Remembering Gow Kadal Massacre

'Young boy shielded us, braved bullets on his chest’ Hakeem Irfan Srinagar. “Blood-stained bodies were spread all around. I was motionless, pretending as dead so that the troops don’t kill me.” This is how Muhammad Altaf Qureshi recollects the tragic memories of the most bloody military action against protesters Kashmir has ever witnessed since the outbreak of militancy in 1989.

Qureshi, 50, was part of the pro-freedom procession on January 21, 1990 but, Qureshi recounts, the moment the procession reached Gow Kadal, a city interior adjacent to Lal Chowk, cops from India’s Central Reserve Police Force showered bullets leaving at least 50 persons dead many more injured. The procession is said to have been provoked by strict curfew and security restrictions. “I was fortunate enough to live up to this day. I think survived by the grace of Allah so that I could tell the story of that black day to my future generations,” says Qureshi.While the incident is locally called ‘Gow Kadal massacre’, Qureshi believes was the “ultimate example of resilience and commitment people had with their aspirations.”He goes on to reminisce thus: “A trooper was showering bullets from a short distance and one of the youngsters in the procession tried to shield the people, taking all the bullets in his chest. It was bravery beyond one’s imagination,” said Qureshi who was then watching bullets coming out of a carbine.According to Qureshi hundreds of people had marched from Jawahar Nagar and Ikhrajpora, raising slogans in favor of Islam, Freedom and Pakistan came out to defy the curfew and campaign for freedom. “However,” he says “participant did not know where to go. There was no set destination. Some were suggesting going straight to the UN office in Sonwar. But the rest were saying the people from the downtown should join so as to make it more impressive. That is why the procession turned towards the downtown via Gow Kadal.”Recalling finer details of the ‘Gow Kadal Massacre’, Qureshi says some of troops were masked and their gestures would suggest that they wanted to take “revenge”.

“I still remember that masked face of few of the troopers. I still remember the eyes of a trooper. His eyes were full of fury and revenge. I tried to jump in the river with my Kangri (Earthen firepot) but somehow I couldn’t,” says Qureshi adding, “I preferred to remain with the dead bodies of my neighbours and other participants. I knew for sure I will be shot. In the pool of blood, I closed my eyes and remembered my Allah, recited the Kalima and the face of my three- month-old daughter flashed my mind.”He further recollects, “That scene is still intact in my memories. We all were like sack of flesh and bones without any life. The whole Universe seemed to have frozen for nearly an hour,” says Qureshi in an uncomfortable tone, suggesting the pain even after the two decades. Cops of J&K Police, Qureshi says, lifted him and tried to take him to the other place after an hour but he says, “I still pretended to be seriously injured. But in a swift glance I could see women from a distance peeping through alleys, wailing and pleading the troopers for removing the dead and inured bodies.”“I was taken to a nearby fire station by the Police from where I called up my home where my family was waiting for my corpse after hearing the news of the massacre,” says Qureshi with nearly sobbing tone. According the Qureshi people were told to move towards Maisuma through public address systems with their hands up. Locals in Maisuma had started preparing food, eatables and heating systems for the stranded people as the curfew continued even after the incident.Local photo Journalist Mehrajudin has witnessed the dead bodies in the police control room soon after the ‘Massacre’. He says, “It was a gory scene. Troopers were crossing over the dead bodies probably for recognition. But I broke down into tears. Every body tried to console but to no effect. After that no tragedy made me so emotional.”Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) had also erected a plaque in memory of the people who died in the incident.

A Mother’s Tragedy

Guest Post By: Majid Maqbool

Sixty-five-year-old Nabza Bano stands near a small cornfield where her three-storey house once stood in Sundbrari village, about 85kms from Srinagar, the capital of Indian-administered Kashmir. Lost in a melancholic silence, she points out all that remains of her old home – a few burnt logs.

She says two of her houses were burned down by the Indian army, along with two cowsheds, but what pains her most is the absence of her three sons – all of them killed by the Indian army. Their loss has inflicted a wound that only festers with the passing years.

But years of mourning have dried her tears and she is unable to weep now.

