ISSUES BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN FROM 1947-201 5

ISSUES BETWEEN INDIA-PAKISTAN FROM 1947-2015

Major irritants between India and Pakistan during cold war

Junagadh Issue

Kashrnir Issue

The Canal Water dispute

Partition of Bengal refuge crisis 1947

The India-Pakistan War of 1965

Tashkent Agreement

India-Pakistan War of 1971

Simla Agreement 1972, July 2 1972

Demolition of Babri Majid 1992 during Post cold war

Mumbai blasts 1993

Lahore Declaration 1999

Kargil War 1999

The Indian Parliament attack 2001

The Akshardham attack

The nuclear dyad

Mumbai attacks 2008

Other blasts

3.19 Bomb blasts in Taxis

3.20 Tajmahal Hotel oberai Trident

3.21 Terrorism

3.1 Major irritants between Indian and Pakistan during cold war

India and Pakistan traditionally view each other as enemies. Owing to the

lack of trust, both countries take various measures to ensure their national interests

and security. First, they take steps to strengthen their military power, which triggers

the arms race in the region. Second, to attain a balance of power. they build alliances

in the form of strategic partnerships with global powers. Third, Pakistan supports

insurgency in India and vice versa. Being arch-enemies, they engage in such

subterfuge in order to weaken each other. Finally, they even compete in a third

country - Afghanistan - to maximize their interests.

The Kashmir dispute is one of the most intractable international conflicts

arising after the British partitioning of the Indian subcontinent. Ever since the bi-

partite division of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947, Kashmir has become

a festering conflict between the two countries. Both countries have fought three

bloody wars over Kashmir in 1947, 1965, and 1999, and another war over

Bangladesh in 1971 in which Kashmir was a peripheral issue. The tit for tat testing

of nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan in May 1998 marked the explicit,

nuclearization of the Kashmir conflict. Mounting insurgency and surging popular

protests in Kashmir, continuing terrorist attacks in India, and unceasing border

clashes have transformed the Kashmir valley, the earthly paradise, into a valley of

death.

Following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, the commercial hub of India, on

26 November 2008, India suspended the Composite Dialogue taking place between

both countries with the goal of finding a solution to the Kashmir conflict and

normalizing relations. This has increased the tension between the two nuclear-armed

countries in South Asia. Another catastrophic terrorist attack or a prominent political

assassination in India could push back the relationship to the dark days of 2001-02

when the two countries were on the verge of a war. Owing to the continuous failure

of peace talks, the Kashmir conflict has assumed a monstrous dimension, and

become a source of tension between the two nuclear powers.'

Broadly speaking, territorial disputes continue to be considered as the most

important source of inter and intra-state conflict, and India and Pakistan is no

different. According to Hague and Harrop "the major transitions of world history - industrialization, colonialism, decolonization, and democratization - unfolded in a

world stage". Following the partitioning of British India in the early 1940s. the

relations between lndia and Pakistan have remained tense owing to the Kashmir

issue. Several wars have been fought by the two states since 1947, and there have

been long disputes between the state of India and Kashrnir's over the right to self-

determination as well as between India and religious militants perceived to be

waging a jihad to create a theocratic state. "Since the 2003 ceasefire, both New

Delhi and Islamabad have said that they want to contain tensions along the Line of

Control (LoC) from escalating into a broader conflagration, fearing it will

undermine the composite dialogue process between them". However, the Institute

for Conflict Management states that there have been more than 68 000 fatalities

since the start of the conflict, at least 15 of which were reported in one month alone

in August 2013. T o date a local human rights group, CCS, estimates that there are at

least 70,000 dead and 8000 missing. The immediate implications of this are that

once again both the 2003 ceasefire and the diplomatic relations and confidence-

building attempts to restart the peace talks between India and Pakistan have been

greatly undermined. This jeopardizes any chances of a fast and viable solution to the

Kashmir issue because there has not been a solution and Kashmir continues to be

divided along the lines of religious differences (Muslim dominated versus Hindu

dominated) which are administered by both Pakistan and lndia respectively. The

United Nations (UN) continues to take charge of the task to monitor the Line of

Control (LoC) which serves as the boundary separating these two territories. It is not

easy to refute realists" perceptions that the international system continues to be

anarchic with states seemingly forever in the struggle for power, since their actions

are always driven by national interest where security is a supreme goal. However,

liberal ideas have brought into existence international laws and precepts governing

states behavior in international relations. The relevance of this relates to the point

that scholars like Tavares associate the nature of the Kashmir conflicts with liberal

principles contained and paramount within the complex doctrine of international

law. The multi-polarization of the international system means that a lot of other

actors +re involved in international affairs. In addition, the post-Cold War era has

witnessed an increase in literature predicting a change in the causes of war.

Professor Samuel Huntington's thesis of ,,the clash of civilizations is one of the

dominant theories in the post-Cold War era which seems to lend explanation to the

majority of conflicts, and which also seeks to characterise the post-Cold War era. T o

clarify this, Vanish points out that "in recent history, conflicts have rested on the

twin prongs of, identity based on religion, culture, language, distribution of political,

economic and social power". This means that cultural differences can cause conflicts

which are very hard to resolve and create hostile and unfavorable conditions for

negotiations and the attainment of peace. Scholars, like Habibulah. criticize the

negotiations concerning the Kashmir issue on the basis of them being ideologically

centred - "Secular Indian nationalism versus "Islam in Danger" (2004:04). This

supports the idea that the causes of the collapse of negotiations and the root causes

of the conflict are very complex. According to Habibulah the parties involved in the

Kashmir issue view the truth of the matter and the cause of their dispute as a result

of the takeover by lndia in 1947.

lndia and Pakistan are considered as the nuclear powers of South Asia. Since

their nuclear arsenals were tested in 1998 the Kashmir issue and tense relations

between the two states have raised internationai and regional concerns in terms of

the nuclear arms race and the possibility of future nuclear confrontation as well as

inadvertent nuclear war. This is one of the reasons that the Kashmir issue is not only

the impediment in the relations between Pakistan and India, but it is also one of the

greatest challenges to peace and stability in South Asia. This topic was chosen

because even though there has been research done in this area (and other related

areas in conflict studies) there has not been much done in the context of regional

security. The objective in this dissertation is to explain the contemporary

relationship between India and Pakistan in the context of the Kashmir conflict and

its security impact on the region of South Asia. I specifically assess the possible

negotiated solutions to the Kashmir conflict. I examine the military, political and

economic impact of the conflict in the bilateral relationship of lndia and Pakistan.

More importantly, 1 analyses how to normalize the relationship in the wake of the

Mumbai attack In total, I hope to provide deep insight into contemporary Indo-

Pakistani relations against the backdrop of the Kashmir conflict. In short, I add to a

growing'body of literature on the Kashrnir conflict by narrowing a knowledge gap in

the discourse.

The modem states of India and Pakistan have been in a state of mutual

contempt since their inception in 1947. Many scholars point to the Indo-Pakistani

disputes as an excellent example of an 'enduring rivalry.' What is an 'enduring

rivalry?' What are the underlying causes of the Indo-Pakistani rivalry? What crises

and events have occurred in the context of these Indo-Pakistani disputes? How have

nuclear weapons affected this rivalry, and where does it stand today? In an attempt

to briefly answer these questions, I will first provide a timeline of events occurring

between India and Pakistan, starting slightly before independence and proceeding to

the present day. I will then define 'enduring rivalry,' and subsequently identify some

causes to this rivalry. 1 will then discuss the effect of nuclear weapons and how they

have changed the nature of the rivalry until the present day. The roots of the Indo-

Pakistani conflict can be traced to the period of British rule of the Indian

subcontinent. In the late 19th century, the British enacted a 'divide and rule' policy,

where they would attempt to split the Indian Muslims from the Hindus, politically.

culturally, and economically. By 191 0, leaders of the Indian National Congress

(1NC)-who had previously worked in tandem with Muslim political groups in search

of independence-began to become more immerscd in Indian religion-cultural values

and more assertive against the British rule. Mahatma Gandhi's rise to leadership of

the INC during the 1920s brought fear to many Muslims. While Gandhi was

committed to secularism and read from the Qur'an in his religious services, his call

for an Indian national identity in the "Ram Rajah" was perceived as a call for Hindu

domination.

In 1935 the Government of India Act allowed some electoral powers to fall

to the Indian people, with provincial and federal legislatures having separate and

reserved seats for Anglo-Indians, Christians, Europeans, Muslims, and Sikhs, with

other Indians simply known as general constituents. The INC opposed this separate

representation for Muslims since they believed it would prevent Indian unity; the

Muslim League (ML) was deeply offended that the DlC swept the polls throughout

most the country though the M L claimed to represent Muslims. M L calls for

coalition governments in Muslim-majority areas were rebuffed by the INC, thus the

M L and its leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, proposed the "two nation" theory which

would .result in Partition between Hindu- and Muslim-majority states. The ML

gained near parity with the INC in an interim government in 1946.

India and Pakistan got independence in August 1947, following a nationalist

struggle lasting nearly three decades. It set a vital precedent for the negotiated

winding up of British empires elsewhere. Unfortunately, it was accompanied by the

largest mass migration in human history of some 10 million. As many a s one million

civilians died in the accompanying riots and local-level fighting, particularly in the

western region of Punjab which was cut in two by the border.

On the basis of two nation theories, lndia divided into two separate states-

one with a Muslim majority (Pakistan) and the other with a Hindu majority (India) is

commonly seen as the outcome of conflict between the nations' elites. After

Pakistan, lndia attained independence; there have been some of the issues which

in~pacts on India- Pakistan relations. Kashmir issue, water disputes. terrorism,

territorial disputes are main irritating factors in India-Pakistan relations. Nuclear

issues and Kargil war also played the role in straining relations between India and

~akistan. '

3.2 Junagadh Issue

Junagadh was a state on the coast of Saurashtra surrounded by Indian

Territory, and therefore without any geographical contiguity with Pakistan. Bounded

on three sides by states which had acceded to India, and on the fourth by the Arabian

Sea, it was the largest state in Kathiawar. It had enclaves in the bordering states of

Gondar, Baroda and Bhavnagar, all of which had acceded to India, while other

states, which had also acceded to India, had enclaves in Junagadh. All these factors

led to one conclusion, the Kathiawar states had to accede, as a whole, to one or the

other of the two new Dominions: they were too mixed up territorially to do

otherwise.

