Debunking India’s Myths about Kashmir

Untitled 506 1It has been nearly two months since the Indian occupied Kashmir is under curfew and lockdown. Landlines, mobiles, Internet and other means of communication are shut down. Local and international media has severely limited access to the situation on ground. Thousands of Kashmiris have been arrested including elected officials and political leaders[1]. The Modi government repealed articles 370 and 35A of its constitution on 5th August 2019 (an action that has been challenged in the Indian Supreme Court as unconstitutional and is due for hearing in October). This effectively abrogated the special status of the Indian occupied Kashmir that was granted as part of the ‘controversial’ accession agreement signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir in 1947 as a condition to join India.

The government also introduced a bill to divide the region into two parts, both brought under direct control of the central government. The Indian government has its own justification for this move. For an ordinary person who may not have any interest or background in the Kashmir issue, it may be difficult to understand this complex issue. This article tries to identify various myths that the Indian government and media have deliberately spread about the Indian occupied Kashmir, and dispel those with historical facts.

Background of the Kashmir Dispute.            Before discussing these myths let’s first provide some background about the Kashmir dispute and the relevance of articles 370 and 35A of the Indian constitution. When British left India in August 1947 there were hundreds of princely states that were given the choice to either join India, Pakistan or remain independent. The population of these states was typically the decisive factor as Muslim majority states opted to join Pakistan while Hindu majority states chose to be with India. The Maharaja of Kashmir (who was a Hindu) initially decided to remain independent despite having a Muslim majority in Kashmir that wanted to be part of Pakistan. Under pressure from his Muslim population and facing the infiltration of armed tribesmen from Pakistan’s tribal areas he fled to the Indian capital and asked for military support from the government of India. Subsequently, it is claimed that he signed an Instrument of Accession ceding Kashmir on 26th October 1947.

The Instrument of Accession is clear that the state of Kashmir (what is now Indian Occupied Kashmir) will not be forced to accept the future constitution of India; instead, it could draft its own constitution. Article 370 was promulgated to protect this right, which required that except for defense, foreign affairs, finance and communications, the Parliament would need state government’s concurrence for applying all other laws[2]. Likewise, Article 35A allowed the residents of Indian Kashmir to live under a separate set of laws than other Indian provinces, related to fundamental rights, citizenship and property ownership.

The Kashmiri Muslims did not accept the Indian occupation of their state since the start. Their struggle was largely peaceful and political until 1989 when it took a violent turn. The alleged massive rigging of the state elections is generally ascribed to be the main cause, but the real reason was that decades of Indian repression, disenfranchisement and denial of the right to self-determination in the form of the promised plebiscite that pushed the Kashmiris’ to rise for their rights[3].

The success of Afghan armed resistance against the Soviet Union resulting in the latter’s humiliating defeat may have also played a role in emboldening the Kashmiri youth to take up arms against the Indian military. Pakistan tacitly supported this indigenous movement in Kashmir by allowing various local organizations to flourish which would cross over the Line of Control (dividing Indian and Pakistani sides of Kashmir) to fight alongside the Kashmiri freedom fighters. As an unintended consequence of the 9/11 event Pakistan was compelled to stop using non-state actors in the Indian occupied Kashmir. For the last decade or more the armed conflict in Kashmir has reduced in intensity, replaced by massive rallies and protest marches[4]. India has continued to clamp down on peaceful demonstrations by the civil society.

Pakistan and India fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947 and on 1st January 1948 the Prime Minister of India Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru took the matter to the United Nations. The first UN resolution on Kashmir was signed on 13th August 1948[5] and a number of subsequent UN resolutions would demand India and Pakistan to withdraw their troops so that a free and fair plebiscite could be held in Kashmir, allowing the people to decide about their future. This nevertheless never happened and both countries fought another two wars over Kashmir in 1965 and then again in 1999. The Simla Agreement of 1972 that was signed after dismemberment of Pakistan called for peaceful resolution of all disputes between the two countries through bilateral means[6].

