JTMUN 2019

PAKISTAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Letter from the Secretary-General

Dear Delegates,It is my great pleasure to welcome you to the fifth session

Lahore Grammar School Johar town Model United Nations, to be held from Thursday, October 10 to

Sunday, October 13.JTMUN is one of the toughest and most prestigious

conferences in Pakistan, hosting over 500 delegates each year. JTMUN is much more than just four days

of debate. It is a coterie, uniting delegates from over 10 cities in Pakistan to solve some of the world’s most daunting problems. You will be guided and

moderated at this conference by some of the best Directors in Lahore, all of whom are deeply

impassioned about the educational power and significance of MUN.

In our fifth year, we are immensely honoured to continue JTMUN’s proprietary focus on diplomacy,

collaboration and social change. We pride ourselves on providing you the most thorough delegate

experience possible, ranging from our extensive study guides to individualized feedback.

On behalf of the JTMUN secretariat, I invite you to join us in Lahore for JTMUN 2019.

Yours,Wasay Yar Khan

Introduction:

Welcome delegates, to the Pakistan National Assembly at JTMUN, 2019. The inaugural simulation of PNA will focus, inter alia, on the promotion of an understanding of the way the National Assembly functions, its powers and responsibilities, and its related entities; along with a deep understanding of the fundamental rights guaranteed under our constitutional scheme and some of the most prominent issues affecting our country right now. Since PNA is still a simulation being held at a Model UN conference, it will more or less function under the usual rules that govern a Model UN, with a few changes. • There will be moderated and unmoderated caucuses as happens in

any Model UN and the usual diplomacy and articulate speeches that are a staple characteristic of delegates at LUMUN will also be expected.

• One major change is that the committee will be bilingual. Hence delegates can choose to address the committee in either English or Urdu, or a mixture of both. Provincial and cultural languages, while certainly beautiful in their own regard, will unfortunately not be allowed.

• The Committee Directors will be referred to as Speakers and the Assistant Committee Directors will be referred to as Deputy Speakers.

• Delegates will be expected to thoroughly read and understand the Special Rules of Procedure, which include information relating to:

1. Special Motions2. Secret Sittings3. Standing Committees4. Bills• The final documentation will be in the form of Bills. We encourage you to read the Study Guide and Special Rules of Procedure carefully, and come well prepared to the committee so that you may be able to give your best performance and hopefully learn something new. You are most welcome to email us at any time with any queries that you may have. Happy researching!You can reach us on:ahmadmaudood4@gmail.com

shehryar2001@hotmail.com

Pakistan National Assembly

Reframing Pakistan’s foreign policy: in refrence to Kashmir issue.

Introduction:Today, the word Kashmir has become synonymous with death, destruction and religious genocide in South Asia. Although the roots of the Kashmir issue lie in a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, it has evolved into a multi-faceted issue over the years. The Kashmir dispute dates from 1947. The partition of the Indian sub-continent along religious lines led to the formation of India and Pakistan. However, there remained the problem of over 650 states, run by princes, existing within the two newly independent countries. The roots of the conflict lie in the countries’ shared colonial past. From the 17th to the 20th century, Britain ruled most of the Indian subcontinent, first indirectly through the British East India Company, then from 1858 directly through the British crown. Over time, Britain’s power over its colony weakened, and a growing nationalist movement threatened the crown’s slipping rule. Britain had historically had separate electorates for Muslim citizens and reserved some political seats specifically for Muslims; that not only hemmed Muslims into a minority status, but fueled a growing Muslim separatist movement. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a politician who headed up India’s Muslim League, began demanding a separate nation for India’s Muslim population.In theory, these princely states had the option of deciding which country to join, or of remaining independent. In practice, the restive population of each province proved decisive.

The people had been fighting for freedom from British rule, and with their struggle about to bear fruit they were not willing to let the princes fill the vacuum.

The British sold Kashmir to Maharajah Ghulab Singh in 1846. Subsequently, Maharajah Ghulab Singh established himself as the independent princely ruler of Kashmir. This was done through the famous Treaty Of Amritsar. After Ghulab Singh’s death, his kingdom passed on to his successors and was ultimately ruled by Maharajah Hari Singh until 1949. These rulers were known to be tyrannical and oppressive. In 1931, there was even a revolt and general unrest amongst the majority Muslim population. In 1947, the South Asian portion of the British Empire was divided between India and Pakistan. Maharajah Hari Singh was advised to consider contiguous dominion, religious and ethnic issues when deciding which territory to accede to. Both India and Pakistan applied pressure to get Hari Singh to accede to them respectively. However, Maharajah Hari Singh remained neutral and did not accede to either dominion. As a result, Pakistan attempted to annex Kashmir and sent large number of ‘tribesmen’ and Pakistani army regulars to overthrow Hari Singh, and make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. At this point, the Maharajah made an offer to accede to the Indian union in exchange for protection by Indian forces. India agreed and sent its troops to Kashmir, sparking off the first war between the two countries. In 1947, the South Asian portion of the British Empire was divided between India and Pakistan. Maharajah Hari Singh was advised to consider contiguous dominion, religious and ethnic issues when deciding which territory to accede to. Both India and Pakistan applied pressure to get Hari Singh to accede to them respectively. However, Maharajah Hari Singh remained neutral and did not accede to either dominion. As a result, Pakistan attempted to annex Kashmir and sent large number of ‘tribesmen’ and Pakistani army regulars to overthrow Hari Singh, and make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. At this point, the Maharajah made an offer to accede to the Indian union in exchange for protection by Indian forces. India agreed and sent its troops to Kashmir, sparking off the first war between the two countries.Although many princes wanted to be "independent" (which would have meant hereditary monarchies and no hope for democracy) they had to succumb to their people's protests which turned violent in many provinces.

A Map of Disputed Kashmir

Because of its location, Kashmir could choose to join either India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, was Hindu while most of his subjects were Muslim. Unable to decide which nation Kashmir should join, Hari Singh chose to remain neutral. Hari Singh appealed to the Indian government for military assistance and fled to Indiaia. He signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding Kashmir to India on October 26.

Maharaja Hari SinghTreaty of AmritsarThe Treaty of Amritsar, executed by the British East India Company and Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu after the First Anglo-Sikh War, established the independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir under the suzerainty of

the British Indian Empire.

Strategic Importance

Kashmir is a landlocked region in South Asia, sandwiched between India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. It is spread across an area of 86,000 square miles, an area bigger than 87 sovereign countries1. Kashmir is home to almost thirteen million people. Though mostly Muslim, the state also has significant Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh populations. Cradled by the mighty Himalayas and fed by rivers like the Satluj and Indus. With a predominantly agrarian population, the per capita income of Kashmir is less than 100 U.S. Dollars. Most of the population is forced to live under immense squalor and oppression. This has made Kashmir one of the most controversial and hotly debated topics in South Asia, a region home to almost a quarter of the world’s population. Kashmir is geo strategically located and serves as main source of water and power generation for both Pakistan and India. The control of the region creates a zero sum game in which the control of the rivers and glacial water could pose an existential threat to the other. The biggest advantage of Kashmir is that India can control the trade between Pakistan and China,through this channel. Whenever India wants to cut the supply lines of Pakistan from China then India can very easily block that line. It is also pertinent to remember the Himalayas mountain chain act as a defence border for India . Kashmir is strategically important to India and Pakistan. Kashmir provides Pakistan with much needed waters to irrigate the fertile plains of Punjab. The Indus and its tributaries flowing in from Kashmir comprise the primary source of fresh water in Pakistan. As a result, control of the flow of water in these rivers through dams and canals has been a very important issue for decades.

Furthermore, the Silk Route, the primary land link between Pakistan and China passes through Kashmir. This is very significant because China has border disputes with India and is also a major diplomatic and military ally for Pakistan. The Silk route allows China to maintain an aggressive posture towards India, its biggest regional rival. An instance displaying the strategic

importance of the Silk Route was when Pakistan reopened the road in 1965. Pakistan handed over complete control of Gilgit, a modern air force base on this route, to China. This is very important as today Gilgit is the point from which China can penetrate deepest into Indian territory4. This significantly neutralizes the natural security created by the Himalayan range over north India. Interestingly, this move was made only when border tensions erupted between India and China in the 1960’s. The Silk Route also strengthens Pakistan’s relationship and trade with China.

There are many other areas in Kashmir that have major geo-political significance. One such area is the Siachen Glacier in the Karakoram Pass. It is the only barrier preventing Pakistani and Chinese forces from linking up in Kashmir4. If Pakistan and China were allowed to link up their militaries at Siachen, India’s national security over the entire northern frontier would be greatly undermined. Such a link up be would create a very powerful military force, consisting of India’s two biggest rivals. This force would capable of joint and potentially decisive military action against India.Additionally, the strategic importance of Kashmir extends beyond South Asia and onto the global stage. The annexation of Kashmir by Pakistan or the creation of an independent state would create a continuous block of potential Islamic fundamentalist regions extending all the way from Morocco to Malaysia. Amongst other things, this would have a detrimental impact on the global strategy in the ‘war on terror’. Kashmir, already somewhat of a harbor for terrorists worldwide could also become a fundamentalist state like Iran and support undesirable activities. According to recent declassified documents, the west also had strategic military interests in Kashmir 6. Some analysts believe that an independent Kashmir, neutral between India and Pakistan, would be dependant on the west due to its land locked nature. This would give the west an opportunity to establish a military presence in the valley, thus enabling it to extend its influence beyond the Middle East to Central Asia and the western border of China. However, another report dismissed the idea as establishing a military base in the valley would be far too expensive and impractical due to the unsuitable terrain. Besides its strategic and political importance, Pakistan and India both claim Kashmir because of cultural and social reasons. Kashmir has become ingrained in the minds of both Pakistanis and Indians as the single biggest issue facing the Indian subcontinent. Pakistan has suffered defeats in previous wars with India over Kashmir. Pakistan and India have developed a universal enmity and rivalry extending across all spheres of life. As a result, Kashmir has come to represent very high stakes for both countries in terms of national pride.

