Aarushi Maheshwari
The shortlisted essay for the UWCSEA-APP Peace Essay Competition

The Kashmir region was originally ruled by a succession of Hindu dynasties until it came under Muslim rule in 1346 and has since given rise to tensions between the two nuclear states of India and Pakistan. After the British withdrawal from South Asia in 1947, Hari Singh, the maharaja of Kashmir signed an Instrument of Accession to the Indian union (Augustyn). This signalled intervention by Pakistan, which considers Kashmir to be a natural extension of its state, resulting in localized warfare. It was only through the mediation of the United Nations (UN) that a ceasefire was achieved in January 1949 and the Line of Control (LoC), a de facto boundary which is largely still in effect, was defined.

Tensions in the region were exacerbated in late 2018 when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) left the coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir amid concerns of “the deteriorating security situation” (Tiwari). The collapse of this coalition is widely believed to have caused the government body to dissolve in November that year, allowing the Indian union government to build up its military presence in the state and undertake action to formalize its direct control. On August 5th, 2019, the Indian Parliament took the controversial decision to abolish the special status of Kashmir by revoking Article 370 on the grounds that it was inoperative as the state’s constituent assembly had ceased to exist. Kashmir was placed in a subsequent lockdown, with political leaders in the region under house arrest and internet and telephone services suspended. In response, the Pakistani Prime Minister affirmed the necessity of vigilance and the Pakistan army claimed that it would "go to any extent" to support the people of Kashmir (Shahzad). In addition to other policy responses, Pakistan unveiled a new political map in which they defined Jammu and Kashmir and the cities of Junagadh and Manavadar in India's Gujarat region as Pakistani territory, perhaps to delegitimize the actions of the Indian Parlament. This essay seeks to outline the immediate actions that need to be taken by both states to set the grounds for negotiations and suggests the reinstatement of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to facilitate discussions between the two states to minimize disputes in this contentious region.

Before peace talks can take place and an agreement can be reached, it is pivotal for the current situation in the region to be addressed. On the 25th of February in 2021, the director-general of military operations of India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire along the LoC. In the six months that followed, only six ceasefire violations were reported, a significant improvement from the 658 violations that occurred between January 1st and February 25th (Krishna). This exemplifies the effectiveness of the ceasefire in mitigating the tensions in the region and suggests that both nations must make a full commitment to maintaining this to continue peacebuilding along the border.

Moreover, India’s swift security lockdown and communications blackout in September 2021 following the death of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a top resistance leader, was a severe violation of the liberty of the Kashmiri people. If India retains the power to enact such severe lockdown measures in the region and deny the liberty of the Kashmiri people, it is unlikely that an effective solution without the use of violence can be reached. Thus, India must pledge to refrain from using lockdowns with razor wire, steel barricades and armed police monitoring the streets to control civic unrest they anticipate in the region. In return, Pakistan should continue easing the economic restrictions they placed on India following the revocation of Article 370, as this caused India’s exports to Pakistan to drop nearly 60.5% to $816.62 million from 2019 to 2020 and resulted in both economies suffering greatly (Raghavan). Re-opening the door for trade will be vital in improving diplomatic relations between the two countries. As such, both states must take these immediate actions and commitments to form the basis of peacebuilding and allow further negotiations to take place.

The long-term negotiations would best be undertaken with the supervision of a UN impartial body that could observe the situation on the LoC and act as a catalyst to instigate an effective and feasible settlement. Thus, the reinstatement of the UNCIP, a body that was previously successful in deescalating tensions in this region, would be an ideal solution to the conflict at hand. The commission would discuss the conditions needed to achieve the removal of troops by both parties to demilitarize the region and minimize the forces present until only those necessary to maintain order and govern Kashmir are located in the region. Moreover, the commission would also outline the details of the allocation of Kashmir’s rich resources to Pakistan and India. Finally, the UNCIP would attempt to reach a settlement that determines the extent to which Kashmir will be self-governed, and the means that will be taken to ensure that there are no violations of human rights taking place within the region. To prevent the collapse of the commission and ensure that the agreements reached are upheld by all parties, the commission would reconvene every two months and assess its progress to allow for necessary adjustments.

However, it is also important to note India’s unwillingness for a third party’s interference in their bilateral exchanges with Pakistan regarding the situation in Kashmir, which was made clear in the Simla Agreement of 1972. Considering this, the UNCIP would best be limited to containing representatives from the key stakeholders in this conflict, namely India, Pakistan and a representative from the Kashmiri people with additional members only to moderate the discussions. Selecting the representative of the Kashmiri people will be difficult because of the democratic deficit in Kashmir that has been draining the legitimacy of the people and threatening their autonomy since the government in Jammu and Kashmir was dissolved. There is an evident necessity for both India and Pakistan to first view Kashmir as legitimate before attempting to reach a solution, as the Kashmiri people deserve a certain level of national sovereignty to decide their own form of government, which could be achieved by both states agreeing to host a representative from Kashmir in this commission. Otherwise, the Kashmiri people will likely exhibit increasing resistance and frustrations towards the control being exercised over them by India and Pakistan, perhaps resulting in further unrest in the region. Limiting the members of the commission to the conflict’s key stakeholders will also be beneficial in identifying concrete and cohesive solutions to ease the tensions as the diversity of viewpoints in the previous commission increased the hesitancy of both states to cooperate and at times possibly reduced the effectiveness and feasibility of discussions. Therefore, the role of the reinstated commission would be modified to only oversee and monitor the discussions taking place which it can report to the UN Security Council if further action is required.

In summation, for peace and liberty to be brought to the Kashmiri people, the tensions between India and Pakistan must be deescalated through demilitarization of the region. The conditions for this will most constructively be discussed under the supervision of a modified commission under the UN and will require immediate actions by all involved parties to effectively prepare the platform for these communications to take place. Throughout these negotiations, it is crucial for both states to provide legitimacy to the Kashmiri people and maintain the motives of finding a peaceful solution to the crisis at hand, as this will be pivotal to resolve the deep-rooted religious and historical tensions residing in this region.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.