the india-pakistan question (kashmir) - canisius...

Canisius College Model United Nations 37th Annual Conference

1

Historic Security Council, 1965

The India-Pakistan Question (Kashmir) Overview

India and Pakistan have had a long history of violence and disputes since being decolonized from Britain. Similar to many other areas of the world that have separated from Britain, India and Pakistan faced many issues. The decolonization process occurred when Britain (and other European countries) granted freedom to many of their colonies—or when the colonies obtained freedom in other ways—and then drew borders for the newly minted sovereign states. The former colonizers, Britain included, had a heavy hand in drawing those borders, and did so as they saw fit, not according to how the current inhabitants of the territories felt they should be. Sometimes divisions that seemed logical and warranted encouraged conflict between newly formed sovereign states. For example, Pakistan is for the most part a Muslim nation, whereas India is predominantly Hindu (though with a significant Muslim minority); and the contrast between identities plays a role in the tensions between the two countries. Territories considered valuable for symbolic reasons (such as religious identity) as well as strategic and economic reasons are prizes that may be disputed, thanks in part to the borders drawn by retreating colonizers.

While there are a number of territorial disputes between India and Pakistan, the major area disputed by both countries is the state of Jammu and Kashmir (we will call it “Kashmir” for short from time to time). India and Pakistan each believe themselves to own the territory, and with tensions rising, this situation is likely to fuel conflict in the future, just as it has provoked armed conflict in the past. This is not the first time India and Pakistan have had tensions; the countries went to war over Kashmir in October 1947 when it was feared by Pakistan that the Maharajah of Kashmir and Jammu might accede to India. With a combined population of over 500 million people in India and Pakistan, the prospect of escalating violence is a huge concern for people of the global community. For example, another war could mean countless deaths as well as mass emigration from India or Pakistan to other countries. Massive refugee flows and migration can cause problems related to the safety of these people on the move, strains on countries that receive them, and problems associated with repatriation of people to their homes in a post-conflict situation. Better perhaps to prevent the situation from escalating, and to help India and Pakistan avoid war altogether.


2

Historical Background The British colony of India gained its independence in 1947. It was partitioned into two

separate entities, the predominantly Hindu nation of India and the almost exclusively Muslim nation of Pakistan. Pakistan was composed of two noncontiguous regions, East Pakistan and West Pakistan, which were separated by an enormous expanse of Indian territory. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had a predominantly Muslim population but a Hindu leader, shared borders with both India and West Pakistan. India and Pakistan disputed who should incorporate the Kashmir and Jammu states. Even though the states were predominantly Muslim, Pakistan was still worried about the Maharajah deciding to join India. With these worries in mind, Pakistani tribesmen invaded Kashmir. The Maharajah asked for India to intervene however, Pakistan and India signed a non-conflict pact and there was no direct sign that the Pakistani government had any involvement on these rouge tribesmen. India's governor-general, Lord Mountbatten, believed that peace would best be served by Kashmir's joining India on a temporary basis, pending a vote on its ultimate status. Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession that month, ceding control over foreign and defense policy to India. Indian troops took two-thirds of the territory, and Pakistan seized the northern remainder. China occupied eastern parts of the state in the 1950s.

Following the setup of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), the UN Security Council passed its Resolution 47 on April 21st, 1948. The measure imposed an immediate ceasefire 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 the Government of India to reduce its forces to minimum strength, after which the two countries would hold a plebiscite which should be put into effect on the question of accession of the state to India or Pakistan. However, both India and Pakistan failed to arrive at a truce agreement due to differences over interpretation of the procedure for and the extent of demilitarization. In November 1948, although both countries agreed to the plebiscite, Pakistan refused to remove their troops from Kashmir on the grounds that the people of Kashmir could not hold free and fair elections under the presence of the Indian government. Over the next few 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. To this end, UN arbitrators put forward eleven different proposals for the demilitarization of the region. All of these were accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government.

For more information, see: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/india-pakistan-war (Source: US State Department) and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1947.htm (Source: Global Security.org)


3

Current Crisis Situation India and Pakistan once again may be on the verge of armed conflict. Rumors are swirling

about Pakistani plans to force the issue, perhaps by using overt military intervention; or by using covert means to disrupt Jammu and Kashmir from within and provoke a resistance movement among Kashmiris on the Indian side. Either way, the consequences of such a move could be lethal and severe, for Kashmiris, Pakistanis, and Indians, of course, but also by involving third party states. Consider that the United States has been entered into a mutual security pact with Pakistan and both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), have been working with India, meaning that major world powers are involved in this situation. Any violence may involve both super powers getting involved and may be the start to a larger war involving more countries. Halting this crisis to avoid war will not only save lives in the area, but all over the world. Obtaining peace in this situation may set an example for the rest of the world to follow and may result in more peaceful resolutions throughout the world.

