Kashmir Conflict. 1 of 7 11/30/11 9:53 AM

Transcription

1 Issue Date: August 20, 2007 Kashmir Conflict Since ICOF last covered the Kashmir conflict in August 2004, the leaders of Pakistan and India made steady progress in talks on the disputed region, and all signs indicated that they were inching toward a landmark agreement under which the entire region would be given autonomy and demilitarized. Click here for the latest developments concerning this controversial issue. History of India and Pakistan Tensions over Kashmir Rise War Deemed Inevitable Chance for Peaceful Resolution Seen U.S. Role in Region Unclear Bibliography Additional Sources Contact Information Key Words and Points Kashmir Conflict Update (2004) Kashmir Conflict Update (2007) Over the past 60 years, India and Pakistan have gone to war three times, twice over the disputed region of Kashmir. Since both of those countries now have nuclear weapons, today many observers believe that the conflict over Kashmir could escalate into the world's first nuclear war. Indeed, the question of whether U.S. officials and other international leaders can convince India and Pakistan to resolve their dispute peacefully has been a source of frequent discussion. Kashmir is a mountainous region bordering on India, Pakistan and China. Ever since India and Pakistan gained their independence from Great Britain in 1947, they have battled over which country should control Kashmir. Currently, India controls roughly two-thirds of the region, with Pakistan controlling the remaining portion. The dispute between India and Pakistan is not only about land and power, but also about religion. Indeed, religion plays an important role in how both countries are governed. India is overwhelmingly Hindu, and Pakistan is a Muslim state. Because most of the people who live in Kashmir are Muslims, the Pakistani government has long claimed that India should allow Kashmir to become part of Pakistan. The Kashmir conflict has concerned international observers for years, but recently fears about another war between India and Pakistan have become more urgent. In 1998, the two rivals both tested nuclear weapons. As a result, analysts warned that the next battle over Kashmir could trigger the first use of nuclear weapons since World War II ( ), and could even escalate into a full-scale nuclear war. That possibility never seemed more likely than for a few months in early Following a series of terrorist attacks in India and Kashmir that Indian officials blamed on extremists from Pakistan, India dramatically increased its military presence along the border dividing control of Kashmir. Pakistan, in turn, raised the number of troops on its side of the border. Several skirmishes across the border ensued, and many observers predicted that war was imminent. In an effort to prevent the world's first nuclear war, diplomats from around the world have traveled to the region to advocate a political solution to the conflict. While leaders from India and Pakistan have downplayed the possibility of using nuclear weapons during the most recent crisis, neither side has completely forsworn a nuclear attack. Moreover, neither side has demonstrated a willingness to back down. Despite the growing tensions, many policy makers contend that the conflict can be resolved diplomatically. Each nation would risk its very existence by choosing to use nuclear weapons--no matter which country attacked first, the other would have time to retaliate, observers say. In fact, many analysts say that the recent escalation is mere posturing by both sides in an effort to gain political advantage. Others, however, argue that a war between India and Pakistan is unavoidable, and that such a war will likely involve the use of nuclear weapons. The hatred between the two countries has existed for years, skeptics note. They argue that many people throughout the region would rather go to war than be viewed as having given in to the other side. Is nuclear war between India and Pakistan inevitable? Or can diplomacy by U.S. leaders and other international peacemakers bring peace to South Asia? Jeremy Eagle 1 of 7 11/30/11 9:53 AM

2 AP/Wide World Kashmiri demonstrators burn the Indian flag and an effigy of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Mazaffarabad, the capital of the Pakistani portion of Kashmir, during "Kashmir Solidarity Day" in February History of India and Pakistan The entire Indian subcontinent has been dominated by foreign powers throughout much of its history. It became a colony of Great Britain during the 1700s. By the early 20th century, however, the people of South Asia had grown resentful of British control and began to clamor for independence. In India, Mohandas Gandhi famously led the Hindu separatist movement's campaign of non-violent resistance to British rule. At the same time, Muslims in the region called not only for independence but also for a partition of the Indian subcontinent that would allow for the creation of a separate Muslim state. In 1947, England gave in to those demands, leading to the creation of India and Pakistan as independent states. The latter actually consisted of two regions of land on opposite sides of India, West Pakistan and East Pakistan. The division of the Indian subcontinent triggered one of the