Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Kashmir conflict" in English language version.
Indian leaders...continued to express the hope that partition would ultimately be undone; in particular they envisaged the possibility of annexing East Pakistan. Pakistan's resentment...was confined to a disputed area...when as a result of Indian intransigence the prospects of a peaceful solution of the Kashmir issue seemed bleak, there were outbursts of anti-Indian feelings in Pakistan...Alleged talk of 'holy war' or Jehad referred to the disputed territory of Kashmir. But in India, leaders, press and even scholars had no hesitation in expressing the hope of undoing the partition and thus annihilating Pakistan.
India now holds about 55% of the old state of Kashmir, Pakistan 30%, and China 15%.
On the battlefield, the National Conference volunteers were working shoulder-to-shoulder with the Indian army to drive out the invaders....Sheikh Abdullah was not in favor of India seeking the UN intervention because he was sure the Indian army could free the entire State of the invaders.
writers like Baba (2014), Bose (2005), Schofield (2010) and Robinson (2013) see it as an indigenous Kashmiri response to the decades of political repression and the denial of the Kashmiri right to self-determination.
It called upon India and Pakistan 'to prepare and execute within a period of five months from the date of this resolution a programme of demilitarization on the basis of principles 2 of General McNaughton's proposal.; It further decided to replace the United Nations Commission by a representative entrusted with arbitrary powers 'to interpret the agreements reached by the parties for demilitarization,' in case they should agree in this most important matter. It also requested this representative to make any suggestions which would in his opinion expedite and offer an enduring solution to the Kashmir dispute.
On 27 May 1950 the Australian jurist, Sir Owen Dixon, arrived in the sub-continent, as the one man successor to UNCIP...Patel wrote to Nehru that Dixon was working to bring about an agreement on the question of demilitarisation.
India, Pakistan insisted, was committed to a plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole.
Yet again the question of demilitarisation was the sticking point, causing Dixon to conclude: 'In the end I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarisation in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit of the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled'. Without such demilitarisation, the local 'Azad' and regular Pakistani forces were not prepared to withdraw from the territory they had retained.
The issue was briefly taken up by the Commonwealth, when, in January 1951, at a meeting of Commonwealth prime ministers, Robert Menzies, the Australian prime minister, suggested that Commonwealth troops should be stationed in Kashmir; that a joint Indo–Pakistani force should be stationed there, and to entitle the plebiscite administrator to raise local troops. Pakistan agreed to the suggestions, but India rejected them.
Pakistan accepted the resolution. India rejected it, principally because of the new proposal for arbitration. Pandit Nehru and his followers in Kashmir declared that they would not permit the fate of four million people to be decided by a third person. But this was overclouding the issue. It had never been recommended, nor can one seriously believe that Nehru actually thought it had been, that the final fate of Kashmir should be decided by a tribunal...It was only the extent and procedure of the state's demilitarization which was to be submitted to arbitration, should the parties again fail to agree. At this point India cannot escape criticism...On one occasion Nehru had thoroughly endorsed a policy proposed by the Indian National Congress...to have all disputes concerning Hindu-Muslim relationship, ″referred to arbitration to the League of Nations...or any other impartial body mutually agreed upon.″ When, however, Liaquat Ali Khan made the more concrete proposal that the Kashmir dispute be arbitrated...Nehru replied that the Kashmir dispute was ″a non-justiciable and political issue and cannot be disposed of by reference to a judicial tribunal.″
Led by him (Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad), 64 of 74-strong Constituent Assembly members ratified the state's accession to India on February 15, 1954. "We are today taking the decision of final and irrevocable accession to India and no power on earth could change it", declared Bakshi Muhammad.
Alam replied [to the locals], as recorded by Brown: 'you are a crowd of fools led astray by a madman. I shall not tolerate this nonsense for one instance... And when the Indian Army starts invading you there will be no use screaming to Pakistan for help, because you won't get it.'... The provisional government faded away after this encounter with Alam Khan, clearly reflecting the flimsy and opportunistic nature of its basis and support.
More importantly, Dixon concluded that it was impossible to get India's agreement to any reasonable terms. 'In the end I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarisation in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit of the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled.
Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru's occasional expression of skepticism about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite. Noorani, for instance, points to a missive from Nehru to Sheikh Abdullah in August 1952 in which the former admitted to having "ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes".Shankar, Mahesh (2016), "Nehru's Legacy in Kashmir: Why a plebiscite never happened", India Review, 15 (1): 1–21, doi:10.1080/14736489.2016.1129926, S2CID 155701436
Ask any Kashmiri what he wants and his answer will be "azadi". Ask how does he seek to secure that and he will reply "through a plebiscite".
In 1953, Mr Adlai Stevenson the then Governor of Illinois (USA) met Sheikh Abdullah in Sri Nagar. Commenting on this meeting, Manchester Guardian disclosed in August 1953, that he (Mr Stevenson) "seems to have listened to suggestions that the best status for Kashmir could be independence from both India and Pakistan" and that Sheikh Abdullah had been encouraged by Adlai Stevenson. "Sheikh was suspected of planning a session of the constituent Assembly which instead of ratifying the accession to India, would declare the vale of Kashmir, independent." According to New York Times July, 1953 "Kashmir valley would gain independence, possibly guaranteed by both countries and the rest of the state would be partitioned between them roughly along the present cease-fire line. It was said that John Foster Dulles, U.S Secretary of State supported a solution of this nature"
As is well known, this Hindu-ruled Muslim majority state could conceivably have joined either India or Pakistan, but procrastinated about making a choice until a tribal invasion - the term is not contentious - forced the ruler's hand.
Senior Jammu journalist Ved Bhasin has said: "That(Abdullah's) government was not a democratic government. They did not behave in a democratic manner. Corruption had started. [...]he denied democratic rights to people. He did not tolerate any opposition. He crushed the freedom of press. He and other NC leaders did not tolerate any voice of dissent. He acted as an authoritarian ruler. The constituent assembly elections of 1951 were totally rigged. [...]Within the state, freedom was curbed, civil liberties were denied, there was no freedom for public meetings, demonstrations."
Ved Bhasin has remarked: "Obviously, Abdullah was more concerned in absolute power. His struggle was for greater autonomy, maximum powers, which he tried to concentrate in his own hands. He was interested in absolute power, and if India gave him absolute power, he was willing for it. It is not that for people he was interested. Initially he supported accession with India."
India now holds about 55% of the old state of Kashmir, Pakistan 30%, and China 15%.
Muslims, however, suffered under Hindu rule.
Culturally, a growing emphasis on secularism generated a backlash, contributing to the popularity of Islamic political parties, especially the Jamāʿat-i Islāmī (established in 1953) and the Islāmī Jamʿīyat-i T‥ulabā, its allied student body.
Tens of thousands of Kashmiri civilians were killed in security operations or went missing even as a substantial part of Kashmir's population remained permanently scarred by violence, dispossession and psychological trauma. India's military occupation inflicts daily violence, humiliation, and indignity on the local population… In this respect the motive and intent of rape in Kashmir was no different from the Balkans and Rwanda, where rape functioned as a cultural weapon of war against women and against the community at large (Kesic, 2000)…Rape and sexual abuse is an integral part of the Indian counteroffensive in Kashmir… A Médicins Sans Frontières empirical study documented the extraordinarily high incidence of rape and sexual abuse since the outbreak of armed conflict in Kashmir: according to the report the number of people that had actually witnessed a rape since 1989 was much higher in comparison to other conflict zones in the world.
The absence of a popular mandate underwriting the accession, India's reneging of its promise to hold a plebiscite allowing the people of Kashmir to determine their own political future, its violation of constitutional provisions protecting Jammu and Kashmir's autonomy, and repeated subversion of the democratic process in Kashmir by successive central governments in New Delhi produced simmering resentment and eventually mass rebellion in 1989–1990.
Nearly 90 percent of people living in Indian Kashmir's summer capital want their troubled and divided state to become an independent country, according to a poll in an Indian newspaper on Monday.