India India was originally a British colony. On August 15th, 1947 India gained independence from

British rule. This is largely due to the actions of activists such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Because of these leaders, a rise in nationalism, protests, and nonviolent resistance, India became an independent sovereign state. Jawaharlal Nehru became India’s first prime minister in 1947. He was one of the major leaders that helped India gain their independence and is also considered the architect of the Indian government. He declared that the aims of the congress were freedom of religion, the right to form associations, freedom of expression of thought, equality before law for every individual without distinction of caste, colour, creed or religion, protection to regional languages and cultures, safeguarding the interests of the peasants and labor, abolition of untouchability, introduction of adult franchise, imposition

of prohibition, nationalization of industries, socialism, and establishment of a secular India. Nehru died in 1964 still in office, leaving India in absence of their strong and peaceful leader. In 1964 the new prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, came into power. Under Shastri’s rule, he began to align himself more with the USSR and increase India’s military budget. When Pakistan became aggressive towards India in 1964 and 1965, Shastri informed Pakistan that any act of aggression will be responded to with force. India currently has a population of 498

million people. They have a social democratic government and a centralized economy. India has a neutral world policy, trying not to side with the United States or the USSR. For more information see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru, http://www.historyindia.org/


4

Pakistan

Pakistan also gained independence on August 15th, 1947. During 1946, India was split in the idea of a one state or two state solution with the independence of India at hand. The Muslim majority wished to have two states, one being a Muslim state and the other being a Hindu state. This idea won out in the end and the result was India and Pakistan being separate states. Pakistan’s first prime minister was Liaquat Ali Khan. In 1947, Ali Khan saw the expansion of India into Kashmir as an example of Indian and Soviet aggression. Considering that the United States was a key ally of Pakistan at the time, Pakistan responded with military force to halt the expansion. In 1956, the Pakistan Constitution proclaimed Pakistan an Islamic republic, putting them more at odds with their Indian adversaries. In 1958 General Ayub Khan took over and declared martial law, effectively making him Pakistan's first military dictator. He is now leading Pakistan during the rise of tensions between the two countries. Pakistan's population is currently 51 million people. Pakistan is still under Ayub Khan’s rule, who controls the country through military power. The economy is largely capitalist and is growing at a steady rate.

For more information see: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12966786 (BBC World News)

General Ayub Khan in a 1958 Cabinet meeting Photos courtesy of Getty Images and https://mqmhistory.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/imran-khan-the-ultimate-status-quo-politician/


5

International Community

Both sides of the conflict have international support. The United States supports Pakistan, however they may not continue to support them if the conflict were to escalate. The USSR would support India indirectly by contributing supplies, just as the U.S. would for Pakistan. Iran, Indonesia, and especially China seem to support Pakistan’s position during this conflict. Both the United States western bloc and the USSR eastern bloc have major stakes in this conflict and an escalation on either side could lead to a ripple effect, causing an escalation of violence between the USSR and U.S. Among the Kashmiris, some may be content to live in India or in Pakistan, but it seems there is also a subset of the population that desires independence. United Nations Involvement

The dispute over Jammu and Kashmir is one of the oldest and most persistent issues of international peace and security that had been considered at the United Nations. Relevant Security Council resolutions are already on the books. Through these resolutions, the Security Council established and further developed the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute. One resolution from 1948 (see below for excerpt) urged the combatant states to stop fighting (a cease-fire), to reestablish a condition of peace and order, and to settle the dispute by plebiscite.

To make this possible, the Security Council urged India and Pakistan to allow in a group of military observers to supervise the cease-fire (this would come to be called the United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan, or

UNMOGIP). UNMOGIP's functions were to observe and report, investigate complaints of ceasefire violations, and to submit its findings to each party and to the Secretary-General. In July 1949, India and Pakistan signed the Karachi Agreement, establishing a ceasefire line to be supervised by the military observers. Another resolution in 1951 attempted to demilitarize the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and decided to continue the mission of the military observer group UNMOGIP.

