A Project On

KASHMIR INSURGENCY

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank _____________for their tremendous contribution and support both morally and financially towards the completion of this project. I am also grateful to my project supervisor Mr./Mrs________________who without his/her help and guidance this project would not have been completed. I also show my gratitude to my friends and all who contributed in one way or the other in the course of the project.

Thanking you name class-sec

Introduction

Kashmir is the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. Until the mid-19th century, the term Kashmir geographically denoted only the valley between the Great Himalayas and the Pir Panjal mountain range. Contemporarily, Kashmir denotes a larger area that includes the Indian administered state of Jammu and Kashmir (Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh), the Pakistani administered GilgitBaltistan and Azad Kashmir, and the Chinese-administered regions of Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract.

The story behind the partition of Kashmir After the Partition of India in 1947, the princely states were given the option of joining either India or Pakistan. However, Hari Singh, the maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, wanted Jammu and Kashmir to remain independent. In order to buy some time, he signed a stand-still agreement, which sidestepped the agreement that each princely state would join either India or Pakistan.Later there was a revolution by Muslims in the western part of the kingdom and the raiders from North-West Frontier Province and the Tribal Areas feared that Hari Singh might join the Indian Union. In October 1947, supported by the Pakistani Army, they attacked Kashmir and tried to take over control of Kashmir. Initially Hari Singh tried to resist their progress but failed. Hari Singh then requested the Indian Union to help. India responded that it could not help unless Kashmir joined India. So on 26 October 1947, Kashmir accession papers were signed and Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar. Fighting ensued between the Indian Army and Pakistani Army, with control stabilizing more or less around what is now the "Line of Control".

In 1949, a cease-fire line separating the Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir was formally put into effect. Post this cease fire agreement the princely state of Kashmir was divided between India and Pakistan.

The Pakistani government divided Kashmir into two parts 1.Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) - the narrow southern part..Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is a self-governing state under Pakistani control but is not constitutionally part of Pakistan.It has its own elected president, prime minister, legislature, high court, and official flag 2.Gilgit-Baltistan formerly called Federally Administered Northern Areas (FANA) - is the much larger area to the north of AJK, it was directly administered by Pakistan as a de facto dependent territory, i.e., a non-self-governing territory. However it was officially granted full autonomy on August 29, 2009

The Indian occupied Kashmir India controls the central and southern portion of Kashmir.This includes : Jammu [main cities : Jammu,Poonch] Ladakh in the east [main cities : Leh and Kargil] The Kashmir valley : currently it has population of around four million, 97% of whom are Muslim. It lies completely within Indian administration in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Srinagar is its main city and also the summer capital of the state. Other main cities are Anantnag and Baramulla. China and Kashmir China has occupied Aksai Chin since the early 1950s and, in addition, an adjoining region almost 8% of the territory, the Trans-Karakoram Tract was ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963.

Demographics of Kashmir
The population divide in the various parts of Jammu and Kashmir is as follows: Jammu : [ 30% Muslims, 66% Hindus : the Kashmiri Pandits, 4% others] Ladakh : [50% Muslims, 46% Buddhist, 4% others] Kashmir valley : [most populous : 96% Muslims , 4% Hindus] About 135,000 Hindus/Muslims in Indian Administered Kashmir are internally displaced due to militancy

These figures would help you understand why the Kashmir valley has been the most troubled area in the entire Jammu and Kashmir region and the one vociferous in asking for independence from India.

Insurgency in Kashmir
The begining of terrorism in Kashmir The inception Though there had been instances of sporadic conflict in many regions for many years, intensified attacks occurred in the late 1980s, when the 1987 state elections were rigged although disputed ; had resulted in some of the 'states legislative assembly' 'formed militant wings' later on after the election forming and creating the catalyst for the insurgency Indian Government believes Mujahideen fighters from Afghanistan slowly infiltrated the region, with Pakistan's help, following the end of the Soviet-Afghan War in 1989. Reasons for insurgency demand for independent Kashmir in favour of joining Pakistan Pakistan's role in terrorism in Kashmir A 1994 report by Human Rights Watch group lends support to both Indian and Pakistani charges. In support of Indian claims, it states that "

There is compelling evidence that elements of the Pakistani government have sponsored a significant flow of arms to Kashmiri militants [from arms bazaars in the North West Frontier Province], as well as an extensive training program.

The Council on Foreign Relations states that Pakistans military and InterServices Intelligence (ISI) both include personnel who sympathize withor even assistIslamist militants adding that "ISI has provided covert but welldocumented support to terrorist groups active in Kashmir, among other outfits. The UN Security Council has also confirmed the existence of terrorist groups based in [Pakistani] Kashmir and urged Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups which had been operating in Kashmir and killing innocent people

Pakistan's stance on terrorism in Kashmir Pakistan describes the separatists as "freedom fighters" and says that it supports their effort for the cause of the Kashmiris only morally and diplomatically. Pakistan however admits that there has been 'cross border infiltration of militants' across the Line of Control.