After their house was destroyed, Nabza and her family lived in a tent adjacent to the burnt remains of their home for six months during a harsh Kashmiri winter. The family’s neighbours and relatives helped them to build a modest one-storey house where Nabza now lives with her terminally-ill husband, her daughter, son-in-law, their two children and the two children of her now deceased eldest son.

They live in poverty. Nabza’s son-in-law works as a labourer, but he is the only wage earner in the family and his salary is not enough to support them all.

Nabza’s husband, Las Khan, suffers from asthma and his treatment costs about 15,000 Indian rupees ($340) a month. Last month, the family had to sell off one of their cows to cover the cost.

Picking up the gun Nabza displays pictures of her sons [Majid Maqbool]

Las Khan has lost four sons to the conflict, including one from his first marriage. Mukhtar Ahmad was 40 when he was killed in an encounter with the Indian army in 1997. Khan says his eldest son was a militant.

The youngest of Khan’s sons with Nabza was just 13 years old when he was killed in 1999. Nabza says Mohammad Abbas would sometimes help out militants who were active in the area by showing them safe passages. “But he was not a militant and never had a gun. He was innocent,” she adds.

On the day he was killed, Nabza recalls, he had put on his best clothes and taken food for a few of the fighters who were in the mountains.

“As soon as they finished eating, the army laid an ambush and killed all of them in the encounter,” Nabza says. Seven were killed that day, including Mohammad. The death certificate issued by the police refers to Mohammad as a “19-year-old militant”.

Ajaz Khan and Ghulam Hassan – the elder two of Khan’s sons with Nabza – picked up the gun in the early 1990s when the armed struggle broke out in Kashmir. They both joined the indigenous rebel group, Hizbul Mujahideen.

Ajaz was 25 when he was killed in an encounter with the Indian army in 2002.

“He had come home that day after more than six months,” Nabza recalls.

But the army had laid an ambush outside their home and Ajaz was killed in the fighting that ensued. He was shot twice in the chest.

“Army from seven companies laid an ambush for him that day,” Nabza says. “Some families had offered him a safe house during the encounter but he declined, saying he could not bring harm to any civilians.”

Nabza says the shooting began at four o’clock in the afternoon and Ajaz fought until he ran out of ammunition. He was killed at around two o’clock in the morning. After his death, Nabza recalls, the soldiers fired shots into the night in jubilation.

Ghulam was one of the first young men from their village to join militant ranks in the early 1990s, Khan says.

“In 2003, he was arrested and tortured in custody for eight days in the RR [Rashtriya Rifles] military camp,” Nabza adds.

After he was released and returned home, Nabza says, her son bore the marks of torture on his body – his face was swollen, his kidneys damaged and he could barely walk or talk. A few days later he died.

“He died when he was offering morning prayers in this room,” Nabza says. “I held him close to my chest. I would not let him go,” she recalls. “Then I don’t know … I fainted.”

“After he died … the army lied and said that he had a heart attack in custody,” Khan interjects. “They even wrote this lie on his death certificate,” the old man explains.

Ghulam was the only one of their sons to marry. After he was killed, his wife remarried and Ghulam’s son and daughter came to live with Nabza and her husband.

‘Mother of militants’

Click here for more on the Kashmir conflict

Las Khan fell ill after the deaths of his sons and has been bedridden for the past 10 years. Photographs of his sons hang beside each other on the wall of his small room. He cannot speak or hear well, but he recalls the details of their deaths with clarity. He remembers the date and the deed. And even though illness has made him too weak to walk, he never misses a prayer. Gasping for breath, he prostrates himself in prayer five times a day.

Beside his bed is a small trunk. Nabza unlocks it and carefully removes pictures of their sons and their death certificates. She spreads them out on the floor, one by one, and stares at them. There are pictures of funeral processions, of people offering funeral prayers, others showing the burnt remains of their old home. She addresses the pictures as though talking to her sons in person – incoherent lamentations of how much she misses them and how she wishes that at least one of them had lived.