most massive migrations in world history. Roughly 3.5 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from Pakistan into India, and about five million Muslims migrated from India into Pakistan. As the two countries began to form, they quickly fell into dispute over control of several regions, notably Kashmir. Initially, the various principalities in the region were supposed to conduct elections to determine which country to join. However, such elections were never held. Eventually, the Hindu ruler of Kashmir, Hari Singh, decided to join India despite the fact that 85% of his subjects were Muslim. When the Pakistani government contested that decision, a war broke out between the two newly formed nations. Indian troops were sent in to defend what was now Indian land. The international community clamored for a peaceful resolution, with the United Nations (U.N.) in 1948 passing a resolution calling for the future of the region to be determined "through the democratic method of free and impartial plebiscite." (A plebiscite is a nationwide vote to choose a government or determine the legitimacy of a particular regime.) After more than a year, neither country proved able to conquer the other. The war finally ended on Jan. 1, The U.N. then established a cease-fire line between the two nations, subsequently known as the "Line of Control." India retained power over two-thirds of Kashmir, primarily the eastern regions of Jammu and Ladakh. The western section, Azad Kashmir, became self-governing but in close alignment with Pakistan. (China would later occupy a portion of India's region.) The cease-fire proved short-lived, however. The conflict over Kashmir erupted yet again in 1965, when Pakistani forces crossed the Line of Control. India responded by invading the Pakistani areas. Those moves triggered three weeks of fighting that ended only after the U.N. intervened and brokered another cease-fire. Six years later, a third major conflict between India and Pakistan took place. However, unlike the others, this war did not revolve around Kashmir, but around the future of Pakistan itself. Since 1947, Pakistan had struggled to remain unified. The country's geographic divisions were matched by significant linguistic, cultural and economic differences. While most Pakistanis were Muslims, residents of West Pakistan came from many ethnic groups and spoke several languages. The people of East Pakistan, meanwhile, were more homogenous, almost all of them Bengali. Moreover, although East Pakistan was home to more than half of Pakistan's population, many of its residents began to feel that their needs were not represented in the Pakistani government. Those concerns grew into a strong movement to give East Pakistan more autonomy. Those tensions came to a head in That year, the Awami League party, a political coalition that favored greater autonomy for East Pakistan, won 167 out of the 313 seats in the Pakistani parliament. The government of Pakistan, threatened by the election victory, banned the Awami League and arrested its leaders. That action triggered rioting in East Pakistan, to which the Pakistani government responded with military force. Civil war broke out in Pakistan. Soon, tens of thousands of refugees tried to escape the violence in East Pakistan by crossing into India. Eventually, India decided to support the Bengali movement for independence and entered the war. With India's help, Bengali separatists emerged victorious, allowing them to secede from Pakistan by the end of East Pakistan then became Bangladesh. Relations between India and Pakistan remained tense over the next 30 years, and the future of Kashmir remained in doubt. Yet for the most part, the two countries refrained from any significant military action. 2 of 7 11/30/11 9:53 AM

3 Despite the lack of violence, observers continued to worry about the possibility of a fourth war. Those concerns increased dramatically in May 1998, when India and Pakistan detonated a total of 11 nuclear warheads in a series of underground tests. Those tests proved to the world that each country had developed nuclear weapons. Prior to that year, only five countries had openly tested their nuclear arsenals: the U.S., Russia, Great Britain, France and China. [See 1998 Nuclear Proliferation] Tensions over Kashmir Rise With both India and Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons, analysts have taken to calling the dividing line between them the world's most dangerous border. Although neither country has used nuclear weapons in combat, sporadic fighting in Kashmir has continued in recent years. Moreover, the conflict has grown increasingly complicated because it involves not only India and Pakistan themselves but also a growing separatist movement within Kashmir. [See 2002 Independent Kashmir Sought (sidebar)] Jeremy Eagle Indeed, the conflict in Kashmir escalated in late 2001 and early 2002, once again attracting international attention to the region. In October 2001, militants attacked the Kashmiri legislative assembly, killing 38 people. A few months later, unidentified men launched a suicide attack on India's parliament that killed 14 people. India blamed Pakistan-backed Islamic militant groups for the attacks and responded with a huge military buildup along the Line of Control. In