In 2008, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said India has never been a threat to Pakistan, and that militants in Kashmir are terrorists . In 2002, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf tried to clamp down on the militants operating from Pakistan.

The various terrorist organisations in Kashmir India frequently asserts that most of the separatist militant groups are based in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir (also known as Azad Kashmir). Some like the All Parties Hurriyat Conference and the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, demand an independent Kashmir. Other militant groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-eMohammed favour a PakistaniKashmir. These groups have contacts with Taliban and Bin Laden. Both the organisations no longer operate under these names after they were banned by the Indian and Pakistani government, and by other countries including the US and UK. Of the larger militant groups, the Hizbul Mujahideen, a militant organisation based in Indian administered Kashmir, unlike other groups, has only kept its name. Despite casualties, the militants are still believed to number thousands rather than hundreds. Several new separatist organizations have also emerged. According to US Intelligence, Al-Qaeda also has a main base in Pakistani Kashmir and is helping to foment terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir The three important seperatist leaders in Jammu and Kashmir

All Parties Hurriyat Conference : Syed Ali Shah Geelani (chairman Tehreek-e-Hurriyat a component of All Parties Hurriyat Conference) Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front : Yasin Mailk (chief) Mirwaiz Umar Farooq : moderate Hurriyat leader / Chairman of the Awami Action committee.

The changing equation in Kashmir In the angry slogans being shouted in Srinagar's streets,there's an important ingredient that's missing - Pakistan.Is this an opportunity for India to solve the Kashmir issue without Pakistan's interference? The transition from militancy to street protest has overturned the Kashmir paradigm. After three months and over 100 deaths, stone-pelters have emerged as the defining face of a new movement.They call themselves the Sangbaaz Tehreek. Who are these Sangbaaz Tehreek?

they already have a committed membership of over 30,000 youths of who 10,000 are full time stone pelters. thousand more are silent supporters : they operate through the internet where the outpouring of the Azadi sentiment is overwhelming many are students and professionals ,products of growing middle class in Kashmir that has used India's economic boom to take wings

How are they different from terrorists?

they have taken everyone by surprise : marginalised pro-Indian politics and forced the seperatist leaders to modify their pro-Pakistan tilt these are clear headed people , vocal and unambiguous about their demands for an independant Kashmir they have a social sanction which militancy never had they have lambasted Geelani for his pro-Pakistan tilt : for them Pakistan as a concept is dead in Pakistan itself

Why are they important?

they are powerful coz they have a social sanction secondly these people are unarmed and hence using guns against them would lead to violation of human rights they are educated and clear headed and know what they want

How is this an opportunity for India?

with Pakistan out of the equation ,the window has opened for a direct dialogue between Srinagar and New Delhi

The stone pelters have succeded where the seperatist tried and failed.It is ironic what the Hurriyat could not do in six years these stone pelters did in 3 months.They have got India's attention and made it realise there is a problem in Kashmir. Now it's for the center to take the nex steps before it misses yet another opportunity to bring peace to the troubled valley.

Globalisation and the Media

On the basis of the theoretical foundations that, in bringing information to the rest of the world, the media not only has a wide outreach but also its own influence on public opinion. The long-standing Kashmir issue should have been picked up as major threat to security in South Asia. It merits attention for two reasons - its long duration due to the nature of dispute, which has led to the ongoing tense relations between India and Pakistan, and, not the least, the manner of the sustained suffering of the Kashmiri people in the face of unabated brutalities they continue to face. An additional cause for concern is that the two major protagonists India and Pakistan have demonstrated their nuclear capabilities. Yet regarding this issue with a long history of UN resolutions, there is a willful undermining of the importance of the resolution of the dispute to South Asian security and to the world. The Kashmir dispute has the capacity to unleash a wave of greater uncertainty in the political and the economic climate of the South Asia, which would affect Asia as a whole and the world at large. Actors often shape information to project and protect their own vital interests and thus present an issue in a special light. Thus an international media coverage that could necessitate international actions or condemnation is itself first shaped by national interests of the home countries of the media. In short, media tends to register truth in various formats and often in changed contexts that further complicates the nature of the dispute and the way in which it is projected. Hence the coloring given to conflicts, is largely a derivative of factors such as particular power politics, specific national interests and the saliency of the issue to the parties controlling international access to information. Thus, the Kashmir dispute can be said to have been subjected to three kinds of media projections: the working of the powerful international media, mostly that of the western-based news agencies and the local media of both India and Pakistan. A new factor is that of the Kashmiri articulation of their interests. Therefore the means of mass media such as television, cinema, magazines and newspapers, all become power factors due to their role in influencing and molding public opinion.

Kashmir Dispute as a Case Study

The purpose is to examine the impact of the communications revolution on the Kashmir dispute. What role has the media played in portraying this particular conflict and its desired resolution? Why and how do some conflicts receive positive media coverage, and hence international attention, while others are ignored or negatively portrayed? And finally, how can victims of violence get into the picture and earn international sympathy and support? This study cannot provide definitive answers to these difficult, but important questions. Instead it seeks to invite further discussion by highlighting their significance to the conflict resolution processes. The Kashmir dispute is taken up as case study because it has existed on the international agenda of problems for a long time. For all the coverage it has been given, it still remains unresolved. Therefore, there is a need to see what are the reasons for its misguided fate.

