Introduction to Kashmir issue

As we discuss this issue the people of Kashmir are suffering the worst brutality and are going through
a tough time. Once considered a paradise on earth the land of Kashmir has turned into a disputed
territory and the land has been divided into two halves being controlled by Pakistan and India
respectively. The struggle for the freedom of the people of Indian occupied Kashmir has seen hundred
thousand of sacrifices.
The annual casualty rate is extremely high. Violence Update in Kashmir 1989 to 2013 Total Killings *
70,2014 (Source: (CCS) annual report, ‘Human Rights Review-2013.’) The death toll figures vary
depending on the source, according to the Indian government 40,000 people have died in the conflict
so far whereas some sources quote these figures to be above 100,000.
How the conflict started 1947:
On 14&15 August, Pakistan and India became independent countries. The valley of Kashmir was
rules by Maharaja Hari Singh Bahadur who had to choose the country he wanted to stay with either
Pakistan or India. He had to take in account the wishes of his people in regard to choosing the country
to accede with. Kashmir was a Muslim majority state. Hari Singh initially delayed any decision in an
attempt to remain independent. Being a Muslim majority State and contiguous to Pakistan, Kashmir
was expected to join Pakistan but the suspicion arose that Hari Singh might join India without the
consent of Kashmiris.
The things started to worsen in August when Singh's forces killed the demonstrators who wanted
Kashmir to join Pakistan. Under the impression that Hari Singh might accede to India, revolt began in
the region. At that time Hari Singh appealed to India to send troops to the region. Although the Indian
Prime Minister Nehru was ready to send troops but Lord Mountbatten advised the Maharaja Hari
Singh to accede to India before India would send its troops. Considering the emergent situation on 26
October 1947 Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession to India, which also lead to wars between
Pakistan and India.
In Spring: Internal revolt began in the region of Poonch against the oppressive taxation under the
recently imposed rule by the Hari Singh. In August, Singh's forces had opened fire on demonstraters
who were in favour of joining Pakistan, the forces had burned many villages and killed innocent
people. The people of Poonch had evacuated their families, cross over to Pakistan and returned with
arms. In the last week of August, a condition of unrest and violence turned into an organized rebellion
which also resulted killings of Hindus and Sikhs and atleast 60,000 refugees fleed to Jammu by 13
September. The violence spread to Mirpur and Muzaffarabad. The Poonch rebels declared an
independent government of "Azad" Kashmir on 24 October 1947.
In September: Killings of Muslims started in Jammu by Hindus and Sikhs with active support from
the State forces. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims flee Jammu. On 12 October 1947, Pakistan sent
telegram to Kashmir detailing the barbaric killings and demanded an independent inquiry; Kashmir
did not deny the charges in the reply telegram and promised an inquiry which was never carried out.
On 22 October: Thousands of Pathan tribesmen from Pakistan were recruited by the Poonch rebels
who invaded Kashmir along with the Poonch rebels, allegedly angered by the barbaric killings against
fellow Muslims in Poonch and Jammu. The tribesmen were engaged killing. India accused Pakistan of
violating the Standstill Agreement with Kashmir by disrupting the supply links and by engaging in
aggression by sending in the tribesmen. Pakistan denied the charges.
The Maharaja of the State of Jammu and Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession (IOA) on 26
October 1947, acceding the 75% majority Muslim region to the Indian Union. According to the 1948
Indian White Paper Page no 3 India had accepted the accession but regarded it as provisional and
promised to hold a referendum, so that the people of Kashmir can have their own choice but that
referendum never happened.
1965 War
In early 1965, India and Pakistan started a series of clashes at the Rann of Kutch which ended in a
ceasefire on 30 June when the British meditated. In May 1965, Sheikh Abdullah was arrested when he
returned to India from Makkah on account of his meeting with the Chinese Prime Minister at Algiers;
Angry protests started in Kashmir Valley; His supporters initiated a satyagraha for his release and
many workers were arrested during the movement.
Pakistan took advantage of the unrest in Kashmir and sent in a few thousand-armed Pakistani persons
across the cease-fire line in August and incidents of violence increased in Kashmir; Codenamed
"Operation Gibraltar", one could see evidence of official Pakistani policy at work here; Indian and
Pakistani forces crossed the cease-fire line and later the international border in September. A full
Indo-Pakistani war started out which ended in a ceasefire on 23 September. In January 1966, Tashkent
Declaration was signed by both countries in which both of them agreed to go back to pre-1965
position, under Russian mediation.
Pakistan supported guerrilla groups in Kashmir had increased their activities after the ceasefire.
Kashmiri nationalists Amanullah Khan and Maqbool Butt formed another Front with an armed 2 wing
called the Jammu and Kashmir National Liberation Front (NLF) in Azad Kashmir, with the objective
of freeing Kashmir from Indian occupation; Butt crossed into the Indian occupied Kashmir in June
1966 and engaged in clashes with the Indian army; He was arrested and sentenced to death in 1968
but he managed to escape to Azad Kashmir with help from the local people.1