A child enters the room. He is the son of Ghulam. He carries a blackened samovar that had been found a few days before at the site of their old house. They gaze at it, turning it around. Their silence is filled with memories of their life before. Nabza explains that they used to serve tea to guests in this samovar. She says it was the only thing recovered from the burnt remains. Everything else was consumed by the fire.

Nabza recalls how in 1998, soldiers had raided their home, threatening to set fire to it. She says they had called her “the mother of militants”.

Las Khan produces a pocket diary. He flips its small pages, showing entries made in Urdu. It is a detailed record of the dates his sons were killed and his properties destroyed – a written testimony to the tragedies the family has endured.

When his sons were alive, Khan was himself arrested several times by the Indian army. He says he was tortured and beaten in custody for failing to convince his sons to surrender. His son-in-law shows an old mobile phone picture of Khan’s bandaged broken arm.

“The army said they would give me 1.3 million rupees if my son surrenders,” Khan explains. “But my son had not picked up the gun for money. He would not even call me father had I taken even 15 paisa from the army.”

Looking at her ailing husband, Nabza remembers how he was beaten every time their home was raided by soldiers looking for their sons. “I felt as if I was receiving those blows,” she says. “Those blows also hit my body.”

The family says the authorities told them that they could not claim any compensation for their houses or cowsheds because their sons were militants. Neither did they receive any substantial aid from groups opposed to Indian rule.

Now, all that Nabza is left with is her unshakable faith in God. She has a firm belief that her sons did not die in vain. “We will get freedom one day, God willing,” she says with conviction.

For Nabza, her sons remain alive in her memories. She talks to their pictures as though they are there with her. “All my sons are alive,” she says in Kashmiri, looking at the pictures spread out in front of her. And then, after a brief pauses, adds: “We are all dead.”

Police firing in India: Human lives not worth the monkeys

WEEKLY REVIEW BY : ASIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

The killing of Altaf Ahmad Sood, a class XII student on 2 January 2012 at the NHPC premises at Boniyar village under Baramulla district of Jammu and Kashmir in the firing by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel has exposed illegal direction issued by the CISF Directorate for the use of fire-arms to protect the installations. Altaf Ahmad was part of a mob of 400 villagers who took to the streets and later gathered near the local power station to protest against long hours of power outages.

On 30 September 2011, the CISF Deputy Inspector General, Shikha Goel reportedly issued a circular stating that the CISF Directorate had noted that some units were "failing to take proactive action" in protecting and securing the undertakings and that the CISF personnel should effectively protect the installations against mob violence, particularly where there is a delay in arrival of the local police or the magistrate.

The CISF circular is blatantly illegal. Section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) provides that if protestors of an unlawful assembly do not disperse, they, if necessary, are to be arrested and confined. If it is still not possible to disperse, the CrPC further provides that the law enforcement personnel should use “as little force, and as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly and arresting and detaining such persons”, with the authorisation by the Magistrate.

In clear violation of the CrPC, the first thing security personnel do is to use lethal weapon while dealing with protests which may turn violent. In most cases, police shoot without authorization of the Magistrate. Even when the police are authorised by the Magistrate, they usually shoot above the waist level to cause maximum damage i.e. loss of life or impairment for life. The Indian practice is in sharp contrast to the practice of the Britain which designed its bullets to be fired at the ground so that they would bounce up and hit the legs of demonstrators. In 1989, the British government further replaced its rubber bullets with the plastic ones for dealing with the protests in the Northern Ireland as the rubber bullets were considered too dangerous.

Each year the right to life of many citizens of India is violated in the disproportionate use of fire-arms by the law enforcement personnel. According to the statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau, in the last five years a total of 1,462 civilians were killed in police firing i.e. 472 in 2006, 250 in 2007, 317 in 2008, 184 in 2009 and 239 in 2010. In 2010, about 50.8% of all police firing cases were necessitated for ‘riot control'.

The patterns of police firing in India do not also meet the United Nations standards on the use of fire-arms. Rule 9 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials of 1990 states that “Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” Further, Article 3(c) of the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials provides that “The use of firearms is considered an extreme measure. Every effort should be made to exclude the use of firearms, especially against children.”

