Report on the Moscow state institute of international relations (MGIMO-UNIVERSITY), The ministry of foreign affairs of Russia

 Chapter 1

Introduction of Moscow state institute of international relations (MGIMO-UNIVERSITY), The ministry of foreign affairs of Russia

The 70 years of diverse inter-state and internal conflicts in South Asia generates various way of settling them. From one side the governments of both states are able to find solutions for some disputes issues and prevent the escalating of local conflict into the regional one. And from another side the past unresolved mutual claims of states to each other cannot lead to a peaceful dialogue between states however it can transform the South Asian region into one of the hottest spots on the world map. The high level of conflict between states intensifies the threat in a region as a whole by taking into account the presence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan which shows a sign that it needs a reign interaction as well as the regional and international cooperation involvement to solve the conflict. At the same time reducing the conflict potential is a condition for the state to stay stable politically, which determines the economic growth of a state as well as their own security.

Significance of the chosen problem for Contemporary IR

In this it has been investigated that the effect of entity leaders could have on international relations. As well as it mainly focuses on the psychological characteristics of political leaders impact political procedures and findings, mainly in foreign policies. In this it can also be said that significance of leaders in international relations and the pathways in which the leader experiences, personalities and beliefs has been affected through their conduct in the foreign policy and some of the other behaviors which is essential in the international politics.  As well as in the recent times it has been observed that information, technology and academic flexibility have been attained importance in international relations as in the form of power in the universal information society which has been based on the low on territory, natural resources and military power mainly.

The problems of systematizing South Asia’s conflict potential as well as finding different ways to address them requires in-depth research and analysis. It should be taken into consideration that the current differences between countries of the region are directly related to the partition of the continent in 1947 and the formation of the newly independent state on the world map. By mentioning the partition of a State into 2 it is important to underline the historical fact speeches which divided the region. Mahandas Karamchad Ghandi with his “Quit India” speech and from the Muslim League leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah “It is a high time that the British Government applied their mind definitely to the division of India, the establishment of Pakistan and Hindustan (India) which means freedom for both” Jinnah said in 1945.  In addition to all Pakistan and India got their freedom from 200 years of British ruling. However, their interstate conflict between themselves has not been solved completely since then this interstate conflict represented a timebomb for the next generations. The conflict on a territory of Jammu and Kashmir between India and Pakistan is one of the longest unresolved conflicts in South Asia.

Maharaja ( The Prince) of the Principality of Jammu and Kashmir Hari Singh decided to join India after the declaration of independence in 1947, which exasperated the situation not only on the territory of Maharaja itself,  but also on the borders between new sovereign states of India and Pakistan. Belokrenistky V.Y mentions that the main problem remained the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. In the case of absence of the special status and if Britain renounced its ownership of India by setting territorial borders, this could have more likely led the Principality to Pakistan since the vast majority of the population in Jammu and Kashmir were Muslims even tho the Prince believed in Hinduism. As a result by the end of November 1947, the territory of Principality had disintegrated due to armed tribesmen from Pakistan which forced the Maharaja to seek military assistance from India in order to defend his land. However, in return for military assistance, he handed over the land to New Delhi. New Delhi also began to control the Jammu region and eastern Ladakh and on the other hand, Pakistani troops were able to occupy most of the Punch region where the main population was Muslim. Moreover, the government “Azad Kashmir” (Free Kashmir) was formed on a new land of Pakistan. Subsequently, in the Gilgit region who’s population had mutinied against the Hindu ruler by forming into groups, declared that they will join Pakistan.

Conclusion of Moscow state institute of international relations (MGIMO-UNIVERSITY), The ministry of foreign affairs of Russia

In this it has been concluded that the 70 years of diverse inter-state and internal conflicts in South Asia generates various way of settling them. From one side the governments of both states are able to find solutions for some disputes issues and prevent the escalating of local conflict into the regional one. The problems of systematizing South Asia’s conflict potential as well as finding different ways to address them requires in-depth research and analysis.

Chapter Two

Literature Review of Moscow state institute of international relations (MGIMO-UNIVERSITY), The ministry of foreign affairs of Russia

One of the first attempts to resolve the conflict was made by the Indian leader Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in order to avoid open conflict with Pakistan, India lodged a complaint against Pakistan for aggression against India through the invasion of Kashmir to United Nations invoking article 35 of UN Charter. This means that India internationalized the conflict in order to decide the future of Kashmir by holding a referendum. However, the international community efforts to hold a referendum failed and the outbreak of the Indo-Pakistani war after getting independence was a forceful attempt to solve the crisis.