Analysis of terrorism in Kashmir

External factors, especially bad administration by the Indian government and gross violations of human rights by Indian security forces, have also created an environment conducive to terrorism in Kashmir. The biggest such factor

has been the apathy of the central and state governments of the time with External factors, especially bad administration by the Indian government and gross violations of human rights by Indian security forces, have also created an environment conducive to terrorism in Kashmir. The biggest such factor has been the apathy of the central and state governments of the time with regard to Kashmir. The public infrastructure in Kashmir is almost non-existent and corruption and religious fundamentalism plague the public administrative machinery. During the beginning of the proxy war, the state and central governments did little to help the people of Kashmir. The ineffectiveness of the Janata Dal government, in power in 1989, only worsened the situation. The Indian central government displayed its weakness as it nearly collapsed when terrorists kidnapped the daughter of the Home Minister. In exchange for her safety, the government readily exchanged five captured militants. This near collapse of the Central Government, coupled with the government’s general apathy and ineptitude with regards to terrorism has only encouraged the terrorists in Kashmir. Such apathy and ineffectiveness have also created a sense of alienation and neglect for the Muslims in Kashmir. This sense of alienation only adds to the hatred against Hindus and India for the Muslims in the valley, thus, supporting communal tension in the area. Furthermore, this sense of alienation also encourages the terrorists to continue their activities.

Global politics have also played an important role in the proxy war in Kashmir. Kashmir has often been used as a strategic tool in the region. Pakistan has always desired greater international and western involvement in the issue. Such involvement is important as it keeps the issue alive and center stage. When the international community began to stress that the Kashmiri people had become alienated, Pakistan began the proxy war in Kashmir while consistently maintaining that the terrorists were freedom fighters. This created an impression in the international community that the people of Kashmir indeed wanted to accede from India. However, towards the end of the Clinton administration, the west, led by the United States began to follow a policy of non interference that supported a bilateral resolution of the dispute as preferred by India. This was extremely detrimental to Pakistan. As a result, Pakistan began to project Kashmir as a major humanitarian disaster like Kosovo. It claimed that the people of Kashmir had been completely alienated by the rest of the country. During this period, attacks against innocent civilians were stepped up and India was projected as performing gross civil rights abuses in Kashmir. However, during the same period terrorists were systematically eliminating non Muslims in the valley. They were spreading terror throughout the state to create the impression of a purely Muslim region in a Hindu country where human civil rights abuses were rampant. This was done primarily to force the west to become more involved in Kashmir as it did in Kosovo and Bosnia. Direct western military involvement would be extremely beneficial to Pakistani interests as the valley is still mostly in Indian possession. Thus, in a sense,

the current proxy war in Kashmir is also influenced by global politics.displayed its weakness as it nearly collapsed when terrorists kidnapped the daughter of the Home Minister. In exchange for her safety, the government readily exchanged five captured militants. This near collapse of the Central Government, coupled with the government’s general apathy and ineptitude with regards to terrorism has only encouraged the terrorists in Kashmir. Such apathy and ineffectiveness have also created a sense of alienation and neglect for the Muslims in Kashmir. This sense of alienation only adds to the hatred against Hindus and India for the Muslims in the valley, thus, supporting communal tension in the area. Furthermore, this sense of alienation also encourages the terrorists to continue their activities.

Global politics have also played an important role in the proxy war in Kashmir. Kashmir has often been used as a strategic tool in the region. Pakistan has always desired greater international and western involvement in the issue. Such involvement is important as it keeps the issue alive and center stage. When the international community began to stress that the Kashmiri people had become alienated, Pakistan began the proxy war in Kashmir while consistently maintaining that the terrorists were freedom fighters. This created an impression in the international community that the people of Kashmir indeed wanted to accede from India. However, towards the end of the Clinton administration, the west, led by the United States began to follow a policy of non interference that supported a bilateral resolution of the dispute as preferred by India. This was extremely detrimental to Pakistan. As a result, Pakistan began to project Kashmir as a major humanitarian disaster like Kosovo. It claimed that the people of Kashmir had been completely alienated by the rest of the country. During this period, attacks against innocent civilians were stepped up and India was projected as performing gross civil rights abuses in Kashmir. However, during the same period terrorists were systematically eliminating non Muslims in the valley. They were spreading terror throughout the state to create the impression of a purely Muslim region in a Hindu country where human civil rights abuses were rampant. This was done primarily to force the west to become more involved in Kashmir as it did in Kosovo and Bosnia. Direct western military involvement would be extremely beneficial to Pakistani interests as the valley is still mostly in Indian possession. Thus, in a sense, the current proxy war in Kashmir is also influenced by global politics.

Pakistan’s foreign relations in regards to Kashmiri.IndiaIt is quite evident that the Kashmir issue has evolved over time. I t has changed from a relatively simple territorial dispute to a far more complex cultural, religious and political issue having global implications.The Kashmir issue has been a major bone of contention between the two countries and hence a major reason of the strained relations between the two countries.Though there have been peace talks and plebiscite offers since the independence of the subcontinent but no progressive solution has been achieved since this date.Moreover,throughout the history the two countries have fought numerous wars over Kashmir but that too resulting in no solution. This year has been one of the deadliest periods in Kashmir’s recent history, with more than 300 people killed in six months, according to statistics published by Reuters in July.

In February, during the runup to national elections, some 40 Indian paramilitary police were killed in a suicide bombing by a Pakistani militant

group. In response, India sent fighter jets into Pakistani airspace and bombed Pakistani territory, though nobody was killed.

The crisis de-escalated after Pakistan returned an Indian pilot who had been captured when an Indian plane was shot out of the sky. But that wasn’t before Modi was able to leverage jingoistic rhetoric for his re-election campaign, pledging to do all that was necessary to protect India — and stoking tensions over Kashmir. (Khan took the opportunity to burnish his own leadership credentials, too.)

Now that the BJP has returned to power with an imposing majority, many Indian Muslims fear that Kashmir is a test-case in turning India into what Hindu nationalists call a “Hindu Rashtra,” or Hindu nation.(a)Kashmir War of 1947The first war between India and Pakistan began in October 1947 and ended in December 1948. The origins of the first war between India and Pakistan can be traced to the final status of Kashmir following the establishment of an independent India and Pakistan on August 15, 1947. But his hopes of remaining independent were dashed in October 1947, as Pakistan sent in Muslim tribesmen who were knocking at the gates of the capital Srinagar.Hari Singh appealed to the Indian government for military assistance and fled to India. He signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding Kashmir to India on October 26.Indian and Pakistani forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. India referred the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its forces.Once this happened, a "free and fair" plebiscite was to be held to allow the Kashmiri people to decide their future.India, having taken the issue to the UN, was confident of winning a plebiscite, since the most influential Kashmiri mass leader, Sheikh Abdullah, was firmly on its side. An emergency government was formed on October 30, 1948 with Sheikh Abdullah as the Prime Minister.Pakistan ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting, holding on to the portion of Kashmir under its control. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed, with 65 per cent of the territory under Indian control and the remainder with Pakistan. Prime Ministers Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan met again in December, when Nehru informed Khan of India's intention to refer the dispute to the United Nations under article 35 of the UN Charter, which allows the member states to bring to the Security Council attention situations 'likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace'.

Nehru and other Indian leaders were afraid since 1947 that the "temporary" accession to India might act as an irritant to the bulk of the Muslims of Kashmir. Secretary in Patel's Ministry of States, V.P. Menon, admitted in an interview in 1964 that India had been absolutely dishonest on the issue of plebiscite. A.G. Noorani blames many Indian and Pakistani leaders for the misery ofKashmiri people but says that Nehru was the main culprit.

(b)United Nation’s mediation The UNCIP made three visits to the subcontinent between 1948 and 1949, trying to find a solution agreeable to both India and Pakistan. It reported to the Security Council in August 1948 that "the presence of troops of Pakistan" inside Kashmir represented a "material change" in the situation. A two-part process was proposed for the withdrawal of forces. In the first part, Pakistan was to withdraw its forces as well as other Pakistani nationals from the state. In the second part, "when the Commission shall have notified the Government of India" that Pakistani withdrawal has been completed, India was to withdraw the bulk of its forces. After both the withdrawals were completed, a plebiscite would be held. The resolution was accepted by India but effectively rejected by PakistanThe Indian government considered itself to be under legal possession of Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of the accession of the state. The assistance given by Pakistan to the rebel forces and the Pakhtoon tribes was held to be a hostile act and the further involvement of the Pakistan army was taken to be an invasion of Indian territory. From the Indian perspective, the plebiscite was meant to confirm the accession, which was in all respects already complete, and Pakistan could not aspire to an equal footing with India in the contest.The Pakistan government held that the state of Jammu and Kashmir had executed a standstill agreement with Pakistan which precluded it from entering into agreements with other countries. It also held that the Maharaja had no authority left to execute accession because his people had revolted and he had to flee the capital. It believed that the Azad Kashmir movement,

as well as the tribal incursions, were indigenous and spontaneous, and Pakistan's assistance to them was not open to criticism.In short, India required an asymmetric treatment of the two countries in the withdrawal arrangements, regarding Pakistan as an 'aggressor', whereas Pakistan insisted on parity. The UN mediators tended towards parity, which was not to India's satisfaction In the end, no withdrawal was ever carried out, India insisting that Pakistan had to withdraw first, and Pakistan contending that there was no guarantee that India would withdraw afterwards. No agreement could be reached between the two countries on the process of demilitarization.