The Myths

Myth # 1 – Kashmir is India’s internal matter, so the repealing of 370 is also an internal issue. As explained above, Kashmir is not like the other settled parts of India or Pakistan. It is the unfinished agenda of the partition. As many as 18 United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions endorse this position, which briefly discussed as below:

  • UNSC Resolution 38, adopted on 17 January 1948, called upon the governments of India and Pakistan to avoid aggravating the situation in Kashmir, take steps to improve it and inform the Council of any material change in the situation[7].
  • UNSC Resolution 39, adopted on 20 January 1948, offered to assist in the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict by setting up a commission of three members; one to be chosen by India, one to be chosen by Pakistan and the third to be chosen by the other two members of the commission. The commission was to write a joint letter advising the Security Council on what course of action would be best to help further peace in the region[8].
  • UNSC Resolution 47, adopted on 21 April 1948, concerns the resolution of the Kashmir conflict and builds on Resolution 39 by increasing the size of the Commission established by UNSC Resolution 39 to five members. It also instructed the Commission to go to the subcontinent and help the governments of India and Pakistan restore peace and order to the region and prepare for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir. Additionally, the Resolution recommended a three-step process for the resolution of the dispute. In the first step, Pakistan was asked to withdraw all its nationals that entered Kashmir for the sake of fighting. In the second step, India was asked to progressively reduce its forces to the minimum level required for law and order. In the third step, India was asked to appoint a plebiscite administrator nominated by the United Nations who would conduct a free and impartial plebiscite[9].
  • UNSC Resolution 51, adopted on 3 June 1948, reaffirmed previous Council resolutions on the India-Pakistan conflict, and gave some specific instructions to the Commission[10].
  • UNSC Resolution 80, adopted on 14 March 1950, called for simultaneous and progressive demilitarization by both India and Pakistan and noted agreement on appointing Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz as the future Plebiscite Administrator. It also asked the Council to appoint a UN representative. The Resolution 80 marked a shift from the Resolution 47 which called for Pakistan to withdraw its troops first. Resolution 80 asked India and Pakistan to withdraw their troops simultaneously for the purpose of plebiscite. This attempt at equality did not find India’s agreement[11].
  • UNSC Resolution 91, adopted on 30 March 1951, noted a report by Sir Owen Dixon, the UN representative for India and Pakistan, which stated that the main points of difference of preparing the state of Jammu and Kashmir for the holding of a plebiscite were the procedure for and extent of demilitarization and the degree of control over the exercise of the functions of government necessary to ensure a free and fair plebiscite. The Council accepted Sir Dixon’s resignation and instructed his replacement to proceed to the subcontinent to effect demilitarization. The Council then called upon the parties to accept arbitration upon all outstanding points of difference, should the UN representative fail to achieve a full agreement, by an arbiter or a panel of arbiters to be appointed by the president of the International Court of Justice. It was also decided that the Military Observer Group would continue to supervise the cease-fire in the state[12].
  • UNSC Resolution 96, adopted on 10 November 1951, was about the report by Mr. Frank Graham, the new UN representative for India and Pakistan. The Council instructed him to continue his efforts to obtain agreement of the parties on a plan for effecting the demilitarization of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and to report back within six weeks[13].
  • UNSC Resolution 98, adopted on 23 December 1952, urged the governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the UN representative in order to reach an agreement on the specific number of troops to remain of each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the previously established period of demilitarization. As proposed by the UN representative this number was to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces on the Pakistani side and 12,000 to 18,000 on the Indian side. The Council noted that the two governments have agreed on all but two paragraphs of the UN representative’s 12-point proposal[14].
  • UNSC Resolution 122 was adopted on 24 January 1957. It was the first of three security resolutions in 1957 (along with resolutions 123 and 126) to deal with the dispute between the countries. The resolution declares that the constituent assembly proposed by the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference could not constitute a solution to the problem as defined in UNSC Resolution 91 adopted in 1951[15].
  • UNSC Resolution 123 was adopted on 21 February 1957 in which the Council requested that the President of the Security Council visit the subcontinent and, along with the governments of India and Pakistan, examine any proposals which were likely to contribute to the resolution of the dispute, having regard to the relevant UNSC resolutions previously adopted. The Council requested that he report back to them no later than April 15, and the resulting report formed the basis of UNSC Resolution 126, which was adopted in December of the same year[16].
  • UNSC Resolution 126 was adopted on 2 December 1957. It followed a report on the situation by Gunnar Jarring, representative for Sweden which the Council had requested in Resolution 123. It requests that the governments of India and Pakistan refrain from aggravating the situation, notes that both governments acknowledge the importance of holding a free and impartial plebiscite in line with earlier UN resolutions and instructs the UN representative for India and Pakistan to visit the subcontinent and report to the Council with recommended action toward further progress[17].
  • UNSC Resolutions 209, 210, 211, 214 and 215, adopted between 4 September 1965 and 5 November 1965, were concerned with the India-Pakistan war on Kashmir. The UN resolutions urged both sides to ceasefire immediately, expressed concern that the ceasefire was not holding and asked the Secretary General to oversee the situation. The resolutions also urged both sides to bring their troops back to the pre-war positions[18].
  • UNSC Resolution 303, adopted on 6 December 1971, in the backdrop of deterioration in relations between India and Pakistan over a series of incidents, including in Jammu and Kashmir, and the additional strife in East Pakistan. A lack of unanimity among its permanent members at the 1606th and 1607th meetings of the Council prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility, hence the Council decided to refer the question to the General Assembly[19].
  • UNSC Resolution 307, adopted on 21 December 1971. After hearing statements from India and Pakistan, the Council demanded that a durable cease-fire be observed until withdrawals could take place to respect the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir. The Council also called for international assistance in the relief of suffering and rehabilitation of refugees as well as their return home[20].