1
Rohan Lambore, 'Ethnic Conflict And The Journey To Peace: A Comparative Analysis Of Macedonia
(FYROM) And Kashmir' (Catalog.ihsn.org, 2018) <http://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/citations/85820>
accessed 23 November 2018.
ROLE OF UNITED NATIONS
The issue of Kashmir was first taken to the United Nations Security Council on January 1 1948 by
India in which they lodged a complaint against Pakistan under Article 35 (Chapter VI) of the UN
Charter, in which Pakistan was accused of aiding the tribal infiltration in the areas Kashmir but two
weeks later Pakistan denied the charges and accused India of annexing Kashmir and destabilize
Pakistan in its infancy.
The fist U.N debate on the issue of Kashmir started under the title of “Kashmir Question”
United Nations, European Union, OIC and other international institutions adopted a principled
position when the Kashmir question first came before the UN Secretary General, voting in support of
resolutions of 1948 and 1949, upholding the right of people of Kashmir to decide their future in a free
and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices. Despite many resolutions and debates the issue of
Kashmir still stands the oldest unsolved dispute in UN. The UN involvement in the Kashmir issue
lasted for almost 23 years. During these 23 years (1948-1971), the United Nations passed a number of
resolutions, which were aimed at solving of the conflict.
Between 1948 and 1971, the U.N Security Council passed 23 resolutions on Kashmir Conflict. The
UN resolutions on this issue were not self-enforceable but infact they were of recommendatory in
nature which had to be implemented by the concerned states which are India and Pakistan respectively
but due to the change in stance of the Indian Government on the issue of Kashmir and refusing to give
Kashmiris the right of referendum despite promising it in their white paper on Kashmir in 1948 lead
to the dead lock and halted the implementation of these resolutions.

