Talk:Kashmir conflict: Difference between revisions

New edits

@Fenir77: I see the following problems with your edits of today:

• Updating the census data is fine, but you need to add the sources for the new data.
• You have made several wording changes to the existing content, without providing reliable sources, e.g., the replacement of "local autonomy" with a reference to the UN resolution.
• Your reference to the Sumantra Bose also involves a high degree of WP:SYNTHESIS.
• The 2016 Kashmir unrest should be covered in its subsection, not in the lead. The section should again be a summary of the full article. Please add your new material to the main article and make sure that your additions here summarise the main article in a fair way.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

[Duplicated from the archive - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)]

I'm imposing the following restrictions on this article and any other articles connected with the India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir:

• An immediate 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
• A revert without discussion restriction. Any revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
• A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.
• An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.
• Pinging @Bishonen, EdJohnston, SpacemanSpiff, Doug Weller, and Floquenbeam: to take a look and see if anyone needs to be cautioned/blocked right now and to help keep an eye on things.

--regentspark (comment) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Simla Agreement

@Mar4d: please note that there are editing restrictions for this page and all other Kashmir conflict pages. Even though your edit [1] isn't technically a "revert," it is partly deleting or altering my content. So it would be advisable to explain the issues on the talk page. Coming to the changes you have made:

• You deleted the sentence India emerged as a clear regional power in South Asia. This is witnessed by ample reliable sources [2]. I am adding one and reinstating it.
• You deleted the phrasing where India pushed for peace in South Asia. This was actually in Dixit, p.228, even though it wasn't stated explicitly. You can also see Ganguly, p.62 that I am adding now. (Indira Gandhi overrode all her advisers to make a major concession in the interest of achieving peace. In India, she is accused of having gone "soft." So you can't take this away.)
• You removed my phrasing However Pakistan reinterpreted the wording (of the Simla Agreement). This was obvious to me when I wrote it, but now that you have contested it, I have had to think about it.

• I haven't found anybody that agrees with Pakistan's interpretation, neither any governments nor any reliable sources.
• Pakistan's interpretation is a stretch, to claim that "UN charter" means UN resolutions or UN mediation.
• The cited source (Lavoy, actually Cheema) says "as a consequence" in trying to explain it, which suggests a reinterpretation.

So I am reinstating my wording. If you bring in any reliable sources that agree with Pakistan's interpretation, we can revisit the issue.

• Your wording says differences later arose. The sources say they arose pretty much immediately.
• You deleted the sentence Pakistan claims that it could still approach the UN. This is directly supporte by evidence given in Roberts & Welsh.
• You deleted The United States and most Western governments agree with India's interpretation. Can't see why. There have been a dozen or more US government announcements that say that they support bilateral negotiations in line with the Simla Agreement.

Incidentally, so that we are on the same page, please note that WP:NPOV means all the views in reliable sources proportionately. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Noting the editing restrictions, I don't think you should have reverted immediately. Especially as the edits were an improvement of the text, as I found a few source inconsistencies in the section you wrote.

• The text "India pushed for peace in South Asia" or "emerged as a clear regional power in South Asia" seems vague and out of context; it doesn't establish for the reader what significance, if any, that immediately has on the Kashmir conflict, or if Pakistan took any counter-measures as an opposing power to balance the geopolitical equation (for example, it aggressively pursued its nuclear weapons project later). India did have leverage during the talks in the form of land it occupied and POWs but that is already mentioned. So what is the relevance? Context?
• Your text on India and Pakistan's interpretation of Simla Agreement isn't consistent with the source. Both the Lavoy and Roberts sources agree Islamabad and New Delhi disagreed over the pact's interpretation after it. Roberts: "while India perceived the agreement's focus on bilateralism as superseding the internationalization of the Kashmir dispute through Security Council resolutions, Pakistan disagreed. Pakistan mantained that the Simla Agreement noted that "the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries". Here is what Lavoy says: "India and Pakistan started to disagree on the interpretation of the Simla Agreement before its ink could dry... India asserts that it's relations with Pakistan are governed through a bilateral framework envisioned in the Simla Agreement... This argument is derived from Article 1(ii) of the Simla Agreement." Here is the full quote of Pakistan's viewpoint: "Pakistan, however points to Article 1(i) of the Simla Agreement, which states: "That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries. As a consequence [a consequence of Pakistan's viewpoint, not Pakistan's "reinterpretation" as your text claimed], "Pakistan claims that article 1(ii) does not annul the relevant UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to Kashmir." The source is rather clear Pakistan does not agree with India's dependence on Article 1(ii) and vice versa. It mentions nothing about a "reinterpretation". A reference to the UN charter governing Indo-Pakistan relations within the agreement itself (and therefore, UN's role in Kashmir), is an interpretation, not a reinterpretation. Just as India's reference to Article 1(ii) overriding Artice 1(i) is an interpretation. Please note that WP:NPOV requires accurately and fairly representing the viewpoints using what is embedded in the source. My revised text does exactly that. This has to be restored.
• I went over the text The United States and most Western governments agree with India's interpretation when I edited, and the source does not back this up at all. Lavoy says the United States and most Western governments recognize the validity of the Simla Agreement as a "main point of reference for resolving Indo-Pakistani disputes", but nothing about an agreement over India's interpretation of Article 1(ii) concerning Kashmir. So as you can see, this is misleadingly worded and WP:SYNTH. Mar4d (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I will respond in detail later this evening (UTC). We are not limited to the sources originally cited. Please look through the new sources I added [3]. And there are more that I am yet to add:

• Lal, Deepak (2006), "The Status Quo in Kashmir?" (PDF), in Richard N. Rosecrance; Arthur A. Stein (eds.), No More States?: Globalization, National Self-determination, and Terrorism, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 145–160, ISBN 978-1-4616-4037-0
• * James P. Sterba, News Analysis: Simla Accord: Behind the progress report there is possibility of a secret agreement, The New York Times, 3 July 1972.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Those edits by Kautilya seem pretty POV they need to be worded in NPOV language or an edit war in this minefield of a topic will erupt. Kautilya please be more careful when phrasing as it seems you are pushing a very pointy pov. Rotunga (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I am making subsections for the issues so that we can keep things focused. Rotunga, you haven't substantiated any of your assertions. So they fall into WP:ASPERSIONS category. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Clear regional power

I took the original edit from the Subrahmaniam source: India emerged as the clear regional power in South Asia after the 1971 war with Pakistan by demonstrating significant national will to tackle a crisis of enormous proportions.

As I mentioned earlier, similar wording is present in many reliable sources. For example, Ganguly: The outcome of the 1971 war had significant consequences for the Kashmir dispute. After the war, India emerged as the dominant power on the subcontinent, now populated by an additional state, the newly created Bangladesh. I can provide more if you need them. You call it "vague and out of context." But, obviously, the RS don't think so. The power perception had an important role in how the Simla agreement shaped up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment below. This discusses India gaining leverage from the 1971 war. But what the potential reader would question is how that context links to Kashmir. What leverage did it give in terms of the Kashmir dispute? Mar4d (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the questions, and I will think about them. But, obviously, as Wikipedians, we can't provide our own answers. We can only provide answers that are stated by reliable sources. When they are not available, I think it is fine to leave it to the readers to make their own inferences. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

India pushed for peace

Again, as I said, my original text was based on Dixit, p. 221-222. This discussion tells you that there were two strands of opinion among Indira Gandhi's advisers. One strand, call them "hawks", sought to take full advantage of the military victory. The second strand, call them "doves," wanted to structure an agreement that encouraged "peaceful relations" with India. The head of the doves, P. N. Haksar, eventually took charge of the entire Indian delegation. More details about it in P. N. Dhar's memoirs.

K. Subrahmanyam states: Mr Bhutto himself has acknowledged in his death cell testimony that at Simla in 1972 he was able to get back the occupied territory as well as the release of prisoners of war without making any significant concessions. He was right; but he could do it because Mrs Gandhi decided to be generous in order to establish durable peace in the subcontinent. "Durable peace" remained a catch phrase in Indian lexicon and it was even used in the Simla Agreement. The Simla Agreement wasn't a full establishment of durable peace, but it represented a movement towards it, a "small beginning" in Indira Gandhi's terminology. I have made no tall claims for the Simla Agreement; I make no tall claims now. All I say is that it is beginning; it is a small beginning perhaps, but it is a good beginning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This one comes across as somewhat ambiguous. When it says India wanted to establish peace, is it referring to India seeking a rapprochement with Pakistan vis-a-vis 1971? Or seeking to resolve the Kashmir dispute? If the reference to POWs and occupied land is noted, then it appears that text is not relevant to the Kashmir dispute but rather the aftermath of the 1971 war. Mar4d (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, "peace" means peace, absence of conflict. We all know what it means. Perhaps absence of conflict is a bit too ambitious, but at least absence of armed conflict. You ask in what context. The default meaning is in all contexts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I would specifically like to know the context in terms of Kashmir. As this article is on the Kashmir dispute, not overall Indo-Pakistani relations (or the 71 war), this is a valid question. If the context is not being established, I suggest we should leave it out. The following text is currently in that section: A bilateral summit was held at Simla as a follow-up to the war, where India pushed for peace in South Asia. - The sources I have read till now establish Simla Agreement was a bilateral pact to establish peace. Is this text implying the opposite, that India unilaterally sought to establish peace? Mar4d (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan's objectives in the negotiations were primarily the immediate ones: the return of captured territory and the release of POWs. It knew that it had to make concessions to obtain them. The concession India wanted was peace. Did Pakistan also want peace? The evidence is not clear. The talks basically broke down. After everybody dispersed and started packing their bags, Bhutto met Indira Gandhi in the last minute and agreed to the deal. This doesn't indicate to me that Pakistan was pushing for peace. It agreed to it extremely reluctantly. Dixit also covers quite a bit of Bhutto's actions before and after the summit. None of them indicates pushing for peace.