Fearful of the rising tide of the peoples' movement in their states, all the

Maharajas, Princes and Nawabs acceded to India or Pakistan by 15 August 1947

except the rulers of Junagadh, J&K and Hyderabad. The Indian nationalist leaders

had for decades stood for sovereignty of the people against the claims of the princes.

It was therefore not surprising that in Junagadh case Nehru and Patel agreed that the

final vpice, like in any other such case, for example Kashmir or Hyderabad, should

be that of the people ascertained through a plebiscite.

The issue of Junagadh accession formally arose when on 17 August 1947;

the Indian Press reported that the Nawab of Junagadh had chosen to join Pakistan.

On 13 September, Pakistan informed lndia that i t had accepted the accession and

had signed a standstill agreement with the state. Junagadh decision infuriated the

other Kathiawar states and protests poured into Delhi. Lord Mountbatten, Governor

General of India, dispatched his Chief Staff. Lord Ismay, to Karachi for

consultations. On his return, Lord Ismay stated that, in his opinion, the Government

of Pakistan was trying to provoke India into taking a step which would discredit her

in the eyes of the world and obtain sympathy for Pakistan as an aggrieved party.

Junagadh, he stressed, was an economic and administrative unit firmly embedded in

Kathiawar, and as such could only be a liability to Pakistan in every ~ p h e r e . ~

The Sheikh of Mangrol, a very small state adjoining Junagadh, who had not

announced his choice now, signed a standstill agreement and instrument of

accession with India. The Nawab of Junagadh refused to recognize this accession,

asserting that as an "attached state," Mangrol was his vassal and had no right to

conduct negotiations without his authority. The Sheikh maintained that with

paramount lapsing, he was independent. Apprehensive that other "vassals" might

follow Mongrels' example, the Nawab dispatched his state force troops into

Babariawad, an area comprising estates whose rulers challenged the Nawab's over

lordship and had acceded to India. The Government of India, thereupon, requested

the Nawab of Junagadh to remove his state troops from Babariawad. In order to

protect the areas that had acceded to India, an infantry brigade of the Indian Army

was dispatched to Kathiawar. The brigade commander was ordered not to violate

Junagadh territory and not even to enter Mangrol and Babariawad, but to deploy

his troops only in other territories that had acceded to India. Exchange

of communications between India and Pakistan bore no fruit. Eventually, on

November I, India dispatched civil administrators, each accompanied by a small

token force, to take over the administration of Mangrol and Babariawad.

The unsettled conditions'in Junagadh had led to a cessation of all trade with

lndia and the food position became precarious. The people organised a popular

movement. Forced the Nawab to flee to Karachi with his family and established a

provisional government. Before leaving the Nawab had emptied the state treasury of

its cash and securities. The Dewan of Junagadh, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, the father of

the more famous Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, now decided to invite the Government of India

to intervene. Indian troops thereafter marched into the state.

On 9 November 1948, with the unanimous approval of the state council and

leaders of public opinion, the administration of the state was handed over to India. In

the absence of any constructive proposal from Pakistan, the Government of India

held a referendum on 20th February 1948, to ascertain the wishes of the people

regarding a c c e ~ s i o n . ~

3.3 Kashmir Issue

1947-Britain, as part of its pullout from the Indian subcontinent. divides it

into secular (but mainly Hindu) India and Muslim Pakistan on August 15 and 14

respectively. The partition causes one of'the largest human migrations ever seen, and

sparks riots and violence across the region. Partition took place over August 14 and

15 of 1948, forming India and ~akistan. '

3.4 The canal water dispute

The water dispute between the two countries arose after the partition of

India. Sir Radcliffe's Award is considered basically responsible for it. The Indus-

water system has six rivers, the Indus, the Jhelum, the Chenab, the Ravi the Beas

and the Sutlej. Five of the six rivers have their upper reaches in India. Radcliffe line

cuts across the Sutlej and the Ravi while the boundary between Pakistan and

Kashmir crosses the remaining three. Indus is reached by the remaining five at

Punjab in West ~akistan. ' These rivers are so interlinked with each other by a series

of canals that in case there is shortage of water in one, a main link canal can draw

water from another. Before the partition, the irrigation system was treated as a

whole. In 1947 when the line dividing the former province of Punjab was drawn it

cut across this system and India was given control over the head works of the canals.

The Ferozepur weir on the border in Indian Territory. The Sulemanki weir in the

Montgomery district has i t important eastern training works in ~ e r o z e ~ u r . '

The dispute over the distribution of water arose when after the partition;

India desired that the Government of Pakistan should replace the supplies she was

receiving from the eastern rivers by building link canals from the western rivers.'

Pakistan did not like the suggestion of India and was not prepared to agree to any

diminution of supplies from these rivers, as she not only needed them but also

considered them to be her right as the lower riparian under international law.9 An

agreement was reached between India and Pakistan in May 1948 under which in due

course Pakistan was to tap alternative source for the waters of the eastern rivers. The

treaty opened a new chapter in the history of Indo-Pak relations because it resulted

in the amicable and honorable solution of a long standing dispute. Its significance

lies in the fact that sincere mediatory efforts, free from any leanings and

involvement of any third party can be helpful in resolving any dispute.'o

3.5 Partition of Bengal Refuge Crisis 1947

The Partition of Bengal in 1947, part of the Partition of India, was a

religiously based partition that divided the British Indian province of Bengal

between India and Pakistan. Predominantly Hindu West Bengal became a province

of India, and predominantly Muslim East Bengal (now Bangladesh) became a

province of Pakistan.' ' The partition, with the power transferred to Pakistan and India on 14-15

August 1947, was done according to what has come to be known as the "3 June

Plan" or "Mountbatten Plan". India's independence on 15 August 1947 ended over

150 years of British influence in the Indian subcontinent. East Bengal, which

became a province of Pakistan according to the provisions set forth in the

Mountbatten Plan, later became the independent country of Bangladesh after the

197 1 Bangladesh Liberation War. Pakistan developed growth average the last during

1971 war."

1947/48 - The first Indo-Pak war over Kashmir is fought, after armed

tribesmen (lashkars) from Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (now called

Khyber-Pakthunkhwa) invade the disputed territory in October 1947. The Maharaja

faced with an internal revolt as well an external invasion, requests the assistance of

the Indian armed forces, in return for acceding to India. He hands over control of his

defense;'communications and foreign affairs to the Lndian government.

Both sides agree that the instrument of accession signed by Maharaja Hari

Singh be ratified by a referendum, to be held after hostilities have ceased. Historians

on either side of the dispute remain undecided as to whether the Maharaja signed the

document after Indian troops had entered Kashmir (i.e. under duress) o r if he did so

under no direct military pressure. Fighting continues through the second half of

1948, with the regular Pakistani army called upon to protect Pakistan's borders.

The war officially ends on January 1 , 1949, when the United Nations

arranges a ceasefire, with an established ceasefire line, a UN peacekeeping force and

a recommendation that the referendum on the accession of Kashmir to India be held

as agreed earlier. That referendum has yet to be held. Pakistan controls roughly one-

third of the state, referring to it as Azad (free) Jammu and Kashmir. It is semi-

autonomous. A larger area, including the former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar, is

controlled directly by the central Pakistani government. The Indian (eastern) side of

the ceasefire line is referred to as Jammu and Kashmir. Both countries refer to the

other side of the ceasefire line as "occupied" territory.

In 1947, when British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan, Hari

Singh, Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu, Muslim majority state, resisted the

pressure to join either Pakistan or lndia hoping to get independence or autonomy

from both countries. Maharaja Hari singh signed a standstill agreement with

Pakistan on August 16, and tried to sign a similar agreement with lndia. However,

following the declaration of independence, communal rioting took place in Punjab

between the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims when the state was being divided between

India and Pakistan. In September 1947, the rioting spilled into Kashmir against the

Muslims. At that time, Pakistan tried to occupy Kashmir by force, sent its military

troops into Kashmir.

Maharaja Hari Singh sought India's military assistance, but India refused to

help unless the Maharajah signed the instrument of accession, a standard procedure

under which other princely states had acceded to India or Pakistan. India agreed to

the accession after receiving the consent of Sheikh Abdullah, the secular and popular

leader of the National Conference (NC) in the state. Hari Singh signed the accord on

October 27 and on the same day Indian armed forces entered Kashmir to protect to

it. ~nd ian troops protected from the Pakistani troops then Kashmir became as part of

India.

On January I , 1948, India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru following the

advice of British Governor General Lord Mountbatten and contrary to the wishes of

his Deputy Prime Minister Sarder Patel, lodged a complaint against Pakistan to UN

Security Council invoking Articles 3 4 and 35 of the UN Charter that called for a

peaceful settlement of disputes between India and Pakistan,.

On January 20, 1948, the Security Council established a three-member UN

commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to send them to Kashmir to investigate

the situation and exercise mediation. On April 21, the Council expanded the

commission to five and authorized it to restore peace and arrange for a plebiscite

after the withdrawal of tribal troops.

The UNCIP on August 13, 1948 passed a resolution that both on lndia and

Pakistan to conduct a plebiscite after they agreed to a cease-fire and after Pakistan's

regular troops and tribesmen were completely withdrawn. The cease-fire came into

effect on January 1, 1949, while Pakistan was still in control of one-third of the

state. Based on its resolution of August 13, 1948, the UNCIP sent a Monitoring

Group for lndia and Pakistan (UNMGIP) to the region on January 24, to monitor the

cease-fire line (CFL) which is also known as the line of control or line of actual

control (LAC).

The presence of the UNMIP was approved by India and Pakistan following

by their agreement in Karachi on July 27, 1949. Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz an

American was appointed as the plebiscite administrator by the UN Secretary

General, but he could not assume his functions as India and Pakistan objected to its

implementation based on their varying interpretations of the UNCIP resolutions on

the issue of demilitarization.

In December 1949, the Security Council entrusted its President General

A.G.L. McNaughton of Canada to negotiate a demilitarization plan in consultation

with India and Pakistan. Pakistan agreed to simultaneous demilitarization but India

rejected.