(RESOLUTION 38)
After hearing the representatives from both the countries the U.N adopted its first resolution on this
issue on January 17,1948, urging India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and to ease the tension. Nine
voted in favor of this resolution while two abstained from voting and none voted against it.
(Resolution 39)
This was the second resolution adopted on January 20,1948 by the United Nations on the issue of
Kashmir. This resolution offered to assist in the peaceful solution of the Kashmir Conflict by setting
up a committee of three members in which one member will be chosen by the India while the other
will be chosen by Pakistan and the third will be chosen by the other two members of the committee.
The committee would write a joint letter advising the Council on what course of action would be best
to help further peace in the region. This resolution was also passed with nine to zero voting ratio while
two abstained from voting. force on voters by Indian forces to influence the outcome of the proposed
referendum.
Cease-fire Plan
On December 11, 1948, the UNCIP laid out a new set of proposals that elaborated on the question of
referendum in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. According to the proposals "The question of
accession to India or Pakistan was to be decided by a free and impartial referendum, which was
contingent upon having a cease-fire". Pakistan and India accepted the plan and allowed U.N to
observe the cease-fire from January 1,1949
(Resolution 80)
It was adopted on March 14,1950 after receiving the reports of the Commission for India and
Pakistan, as well as a report from McNaughton. The Council appreciated India and Pakistan for their
compliance with the ceasefire plan and for agreeing on appointment of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz as
the future referendum Administrator. The Council appointed a United Nations Representative to assist
in the preparations and implementation of the demilitarization program, to advise the Governments of
India and Pakistan as well as those of the Council, to exercise all of the power and responsibilities of
the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, to arrange for the referendum Administrator
to assume all the functions assigned to him at the appropriate stage of demilitarization and report to
the Council as he saw necessary. The Resolution requested the two governments to take all necessary
steps to ensure that the ceasefire continues and thanked the members of the United Nations
Commission for India and Pakistan as well as General McNaughton and agreed that the United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan would be terminated one month after both parties have
informed the United Nations Representative of their acceptance of the transfer of the powers and
responsibilities of the United Nations Commission to him but this plan also failed as India and
Pakistan could not agree to the plan of demilitarization.
Proposals of Sir Owen Dixon
After Mc Naughton's proposals failed, the United Nations replaced the UNCIP by a single U.N
representative Owen Dixon in 1950. Owen Dixon after meeting the officials of India and Pakistan
concluded that there was little or no hope regarding an agreement on demilitarization Kashmir. Dixon
came up with a new set of proposals, which gave an idea of holding of 'regional referendums' in the
State of Jammu & Kashmir. The proposals were submitted to the U.N Security Council in 1950 and
they suggested the following points (a) Holding a referendum in the whole State of Jammu &
Kashmir, region by region (b)Holding a referendum only in regions which were 'doubtful', the rest
would constitute those regions that were expected to vote definitely either for an accession with India
or Pakistan. The doubtful region was meant to be the Valley of Kashmir. However, India and Pakistan
could not come to an agreement on his proposals.
(Resolution 91)
It was adopted on March 30,1951, noting a report by Sir Owen Dixon which stated that the main
point of difference between Pakistan and India on preparing the state of Jammu and Kashmir for the
holding of a referendum were as follows; The procedure and extent of demilitarization, the degree of
control over the exercise of the functions of government necessary to ensure a free and fair
referendum. The Council accepted Sir Dixon’s resignation and expressed its gratitude to him for his
great ability and devotion and appointed Mr Frank Graham to carry out the job as the representative of
U.N and again stressed on the demilitarization of Kashmir and to find a way to proceed towards a
peaceful solution.
(Resolution 96)
It was adopted on November 10, 1951, after receiving a report by Mr. Frank Graham as well as
hearing his speech before the Council a basis for a program of demilitarization was noted with
approval. The Council noted with gratification the declaration by both India and Pakistan that they
would work for a peaceful settlement, continue to observe a cease-fire and they accepted the principle
that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be determined by a free and impartial
referendum under the auspices of the United Nations. The Council then instructed the UN
Representative to continue in his efforts to obtain agreement of the parties on a plan for effecting the
demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and to report back on his efforts together with his
view concerning the problems confided to him within six weeks. (Resolution 98) Being adopted on
December 23, 1952, the resolution urged the both the Governments to enter into immediate
negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order
to reach an agreement on the specific number of troops to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at
the end of the previously established period of demilitarization. The UN Representative suggested that
this number was to be between 3,000 and 6,000 on the Pakistani side and 12,000 and 18,000 on the
Indian side. The resolution then thanked Mr. Frank Graham for his efforts and requested both the
Governments to report to the Council no later than 30 days after the adoption of this resolution and
asked Mr. Graham to keep the Council informed of any progress but the efforts of Mr. Graham
returned no fruit as the dead lock remained between the two states.
(Resolution 122)
Adopted on January 24,1957, the resolution declared that the assembly proposed by the Jammu and
Kashmir National Conference could not constitute a solution to the problem as defined in United
Nations Security Council Resolution 91 which had been adopted almost six years earlier.
(Resolution 123)
It was adopted on January 24,1957, this resolution 1. Requested the President of the Security
Council, the representative of Sweden, to examine with the Governments of India and Pakistan any
proposals which, in his opinion, are likely to contribute towards the settlement of the dispute, having
regard to the previous resolutions of the Security Council and of the United Nations Commission for
India and Pakistan; to visit the sub-continent for this purpose; and to report to the Security Council not
later than 15 April 1957. 2. Invited the Governments of India and Pakistan to co-operate with him in
the performance of these functions. 3. Requested the Secretary-General and the United Nations
Representative for India and Pakistan to render such assistance as he may request.
(Resolution 126)
It was adopted by the Security Council at its 808th meeting on December 2, 1957, It emphasized on
the following points. 1. Requested the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to make
any recommendations to the parties for further appropriate action, with a view to making progress
towards the implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and
Pakistan of 13 August, 1948 and 5 January, 1949, and towards a peaceful settlement. 2. Authorized
the United Nations Representative to visit the sub-continent for these purposes 3. Instructed the
United Nations Representative to report to the Security Council on his efforts as soon as possible.
Elimination of U.N Role after 1965
War After several sessions and years of hard work the U.N could not find a solution to the problem of
Kashmir. The role of U.N on this issue was almost eliminated after the 1965 war, when the Indian and
Pakistani governments signed the Tashkent declaration according to which minister level talks were to
be held on the Kashmir Issue, however these talks also remained unsuccessful due to the difference of
opinion.

Reason of Failure of United Nations in Solving the Issue

Although the United Nations security council tried the best in its capacity to solve the issue but their
attempts at solving the dispute returned no fruit. Despite the fact that Indian and Pakistani
governments had accepted Kashmir to be a disputed territory at the United Nations but back at home
some groups never considered Kashmir a disputed territory. On the both ends Kashmir was being
claimed to be a part of India or Pakistan which was being forcefully controlled by the opposition.
Both the governments were under immense pressure from their people, so they could not make any
bold decision out of the fear that the decision might cost them heavily. However, Pakistan, on some
occasions showed flexibility in favour of referendum but due to the widespread feelings in India that
Kashmir is its integral part, the Indian government always halted the progress by making different
excuses to reject the U.N proposals.2

2
Ali Chattha, 'Role Of U.N On Kashmir Issue' (Academia.edu, 2018)
<https://www.academia.edu/10488184/Role_of_U.N_On_Kashmir_issue> accessed 23 November
2018.
 The Kosovo Issue