As the above resolutions make it amply clear, the dispute of Kashmir is an international one and its legality is well established as per the various UNSC resolutions. Instead of accepting this India has deliberately misled its public by indoctrinating them with the notion that Kashmir is India’s “integral part[21]”. This policy blunder has forced the hands of successive Indian governments to do anything substantive to resolve the Kashmir issue. Any move towards any kind of negotiated settlement is unacceptable in the minds of the Indian public due to this false notion.

Myth # 2 – The UN resolutions on Kashmir have become obsolete and they are no longer relevant, especially after the Simla Agreement of 1972.            The text of the UNSC resolutions does not specify a time frame for the applicability of the resolutions. In other words, there is no time bar. The fact that India and Pakistan were unable to agree to the specifics of a demilitarization scheme in over 70 years does not affect the applicability or relevance of the resolutions, since the original issue – the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people – still remains. Other than the logic of brute force and occupation, there is no logical ground to accept obsolescence for UN resolutions. One wonders what stops the UNSC from enforcing its resolutions, especially when the precedence exists. East Timor’s independence[22] from Indonesia in 1999 and South Sudan’s independence[23] in 2011 as a result of UN-administered referenda are examples of successful UN interventions for peace and security of the local people, ending years of bloody struggles.

The Simla Agreement of 1972 is cited as another reason for the irrelevance of the UN resolutions. It was signed after the war of 1971 when East Pakistan became Bangladesh. This agreement, after acknowledging that the UN charter will govern the relations between the two countries, calls for bilateral negotiations for resolution of all disputes between Indian and Pakistan. India interprets this agreement as having a cancellation effect on the UN resolutions. Pakistan does not agree with this interpretation. In any case, with the unilateral repeal of Article 370 the Indian government has violated the Simla Agreement as well, given that it clearly states: “That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.

Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation, and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations[24].” It states further that: “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.[25]

Myth # 3 – There is no indigenous Kashmiri resistance; the unrest is all Pakistan’s doing.   Kashmir freedom struggle has a long history. The resistance movement of the Kashmiris first started against the Dogra rule well before the partition time. It was in 1931 that the Kashmiris launched the first major anti-Maharaja uprising in the valley.[26] The injustice done to the Kashmiris in 1947 when the Maharaja acceded to India against the wishes of the majority led to popular unrest, riots and armed struggle, eventually involving the militaries of the two countries, culminating into an uneasy truce brokered by the UN. The resistance remained largely political and peaceful until 1989 when the disillusioned youth picked up arms. Pakistan’s official position during these years has been one of “providing the Kashmiris with political, diplomatic and moral support.”[27] However, it is no secret that in the 1990s both trained men and arms would enter the Indian occupied Kashmir from the Pakistani side with or without tacit support of the Pakistan government and the armed forces.