Human life is too precious to be taken away by the trigger happy law enforcement personnel. The governments which are concerned about the right to life of their citizens have been using rubber and plastic bullets to reduce death and serious injuries.

Even the rubber bullets have been found dangerous. A study by the British medical doctors on the effects of rubber-coated bullets used by the Israeli police force during riots by Israeli-Arabs in northern and central Israel in early October 2000 found that Israeli Police often fire from too close range and aim poorly. The study published in The Lancet, a medical journal, in March 2002 concluded that “Resistance of the body surface at the site of impact (elastic limit) is the important factor that ascertains whether a blunt or penetrating injury is inflicted and its severity. Inaccuracy of rubber bullets and improper aiming and range of use resulted in severe injury and death in a substantial number of people. This ammunition should therefore not be considered a safe method of crowd control”.

In India, the use of rubber bullets is an exception while the use of live bullets is the norm. The State governments usually order inquiries to placate the situation once some protestors were killed. However, the use of force is often justified on the ground of mob violence. Since it is impossible to prove dis-proportionality of the use of fire-arms in case of violent protest, the inquiries often end up in exonerating the police personnel even if they simply aim to kill. The police firing on the protestors of land acquisition in Pune on 9 August 2011 captured on camera showed that the police fired to kill and not to control the crowd.

In the aftermath of Sharpeville massacre on 21 March 1960, even then Apartheid regime of South Africa started using the rubber bullets. If India is committed to ensure the right to life of its citizens, it must issue a circular to make it mandatory to use plastic coated bullets before the use of live bullets. After the Himachal Pradesh High Court disapproved of the use of live bullets to tackle the monkey menace in January 2011, the Himachal Pradesh State Wildlife Department started using the rubber bullets since May 2011. There is no reason as to why the guarantees to ensure the right to life of the monkeys cannot be extended to human beings.

How New Delhi failed in JK?

Guest Post By: Zahir-ud-Din

Did New Delhi fail in winning the people of Jammu Kashmir over these years? Or, was the sentiment so strong that it could not uproot it in six decades?

During last year’s budget session, a legislator made a laughing stock of himself by saying: “If AFSPA is repealed, how can we move about?” Well said the legislator. At least he had the courage to admit the truth. In the garb of upholding democracy, they want a draconian legislation like AFSPA to `reach’ the public. In the same session, the members of the legislative assembly uttered the truth about Jammu Kashmir.

Responding to the memorandum of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) resolution seeking revocation of armed forces special powers act (AFSPA), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) members said: “We are in this house because the army is there to protect us.”