Role of the Media

Information is power. Its production, processing, and dissemination carry implications for power relations. The control of information and information technology is vital in the reconfiguration of power and politics, locally and globally. Dominant social groups can, and invariably do, use the "media as ideological weapons to secure advantages for themselves". As the case study of the Kashmir dispute suggests, the mass media remains a powerful ideological informational tool. The dominant social groups use it to backup their economic and political hegemony. In this core dispute between India and Pakistan, the Western media has chosen to portray India in a positive light despite its inhumane policies in Kashmir and elsewhere in India, which the Indian media itself has criticized. The Kashmiris are fighting against a powerful regional ally of the West. Hence the conflict is seen more in terms of a colonial legacy, a dispute left over by history.

The legality of the issue, despite early UN Security Council resolutions on the dispute and the latter day condemnation of the human rights violations by the Indian troops against the Kashmiri population, is often to the international public opinion, as either Indias domestic problem, or an instance of Islamic fundamentalism, or a bilateral dispute between parties. The liberation movement is often depicted as a terrorist militancy instigated primarily by Pakistan. Consequently, the attempts to get a positive international image are constantly thwarted by India. India uses these western media biases to show the conflict in various ways and thus thwart efforts towards a bilateral dialogue, or make meaningful concessions to the people of Kashmir. Media coverage of this conflict was primarily based on given set of cultural attributes specific also to the media itself, to the exclusion of a broader reference to other facts of differing social structures, or of solution oriented processes. As the case of Kashmir dispute suggests the media also has the potential of precipitating the degeneration of political conflict into violence and warfare, within and between states. In addition the interventionist forces, to justify their presence in an area, often use Media coverage of human right violations. Such is the case of the continued Indian military presence in the Valley. Media can repress or liberate, unite or fragment a society, as well as promote or hold back social progress. This makes media an extremely powerful tool, a catalyst of social, structural and cultural changes. Given the power and transformative potential of the mass media, the question of whose reality is presented, who owns it and whose interests it serves, become central to a critical discussion of the impact of the media in conflict dynamics and resolution. The case study of the Kashmir dispute suggests that the international media uses selective reporting, and uses human rights violations only to justify international intervention and not put an end to atrocities. In the case of Kashmir human rights violations have not led to international intervention because the conflict has been constantly depicted as an intra-state dispute. The legal and moral responsibility of the international

community was stronger in other cases such as Mozambique, Haiti, and Tajikistan, where the dispute was clearly an internal affair, therefore outside the framework of the regular norms of UN intervention yet international intervention did take place. The coverage of the happenings in these areas created the necessary conditions for the possibility of International intervention without the costs of acting outside the framework of UN or the norms of international affairs. UN intervention is only justified where in internal conflict is a threat to international security. In the case of the Kashmir dispute, the growing escalation in the conflict is a serious threat to regional security, hence it merits international attention. International resolutions exist to support the people of Kashmir in their fight for self-determination, yet the issue has remained on the back burner of the international media. Bias of the international media often plays to the tune of the dominant groups in their respective countries.

Conclusion
The media itself works within the established framework of international security and power politics and time and again has bent principles of objectivity to the biases of the environment. Conflicts are picked or not picked up by the international media in the nationalised context of international values and domestic audiences of the countries of origin, of the respective media.

The globalization of economies and information has had a tremendous impact on the way a dispute is projected by the protagonist and accessed by the user of the information. In the case of the Kashmir dispute the globalisation of the economy, and the Wests search for big markets has accentuated the conflict in the region. It is necessary that the dispute be addressed with the motive to bring political stability in the region, even if economic reasons are the over arching motivations. In this context the role played by the media is not only important but also fundamental to the process of Conflict resolution. It is the accurate reporting of the media, which brings pressure on the parties involved in a conflict to realize that the time is ripe for conflict resolution and any delay is likely to increase the costs of the conflict.

There are no simple answers to the role of the media in conflict resolution but it is time to re examine the prevailing ideas in the use of media. How it can be remolded to preserve peace and security of people. A truly independent international media can be an effective trustee of future generations, hence efforts should be made to empower media to become responsible and handle this difficult but important task, for the benefit of the successor generations.

There is no easy way of solving the Kashmir crisis. Attempts at resolving the conflict have been going on for over 50 years yet have seen very little progress. It is time for a change and a new approach to settling the situation. India and Pakistan should strike a deal with the United Nations and work together for a more prosperous future. Key elements of this proposal require India and Pakistan to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. India should declare the Line of Control the international border and also give Kashmir more autonomy. What the UN must do in return is establish peace in the region and guarantee no border skirmishes. It should also provide funding to strengthen the economy of Kashmir. These steps will hopefully revitalize Kashmir and once again, allow it to be known for immense beauty rather that for grave atrocity.

References www.google.com