As for whether it should be "peace in South Asia" or "peace between India and Pakistan," I am not too fussed about it. But the summit did cover other issues like POWs and Pakistan's recognition of Bangladesh. If the Simla summit had failed the other issues would have become more intractable. Having helped Bangladesh come into being, India also had an interest in rehabilitating Bangladesh in the community of nations, enabling harmonious relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh etc. Bhutto's actions again indicate a contrary position. When he visited Bangladesh a few months later, he started promoting it as an "Islamic" country, and later issued statements like "India now has two Pakistans to deal with." [4].

Let me end with another quote:

When determining India's motivation and level of toleration vis-a-vis Pakistan we have also to look back at Simla, when India, only ten years after its humiliating defeat by China, had inflicted a crushing defeat on Pakistan over Bangladesh. Had Indira Gandhi insisted that the then President of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, openly recognise the line of control as the international border, the issue between India and Pakistan (although not necessarily for the Kashmiris) might have been resolved. ... Yet, in what appears to have been a generous gesture towards Pakistan, Gandhi chose not to force the issue, instead leaving future historians to analyse whether or not she and Bhutto had reached some secret agreement or understanding over Kashmir, which could be denied by future Pakistanis once the country had regained its strength.

If you want to make the case that Pakistan was shooting for peace, please make your case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Interpretation

It is clear that India and Pakistan disagreed on the interpretation, and frankly, it doesn't surprise anybody. But, what the Simla Agreement means is fairly clear. Steve Cohen: There, after a long and complicated negotiation, they committed their countries to a bilateral settlement of all outstanding disputes. Presumably, this included Kashmir (which was mentioned only in the last paragraph of the text). The Simla Agreement did not rule out mediation or multilateral diplomacy, if both sides agreed. (emphasis added)

Vernon Hewitt: Central to the Simla process were two convictions: that the LOC would be a 'soft' border, facilitating trade and cultural interaction and in effect reuniting the old territories of the Dogra kingdom, and that the Simla Accord removed any basis for maintaining the need to hold a referendum on the issue of the Instrument of Accession, superseding the United Nation Resolutions (38, 39, 47 and 51 respectively). Both of these convictions failed to bear fruit. (emphasis added)

Note that these statements are made independent of India or Pakistan or their "interpretations." Dennis Kux also tells us the US interpretation, which corresponds to what you call the "Indian interpretation":

Gates and Kelly also made clear that Washington no longer backed a UN plebiscite as the preferred way to solve the Kashmir dispute, but instead supported bilateral India-Pakistan tallks in accord with the 1972 Simla agreement between the two countries. US Kashmir policy thus corresponded with India's own strongly held preference for bilateral negotiations and was at odds with Pakistan's traditional desire to involve outsiders in settling the dispute. The United States had, in fact, favored this approach ever since the 1972 Simla accord. Because the Kashmir dispute remained quiet until the 1990 flare-up, the shift in the US position had attracted little attention. (emphasis added)

The Pakistani interpretation states that the reference to the "UN charter" means "UN resolutions". If you produce a reliable source that agrees with that meaning, we can discuss further. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. Please note that in reference to the Simla Agreement, the Pakistani perspective does not find a contradiction between bilateral and multilateral negotiations. This ought to be emphasised. It is naive and inaccurate to say Pakistan gave up its UN commitment vis-a-vis Simla. India wanted that, but not Pakistan. The following articulates the bilateral-multilateral approach:

Ref: In Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's words, "There is nothing wrong in the Simla Agreement to prevent Pakistan from taking the dispute to the United Nations. The Kashmir dispute has been before the United Nations for the past thirty years... The PPP Government therefore wanted to exhaust the bilateral avenues fully before returning to the United Nations (emphasis added). Bhutto's daughter, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, characterizes her father's position as follows: "There was a desire on the part of my father's government ... to pursue peaceful bilateral means to resolve the Kashmir issue. Nonetheless, Pakistan felt strongly that it could not bargain away the rights that the Kashmiri people had gained under the United Nations... In the Pakistani view, the presence of the Article 1(i) means that the Simla Agreement did not in fact commit India and Pakistan to strictly bilateral dispute resolution... In the Pakistani view, Simla was a temporary solution (emphasis added) to the Kashmir dispute, which in no way compromised Pakistan's long standing position on the issue...