So during all these years, nothing has changed in the state. The BJP members admitted that the presence of army was necessary for holding Jammu Kashmir. If the army goes, India loses Jammu Kashmir. What a bold admission? The constituent assembly ratified Jammu Kashmir’s accession to India on February 6, 1954. Most of the members were loyal to the then Prime Minister, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad and behaved accordingly. Little resistance was offered to the motion. It was unanimously passed by all the members the only honourable exception being Abdul Gani Goni who had the courage to talk about izzat aur aabiroo ka muqam (honour and dignity) for the people of the state. However, his resistance got drowned in the deafening applause of the members of the constituent assembly. Goni had to walk out of the house.
Here an attempt is not being made to glorify Goni. But, his speech in the constituent assembly helps one understand the situation that prevailed then in its right perspectives. It can also go a long way in making people understand the situation that has emerged now. Has anything changed in Jammu Kashmir since February 6, 1954?
Realising that the members of the constituent assembly mocked at him while he was speaking, Goni said: “Let us withdraw the Indian army for five days and see whom the house represents.”
This particular remark evoked severe reaction from the members but Goni had succeeded in putting across his message in very strong terms. During an exclusive interview with me during Amarnath land row in 2008 Goni said with authority that the motion could not be defeated for want of resources. He urged me not to divulge vital details of the interview during his life time. “I do not want to embarrass some people”, he urged. I have kept the promise.
On that day Goni conveyed to the house that they did not represent the people of Jammu Kashmir. He made them aware that they were delivering fiery speeches in favour of accession only because a huge army had strangulated the genuine aspirations of the people.
The BJP legislators are not the only ones to admit this harsh reality. Omar Abdullah promised repeal of AFSPA the day he assumed office of the chief minister. He also promised a debate on AFSPA in the legislative assembly. But New Delhi told him to behave like a good boy and he obeyed. He, however, could not tell the people about his failure to repeal the draconian legislation. His law minister, Ali Muhammad Sagar did it for him. He shocked the people by stating that AFSPA could not be repealed. “It has to remain there for some time”, he said. On behalf of National Conference and the coalition government he too admitted that the situation in Jammu Kashmir was not as rosy as it was being projected by the state information department.
Former Director General of Police (DGP), Gopal Sharma recently said, “Even as police were well equipped and trained to take on militants in Jammu Kashmir, army should not be withdrawn completely from there.
Though police have learnt a lot in the past 20 years of turmoil in the state in combating terrorism and have now been better equipped to fight insurgency, still army should not be withdrawn completely from there.” The former DGP made this observation while speaking in a panel discussion organised by the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) at the India International Center (IIC).
“I think army’s complete withdrawal from Jammu Kashmir is just not possible and great caution should be taken while thinking about the same,” Sharma added.
Now let us have a look on what government of India and its stooges in Jammu Kashmir did to win the people for New Delhi. Corruption in all its forms and manifestations was introduced and encouraged in the state. The media were gagged. Political activists were exiled. Some of them were jailed under defence of India rules (DIR), leadership was blackmailed, draconian laws were extended to the state, and the special status was diluted through legislative and administrative means. But the sentiment for freedom did not die down. It remained there though in a dormant phase for most of the time. But when the suppressed volcano made its way in 1987, New Delhi was surprised and shocked as well. The outside world was forced to focus attention once again on Jammu Kashmir.
Did New Delhi fail in winning the people of Jammu Kashmir over these years? Or, was the sentiment so strong that New Delhi could not uproot it in six decades? The questions merit special consideration.
For the past three years, the heads of various security agencies operating in the conflict ridden state have been giving details about number of militants, their modus operandi and the damage they have suffered from time to time. In one such statement, it was stated that 750 militants were active in the entire state. And according to the incumbent DGP, 20% of the militants had no guns. Does New Delhi need around half a million regular troops and an equal number of para-military forces and police personnel to fight 750 militants of whom 20% are without guns? The Indian army has been fighting insurgency since 1947. It is experienced enough to fight Jammu Kashmir insurgency effectively. And, it has now been established that Jammu Kashmir insurgency lacks the sting required to fight one of the biggest armies of the world. The US led allied troops on the other hand are fighting Afghans. The valiant people of Afghanistan have time and again proved their worth. Nobody has enslaved them to this day. Notwithstanding this, the number of allied troops in Afghanistan is not more than one hundred thousand. The massive concentration of troops in Jammu Kashmir cannot be justified by any means especially when there are a handful of militants around. What is the Indian army, therefore, fighting in Jammu Kashmir? A mindset or the militants?
The army is fighting a mindset. Or to put it plainly the sentiment is too strong to be uprooted or crushed by use of force. It has survived more than six decades of suppression. This is the reality of contemporary Kashmir. And this always has been Kashmir’s reality.

And Kashmiris Continue To Suffer….

Guest Post By: Samreen Mushtaq

Sitting comfortably at home with a “Pheran” and Kangri to protect me from this chilly winter, a look at the calendar makes me realise that my vacations are just about to end. Four more days and I’ll be back to the artificial world of Delhi. The thought of being away has made Kashmir more dearer than ever to me. This vacation has certainly been a memorable one. What do I tell my roommates when they ask about how the vacations went? There’s a lot that happened, a lot that shouldn’t have happened.

Never will I forget the ‘Zoi se Zaalim’ controversy, when JK Police registered a case against the JK Board of School Education on the grounds that the picture of ‘zaalim’ (oppressor) shown in the Urdu text book of primary class was that of a policeman (well, they thought so). Never will I forget that I need to forget there exists a letter called ‘zoi’ in Urdu, afterall who wants to be booked?