. On March 14, 1950, the Security Council passed another resolution to follow

up on McNaughton's proposals and appointed the noted Australian judge, Sir Owen

Dixon, as UN representative to replace the UNCIP. In September 1950, Dixon

8 1

suggested a proposal limiting the plebiscite only to the Kashmir Valley of the

predominantly Muslim population, which both countries rejected.

In April 195 1, the Council appointed Dr. Frank Graham, former US Senator,

as UN representative. Between December 195 1 and February 1953, Graham tried to

convince both India and Pakistan to accept his Secretary Council-supported

demilitarization proposals that required the reduction of the military presence of

both countries in Kashmir and Azad Kashmir preceding the conduct of a plebiscite.

Nehru and Pakistan's Prime Minister, Mohammed Ali Bogra, met in June

1953 at the commonwealth conference in London. Following that meeting on

August 20, 1953, both India and Pakistan temporarily agreed to take the issue out of

UN's hands and resolve it directly. However, in 1965, India, Pakistan went for war.

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

constituent assembly.

1957-The Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly approves a constitution.

India, from the point of the 1954 ratification and 1957 constitution, begins to refer to

Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of the lndian union. Aggression against

Kashmir alleged by India and demised by Pakistan. According to Pakistan the

instrument of accession by which Kashmir became an integral part of lndia was

obtained by force and fraud, but it was denied by India.

The issue has been debated in the UN Security Council many times from

1948 to 1965 and is still on the agenda of the Security Council and several

mediatory efforts of [he UN have not borne any fruit. Instead of solving it, they

complicated it. But why did India approach the UN and why did the efforts of the

UN fail? It seems, it was the British Government which persuaded lndia to refer the

issue to the UN because the British strategy in the region was to see that the conflict

along with the tribal invasion should not end in the ignobility of Pakistan. Another

view point is that the main reason behind the lodging of the complaint by India with

the UN was her faith in the Charters of the UN. Her belief that the military was not

always the most hopeful and stable means of settling the issue. The Indian

Government felt that an armed conflict in the sub-continent immediately after

freedom would complicate the situation.

Many reasons can be given for the UN failure to solve the issue. Firstly, the

UN efforts were doomed to fail as they were based on the inherently impossible task

of rewarding the party which did not have much faith in the UN Charter and the

international law secondly. The UN treated the offender as well as the defender

equally and that was the main error committed by it. Thirdly, it did not handle the

issue fairly and honestly. It worked as the Anglo- American alliance against India.

Fourthly, the decision of the Government of Pakistan to join military alliances

sponsored by the US and her allies, gave a rude shock to the efforts of the UN in

solving the issue because Pakistan started expecting much more from the US.

Both the countries had made some other efforts to solve the issue like

through the bilateral negotiations. The Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan

exchanged correspondence on the issue from 27 August 1953 to 24 September

1 9 5 4 . ' ~ In May, 1955 When Moharnmad Ali Bogra, Prime Minister of Pakistan

visited New Delhi, he discussed the issue with his counterpart of India and it was

assumed that they could see some progress in the direction of solution. "But the

American Military aid to Pakistan changed the whole context of the issue. It

changed the climate of the subcontinent so much that the bilateral negotiations were

unthinkable.

It was also argued that there was a change in the Indian Government's

Kashmir policy because Sheikh Abdullah who was dismissed from the Prime

Minister ship of Kashmir was clapped into Jail when he had begun to talk in terms in

terms of the independence of Kashmir. After the Sino-Indian war of 1962, direct

negotiations at the ministerial level took place and six rounds of talks from

December 1962 to May 1963 were held. But when the talks were going on Pakistan

and China signed a Border Agreement which provided some concessions to the

Chinese on the Pakistan occupied Kashmir's territory. The Government of India

lodged a strong protest with the Government of Pakistan the agreement had

contributed in further complicating the issue. The talks failed and the gulf between

the two countries further widened.

1963 - Following the 1962 Sino-Indian war, the foreign ministers of India

and Pakistan Saran Singh and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto-hold talks under the auspices of

the British and Americans regarding the Kashmir dispute. The specific contents of

those talks have not yet been declassified, but no agreement was reached. In the

talks, "Pakistan signified willingness to consider approaches other than a plebiscite

and India recognized that the status of Kashmir was in dispute and territorial

adjustments might be necessary," according to a declassified US state department

memo (dated January 27, 1964). 1964-Following the failure of the 1963 talks,

Pakistan refers the Kashmir case to the UN Security Council.

1965 - India and Pakistan fight their second war. The conflict begins after a

clash between border patrols in April in the Ran of Kutch (in the Indian state of

Gujarat), but escalates on August 5, when between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani

soldiers cross the ceasefire line dressed as Kashmiri locals, crossing into Indian-

administered Kashmir.

Infantry, armor and air force units are involved in the conflict while it

remains localized to the Kashmir theatre, but as the war expands, Indian troops cross

the international border at Lahore on September 6. The largest engagement of the

war takes place in the Sialkot sector, where between 400 and 600 tanks square off in

an inconclusive battle. By September 22, both sides agree to a UN mandated

ceasefire, ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate, with both sides

holding some of the other's territory.14

But the ruling as well the opposition of Pakistan has always tried to keep the

flame of Kashmir burning and is using it occasionally to win the sympathies of the

people of Pakistan. The issue has not been debated in the Security Council after

1965, but Pakistan has not missed any opportunity. Whenever and wherever she got

and has raised the issue in international forums including the UN. There is no hope

of the solution of these issues because of the rigid attitude.

3.6 The India-Pakistan War of 1965

The Indo-Pakistani War Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate

forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against Indian rule.

India retaliated by launching a full-scale military attack on West Pakistan. The

seventeen-day war caused thousands of casualties on both sides and witnessed the

largest engagement of armoured vehicles and the largest tank battle since World

War 11. Hostilities between the two countries ended after a United Nations mandated

84

ceasefire was declared following diplomatic intervention by the Soviet Union and

the United States, and the subsequent issuance of the Tashkent Declaration. Much of

the war was fought by the countries' land forces in Kashmir and along the border

between India and Pakistan. This war saw the largest amassing of troops in Kashmir

since the Partition of British India in 1947, a number that was overshadowed only

during the 2001-2002 military standoffs between India and Pakistan. Most of the

battles were fought by opposing infantry and armoured units, with substantial

backing from air forces, and naval operations. The war exposed Pakistan's

inadequate standards of military training, its misguided selection of officers, poor

command and control arrangements, poor intelligence gathering and bad intelligence

procedures. In spite of these shortcomings, the Pakistan Army managed to fight the

larger Indian Army. Many details of this war, like those of other Indo-Pakistani

Wars, remain u n c ~ e a r . ' ~

Despite the cease-fire rendering the conflict militarily inconclusive, both

India and Pakistan claimed victory. Most neutral assessments, however, agree that

India had the upper hand over Pakistan when the ceasefire was declared. Though

officially deemed to be militarily inconclusive, the conflict is widely seen as a

strategic and political defeat for Pakistan, as it had neither succeeded in fomenting

insurrection in Kashmir nor had it been able to gain meaningful support at an

international level. Internationally, the war was viewed in the context of the greater

Cold War, and resulted in a significant geopolitical shift in the subcontinent. Before

the war, the United States and the United Kingdom had been major material allies of

both Lndia and Pakistan, as their primary suppliers of military hardware and foreign

developmental aid. During and after the conflict, both India and Pakistan felt

betrayed by the perceived lack of support by the western powers for their respective

positions; those feelings of betrayal were increased with the imposition of an

American and British embargo on military aid to the opposing sides. As a

consequence, India and Pakistan openly developed closer relationships with the

Soviet Union and China, respectively. The perceived negative stance of the western

powers during the conflict, and during the 1971 war, has continued to affect

relations between the West and the subcontinent. In spite of improved relations with

the U.S. and Britain since the end of the Cold War, the conflict generated a deep

distrust of both countries within the subcontinent which to an extent lingers t o this

The war began in April, 1965 when fighting broke out in the Ran of Kachh, a

sparsely inhabited region along the West Pakistan-India border. In August fighting

spread to Kashmir and to the Punjab, and in September Pakistani and Indian troops

crossed the partition line between the two countries and launched air assaults on

each other's cities. After threats of intervention by China had been successfully

opposed by the United States and Britain, Pakistan and India agreed to a UN-

sponsored cease-fire and withdrew to the pre-August lines. Prime Minister Shri

Lalbahudur Shastri of lndia and President Ayub Khan of Pakistan met in Tashkent,

USSR (now in Uzbekistan), in Jan, 1966 and signed an agreement pledging

continued negotiations and respect for the cease-fire conditions. After the Tashkent

Declaration another period of relative peace ensued. The war impacted on cold war

politics.

U.S.-Pakistani relations had been stronger. The U.S. Government looked to

Pakistan as an example of a moderate Muslim state and appreciated Pakistani

assistance in holding the line against communist expansion by joining the Southeast

Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954 and the Baghdad Pact (later renamed

the Central Treaty Organization, or CENTO) in 1955. Pakistan's interest in these

pacts stemmed from its desire to develop its military and defensive capabilities,

which were substantially weaker than those of India. Both the United States and the

United Kingdom supplied arms to Pakistan in these

After Pakistani troops invaded Kashmir, lndia took the Kashmir dispute to

United Nations to reprise its role in the First India-Pakistan War and end the

conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 201 Ion September 20th calling for

an end to the fighting and negotiations on the settlement of the Kashmir problem,

and the United States and the United Kingdom supported the UN decision by cutting

off arms supplies to both belligerents. This ban affected both comparison but

Pakistan felt the effects more keenly since it had a much weaker military in

caparison to India. The UN resolution and the halting of arms sales had an

immediate impact. b d i a accepted the ceasefire on September 2 1 "' and Pakistan on

September 22. The ceasefire could not resolve the status of Kashmir, and both sides

accepted the Soviet Union as a third-party mediator. Negotiations in Tashkent

concluded in January 1966, with both sides giving up territorial claims, withdrawing

their armies from the disputed territory. Nevertheless, although the Tashkent

agreement achieved its short-term aims, conflict in South Asia would reignite a few

years later.

