report while Pakistan welcomed the report asking for clarifying its generalized remarks (Fareed, 2019).

Several reports of international bodies have been exposing Indian oppression in IHK since long despite

New Delhi‟s denial, but the current report of the United States Commission for International Religious

Freedom (USCIRF) has mentioned what was missing in other reports until now. It highlighted its concerns

about IHK autonomy, the present situation in IHK, discrimination with Muslims due to implementation of


17

I



R S S

Indian Citizenship Amendment Act, nation-wide violence with impunity against religious minorities under

the patronage of BJP led governments and national-level policies violating religious freedom based on BJP

parliamentary majority. The USCIRF has downgraded ranking of India for the liberty of religious

minorities placing it in the list of, „countries of particular concern‟ (CPC) in its report of 2020. The report

released on 28th April 2020 says that the religious liberty in India deteriorated in 2018 and „India took a

sharp downward turn in 2019‟. The commission suggested the U.S. government take strict action against

New Delhi. It also recommended imposing targeted sanctions against Indian agencies and officials like

Home Minister Amit Sha, under the US Act of „International Religious Freedom Act‟ (IRFA), (as visa of

Modi, then as chief minister of Gujarat, was cancelled in 2005 based on his involvement in 2002 riots

(USCIRF, 2020). The New York Times noted that the report is of a unique manner, in which India has been

ditched adding it to blacklist by exposing its tall claims of liberalism and secularism, (The New York Times,

April 28, 2020). However the Indian government spokesperson, Srivastava rejected the report denoting it

„biased and tendentious‟ (The Hindu, April 28, 2020).

The Indian government is still in a mode of denial without taking regard of a deteriorating situation in

Kashmir highlighted by international bodies and the media. Even contrary to all the reports, Modi‟s stance

is that the annexation of IHK was done for the elimination of corruption, nepotism, and male practices in

governance and for the development of the state (India Today, August 08, 2019). Most of the residents of

the state are against the initiative and they are entirely upset over the step. The world media is also showing

grave concerns contrary to the Indian media (Nisar, 2019). On the other hand, Indian suppression,

lockdown, communication blackout, and indiscriminate atrocities are going on during the spread COVID-

19 Pandemic in IHK (The Dawn, March 19, 2020). This unbearable situation can not prevail for an

unlimited time. At last, this suppression will back bounce and will badly affect regional and global peace.

Highlighting the fact, many European analysts warn that initially, a non-violent demonstration will surely

take place at the end of the current clampdown; the Indian forces will try to control the situation with high

handedness; consequently, most of Kashmiri youth will embrace radical ideology; and likely to join

terrorist groups. It is a serious threat that India may have to face in the coming days (EFSAS, 2019).

Though the US has established strategic relations with India yet it could not conceal its reservation over the

new development meant for the destabilization of South Asia. US State Department showed concerns over

illegal detentions and human rights violations in IHK and stressed upon both parties to maintain peace and

stability along the LoC (The Reuters, August 05, 2019). The US Congress has also raised questions such as,

whether Indian unilateral action will negatively affect regional stability. If so, what can Washington do? Or

how can she address the potential instability? Etc, (The New York Times, August 13, 2019). Similarly, UN

Secretary-General expressed grave concerns over lockdown and restrictions in IHK and asked all parties to

follow maximum restraints. He also clarified that still UN stance about the Kashmir is based on its Charter

and UNSC resolutions (Kronstadt, 2019: 11).

An American Think Tank, Foreign Policy (FP) Report issued on 29th

June 2020 describes that Sino-India

stand-off increases the possibility of Indo-Pak confrontation. Discussing current scenario of the region it

stated that in the aftermath of a clash with China, Modi's government is under pressure due to its poor

response to China, where it has already bitter memories of a short but tense dogfight with Pakistan. Indian

media and hawkish elements are asking Modi to show strength in a regional crisis. The report further

highlights that there is a sense of insecurity in the country especially in the absence of the US support.

Indian opposition is also criticizing BJP's Inability to fulfil nationalistic pledges at home besides other

things. In these circumstances, PM Modi is frustrated and could pick a fight with Pakistan which is India‟s

traditional enemy. He would choose confrontation with Pakistan to save his reputation and to camouflage

India‟s weaknesses (Fahd, 2020). The international media like New York Times, the Guardian, the

Economist, the Diplomat, and BBC News, etc verily urged the big powers to counter the Indian unilateral

action on Kashmir because it is not an Indian internal matter but it is an international dispute which can

destroy regional peace (EFSAS, 2019).


