Kashmir is often regarded as the world's most dangerous disputes.
The key source of confrontation between India and Pakistan,
two declared nuclear powers, it's an issue that defies an easy solution.
So, what is the Kashmir conflict and why is it just so hard to resolve?
[MUSIC]
Hello and welcome to the channel.
If you're new my name is James Ker-Lindsay and here I take an
informed look at international relations, conflict and the origins of countries.
Around the world there are few disputes that are as dangerous to international peace and
security as the long-running conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.
For over 70 years, it's been a fundamental bone of contention between these two South
Asian nations and has led them into full-scale war or serious conflict on at least three occasions.
The fact that both countries now possess nuclear weapons has
made the prospect of any future armed confrontation all the more worrying.
What makes the situation especially challenging is the very nature of the Kashmir issue.
In many, if not most, conflicts it's possible to see a clear way to address the problem.
The parties themselves may not want to reach an agreement, but in the eyes of outside observers
some sort of fair and viable settlement usually exists.
This isn't the case with Kashmir.
While the origins of the dispute may seem like a straightforward question
of thwarted self-determination, the passage of time has made it so much
more complex - to the point that it's now difficult to envisage an obvious settlement.
Added to this, the usual mechanisms for resolving the conflict are also missing.
So, what is the Kashmir dispute and why is it just so difficult to resolve?
Kashmir lies in the Himalayas at the very north of the Indian subcontinent.
As a whole, the area is around 86 000 square miles or 220 000 square kilometres.
The region first emerged as a princely state in the mid 19th century.
As one of the many hundreds of such territories, it enjoyed British protection
but was separate from the areas of India formally under direct British rule.
However, the story really begins on the 15 August 1947, when British colonial rule ended
and imperial India was partitioned between the new Hindu-majority Dominion of India
and the Dominion of Pakistan, a separate Muslim homeland in the north and the east.
As part of this process, the 560 or so princely states were offered a choice between
independence or joining India or Pakistan.
While the vast majority opted for integration,
albeit under extreme pressure, Kashmir decided against this.
As a Hindu ruler of a Muslim majority territory, the maharaja, Hari Singh, chose to be independent.
However, Kashmir soon came under attack from tribal forces from neighbouring Pakistan.
In order to secure Indian assistance, Kashmir formally joined India on the 26 October 1947.
Kashmir's accession to India sparked a full-scale war between India and Pakistan.
On the 1 January 1948, India referred the matter to the UN Security Council.
In the months that followed, it was agreed that any settlement should be based on a free
and fair vote by the people of Kashmir on whether to accede to India or Pakistan.
By the time a UN-monitored ceasefire came into force, on the 31 December 1948,
Kashmir was divided.
While Pakistan and India still claimed sovereignty over the entire territory,
Pakistan now controlled the northern and western third of Kashmir - the areas of Azad,
or free Kashmir, and the area now known as Gilgit-Baltistan.
For its part, India controlled the southern half of Kashmir.
This was made up of three main areas: the Muslim majority Kashmir Valley, also known
as the Vale of Kashmir; the Hindu-dominated Jammu; and the sparsely populated Ladakh,
made up of two further parts one predominantly Muslim and the other mainly Buddhist.
In 1949, Indian controlled Kashmir, formally known as Jammu and Kashmir,
was granted autonomy under section 370 of the Indian constitution.
As an aside, the remaining 20 percent or so of eastern Kashmir, an area known as Aksai Chin,
has become a source of tension between India and China, and led to a war between them in 1962.
I won't cover this aspect of the conflict here,
but I certainly hope to return to it in a future video.
In the decades that followed, tensions remained high between India and Pakistan.
In 1965, they went to war again after Pakistan
tried to retake parts of Indian controlled Kashmir.
Then, in 1971, a third war erupted.
Although this conflict was centred on Bangladesh, or East Pakistan's,
secession from Pakistan, it also led to fighting in Kashmir.
At the end of the war, India and Pakistan reached a major accord - the Simla Agreement.
As well as establishing a formal line of control between the sides,
they agreed not to take any unilateral steps that could destabilise the situation in future.
They also agreed to settle their dispute by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.
In effect, while both sides still laid formal claim to Kashmir as a whole,
they now agreed to respect one another's control over the areas that they held.
Despite this agreement, the 1980s saw the situation evolve in new ways.
Most notably, a separate independence movement now emerged in Kashmir.
At the same time, the security situation on the ground began to deteriorate.
In 1989, an insurgency erupted in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
While the Indian Government accused Pakistan of supporting the uprising,
this was strongly denied by Pakistan.
Meanwhile, in its attempts to clamp down on dissent,
India increasingly found itself accused of human rights abuses in Kashmir.
In 1999, 50 years after the start of the conflict, India and Pakistan again came to blows.
Meanwhile, political tensions remain high.
The issue flared up again in August 2019 when the Indian Government revoked Kashmir's autonomy
and divided it into two new federal territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
Seen as a further step to consolidate permanent sovereignty over the part of
Kashmir under its authority, and potentially paving the way for demographic changes,
the move led to protests on both sides of the Line of Control.
So, how can the issue be resolved?
In truth, there's just no easy answer.
Indeed, a study published over a decade ago suggested that there had been almost
50 distinct proposals put forward between 1947 and 2008.
Broadly defined, these fall into three main categories: sovereignty,
independence and extensive autonomy.
The problem is that all of them come with very clear political or practical limitations.
For a start, on sovereignty, the original idea of a referendum leading to Kashmir as a whole
joining either India or Pakistan is no longer seen as politically or practically feasible.
India steadfastly refuses to accept this option, knowing full well that it would lose such a vote.