Major Emilio Altieri (Uruguay) of UNMOGIP riding a horse while on patrol along the cease-‐fire line; here, he exchanges a few words with a group of Kashmiris he met on the way. 1955. http://www.unmultimedia.org/s/photo/detail/181/0181024.html


6

An excerpt from UN Security Council Resolution 47 regarding the India Pakistan question Document No. 5/726, dated 21 April 1948 THE SECURITY COUNCIL, Having considered the complaint of the Government of India concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, having heard the representative of India in support of that complaint and the reply and counter complaints of the representative of Pakistan, Being strongly of the opinion that the early restoration of peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir is essential and that India and Pakistan should do their utmost to bring about cessation of all fighting, Noting with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, Considering that the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security, Reaffirms its resolution 38 (1948) of 17 January 1948; Resolves that the membership of the Commission established by its resolution 39 (1948) of 20 January

1948, shall be increased…; Instructs the Commission to proceed at once to the Indian subcontinent and there place its good offices and

mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan with a view to facilitating the taking of the necessary measures, both with respect to the restoration of peace and order and to the holding of a plebiscite by the two (Governments, acting in co-operation with one another and with the Commission), and further instructs the Commission to keep the Council informed of the action taken under the resolution; and, to this end;

Recommends to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following measures as those which in the opinion of the Council and appropriate to bring about a cessation of the lighting and to create proper conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to accede to India or Pakistan.

*** The remaining details of the resolution deal with the issues below and may be found at http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948):

(A) RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER (B) PLEBISCITE (C) GENERAL PROVISIONS

Delegates are encouraged to consider some of the steps already taken by the United Nations before attempting to “reinvent the wheel.” That noted, delegates are encouraged to be innovative and open-minded as they attempt to devise a peaceful solution to this ongoing dispute and the crisis atmosphere that has developed around it. Delegates are also urged to read and understand the following New York Times article, which appeared nearly a year prior to “today’s” date. The article discusses negotiation attempts between India and Pakistan as facilitated by Sheik Mohammed Abdullah, a mediator who tried to work toward a mutually agreeable solution to the Kashmir dispute. The ideas advanced in this


7

article include several proposed compromises that delegates might consider or attempt to build upon when deliberating the issue and attempting to generate a solution:

NEW MOVES PRESSED TO SETTLE KASHMIR THOMAS F. BRADY; Special to The New York Times MAY 24, 1964

NEW DELHI, May 23—Sheik Mohammed Abdullah, recently a prisoner accused of conspiracy and collusion with Pakistan, has been transformed into a mediator between the two antagonistic nations of this subcontinent [India and Pakistan].

He will fly to Rawalpindi tomorrow with the blessing of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India to see President Mohammed Ayub Khan of Pakistan in the hope of achieving what the United Nations and the great powers of the West have failed to achieve: A friendly settlement of differences between India and Pakistan, chiefly the Kashmir issue.

This much has already been achieved: President Ayub has invited Sheik Abdullah to come and seems anxious to see him; Mr. Nehru seems equally anxious to have Sheik Abdullah make the trip. The Prime Minister said publicly last week that if Sheik Abdullah could help in bringing about “closer and more intimate relations between India and Pakistan” he would have done “great service to both countries.”

All this suggests at least hope on both sides, indeed greater hope than when ministers of the two countries, under pressure from the United States and Britain, began a series of talks on the same subject 17 months ago. Those talks lasted, intermittently, for five months and accomplished nothing but increased antagonism.

Pending Factors

…Mr. Nehru and Sheik Abdullah have been discussing “certain formulas” for a possible Kashmir solution, but there has been no official indication of what the formulas are.

Unofficial reports indicate they talked about three possible compromises:

(1) A condominium by which India and Pakistan would exercise joint sovereignty over the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir.

(2) A subcontinental confederation that would join India, Pakistan and Kashmir into a loose union—a solution that would effectively include the condominium idea because the two big powers would have to provide for Kashmir's defense, diplomatic relations and economic welfare.

(3) A United Nations trusteeship over Kashmir to end 10 years hence with a self-determination plebiscite. Sheik Abdullah is going to Pakistan to sound out President Ayub on the officially undisclosed formulas...


8

[Unfortunately] Mr. Nehru's blessing seems to be purely personal. Most members of the Prime Minister's Cabinet and Congress party have indicated that they see no virtue in compromising on Kashmir, and the left and right wings in Indian politics have joined in condemning even the talks Mr. Nehru has had with Sheik Abdullah.

Mr. Nehru himself felt impelled to say in Bombay last week that while India was prepared to help the Sheik in his effort, “in doing so we must adhere to our principles as well as to our basic attitude in regard to Kashmir.”

He said also that nothing could be decided without “reference to the Congress party as well as to Parliament.” He declared of his talks with Sheik Abdullah that “we did not arrive at any clear solution to this problem, but various suggestions were made. Some of these suggestions appeared to be difficult in present circumstances, even though ultimately they may be found acceptable by both.”