On January 1, 1949, an agreement between New Delhi and Islamabad was taken into consideration to the ceasefire. However, on the 27th of July 1949, the Karachi agreement was signed by both states to a ceasefire in the region of Kashmir under the supervision of Truce Subcommittee of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP). In which India gained back the area of principality where the Muslims and Hindus lived due to which Kashmir fell under the jurisdiction of New Delhi. The emergence of the new state of Jammu and Kashmir at the borders with Pakistan and China as well as it is under the special status of the Indian constitution “Article 370” led to further escalation of the conflict. After Jammu and Kashmir joining India and taking a special status in the constitution of Indian left no hopes to Pakistan for revenge by recognizing the fact that they did not have the required resources politically and economically to withstand the Indian army if they attacked. Due to the thought of threat that India could bring to Pakistan. The government of Pakistan started to move closer to Washington in order to have an alliance in case if India attacked. Subsequently, it led Pakistan to sign a mutual defense treaty in 1954 with the United States, which allowed Pakistan to begin the process of rearming the army and substantially increase its strength. at the same time, India focused on enhancing the industries and manufacturies.

The forceful method of bringing back the Kashmir crisis became relevant again during the second Indo-Pakistani war in 1965 whereas operation was called “Gibraltar”. Despite the escalation of the conflict between 2 states did not end up by total nature of war and the agreement signed in Tashkent in January 1966 with the participation of the USSR, temporarily closed the Kashmir issue among 2 states. However, in 1971, the war between Islamabad and New Delhi broke out again with further on led to new negotiations, between 2 states and in conclusion the states signed a Simla agreement in June 1972 in which India agreed to withdraw their troops from occupied Pakistan territories, Moreover, this time a new dividing line was drawn on the territory of Kashmir which in comparison with the agreement in 1949 best served the interest of New Delhi.

At this point, it will be important to mention the division of Pakistan. When India and Pakistan were split into 2 parts. One was West Pakistan and the other one was East Pakistan, during the 1970s the civil war took place between West and East Pakistan because of less ruling power was given to East Pakistan in which East Pakistan wanted to use its own resources and become independent. With the help of India’s intervention, East Pakistan was able to gain its own Independence in 1971. Since then after getting independence the country is called Bangladesh. Moreover the intervention of India increased the tension between Indian Pakistan relations.

In the 1980s was firstly characterized for India by a flash of manifestation of separatist sentiments that have also engulfed Kashmir and in 1989 uprising began in the country in which Pakistan took advantage of sending military troops of USSR which participated in the Afghan war, specifically once again triggered the round of tension not only at the level of interstate relations between Islamabad and New Delhi but also at the level of the region to add on it is important to consider that both nations had their own nuclear weapons. Testing of nuclear weapons by both states aggravated the tension between the states on the conflict, New Delhi and Islamabad defacto received the status of nuclear powers. Belokrenistky V.Y considers that in the new reality that the counter escalation of the conflict with nuclear weapons involved is possible. On the other hand the continuing Indian-Pakistan conflict may follow the way of Soviet-American confrontation.

After the following event in New York on 11 September 2001, The United States government took unprecedented measures and organized a worldwide anti-terrorist campaign, according to the experts Islamabad once again was able to transport the active members of Mukhaddist group to Indian Kashmir and beyond, which not only have destabilized the situation in India and the territories bordering with Pakistan but Pakistan also attacked the parliament building in New Delhi on 13th December 2001. In which New Delhi openly accused Islamabad of supporting terrorist groups aiding extremists and terrorist activities by directing to India. This once again increased the tension of the situation on the border when New Delhi concentrated its own half-million army there.

Further escalation of the conflict was not avoided without pressure from the international community as well as the White House which could not lead to another round, aggravation of the Indian — Pakistan relations with nuclear confrontation while there was a difficult situation in Afghanistan and preparation for the war in Iraq. So in Autumn of 2002 New Delhi started to withdraw their troops from the border, and after 6 months they entered into another round of negotiations with Pakistan. From 2001 till 2003 skirmishes between Inda and Pakistan troops on the border took place constantly and by Autumn of 2003 Islamabad proposed to the ceasefire in the region of Kashmir, during another meeting of South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 2004, the meeting of President of Pakistan Musharraf P. and Prime minister of India Vajpayee A.B took place after that complex negotiations started between the states.