3.7 Tashkent ~ ~ r e e m e n t . " (see Appendix-11)

3.8 Indo-Pak War of 1971

The third war between India and Pakistan took place between November 22

(when the Indian's began providing active artillery support to the separatists) and

Dec 17, 1971 .The origins of the third Indo-Pakistani conflict (197 1) were different

from the previous conflicts. The Pakistani failure to accommodate demands for

autonomy in East Pakistan in 1970 led to secessionist demands in 1971. In March

197 1 , Pakistan's armed forces launched a fierce campaign to suppress the resistance

movement that had emerged but encountered unexpected mass defections among

East Pakistani soldiers and police. The Pakistani forces regrouped and reasserted

their authority over most of East Pakistan by ~ a ~ . ' '

As a result of these military actions, thousands of East Pakistanis died at the

hands of the Pakistani army. Resistance fighters and nearly 10 million refugees fled

to sanctuary in West Bengal, the adjacent Indian state. By midsummer, the Indian

leadership, in the absence of a political solution to the East Pakistan crisis, had

fashioned a strategy designed to assist the establishment of the independent nation of

Bangladesh. As part of this strategy, in August 1971, India signed a twenty-year

Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation with the Soviet Union. One of the

treaty's clauses implied that each nation was expected to come to the assistance of

the other in the event of a threat to national security such as that occurring in the

1965 war with Pakistan. Simultaneously, India organized, trained, and provided

sanctuary to the Mukti Bahini (meaning Liberation Force in Bengali), the East

Pakistani armed resistance fighters."

Unable to deter India's activities in the eastern sector, on December 3, 1971,

Pakistan launched an air attack in the western sector on a number of Indian airfields,

including Ambala in Haryana, Amritsar in Punjab, and Udaipur in Jammu and

Kashmir. The attacks did not succeed in inflicting substantial damage. The Indian air

force retaliated the next day and quickly achieved air superiority. On the ground, the

strategy in the eastern sector marked a significant departure from previous lndian

battle plans and tactics, which had emphasized set-piece battles and slow advances.

The strategy adopted was a swift, three-pronged assault of nine infantry divisions

with attached armored units and close air support that rapidly converged on Dhaka,

the capital of East Pakistan. Lieutenant General Sagas Singh, who commanded the

eighth, twenty-third, and fifty-seventh divisions, led the Indian thrust into East

Pakistan. As these forces attacked Pakistani formations, the Indian air force rapidly

destroyed the small air contingent in East Pakistan and put the Dhaka airfield out of

commission. In the meantime, the lndian navy effectively blockaded East Pakistan.

Dhaka fell to combined Indian and Mukti Bahini forces on December 16, bringing a

quick end to the war.

Action in the western sector was divided into four segments, from the cease-

fire line in Jammu and Kashmir to the marshes of the Rann of Kutch in northwestern

Gujarat. On the evening of December 3, the Pakistani army launched ground

operations in Kashmir and Punjab. It also started an armored operation in Rajasthan.

In Kashmir, the operations were concentrated on two key points, Punch and Chamb.

The Chamb area witnessed a particularly intense battle where the Pakistanis forced

the Indians to withdraw from their positions. In other parts of Kashmir, the Indians

made some small gains along the cease-fire line. The major Indian counteroffensive

came in the Sialkot-Shakargarh area south and west of Chamb. There, two Pakistani

tank regiments, equipped with United States-made Patton tanks, confronted the

Indian First Armored Corps, which had British Centurion tanks. In what proved to

be the largest tank battle of the war, both sides suffered considerable c a s u a ~ t i e s . ~ ~

Within hours of outbreak of hostilities, the Indian Missile Boat Group was

ordered to execute operation Trident, the code name for the first attack on Karachi.

The task group consisting af three OSA class missile boats, escorted by two

Kamorota class anti-submarine patrol vessels, regrouped off Okla. and charged

towards Karachi. At 21 50 hrs on December 4, the task group was 70 nautical miles

south-west of Karachi. Soon thereafter, the task group detected patrolling Pakistani

naval ships on their sensors. The deadly missiles were heading towards their targets

which were soon hit. PNS Khyber, a destroyer and PNS Muhafiz, a minesweeper

were sunk. Another Pakistani destroyer Shajehan was badly damaged. The fuel

storage tanks at Karachi harbor were set ablaze, causing heavy loss. Operation

Trident was a thundering success with no damage to any of the ships of the Indian

Naval Task Group, which returned safely. Operation Trident had introduced to the

war, the first ever ship launched missiles in the region.'2

Enthused by the success of this attack, the Indian Navy planned another

offensive operation, code named Python. The continued presence of the Indian

Navy's larger ships is the area gave enough indication to the Pakistani naval

authorities that more offensive operations were in the offing. The Pak aerial

surveillance was stepped up and their ships attempted to outsmart the Indian Navy

by mingling with merchant shipping. Notwithstanding these measures by the

Pakistanis, operation Python was launched on the night on December 8 and 9, 1971.

Despite bad weather and rough seas, the task group consisting of missile boat

Vanish and two multipurpose frigates, executed the attack with razor sharp

precision. INS Vanish approached close to the Karachi coast and fired four missiles.

The first missile struck the fuel tanks at the Kenrnare Oil Farm. The other three

missiles hit the merchant tankers Harmattan, Gulf Star and the Pakistani naval tanker

Dacca. More than 50 percent of the total fuel requirement of the Karachi zone was

reported to have been blown up. Operation Python was another great success.23

Though the Indian conduct of the land war on the western front was somewhat

timid, the role of the lndian air force was both extensive and daring. During the

fourteen-day war, the air force's Western Command conducted some 4,000 sorties.

There was little retaliation by Pakistan's air force, partly because of the paucity of

non-Bengali technical personnel. Additionally, this lack of retaliation reflected the

deliberate decision of the Pakistan Air Force headquarters to conserve its forces

because of heavy losses incurred in the early days of the war.

3.9 Simla Agreement July 2,1972.'.' (see Appendix-111)

3.10 1992 Demolition of Babrimajid

On December 6, 1992, a large crowd of Hindu Kar Sevaks entirely destroyed

the 16th-century Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, Pradesh, India, in an attempt to reclaim

the land known as Ram Janmabhoomi. The demolition occurred after a rally

the movement turned violent and resulted in several months of

interco-oned rioting between India's Hindu and Muslim communities, causing the

death of at least 2,000 people. According to Hindu belief, Ram Janmabhoomi, in the

city of Ayodhya, is the birthplace of the God-kingRama.24 It is therefore

considered one of the most sacred and religious sites in the Hindu religion. In 1528,

following the Mughal invasion of North India, a mosque was built at the site by the

Mugha1 general Mir Baqi, who came to be named after emperor Babur. According to

sources, Mir Baqi destroyed a pre-existing temple of Ramaat the site. For at least

four centuries, the site was used for religious purposes by both Hindus and

~ u s l i m s . " In 1859, soon after the first recorded incidents of religious violence at

the site, the British colonial administration set up a railing to separate the outer

courtyard of the mosque to avoid disputes. The status quo remained in place until

1949, when idols of Rama were surreptitiously placed inside the mosque, allegedly

by volunteers of the Hindu Mahasabha. This led to an uproar, with both parties filing

civil suits laying claim to the land. The placing of the idol was seen as a desecration

by the users of the Masjid. The site was declareci to be in dispute, and the gates to

the Masjid were locked. In the 1980s, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) intensified

its campaign for the construction of a temple dedicated to Rama at the site, with

the Party as its political voice. The movement was bolstered by the decision of a

district judge, who ruled in 1986 that the gates would be reopened and Hindus

permitted to worship there. In September 1990, BJP leader L. K. Advani began

a Ratha-Yatra to Ayodhya in support of the Hindu nationalist movement. Advani

was arrested by the government of Bihar before he could reach Ayodhya. Despite

this, a large body of kar sevaks or Sangh Parivar activists reached Ayodhya and

attempted to attack the mosque. This resulted in a pitched battle with the

forces that ended with the death of several kar ~evaks.~"he BJP

withdrew its support to the V. P. Singh ministry at the centre, necessitating fresh

elections. The BJp increased its tally in the union parliament, as well as

winning a majority in the Uttar Pradesh assembly. On 6 December 1992. the RSS

and its affiliates organised a rally involving 150,000 VHP and BJP kar sevaks at the

site of the mosque. The ceremonies included speeches by BJP leaders such as

~ d ~ ~ ~ i , ~ ~ ~ l i Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti. During the first few hours of the

rally, the crowd grew gradually more restless, and began raising militant slogans. A

police cordon had been placed around the mosque in preparation for attack.

However, around noon, a young man managed to slip past the cordon and climb the

mosque itself, brandishing a saffron flag. This was seen as a signal by the mob, who

then stormed the structure. The police cordon, vastly outnumbered and unprepared

for the size of the attack, fled. The mob set upon the building with axes, hammers,

and grappling hooks, and within a few hours, the entire mosque was leveled. Hindus

also destroyed numerous other mosques within the town.26

A 2009 report, authored by Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, found 68

people to be responsible for the demolition of the Masjid, mostly leaders from the

BJP. Among those named were Vajpayee, Advani, Joshi and Vijay Raje Scindia.

Kalyan Singh, who was then the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, also faced severe

criticism in the report. Liberhan wrote that he posted bureaucrats and police officers

to Ayodhya, whose record indicated that they would stay silent during the mosque's

demolition. Anju Gupta, an police officer who had been in charge of Advani's

security on that day, staled that Advani and Joshi made speeches that contributed to

provoking the behaviour of the mob. The report notes that at this time several BJP

leaders made "feeble requests to the kar sevaks to come down ... either in earnest or

for the media's benefit". No appeal was made to the Kar Sevaks not to enter the

sanctum sanctorum or not to demolish the structure. The report notes: "This selected

act of the leaders itself speaks of the hidden intentions of one and sll being to

accomplish demolition of the disputed structure." The report holds that the "icons of

the movement present could just as easily have prevented the demolition."

3.1 1 Mumbai Blasts 1993

The 1993 Mumbai bombings were a series of 13 bomb explosions that took

place in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India on Friday, 12 March, 1993. The coordinated

attacks were the most destructive bomb explosions in Indian history. The single-day

attacks resulted in over 350 fatalities and 1200 injuries. The attacks were

coordinated by Dawood Ibrahim, don of the Mumbai-based international organized

crime syndicate named D-Compan y.