Finally he said: “I cannot say if we shall succeed in this, but it is clear that unless we do succeed India will carry the burden of continuing conflict with Pakistan.”

The tone of Mr. Nehru's comments, as part of a speech strongly condemning Hindu violence against the Moslem minority in secular India, was that of a tired but clear-sighted old man… Mr. Nehru has only a little time left. He is 74 and suffered a paralytic stroke in January that has greatly diminished his vigor. Along with other advocates of coming to terms with Pakistan, Mr. Nehru seems aware that, if he fails, his successors in command of India may not achieve a settlement for a generation.

Ready Weapons

Politico-religious antagonisms are too ready as weapons in the struggle for power that will follow Mr. Nehru's disappearance to leave much hope of generosity or even wisdom toward Islamic Pakistan.

Already in his own Ministry of External Affairs, a group of civil servants who like to call themselves “angry young men” make a practice of issuing “tough statements” on Pakistan and Kashmir whenever they see a safe opportunity for putting obstacles in the way of Prime Minister Nehru's goal of conciliation.

Curiously, Mr. Nehru's current views seem closer to those of his conservative opposition, the Swatantra party founded by former Governor General Chakravarty Rajagopalachari than to the views of politicians of his own Congress party. But other opposition groups—from the pro-Communist left to the reactionary Hindu right — are united in opposing his efforts at conciliation.

Consequently, the second essential element in the equation is what Sheik Abdullah will find when he reaches Rawalpindi tomorrow. A special Pakistan International Airways plane will take him from New Delhi to the Pakistani capital…Sheik Abdullah will arrive with all the prestige of a man who spent more than a decade in prison because he refused to compromise on the issue of Kashmiri self-determination. His stand seems superficially to put him in the Pakistani camp. However, when it comes to matters of substance, the situation is far more complicated.

Sheik Abdullah is essentially a secular political thinker, albeit a Moslem. He has rejected the “two nation” thesis that Hindus and Moslems constitute separate peoples in this sub-continent. Yet


9

Pakistan is built on this thesis.

Strong Resistance

Although he advocated self-determination, it seems probable that he would try to head off any move by the predominantly Moslem Kashmiris to join Pakistan on religious grounds. In 1947 he bitterly resisted an incursion into Kashmir of Pakistani-armed Pathan tribesmen and supported what he described as accession to India, pending ratification by the Kashmiri people.

President Ayub's own internal pressures are as difficult as those Mr. Nehru faces. Pakistan cut her political teeth on antagonism toward India, and that antagonism, coupled with apprehension about the colossus to the south, have guided Pakistan's foreign policy throughout her 17 years of independent existence.

Compromise Difficult

Compromise on the Kashmir issue is as difficult for the Pakistani Government as for the Indian Government. Sheik Abdullah's basic goal of improving Indian-Pakistani relations runs counter to a fundamental Pakistani urge.

Any of the solutions that have been suggested for Kashmir would imply some Indian-Pakistani cooperation on defense of the subcontinent. Such cooperation would involve a virtual reversal of Pakistan's policy toward Communist China, particularly in view of the dispute between New Delhi and Peking over the borders of Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan has developed an almost reflex[-like turn] toward Peking since the Chinese incursion into India in the fall of 1962. Indians interpret this [turn] as an expression of the dictum that the “enemy of mine enemy is my friend.” Hope of reversing Rawalpindi's China policy is the best argument Mr. Nehru has to support conciliation of Pakistan.

Marshal Ayub himself might conceivably be willing to sacrifice Pakistan's China policy for a favorable Kashmir settlement, but there are political forces in his country that would bitterly oppose any change that might dilute Pakistan's newfound “neutralism.”

Pakistani Attitude

The basic Pakistani position has always been that Kashmiris should decide their own future by a plebiscite, for Rawalpindi believes the predominantly Moslem population would opt for union with Pakistan. This thesis runs head on into the Indian claim that Kashmir is already an integral part of India and that a plebiscite would destroy India's precarious ideal of secularism because it would be fought on religious grounds.

Despite all these antagonisms and mutual contradictions, President Ayub and other important Pakistani leaders are aware of the urgency that Prime Minister's age and ailments inject in the search for a rapprochement with India. Political considerations may prove insuperable obstacles, but Marshal Ayub's best hope is to help Mr. Nehru toward a compromise while the Prime Minister can still keep India on the path of rational secularism.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1964/05/24/new-moves-pressed-to-settle-kashmir.html


10

Questions to Consider

1. All delegates on the Historic Security Council are asked to consider the questions below as you prepare for the Council’s deliberations on the matter of the India-Pakistan Question – i.e., the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. If additional research is needed, please keep in mind that we are meeting in May 1965, so developments that occur after that date should be disregarded.