How will I forget what welcomed Kashmir on the new year – the killing of a young student in Boniyar, Uri, in district Baramulla. The reason for the killing was, as usual, completely unjustified. He was killed just because there was a protest going on in the region against erratic power supply and the forces opened fire to disperse the unarmed protestors. Is this reason enough to kill someone? Is human life so cheap? But then, such things are bound to happen when the forces are most powerful and least accountable. Thanks to the draconian laws that protect them and hurt the commoner! Even though the Chief Minister promised swift action, it’s a secret to none that it is going to become another forgotten story for them, another terrible incident added to our memory and for the boy’s family, it’s a nightmare that they’ll live with every day…every night for the rest of their lives. Same is true about all those who lost their dear ones, about the families of the disappeared, about orphans, widows and half-widows. I’m reminded of these lines from Mirza Waheed’s The Collaborator - “I am aware that these bodies, these remains of our ‘disappeared’ boys, might serve as evidence one day…for someone to make a shocking discovery…for someone to write a front-page story…for someone to order a judicial enquiry. But then, who actually cares or does anything in the end? No one is ever punished here. It will only ever be a story.”

How can I forget how beautiful the valley looked when the white flakes danced in the air, how I again fell in love with my Kashmir as the snow draped it, how I wanted to keep looking at it all the time- at its’ snow-capped mountains, at the land and trees… Kashmir looked breath-taking. And then there was the ‘dark spell’, Kashmir was without electricity for three days at a time when the snow and icy winds had made winter even more harsh. Abundance of resources and still living in the ‘dark ages’.. And if you protest, you’ll be greeted with a bullet – Yes, that’s my Kashmir.

When my vacations had started, I came with the hope of seeing no more blood spilled, of seeing no family devastated, of seeing no flower of this vale wither away..but the contrary happened. As I prepare to go to Delhi, I know I’ll miss Kashmir but leave with the same hope and prayer – peaceful Kashmir.

Kashmir Unmarked Graves: UN Mediation

Guest Post By: Huma Sheikh

In August 2011, the unmarked graves atrocity came to light in Kashmir after the Jammu & Kashmir Human Rights Commission confirmed that more than two thousand bodies were buried in those graves in several districts of the Valley. The commission said many of the dead were civilians who had disappeared over the past two decades, the time of the bloodiest violence in Kashmir. The Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) —an association formed by parents and relatives of victims of enforced disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir— had in 2008 reported to the commission about the presence of unmarked graves, and about their fears that those unidentified bodies might be their missing children.

According to the commission report, 2,730 bodies were buried in thirty-eight sites in North Kashmir’s Baramulla, Bandipora, Handwara and Kupwara districts. Five hundred seventy four (574) among the 2,730 bodies were those of missing local Kashmiris.

The Jammu and Kashmir government had earlier said the bodies in unmarked graves were those of unidentified militants, most of them Pakistani insurgents who were handed over to local people for burial. After the commission report, Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said all missing persons were not buried in unmarked graves. Some of these people had been doing small businesses—either driving cabs or something else– across the Line of Control (LOC), the de facto border dividing Indian and Pakistani Kashmir. “I can say with authority that some of the persons buried in these unmarked graves were killed by militants,” Omar had told the Hindustan Times newspaper in India.

The issue of unmarked graves has become a major problem in the eight-decade-old conflict in Kashmir. People in Kashmir feel they are unsafe in the valley because of civilian disappearances by security forces and their subsequent killings in fake encounters to label them insurgents. The government, on the other hand, maintains the situation in Kashmir has improved and the Chief Minister established a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate unmarked graves. But this problem remains unresolved but can be resolved with the help of international third party mediation, or more precisely the United Nations mediation–mainly for two reasons:

1. The Kashmir conflict is a regional conflict because its resolution must include both India and Pakistan.

2. India is primarily Hindu and Pakistan is Muslim, and Kashmir, which is predominantly Muslim, is part of Hindu India. The UN was involved in the Kashmir conflict from 1948 to 1965 after India reported to the Security Council on January 1, 1948 under Article 35 (chapter VI) Pakistan’s involvement in aiding tribal invaders. Pakistan denied, however, having ever supported the tribal invaders. Several resolutions were passed by the UN during its 17-year-old active involvement in the conflict. But neither India nor Pakistan agreed to them.

