Frequently Asked Questions on JAMMU & KASHMIR

1. The Accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India is disputed, and ceded to the Indian Union only the areas of defense, foreign affairs and finance. What has made India regard accession as permanent?

At the time of Independence, India was primarily under two administrations: The Government of India directly run by the British Crown; and the princely States, who owed allegiance to the Crown but administered their own territories. The Accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India was made in accordance with The India Independence Act, 1947. Under this Act none of the princely States was permitted to declare independence [Sec II (3)]. They could opt for either India or Pakistan with the executive qualifying that geographical contiguity to either State and the predominant religion of the region would govern this option. The Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Khairpur were therefore required to accede to India and Pakistan respectively. The Hindu Maharajah (ruler) of J&K in fact temporized on accession in the hope that he might win independence.

A tribal invasion from Pakistan forced him to bow to the will of the then predominant political party with a primarily local Muslim leadership and following, the National Conference led by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, to accede to India on the prescribed terms and conditions. This was what was done. Till the arrival of the Indian Army to the relief of the beleaguered state, it was only the volunteers of the National Conference and their predominantly Muslim supporters, who "braved death in stemming the invasion" standing between the organized military forces from Pakistan and the capital Srinagar, after the invaders had overcome the State forces at the frontier town of Muzaffarabad. Thereafter it was the local Forest Rangers of Kashmir, mostly Muslim and seconded by the emergency government of Sheikh Abdullah, who moving "across the mountains and through the forests with incredible speed...produced the most accurate information regarding enemy (Pakistan/tribal) strengths, location and movements." (Lt. Gen. LP Sen: Slender was the Thread, Orient Longman, 1969 - pp 36 & 142).

The accession of J&K to the Indian union is not disputed. However, Pakistan is, despite this clear legal position, in occupation of one third of the state (33,000 sq. miles of a total area of 85,806 sq. miles) as a result of the invasion, which has made it the subject of dispute. Moreover, this invasion cannot be passed off as a local insurrection. The presence of Pakistan's regular troops is attested by UNCIP documents. (UNCIP First Report, S/1100).

2. Was British India not finally divided into two States, one Muslim and one Hindu? With its Muslim majority and physical contiguity, should not J & K then have logically become part of Pakistan?

It is correct that British India was divided into two States; India and Pakistan. While Pakistan was avowedly a Muslim State based on a Muslim majority, India was then and has been ever since a secular State. Besides, the Radcliffe Award who divided the areas under direct British rule into those with a Muslim majority from the remaining, the future of princely states lay in the nation to which they acceded. Jammu & Kashmir was such a state and it acceded to India.

3. If there is indeed no dispute regarding the State's accession to India, why did the case go before the UN?

The matter was taken before the UN at a time when India was newly emerging from a century of colonial rule and in a world just recovering from perhaps the most devastating war in history. India sought UN intervention at that time, as part of the State, which had acceded to India and was therefore Indian Territory was under the forcible occupation of a foreign power. The UN would then have been considered by a war weary world as the future's strongest hope for amity among nations. The only other alternative would have been to pursue the war inflicting suffering and bringing face to face components of an army which had been but one till yesterday, with one Supreme Commander, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck and Commanders-in-Chief who were both British; General Sir Frank Messervy followed by Sir Douglas Gracey of Pakistan, and General Sir Rob Lockhart followed by General Roy Bucher of India. Many formations and units of both forces continued to be commanded by British officers.

4. The UN had decided in 1948 that a plebiscite be held in the State of J & K to determine its future. Although both India and Pakistan accepted the resolution, why does India now resist the idea of a plebiscite?

The UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolved on 13 August 1948 that a cease fire be declared between India and Pakistan, then at war in J&K, to be followed by a truce leading to plebiscite. This resolution which was accepted by India on 20 August 1948, was in three parts:

1. Cease-fire
2. Pakistan to unconditionally withdraw troops, tribesmen and nationals from J&K
3. Upon notification of the withdrawal of Pakistani troops and others specified in part II, India to withdraw the bulk of her forces, retaining an adequate strength for law and order duties. Plebiscite to be then held.

No Pakistani withdrawal has taken place to date.

5. There is a special clause in the Constitution of India determining the status of J&K in the Indian Union. How then is J&K described as an "integral" part of India?

There are special provisions in the Constitution of India regarding several States e.g. Maharashtra and Gujarat (Art 371), Nagaland (Art 371-A), Assam (Art 371-B), Manipur (Art 371-C), Andhra Pradesh (Art 371-D), Sikkim (Art 371-F), Mizoram (Art 371-G), Arunachal Pradesh (Art 371-H), Goa (Art 371-I). Nor are these standard provisions, but vary with the requirement of each State. Moreover, while these are permanent provisions Art 370, the provision in respect of J&K State is a temporary provision, revocable or subject to modification by presidential notification issued with the concurrence of the State Assembly.