the wake of that military deployment, today roughly a million Indian and Pakistani troops are stationed along the Line of Control, and skirmishes across the border have become commonplace. While India's troop increase was clearly meant to intimidate Pakistan, it did not put an end to the terrorist attacks. In May 2002, militants assaulted an army camp in Indian-controlled Kashmir. That attack killed more than 30 people, including the wives and children of Indian soldiers. Immediately afterward, analysts warned that a massive war between the long-time rivals was more likely than ever before. Moreover, many observers speculated that a war between India and Pakistan would very likely include nuclear weapons. Two countries with nuclear weapons will not battle each other for long before one of the nations chooses to use its most powerful weapon, analysts say. "There's a realization growing that we cannot go on like this--crisis after crisis after crisis--with two nuclear-weapon states indefinitely," says Stephen Cohen, a South Asia analyst at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank. The possibility of nuclear war caused alarm throughout the world. According to U.S. estimates, a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would kill 12 million people and injure another seven million. Although the subsequent spread of nuclear radiation would be unlikely to cause damage as far away as the U.S., it could nevertheless harm countless people in the surrounding regions. Moreover, resolving the dispute is of particular importance to the U.S. because of the role Pakistan plays in the ongoing U.S. war on terrorism. Following a Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack against the U.S., American forces invaded Afghanistan to destroy the terrorist networks in that country. Although both India and Pakistan pledged support for the U.S. efforts, Pakistan is particularly crucial because it borders Afghanistan and had previously supported that country's now-dismantled Taliban regime. A war between India and Pakistan could severely hamper U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. U.S. officials believe that many terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attack, may have fled into Pakistan. Although Pakistan is currently helping U.S. forces track down those terrorists, officials worry that Pakistan may divert resources from that mission to focus on its conflict with India. "We could be getting a lot more help from the Pakistanis if there were not the tense situation with respect to the two countries," says U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Observers also say that the connection between the Kashmir conflict and the U.S. war on terror is not entirely coincidental. India's prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, has said that he views his country's problems with Islamic militants as analogous to U.S. problems with terrorists. Indeed, analysts say that his decision to increase pressure on Pakistan through increased militarization came partly because he expects the U.S. to recognize that analogy and pressure Pakistan to crack down on cross-border terrorism. War Deemed Inevitable Many analysts say that a war between India and Pakistan has long been unavoidable. Neither country has demonstrated a willingness to resolve the dispute peacefully, observers point out. They argue that with the two countries already having fought two wars over Kashmir, a third should come as a surprise to no one. Unlike previous wars, the next battle between the two rivals will possibly involve the use of nuclear weapons, observers say. Although officials from both India and Pakistan have downplayed the possibility of a nuclear exchange, few analysts have said that they believe the two countries will not use nuclear weapons once a war actually begins. "Nobody launches a nuclear war willingly; they do it as a last resort because they are forced into it," says Edward Luttwak, an independent defense analyst based in Washington, D.C. For years, military experts have supported the notion of deterrence--that no rational leader would attack a nation with nuclear weapons, because such an attack would likely trigger a nuclear response. Yet deterrence may not work in India and Pakistan, analysts say, because the religious hatred that fuels their conflict prevents each country from acting rationally. "The key point about nuclear weapons in the South Asian context is uncertainty," says Teresita Schaffer, a South Asia expert at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, a research organization. "No one can be certain what would trigger a nuclear response." In particular, for many people in Pakistan, Kashmir is an issue not only worth fighting for, but worth dying for, analysts say. Many Pakistanis would rather risk nuclear destruction than be seen by the world as having given in to India. "This is the red line of Pakistani politics," says Talat Masood, a retired lieutenant general in the Pakistani army, "the one issue on which we can never back down." 3 of 7 11/30/11 9:53 AM