Ibrahim is believed to have ordered and helpad organise the bombings in

Mumbai, through one of his subordinates, Tiger Memon. The bombings are also

believed to have been financially assisted by the expatriate Indian smugglers, Hajji

Ahmed. Hajji Umar and Taufiq Jaliawala, as well as the Pakistani smugglers,

Dawood Jatt. The Indian authorities have not successfully proved the involvement of

the Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) in the blasts. Several of the terrorists

according to Indian government allegedly received arms, ammunition and

explosives training in Pakistan but Indian authorities have not provided any evidence

confirming these allegations. Supreme Court of India gave its judgment on 21 March

2013 after over 20 years of judicial proceedings sentencing the accused. However,

the two main suspects in the case, Dawood Ibrahim is not yet been arrested or tried

1996 - Following a series of clashes, military ofticers from both countries

meet at the LoC in order to ease tensions.

1998-India detonates five nuclear devices at Pokhran. Pakistan responds by

detonating six nuclear devices of its own in the Chaghai Hills. The tests result in

international sanctions being placed on both countries. In the same year, both

countries carry out tests of long-range missiles.

The latest major confrontation took place in 1999 in Kargil, a city of

Kashmir. Pakistan offered many different casus belli for its invasion of the Kargil

region, but the one that the international community most took note of was that the

Kashmir issue, unresolved, and could result in nuclear war. Pakistani forces began

incursions along the Line of Control, the de facto border of' India and Pakistan in

Kashmir, in December 1998; full warfare broke out by May of the following year.

The Indian armed forces, though surprised, were able to rebuff the Pakistani

incursion to pre-conflict positions.

1999-Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee meets with Nawaz Sharif,

his Pakistani counterpart, in Lahore. The two sign the Lahore Declaration, the first

major agreement between the two countries since the 1972 Simla Accord. Both

countries reaffirm their commitment to the Simla Accord, and agree to undertake a

number of 'Confidence Building Measures' (CBMs).

Some of the diplomatic gains are eroded, however, after the Kargil contlict

breaks out in May. Pakistani forces and Kashmiri fighters occupy strategic positions

on the Indian side of the LoC, prompting an Indian counter offensive in which

they are pushed back to the other side of the original LoC. Kargil is the first armed

conflict between the two neighbors since they officially conducted nuclear weapons

tests. 28

In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani chief of army

staff, leads a military coup, deposing Nawaz Sharif, the then prime minister, and

installing himself as the head of the government.

Pakistan, existing in a militarily weaker position vis-2-vis India, has used

multiple strategies in order to attempt to gain and maintain parity. One these

strategies have been engagement of global powers, the United States and China;

another was the development of nuclear arms in response to India's acquisition of

nuclear weapons; terrorism is the third. The rivalry since the 1990s has also been

fraught with terrorism perpetuated by Pakistan. Pakistani terrorism has existed in

many forms, from the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines flight 81427 to the 2001

attack on the Indian Parliament which nearly triggered a nuclear war. Pakistan's

alliances with the United States, United Kingdom, and China helped Pakistan to gain

parity vis-A-vis India, which was supported by the Soviet Union during the Cold

War. The great powers both attempted to vie for regional influence and to tamper

Indian nuclear development in the region. However, in recent years the rise of

Islamist terrorist groups in Pakistan coupled with the end of the Cold War, the

United States seeing India as a potential strategic partner, and the anti-Chinese

alignment of India, the United States, and others has brought international opinion to

favor India over Pakistan. The recent lack of support lent to Pakistan by the great

powers has surely been instrumental in expanding Pakistan's use of terrorism and

acquiring of nuclear arms in order to achieve parity.29

3.12 Lahore Declaration February, 1999."' (see Appendix-IV)

3.13 Kargil War

The Kargil War(a1so known as the Kargil conflict), was an armed

conflict between India and Pakistan that took place between May and July 1999 in

the Kargil district of Kashmir and elsewhere along the Line of Control (LOC). In

India, the conflict is also referred to as Operation Vijay which was the name of the

Indian operation to clear the Kargil sector. The cause of the war was the infiltration

of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into positions on the Indian side of the

LOC, which serves as the de facto border between the two states. During the initial

stages of the war, Pakistan blamed the fighting entirely on independent Kashmiri

insurgents, but documents left behind by casualties and later statements by

Pakistan's Prime Minister and Staff showed involvement of Pakistani paramilitary

forces, led by General Ashraf Rnshid. The lndian Army, later o n supported by the

Indian, recaptured a majority of the positions on the Indian side of the LOC

infiltrated by the Pakistani troops and militants. With international diplomatic

opposition, the Pakistani forces withdrew from the remaining Indian positions along

the LOC.~'

The war is one of the most recent examples of high altitude warfare in

mountainous terrain, which posted significant logistical problems for the combating

sides. T o date, it is also the only instance of direct, conventional between nuclear

states ( i s . , those possessing nuclear). India had conducted its first successful test in

1974; Pakistan, which had been developing its nuclear capability in secret since

around the same time, conducted its first known tests in 1998, just two weeks after

a second series of tests by India.

Before the Partition of India in 1947, Kargil was part of the Baltistan district

of Ladakh, a sparsely populated region with diverse linguistic, ethnic and religious

groups, living in isolated valleys separated by some of the world's highest

mountains. The First Kashmir War (1947-48) concluded with the LOC bisecting the

Baltistan district, with the town and district of Kargil lying on the Indian side in

the ~ad 'akh subdivision of the Indian state of Jarnmu and Kashmir. After Pakistan's

defeat in the Indo-Pakistani War of 197 1, the two nations signed the Simla

Agreement promising not to engage in armed conflict with respect to that boundary.

The town of Kargil is located 205 km (127 mi) from Srinagar, facing the Northern

Areas across the LOC. Like other areas in the Himalayas, Kargil has a temperate

climate. Summers are cool with frigid nights, while winters are long and chilly with

temperatures often dropping to -48 OC (-54 O F ) . ."

An Indian national highway (NH 1D) connecting Srinagar to Leh cuts

through Kargil. The area that witnessed the infiltration and fighting is a 160 km long

stretch of ridges overlooking this only road linking Srinagar and Leh. The military

outposts on the ridges above the highway were generally around 5,000 meters

(16,000 ft) high, with a few as high as 5,485 meters (18,000 ft). Apart from the

district capital, Kargil, the populated areas near the front line in the conflict included

the Mushko Valley and the town of Drass, southwe\t of Kargil, as well as the

Batalik sector and other areas, northeast of Kargil.

Kargil was targeted partly because the terrain was conducive to

the preemptive seizure of several unoccupied military positions. With tactically vital

features and well-prepared defensive posts atop the peaks, a defender on the high

ground would enjoy advantages akin to a fortress. Any attack to dislodge a defender

from high ground in mountain warfare requires a far higher ratio of attackers to

defenders, and the difficulties would be exacerbated by the high altitude and

freezing temperatures. Kargil is just 173 krn ( 107 mi) from the Pakistani-controlled

town of Skardu, which was capable of providing logistical and artillery support to

Pakistani combatant^.^^

After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, there had been a long period with

relatively few direct armed conflicts involving the military forces of the two

neighbors notwithstanding the efforts of both nations to control the Siachen

Glacier by establishing military outposts on the surrounding mountains ridges and

the resulting military skirmishes in the 1980s. During the 1990s. however,

escalating tensions and conflict due to separatist activities in Kashmir, some of

which were supported by ~ak i s t an , as well as the conducting of nuclear tests by both

countries in 1998, led to an increasingly belligerent atmosphere. In an attempt to

defuse t h e situation, both countries signed the Lahore Declaration in February 1999,

promising to provide a peaceful and bilateral solution to the Kashrnir conflict.

During the winter of 1998-1999, some elements of the Pakistani Armed

Forces were covertly training and sending Pakistani troops and paramilitary forces,

some allegedly in the guise of mujahideen. into territory on the Indian side of the

LOC. The infiltration was codenamed "Operation Badr"; its aim was to sever the

link between Kashmir and Ladakh, and cause Indian forces to withdraw from

the Siachen Glacier, thus forcing India to negotiate a settlement of the broader

Kashmir dispute. Pakistan also believed that any tension in the region would

internationalise the Kashmir issue, helping it to secure a speedy resolution. Yet

another goal may have been to boost the morale of the decade-long rebellion

in Indian Administered Kashmir by taking a proactive role.

Pakistani Lieutenant General Shahid Aziz, and then head of IS1 analysis

wing, has contirnled there were no mujahideen but only regular Pakistan Army

soldiers who took part in the Kargil War. "There were no Mujahideen, only taped

wireless messages, which fooled no one. Our soldiers were made to occupy barren

ridges, with hand held weapons and ammunition". Lt Gen Aziz wrote in his article in

the The Nation daily in January 2013. Some writers have speculated that the

operation's objective may also have been retaliation for India's Operation

Meghdootin 1984 that seized much of Siachen Glacier. According to India's

then army Chief Ved Prakash Malik, and many other scholars, much of the

background planning, including construction of logistical supply routes, had been

undertaken much earlier. On several occasions during the 1980s and 1990s, the army

had given Pakistani leaders (Zia ul Haq and Benazir Bhutto) similar proposals for

infiltration into the Kargil region, but the plans had been shelved for fear of drawing

the nations into all-out war. Some analysts believe that the blueprint of attack was

reactivated soon after Pervez Musharraf was appointedchief of army staff in

October 1998. After the war, Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan during the

Kargil conflict, claimed that he was unaware of the plans, and that he first learned

about the situation when he received an urgent phone call from Atal Bihari

Vajpayee, his counterpart in India. Sharif attributed the plan to Musharraf and "just

two o r three of his cronies", a view shared by some Pakistani writers who have

stated that only four generals, including Musharraf, knew of the plan. Musharraf,

however, asserted that Sharif had been briefed on the Kargil operation 15 days ahead

of Vajpayee's journey to Lahore on February 2001.

2001 - Tensions along the Line of Control remain high, with 38 people killed

in an attack on the Kashmiri assembly in Srinagar. Following that attack, Farooq

Abdullah, the chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir, calls on the Indian

government to launch a full-scale military operation against alleged training camps

in Pakistan.