Alam replied [to the locals], as recorded by Brown: 'you are a crowd of fools led astray by a madman. I shall not tolerate this nonsense for one instance... And when the Indian Army starts invading you there will be no use screaming to Pakistan for help, because you won't get it.'... The provisional government faded away after this encounter with Alam Khan, clearly reflecting the flimsy and opportunistic nature of its basis and support.
Scholars have similarly pointed to Nehru's occasional expression of skepticism about the wisdom and practicality of holding a plebiscite. Noorani, for instance, points to a missive from Nehru to Sheikh Abdullah in August 1952 in which the former admitted to having "ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes".Shankar, Mahesh (2016), "Nehru's Legacy in Kashmir: Why a plebiscite never happened", India Review, 15 (1): 1–21, doi:10.1080/14736489.2016.1129926, S2CID 155701436
The report of the Drafting Committee "ratifying the accession" of the Jammu and Kashmir State to India was adopted by the Constituent Assembly in Jammu on February 15 before it was adjourned sine die. Earlier, Premier Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, speaking on the report, declared amidst cheers: "We are today taking the decision of final and irrevocable accession to India and no power on earth could change it."
Nearly 70 years ago, the people of the Gilgit Wazarat revolted and joined Pakistan of their own free will, as did those belonging to the territories of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin and Punial; the princely states of Hunza and Nagar also acceded to Pakistan. Hence, the time has come to acknowledge and respect their choice of being full-fledged citizens of Pakistan.
Muslims, however, suffered under Hindu rule.
In 1953, Mr Adlai Stevenson the then Governor of Illinois (USA) met Sheikh Abdullah in Sri Nagar. Commenting on this meeting, Manchester Guardian disclosed in August 1953, that he (Mr Stevenson) "seems to have listened to suggestions that the best status for Kashmir could be independence from both India and Pakistan" and that Sheikh Abdullah had been encouraged by Adlai Stevenson. "Sheikh was suspected of planning a session of the constituent Assembly which instead of ratifying the accession to India, would declare the vale of Kashmir, independent." According to New York Times July, 1953 "Kashmir valley would gain independence, possibly guaranteed by both countries and the rest of the state would be partitioned between them roughly along the present cease-fire line. It was said that John Foster Dulles, U.S Secretary of State supported a solution of this nature"
The report of the Drafting Committee "ratifying the accession" of the Jammu and Kashmir State to India was adopted by the Constituent Assembly in Jammu on February 15 before it was adjourned sine die. Earlier, Premier Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, speaking on the report, declared amidst cheers: "We are today taking the decision of final and irrevocable accession to India and no power on earth could change it."
Culturally, a growing emphasis on secularism generated a backlash, contributing to the popularity of Islamic political parties, especially the Jamāʿat-i Islāmī (established in 1953) and the Islāmī Jamʿīyat-i T‥ulabā, its allied student body.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)Tens of thousands of Kashmiri civilians were killed in security operations or went missing even as a substantial part of Kashmir's population remained permanently scarred by violence, dispossession and psychological trauma. India's military occupation inflicts daily violence, humiliation, and indignity on the local population… In this respect the motive and intent of rape in Kashmir was no different from the Balkans and Rwanda, where rape functioned as a cultural weapon of war against women and against the community at large (Kesic, 2000)…Rape and sexual abuse is an integral part of the Indian counteroffensive in Kashmir… A Médicins Sans Frontières empirical study documented the extraordinarily high incidence of rape and sexual abuse since the outbreak of armed conflict in Kashmir: according to the report the number of people that had actually witnessed a rape since 1989 was much higher in comparison to other conflict zones in the world.
The absence of a popular mandate underwriting the accession, India's reneging of its promise to hold a plebiscite allowing the people of Kashmir to determine their own political future, its violation of constitutional provisions protecting Jammu and Kashmir's autonomy, and repeated subversion of the democratic process in Kashmir by successive central governments in New Delhi produced simmering resentment and eventually mass rebellion in 1989–1990.
As is well known, this Hindu-ruled Muslim majority state could conceivably have joined either India or Pakistan, but procrastinated about making a choice until a tribal invasion - the term is not contentious - forced the ruler's hand.