4 Indeed, although Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, was willing to support the U.S. war on terror, many analysts say they doubt that he will give in to American demands to back down on Kashmir. Such a decision could create a fierce backlash against him within Pakistan, and might trigger his downfall. "For Musharraf personally to go further, precipitously, would endanger his position and that's where you run into trouble," says Alexander Evans, a research associate at the Center for Defense Studies, a London-based research organization. As a result, if India and Pakistan do go to war, most experts say, Pakistan is most likely to be the first to launch a nuclear attack. Because India's army is larger than and superior to Pakistan's forces, experts say that India would likely crush Pakistan in a conventional war. In order to prevent that, Pakistan may resort to nuclear weapons, analysts say. "It is very easy to envision scenarios under which this conflict does go nuclear, but they begin at the same premise: that there is a major ground war, and Pakistan is losing," says William Lind, a military analyst at Free Congress Foundation, a Washington D.C.-based think tank. In fact, while India has vowed not to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack, the Pakistani government has not made a similar pledge. Musharraf has said that he does not plan to use nuclear weapons, yet he has not guaranteed that Pakistan will not resort to them to defend its borders. "If there is an all-out assault that threatens their existence, the Pakistanis would go nuclear," says Brian Cloughley, a South Asia defense expert and former head of the U.N. mission in Kashmir. What makes the situation in South Asia so dire, some analysts say, is that a small skirmish could quickly evolve into an all-out war. Under the most likely scenario, they say, India would launch an assault against suspected terrorists in Pakistan, triggering a military response from Pakistan and a subsequent ground invasion by India. "What I worry about here is a miscalculation," says retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a former U.S. State Department adviser. "The Pakistanis probably won't accept [a raid on Pakistan-controlled Kashmir], and it could start a chain reaction." Once a ground war has begun, it is not hard to imagine a nuclear exchange following, observers say. "The danger lies in this tit-for-tat process," says Schaffer. "If both sides felt compelled to keep responding, they would risk losing control of the escalation ladder." Chance for Peaceful Resolution Seen Despite growing concerns about the possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, many analysts remain hopeful that such a worst-case scenario can be prevented. Officials in both countries have downplayed the chances of a nuclear attack, and it is clear that both sides realize that use of nuclear weapons by either country would likely lead to their mutual destruction, observers say. Analysts say that the recent crisis differs fundamentally from early crises because nuclear weapons are involved. They argue that while nuclear weapons make the prospects of war more frightening, the possibility of mutual destruction also decreases the chances of another India-Pakistan war taking place. Fearful that even the smallest battle could escalate into a nuclear exchange, both countries will go to great lengths to keep violence to a minimum, analysts say, or at least limited to conventional arms. Indeed, many experts say that the latest threats are mere posturing on the part of both sides. The international community, notably the U.S., paid attention to the problems in Kashmir only when the threat of nuclear war seemed real, they contend. In that way, nuclear weapons are an effective tool even when they are not actually used, observers say. "There has never been a nuclear threat," says Jairam Ramesh, an Indian legislator. "On both sides there has always been an understanding that nuclear weapons can only be used as a deterrent, and are only useful when they are not used." India, in particular, is using the threat of a nuclear war to draw attention to the Kashmir conflict and the outbreak of terrorist attacks over the past year, observers say. By making nuclear war appear to be a viable threat, India has forced the world to address the issue of Pakistan's support for terrorists in Kashmir. That gambit has paid off, analysts say. For the first time in the history of the Kashmir conflict, the U.S. has taken a role in trying to defuse tensions in South Asia. Both India and Pakistan desire strong relations with the U.S., the world's leading military and economic power. As a result, American peacemakers may be able to succeed diplomatically where others have failed, observers say. "The United States is uniquely placed now, as never in history, to do something," says Cohen, the Brookings Institution analyst. Indeed, President Bush (R) and his staff have already begun to take advantage of the opportunity to resolve the dispute. "We're going to work with friends around the world, all the leaders of the world, to do everything we can to keep this situation from turning into a conflict," says Colin Powell, the U.S. secretary of state. "We're putting a 100% full-court press on this and, of course, I speak to both sides on a regular basis." The primary goal of the U.S. intervention is to convince India and Pakistan that war benefits neither side, and that their conflict is best resolved through