After 2003, despite the fact of establishing a peaceful dialogue, interaction between states and deepening the cooperation at the highest level seemed that the partnership in a certain agreement was on track. However, a decrease in the conflict potential was not achieved, due to the fact that it is at the state level, the positions of both governments are incompatible and settling the Kashmir issue by appealing both states was not achieved. New Delhi as before considers the preservation of the status quo which consists the maintaining of the current division of Kashmir Line Of Control (LOC), which is the only acceptable condition for the further development of the dialogue but on the other hand, Islamabad is crossing the line of control and legitimization which at the end expands the conflict between states.

After the assumption of power in India on 14th May By Narendra Modi, the experts expressed different views on the relations between Pakistan and India, as well as on the settlement of the conflict especially in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. So the central question remains whether N. Modi can make out his roadmap for a peaceful dialogue and settle the crisis like leader Atul Bihari Vajpayee who led the “Bharatiya Janata” party in the late 90s and beginning of  2000s. At that time according to the University of Jammu A.B. Vajpayee was the personification of hope for the expansion of the crisis and establishment of peace not only in Indian Kashmir as well as in Pakistan Azad Kashmir. Despite the fact that A.B Vajpayee represented the party which can be called cultural nationalism with reliance on Hinduism in Kashmir where the majority of the population were Muslims, They perceived him as a peacemaker.

            Article 370 of the Indian Constitution ( which later on was abolished) gives Jammu and Kashmir special status, which includes the acquisition of his own constitution, restricting of applicating Indian Constitution and its legislation, but it leaves to the central government to decide on key issues relating to defense and law enforcement. During the A.B. Vajpayee’s rule (1999-2004) there was a peaceful dialogue with Pakistan of a series of issues including Kashmir. Whereas in talks, abolition of Article 370 was mentioned by it, being the traditional position of the Bharatiya Janata Party. However, after A.B. Vajpayee resigned from the post of Prime Minister of India in 2004. The Bharatiya Party returned again to the question of the abolition of Article 370 in Kashmir but also suggested to increase control in the Indian territories Bordering with Pakistan.  An act of terrorism that took place in Mumbai in 2008 led to the serious thoughts of the Indian government to abandon the ceasefire agreement signed with Pakistan in 1949. Since the terrorist attack led to approximately 166 deaths. The terrorist attack influenced India to put on hold the negotiations with Pakistan. If before they were actively negotiating about peace. Since the government was getting pressured by the public and also there are more than 160 million Muslims living in India.

In June, 2010, a young individual was killed, naming Tufail Ahmed Mattoo who was heading home from a tution center where he was recruited as a teacher. He was actually studying for the medical exam which was soon to happen later that year when he became a target of the Indian armed force’s brutality. The Indian forces opened a tear gas canister from a close range that led to the instant death of this young student. He was later termed as martyr since he became a victim of the brutal dispute between Pakistan and India regarding the territory of Kashmir. Among other incidents, martyr of Tufail Ahmed is not the only one. There have been a lot of incidents where numerous individuals have been killed and martyred by the armed forces of India. To this, the youth replied with throwing stones at the security forces which led to injury of 270 security officers. Such a scenario was played out throughout the summer. In 2008, numerous individuals and Kashmiris died everyday and the reason was termed as the halted enhancement in the dispute between Pakistan and India. Among these, later that year two young girls were found dead by the stream, for which the armed forces were being accused of rape of these two women. Ever since then, there has been extremely tight circumstances between the armed forces and the youth of Kashmir which replied valiantly by throwing stones at the armed forces.

In 2012, Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah completely resided the responsibility of events taking place, especially related to armed forces on the PDP for trying to halt the partial revocation of the suspicious Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) by saying that the state government should take the army on board. Omar further continued his efforts in revocation AFSPA and was of the view that the AFSPA would be revocated during this tenure. According to Omar, he was led to believe that the PDP was doing this for political reasoning, hence, he thought that there was a standard political reasoning behind it and the use of armed forces were not required within the region of Kashmir. Furthermore, considering the complexities in the political conflicts of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar further stated that the legislature described by the Indian Government could not provide a substantial solution.

This was related to the Article 370 in the Indian government’s policies which reinstated the foreign nature of the region of Kashmir. Therefore, it was led to believe that the special status for the region of Kashmir should be rethought, since it was the core motive for majority of the political parties, including BJP. The reason being that Kashmir is described to be the core center of nuclear flashpoint between the two countries; Pakistan and India. Hence, Pakistan has been describing the independence of the state of Kashmir peacefully for several years, ever since it came into being. India further claims that Pakistan has been waging a proxy war through Islamic terrorists and militants ever since 1980s which leads to a rising conflict between the two states.