But many would also argue that the situation has moved on.
The existence of an independence movement on both sides of the Line of Control
means that this should be an option as well.
Moreover, a full transfer of sovereignty would also be strongly opposed in those areas where
other religious groups formed the local majority, such as Hindus in Jammu and Buddhists in Ladakh.
It's argued that their views should also now be taken into account.
Of course, the other option would be to leave the Line of Control as it is
and leave Kashmir permanently partitioned.
But while this would probably be acceptable to India, it's strongly rejected by Pakistan.
Another sovereignty alternative would be to adjust the current line of control to allow
the Muslim areas just Kashmir valley to unite with Pakistan.
Quite apart from the objections to this idea from India,
this too would leave out the independence option.
So, what about an independent Kashmir?
While there's certainly support for this on both sides of the Line of Control,
it's hard to know just how popular it actually is.
Moreover, it also faces strong objections from both sides.
Pakistan would oppose the idea as it would inevitably mean losing a large area of territory.
Indeed, it already cracks down heavily on pro-independence sentiment
in the parts of Kashmir it controls.
It would also be opposed by India and the non-Muslim communities in
Indian-controlled Kashmir, who would not want to become part of a muslim majority state.
If nothing else, the Indian Government, with the support of the communities,
would again want to maintain control over these non-Muslim areas.
A related idea would therefore be to pursue independence on a more limited basis.
This could centre on two alternatives.
The first would be to allow the Muslim-majority areas of
Indian controlled Kashmir to become independent.
Quite apart from the fact that this would be rejected by India,
there are real questions as to whether such a state could be viable.
The second option would be to permit Kashmir Valley
to unite with Azad Kashmir to form a slightly larger state,
but still leave India and Pakistan in control of the larger parts of Kashmir.
Again, it seems hard to see either side accepting these options.
The other problem with both ideas
is that it could spark tensions with those who want union with Pakistan.
This brings us to the third idea: some sort of autonomy.
This is an idea that has attracted considerable attention in the past,
and was even mooted by Pakistan's leader, General Pervez Musharraf around 2004.
Under the plan, there would have been a phased withdrawal
of troops perhaps leading to full demilitarisation.
While the Line of Control would be retained, allowing India and Pakistan to retain their
respective areas of authority, it would have been opened up to allow freedom of movement.
At the same time, the two parts would be given extensive self-rule - effectively
becoming two districts of the same broad region - but with India and
Pakistan sharing responsibility for defence and foreign affairs.
While certainly innovative, there are obviously serious questions about
how it could be put into action in practical terms.
Moreover, as hard as this was to see even a decade ago, it's all the more difficult
to envisage since 2019, when India rescinded autonomy over the parts of Kashmir it controls.
Also, would this option really be acceptable
to those who either want independence or union with Pakistan?
Of course, this is by no means an exhaustive list of options.
But it does serve to show the range of possibilities that potentially exist,
but nevertheless run into grave problems when you start to analyse them.
Then there's the question of how to resolve the issue.
While there have been numerous calls from many within India, Pakistan and Kashmir for dialogue,
and there appears to have been moments of hope that a settlement could be reached,
the overall sense is that levels of distrust and domestic political opposition
are simply too high at the moment.
Of course, this prompts the question of what the international community
can do to facilitate a settlement.
In truth, very little.
India insists that it's a bilateral issue and refuses to accept any form of
outside intervention, let alone formal mediation.
Nor is there any chance that it would allow any sort of arbitrated or judicial settlement,
for example through the International Court of Justice.
Not wishing to antagonise the situation, many
countries simply choose to stay out of the dispute altogether.
Indeed, even the UN Security Council leaves it well alone.
Remarkably, a Council discussion requested by China in 2019, following India's revocation
of autonomy, was the first time the Council had even considered the matter since 1965!
Both Britain and the United States, permanent members of the Security Council, take the view
that it's a bilateral dispute - but note that any solution should also take into account the
wishes of the people of Kashmir, an approach that leaves open almost any of the options noted above.
While there are many seemingly intractable conflicts,
there are few conflicts that seem to defy any sort of realistic settlement.
In most cases, some form of model of a viable end outcome can be envisaged,
even if the parties lack the political will to agree to it.
However, the question of Kashmir comes about as close as possible
to being an insoluble conflict as one can see on the international stage.
Ceding it in entirety to one country or another is out of the question,
not only to India and Pakistan but also the peoples of Kashmir.
Accepting the line of control as a formal border,
while probably acceptable to India, is opposed by Pakistan.
But substantially redrawing the Line is opposed by India.
Meanwhile, the option of independence is also opposed by both sides, either in whole or part.
Options for autonomy present a further alternative.
But it seems hard to see how this could be made to work.
Then, to add to all this, the very mechanisms to reach a settlement are obstructed.
International involvement is blocked and, after 70 years,
the sides simply don't have the trust and good will to reach a comprehensive deal by themselves.
Under other circumstances, it may have been possible to simply put this in a box and leave it.
But this isn't a small-scale territorial dispute with few wider international
consequences that can be essentially ignored by the international community.
It's a dispute between two nuclear powers with
a combined population of over one and a half billion people.
And, as events in the region have shown, after almost 75 years
it still has the potential to escalate with disastrous results.
It's for all these reasons that Kashmir would
certainly seem to merit the claim to be the world's most dangerous conflict.
But it's also perhaps the one that most obviously defies a settlement.
I hope you found that interesting.
Do let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
And here are some more videos that you might find useful.
And don't forget to Like,
Subscribe and turn on notifications bell to be alerted when I upload new videos.
I post new ones every Friday.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.