Introduction

Article 370 of the Indian constitution was read down in parliament two years ago, on August

5, 2019. It has been a state of special status since 1947 when Jammu and Kashmir was

partitioned. The Indian government imposed a lockdown with immediate effect in

anticipation of a protest by Kashmiris on August 5, 2019. India’s illegal annexation of

Kashmir was seen by many Kashmiris as the beginning of a new nightmare. However, for

India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi it was the beginning of a new dawn.

With Article 370 and Article 35A, the disputed territory was given a special legal status and a

separate set of laws were established to govern the Kashmiri people. Current residents of

Jammu and Kashmir were restricted in their citizenship and in their ownership of property.

Previously, Indian citizens from other states were prohibited from purchasing land or

property in Jammu and Kashmir. Since India reinstated Article 370 after revoking it, its

illegal annexation agenda and new rules have changed.

The Indian government supported the move, concluding that it would bring peace to

Kashmir. Instead, there has been a rise in daily hostilities, an economic collapse, and a loss of

livelihoods for the Kashmiri people. India has introduced new laws, such as the Public Safety

Act and the Prevention Act, and changed residency rules, such as the Jammu and Kashmir

Grant of Domicile Certificate, to shift the demographics of the Muslim-majority region.

According to locals who seek independence from India or unification with Pakistan, India has

changed residency rules and introduced new laws to shift the demographics of the Muslim-

majority region.
The proposed research will deal with the study of United Nations’ actions in the illegal

annexation of Kashmir, since the first Kashmir dispute. In it, the report will examine the

vulnerability and suffering of Kashmiris in the face of nearly 50 years of conflict. In addition,

it will also examine the understanding of the United Nations' actions in managing the

conflict.

Indian forces have killed more than 10,000 Kashmiris since 1989. Official statistics show that

nearly 7,200 deaths in Indian custody out of these. The Indian occupation forces have also

widowed over 23,000 women, orphaned more than 111,000 children, and sexually abused

more than 11,000 women. Additionally, thousands of unmarked graves containing thousands

of bodies have been discovered. In Kashmir, pellet rounds have deliberately injured more

than 10,000 youth. Jammu and Kashmir has become one of the most militarised zones in the

world since around 200,000 additional troops were stationed there last year, bringing the total

to 700,000.

Unfortunately, the aggressive act of the Indian military is systematically increasing,

emboldened by international silence regarding its illegal annexation agenda. It requires urgent

international attention to address the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, but a significant part

of the world remains silent. And tensions between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed

neighbours that have fought two wars over Kashmir, have not subsided. Hundreds of

thousands of people could die in a war, and millions of people would suffer as a result.

Experts are already calculating how many people could die and how many would suffer in

the aftermath.
Based on the hypothesis below, I propose the following research questions:

1. Were there strong guarantors among the Indian occupation to secure freedom from

aggression in the future?

2. What should be done to stop India's brutality in occupied Kashmir?

3. What are the chances that the United Nations will have its own will, regardless of the

interests of its members and parties?

This proposed research will analyse the proposals and actions of the United Nations to

resolve the dispute between India and Pakistan over the annexation of Kashmir in order to

prove the following statement:

Hypothesis 1:

Indian occupation of Kashmir has stifled the legitimate aspirations of Kashmiri people to

determine their own future for the past two years without Article 370.

Hypothesis 2:

A United Nations intervention was exemplified by its belief that it could not in the

circumstances resolve the issues, partly because the parties to the Kashmir dispute had

opposing interests.

Hypothesis 3:

Whatever the United Nations has done or not done, it has been motivated by the objective of

maintaining peace between India and Pakistan to settle the dispute through direct negotiation

between them.
This paper will analyse the main reasons for the annexation of Kashmir, the events that led to

the Kashmir dispute between two sovereign states, what actions the UN took and why, and

finally how we can relate these findings to the hypothesis of this proposal.

Literature Review

Kashmir Dispute

Pakistani-Indian relations can only be fully understood by understanding the underlying,

deep-seated issues of ethnic, racial, and religious tensions on the subcontinent, which

contribute to understanding the Kashmir dispute (Kriesberg and Dayton, 1998). From the

subcontinent's early history and societal milieu we can deduce the complex nature of the

question. Wallensteen (2002) argues that conflict can be viewed as cyclical, thus allowing it

to be interpreted in multiple dimensions. His analysis focuses on every aspect of the conflict,

gaining relevance from episodes of violence, collective resistance, and ongoing protests such

as those occurring in Kashmir.

