While hearing either on the news or through news flashes on the internet of the strife taking place in Kashmir, I understood the war between Pakistan and Indian to be about who was going to own the land in between. This war between the two countries goes much deeper than just real estate. Through research I have learned about the different aspects of what created such hostility between Pakistan and Indian. The dynamics of such hostilities are made up of a need for power, religious belief’s and a sense of control over what each believes to belong to them. Real Estate being the least of their concerns. Pakistan was formed in 1947, it was created by founding father Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
It was Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s belief that Hindus and Muslims should live as two separate nations. However, India disagreed, proclaiming that they indeed could live together as one large peaceful nation. A partition of British India into India and the new created country of Pakistan, was carried out. In October 1947 Kashmir, led by Muslim majority leader Hindu Maharaja, was invaded by Pashtun tribals from Pakistan. Pakistan invaded Kashmir in the same year of it’s own independence from India (I thought this to be ironic).
Kashmir was at this time invaded because of Maharaja refusal to join either Pakistan or India.
In fear of military defeat to Pakistan, Maharaja signed a treaty of accession with India in exchange for help from the Indian Army. Troops from India were then flown in and the invaders were pushed back, but not out. Even with the assistance of troops from India, they were unable to regain control of all of Kashmir. The ceasefire line of 1949 left India in control of two-thirds of the state, Pakistan in control of a third and China the remaining. The ceasefire line of 1949 is how Kashmir is cut up still today. Both Pakistan and India refused to succeed to the other and today this is the way it still stands, with each side refusing to budge 1.
The Essay on How Has the Personification of India and the Indian Woman Been Reflected in the Various Paintings of Mother India?
“I am India. The Indian nation is my body. Kanyakumari is my foot and the Himalayas my head. The Ganges flows from my thighs. My left leg is the Coromandal Coast, my right is the Coast of Malabar. I am this entire land. East and West are my arms. How wondrous is my form! When I walk I sense all India moves with me. When I speak, India speaks with me. I am India. I am Truth, I am God, I am Beauty.” ...
According to Pakistan the leader of Kashmir, Maharaja, was not the effective leader and had no authority to sign the accession with India. In their view Kashmir remains disputed and calls for the Kashmiri people to carry out their wishes via a plebiscite with the United Nations. 1 According to India the accession of Kashmir is final and is not negotiable. In their view at the time of accession, then Indian premier Jawaharlal Nehru declared that the accession was provisional and that it would be submitted to a popular referendum. Surprisingly it never made it, to the referendum that is. 1 The problem was referred to the UN Security Council on December 31, 1947.
India asked for vacation of aggression by Pakistan. The UN neglected to take note of the aggression, and the council declared Kashmir a disputed territory. Due to their over- sight, the UN supported the Pakistani position. The UN decided to leave the future of Kashmir to be determined by a plebiscite, to be held at a later date. According to the UNZIP (The UN Commission on India and Pakistan), before a plebiscite can be conducted two preliminaries must be met. First, Pakistan should withdraw its forces from the disputed territory and secure the withdrawal from the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Pakistan also needed to remove tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally residents there who had entered the state solely for the purpose of fighting and causing unrest. Only after the commission had been notified that the first request had been fulfilled, and indeed the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals have withdrawn, would they move forward. The second request would be made of India. The Government of India would then begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that state in stages. Once both withdrawals were completed, a plebiscite would be held.
The Term Paper on India pakistan Nuclear Threat part 1
India-Pakistan Nuclear Threat In May 1998, India carried out five nuclear tests and formally declared itself a "nuclear weapon state" (NWS). This dramatic move stunned the world and immediately triggered a new round of the nuclear arms race in South Asia. India's archenemy, Pakistan, responded by setting off six announced nuclear tests just two weeks later. The nuclear crisis in South Asia was ...
1 Pakistan still to this day has not started to vacate the property and therefore cannot expect a plebiscite to even be started. But what would you expect if they withdrew their troops, then they must rely on the UN to resolve the issue. How can either side trust a non sovereign group to resolve the issue. 2 As a result of the ceasefire of December 17, 1971 the two countries signed the Simla Agreement under which they agreed to respect the Line of Control (Loc).
They both pledged not to use force and be in violation of the Loc. Pakistan leader President General Pervez Musharraf and Foreign Minister A bdu S attar have said publicly that the Loc is the problem and not the solution to the 55-year old dispute. 2 India disputes the Loc to the fact that in 1994 India’s Parliament passed a resolution stating “all of Kashmir, including the region beyond the Loc, now occupied by Pakistan, is an integral part of India.” It blatantly wants to “bleed Pakistan white” and thus teach it a lesson. Pakistan can’t afford to stand off its neighbors for long with a price tag of $400 million per month, not with its current defense budget of $2.
2 billion this year. 2 It has been reported by Indian officials that mobilization is as much about “bleeding” Pakistan as it is about keeping alive the threat of war. India’s troops are even more expensive, but New Delhi can afford it for months on end while Pakistan would be in a bind after about 45 days. 2 Pakistan’s president Musharraf accused India of “state terrorism” in Kashmir and calls for international mediation to resolve the crisis that has threatened war. Musharraf also accused India of a “sinister worldwide campaign to denigrate and malign the Kashmiri freedom movement.” Well of course they are, they have been fighting this war also on and off for the past 55 years. It sounds like to me Pakistan is pulling at straws and mustering propaganda to gain support internationally on its side.
3 India accuses Pakistan also of “cross-border terrorism” blaming the December 13 attack on the Indian Parliament on Pakistan and / or their counterparts. The New Delhi government blames Pakistani supported Islamic militants. In response to this accusation Musharraf banned the two Islamic militant groups. India accused many and made hundreds of arrests.
The Term Paper on Pakistan India Relation
The history of South Asia is laden more with the incidents of hostilities than with the memories of friendship. Zooming in, between Pakistan and India, the arch rivals, enmity overrides empathy. At the hostility level, between Pakistan and India, the Cold War era (1947-1991) was a characteristic of at least two full scale wars in 1965 and 1971 while the post-Cold War era experienced only a ...
India has said it will not pull back forces unless all cross-border attacks stop and Pakistan hands over men India says are suspects in these attacks on India. Musharraf asserts that Pakistan “wants to live in peace with all its neighbor, including India, but that they will never compromise on principle.” 3 So as you can see the war between Pakistan and India has to do with a lot more than just rights to Real Estate (land).
It is my belief that neither side will compromise nor are they willing to give an inch. In my opinion this is a war which will go on for many years. 1. Asia times author Sudra Ramachandran online January 24, 20022.
The New York Times Jan. 5, 2002 3. The New York Times Jan. 3, 2002.