In July, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister

Atal Behari Vajpayee meet for a two-day summit in the lndian city of Agra. That

summit collapses after two days, with both sides unable to reach agreement on the

core issue of Kashmir. On December 13, an armed attack on the Indian parliament in

New Delhi leaves 14 people dead. India blames Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-

Muhammad for the attack^.'^ The attacks lead to a massing of India's and Pakistan's

militaries along the LOC. The standoff only ends in October 2002, after

international mediation.

3.14 The Indian Parliament attack 2001

The 2001 Indian Parliament attack was an attack at the Parliament of India in

New Delhi on 13 December 2001. The perpetrators were Lashkar-e-Taiba(Let)

and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terrorists. The attack led to the deaths of five

terrorists, six Delhi Police personnel, two Parliament Security Service personnel and

a gardener, in total 14 and to increased tensions between India and Pakistan.

resulting in the 2001 -02 India-Pakistan tand doff.^'

3.15 The Akshardham Attack

The Akshardham Attack was a terror attack at the Akshardham Temple in

Gandhinagar, Gujarat on 24 September 2002 conducted by Murtuza Hafiz Yasin and

Ashraf Ali Mohammed Farooq. They killed 33 people and wounded 80 others by

using automatic weapons and hand grenades. National Security Guards intervened

and ended the siege by killing both attackers the same night. Six accused were later

arrested by Gujarat Police. In'May 2014, a Supreme Court of India bench acquitted

all the six prisoners of all charges and pulled up the Gujarat Police for shoddy

investigqtion in the case.36

3.16 The Nuclear Dyad

The Indo-Pakistani relationship has also been characterized as a nuclear one

since the late 1980s. The Pakistani military sought nuclear weapons in order to

attempt to gain military parity with India as described previously; India had already

acquired nuclear arms. The introduction of nuclear weapons to the rivalry has had

the effect of terminating large-scale military conflicts between the two sides-though

Kargil was indeed a war, it was kept to a limited scale. The extreme tensions

between lndia and Pakistan following the 2001 Parliament attack involved the

deployment of about 800,000 personnel on each side in a standoff that lasted 18

months. Both sides, very aware of the possibility of escalation to nuclear arms

should war break out, did much to avoid war.44 This event shows that in the

presence of nuclear arms, the intensity and frequency of crises and tensions have

remained high despite the threat of nuclear warfare-in fact, Pakistani terrorism has

increased since the likelihood of escalation to major war is lessened.

The new unders~anding in crises between lndia and Pakistan, then, is that the

most severe altercations will be only limited wars, such as in Kargil. Full-scale war

is unthinkable under the threat of mutual destruction, and Pakistan, leveraging this to

its advantage, can now pressure India over Kashmir through terrorism much more

effectively. lndia has seized upon this as well, however, and is now much more

willing to conduct cross-border airstrikes to destroy terrorist training camps during

altercations. The continued low- and medium-intensity conflict caused by cross-

border raids and violence continue to engender feelings of hatred between the two

parties to the present day.

2002 - President Musharraf pledges that Pakistan will combat extremism on

its own soil, but affirms that the country has a right to Kashmir.

2003 - After Musharraf calls for a ceasefire along the Loc during a UN

General Assembly meeting in September, the two countries reach an agreement to

cool tensions and cease hostilities across the defector border.

2004 - Vajpayee and Musharraf hold direct talks at the 12th SAARC summit

in Islarriabad in January, and the two countries' foreign secretaries meet later in the

year. This year marks the beginning of the Composite Dialogue Process, in which

bilateral meetings are held between officials at various levels of government

(including foreign ministers, foreign secretaries, military officers, border security

officials, anti-narcotics officials and nuclear experts). In November, on the eve of a

visit to Jammu and Kashmir, the new Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh,

announces that India will be reducing its deployment of troops there.

2006-India redeploys 5,000 troops from Jammu and Kashmir, citing an

"improvement" in the situation there, but the two countries are unable to reach an

agreement on withdrawing forces from the Siachen glacier.

In September, President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh agree to put into place

an Indo-Pak institutional anti-terrorism mechanism.

2007 - On February 18, the train service between India and Pakistan (the

Samjhauta Express) is bombed near Panipat, north of New Delhi. Sixty-eight

people are killed, and dozens injured. The fifth round of talks regarding the review

of nuclear and ballistic missile-related CBMs is held as part of the Composite

Dialogue Process. The second round of the Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism

(JATM) is also held.

The Samjhauta Express commonly called the Friendship Express, is a twice-

weekly train Tuesdays and Fridays that etween Delhi and Attari in India and Lahore

in Pakistan. The word samjhauta means "agreement", "accord" and "compromise" in

both Hindi and Urdu.

Until the reopening of the Tar Express, this was the only rail connection

between the two countries. The train was started on 22 July 1976 following the

Shimla Agreement and ran between Amritsar and Lahore, a distance of about 42 km.

Following disturbances in Punjab in the late eighties, due to security reasons Indian

Railways decided to terminate the service at Attari, where customs and immigration

clearances take place. On 14 April 2000, in an agreement between Indian

Railways and Pakistan Railways (PR), the distance was revised to cover just less

than three km.

. It was a daily train when the service started, and changed to a bi-weekly

schedule in 1994. Earlier the rakes were returned to the home country the same day

but later in 2000 the rake remained overnight at that location.

Its termini are Lahore in Pakistan and Delhi in India. The border crossing

takes place between Wagah in Pakistan and Attari in India. Originally, this was a

through service with the same rake going all the way between the termini; later the

Pakistani rake stopped at Attari at which point passengers had to change trains. Now

there is a train from Delhi to Attari where all passengers alight for customs and

immigration. This train does not have any commercial stops between Delhi and

Attari. It is incorrectly referred to as the Samjhauta Express and it is officially

known as the Delhi-Attari or Attari-Delhi Express. The actual Samjhauta Express

runs from Attari to Lahore, although the passengers are checked at Wagah, the first

station on the Pakistani side. The train service was set up with an agreement

between Indian Railways (IR) and Pakistan Railways (PR) to alternately use an

lndian and a Pakistani rake and locomotive for the train. six months at a time.

The train usually has between four and eight coaches. The rake supplied by

Pakistan is usually hauled by an Alco DL-543 class ALU20 diesel loco (Lahore

shed). with the entire train in the standard dark green livery of PR.

The train's first break of service was when it was discontinued on 1 January

2002 in the wake of the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on 13 December

2001. Service resumed on 15 January 2004. Service was also suspended following

the 27 December 2007, assassination of Benazir Bhutto as a preventive measure to

deny militants a "high-value target" that was of great symbolic importance to both

India and Pakistan. On 8 October 201 2, police recovered about I00 kg of contraband

heroin and more than 500 rounds of bullet ammunition at Wagah border on the train

heading for Delhi.

2008-India joins a framework agreement betwen Turkmenistan.

Afghanistan and Pakistan on a $7.6bn gas pipeline project. A series of Kashmir-

specific CBMs are also agreed to (including the approval of a triple-entry permit

facility). In July, India blames Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate

for a bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, which kills 58 and injures

another 141.In September, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime

Minister Singh formally announce the opening of several trade routes between the

two countries. In October, cross-loc trade commences, though it is limited to 21

items and can take place on only two days a week.

On November 26, armed gunmen open fire on civilians at several sites in

Mumbai, Lndia. The attacks on the Tqj Mahal Palace & Tower, the Oberoi Trident

Hotel, the Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Leopold Cafe, Cama Hospital, Nariman

House Jewish community centre, Metro Cinema, St Xavier's College and in a lane

near the Times of India office, prompt an almost three-day siege of the Taj, where

gunmen remain holed up until all but one of them are killed in an Indian security

forces operation. More than 160 people are killed in the attacks. Ajmal Kasab, the

only attacker captured alive, says the attackers were members of Lashkar-c-Taiba. In

the wake of the attacks, India breaks off talks with ~ak i s tan .~ '

3.17 Mumbai attacks 2008

In November 2008, 10 Pakistani members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamic

militant organization, carried out a series of twelve coordinated shooting and

bombing attacks lasting four days across Mumbai. Ajmal Kasab, the only attacker

who was captured alive, later confessed upon interrogation that the attacks were

conducted with the support of Pakistan Government's intelligence agency ISI. The

attacks, which drew widespread global condemnation, began on Wednesday, 26th

November and lasted until Saturday. 29th November 2008, killing 164 people and

wounding at least 308. Eight of the attacks occurred in South Mumbai:

at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, the Oberoi Trident, the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower,

Leopold Cafe, Cama Hospital, the Nariman House Jewish community centre, the

Metro Cinema, and inA a lane behind the Times of India building and St. Xavier's

College. There was also an explosion at Mazagaon, in Mumbai's port area, and in a

taxi at Vile Parle. By the early morning of 28th November, all sites except for the

Taj hotel had been secured by Mumbai Police and security forces. On 29 November,

India's National (NSG) conducted 'Operation Black Tornado' to flush out the

remaining attackers; it resulted in the deaths of the last remaining attackers at the Taj

hotel and ending all fighting in the attacks.38

Ajmal Kasab disclosed that the attackers were members of Lashkar-e-Taiba,

among the Government of India said that the attackers came from Pakistan, and their

controllers were in Pakistan. On 7 January 2009, Pakistan's Information Minister

Sherry Rehman officially accepted Ajmal Kasab's nationality as Pakistani. On 12th

February 2009, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik asserted that parts of the

attack had been planned in Pakistan. A trial court on 6 M a y 2010 sentenced Ajmal

Kasab to death on all the 86 charges for which he was convicted on his appeal

against this verdict, Court on 21 February 201 1 and Supreme Court of India on 29

August 2012 upheld his death sentence. Kasab was executed by hanging at Yerwada

Jail in Pune on 21 November 2012. On 9 April, 2015; the foremost mastermind of

the attacks Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi was granted bail against surety bonds of 200,000

(US$3,200) though he may still remain in jail for a month.

On 6th December 2002, a blast in a BEST bus near Ghatkopar station killed

two people and injured 28. The bombing occurred on the 10th anniversary of the

demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya. A bicycle bomb exploded near the

Vile station in Mumbai, killing one person and injuring 25th on 27th January 2003, a

day before the visit of the Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee to the

city. On 13th March 2003, a day after the 10th anniversary of the 1993 Bombay

bombings, a bomb exploded in a train compartment near the Mulund station, killing

10 people and injuring 70 on 28th July 2003, a blast in a BEST bus in Ghatkopar

killed 4 people and injured 32. On 25th August 2003, two bombs exploded in South

Mumbai, one near the Gateway of India and the other at Zaveri Bazaar in Kalbadevi.