Indian government and media are unanimous in blaming Pakistan for allowing non-state actors to organize, train and arm themselves in order to cross over into Indian Kashmir to fight the Indian army. They consider it as the core cause of unrest in the valley. However, independent researchers and experts on Kashmir have a different view. Dr. Shubh Mathur writes in her book ‘The Human Toll of the Kashmir Conflict: Grief and Courage in a South Asian Borderland’, “Simmering Kashmiri resentment against political repression had burst out into an armed struggle in 1989. Contrary to the dominant Indian narrative, which has attributed this to the rise of Muslim fanaticism and Pakistani interference, writers like Baba (2014), Bose (2005), Schofield (2010) and Robinson (2013) see it as an indigenous Kashmiri response to the decades of political repression and the denial of the Kashmiri right to self determination. Pakistani involvement was not a cause but a product of the insurgency, which offered an opportunity to inflict low-cost damages on the Indian army.”

One is tempted to ask the Indian government, if there is no indigenous Kashmiri freedom struggle then why have they locked down the valley for over a month? Why did they order extra troops before the announcement of 5th August? What is it that they fear? As the Line of Control has been fenced, border security is much tighter and infiltration from Pakistan is at its lowest in decades[28], the only plausible explanation of continued lock down is internal threats of protest and violence.

Myth # 4 – The resistance in Kashmir is terrorism; the world should support us in fighting terror. The tragedy of 9/11 opened up the eyes of the American public to the scourge of terrorism. The rest of the world already knew this beast, but the US had remained immune to acts of terror on its own soil. 9/11 changed that forever. As terrorism took center stage for the US and both the US government and the public became sensitive about the notion of terror, it gave an opportunity to countries like India to malign the legitimate freedom struggle and resistance movement of Kashmir as terrorism.

Although no universal definition exists, common sense suggests that acts of violence targeting civilians (non-combatants) ought to be categorized as terrorism. It follows from the definition that terrorism is not a monopoly of individuals or groups, but states can also commit acts of terror.

In this background it is extremely important to know whether an armed struggle to evict an occupier amounts to terrorism. The answer is provided in United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution No. 3314 passed in 1974. The said resolution, while adopting the definition of the word ‘Aggression’[29], forbids states and coalitions of states from “any military occupation, however temporary.” It also prohibits bombardments, blockades or forced annexations of any lands. The definition warns that no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, justifies aggression.

Interestingly, the definition provides an exception for the right to self-determination or freedom struggle. Article 7 of the resolution states: “Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination; nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration[30].”

UNGA passed yet another historic resolution No. A/RES/37/43 on 3rd December 1982 which justifies the use of armed struggle by people for liberation of their land from foreign occupation. It states: “(This House) reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle[31]”.

It is a well-known fact that the Kashmir freedom movement has been largely peaceful for better part of 70 plus years[32], and even when the Kashmiri youth picked up arms in the 1990s they specifically targeted the occupying force – Indian troops and police/ paramilitary. There have been isolated incidents of violence against civilians (both Muslims and Hindus) but unlike Al Qaeda or ISIS none of the recognized militant groups in Kashmir claim to target the civilians for their political objectives. Their freedom struggle cannot therefore be termed as terrorism and it is completely legitimate as per the above-mentioned UN resolutions.

Myth # 5 – UN resolutions require Pakistan to first withdraw its troops from Kashmir; it is Pakistan that has not fulfilled its UN obligations.            Some quarters in India feed half-truths to their public in order to win support for the Indian government’s position on Kashmir. One such half-truth is based on UNSC Resolution 47, adopted on 21st April 1948, which called for Pakistan to withdraw its troops first. The Indian historians and writers fail to inform their public that this resolution was superseded two years later by resolution 80, adopted on 14th March 1950, which called for simultaneous withdrawal of forces by both India and Pakistan.