(c)Dixon PlanThe UNCIP appointed its successor, Sir Owen Dixon, to implement demilitarisation prior to a statewide plebiscite. Dixon then offered an alternative proposal, widely known as the Dixon plan. Dixon did not view the state of Jammu and Kashmir as one homogeneous unit and therefore proposed that a plebiscite be limited to the Valley. Dixon agreed that people in Jammu and Ladakh were clearly in favour of India; equally clearly, those in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas wanted to be part of Pakistan. This left the Kashmir Valley and 'perhaps some adjacent country' around Muzaffarabad in uncertain political terrain. Pakistan did not accept this plan because it believed that India's commitment to a plebiscite for the whole state should not be abandoned. Dixon also had concerns that the Kashmiris, not being high-spirited people, may vote under fear or improper influences. Following Pakistan's objections, he proposed that Sheikh Abdullah administration should be held in "commission" (in abeyance) while the plebiscite was held. This was not acceptable to India which rejected the Dixon plan. Another grounds for India's rejection of the limited plebiscite was that it wanted Indian troops to remain in Kashmir for "security purposes", but would not allow Pakistani troops the same. However, Dixon's plan had encapsulated a withdrawal by both sides. Dixon had believed a neutral administration would be essential for a fair plebiscite. Dixon came to the conclusion that India would never agree to conditions and a demilitarization which would ensure a free and fair plebiscite.Following this the Karachi Agreement was signed.

Sir Owen Dixon(d)Nehru's plebiscite offerSoon after the election of Bogra as Prime Minister in Pakistan he met Nehru in London. A second meeting followed in Delhi in the backdrop of unrest in Kashmir following Sheikh Abdullah's arrest. The two sides agreed to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. Scholar Noorani says the agreement Nehru reached with Bogra was only an act to quench the Kashmiri unrestalthough Raghavan disagrees.They also agreed informally to not retain the UN-appointed plebiscite administrator Nimitz because India felt a pro-Pakistan bias on America's part. An outcry in Pakistan's press against agreeing to India's demand was ignored by both Bogra and Nehru who kept the negotiations on track. The USA in February 1954 announced that it wanted to provide military aid to Pakistan. The US signed a military pact with Pakistan in May by which Pakistan would receive military equipment and training. The US President tried to alleviate India's concerns by offering similar weaponry to India. This was an unsuccessful attempt. Nehru's misgivings about the US-Pakistan pact made him hostile to a plebiscite. Consequently, when the pact was concluded in May 1954, Nehru withdrew the plebiscite offer and declared that the status quo was the only remaining option. Nehru's withdrawal from the plebiscite option came as a major blow to all concerned. Scholars have suggested that India was never seriously intent on holding a plebiscite, and the withdrawal came to signify a exculpate of their belief.

Karachi Agreement*The Karachi Agreement of 1949 was signed by the military representatives of India and Pakistan, supervised by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, establishing a cease-fire line in Kashmir following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. It established a cease-fire line which has been monitored by United Nations observers from the United Nations since then.(e)Operation GibraltarOperation Gibraltar, the name given to Pakistan's failed plan to infiltrate the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region in north-western India and start a rebellion against Indian control. Launched in August 1965, Pakistan Army soldiers and guerrillas, disguised as locals, entered Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan with the intention of fomenting an insurgency among Kashmiri Muslims. The strategy went awry from the outset as the locals displayed unexpected reticence to cooperate, while Indian authorities detected the infiltrators. An Indian counterattack that resulted in minor victories followed the debacle. The operation proved significant as it sparked a large scale military engagement between the two neighbors, the first since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Its success, as envisaged by its Pakistani planners, could have given Pakistan control over a unified Kashmir; something that Pakistan desired to achieve at the earliest opportunity. The plan misfired and triggered a war (the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965).(f)Second Kashmir War(1965)The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 was a culmination of skirmishes that took place between April 1965 and September 1965 between Pakistan and India.

The conflict began following Pakistan's 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 armored vehicles and the largest tank battle since World War II. Hostilities between the two countries ended after a United Nations-mandated 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 India in 1947, a number that was overshadowed only during the 2001–2002 military standoff 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. Many details of this war, like those of other Indo-Pakistani Wars, remain unclear. First, the 1965 war was a stern test of the people of the newly-created country. It brought them together on one platform, thereby, proving without any doubt the prowess of the people and the spirit that they showed during that period.Second, the war launched by India confirmed that New Delhi had not accepted the creation of Pakistan as had been suspected by many people in the country at that time. A full-fledged attack on Pakistan and declarations to capture Lahore and dismember the country by the top Indian military leadership are eloquent reminders in this regard. Even today it is evident that some Indians have still not reconciled to Pakistan.Third, the US embargo on arms and spares immediately after the war broke out proved that the US was an unreliable partner though Pakistan was a member of Seato and Cento.Fourth, the war allowed Pakistan armed forces to test their operational doctrines and rectify shortcomings.It created mistrust between the two countries that still continues till today.It changed the security environment with Pakistan looking towards China and also the Soviet Union. President Ayub described it as a triangular tightrope. The war generated efforts towards self reliance in weapon systems and ammunition. The efforts bore fruit in the Seventies with setting up of the POF Wah and PAC Kamra among others.Despite limited resources and weapons, Pakistan armed forces were able to inflict much heavy losses on a larger adversary and able to stop the Indian onslaught.Finally, the war made it clear to Pakistani policymakers that India had planned to annex Kashmir by force and was not interested in a just and peaceful solution to the dispute. As a result, peace between the two neighbouring countries remains elusive to this day.Simla Agreement*

The two countries not only agreed to put an end to “conflict and confrontation" but also work for the “promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing talk of advancing the welfare of their peoples.”

In order to achieve this objective, both the governments agreed that that the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations would govern bilateral relations and differences would be resolved by “peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them."

Regarding Jammu and Kashmir, the two sides had agreed that the line of control “resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line. Both governments had also agreed that their respective Heads would meet again at a “mutually convenient time in the future the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.Tashkent Agreement*Tashkent Agreement, (Jan. 10, 1966), accord signed by India’s prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri (who died the next day) and Pakistan’s president Ayub Khan, ending the 17-day war between Pakistan and India of August–September 1965. A cease-fire had been secured by the United Nations Security Council on Sept. 22, 1965.

The agreement was mediated by Soviet premier Aleksey Kosygin, who had invited the parties to Tashkent. The parties agreed to withdraw all armed forces to positions held before Aug. 5, 1965; to restore diplomatic relations; and to discuss economic, refugee, and other questions. The agreement was criticized in India because it did not contain a no-war pact or any renunciation of guerrilla aggression in Kashmir.

(g)Kargil War (1999)

The 1999 Kargil War took place between May 8, when Pakistani forces and Kashmiri militants were detected atop the Kargil ridges and July 14 when both sides had essentially ceased their military operations. It is believed that the planning for the operation, by Pakistan, may have occurred about as early as the autumn of 1998.The spring and summer incursion of Pakistan-backed armed forces into territory on the Indian side of the line of control around Kargil in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian military campaign to repel the intrusion left 524 Indian soldiers dead and 1,363 wounded, according to December 1 statistics by Defense Minister George Fernandes. Earlier Government figures stated that 696 Pakistani soldiers were killed. A senior Pakistani police official estimated that approximately 40 civilians were killed on the Pakistani side of the line of control.

By 30 June 1999 Indian forces were prepared for a major high-altitude offensive against Pakistani posts along the border in the disputed Kashmir region. Over the previous six weeks India had moved five infantry divisions, five independent brigades and 44 battalions paramilitary troops to Kashmir. The total Indian troop strength in the region had reached 730,000. The build-up included the deployment of around 60 frontline aircraft.

The Pakistani effort to take Kargil occurred after the February 1999 Lahore summit between then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Indian Prime Minister Atal Bahari Vajpayee. This conference was believed to have de-escalated the tensions that had existed since May 1998. The major motive behind the operation was to help in internationalising the Kashmir issue, and for which global attention had been flagging for some time. The intrusion plan was the brainchild of Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, Gen Pervez Musharraf and Lt Gen Mohammed Aziz, the Chief of General Staff. They obtained only an 'in principle' concurrence, without any specifics, from Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani Prime Minister.Pakistan's military aim for carrying out the intrusions was based on exploitation of the large gaps that exist in the defences in the sector both on Indian and Pak side of the Line of Control (LoC). Apart from keeping the plan top secret, the Pakistan Army also undertook certain steps to maintain an element of surprise and maximise deception. There was no induction of any new units or any fresh troops into

the FCNA for the proposed operation. Any large-scale troop movement involving even two or three battalions would have drawn the attention of the Indian Army. The Pakistan Army artillery units, which were inducted into the FCNA during the heavy exchange of fire from July to September 1998, were not de-inducted. Since the exchange of artillery fire continued thereafter, though at a lower scale, this was not considered extraordinary. There was no movement of reserve formations or units into FCNA until after the execution of the plan and operations had begun with the Indian Army's response. No new administrative bases for the intrusions were to be created, instead they were to be catered for from those already in the existing defences.