At least 44 people were killed and 150 injured. On 1"' July 2006, seven bombs

exploded within 11 minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai.] 209 people were

killed, including 22 foreigners and over 700 injured. According to the Mumbai

Police, the bombings were carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba and Students Islamic

Movement of lndia (SIMI).

The first events were detailed around 20:00 Indian Standard Time (IST) on

26th November, when 10 men in inflatable speedboats came ashore at two locations

in Columba. They reportedly told local Marathi-speaking fishermen who asked them

who they were to "mind their own business" before they split up and headed two

different ways. The fishermen's subsequent report to police received little

response.3g

2009 - The Pakistani government admits that the Mumbai attacks may have

been partly planned on Pakistani soil, while vigorously denying allegations that the

plotters were sanctioned or aided by Pakistan's intelligence agencies. Pakistani

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and Indian Prime Minister Singh meet on the

sidelines of a Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Sharma el-Sheikh, Egypt,

issuing a joint statement charting future talks. Singh rules out, however, the

resumption of the Composite Dialogue Process at the present time. The Indian

government continues to take a stern line with Pakistan, however. with its coalition

government saying that it is u p to Pakistan to take the first step towards the

resumption of substantive talks by cracking down on militant groups on its soil. In

August, lndia gives Pakistan a new dossier of evidence regarding the Mumbai

attacks, asking it to prosecute Hafiz Moharnrnad Saeed, the head of Jamaat-ud-

Dawa, an Islamic charity with ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba.

2010-111 January, Pakistani and Indian forces exchange fire across the Loc in

Kashmir, the latest in a string of such incidents that have led to rising tension in the

area. In February, India and Pakistan's foreign secretaries meet in New Delhi for

talks. This meeting is followed by the two countries' foreign ministers meeting in

Islamabad in July. In May, Ajmal Kasab is found guilty of murder, conspiracy and

of waging war against India in the Murnbai attacks case. He is sentenced to death.

201 1-In January, Indian Home Secretary GK Pillai says lndia will share

information with Pakistan regarding the 2001 Samjhauta Express bombing. The two

countries' foreign secretaries meet in Thimpu, Nepal, in February, and agree to

rewme peace talks "on all issues".

2012-In November, India execute Pakistani national Mohammad Ajmal

Kasab, the lone survivor of a fighter squad that killed 166 people in a rampage

through the financial capita1 Mumbai in 2008, hanging him just days before the

fourth anniversary of the attack.

2013-In January, India and Pakistan trade accusations of violating the cease-

fire in Kashmir, with Islamabad accusing Indian troops of a cross-border raid that

killed a soldier and India charging that Pakistani shelling destroyed a home on its

side. 2013 - In September, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan meet in New

York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Both the leaders agree to end

tension between armies of both sides in the disputed Kashmir.

2014 - On February 12, lndia and Pakistan agree to release trucks detained in

their respective territories, ending a three week impasse triggered by seizure of a

truck in India-administered Kashmir coming from across the de facto Line of

Control for allegedly carrying brown sugar.

2014 - On May 1, Pakistan's Army chief General Rachel Sharif calls

Kashmir the "jugular vein" of Pakistan, and that the dispute should be resolved in

accordance with the wishes and aspirations of Kashmir's and in line with UNSC

resolutions for lasting peace in the region. On May 25, Pakistan releases 15 1 Indian

fishermen from its jails in a goodwill gesture ahead of swearing-in ceremony of

Narendra Modi as prime minister. On May 27, Indian Prime Minister Narendra

Modi holds talks with Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in New Delhi. Both

sides express willingness to begin new era of bilateral relations. The Bharatiya

Janata Party (BJP), that came to power following the results of the parliamentary

elections in May 2014, sharply criticized the previous government led by the

Congress, stating that "a cursory look at a lost decade demonstrates the deviation

and loss of direction in its relations with its neighbours, misguided diplomacy

towards Pakistan and short-sightedness in the determination of foreign policy with

the island states of the Indian Ocean." Exactly from this standpoint the government

of Prime Minister Narendra Modi built relationships in the region.

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi met in May, 2014 for the first

time when the head of the Federal Cabinet of Ministers of Pakistan was invited to

the inauguration in New Delhi. But the first political battles were turned by them

against each other at the end of September 2014 at the UN General Assembly.

Pakistan severely criticized the position of lndia directed at blocking the execution

of a referendum in Kashmir. The main accusation of the lndian party came down to

the characterisation of Pakistan, as a "main source of terrorism". A little later, in

January 2015, this point was again voiced during the visit of President Barrack

Obama in New Delhi.

Several traditional and new "painful points" appeared in the relations

between Islamabad and New Delhi in 2014 and the first half of 2015:

Armed conflicts along the Line of Control and Working boundary in

Kashmir from September, 2014 to March, 2015.~"

Strong statements of Pakistan with the purpose of blocking plans of lndia for

the construction of new settlements in the Indian part of Kashmir

Further delay by Pakistan of the issue of granting India the status of most

favoured nation;

Islamabad once again accused New Delhi of using Afghan territory for

terrorist attacks in Pakistan, as well as the involvement of the Indian intelligence

agency (RAW) to the activities of terrorist organizations in Pakistan. The

strengthening of confrontation between lndia and Pakistan for influence in

Afghanistan, or so-called "proxy war".

The process of reforming the UN Security Council In 2014, Pakistan called

on the UN General Assembly to prevent the creation of new permanent seats in the

Security Council and at the same time emphasized the need to strengthen the role of

the 193 members of the Assembly. Pakistan opposed granting India the status of a

permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Reforming the Security Council, according to Islamabad, should reflect the

interests of the wider membership of the United Nations. He pointed out two major

obstacles to India in the UN Security Council: firstly, the idea of new permanent

members of the Security Council will create additional centres of power, and,

secondly, India, according to Pakistan, is not eligible for special status in the

Council, as it violated UN Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir, and

the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination. Pakistan believes that a

country that has violated the UN Charter is not entitled to a permanent seat in the

UN Security Council.

In response, Pakistan stated that it has never been a part of an arms race with

India and will adhere to this policy in the future. However, bearing in mind the

situation in the region, Pakistan has the right to maintain a balance of conventional

weapons and. despite financial difficulties, for the government to meet the needs of

their armed forces, will continue this strategy in the future."

Islamabad has expressed concerns at the deterioration of the strategic

imbalance during heightened Pakistan-India tensions, the violation by India

(according to Pakistan) of the ceasefire along the Line of Control and Working

boundary.

In March 2015, the main attention was paid to the discussion of bilateral

issues: Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen. Sir Creek and water issues. They confirmed

that for in order to find their solutions concerted efforts are required and the

resumption of the dialogue process, maintaining the ceasefire (2003), the main

mechanism for the stabilization of the situation on the Line of Control and the

Working boundary between the two countries. The visit of the Secretary Ministry of

Foreign Affairs of India in Pakistan was generally formal and was held on the eve of

the SAARC summit, which will take place in Islamabad. Analysts pointed out that it

had not brought much hope for a qualitative breakthrough, improvement of bilateral

relations. At the same time, according to the Pakistani side, it opened the way for

future negotiations. However, without a specific date of the event. And In May 2015,

the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi confirmed his intention to "break the

ice" in relations with neighbouring countries through the "cricket diplomacy": We

have decided to start a series of games of cricket between the teams of the two

countries, and it will be the first step towards normalization of relations." The games

are planned in the United Arab Emirates, away from the unpredictable behaviour of

the majority of the fans. "Cricket diplomacy" is a return to the positions of the

parties in 201 1-2012, when former Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani

arrived in India on an unofficial visit, and together with the former Prime Minister of

India M.Sindhom watched a cricket match. And so all the years of these

relationships-one step forward, two steps back.

3.18 Other blast9

At 1:30 pm a powerful car bomb exploded in the basement of the Mumbai

Stock Exchange building. The 28-storey office building housing the exchange was

severely damaged, and many nearby office buildings also suffered some damage.

About 50 were killed by this explosion. About 30 minutes later, another car bomb

exploded elsewhere in the city and from 1:30 pm to 3:40 pm a total of 13 bombs

exploded throughout Mumbai. Most of the bombs were car bombs, but some were in

scooters. Three hotels, the Hotel Sea Rock, Hotel Jehu Centaur, and Hotel Airport

Centaur, were targeted by suitcase bombs left in rooms booked by the perpetrators.

Banks, the regional passport office, hotels, the Air India Building, and a major

shopping complex were also hit. Bombs exploded at Zaveri Bazaar, area opposite of

Century Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Shiv Sena Bhavan, and Plaza Theatre. A jeep-bomb

at the Century Bazaar exploded. Grenades were also thrown at Sahar International

Airport and at Fishermen's Colony, apparently targeting Hindus at the latter. A

double decker bus was very badly damaged in one of the explosions and that single

incident accounted for the greatest loss of life-perhaps up to ninety people were

killed

3.19 Bomb blasts in taxis

There were two explosions in taxis caused by timer bombs. The first one

occurred at 22:40 at Vile Parle, killing the driver and a passenger. The second

explosion took place at Wadi Bunder between 22:20 and 22:25. Three people,

including the driver of the taxi were killed, and about 15 others were injured.

3.20 Taj Mahal Hotel and Oberoi Trident

Two hotels, the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower and the Oberoi Trident, were

among the four locations targeted. Six explosions were reported at the Taj hotel one

in the lobby, two in the elevators, three in the restaurant-and one at the Oberoi

Trident. At the Taj Mahal, firefighters rescued 200 hostages from windows using

ladders during the first night.