Myth # 6 – Article 370 was meant to be a temporary arrangement.          Article 370 was enacted under part XXI of the Constitution of India which deals with “Temporary, Transitional and Special provisions”. A petition was launched in the Supreme Court of India seeking a declaration that Article 370 was a temporary provision that lapsed with the dissolution of the Jammu & Kashmir constituent assembly on 26th Jan 1957. The Supreme Court ruled that the dissolution of the assembly has made it impossible for the President to seek its recommendation for abrogation of the Article (which was necessary), hence making it a permanent part of the constitution[33]. The honorable judge also cited a similar verdict by the Supreme Court in its 2017 judgment of the State Bank of India vs. Santosh Gupta case.[34]

The abrogation of Article 370 and 35A and the lockdown in Kashmir have been challenged in the Indian Supreme Court by way of 14 petitions. A 5-member bench will start hearing these petitions in October 2019[35].

Myth # 7 – Repealing Article 370 will allow more investment and prosperity to Kashmir which will resolve the Kashmir issue.          The government of India considers the Kashmir issue as primarily an economic one, which can be solved through better economic management, more employment opportunities and greater investment. It does not recognize (or does not want to recognize) the real reason for discontent among the Kashmiris which is that they have been systematically deprived of their right to self-determination, despite the UN resolutions and multiple public promises of a plebiscite by one of the founding fathers of India and its first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru[36]. The fundamental question is, can a population be pacified through economics if its grievances are political in nature?

Mihir Sharma, a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and a senior economist, thinks not, and gives convincing reasons in his excellent article “Investment Won’t Bring Peace to Kashmir”[37]. He asks, “Does anyone really think that a development plan for Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon will lead to a peace settlement? Can anyone stop laughing when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin claims the West Bank and Gaza are soon “going to be like a hot IPO?” He argues that India is facing an investment crisis with private investment having collapsed, hitting a 14-year low. “If the government can’t get the private sector to invest in peaceful, relatively developed parts of India, what makes officials think businesses will rush to invest in one of the most militarized and troubled parts of the world?”

The Indian government’s claim that the annexation of Kashmir is in the Kashmiris’ best interests begs the question: Why aren’t the Kashmiris consulted in deciding what they want and what is in their best interest? Why should the world’s largest democracy be afraid of people’s voices? Does the Indian government seriously think that it can sow the seeds of love through bullets[38]?

Kashmir – A Humanitarian Crisis

Apart from the historical and legal aspects of the Kashmir issue there is a humanitarian aspect as well. If not for any other reason the fair-minded citizens of the world ought to be concerned about and raise their voice on the human cost being extracted from the Kashmiris by the Indian military. Kashmir is perhaps the most militarized region in the world with around 900,000 Indian troops and paramilitary present to occupy a population of 8 million people. Since 1989 when the armed struggle started Human Rights Watch has reported that 50,000 people were killed in Kashmir until 2006. The Kashmir State Human Rights Commission has evidence of 2,730 bodies buried in 40 mass graves. The Commission reported over 8,000 disappearances. The Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society said that by 2016, there were over 70,000 killings, most by Indian forces[39]. Amnesty International reports that disappearances, torture and rape by Indian Army units against Kashmiri Muslims are common. The use of rape by Indian troops as a weapon of war is common.

In the 2013 report on her mission to India, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, said, “[W]omen living in militarized regions, such as Jammu and Kashmir and the north-eastern states, live in a constant state of siege and surveillance, whether in their homes or in public. Information received through both written and oral testimonies highlighted the use of mass rape, allegedly by members of the State security forces, as well as acts of enforced disappearance, killings and acts of torture and ill-treatment, which were used to intimidate and to counteract political opposition and insurgency.” The Special Rapporteur added that she was “not informed of any measures to ensure accountability and redress for victims[40]”.

A recent addition to the Indian forces’ arsenal against civilian protesters is the pellet-firing shotgun, which is a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun that fires metal pellets. According to the Human Rights Watch report Indian security forces used excessive force that led to unlawful killings and a very high number of injuries. Civil society estimates are that 130 to 145 civilians were killed by security forces between mid-July 2016 and end of March 2018, and 16 to 20 civilians were killed by armed groups in the same period. A number of Kashmiris including children were blinded by these pellet gun shots as they hit them in the eyes. The State Human Rights Commission has registered 3,800 cases of pellet injuries and blinding since 2016[41].