(h)Pulwama Attack(2019)

Pulwama attack is one of the deadliest terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir in which 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel were martyred. The Pulwama attack happened on February 14, 2019, when a Jaish suicide bomber rammed a vehicle carrying over 100 kg of explosives into their bus in Pulwama district. The attack also left many critically wounded.

The terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed had claimed the responsibility for the attack. The police had identified the suicide bomber as Adil Ahmed alias Waqas Commander from Kakapora in Pulwama.

On February 26, 2019, at 0330 hours, a group of Mirage 2000 Indian Air Force's Fighter jets destroyed the major terrorist camps of JeM across the LoC. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the attack and expressed solidarity with the victims and their families. Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh assured that a strong response will be given to the terror attack. India blamed Pakistan for the attack. BBC News has said that the involvement of the Jaish-e-Mohammed in the bombing "directly links" Pakistan to the attack, while also pointing out that Jaish-e-Mohammed had attacked Pakistani military targets in the past. It is widely accepted among security analysts that Jaish-e-Mohammed is the creation of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. Pakistan banned the group in 2002, but it has

resurfaced under different names and retains ISI's support. The New York Times questioned the nature of the link to Pakistan, pointing out that the bomber came from Indian-administered Kashmir and the explosives may also have been locally procured.

The Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has said that India would completely isolate Pakistan in the diplomatic community.

Pakistan denied the allegation of a link to the attack,] and Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi condemned the bombing. Fawad Chaudhry, Pakistan's federal information minister, said that Pakistan was taking action against Jaish-e-Muhammad and that Pakistan would be able to assist India in taking action against terrorist groups. The Nation, a Pakistani newspaper, called the assailant a "freedom fighter" who eliminated members of an "occupying force".Pakistan and India both recalled their ambassadors for "consultations" in a tit-for-tat move.

On 19 February 2019, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan said that providing safe haven to terrorists was not in Pakistan's interest.He asked for proof of Pakistani involvement and warned India that any military response would be met with retaliation. Indian Ministry of External Affairs responded by criticising him for not condemning the attack and not offering any condolences for the victims. It said that claims by Adil Ahmad Dar and Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed was sufficient proof. It said that promises of investigation was unconvincing due to a lack of progress in Mumbai and Pathankot attack investigations.In response to Indian criticism, the newspaper Dawn pointed out that Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi had expressed sympathies with the victims soon after the attack

.

(i)The Article 370 and 35A of the Indian constitution and it’s revocation

India has scrapped a law that grants special status to Indian-administered Kashmir amid an indefinite lockdown and massive troop deployment in the disputed region.Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah, a close ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, told parliament on Monday that the president had signed a decree abolishing Article 370 of the constitution, stripping the significant autonomy Kashmir had enjoyed for seven decades.Article 370

Was the basis of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to the Indian union at a time when erstwhile princely states had the choice to join either India or Pakistan after their independence from the British rule in 1947.The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from

the Indian constitution.It allows the Indian-administered region jurisdiction to make its own laws in all matters except finance, defence, foreign affairs and communications.It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

Article 35A

Article 35A was introduced through a presidential order in 1954 to continue the old provisions of the territory regulations under Article 370 of the Indian constitution.The article permits the local legislature in Indian-administered Kashmir to define permanent residents of the region.It forbids outsiders from permanently settling, buying land, holding local government jobs or winning education scholarships in the region.The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.While Article 35A has remained unchanged, some aspects of Article 370 have been diluted over the decades.Critics of Article 35A say the provision did not have any parliamentary sanction, and that it discriminates against women.

Kashmir’s status as a semi-autonomous state is complex. It has its roots in the partition of British India in 1947, when Kashmir’s Hindu ruler decided to join India rather than Pakistan on the condition that it was granted a level of autonomy. Over the years, that autonomy was worn down by the central state, writes Professor Sumantra Bose in his book Secular States, Religious Politics. But opposition to Kashmir’s “special status” has only increased since, in tandem with the rise of Hindu nationalism.

The two most significant concessions given to Kashmir in the Indian constitution of 1950 were Article 370 and Article 35A. Article 370 gave Indian-administered Kashmir autonomy in all areas except defense, communication and foreign policy. Article 35A gave only “permanent residents” of Kashmir the right to own property.

Since the 1950s, Hindu nationalists have rallied against these exceptions, arguing that Hindu-majority India must not bend its constitution for Muslim-majority Kashmir. During the 2019 election campaign, the BJP promised to revoke Kashmir’s “special status,” tapping into many Hindu voters’ hostility toward Muslims and mistrust of Pakistan.

“The fact that Kashmir had a special status was not widely known among Indians generally until recently,” says Nitasha Kaul, a Kashmiri lecturer at the University of Westminster in London. “As awareness around Kashmir has grown, the BJP argument has presented Article 370 as something that causes separatism in Kashmir.”

In the BJP’s 2019 manifesto, the page containing the pledge to revoke Kashmir’s special status also includes a quote from Prime Minister Narendra Modi: “India supports peace, but the country will not hesitate to take any steps required for national security.”With all these concessions being taken away from the Kashmiris,this is nothing short of a massacre of India’s constitutional democracy.

Pakistan primarily has focused on conducting peace talks with India in regards to it’s foreign policy,with more than seven peace talks conducted in different reigons throughout the Musharaf regime and several peace talks in the PPP and PMLN rule,Pakistan sought peace talks to be THE ultimate solution towards achieving regional peace.But after the escalation of problems since the Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf Government coming into power in 2018,this stance has certainly changed.As the Pakistani Prime Minister has made it clear that after the revocance of article 370 and 35a and the prevailing situation in Kashmir,Pakistan will honor it’s integrity to the fullest by not initiating any peace talks,which have been futile and because of the Indian government showing no interest in them they have arguably been uni-lateral in nature.

In conclusion, The main reason for the failure of bilateral efforts is the absence of any institutional framework to address tensions and conflicts. The second reason is the deep mistrust between the two countries. Failure of the UN and bilateral channel provide space for the exercise of other options. Since third party mediation has a track record of success, it should be used to address serious problems vis-à-vis Pak-India relations. In fact, in the prevailing atmosphere, we are left with third-party mediation as the only option, which not only has a history of success but also the potential to resolve Pak-India disputes, peacefully. Therefore, the international community should realise its role of a mediator and refocus its attention on South Asia, which is a potential nuclear flashpoint. India should also revisit stance and recognise the importance of third-party mediations. It should also let the UN use its good offices in helping to resolve the Kashmir dispute, which is vital for regional peace and good ties between Pakistan and India.

India’s Home Minister(Amit Shah)

ii.China

China will support Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir at the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) and will keep on supporting Pakistan in “safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests”, said a statement issued after a meeting between Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi.In a statement issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang noted that China is “seriously concerned about the latest escalation of tensions in Kashmir”, adding that unilateral actions “will complicate the situation”.China recognises that the Kashmir dispute must be properly resolved “based on the UN Charter, relevant UN Security Council resolutions and bilateral agreement”, said the statement.The statement was followed by a video message by FM Qureshi, wherein he said that the northern neighbour has supported Pakistan’s decision to go to the UNSC.

“China would maintain full cooperation with Pakistan and both sides would stay in closecontact,” he said, adding that Beijing had, once again, proved today that it was Islamabad’s trustworthy friend.In a comment on the meeting, he said Chinese FM Wang, despite his busy schedule, held meeting with him on such short notice on President Xi Jinping’s instruction because of the “nature of the relationship between Pakistan and China is different and the response level should also be different”. China has historically sided with

Pakistan on regional matters, but Beijing's backing is important for both Islamabad and New Delhi.Kashmir is claimed in its entirety by both India and Pakistan, although both countries only control parts of it. The territory has been an ongoing dispute since both became independent countries in 1947.Today, India has de facto control over about 45% of the region and the majority of its population, while Pakistan controls around 35%. But the remaining 20% is actually under the control of China. China claims about 90,000 square kilometers (35,000 square miles) in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, referred to informally by some Chinese as "Southern Tibet." India, on the other hand, claims sovereignty over 38,000 square kilometers (15,000 square miles) of the Aksai Chin plateau.

China, which has a long border with Jammu and Kashmir, has been involved in Kashmir tensions in the past. In 1962, China occupied a part of India that borders Kashmir — and entered into an alliance with Pakistan.Today, China and Pakistan trade via the newly constructed Karakoram Highway, which connects the countries via the western Kashmir region. As part of the multibillion-dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, this former gravel road is currently being developed into a multi-lane asphalt highway that can be used all year long.China is investing $57 billion (€51 billion) in Pakistani infrastructure and energy projects, more than in any other South Asian country. The economic alliance with its powerful neighbor has helped solidify Pakistan's claims to the Himalayan foothills.Some analysts say that New Delhi's decision to directly govern Ladakh is a geopolitical move. Sameer Patil, a researcher at the International Security Studies at Gateway House, an Indian foreign policy think tank, told DW that Chinese influence in Ladakh has been increasing over time, largely due to its economic incentives in the area. At the same time, according to Patil, the region has suffered due to a lack of interest from the Indian government. India has issued a warning to China to stay out of the dispute over Kashmir’s status, after Pakistan said it would take the issue to the United Nations Security Council with the support of Beijing. China has described India's revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status, in place since Partition in

1947, as "unacceptable" and a threat to its territorial sovereignty. As well as the dispute between India and Pakistan.