CNN initially reported on the morning of 27 November 2008 that the hostage

situation at the Taj had been 'resolved and quoted the police chief of Maharashtra

stating that all hostages were freed; however, it was learned later that day that there

were still two attackers holding hostages, including foreigners, in the Taj Mahal

hotel.40

The Pakistan armed forces will be the most affected if India-Pakistan

relations improved. Pakistan armed forces started the interference in the rule of

Pakistan in 60's and have a strategic upper hand in that society. It is justified with

what is called 'the doctrine of necessity'. In fact all democratic transgressions in

Pakistan are justified with just that one doctrine. Pakistan armed forces have a very

high budgetary allocation as compared to the other departments. It is never

questioned by the civil society. Whenever Pakistan political leaders try to question

or trim the influence of Pakistan armed forces, it fights back and mostly wins. Both

PM Nawaz Shariff and Mrs. Bhutto have faced the wrath when they crossed the line

with Pakistan military. Even journalists who questioned have been warned and

sometimes even bumped off. Syed Saleem Shahzad is one such brave journalist who

paid with his life. The famous editor of The Friday Times, Mr. Najam Sethi was

once arrested and tortured. It is IS1 that mostly does the dirty job. More than India, it

is the state of Pakistan that is suffering due to the Pakistan armed forces. While their

interference was to protect the interests of Pakistan it has the opposite effect. Many

Pakistani citizens also realize it but are fearful of the repercussions. I don't think any

other nation would be adversely affected. Although US, UK and even China sell

weapons to India and Pakistan, I believe if the relationship improves, maybe they

will expand other trade opportunities.

3.21 Terrorism

Terrorism remains our India's concern in the relationship with Pakistan and

has been repeatedly raised with Pakistan, including at the highest level, whereby

India has consistently urged Pakistan to fulfill its repeated assurance given to us not

to allow the territory under its control to be used for supporting terrorism directed

against us or for any other anti-India activity. More recently, during the meeting of

PM with PM Gilani in Maldives (November 10, 201 1 ), PM underlined our concerns

regarding terrorism and stressed that it was imperative to bring the perpetrators of

the Mumbai attack to justice.

During the meeting w'ith President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari in New Delhi

on April 8, 2012, PM told President Zardari that there was need for taking firm

action. to curb terrorism to enable us to make forward movement in bilateral

relationship. PM conveyed that it was imperative to bring the perpetrators of the

Mumbai attack to justice and prevent activities aimed against India from Pakistani

soil. In this context, he mentioned the activities of Hafiz Saeed c'&rried out in public.

Pakistan has been specifically requested to take action against anti-India terrorist

outfits such as Lashkar-e- Taiba (LeT)- Jamaatud-Dawaa (JuD), and its leaders such

as Hafiz Saeed and Abdur Rehman Makki.

The Mumbai terrorist attack case in Anti-Terrorism Court in Pakistan against

the seven persons arrested in Pakistan in connection with the attack is ongoing. A

Pakistan Judicial Commission visited India in March 2012 and recorded statements

of judicial and police officials, who had recorded the lone surviving accused Ajmal

Kasab's confessional statement. and two doctors who had conducted postmortem on

the terrorists involved in the attack. The Anti Terrorism Court upheld the contention

of the defence that the report of the Judicial Commission was not legal and could not

form part of the case, since the witnesses were not cross-examined. The request of

Pakistan authorities to allow another visit of the Commission to India for cross-

examining the four witnesses mentioned above is under consideration of the Indian

a~thor i t ies .~ '

Conclusion

Present-day relations between India and Pakistan show some improvement,

though relations are still quite rocky and could implode at any time. In 2002

Pakistan established a "guided democracy" led by a General Musharraf. a move

which was welcomed by India and which was met with another offer for peace

through the Composite Dialogue Process. Peace talks continued between 2004 and

2008, albeit interrupted by a terrorist attack in 2006. As of 2007 Pakistan became

preoccupied with battling the Taliban and other extremist groups within Pakistan,

and India remains unwilling to discuss further peace with Pakistan until Pakistan

prosecutes the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.

The Composite Dialogue Process (CDP) established between India and

Pakistan is a mechanism attempting to link disputes and matters of contention and to

attempt to negotiate them all at the same time. The CDP contains eight 'baskets.'

which can be organized into four sections: territorial issues, security issues, resource

and economic issues, and people-to-people exchanges. The territorial disputes

include Jarnmu and Kashmir, as previously discussed, as well as minor disputes such

as Siachen and Sir Creek. Security issues broadly include terrorism, drug trafficking,

the Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism enshrined in the Havana Declaration, and

conventional and nuclear military confidence-building measures. Resource and

economic issues include bilateral trade, fiber-optic communications connections, the

South Asian Free Trade Agreement through the South Asian Association for

Regional Cooperation, and the Tulbul NavigationNVular Barrage Project-which is

purported by Pakistan to be a means of flooding Pakistani territory, but which India

maintains i s solely for river navigability. People-to-people confidence building

measures encompass friendly exchanges in sporting, medicine, and et cetera, border

crossings along the Line of Control and transport links, and joint disaster

management efforts.

Through the Composite Dialogue Process and other Indo-Pak confidence-

building and diplomatic measures, there is some hope for continued dialogue and

diplomacy between the two nations. The tensions after the Parliament attacks were

partially lessened when India forwarded a twelve-point goodwill offer to Pakistan,

which accepted and reciprocated. The agreement included such items as resuming

sporting encounters, providing free medical treatment to a small amount of Pakistani

children, and restarting some transportation links.56 Such events give hope that

futurc cooperation could be possible, however this would surely be difficult and

require extensive trust and goodwill, noting the long, violent past the two nations

share.

Mukherjee, A., 2009, A brand new day or back to the future? The dynamics

of India-Pakistan relations, India Review, 8(4), 404-445.

Choudhry, I. A. & Akhtar, R., 2010, India Pakistan peace process 2004-2008:

A case study of Kashmir, Research Journal of International Studies, 13. 47-

55.

Colman, J., 2009, Britain and the Indo-Pakistani Conflict: The Rann of Kutch

and Kashmir, 1965, The Journal of Imperial and commonwealth History,

37(3), 465-482.

Mitra, S. K., 2001, War and peace in South Asia: A revisionist view of India

and Pakistan relations, Contemporary South Asia, lO(3). 361 -379.

Annad, A.S (Justice) (2006) the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. P. 67.

Akhtar, N., 2010, A response to the Kashmir conflict, International Journal

on World Peace, 27( 1 ), 45-56.

Bowers, P., 2004, Kashmir, International Affairs and Defense, 4(28), 1-64.

Das Gupta, S. (2012). Borderlands and Borderlines: Re-negotiating

Boundaries in Jammu and Kashmir. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 27 (I) ,

83-93.

Mohan, A., 1992, .,The historical roots of the Kashmir conflict, Studies in

Conflict and Terrorism, 15, 283-308.

Zawahri. N. A., 2009, India, Pakistan and co-operation along the Indus River

system, Water Policy, 11, 1-20.

Chakrabarty -The partition of Bengal and Assam, page 138

Chakrabarty - The partition of Bengal and Assam, page 140- 147

Chatterji - Spoils of paftition. Page 1 I 1

Manorama Yearbook 1998

15. Thomas M. Leonard (2006). Encyclopedia of the developing world. Taylor &

Francis. pp. 806. ISBN 978-0-415-97663-3. Retrieved 14 April 201 1.

R. D. Pradhan (1 January 2007). 1965 War, the Inside Story: Defence

Minister Y.B. Chavan's Diary of India-Pakistan War. Atlantic Publishers &

Dist. p. 10.ISBN 978-8 1-269-0762-5.

17. R. D. Pradhan (1 January 2007). 1965 War, the Inside Story: Defence

Minister Y.B. Chavan's Diary of India-Pakistan War. Atlantic Publishers &

Dist. p. 12.

Bajwa, Farooq. From Kutch to Tashkent: The Indo-Pakistan War of 1965.

Hurst Publishers. p. 362. ISBN 978 1849042307.

Bisht, Rachna. 1965: Stories from the Second Indo-Pakistan War. Penguin

UK. p. 139. ISBN 9789352141296.

June 30th 1965: Cease-fire was agreed under UN Auspices Between lndia

and Pakistan, Who Signed a Treaty to Stop the War at Rann of Kutch.".

Lyon, Peter (2008). Conflict between India and Pakistan: An Encyclopedia.

ABC-CLIO. p. 166. ISBN 978- 1-57607-7 12-2. India's decisive victory over

Pakistan in the 197 1 war and emergence of independent Bangladesh

Air Chief Marshal P C La1 (1986). My Days with the IAF. Lancer.

p. 286. ISBN 978-8 1-7062-008-2.

Leonard, Thomas. Encyclopedia of the developing world, Volume I . Taylor

& Francis, 2006. 1

Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis". BBC News. 17 October 2003.

Jain 2013, p. 9, 120, 164

"Babri mosque case: BJP MP declared absconder - The Times of India".

Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 20 14-07-22.

Symbolism in Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior - Jonathan Matusitz - Google Books. Books.google.com.

Bomb Blasts in Mumbai, 1993-2006". Institute for Conflict Management.

Retrieved 15 March 2007

Hansen, Thomas (200 1 ). Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in

Postcolonial Mumbai. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

p. 125. ISBN 978-0-691 -08840-2.

Hasan Akhtar ( 13 February 1999). "Nawaz-Vajpayee agenda includes

Kashmir, N-issue". Dawn Wire Services, 13 1999

Ashraf Mumtaz (19 February 1999). "Vajpayee arrives today: Open-ended

agenda for summit". Dawn Wire Service 1999.

"Lahore Declaration Text" Governments of India and Pakistan. 15

February 201 3

"Govt blames LeT for Parliament attack". Rediff.com (14 December 2001).

'The terrorists had the home ministry and special Parliament label'. 2006.

Rediff India. 13 December 200 1

Magnier, Mark; Sharma, Subhash (27 November 2008)."India terrorist

attacks leave at least 101 dead in Mumbai". Los Angeles Times. p. A1

Press Trust of India (27 November 2008). "Army preparing for final assault,

says Major General Poonarn Gilurkar". The Times of India.

Ali, S Ahmed (30 November 2008). "Mumbai locals helped us, terrorist tells

cops". The Times of India. India.

National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

(2016). Global Terrorism Database (globalterrorismdb-0616dist.xlsx).

Sharma (201 3). Growing overlap between terrorism and organized crime in

India: A case study, Security Journal, 26(1), 60-79

John Philip Jenkins (ed.). "Terrorism". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Archived

from the original on 17 December 2007.

Ibid.