The recent Kashmir conflict (1989), however, is not the same. It’s one of the most dangerous conflicts of the world having now killed over 70,000 people in Kashmir. The U.N mediation to resolve the Kashmir conflict is a necessity for the best interests of people in Kashmir, India, and Pakistan. Here’s why!

Background: Kashmir Conflict

The Kashmir conflict is principally a regional conflict dating back to 1947 when two states of Hindustan—India and Pakistan– were divided into two countries. Before 1947, Hindustan was ruled by Great Britain and Kashmir was one among 584 princely states not directly ruled by British Empire. Following Independence, the Hindu leader of the Muslim-majority Kashmir Hari Singh opted to accede to India as armed invaders from Pakistan were advancing on the Kashmir capital, Srinagar. According to the accession agreement, autonomy was promised to the people of Kashmir upon defeating the Pakistani invaders, autonomy to decide their future course of action i.e. whether to be part of India or Pakistan. This right to self-determination, has, however, always been bypassed by the Indian government. India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir since 1947. The two countries negotiated a Line of Control in 1971 dividing Indian and Pakistani Kashmir, but that border has always been restive.

The recent conflict— a secessionist movement— in Kashmir began in 1989 and has now killed over 70,000 Kashmiri Muslims, mostly civilians. The main demand of people in Kashmir is sovereignty and freedom (azadi) from India. This new wave of violence turned religious when minority Kashmiri Hindus left Kashmir in 1990. Kashmiri militants claim that Kashmiri Hindus left the state because it was the conspiracy of the Indian government so that it could without a hitch kill all Kashmiri Muslims in Kashmir. Kashmiri Hindus, on the other hand, claim that Kashmiri militants killed many of them, and they threatened them to try to move them out.

Similar Conflicts

Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995) was an ethnic conflict over the partition of Bosnia. Ethnic Muslim Croats and Bosnians wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. But most of the Serbs opposed this desire for independence. The war claimed around 100,000-110,000 lives.

In 1992, the UN mediated the conflict and established the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) to facilitate peacemaking in the region. To extend its mandate, it passed many resolutions over time such as more UN military involvement and allowing NATO air strikes against insurgent Bosnian Serbs. In October 1995, all parties agreed to a ceasefire that resulted in Dayton Peace Accords (DPA) in December, 1995.

Iran-Iraq (1980-1988) war lasted eight years over several border disputes, the most important being the Shatt al-Arab, the major waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Iranian ports of Khorramshahr and Abadan, and the Iraqi port of Basra. The war killed about one million people.

The eight-year old war between Iraqi Arabs and Iranian Persians came to an end in the summer of 1988 after UN resolution 598 was accepted by both the countries. According to the resolution, the UN supervised ceasefire was established and UN Iran-Iraq Observer Group (UNIMOG) created by the security General monitored the ceasefire. The resolution also included prisoner exchanges and pulling out of forces to internationally recognized boundaries.

Appropriateness of UN mediation in Kashmir conflict

The Kashmir conflict has essentially much in common with Iran-Iraq and Bosnian conflicts in regional and religious contexts, and it calls for the UN’s involvement in effectively resolving the issue. The continued UN involvement after 1965 would have prevented 1989 freedom movement in Kashmir. Now the unmarked graves issue may have repercussions for another bloodier war in Kashmir especially after the commission report confirmed the burial of 574 civilians in those graves.

Weaknesses and Strengths of UN Mediation

Weaknesses: The UN mediation is arbitrary. Decisions are based on agreement of conflicting parties. In other words, the problem of mediation is to get the conflicting parties to agree. In Kashmir, the UN resolution 47 on April 21, 1948 called for holding a UN-supervised plebiscite in the Valley among other things, but both India and Pakistan rejected it. India feared that Kashmiris might vote for Pakistan because of their same religious identity. Pakistan refused the resolution for fears that referendum might be rigged because the Prime Minister of then still autonomous Jammu & Kashmir– Sheikh Abdullah was an Indian ally.