6. Under the above clause Indians are not permitted to purchase immovable property in the State. Has this not deliberately nurtured separatist trends in local politics?

This clause in no way governs the purchase of property in J&K, and a cursory glance at the contents will bear this out. The acquisition of property in the State is governed by the Alienation of Lands Act, adopted in the time of the Maharajah and thereafter amended to allow only Indians to own immovable property. However this property is to be acquired only by those Indians who are also State subjects, or permanent residents of the State.

This is not the only part of India where the acquisition of property is thus restricted. In all States, Union Territories or regions so classified, only resident tribals are permitted to own property e.g. Mizoram, Nagaland, Lakshadweep, Nicobar, the Bastar region of Madhya Pradesh, the Jharkand region of Bihar etc. This has in no way nurtured separatist feelings in these States or areas.

7. The general belief is that the Kashmiri populace has remained mostly disaffected from India. Why has it not been possible for India, which claims to be among the world's freest democracies to respond effectively?

There are absolutely no grounds to assume that the Kashmiris have remained disaffected from India since the Accession. The basis of the Accession has been discussed in answer to question No.1. After the accession there has been no persistent disaffection other than sporadic, characterizing all parts of India and remedied over time by the democratic process. There have been elections held in Kashmir since 1951 as in other parts of J&K State and in the rest of the country. Although there have been allegations of malpractice’s in some elections, these have not been generally upheld by the legal system. Even the most trenchant critics admit that the elections of 1977 were totally free. Secession was not an issue in that election or in any other.

Even though it is alleged that the current insurgency arose as a result of "rigging" of the 1987 election, it is nowhere claimed that secession was an issue even then. If indeed there was interference in the election process (which is in itself unsubstantiated) it could therefore have been a result only of inter-party rivalry which would have been exposed through legal recourse, had the situation so been allowed.

It might also be borne in mind that both in 1977 and in 1983 elections, wherein the ruling party at the Center contested vigorously (in both cases the Prime Ministers campaigned personally: Mr. Morarji Desai in 1977 and Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1983), it was the regional party that triumphed and not the ruling party at the Center, with all the resources supposedly at its disposal.

Moreover, the present disorder relates exclusively to the Kashmiri speaking portion of the population of Jammu & Kashmir. This is the population confined to 8,600 sq. miles with a population of 3.2m (1981 census). This might be compared with 12,000 sq. miles of Jammu Division (2.7m), and Ladakh 33,000 sq. miles (133,000). The Kashmiri speaking population does not even embrace the entire Muslim population of the State. There is hardly an echo of the militancy among the people of Jammu Division (30% Muslim including Muslim majority districts of Poonch and Rajouri), except in the Kashmiri speaking Doda district, or those of Ladakh (45% Muslim including the Muslim majority district of Kargil).

8. Since India has not been able to resolve this issue directly with Pakistan for so long despite resort to war, why is she not agreeable to accepting UN mediation or that of a third party?

The issue concerning Pakistan is peripheral to the main issue at present under contention, which is the military confrontation which till recently existed in the State. The political issues plaguing the State can be resolved only by mutual discussion between the peoples' representatives and the Government of India. Hence the Government's determination to return power to the people through the electoral process.

This has been the process which has ensured internal peace to the people of Kashmir from 1949 to 1989, despite wars with Pakistan and the fact that Pakistan's basic position regarding the State has remained unchanged which is the continued occupation of a part of the State without reduction of troops. The situation has been sought to be further worsened by promotion of terrorism within the State by Pakistan, thus repeatedly delaying efforts to carry through the electoral process and restoring democracy. Such a restoration was seen as a key element in resolving issues within the State before turning to the international issues involving Pakistan. Now that elections have been conducted and a government of the J&K people restored, we can hope for an end to the sufferings of the people of Kashmir. The restoration of comparative peace in the Valley, with markets bustling and holiday makers flocking the fabled gardens gives grounds for optimism, provided that there is no attempt at outside interference.

The resolution of mutual issues can best be decided by dialogue between India and Pakistan, as has been decided in an agreement signed by the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India and then President ZA Bhutto of Pakistan on 3 July, 1972, at Shimla (aka simla).

The Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met in Colombo, Sri Lanka on July 29, 1998 during the 10th SAARC Summit. The dialogue process will continue (Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha on August 3, 1998 & Foreign Secretary's Statement on the dialogue process on July 31, 1998 in Colombo, Sri Lanka). For more on India - Pakistan Dialogue

In response to an invitation by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of India, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, visited Pakistan from 20-21 February, 1999, on the inaugural run of the Delhi-Lahore bus service. The Prime Minister Vajpayee along with Pakistan Prime Minister Sharif waving to people gathered at the Wagah Border after crossing the border by bus in Pakistan on February 20, 1999 (External Affairs Minister's Statement in the Parliament|Lahore Declaration|Joint Statement|MoU between India & Pakistan).

9. India has stated that she is willing to discuss the issue under the Shimla Agreement. In what way will this agreement insofar as it pertains to Kashmir, pave the way to a peaceful settlement?

A peaceful settlement requires two essential elements:

i) That Pakistan desist from supporting and indeed championing terrorism in J&K.

ii) That internal difficulties in the State be resolved through political dialogue, between Government and people.

Once this is achieved, remaining differences with Pakistan can be resolved through bilateral dialogue as laid down in the Shimla agreement.

10. There are reports from human rights groups both from within India and internationally, of widespread human rights abuses by the security forces in J&K, particularly in the Kashmir Valley. Does this not tarnish India's image for respect for human rights? What has been Government's response?

Since the descent of the State of Jammu & Kashmir into Pakistan supported militancy in 1989, there have been allegations of human rights abuses by Indian security forces. Over the last decade, thousands have lost their lives including over 1,000 members of the security forces. The terrorists specifically targeted the press, including editors of the leading Kashmiri newspapers, apart from the security forces, police and the judiciary. In spite of this Government took a public stand on the issue and when complaints could be legally substantiated against government personnel, action was repeatedly taken against the offenders. In 1993, by an Act of Parliament the National Human Rights Commission was set up. The Commission, staffed by retired justices, has issued instruction booklets to security personnel, as supplements to existing instructions, on how they are to behave with civilian populations in times of disorder and respect human rights in precarious situations. Over the last five years this Commission has been widely praised, including by the US Government, for its very active role in investigating and following up of human rights abuses in a tough and independent manner.

A similar commission has also been set up at the State level in Jammu & Kashmir after the installation of the present State government. Government policy is therefore clear and mechanisms also exist for restitution. There is therefore no question of a ‘deterioration’ in human rights.

On the other hand, any impartial observer of the subcontinent will realise that human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir are the result of terrorist action, ruthlessly targeting men, women and children. The US State Department’s annual report on terrorism has squarely stated that there is credible evidence of official Pakistani support for terrorism in J&K. Indeed, in the last report it specifically listed the Harkat-ul-Ansar, a Pakistan based organisation, operating in J&K, as a terrorist organisation. It is an offshoot of this organisation that claimed responsibility for kidnapping five foreign tourists including two Americans. One of these, a Norwegian, was brutally beheaded. One American managed to escape. The fate of the others remains unknown.

Over the last few years, it has been possible through increasingly effective action by the security forces against the terrorists together with political initiatives, to improve security for the people. The State of Jammu & Kashmir has had Parliamentary elections as well as State elections, asserting the peoples’ will through the ballot. However, the continuing danger posed to the people by Pakistani sponsored terrorists was brought home starkly in recent months, when three massacres specifically targeting the Hindu population of the State were perpetrated in Wandhama (January 1998) slaughtering 23 members of all Hindu families in the village, Prankote (April 1998), in which 29 Hindus were dragged from their homes to be knifed, bludgeoned and shot in cold blood, and in Chapnali (June, 1998, reported in detail in the New York Times of June 20) where 25 members of a marriage party were murdered as they rested by a wayside tea stall.

The manner of these atrocities and the evidence of witnesses attest to the fact that the killers are mostly from outside the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Surely therefore, the prerequiste for lasting peace in the State must be a complete halt to the patronage of such criminals.

Economic opportunities in the State of Jammu & Kashmir

As a result of initiatives taken by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in the background of an improved security environment, several opportunities now exist to encourage investment in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

1. A 90-year lease on land within the State of Jammu and Kashmir is available to all for business ventures and exemption from toll tax and sales tax together with capital investment subsidy for new ventures.
2. Under the Development Action Plan the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Bank will provide loans up to Rs. 125 million in farm, non-farm, transport and business sectors both rural and urban.
3. Special assistance is to be made available for the promotion of cottage and rural industries including expediting loans and access to raw materials.
4. Other industries with special emphasis include Multi-Silk Reeling, cement and mineral water plant and research and development on evolving a product range in Pashmina fabric for both domestic and export markets.

Under infrastructure development, industrial estates are being set up to facilitate availability of accommodation for new industries, upgradation of the Jammu - Srinagar Highway through private investment and encouragement of development of roads and bridges. Investments are also encouraged to upgrade urban facilities in the capitals of Srinagar and Jammu.