The Sino Indian War in context to the Kashmir issue

When China announced that it would be occupying Tibet, India sent a letter of protest proposing negotiations on the Tibet issue. China was even more active in deploying troops on the Aksai Chin border(Area of Chinese acclaimed Kashmir) than any other Indian republic.India was so concerned about its relations with China that it did not even attend a conference for the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan because China was not invited. India even strove to become China's representative in matters related to world since China had been isolated from many issues.China's perception of India as a threat to its rule of Tibet became one of the most prominent reasons for the Sino-Indian WarVarious conflicts and military incidents between India and China flared up throughout the summer of 1962On July 10, 1962, around 350 Chinese troops surrounded an Indian post at Chushul and used loudspeakers to convince the Gurkhas that they should not be fighting for IndiaIn October 1959, India realised that it was not ready for war after a clash between the two armies at Kongka Pass, in which nine Indian policemen were killed; the country assumed responsibility for the border and pulled back patrols from disputed areas. India was following a non-alignment policy before this war. This war raised a great question related to India’s military weakness and non-alignment policy. Now at this stage India hat to go for support from other foreign countries to develop its defense on new and strong foundations. She had to go for help either from Communist bloc or Capitalist bloc. India was thinking now to go and join the imperialist countries. Chinese invasion forced India into an arms buildup. Because of this war, now Americans also got a chance to utilize this condition for their own benefits and they started to think that India would become a state which would fight against communist bloc from a capitalistic bloc.

Pakistan, another important country of Asia, had a boundary line with both India and China. Pakistan in 1962’s War fully supported China for its claim. This war provided a vital opportunity for Pakistan to re-asses the direction and goals of its foreign policy. India’s sudden weakness became Pakistan’s new strength. Pakistan had gotten a chance to exploit those conditions for her own benefits. First and the foremost issue between Pakistan and India was Kashmir dispute at that time. Because of this war India faced considerable pressure at the international level to solve out the issue as soon as possible. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who was the foreign minister at that time, demanded a suitable solution to this problem. India was quite near to solve Kashmir dispute but the lack of commitment of the International community and Bhutto’s short- sightedness dashed this dream to the ground. India was not interested in solving out the issue. It was just gaining time to secure its boundaries from Pakistan’s attack. Many critics consider that opportunity a vital chance to solve the problem and argued that Pakistan should have attacked India while the latter was engaged in conflict with China.

It is understandable when Pakistan throughout it’s history has considered China has one of it’s closest ally.But not to forget that the CPEC bridges the gaps between the governments of these two nations and hence the foreign policy of China has always been inclined towards Pakistan and hence China has promised that it will always have Pakistan’s back in context to the Kashmir issue.The alliance with China is not only important for Pakistan’s economy and trade but also to it’s global reputation.Pakistan has always considered China being it’s foremost priority in their foreign policy and due to China also claiming 25-30% of the IOK it is very prominent that Pakistan and China share a similar stance on the Kashmir issue.

iii. United States of America

After there was a standstill in the relationships between the two countries.Prime Minister ,Imran Khan’s recent visit to the White house proved to be highly significant in cracking the bonds of mistrust which were developed between these two countries.The US president Donald Trump even offered to play a part in mediation between India and Pakistan as far as the Kashmir issue is concerned but this statement was highly controversial in regards to the bilateral relationships between India and the United States. Congressman Brad Sherman tweeted hours after Trump's stunning claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi sought his mediation or arbitration efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue.

The United States has called for "peace and stability" along the de facto border that separates India and Pakistan in Kashmir after New Delhi revoked the special status granted to the Indian-administered portion of the disputed territory."We are concerned about reports of detentions and urge respect for individual rights and discussion with those in affected communities," the department's spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said in a statement. "We call on all parties to maintain peace and stability along the Line of Control."

New Delhi's move on Monday came hours after the Indian government imposed a major security clampdown in the region, with all communication lines suspended and local politicians put under house arrest amid growing tensions following a massive deployment of troops.Morgan Ortagus, a spokeswoman for the US Department of State, said Washington was following events in Indian-administered Kashmir "closely". "We are concerned about reports of detentions and urge respect for individual rights and discussion with those in affected communities," she said in a statement.The United States as the supreme power of modern world has the authority to mediate in anIssue which is imperative for global peace and realizing the severity of the Kashmir conflict the mediation offered by Donald Trump was a peace promoting gesture to say the least but the way it has been potrayed in the Indian media has let the world to see a newer perspective to the issue.It is clear to understand that at this stage of time when the relations between India and USA are on the rise and India being one of the closest ally of the US,the mediation wouldn’t be easy as at this point of time it’s understandable for the United States to not incline towards either of India or Pakistan as Pakistan also has a role to play in calming down the Afghanistan crisis. The US is India's second largest trading partner, and India is its 9th largest trading partner. In 2017, the US exported $25.7 billion worth of goods to India, and imported $48.6 billion worth of Indian goods. Major items imported from India include information technology services, textiles, machinery, gems and diamonds, chemicals, iron and steel products, coffee, tea, and other edible food products. Major American items imported by India include aircraft, fertilisers, computer hardware, scrap metal, and medical equipment.

The United States is also India's largest investment partner, with a direct investment of $10 billion (accounting for 9 percent of total foreign investment). Americans have made notable foreign investments in the Asian country's power generation, telecommunications, ports, roads, petroleum exploration and processing, and mining industries American imports from India amounted to $46.6 billion or 2% of its overall imports, and 15.3% of India's overall exports in 2015. The 10 major commodities exported from India to the US were:

iii.United Arab Emirates

The United Arab Emirates being an Islamic kingdom should have acquired a pro-Pakistani stance as far as the Kashmir issue is concerned,but that was not the case.Infact UAE acquired a neutral stance on this conflict and as a matter of fact few weaks after the BJP government’s revocance of article 370 and 35a, Mr Modi was presented with the Order of Zayed, the UAE’s highest civil decoration, in recognition of his role in nurturing ties between the two countries since 2015.Pakistan has requested Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) to take a ‘clear and unambiguous’ position on the Kashmir dispute at a time when people of Pakistan and Kashmiris expect a ‘strong support’ from the Muslim world. Sources said Pakistani sides also conveyed to the Saudi Arabia and UAE dignitaries that Islamabad never wanted any escalation in tensions but made it clear that no engagement was possible with India under the current circumstances.Both the diplomats were told in categorical terms that Pakistan would no more trust the Modi administration and hence UN or any

other third party intervention was needed.Official sources said the Saudi and UAE ministers assured Pakistan that they would do whatever they could to reduce the tensions over Kashmir.Prime Minister Imran in his meeting with the visiting Arab guests highlighted Pakistan’s deep concern over the worsening human rights and humanitarian situation in IOJ&K because of the month-long complete lockdown and communications blackout in the occupied territory.

The prime minister stressed the importance of immediate lifting of curfew, removal of restrictions on movement and communications and respect for the fundamental rights of the Kashmiri people.PM Imran further underscored that India’s actions were a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions and international law.“There was a genuine fear of a false flag operation to divert the world’s attention from India’s illegal actions and intensified repression of Kashmiris,” said PM Office release.India’s actions had created grave risks for peace and security in the region. The international community has the responsibility to urge India to halt and reverse its illegal actions and aggressive policies and postures. The prime minister added that Saudi Arabia and UAE had an important role in this regard. Pakistan Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani has also cancelled his pre-scheduled trip to the UAE over Modi's trip to the Gulf nation, adding that "it would hurt the feelings of the Kashmiri people. ontrary to Pakistan's claims that both the UAE and Saudi Arabia support its stand on the issue of Kashmir, UAE Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan made it clear to his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Wednesday discussed the Kashmir situation with visiting foreign ministers and insisted that the two countries along with the world should play a role in urging India to reverse its recent decision on Kashmir. Islamabad, however, failed to take their support on its

position on Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).Insisting that the Muslim world not be dragged into it, the UAE minister urged that the Kashmir dispute need to be resolved through dialogue and talks between Pakistan and India only.Islamabad termed both Saudi Arabia and UAE ministers' visit as successful, especially with reference to the support Pakistan seeks from the Muslim world against India on Kashmir and also maintained that the joint visit was utilised in highlighting the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Amid rising tensions in the region, the UAE Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan and Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir held talks with Pakistan’s top civilian leadership, including Prime Minister Imran Khan, and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, local media reported.

The two Gulf nations promised to remain engaged to help defuse tension and to promote an environment of peace and stability.

The unscheduled visit of two oil-rich Gulf ministers is seen to stem Islamabad’s anger over their mild reaction to India’s controversial Kashmir move. The UAE’s move to bestow its highest civilian award to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi almost coinciding New Delhi’s clampdown in Kashmir fueled anger in Islamabad.

The two ministers reached Pakistan Foreign Office headquarters directly from the airport to hold delegation-level talks with Pakistani officials, led by Foreign Minister Qureshi, a foreign ministry statement said.

The visiting diplomats who jointly called on Prime Minister Khan, reaffirmed the significance of their countries’ strategic relationship with Pakistan and acknowledging Islamabad’s role and efforts in promoting and maintaining regional peace and stability, a separate statement by prime minister’s office said.After the meeting the foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi reiterated on the fact that the Islamic world stands with Pakistan on this issue, Qureshi said that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have stood beside Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.“We are fully satisfied with today’s meetings. There is no confusion now. Both Saudi Arabia, and the UAE stand beside Pakistan,” Qureshi said.The United Arab Government then inclined it’s stance towards India by saying, that from his understanding the reorganisation of states is not a unique incident in the history of independent India and that it was mainly aimed at reducing regional disparity and improving efficiency. He viewed this latest decision related to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as an internal matter as stipulated by the Indian Constitution.