negotiations, observers say. "We are making it very clear to both Pakistan and India that war will not serve their interests," says President Bush. Many analysts expect the U.S. to be successful in that effort. By going to war with each other, they say, India and Pakistan would not only risk the well-being of their people, but would likely trigger widespread international condemnation. In other words, the two countries have little to gain through war, but much to lose, analysts say. "These countries, if they get into a major conflict, are going to set back years in terms of their political relationships with the rest of the world," says Rumsfeld. U.S. Role in Region Unclear As fears about a possible nuclear war peaked during the first half of 2002, the Bush administration sent several officials to meet with leaders of India and Pakistan. Those meetings seemed to defuse tensions and be effective in bringing India and Pakistan closer to negotiating, observers say. "I think you couldn't say the crisis is over, but I think you could say the tensions are down measurably," declared Richard Armitage, the U.S. deputy secretary of state. The decreasing of tensions was widely viewed as a victory for India, which had demanded and won a pledge that Musharraf would crack down on terrorists who had been fighting to free Kashmir. "This is a great achievement for India," says Talat Masood, a former Pakistani defense minister. "Pakistan has committed itself to do exactly what India was wanting. It has accepted international pressure and advice that the best way of supporting the Kashmir freedom struggle is through the political route rather than through the militancy route." While Musharraf's pledge to fight terrorism may have decreased tensions with India, it also increased internal pressure on his government. Many Islamic militants in Pakistan feel betrayed by the government's decision to help the U.S. war on terrorism and back down on Kashmir. Those militants could provoke unrest, destabilizing Musharraf's regime, observers say. Following the U.S. intervention in South Asia, a violent backlash within Pakistan quickly arose. In June 2002, terrorists exploded a car bomb outside the U.S. 4 of 7 11/30/11 9:53 AM

5 consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. The attack killed 10 people (though no Americans) and injured 45 others. As a result of increasing turmoil within Pakistan, analysts say that the problems in South Asia are far from over. Islamic militants could destabilize the government of Pakistan or provoke an attack by India, undermining the recent steps away from war, observers point out. "It could be that this is just a pause in what would be seen as a perpetual crisis in South Asia," says Cohen. Concerns about instability in the region have triggered calls for the U.S. and other outside groups to bring not just diplomacy to South Asia, but military assistance. Some observers have called for Britain, the U.S. or the U.N. to provide troops along the Line of Control in order to dissuade violence. That plan has not yet been approved, however. "If there were to be a very small number of British international troops assisting India and Pakistan along the Line of Control to reduce tension, that might be a way forward," says Geoff Hoon, the British defense secretary. "There are no specific plans to do that at this stage." Regardless of what happens next, few people expect the long-standing conflict over Kashmir to be resolved quickly or easily. Once the immediate goal of preventing nuclear war is met, it will take diplomats years to build enough trust between India and Pakistan to decide the future of Kashmir fairly, observers say. "When you have close to a million men glaring, shouting and occasionally shooting across a territory that is a matter of some dispute, then I think you couldn't say the crisis is over," says Armitage. Bibliography Badkhen, Anna. "India's Nuclear Rhetoric Pays Off; But War of Words with Pakistan Raises Hindu-Muslim Tension." San Francisco Chronicle (June 12, 2002): A12. Baker, Peter and Sipress, Alan. "Kashmir Foes Apart at Meeting." Washington Post (June 4, 2002): A1. Chandrasekaran, Rajiv. "Kashmiris in Middle of Tug of War." Washington Post (June 3, 2002): A9. Davidson, Keay. "Nuclear Threat Has World on Edge." San Francisco Chronicle (June 7, 2002): A21. Epstein, Edward. "Diplomats Face Tall Order in Bid to Defuse Kashmir." San Francisco Chronicle (June 7, 2002): A19. Graham, Bradley and Ricks, Thomas. "Military Disparity Adds to Uncertainty." Washington Post (June 1, 2002): A10. Greenfeld, Karl. "Musharraf on the Spot." Time (June 10, 2002): 32. Keen, Judy. "Bush Urges Leaders to Avoid a War over Kashmir." USA Today (June 6, 2002): A7. LaFraniere, Sharon and Khan, Kamran. "Pakistanis Redeploy to Border with India." Washington Post (May 31, 2002): A24. Sipress, Alan. "Americans in India Are Urged to Leave." Washington Post (June 1, 2002): A10. Wright, Robin. "U.S. Packs Carrots for South Asia." Los Angeles Times (June 5, 2002): A1. Additional Sources Additional information about the Kashmir conflict can be found in the following sources: Schofield, Victoria. Kashmir in Conflict. New York: St. Martin's Press, Wirsing, Robert. India, Pakistan and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution. New York: St. Martin's Press, Contact Information Information on how to contact organizations that are either mentioned in the discussion of bioterrorism and public health law or can provide additional information on the subject is listed below: U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C Telephone: (202) Internet: Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C Telephone: (202) Internet: The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C Telephone: (202) Internet: Key Words and Points For further information about the ongoing debate over the Kashmir Conflict, search for the following words and terms in electronic databases and other publications: Line of Control 5 of 7 11/30/11 9:53 AM