Genocide Watch issued a Genocide Alert on Indian occupied Kashmir on 15th August 2019[42], based on the following early warning signals:

  • Prior genocidal massacres and continuing impunity for such killings;
  • Continued armed conflict between India and Pakistan over border areas in Kashmir;
  • An exclusionary ideology of “Hindutva” – India as Hindu nation – by Modi’s ruling BJP;
  • Authoritarian military rule without legal restraints imposed by civilian Indian officials;
  • Rule by a minority military force (Hindus and Sikhs) over majority Muslim citizens;
  • Cut-off of communications and outside access by internet, media, and trade;
  • Widespread violations of basic human rights – torture, rape, 2-year detentions without charge, arbitrary arrests and deportations of Muslim political and human rights leaders.

Genocide Watch has called upon the United Nations and its members to warn India not to commit genocide in Kashmir.

In its first ever report on the situation of human rights in Kashmir, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has mentioned the atrocities committed by Indian troops against Kashmiri civilians over a two year period since July 2016 when violent protests broke out at the killing of a Kashmiri freedom fighter. The Indian government rejected the report as fallacious. The report expressed concern over impunity for human rights violations and lack of access to justice. It noted that the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) have “created structures that obstruct the normal course of law, impede accountability and jeopardize the right to remedy for victims of human rights violations.” The AFSPA, which is also present in several states in India’s northeast, grants the armed forces the power to shoot to kill in law enforcement situations, to arrest without warrant, and to detain people without time limits. The law forbids prosecution of soldiers without approval from the central government, which is rarely granted, giving them effective immunity for serious human rights abuses. The report also called for the repeal of the Public Safety Act, which it said was used to detain over 1,000 people, including children, between March 2016 and August 2017[43].  Interestingly, the report includes human rights abuses in both Indian and Pakistani sides of Kashmir but notes that those in Pakistani Kashmir are of a “different caliber or magnitude.”


Kashmir is an international issue waiting to be resolved, and the unilateral action by India to annex it by repealing Article 370 is illegal in light of the UN resolutions. Various excuses given by the Indian government to justify the recent move do not stack up to historical facts. The continuing delay in granting Kashmiris the right to self-determination will exacerbate the human cost. Any attempt to change the demography of Indian occupied Kashmir may result in hundreds or thousands of deaths in the future. Such a scenario is likely to bring the two nuclear armed countries, which have fought three wars on the same issue, to the brink of another war. It is about time that the international community takes punitive action (perhaps starting with trade sanctions) forcing India to abide by the UN charter and resolutions on Kashmir.


The author is an Advisor on Islamic Finance at the Central Bank of Bahrain.




[3] ‘The Human Toll of the Kashmir Conflict: Grief and Courage in a South Asian Borderland’, Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 21–. ISBN 978-1-137-54622-7

[4] – ‘A New Tack in Kashmir’ and ‘Peaceful Protests in Kashmir Alter Equation for India’

















[21] atoot ang in Urdu/Hindi




[25] ibid

[26] “Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris” by Christopher Snedden, page 96

[27] and

[28] India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on the Line of Control in 2003

[29] Aggression is defined as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.”

[30] ibid


[32] “Peaceful Protests in Kashmir Alter Equation for India” by Emily Fox, 28 August 2008






[38] Pakistan’s famous poet of resistance Habib Jalib once wrote: “Are you sowing the seeds of love through bullets? Are you washing the face of the homeland with blood? You think you are moving towards the destination; I am sure that you are losing your way.”

[39] Unofficial estimates put this number at over 100,000

[40] Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Rashida Manjoo, Addendum: Mission to India (A/HRC/26/38/Add.1), 1 April 2014, para 23



[43] To read the full report click here

ajax loader

Sohaib Umar
About Sohaib Umar 1 Article
The author is an Advisor on Islamic Finance at the Central Bank of Bahrain.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.