This month, as tensions were heating up in Kashmir, Saudi Arabia’s oil giant, Saudi Aramco, announced its plans for a $15 billion investment in Reliance Industries, a Mumbai-based multinational conglomerate. This deal will have Saudi Aramco buying 20 percent of Reliance Industries’ oil business.

In response to New Delhi’s tightening grip over India-administered Kashmir, Saudi Arabia’s leadership called on both India and Pakistan to de-escalate and for cooler heads to prevail, which is indeed an outcome that the entire world desires given that any nightmarish war between the two states could go nuclear.

Yet Riyadh did not directly condemn India’s government for actions that have fueled anger in Pakistan and other Muslim countries/communities worldwide. Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar have refrained from issuing public states concerning volatility in Kashmir.Thus, although certain statements, as well as the lack of a response, from the GCC states are illustrative of the extent to which Arab Gulf states value their deep and multisided bonds with India, there is no doubt that GCC officials are concerned about the tensions in Kashmir.

Violence in the land that Pakistan and India (and China) have disputed for decades has potential to play out in the Arab Gulf sheikdoms given the diversity of many communities from West Asia and the subcontinent present in all GCC states.The recent legal action taken against a number of South Asian expats who held a protest in Bahrain that was in solidarity with Kashmir against India exemplified how real links between the Kashmir Valley and the Gulf can be a cause for grave concern from a security standpoint. With the Pakistani Prime Minister stating that he refuses to talk to Indian officials regarding Kashmir, not only the GCC states but also governments worldwide, are justifiably worried about the potential consequences of Article 370’s abrogation that could play out in the Gulf.It’s national imperatives stem from other compulsions: first economic—the UAE economy is based on expatriate labour and investment (i.e. Indian investment in real estate and other business and it's cheap labour contributing to the Emarati economy in a big way; in medium terms, the UAE like Saudi Arabia will be switching to non-carbon economy thus it is securing markets, investments in capital and other sophisticated technologies to sustain the UAE as major successful GCC country; in short term, both the UAE and Saudi Arabia are eyeing on India’s oil demand which is trying to replace Iran after the US sanctions.Second, in geo-political context, the UAE never deemed Kashmir as a major human rights issue nor its direct stakes are threatened warranting enough intervention to upset Delhi; Kashmir is not in its backyard like Yemen; then Pakistan was within its rights when it did not support the UAE and the KSA on Yemen issue sending a message that a country can have a relation with another country yet maintaining divergence on one of its important foreign policy pillars, Yemen in this instance.

Again Islamabad has balanced its ties with GCC and also maintains close relations with Iran: Tehran understands Islamabad’s need to have strategic

relations with the KSA and good relations with the UAE; like India being a threat to Pakistan’s very existence claiming its 33 percent borders, the UAE also treats Iran as an existential threat according to its threat perception. It’s friendly relations with Israel also stems from its threat perception based around the idea of a hostile neighbourhood dominated by Iran.

Emirati oil supply security and its importing and exporting Dubai port are facing prospects of stiff competition from potential and actual ports (i.e. Gwadar and Bandar Abbas respectively) making it all the more important to get close to Israel, (yet Pakistan understands Iran-UAE rivalry and its underlying reasons).

Third, strategically speaking, CPEC and Gwadar makes the UAE nervous as it might be a new maritime logistical hub. But it may not necessarily transit to any convergence with India on CPEC’s subversion. In other words, the UAE will never cross Islamabad’s red line on CPEC— since China being a stakeholder, the UAE cannot upset sensitivity of Beijing and also, for the UAE, it is going to be a huge potential energy mark.

The UAE is not an atomic power like Pakistan and in order to secure itself, it needs allies like India and Israel; it has to project power behind UAE borders to address its geographical choke points and potential snarling by Tehran, hence it cannot afford another hostile or unfriendly relations with major rising powers after Tehran, so setting its thought process out for smooth diplomatic relations with India.But make no mistake: the UAE equally wants to keep friendly relations with Pakistan; for Islamabad is a rising geo-political power and is pivoting to Euro-Asia—a new multipolar geo-political alignment with its own standardisation parallel to the US-led order.Pakistan is strategic hinge for Russia to access Indian Ocean and gateway to BRI linking Middle East with Euro-Asia hungry markets. The UAE cannot access Euro-Asia through Iran and is left with Gwadar as only option like the KSA.Then Islamabad being a nuclear power, it is a reliable security guarantor par excellence in the unpredictable post-Trump US—a fall back option for the UAE. Islamabad’s policy makers need not to be alarmed at burgeoning relations between the UAE and India; realise the strategic, economic and political compulsions of the Emirates; needs to keep close ties with the UAE regardless of latter’s foreign policy choices; and must remember, diplomatic positions evolve from initial terse reactions. So the best policy remains robust engagement at every geo-political earthquake and undercurrent with friendly country like the UAE.

iv. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Ties between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been strong for decades, with hardly been any misunderstandings to speak of. In one notable exception, Saudi Arabia showed its anger four years ago when Pakistan did not join its war in Yemen. Afterwards, Pakistan was careful not to further damage relations with the Saudis, lest relations reach a nadir that Pakistani policymakers could not afford. After all, Pakistan showcases its friendly ties with Saudi Arabia more than with any other country except for China.

The ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government has been asking friendlier countries, including Saudi Arabia, to financially assist it. Pakistan desperately needs money to shore up its foreign reserves. Prime Minister Imran Khan recently visited the kingdom for the same purpose.

But Pakistan-Saudi ties have a much deeper basis than the current financial woes. For one thing, people-to-people ties are strong. There are numerous Pakistani expatriates – around 2 million — working in Saudi Arabia. They send remittances back to Pakistan to support their families. And for many Pakistanis, whether poor or rich, a common last wish is to perform Hajj in the kingdom after retirement. Saudi Arabia hosts the two holiest cities of Islam, and performing Hajj – the pilgrimage to Mecca — at least once in a lifetime is a major obligation for those Muslims who can afford it.As far as the trade relations between Pakistan and Saudi Arab are concerned,they have been on a major rise since the start of the CPEC project in PMLN’s regime. Besides the oil refinery in Gwadar, Saudi Arabia is eyeing the multibillion-dollar Reko Diq mining project, also in Balochistan province. There are media reports that Saudi Arabia showing much interest in that project. Saudi interest in investing in Balochistan province of Pakistan, which borders Iran, has

another purpose: to pursue its geostrategic interests in the region. The closer Saudi Arabia gets to Pakistan, the more Pakistan’s relations with Iran are expected to deteriorate.

Saudi Arabia called on the concerned parties in Jammu and Kashmir to maintain peace and stability in the region and to take into account the interests of the people of the region.An official source at the Foreign Ministry said that Saudi Arabia is following up the current situation in Jammu and Kashmir, resulting from India's move to revoke Article 370 of the Constitution, which guarantees autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.The source expressed Saudi Arabia’s concern over the latest developments and called for peaceful settlement of the conflict in accordance with the relevant international resolutions.

Historically, Pakistan could count on near-unanimous support among the Arab and Muslim-majority states for its position on Kashmir. Since its creation during the Cold War in 1969, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has served as a platform for pro-Western Pakistan to rally Arab and Muslim support against Soviet-aligned India on Kashmir. Even after the Cold War ended, the Arab Gulf states continued to condemn India’s heavy-handed response to growing insurgency and to advocate for Kashmir’s right to self-determination. In 1994, for instance, Saudi Arabia co-sponsored a Pakistani resolution on Kashmir at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, illustrating the extent of the Gulf states’ support for Pakistan. However, as they improved their bilateral relations with India from the early 2000s onward, the position of the Gulf states on Kashmir began to change. To appease the two sides, Saudi Arabia, the largest Arab Gulf nation, has adopted a dual policy on Kashmir. At the OIC, Saudi Arabia takes a pro-Pakistani position, echoing the majority sentiment in the organization. In its regional approach to South Asia, however, Saudi Arabia considers the

Kashmir conflict to be an Indo-Pakistani issue that the two sides must resolve through dialogue, which is how India sees it too.

Saudi Arabia’s dual policy was on full display during Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s visit to Pakistan and India in February, as military tensions flared between the two sides across the Line of Control (LOC). In joint statements with Pakistan and India, Saudi Arabia called for comprehensive dialogue between the two, including over Kashmir, a message received with jubilation by the Indian press. Riyadh also dispatched emissaries to act as a back channel. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia joined the other members of the OIC’s Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir in condemning India’s heavy-handed security practices while praising Pakistan for its restraint.

It can be argued that Saudi Arabia’s dual policy on Kashmir is tenable as long as tensions in the Indian-administered valley remain under control. However, as the Indian government risks exacerbating an already volatile situation, the prospect of a large-scale insurgency resulting in scores of civilian deaths stands to place Saudi Arabia in a difficult position over relations with India. Conversely, failure to oppose India’s decisions over Jammu and Kashmir, even if there is no insurgency, is likely to be interpreted by Pakistan as a sign of acquiescence to India.

 Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey. All three made similar points that the conflict should be resolved through dialogue between India and Pakistan and that steps should be taken to avoid raising tensions. Yet of the three, Pakistani political and media sentiment has arguably been most positive

toward Turkey and President Erdogan’s telephone offer of “steadfast support” and future assistance.

What explains the muted reaction from the Middle East?