6 Atal Bihari Vajpayee Pervez Musharraf India-Pakistan conflict Richard Armitage Kashmir Conflict Update (August 2004) Since ICOF last covered the Kashmir conflict on July 12, 2002, violence continued to disrupt the region, but hopeful signs emerged as India and Pakistan restored diplomatic relations and began what appeared to be serious peace talks. Among the key events: As many as five suspected Muslim separatists killed nine Hindu pilgrims and wounded at least 28 more on August 6, 2002, in India's Jammu and Kashmir state. Security forces killed one militant in a gun battle. The pilgrims were camped at the beginning of the route to the Amarnath cave, which Hindus believed to be the home of the god Lord Shiva. [See 2002 Facts on File: India--Nine Hindu Pilgrims Slain in Kashmir; Other Developments.] In speeches marking the 55th anniversary of their nations' independence, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on August 14-15, 2002, exchanged barbs over Kashmir. Musharraf dismissed elections planned for September and October 2002 in Jammu and Kashmir state, India's Kashmir territory, as "farcical." Vajpayee said Pakistan "could not take Kashmir with war, so it started aiding cross-border terrorism." Days later, tensions flared again when U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage arrived in New Delhi, the Indian capital, on August 23. Pakistan accused India of mounting an "unprovoked" cross-border airstrike against one of its Kashmir military posts. India denied the claim, and both nations traded charges of attempting to undermine Armitage's mission. [See 2002 Facts on File: Kashmir Dispute--Dueling Speeches Mark Independence Days; Kashmir Dispute--Tensions Flare as U.S. Envoy Arrives; Other Developments.] Voters in Jammu and Kashmir state went to the polls on September 16, 2002, in the first round of state assembly elections. Militant violence had already been taking place, especially against politicians who defied a boycott of the vote. About 50 people had been killed in the previous week. The elections concluded on October 8 with a fourth round held mainly in Doda district. On that occasion, two gunmen attacked a polling station and killed one police officer. By this point, more than 700 people had been slain in election-related violence. On October 10, final election results confirmed that the National Conference (NC) party had failed to win a majority after ruling for most of the past 50 years. The two parties set to create a coalition government, the national Congress (I) party and the People's Democratic Party (PDP), both backed peace talks with separatist militants, and on October 26 the two parties said they had indeed agreed to form a coalition. PDP leader Mufti Muhammad Sayeed, who was to serve as chief minister, then said he would consider releasing political prisoners who were being held without charges and investigating deaths that had occurred in police custody. On October 16, Indian officials had commented that with the elections successfully concluded, a partial withdrawal of forces would be opportune, and Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes said that India would begin a partial withdrawal of forces from its border with Pakistan. The next day Pakistan said it would follow suit, signaling that a military standoff between the two nations was ending after nearly a year. [See 2002 Facts on File: India--Violence Mars First Round of Kashmir Vote; Other Developments; India--Kashmir Election Concluded; Other Development; India--Ruling Party Ousted in Kashmir Election; India--Kashmir Coalition Government Set; Kashmir Dispute-- India, Pakistan Set Troop Withdrawals.] Despite the successful election in Jammu and Kashmir state and the partial withdrawal of troops from the border, violence still continued to plague the region. On November 24, 2002, Muslim militants attacked two Hindu temples in Jammu, killing 10 people and wounding about 40 before being overwhelmed by police. The attack was the third in a series that had disrupted several weeks of calm in the province. On March 23, 2003, in the worst violence since the election, at least eight Muslim militants dressed in Indian army uniforms killed 24 Hindus in Nadi Marg, a village in Jammu and Kashmir state. A month later, three Muslim militants and two Indian soldiers were killed on April 26 in a car bombing and a subsequent gunfight at the offices of the state-run broadcasting service in Srinagar. Then, on June 28, a suicide attack by two Muslim militants killed 12 Indian troops at a military base near