Later in 2012, the Indian President Pranab Mukherjee decided to visit Kashmir since he took the office in July, 2012. This led to the rising protests by the Kashmiris against the brutality of Indian forces against local Kashmiris. During his visit, Pranab Mukherjee decided to attend a convocation of Kashmir’s oldest university situated in Srinagar. However, his visit was not very welcomed, since majority of the students of the university protested against his presence, since he was held accountable for the commandments of the armed forces of India intruding in Kashmir and killing local citizens. The acts of students were embarrassing for the president, since during the national anthem of India, no student took part in it. This displayed a specific feeling of hatred of Kashmiris towards the Indians. There had been a major source of security for the visit of the president, however, it was also viewed that his acts were completely for political purposes and the president had no intention to intervene for the betterment of the state of Kashmir.

The year of 2014 started with the initiation of votes for the state of Kashmir. The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly political decision, 2014 was held in the Indian territory of Jammu and Kashmir in five stages from 25 November – 20 December 2014. Voters chose 87 individuals for the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, which closes its six-year term on 19 January 2015. The outcomes were announced on 23 December 2014. Voter-checked paper review trail (VVPAT) alongside EVMs were utilized in 3 gathering seats out of 87 in Jammu Kashmir elections. Hardline dissenter All Parties Hurriyat Conference pioneer Syed Ali Shah Geelani had engaged individuals of Kashmir to blacklist the 2014 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly decisions totally, contending that "India has been holding races in the Valley utilizing the intensity of weapon thus such an activity isn't real." He included, "My intrigue to the young specifically is that the penances rendered by the individuals must be defended and, consequently, not the slightest bit should cast a ballot during elections." Separatists were proliferating the survey blacklist crusade through video cuts on long range interpersonal communication locales and applications, including Facebook and WhatsApp. A four-minute video cut has circulated around the web on social locales with messages of administrators of both hardline and moderate groups of Hurriyat Conference and Dukhtaran-e-Millat boss Asiya Andrabi. The video message sent through WhatsApp and shared on Facebook and Twitter requested that the individuals blacklist the coming polls. Video likewise indicated Hurriyat peddle Syed Ali Shah Geelani tending to a social event through telephone encouraging youth not to subvert the strategic 'saints'. Moderate Hurriyat administrator Mirwaiz Umar Farooq is seen modeling for the camera with the intrigue that surveys must be boycotted 'en masse'. Regardless of these calls, voter turnout in the 2014 races rather expanded by 4%, from generally 61% the past political decision to 65%.

Later, the year 2016 brought upon another catastrophe for the Kashmiris and ignited another series of dispute between the two countries. Burhan Wani, who belonged to a highly educated upper class of Kashmir, was beaten to death by the Indian armed security and police for no reason. This caught the eye of the leaders and individuals all over the world since Burhan was an active user of social media applications and was able to broadcast various videos of police brutality within the region of Kashmir. During those days, there was a rising movement, and Burhan Wani, in his last video was seen warning the police for the consequences of the resistance towards the movement, hence, this lead to the death of Wani since he was considered to be a terrorist and a threat for the peace of Indian people. Furthermore, it was observed by the police that recent new militants were considered to be recruited in the People’s Democratic Party in the elections of 2014. Various observers and individuals were of the view that all these chaos is being caused due to the absence of a considerable political intervention by the countries. This was a necessary intervention to be made since this would either lead to deaths of hundreds of Kashmiris or either a peace treaty. The killing of Burhan lead to a great wave of protest by the Kashmiris, which lead to a seriously problematic state in the region of Kashmir. This further led to a 50 day lockdown within Kashmir, which resulted in the death of hundreds of Kashmiris going out as protest against the Indian police and army.

In 2017, India launched an operation by the name of Operation All Out, which led to killing of thousands of Kashmiris. The operation was basically designed to fight against the armed militants in Kashmir, however, the actions of troops went ahead and continued killing thousands of Kashmiris, including government officials, militants and local civilians. Even before this, as discussed above, the armed forces of India have continued massacring thousands of Kashmiris, all in the name of peace within Kashmir. However, this certain operation led to a devastating situation for the people of Kashmir. Other horrific acts during this year included the events in Kulgam district in October, when an explosive was left behind by the armed forces, which led to injuries of hundreds and killing of round about 50 individuals. Militants decided to respond to this brutal acts, which led to abduction and killing of unarmed police officials, government officials and informers. However, compared to the massacre caused by the armed forces. This operation was ultimately carried out in order to resume peace within the region, however, this was not the fact at all. On the other hand, it continued to violate the civil rights which had not been yet violated by the Indian forces.