It has been more than 73 years since the First Indo-Pakistan War and United Nations

Resolution 47 over Jammu and Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan agreed in this resolution

that their military forces should withdraw and a plebiscite be conducted. This is so that the

people of Kashmir could choose which state to join. Historically, Indians and Pakistanis have

lived together on the subcontinent for over a thousand years. However, this was neither the

result of mutual consent nor the result of shared heritage. Despite these differences, the

Hindus and Muslims have distinct cultures and histories. Since much of the study of conflict

in Kashmir also has religious overtones, I thought it relevant to analyse the role religion plays

in society. Muhammad Ali Jinnah said "Hinduism and Islam ... are not just two religions;
they are two civilizations." Both have their own histories which both are proud of, and both

peoples have their own heroes. A major theme of Weber's work on sociology of religion

(1940) is the important role religion has played in social change. Mandelbaum's book 'Society

in India' (1970) had similar connotations as this work.

The genesis and history of the vexatious issue is accurately portrayed in Victoria Schofield's

Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War, which incorporates historical

research as well as fieldwork in India, Pakistan, and the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

According to the author, foreign and military policy is shaped by the dispute over Kashmir.

Moreover, she discusses how the nuclear threat might affect Kashmiris, and what might be

done about it. Aside from the divisions of geography and ethnicity, she emphasises that the

divisions in the subject go beyond those of opinions and purposes. The text could therefore be

insightful for a scholar of Kashmir's history and its influence on the subcontinent for the past

seven decades.

It is imperative to analyse the narrative from a Pakistani perspective as well, since Pakistan is

an integral part of such a study. A good example of this is exploring the occupied territory of

Pakistan. As a result, Christopher Snedden's 'Kashmir: The Unwritten History' offers an

interesting look into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) from a unique perspective. Having

fairly integrated Pakistan's political system, administration, and economy with PoK, the

majority of his work focuses on its relationship with Pakistan. In challenging extant

narratives, his work still remains highly controversial, but it may provide some missing

pieces to understanding what happened in Pakistani Kashmir, an area that is still shrouded in

secrecy.
In order to relate this literature back to the hypothesis, this proposed research will include a

case example below of an act of the Indian occupation to the people of Kashmir.

CASE 1:

A violent crackdown by Indian security forces on protesting Kashmiris ensued effectively

cutting off Kashmir from the world on August, 2019. However, the question of interest is:

what has been the human cost of India’s annexation? The “Dead Eyes Revolt” was the largest

known mass blinding of protestors ever. Indian security forces fired rubber coated metal

pellets into protestors. The victims, some as young as seven years old were left blinded in

what became known as the “Dead Eyes Revolt.” The protestors were inspired by Burhan

Wani, a 22 year old Kashmiri who had crossed over to the side of the separatists and was

killed in an ambush by Indian security forces.

According to India, Burhan Wani was a terrorist and those protesting his killing were terrorist

sympathizers. An indigenous revolt by former British Second World War veterans sough to

end the Hindu rule of the Muslim majority princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Facing

defeat from an indigenous uprising Hari Singh opted for India. It led to the first war between

India and Pakistan war, what was also known as the First Kashmir War, dividing the Kashmir

region along what would become the line of control. Soon after retaking the alley India’s then

Prime Minister agreed to a special status for Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian

Constitution that would give it autonomy over everything except defence, foreign affairs and

communication.
Ironically, India soon imprisoned Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Abdullah, with whom it had

formalized the deal. India launched a brutal military lockdown in 1989 after an armed revolt

broke out. 80,000 Kashmiris have been killed since and tens of thousands of Kashmiri Hindu

pundits have also been forced into exile. New Delhi accuses Islamabad of giving separatists

money and weapons to carry out targeted attacks against Indian forces. The two countries

have fought at least two wars and many other smaller conflicts over Kashmir.

In 2019, a suicide bomber attacked a convoy of Indian forces, killing 40 Indian troops. The

attack was carried out by Kashmiri separatists but an outlawed group based in Pakistan

accepted responsibility for the attack. Islamabad though, says it was not involved. India

retaliated by sending fighter jets across the line of control to attack suspected terrorist camps

in Pakistan. In turn Pakistan, shot down an Indian fighter jet and captures its pilot,

Abhinandan. Pakistan released him several days later forcing India to back down.

India’s illegal annexation of Kashmir is seen by many Kashmiris as the beginning of a new

nightmare, but for India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it is the beginning of a new dawn.