Jammu. [See 2002 Facts on File: India--10 Killed in Kashmir Temple Attack; Other Developments; 2003 India-- Militants Kill 24 in Kashmir; Other Developments; India--News in Brief; India--Militants Kill 12 Troops in Kashmir.] In a surprise move, on May 2, 2003, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee, in a speech to the Indian Parliament, said he was restoring diplomatic ties and transportation links with Pakistan and was making a final effort toward peace. Four days later, Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali announced the restoration of full diplomatic relations, transport links and sporting competitions with India. Both sides appeared willing to make some compromises. Pakistan, while insisting that Kashmir's fate would loom large in any discussions, indicated that other issues could be settled first, and India suggested that a measurable decline in militant activity in Kashmir could substitute for the complete cessation it had insisted upon earlier. By the end of the month India and Pakistan had exchanged new ambassadors. [See 2003 Facts on File: India, Pakistan Restore Ties; International News--India, Pakistan Name Ambassadors.] On November 25, 2003, Indian and Pakistani troops stationed along the Line of Control dividing Kashmir began observing a cease-fire that Pakistani Prime Minister Jamali had proposed two days before. However, the cease-fire, although part of a broader lessening of tensions, did not end political violence in Kashmir. An attack by suspected separatist militants near a bus station in the district of Poonch on December 10 killed three people and inured more than 15 others, according to police. Indian Deputy Prime Minister L. K. Advani had indicated on October 24 that the government would be willing to consider discussing more autonomy for Kashmir in planned talks with separatist leaders. [See 2003 Facts on File: Kashmir Dispute--India, Pakistan Begin Cease-fire; Other Developments.] As the year 2004 began, signs of a possible peace agreement appeared encouraging. In a joint statement issued on January 6, 2004, Pakistani President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee said their two countries would resume peace talks over Kashmir in February. Then, on February 18, high-level officials from India and Pakistan agreed to what they termed a "road map" for peace negotiations. The plan set out meetings at various diplomatic levels to be held from March through August. They would focus not only on solving the dispute over Kashmir, but also on antiterrorism efforts, trade promotion, nuclear security, water-sharing and confidence-building. On June 27-28, top-level Indian and Pakistani officials held the first in a series of confidence-building talks. [See 2004 Facts on File: India, Pakistan Set Kashmir Peace Talks; South Asia--India, Pakistan Set Peace Road Map; Other Development; India-Pakistan Relations--High-Level Talks Begin; Other Developments.] Kashmir Conflict Update (August 2007) Since ICOF last covered the Kashmir conflict in August 2004, the leaders of Pakistan and India made steady progress in talks on the disputed region, and all signs indicated that they were inching toward a landmark agreement under which the entire region would be given autonomy and demilitarized. Among the key events: As part of India and Pakistan's peace effort, which had begun in 2003, on September 24, 2004 in New York City, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf held their first meeting. They spoke of a good rapport and hopes for a new start in relations between their nations, while adding that they were dedicated to exploring all options for peacefully resolving the conflict over Kashmir. On October 25, Musharraf, speaking to a group of journalists, informally proposed demilitarizing the entire Kashmir zone or controlling it jointly or granting it 6 of 7 11/30/11 9:53 AM

7 independence, remarks that seemed to indicate a shift from Pakistan's traditional insistence on a Kashmir plebiscite. On November 11, Singh declared a troop withdrawal of unspecified size from the disputed Muslim-majority region of Jammu and Kashmir, although the reductions would affect troops in the region's interior and not those stationed along the Line of Control separating Indian-held territory from Pakistani-held territory. The announcement was seen as an attempt to speed up the sluggish peace process. Six days later, Singh said he would consider any proposal as long as it did not involve redrawing international borders or further partitioning on the basis of religion. Both Kashmiri and Pakistani leaders cautiously welcomed Singh's peace moves. [See 2004 Facts On File: India-Pakistan Relations--Singh, Musharraf Meet in New York, India--Prime Minister Sets Kashmir Troop Pullout] An encouraging sign of rapprochement came on February 16, 2005, when Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh and Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood agreed to put into operation the first bus service in more than 50 years between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar, the capitals of the Pakistani- and Indian-controlled parts of the disputed Kashmir territory, respectively. The bus service began on April 7. [See 2005 Facts On File: India-Pakistan Relations--Bus Service