Later in 2018, Kulgam was shut down when the Indian armed forces arrested separatist leaders and various protestors. Later, Kulgam became a deathbed and a playground for the armed forces of India as they continued killing hundreds of people in Kashmir. Moreover, Kulgam became a dead city, since shops and the entire city was under lockdown, and people continued to be killed by the armed forces. Later, during these events, shelling resulted in killing various civilians, 7 to be exact.

Considering the current conditions of Kashmir, in which thousands of Kashmiris were killed due to abolition of article 370 which provided Kashmir a separate state, Indians and armed forces continued massacring thousands of people in Kashmir. Pakistan was unable to take any specific actions, including the United Nations who kept their hands to themselves rather than spreading out for help. The chain of events taking place between India and Kashmir have always been problematic, since Kashmir is filled with Muslim majority and wanting to be a part of Pakistan, resistance by the Indian government is nothing but a jealousy act and killing is their way of response. Despite the peace talks between the two countries, which failed dramatically even though different leaders of Pakistan and India tried to come to one common point, it however failed. Moreover, it was also observed that the civil rights that had been violated in Kashmir, especially during abolition of Article 370 were completely overlooked by the UN who had been designed to keep peace between the two countries.

Conclusion of Moscow state institute of international relations (MGIMO-UNIVERSITY), The ministry of foreign affairs of Russia

In the last of this chapter it has been concluded that in this the previous history of  Kashmir  issue has been discussed in which it has been mentioned that one of the first attempts to resolve the conflict was made by the Indian leader Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in order to avoid open conflict with Pakistan, India lodged a complaint against Pakistan for aggression against India through the invasion of Kashmir to United Nations invoking article 35 of UN Charter.

Chapter three

Analysis of the period of Moscow state institute of international relations (MGIMO-UNIVERSITY), The ministry of foreign affairs of Russia

There as the broad-spread observation related to Indo-Pakistan resentment has been rooted in the long time period of Muslims ruling in India. The very initial piece of Hindu-Muslim aggression had said to be held in their minds when General Muhammad Bin Qasim has been sent by Banu Umayyad occupied the Indus delta sector in Sindh (which is now the part of Pakistan) and accomplished Indian-Muslim state. General Muhammad bin Qasim the banner of Islam in the area of Sindh 712 A.D and almost ten thousand of Buddhist and Hindus has been suffered under his domination. in the main time Sindh has been raise into an Islamic outpost where Arabs were setup trading connections with middle east.

Moreover, in this it has also been mentioned that there are some of the external and internal factors have been donated to make the Kashmir problem stubborn. Whereas it has also been observed that conflict is the main factor which has been occurred in two of the parties and it has been occurred on the basis of non-negotiable aims. These parties have been observed with everyone as enemy in the terms of looking for their essential interest. Whereas when their attitudes have been become aggressive and violent because of the presenting illogicalities, as well as conflict intensifies and takes the form of violence. That’s it has been said that there is no space for cooperation on the issue of Kashmir because the issue has now become the matter of non-negotiating aims.

Conclusion of Moscow state institute of international relations (MGIMO-UNIVERSITY), The ministry of foreign affairs of Russia

In this it has been concluded that The high level of conflict between states intensifies the threat in a region as a whole by taking into account the presence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan which shows a sign that it needs a reign interaction as well as the regional and international cooperation involvement to solve the conflict. In this it has been investigated that the effect of entity leaders could have on international relations. As well as it mainly focuses on the psychological characteristics of political leaders impact political procedures and findings, mainly in foreign policies. In this it can also be said that significance of leaders in international relations and the pathways in which the leader experiences, personalities and beliefs has been affected through their conduct in the foreign policy and some of the other behaviors which is essential in the international politics. 

One of the first attempts to resolve the conflict was made by the Indian leader Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in order to avoid open conflict with Pakistan, India lodged a complaint against Pakistan for aggression against India through the invasion of Kashmir to United Nations invoking article 35 of UN Charter. despite the fact of establishing a peaceful dialogue, interaction between states and deepening the cooperation at the highest level seemed that the partnership in a certain agreement was on track. However, a decrease in the conflict potential was not achieved, due to the fact that it is at the state level, the positions of both governments are incompatible and settling the Kashmir issue by appealing both states was not achieved. The forceful method of bringing back the Kashmir crisis became relevant again during the second Indo-Pakistani war in 1965 whereas operation was called “Gibraltar”. Despite the escalation of the conflict between 2 states did not end up by total nature of war and the agreement signed in Tashkent in January 1966 with the participation of the USSR, temporarily closed the Kashmir issue among 2 states.