18

I



R S S

Conclusion

Pakistan and India share a critical history and bitter relationship mainly due to the Kashmir problem. There

have been warlike confrontations, border skirmishes, and three wars on Kashmir issue which remains a

bone of confrontation. The relationship of a third stalk holder of Kashmir, china has been somewhat similar

to India. With this disappointing and hostile relationship among the countries, South Asia has become a

dangerous region when India and Pakistan became nuclear states. Now, this part of the world has become

one of the most dangerous and volatile regions after the abrogation of article 370 and annexation of IHK

with India. The Kashmir problem has still not been resolved according to the UNSC resolutions because

New Delhi has been adopting hegemonic, an expansionist and aggressive posture in dealing with regional

issues including Kashmir problem. In the meantime, the world community is also ignoring its arbitrary and

repressive measures to gain economic benefits from the Indian markets, as the major powers have been

relegating international norms and also have been compromising on violations of basic human rights

especially the right of self-determination of Kashmiris since 1947. In this environment, where Indian

stubbornness on forced annexation of IHK persists, the indifference on the part of the world community and

inability of international organizations in solving the Kashmir issue remains the same. Kashmiris will not

sit idle to wait for any else. They will fight for their inherent rights as they have demonstrated in the last

seven decades.

As a brave and resilient nation, they will not surrender their nationhood under the suppression of Indian

forces. The people of IHK have already sacrificed thousands of their sons and have lost the chastity of

numerous daughters. Thus they will never sell their blood and honour to Indian Hindutva regime. Keeping

in mind, such a resolve of Kashmiris to stand against the atrocities and extremist policies of Modi‟s

government, there is a chance of violent response within IHK. This situation will create a chain reaction

involving neighbouring countries into armed confrontation. On the other hand, India has posed a direct

threat to the territorial integrity and national interests of China and Pakistan by changing status of the

disputed area of the Kashmir and converting its disputed boundary lines with China and Pakistan into

international borders. It has left no choice for the countries except safeguarding their interests at any cost.

Meanwhile, Sino-India military stand-off at LAC and Indo-Pak clashes in the shape of cross-border shelling

at LoC already exist. In such a tension-ridden region, the dream of regional peace without solving Kashmir

issue which is bone of contention will not come true.

To sum up, already ongoing clashes or a misadventure can flare up at any moment in a prevailing

environment of mistrust and hostility, turning into a full-fledged war between nuclear powers of South

Asia. Consequently, this confrontation may not only destabilize or destruct the region but also disturb the

whole world wrapping into its impacts.

References

Ahmad, I. (1998). Call from Chaghi and Pokhran: The New Nuclear Order. Islamabad: Institute of

Regional Studies.

Ahmed, I. (2010). India-Pakistan Relations Post-Mumbai Terrorist Attacks. Institute of South Asian Studies,

National University of Singapore , 1-7.

Ali, C. M. (1973). The Emergence of Pakistan. Lahore: Reserach Society of Pakistan.

Annual Report Summaries. (1999, June 16). Retrieved March 12, 2020, from Amnesty International:

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/148000/pol100031999en.pdf

Ashok Kumar And Others vs President Of India And Others , SWP No. 1290 OF 2014 (Jammu & Kashmir

High Court October 09, 2015).

Ataov, T. (2001). Kashmir and Neighbours: Tale, Terror, Truce. Famham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Bamzai, P. N. (1994). Culture and Political History of Kashmir. New Delhi: M .D. Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Bazaz, P. N. (1954). The History of Struggle for Freedom in Kashmir: Cultural and Political, from the

Earliest Times to the Present Day. New Delhi: Kashmir Publishing Company.


19

I



R S S

Behera, N. C. (2006). Demystifying Kashmir. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Birdwood, L. (1956). Two Nations and Kashmir. London: Robert Hale.

Bose, S. (1997). The Challenge in Kashmir : Democracy, Self-Determination and a Just Peace. New Delhi:

SAGE Publications Inc.

Bose, S. (2009). Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bose, S. (2009). Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Burke, S. M., & Ziring, L. (1990). Pakistan's Foreign Policy: An Historical Analysis 2nd Edition. Karachi:

Oxford University Press.

Burns, J. F. (2001, December 29). Pakistan moves against groups named by India. Retrieved March 13,

2020, from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/29/world/pakistan-moves-

against-groups-named-by-india.html

Chowdhary, R. (2014). Modi‟s roadmap for India‟s Kashmir and Pakistan policies. East Asia Forum , 1-7.

Dixit, J. N. (2002). India-Pakistan in War & Peace. London: Routledge.

Editorial, O. (2019, August 11). The Observer view on India’s aggression over Kashmir. Retrieved March

17, 2020, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/11/observer-

view-on-kashmir-india-pakistan

Editorial, O. (2019, August 11). The Observer view on India‟s aggression over Kashmir. The Guardian .

London, London, UK: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/11/observer-view-on-

kashmir-india-pakistan.

EFSAS. (2019, August 09). India revoking the Special Status of J & K - Betrayal of history. Retrieved

March 17, 2020, from European Fondation for South Asian Studies:

https://www.efsas.org/commentaries/the-betrayal-of-the-people-of-jammu-and-kashmir/

Fahd, H. (2020, June 29). After India’s Skirmish With China, Is Pakistan Next? Retrieved July 13, 2020,

from Foreign Policy (FP): https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/29/india-skirmish-china-modi-pick-fight-

pakistan/

Fair, C. C. (2019). India’s Move in Kashmir: Unpacking the Domestic and International Motivations and

Implications. Washington D.C.: Lawfare Institute in Cooperation With BROOKINGS .