One reason is that India constitutes a more important commercial partner than Pakistan. The Indian economy is nine times the size of Pakistan’s. India therefore offers greater opportunities for trade and investment. By contrast, Pakistan’s economic situation is relatively weak and vulnerable; its government had to seek emergency loans worth around $2 billion each from China and Saudi Arabia earlier in the year.Second, the issue of Kashmir has arguably diminished in importance for political leaders in the Middle East. For several decades after 1947, Indian governments adopted a pro-Palestinian stance as a way of building support among the Muslim population in Kashmir as well as the wider Muslim world, including the Middle East. But when the Arabs began meeting with and pursuing peace processes with Israel, Indian leaders questioned the necessity of being “more Arab than the Arabs.” They began to cultivate their own relations with Israel, which included a growing arms trade after 1999. India experienced no backlash, either in its individual ties with Arab countries or over Kashmir, while doing so, beyond the statements made at the OIC.

Third, rivalries between Pakistan and some of these Middle Eastern states have been more problematic than those with India, thereby overshadowing issues like Kashmir. For Iran, the border region has been problematic: Tehran has accused Pakistan of turning a blind eye to Saudi assistance for Baloch militants that have targeted Iranian troops and installations. The two are also competing for influence in Afghanistan as well as commercially for a greater share of the Indian Ocean shipping markets in their respective Chabahar and Gwadar ports.Meanwhile, Kashmir has become a space in which the rivalries operating within the Middle East are being played out. Previously, Saudi Arabia provided assistance in the form of religious training and mosque construction. More recently, other countries with which it has competed for

regional influence – Turkey and Iran – have also entered Kashmir to cultivate the population. Although the objectives may remain somewhat nebulous, the intention is surely to build a base of support among the various Sunni and Shia communities that live there, which can be called upon in the future.

Given the current state of affairs, what does the current ambivalence in Muslim countries in the Middle East mean for the future of the Kashmir dispute? On one side, India’s leaders will be encouraged that the present situation is to their advantage and has limited the scope for Pakistan. On the other side, this may be as good as it gets for India.Domestically, Kashmir will remain a powder keg. As part of the move to revoke Article 370, India expanded its security presence, imposed a curfew, detained the region’s political leadership, and imposed a communications blackout. But that situation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Eventually Indian forces will have to pull back, which may expose it to likely public opposition and action. That will only be exacerbated with the accompanying revocation of Article 35A, which allowed Jammu and Kashmir to determine who were “permanent residents,” with those who were not banned from buying property. Under the new arrangements anyone will be able to do so, potentially diluting the Muslim population in the region.

Internationally, the issue of Kashmir will not go away. Despite India’s effort to “internalize” its administration, Pakistan will continue to push the subject within the OIC. In addition, the position of leaders in the Middle East arguably depends much on the current composition of state-society relations. Although authoritarian, these governments are not completely blind to public opinion. Should they experience similar instability to that experienced during the Arab uprisings in 2011, regimes like the Saudis’ or Iranians’ may become more vulnerable and more inclined to exploit issues like Kashmir as a way to reclaim legitimacy as defenders of Islam. Later, a statement issued by the foreign ministry of Saudi Arabia said: “The visiting Ministers underlined the strong bonds of Saudi Arabia and UAE with Pakistan and the strategic salience of their relationships with Pakistan. They reaffirmed their strong support and solidarity with the people of Pakistan. With regard to the situation in held Kashmir, the Ministers took full cognizance of Pakistan’s perspective. It was agreed to work closely in OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) and other fora. Prime Minister Imran Khan had made a telephonic contact with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and apprised him on the present circumstances in occupied Kashmir. This was the third telephonic contact between Imran Khan and Mohammed bin Salman in two weeks.

Apparently, the Arab world has lost interest in Kashmir and can simply be expected to take an opposite stance to that of Pakistan, Iran and Turkey over the matter. If Indo-Pakistan friction over the conflict escalates, Iran will certainly be more empathetic toward Kashmir than will Saudi Arabia.

Though Pakistan has good relations with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, even they are quite likely to maintain a distance from the fray.However, the Kashmir issue doesn’t affect the Arab states directly, and they might well have supported the Kashmiri Muslims’ cause if not for three factors.First, trade is a top priority for Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as GCC countries’ annual trade with India is worth at least $100 billion. Even as the Kashmir situation worsened, Saudi Aramco was finalizing investments worth   $15 billion  in an Indian conglomerate, Reliance Industries.Second, with close ties to both Pakistan and India, Arab states find it difficult to tackle the dispute. Due to the Sunni majority population in Jammu and Kashmir, Saudi Arabia had been involved in building mosques there, and it provided assistance with religious training. But Riyadh reduced that role as it developed more extensive trade ties with India.Third, Arab states have never considered India a rival. Instead, it's just a lucrative market for business. It’s not a Muslim state, and there are no sectarian or religious issues, either. Around 7 million   Indian expats  work in the Middle East with many in top positions, and there are many common links.Nevertheless, the world fears Jammu and Kashmir could end up becoming a battleground for Middle Eastern rivalries if Iran plays a sustainable role. With the issue being a Muslim cause, it could become hard for Riyadh to stay away, especially if Tehran takes the lead in championing the cause.If the crisis worsens and sympathy for Kashmir keeps growing, GCC members might not be able to remain completely uninvolved. Though Kashmir has remained a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, any new development could serve to internationalize the matter further — and it could become hard to ignore. 

Finally, Pakistan is likely to increase pressure on the OIC, which represents 57 Muslim-majority countries, and its Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir. Though India is also a member, the OIC called for an end to the curfew and officially stated that the Kashmir controversy is an international dispute. Unlike the UAE, Saudi Arabia can ill afford to take a one-sided view in favor of India – not while Pakistani troops are involved in Saudi border operations against the Houthis in Yemen. Moreover, the Saudi crown prince has developed a warm personal relationship with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, who attended the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh in October last year. in February, the crown prince announced investments of up to US$20 billion in Pakistan. Saudi Arabia also regards Pakistan as a gateway to building closer relations with China by participating in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), among other things. At the same time, Saudi Arabia will be reluctant to alienate India, a major market for Saudi oil and a

growing economic partner. In New Delhi, Mohammad bin Salman announced investments of up to $100 billion, spanning areas such as oil refining, food and technology.

The unfolding situation in Kashmir therefore presents the Gulf states with a difficult choice. The UAE appears to have gone for India over Pakistan. Other Gulf nations are weighing their options. But Saudi Arabia’s position is starkly different and much more delicate. As the home of Islam’s holiest sites, its position over the Kashmir conflict could have grave consequences in a hotly contested race for the leadership of the Muslim world.

A general overview of Pakistan’s foreign policy throughout it’s political history.

Musharraf’s Kashmir Policy

The US-led war on terror, terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament, and the subsequent pressure of the international Community brought in multiple implications for Pakistan.These factors not only resulted in the emergence of newchallenges but also provided the leadership with an opportunity to review the Kashmir policy. Pakistan took boldyet cautious steps in the wake of the changing political landscape of the region. Husain Haqqani argues, “PakistanArmy has been the sole architect of the country’s policymaking vis-à-vis the dispute. Whatever decision Pakistan hastaken amid the six decades long course of the Kashmirdispute, its military has had a leading role.Thus, it wasrather easy for a military general, Parvez Musharraf, to takebold steps that would probably have been impossible for a civilian leader. Musharraf’s initiatives also indicatedPakistan’s return to a diplomacy-led solution of the dispute.After the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s visit to South Asia in 2001 and his call for resumption of dialogue President Musharraf attempted to resume dialogue andnegotiations between India and Pakistan on all issues including the long-standing unresolved dispute of Kashmir.He visited India in July 2001 and met with the Indian leadership in Agra. However, the Agra Summit could not bematerialized, as both sides even failed to issue a joint statement. Pakistan and India resumed dialogue in 2004,although Musharraf found the “lack of trust” a real spoiler in the process. In addition, he did not receive any noteworthy response from his Indian counterpart because the Indian leadership probably took it as his popularity stunt and aneffort to resist the international pressure. Nonetheless,Musharraf was adamant to bring his Indian counterpart inconfidence. He assured him during their meeting on thesidelines of the SAARC Summit (2004) that Pakistan would not permit any militant organization to operate from itsterritory.In addition to issuing a joint statement with Vajpayee,Musharraf managed to convince the

Indian leadership topermit the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leadershipto visit Pakistan. Both countries also initiated Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), especially with reference toKashmir, which proved helpful in the successful opening ofMuzaffarabad-Srinagar bus service and trade route on LoC. Thus, not only did Musharraf initiate new debates onthe dispute worldwide but also he managed to softenPakistan’s image as a responsible state that wanted to resolveits bilateral disputes through peaceful means. He proposed a“four stages” based formula in 2003 that included:

Recognition of Kashmir as a disputed territory Initiating dialogue Dropping impractical solutions Moving towards a win-win situation

First two stages of the proposed formula were easy to implement. This formula was not a breakthrough, but it could have provided both countries with an opportunity to moveforward. Yet Musharraf kept changing his position and came up with several overtures. For instance, he proposed a “sevenregions” formula in 2004. This formula suggested Kashmir’sdivision in seven regions: for instance, Ladakh, Kargil/Dras,Poonch, Jammu, the Valley, Northern Areas, and AJK.Largely, this proposal also emphasized an easy step such asthe identification of regions on ethnic, religious, andgeographical lines. Following the identification phase,demilitarization and change in the status quo of the regions.were also sought in the proposal. In addition to four stagesand seven regions formulas, Musharraf proposed another(four points) formula in 2006 that included: Gradual withdrawal of troops Local self-governance No redrawing of boundaries and Mutual administration by India and PakistanPresident Musharraf’s proposals generated new debates in the country as well as in J&K. The moderates (led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq) were in favor of a political solution, but the hardliners (led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani) advocated armed struggle. One the other hand, the head of MuslimConference (MC) Abdul Qayoom Khan and Prime Minister of[Pakistan-administrated] Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Sardar Attique Khan supported Musharraf’s four pointformula. Nevertheless, the opposition factions in AJKcontinued their opposition to these proposals.Musharraf came up with several new ideas and thusprovided an impetus to the peace efforts between India andPakistan on the Kashmir dispute. Yet the Indian response tohis suggestions remained limited to some tentative improvements on LoC. An important reason of this stalematewas probably the bureaucracy in both

countries. For instance,MFA Pakistan avoided mentioning any policy level changes inits briefings throughout the Musharraf era and continued tomention the right of self-determination as the legitimate rightof the Kashmiris. Even so, the Musharraf era reflected achange in Pakistan’s policy toward the Kashmir dispute and encompassed new initiatives, which, later on, the new[democratic] government turned off.