Hardline dissenter All Parties Hurriyat Conference pioneer Syed Ali Shah Geelani had engaged individuals of Kashmir to blacklist the 2014 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly decisions totally, contending that "India has been holding races in the Valley utilizing the intensity of weapon thus such an activity isn't real." There as the broad-spread observation related to Indo-Pakistan resentment has been rooted in the long time period of Muslims ruling in India. Moreover, in this it has also been mentioned that there are some of the external and internal factors have been donated to make the Kashmir problem stubborn. Whereas when their attitudes have been become aggressive and violent because of the presenting illogicalities, as well as conflict intensifies and takes the form of violence. That’s it has been said that there is no space for cooperation on the issue of Kashmir because the issue has now become the matter of non-negotiating aims. Whereas it has also been observed that conflict is the main factor which has been occurred in two of the parties and it has been occurred on the basis of non-negotiable aims.

Bibliography and the literature that has been studied and used during the research

1.      Das, Taraknath. “The Kashmir Issue and the United Nations.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 2, 1950, pp. 264–282. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2145524. Accessed 23 May 2020.

2.       Turner, Elen. “A Brief History of India and Pakistan.” Culture Trip, The Culture Trip, 14 Aug. 2018, theculturetrip.com/asia/india/articles/a-brief-history-of-india-and-pakistan/.

3.      Pokraka, Abby. “History of Conflict in India and Pakistan.” Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, 13 Mar. 2020, armscontrolcenter.org/history-of-conflict-in-india-and-pakistan/.

4.      Khan, M Ilyas. “Operation Gibraltar: The Pakistani Troops Who Infiltrated Kashmir to Start a Rebellion.” BBC News, BBC, 5 Sept. 2015, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34136689.

5.      BLAKEMORE, ERIN. “The Kashmir Conflict: How Did It Start?” National Geographic, 5 Aug. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/03/kashmir-conflict-how-did-it-start/.

6.      Ray, Arghya. “GRIN - A Short Introduction to the Kashmir Issue.” Publish Your Master's Thesis, Bachelor's Thesis, Essay or Term Paper, 2010, www.grin.com/document/308859.

7.      Gandhi, M. (1997). Gandhi's ‘Quit India’ speech, 1942. In A. Parel (Ed.), Gandhi: 'Hind Swaraj' and Other Writings (Cambridge Texts in Modern Politics, pp. 181-187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511558696.039

8.       Belokrenitsky , Vyachaslav. “Кашмир — Просыпающийся Вулкан? .” Кашмир - Просыпающийся Вулкан?, 2014, mgimo.ru/about/news/experts/259644/.

9.       The National Archives. “Jinnah Calls for Pakistan.” The National Archives, The National Archives, 21 May 2014, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-road-to-partition/jinnah-calls-pakistan/.

10.  Shameem, B. (2019). Operation All-Out’ in Kashmir: A Bludgeoning Military Panopticon News Click. Retrieved May 24 from https://www.newsclick.in/operation-all-out-kashmir-bludgeoning-military-panopticon

11.  BBC. (2016). Why the death of militant Burhan Wani has Kashmiris up in arms. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36762043

12.   BusinessStandard. (2014). EC announces five phased polling for Jharkhand and J-K. Business Standard. Retrieved May 24 from https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/ec-announces-five-phased-polling-for-jharkhand-and-j-k-114102500547_1.html

13.  Shah, A. (2014). Constraining consolidation: military politics and democracy in Pakistan (2007–2013). Democratization, 21(6), 1007-1033.

14.  Shah, A. (2004). Pakistan: Civil society in the service of an authoritarian state. Civil society and political change in Asia: Expanding and contracting democratic space, 357-88.

15.  Misra, A. (2005). The Problem of Kashmir and the Problem in Kashmir: Divergence Demands Convergence. Strategic Analysis, 29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2005.12049789

16.  PTI. (2012). PDP tried to scuttle my mission: Omar Abdullah on AFSPA. India Today. Retrieved May 24 from https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/pdp-omar-abdullah-afspa-jammu-and-kashmir-94547-2012-02-29

17.  Polgreen, L. (2010). A Youth’s Death in Kashmir Renews a Familiar Pattern of Crisis. New York Times. Retrieved May 24 from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/world/asia/12kashmir.html