2. What is the basis of India’s claim? What is the basis of Pakistan’s claim? Why are they

incompatible? Which of these – India or Pakistan – is your government inclined to support in this dispute, and why? You might consider alliances, friendly relationships, and rivalries, along with other factors. Other factors might include whether the country in question is a democracy (like India) or a dictatorship (like Pakistan), whether one’s government seeks to have secular governance (like in India) or governance linked to religious faith (like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan), economic issues (Who is a trade partner? Who is not?) and others as you see fit. If your country strongly prefers to remain neutral in this conflict, you might be a strong candidate to help work toward a peaceable solution from your position of neutrality.

3. Are there precedents from previous United Nations involvement that you might build on

in order to develop a peaceful solution? If earlier solutions have been inadequate, what needs to be added or done differently in order to achieve a peaceable solution to the dispute? Feel free to be creative here, provided that you remain within the realm of the possible.

4. What can we take from the New York Times article about the politics in India and the

politics in Pakistan with regard to the Kashmir dispute? Perhaps this article is discouraging, because it focuses so much on the obstacles to peaceful solutions. But does it also offer ideas on how to shape a peaceable solution? What do you think of some of the proposals that were leaked to the New York Times reporter who then wrote about them in this article? How might the Security Council encourage India and Pakistan to accept the terms of a deal built around one of these proposals?

5. Even though peacekeeping remains in a very early phase during this time in history,

consider whether the UNMOGIP observer mission may be further developed and strengthened in a way that would (a) help keep the peace, and (b) push India and Pakistan toward a lasting solution to the dispute. If the United Nations was able to raise additional funds to expand or develop UNMOGIP, how would you do it? What would this “UNMOGIP-Plus” look like, and which member-states would have to give their support in order for it to work?


11

Timeline of Pakistan and Indian Relations 1947-1964

1947 - Britain, as part of its pullout from the Indian subcontinent, divides it into secular (but mainly Hindu) India and Muslim Pakistan on August 15 and 14, respectively. The partition causes one of the largest human migrations ever seen, and sparks riots and violence across the region.

1947/48 - The first Indo-Pak war over Kashmir is fought, after armed tribesmen (lashkars) from Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (now called Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa) invade the disputed territory in October 1947. The Maharaja, faced with an internal revolt as well an external invasion, requests the assistance of the Indian armed forces, in return for acceding to India. He hands over control of his defense, communications, and foreign affairs to the Indian government.

Both sides agree that the instrument of accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh should be ratified by a referendum, to be held after hostilities have ceased. Historians on either side of the dispute remain undecided as to whether the Maharaja signed the document after Indian troops had entered Kashmir (i.e. under duress) or if he did so under no direct military pressure.

Fighting continues through the second half of 1948, with the regular Pakistani army called upon to protect Pakistan's borders. The war officially ends on January 1, 1949, when the United Nations arranges a ceasefire, with an established ceasefire line, a UN peacekeeping force, and a recommendation that the referendum on the accession of Kashmir to India be held as agreed earlier. That referendum has yet to be held.

Pakistan controls roughly one-third of the state, referring to it as Azad (free) Jammu and Kashmir. It is semi-autonomous. A larger area, including the former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar, is controlled directly by the central Pakistani government. The Indian (eastern) side of the ceasefire line is referred to as Jammu and Kashmir. Both countries refer to the other side of the ceasefire line as "occupied" territory.

1954 - The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India is ratified by the state's constituent assembly.

1957 - The Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly approves a constitution. India, from the point of the 1954 ratification and 1957 constitution, begins to refer to Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of the Indian union.

1963 - Following the 1962 Sino-Indian war, the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan - Swaran Singh and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto - hold talks under the auspices of the British and Americans regarding the Kashmir dispute. The specific contents of those talks have not yet been declassified, but no agreement was reached. In the talks, "Pakistan signified willingness to consider approaches other than a plebiscite and India recognized that the status of Kashmir was in dispute and territorial adjustments might be necessary," according to a declassified US State Department memo (dated January 27, 1964).

1964 - Following the failure of the 1963 talks, Pakistan refers the Kashmir case to the UN Security Council. Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/2011/06/2011615113058224115.html


12

Additional Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965

http://countrystudies.us/india/133.htm

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12641776

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/india-1900-to-1947/

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/india-and-pakistan-win-independence

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/39(1948)

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/91(1951)

United States Library of Congress Country Studies – India http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+in0189)

http://www.pakun.org/kashmir/history.php (Pakistan Mission to the UN: “Kashmir—The History”)

the india-pakistan question (kashmir) - canisius...

Documents