PPP’s Kashmir Policy

The anti-Musharraf factions in both Pakistan and J&K welcomed the new government and anticipated that the[democratic] Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) regime wouldreverse the changes initiated by the previous government. The moderates hoped that Pakistan would keep supporting the Kashmir movement regardless of change in the regime whilst the pro-Jihad groups were hoping for the continuation of PPP’s historical stance on the matter. However, President Asif Ali Zardari’s statement that “Kashmir cause should not become an impediment to normalization between India and Pakistan” indicated a potential change in Pakistan’s policy toward the dispute. Later, President Zardari tried to repudiate the rumours and explained his statement in a defensive manner that his party would not betray the martyrs of freedom struggle. Yet in reality, the Kashmir cause remained on the back burner because the PPP government did nothing more than “internationalizing the issue” during its term.After entering the office in 2008, the new government faced two major problems in its relations with India, such as the bombing of Indian Embassy in Kabul and LoC violations.Even there were reports that India had cancelled the fifth round of composite dialogue. The MFA Pakistan, however,repudiated the reports and confirmed rescheduling of the dialogue where the foreign ministers discussed progress on visa liberalization and promotion of trade between the twocountries. In 2008, the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani visited New Delhi to meet theIndian leadership. Both sides discussed a wide range of issues.Durrani denied Pakistan’s

involvement in the bombing of Indian Embassy and his [successful] trip led to the opening of Poonch-Rawalkot route for trade across the LoC. The Kashmir issue might have continued to remain a secondary problem between India and Pakistan if there were no Mumbai attacks in November 2008. These attacks once again brought the dispute in the limelight. The Indian authorities blamed Pakistan, as some of the perpetrators of attack were Pakistani nationals and had already fought against India in IAK.In response to the attack, the PPP administration analyzed the situation carefully and banned Jamaat ud Dawa (JD)in addition to arresting seven of its senior leaders. Pakistan took a moderate position amid the growing rhetoric of war and surgical strikes in the country. It also kept a moderate approach in the wake of protests and strikes in IAK in 2010.Pakistan did not repeat its practice of 1990s, despite the fact that the situation during the protests was ripe for supporting militancy in the region. As stated above, the PPP government in Pakistan focused on internationalization of the Kashmir issue. The Pakistani leadership attempted to involve the international community by highlighting the issue on various forums. President Zardari, for instance, told the US ambassador to Pakistan Anne W.Patterson on January 2, 2009, “He would have no choice but to respond militarily to an Indian attack and there was no more politically sensitive issue in Pakistan than Kashmir.”The Pakistani side was expecting the US to play a leading role in the issue. Particularly, President Obama’s statement that“ending Indo-Pakistani differences over Kashmir was one of the keys to calming tensions in South Asia and winning the war on terror” had raised their hopes.After the Obama administration’s decision to nominate a special envoy for South Asia, President Zardari wrote in his op-ed in Washington Post: Much as the Palestinian issue remains the core obstacle to peace in the Middle East, the question of Kashmir must be addressed in some meaningful way to bring stability to this region. We hope that the special envoy will work with India and Pakistan not only to bring a just and reasonable resolution to the issues of Kashmir and Jammu but also to address critical economic andenvironmental concerns. A US Statesman issued a statement in the PPP Regime that “India has some very clear views as to what it wants to do visà- vis dealing with the Kashmir issue, as well as the Pakistanis indirectly supported the position of New Delhi”. Kashmir remains a symbol of failure of the UN system and Pakistan’s principled position on territorial disputes remains bedrock of its foreign policy…we will continue to support the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to peacefully choose their destiny in accordance with the UN Security Council’s long-standing resolutions on this matter.As stated above, the PPP government moved forward with a strategy of “supporting the [Kashmir] movement politicallyand morally.” During his visit to AJK, Zardari stated, “The struggle for Kashmir began before the struggle for Pakistan.We achieved Pakistan, we will also achieve Kashmir….Indiacould never hope to get its way on Kashmir by force….Democratic governments in Pakistan had negotiated with India on equal terms.” In April 2013, a leading Pakistaninewspaper published a story

that stated, “Pakistan believes in dialogue to resolve Kashmir Dispute. President has regretted that unfortunately the world community had failed to resolve the Kashmir dispute that has been lingering for 65 years.” The PPP government’s term ended in May 2013. This year proved crucial for India-Pakistan relations because of the LoC ceasefire violations. Nonetheless, there was no substantial move on the part of the government to initiate any noteworthy phase of bilateral negotiations with India to resolve the longstandingunresolved dispute. In effect, various issues including ceasefire violations on LoC remained untouched until the arrival of a new government in office in May 2013.

Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz’s Kashmir policyThe PMLN government assumed office in a time when the issues of high politics demand the utmost concentration of decision makers. Dealing with the Talibanization has ultimately become the most important matter for the government. This statement does not imply that Kashmir is a bygone issue. Similarly, it remains noteworthy that Pakistan, under the leadership of Nawaz Sharif, worked closely with India before the Kargil episode. At that time, the leadership of both countries agreed on increasing cooperation and working for the resolution of unresolved disputes. Therefore, after becoming Premier of the country for the third time, Nawaz Sharif has kept his hopes high as far as India-Pakistan relations are concerned. A half of the first year of this government was marked with the escalation of hostility on LoC. India has blamed Pakistan for giving a free hand to the extremist elements such as Hafiz Saeed to inflame sentiments against India under the guise of “Difa-e-Pakistan Alliance”. Whether supported by Pakistan or not, it appears to be true that the aforementioned elements have not yet faced any significant problem in continuing their activities. In fact, several right wing politicians and activists have also shown support to the forum. Similarly, the pro-Jihad elements have also been active in giving pro-militancy statements. As for the

government, Prime Minister Sharif has stated that peace with India remains one of his highest priorities. He appears committed to his agenda. For instance, the terrorist incident that resulted in eight Indian casualties in IAK did not disrupt the India-Pakistan peace efforts. Both Premier Sharif and Premier Modi agreed in their meeting in New York that the Indian and Pakistani DGMOs would meet to identify improved mechanisms to maintain ceasefire and prevent infiltration. Sharif’s statement that “Kashmir might become a nuclear flash point and cause of a fourth war between India and Pakistan, so it should be resolved” also reflects his emphasis on peaceful means to resolve the dispute. Overall, the Kashmir policy of the Nawaz government remains ambiguous. So far, the government has not emphasized a specific approach to resolve the dispute with India, nor has it indicated the resumption of the Lahore Declaration.55 Yet it has become clear after the Adviser to Prime Minister on National Security an Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz’s visit to India that Pakistan is likely to keep all [diplomatic] channels open with India.

Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf’s foreign Policy in regards with Kashmir

PTI government is pursuing a vibrant policy to resolve Kashmir issue according to aspirations of Kashmiris.After the Pulwama attack in February when the tensions between India and Pakistan were on the rise,the government did it’s best to de-escelate these problems and that idea was re-iterated by returning the Indian Pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman back to the Indian government after he was captured by the Pakistani Army.But after the revocance of article 370 and 35a the Prime Minister Imran Khan has acquired a hardline stance with India in regards to Kashmir.The Pakistani air route has been

suspended for any Indian flight operation with immediate action and PM Imran who once favored the idea of peace talks with India,has now changed his perception about that.Primarily,because of New Delhi’s stubborn attitude towards the issue.PM Imran Khan also with the help of the foreign ministry extended his ties with other countries in order to internationalize the Kashmir issue and also received support from many of these nations.PM Imran also announced a solidarity march with the Kashmiris.

The entire Pakistan came to a standstill on Friday as the people across the country came out of their homes, offices, businesses to stand in solidarity with the people in Kashmir.President Dr Arif Alvi, Prime Minister Imran Khan, the entire government machinery and the masses joined hands at exactly 12 noon, while the national anthems of Pakistan and Kashmir were played. Large gatherings were held in every city, town and village, and was participated by people from across the social and religious divide.In the capital Islamabad, thousands gathered on Constitution Avenue in front of the government offices where Prime Minister Imran Khan addressed the nation and vowed to continue fighting for Kashmir until the Himalayan territory was "liberated".Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Information and Broadcasting, Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan Wednesday said Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government had internationalized Kashmir issue through effective foreign policy and international community was discussing human rights violations in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IoK).

Citations

thediplomat.com

www.dawn.com

www.livemint.com

www.khaleejtimes.com

www.app.com.pk

www.radio.gov.pk

nation.com.pk

www.asiatimes.com

gulfnews.com

www.arabnews.com

www.al-monitor.com

www.jstor.org

dunyanews.tv

www.khaleejtimes.com

www.trtworld.com

www.indiatoday.in

www.thenews.com.pk

www.aa.com.tr

www.khaleejtimes.com

www.thenational.ae

www.bbc.com

www.foreignaffairs.com