to Link Divided Kashmir, India-Pakistan Relations--Bus Travel Resumes Across Line of Control] On April 16-18, 2005, President Musharraf visited India for the first time since 2001 and met with Prime Minister Singh. As their talks concluded, the two leaders said they had agreed on measures to create a "soft border" in Kashmir open to trade and transport and would continue with plans for a joint natural gas pipeline. Reading from a joint statement, Singh used the word "irreversible" to describe the peace process and said that he and Musharraf had agreed to hold talks aimed at a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute. [See 2005 Facts On File: India-Pakistan Relations-- Pakistani President Musharraf Visits India] In what was the first meeting between Indian officials and Kashmir separatists in more than a year, on September 4, 2005, Indian Prime Minister Singh met for the first time with a delegation from the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, an umbrella group of separatists in Kashmir. Singh's office then released a statement vowing to lower the Indian troop presence in Kashmir if violence and infiltration by militants from Pakistan ceased and to reexamine the cases of those who had been detained in Kashmir under special provisions for preventing violence. In a television interview on the following day, Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq called the talks "a very good beginning." On the previous June 2, a group of moderate Kashmiri separatist leaders, mostly from Hurriyat, had met with President Musharraf, which marked the first time that India had permitted Hurriyat representatives to visit Pakistan as a group. Musharraf reportedly assured the Kashmiris that his government would support their efforts to make peace with India, leaving the delegation "extremely satisfied." On October 30, India and Pakistan finalized an agreement partially opening the Line of Control. They agreed to allow movement across the line at five checkpoints to speed relief for victims of an earthquake that had hit the region earlier that month. [See 2005 Facts On File: India--PM Singh Offers Kashmir Troop Cuts, India--Bombings in New Delhi Kill More Than 60] At least 182 people were killed and more than 700 wounded when explosions hit eight locations along an artery of the public commuter rail system in Mumbai, India, on July 11, Although no one immediately claimed responsibility and police and government officials refused to say that any groups or individuals were under suspicion, several authorities saw similarities with earlier attacks that had been attributed to Kashmir separatists. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri sparked controversy when he suggested that, in order to prevent extremism and terrorism, India had to make a greater effort to resolve the Kashmir dispute. India at first responded to the bombings by postponing peace talks, but the talks resumed in mid-november. On July 21, Indian police arrested three Indian Muslim men suspected in the terrorist bombings. A police official said the suspects had "connections with groups in Nepal and Bangladesh, which are directly or indirectly connected to Pakistan." On November 30, Indian police charged 28 people for involvement in the bombings. According to Indian authorities, the suspects were members of either the banned Pakistani militant group Lashkar-i-Taiba or the banned Students Islamic Movement of India. On December 5, President Musharraf said in a television interview that Pakistan would give up its claim to the Indian-controlled portion of the disputed region of Kashmir if India agreed to grant the region self-governance and gradually withdraw its troops. Musharraf's position was similar to that of Singh, who had supported making the Line of Control an official border, with greater autonomy for Indian Kashmir than it currently had. Musharraf also suggested that the two countries jointly administer the region. On February 20, 2007 the Financial Times reported that India and Pakistan were getting nearer to an historic accord on the Kashmir dispute. The agreement would make current territorial boundaries permanent; make the territorial border "soft," allowing rightof-passage by individuals; and give the entire region greater autonomy and eventually demilitarize it. [See 2006 Facts On File: Coordinated Bombs in India Strike Mumbai Railway, India--Suspects in Mumbai Terrorist Attack Held, India--News in Brief, Pakistan: President Alters Kashmir Stance; 2007 Indian Train Bound for Pakistan Attacked; 68 Killed] 2011 Facts On File News Services Modern Language Association (MLA) Citation: "Kashmir Conflict." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 20 Aug Web. 30 Nov < For further information see Citing Sources in MLA Style. Facts On File News Services' automatically generated MLA citations have been updated according to the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 7th edition. American Psychological Association (APA) Citation format: The title of the article. (Year, Month Day). Issues & Controversies On File. Retrieved Month Day, Year, from Issues & Controversies database. See the American Psychological Association (APA) Style Citations for more information on citing in APA style. 7 of 7 11/30/11 9:53 AM