Ref: Pakistan rejects this interpretation of the Simla Agreement, and contends that the agreement in no way contradicts or supersedes the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir or limits Pakistan's right to avail itself of various international mechanisms to resolve disputes - for example through appeal to the United Nations under the UN Charter and UN resolutions. In this context references to self-determination or to UN resolutions indicate support for Pakistan... (emphasis on Kashmir resolutions passed under the UN charter) -- Mar4d (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what we are talking about any more. I have reproduced above what the reliable sources say. Are you claiming that Pakistan government is a reliable source? If so, I say no, and you can take it to WP:RSN.

Assuming that you are not saying that (and finding it hard to imagine how an experienced editor like you would say such a thing), if there is evidence that Bhutto had "exhausted bilateral means", please present it and we can add it in. That doesn't change what the Simla Agreement means, but it would at least provide some support to his position.

Let me also point you to a recent commentary in a Pakistani newspaper that says that Pakistanis haven't read the Simla Agreement. They probably have no idea what is in it. (I am sure the Bhuttos did of course. But politicians say hundreds of things. What they really mean and what they are saying out of expediency, nobody knows.)

Speaking "off the record" (in the interest of peace on Wikipedia) I would say that Pakistan is entirely within its rights to raise the "self-determination" for Kashmir, as per the UN charter, bilaterally, or in the presence of third parties agreed by mutual consent. It can do so, and it needs to be prepared for India to raise its own issues as per the UN charter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will respond soon. Meanwhile, here is another explanation of the Pakistani interpretation: India has also been saying that with the passage of time the UN resolutions on Kashmir have lost their relevance. Legally and politically, this claim is not correct. No UN Security Council resolution can lose its relevance unless the council adopts another resolution calling for its supercession for whatever reasons. This has been confirmed by the UN secretary general in a statement on 6 January 1994... Pakistan's view is that, coming as it did after a war, the Simla Agreement merely emphasized the two countries' commitment top opt for peaceful means - bilateral negotiations, for one - instead of resorting to force of arms. It did not expressly exclude other means, such as the UN. On the contrary, the agreement specifically provides that "the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries"

It is important to note that the Simla Agreement was signed in 1972. The violence and human rights issues in Kashmir didn't escalate until the 1980s/early 1990s. This undoubtedly played a significant role in appeals for UN negotiations or intervention. Also, what complicates the issue is the current status quo. Pakistan claims the entire territory as disputed pending a final resolution, which is in line with both the bilateral and multilateral viewpoint. India, in contrast, has sought to internalise Kashmir and lays claim on all of it as an integral part, therefore denying that it is a disputed territory. Will expand on this further -- Mar4d (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is an explanation of the Pakistani interpretation, as you have correctly described. It is not an independent viewpoint. Moreover, even this article is not attempting to establish an equation between the "UN charter" (the wording in the agreement) and "UN resolutions" (claimed). Whether the UN resolutions continue to have relevance or not is a separate issue. It is not an issue of interpretation of the wording in the agreement. The fact that Pakistan claims this is already in my text. The UN mediation section already explains why the UN resolutions made no headway in solving the dispute. Nothing in that has changed. So, there is no need to rehash it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I would suggest we dont use too many Indian authors as they are inherently pov when it comes to this conflict. Converselt If that is not possible we could use Pakistani sources and give balance to the view points. Rotunga (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rotunga: I am afraid you are toying with the ethnicity claim restriction placed by RegentsPark above. More generally, sources are decided based on their reliability, not nationality. See WP:RS. If you think sources are WP:BIASED, you need to bring other sources that contradict them. Here is a "Pakistani" scholar that echoes pretty much everything I have said above:

Bhutto not only espoused the military’s hawkish views on India but also lent them a populist touch that resonated well with his constituents in Punjab. ... Bhutto’s meeting with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi at Simla in July 1972, the first since the Indo-Pakistan War the previous year, was a potential opening for placing relations between the two countries on a new footing. Wary of popular opinion in Punjab, Bhutto used the opportunity primarily to negotiate the return of the prisoners of war and Pakistani territory occupied by India. Both sides agreed to honor the cease-fire line in Kashmir, which was renamed the Line of Control (LOC). There was no softening of the official rhetoric against India, far less a major rethinking of the state’s security imperatives after the dramatic shift in the subcontinental balance of power stemming from the loss of Pakistan’s eastern wing. (emphasis added)

Hawkish, failed to use the opening, no softening of the rhetoric. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055430/https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14953.htm to https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14953.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924002003/https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/1215_terrorism_riedel.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/1215_terrorism_riedel.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140611053322/https://fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/ to https://fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit restrictions in effect from September 2016

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016#India-Pakistan

• A 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.

  A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.

  A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.

  An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.

  --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)