Strengths: Arbitration insures a less formal setting to the mediation process. Unlike legal process, mediation compels the conflicting parties to change and see the common ground that can resolve the conflict. The UN is the most powerful international organization with 192 member countries from across the world. It can extend its mandate by passing several resolutions. For example in Bosnia & Herzegovina war, the UN passed several resolutions to extend its mandate that enabled UNPROFOR (United Nations Protection Force—to take control of Sarajevo airport in 1992 for humanitarian relief following fighting between Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs over Bosnia’s referendum a month before.

The UN can also seek help from its member states, if necessary, to bring an end to the conflict. For example in 1995, UK and France—the two member states of the UN—supported NATO operations after the Sarajevo Markale market massacre and arrest of UNPROFOR forces by Bosnian Serbs.

Weaknesses and Strengths of war

Weaknesses: War results in the deaths of thousands of innocent people as well as widespread destruction of material and financial resources. Iran-Iraq war claimed lives of some five-hundred thousand to one million people and the financial cost was estimated at a minimum of $200 billion.

Strengths: War brings an end to the vexed conflict. People are willing to give in on ideological stances in order for the violence to stop because losses incurred in war are huge. In other words, war has the ability to bring about conclusion to the conflict because of casualties and costs. The winning country controls everything. There may be little negotiation. .

Weaknesses and Strengths of international law

Weaknesses: If a country is strong enough that it doesn’t care about the international law, then it doesn’t abide by the law. Example: When the US invaded Iraq the second time, it was against the UN mandate but the country could get away with it because of its superpower status.

Strengths: International law constricts countries (member states) in organizations such as the UN to abide by this law. This gives leverage to the UN because belligerents can be tried in the international criminal court. (ICC). Example: In Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict, the UN passed resolution 827 in May 1993 to create International Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to prosecute people responsible for serious violations of international Humanitarian law .

Weaknesses and Strengths of avoidance

Weaknesses: Avoidance is simply not addressing the problem as if it doesn’t exist. In some cases, the conflict may resolve itself with time or otherwise it may become a major problem. In case of Kashmir, avoidance is ignoring the reality of unmarked graves, human rights violations and thousands of people being killed.

Strengths: If conditions aren’t too violent or too extreme, time and changes in politics or world economy will resolve the problem peacefully without mediation, revolution, or military conflict. Any time a conflict is and will likely to continue to be violence-free, avoidance of violence might be one of the best solutions.

The Kashmir conflict is obviously too violent for the avoidance strategy. It is a major regional and religious conflict that has plagued not only people in Kashmir but also the two nuclear nations of India and Pakistan. India may be looking at the Kashmir conflict through the “strength of war” lens and assuming that Kashmiri people will eventually grow tired and give up violence. Pakistan, on the other hand, may be looking at the Kashmir conflict in the context of India’s weakness and hoping that its rival nation would finally leave Kashmir in favor of preserving its good reputation in the world as one of the fastest growing economies globally. But these assumptions are not valid and the continued large-scale violence in Kashmir proves it. The only resolution strategy for the Kashmir conflict is to develop an agreement that is mutually beneficial and will provide long lasting benefits to the people of Kashmir and India and Pakistan. This agreement should also help strengthen the ability of Kashmir as well as India and Pakistan to work together in the future. UN mediation is appropriate for the Kashmir conflict because neutrality is crucial to the UN’s record in peacemaking and peacekeeping and its final decisions are future-oriented and based on objective criteria. The UN recently expanded its peacemaking operations in regional conflicts. These services include provision of mediation services, good offices, and other forms of intermediary assistance; provision of fact-finding and observation commissions and the provision of humanitarian aid and assistance. India and Pakistan have not been able to resolve the Kashmir conflict since 1989. More importantly the conflict transformation since 1989 and its effects on the people of Kashmir and India and Pakistan—the two major nuclear powers— threaten the security of the whole world. In other words, this conflict makes it a world security problem— not just Kashmir and India-Pakistan conflict— and therefore makes it a prime candidate for UN mediation. UN mediation will enable the conflicting parties to work toward a sustainable agreement and bring about positive change in Kashmir as well as India-Pakistan and the rest of the world.