For India’s ruling party, the Hindu nationalist BJP and its mothership are assessed enforcing

demographic changes in Kashmir has been a cause celebre. Thousands of people have been

rounded up and put in prison. Two former chief ministers were arbitrarily detained after India

revoked Kashmir’s special status. Internet restrictions lasted for six months with high speed

mobile internet gagged. Settlers from elsewhere in India are being encouraged to move to

Kashmir to force what locals say is a demographic change. India said revoking Kashmir’s

special status will finally help it integrate and bring more opportunities for the people. It will
also help ease what New Delhi terms Pakistan inspired separatist tendencies. However, the

other side, the Kashmiri side, told a different story. Kashmiris said they are witnesses to and

victims of an occurring force. But, unlike the Palestinians, Kashmiris said their voices are

rarely heard.

Research Questions and Methodology

As for my methodology, I will conduct a critical analysis of the literature in this field. As

well as India's complaint to the Security Council, the Kashmir problem was not caused by the

"invasion" of Kashmir. The roots of its existence go way back to the history of the Indian

subcontinent, beginning with the partition and the nature of its people. My analysis will focus

on Security Council Documents on the Kashmir dispute, literature dealing with UN efforts to

resolve the conflict, Indian and Pakistani official documents, and the steps taken by the UN to

resolve the Indian illegal annexation of Kashmir. As well as examining leading journals, I

will study articles related to the issue.

Prior to the annexation of Kashmir, this proposal will compare the military power of India

and Pakistan, illustrating the power imbalance at that time. A comparative and analytical

study will be conducted on the war-useful resources and industries of India and Pakistan.

This is because it is imperative to look at both countries' ability to sustain themselves.

There will be an illustration of India's military potential outstripping Pakistan's. The proposal

will analyze factors such as population, energy production, heavy industry, and defence
production. These provide a quantitative assessment of the strength that can be mobilized by

both countries.

Additionally, the disruptions caused by the military imbalance in South Asia as well as

India's defiant move in regaining control of Kashmir. Among the topics that will be discussed

will be India's cost-gain calculations and its "attempt" toward building a secure nation, in the

face of a tense relationship between Pakistan and India.

The paper will also examine India's psychological commitment to power and that it had vital

interests at stake in the development of its military potential. I will use this as a means of

explaining the causes of forceful occupation and war. The purpose of this study is to examine

whether war motivation and illegal annexation occurred using three indicators from Klaus

Knorr's discussion on war potential. There are three factors to consider:

(a) Those who want war express themselves in the political process.

(b) In addition, the government may be able to motivate citizens to take action by

adopting an adroit policy of information. This policy facilitates their comprehension

of reality and their commitment to waging war.

(c) It will restrict the individual's choice and guide his response as a result of the way

government leaders portray the war effort.

(d) Nations will be motivated to be aggressors if they can force a decision before their

enemies have mobilized their war potential. Or, they can at least cripple their enemies'

war potential from the beginning.

led to the annexation of Kashmir. There is a strong emphasis throughout the literature on

India and Pakistan's political instability as causes of the war. A general approach typified by

David Boyley and Robert Laporte is the approach most writers choose.

The Indian reaction to the refugee crisis was premature and unjustified, according to Boyley.

According to him, India could have accomplished the same objective (accession of Kashmir)

more peacefully. He argues that at a time of intense political instability in India, the war was

a major political accomplishment for India's leaders. One of his most important contributions

is a short account of the strategy that India employed during the annexation.

The political instability in Pakistan before the war is the focus of Robert Laporte's case study.

According to him, the war began due to the response of the people of East Pakistan. As a

result of the tragic dismemberment of Pakistan and the accession of Kashmir to India, he

holds Pakistani government officials responsible. As a result of war, he concludes by

analysing the increased instabilities in the region.

It is a realist approach to the problem due to the fact that this study uses a power approach.

All other articles ignore this issue, or at best only mention it implicitly. Analysing the foreign

policy of a nation can be made easier with an understanding of general political concepts. It

will first clarify two of the most crucial factors determining a nation's foreign policy - the

capability of engaging in war and the determination to fight. Secondly, this study develops a

model for comparing countries' foreign policies, which is influenced by Klaus Knorr's work.

Finally, this study will show a significant correlation between the factors which influence a
nation's decision to go to war and the factors that influence the decision to oppose it. Besides

internal political instability, historical grievances, and the strength of a nation's military and

psychological motivation, war behaviour can also be determined by the nature of border

disputes and the power of the military.

In completing this research proposal, I intend to consult sources including political science

journals, military journals, the technical journals and reports of the United Nations, and

numerous books pertaining to the role the United Nations played in annexing Kashmir. These

studies will be combined and integrated in a final report.