Fareed, R. (2019, July 08). UN report on Kashmir calls for probe into human rights violations. Retrieved

April 16, 2020, from Aljazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/report-kashmir-calls-probe-

human-rights-violations-190708155531803.html

Feeley, M. L. (2000). Apocalypse Now? Resolving India's and Pakistan's Testing Crisis. 23 Suffolk

Transnat'l L. Rev. 777 (1999-2000) , 13-27.

Ganguly, S. (1997). The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace. London: Cambridge

University Press.

Haider, E. (2020, June 28). China Vs India: Geopolitics of a clash. Dawn EOS . Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan:

Pakistan Herald Publications(Pvt) Ltd, Gulberg-II, Lahore.

Hasan, K. S. (1966). Documents on the Foreign Relations of Pakistan: The Kashmir Question. Karachi:

Pakistan Institute of International Relations.

Hayat, J. (2020). Azad Jammu & Kashmir: Politics, Polity and Power Sharing. Karachi: Oxford University

Press.

Howley, J. D. (1991). Alive and Kicking: The Kashmir Dispute Forty Years Later. Dickinson Journal of

International Law , 9 (1), 87-120.

ICG. ( 2003). India, Pakistan: Kashmir - Learning from the Past. Islamabad: International Crisis Group.

Kakkar, J. M. (2020). India’s New Citizenship Law and its Anti-Secular Implications. Washington D.C.:

Lawfare Institute in Cooperation With BROOKINGS.

Khan, A. (1994). The Kashmir Dispute: A Plan for Regional Cooperation. Columbia Journal of

Transnational Law , 495-550.

Khan, F. (2001). Nuking Kashmir: Legal Implications of Nuclear Testing by Pakistan and India in the

Context of the Kashmir Dispute. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law , 29 (1), 361-

394.

Korbel, J. (1966). Danger in Kashmir. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Kronstadt, K. A. (2019). Kashmir: Background, Recent Developments, and U.S. Policy. Washington D.C.:

Congressional Research Service.


20

I



R S S

Kugelman, M. (2019). India’s Sudden Kashmir Move Could Backfire Badly. Washington, D.C.: Foreign

Policy Press.

Lamb, A. (1991). Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846-1990. Hertingfordbury: Roxford Books.

Lüthi, L. (2012). Sino-Indian Relations, 1954-1962. Eurasia Border Review , 93-119.

Mahajan, M. C. (1963). Looking Back. Mumbai: Asia Publishing House.

Minhas, D. A., Ahmad, D. B., & Khan, D. M. (2019). Seizing Kashmir's Identity: Implications for the

Global Peace and Stability. NDU Journal , 63-82.

Misra, A. (2005). The Problem of Kashmir and the Problem in Kashmir: Divergence Demands

Convergence. Strategic Analysis , 29 (1), 16-43.

Motwani, N. (2020, January 06). Anticipating Pakistan's next move in Kashmir. Retrieved April 17, 2020,

from War on Rocks: https://warontherocks.com/2020/01/anticipating-pakistans-next-move-in-kashmir/

Nisar, D. T. (2019). Kashmir and the abrogation of Article 370: Can peace be possible, or stalemate

continue to hamper India and Pakistan relations in future? SADF FOCUS , 45, 1-11.

Noorani, A. G. (2014). Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir. Karachi: Oxford

University Press.

Noorani, A. G. (2020, March 21). Farooq’s release. Retrieved April 14, 2020, from The Dawn:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1542590

OHCHR. (2018, June 14). First-ever UN human rights report on Kashmir calls for international inquiry

into multiple violations. Retrieved April 13, 2020, from Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights:

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23198%20

Pandey, G. (2019, August 06). Article 370: What happened with Kashmir and why it matters. Retrieved

March 17, 2020, from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49234708

Salik, S. (1977). Witness to surrender. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Sampat Prakash vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr , SCC (1) 562 (Supreme Court of India October 10,

1968).

Saraf, M. Y. (1977). Kashmiris Fight for Freedom. Lahore: Ferozsons.

Sattar, A. (2020). Pakistan’s Foreign Policy 1947–2019 (5th Edition). Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Schlesinger, A. M. (2002). A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt.

Schofield, V. (2010). Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War. London: I.B. Tauris.

Schofield, V. (2015). Why Kashmir is still important. Asian Affairs , 46 (1), 18-31.

Singh, B. S. (1974). The Jammu Fox: A Biography of Maharaja Gulab Singh of Kashmir, 1792-1857.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Snedden, C. (2012). The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir. London: C. Hurst & co Publishers

Ltd.

Stephens, I. (1963). Pakistan. London: Ernest Benn.

USCIRF. (2020). India Chapter-2020 Annual Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Commission On International

Religous Freedom.

Vaishnav, M. (2019). Religious Nationalism and India‟s Future. Carnegie Endowment for International

Peace , 1-43.

Wenning, H. (2003). Kashmir: A Regional Conflict with Global Impact . New Zealand Journal of Public

and International Law , 197-228.

Worldview, S. (2020, January 24). Nuclear War? How Kashmir Could Still Cause an Indo-Pakistan War in

2020. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from The National Interest:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/nuclear-war-how-kashmir-could-still-cause-indo-pakistan-war-

2020-116866