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Kosovo is located in southern Serbia. Its population is mixed of various ethnic groups. The majority
of the population are Albanians. Until 1989, the region enjoyed a high degree of autonomy within
Yugoslavia. The Serbian president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro
since its inception in April 1992) Slobodan Milosevic altered the status of the region, removing its
autonomy and bringing it under the direct control of Belgrade, the Serbian capital.
The Kosovar Albanians opposed this move forcefully. During 1998, the open conflict between
Serbian military and police forces and Kosovar Albanian forces resulted in the deaths of over 1,500
Kosovar Albanians and forced 400,000 people, to flee from their homes. The international community
got gravely concerned about the escalating conflict, because of its humanitarian consequences, and the
risk of it spreading to other countries. Furthermore, President Milosevic's disregard for diplomatic
efforts aimed at peacefully resolving the crisis and the destabilising role of militant Kosovar Albanian
forces were worrying aspects of the conflict.
After its autonomy was quashed, Kosovo was faced with state organized oppression: since the early
1990s, the Albanian radio and television were restricted, the newspapers were closed whereas Kosovo
Albanians were fired in large numbers from public enterprises and institutions, including banks,
hospitals, the post office and schools. The Kosovo Liberation Army (UÇK) was founded by Kosovar
Albanians in 1996, who started an insurgency against Belgrade. The UÇK fought against oppression
violently and was regarded as being a terrorist group by the US until 1998. At that time, it was
recognized as political actor and the US and NATO started a diplomatic relationship with the UÇK.
1989: Milosevic starts to remove Kosovo's rights of autonomy.

July 1990: Ethnic Albanian legislators in the province declare Kosovo independent from Serbia. 
1991: Albania recognises Kosovo as an independent nation.
After 1996, the situation is starting to escalate and armed hostilities start to occur more often.
September 24th 1998: Nato issues ultimatum to Milosevic to stop crackdown on Kosovo Albanians or
face air strikes.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS AND UN INVOLVEMENT
During the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the United Nations Security Council adopted various
resolutions condemning the violence and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Nonetheless, the UN
Security Council failed to prevent immense atrocities such as the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia and
Herzegovina in 1995. The conflict in the region continued to dominate the Security Council’s session.
In 1998 the conflict in Kosovo started to cause major concern to the international community. On 31
March 1998, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charta, the Security Council adopted
Resolution 1160, which condemned the persistent violence by Serbian police forces as well as by the
Kosovo Liberation Army (UÇK), and urged them to maintain a ceasefire and to return to negotiations
in order to seek a peaceful political solution to the conflict. Furthermore, the Security Council
imposed an arms embargo and additional economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The resolutions were approved nearly unanimously by 14 votes, with China abstaining since it
regarded the conflict as an internal matter of a sovereign state.
On the 23 September 1998, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charta the Security Council adopted
Resolution 1199 due to ongoing fighting in Kosovo and the indiscriminate use of force by the Serbian
security forces and Yugoslav Army, which inevitably resulted in a displacement of more than 230,000
people. In this Resolution, the Security Council expressed deep concern about the excessive use of
force by Serbian security forces and the Yugoslav army, and called for a cease-fire by both parties to
the conflict. In the spirit of the UNSCR, limits were set on the number of Serbian forces in Kosovo,
and on the scope of their operations, following a separate agreement with Generals Naumann and
Clark. The Security Council reiterated that the status of Kosovo could include greater autonomy and
efficient self-administration. China abstained on the resolution 1199.
Following a massacre of 35 ethnic Albanian villagers in Kosovo the Security Council adopted
Resolution 1203 on 24 October 1998 under Chapter VII UN Charta. The Security Council demanded
an end to all hostilities in Kosovo as well as terrorist acts and compliance with previous resolutions by
all sides. It was agreed, in addition, that the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) would establish a Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) to observe compliance on the ground
and that NATO would establish an aerial surveillance mission. Several non-NATO nations that
participate in Partnership for Peace (PfP) agreed to contribute to the surveillance mission organised by
NATO. Resolution 1203 was adopted by 13 votes, with two abstentions from China and Russia.
China was against a resolution that would pressure the internal affairs of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and Russia complained that the resolution had not totally taken into account positive
achievements by the Serbian government. In support of the OSCE, NATO established a special
military task force to assist with the emergency evacuation of members of the KVM, if renewed
conflict should put them at risk. This task force was deployed in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia under the overall direction of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Current
Situation Since January 1999, the situation has worsened. The attacks from both sides got more
intense and occurred more often. On the 15th, the Račak massacre took place. 45 Kosovan Albanian
farmers were rounded up, led up a hill and massacred. The bodies had been discovered by OSCE
monitors, but Yugoslavia denied that the massacre had happened. The Račak massacre was the
culmination of the KLA attacks and Serbian reprisals that had continued throughout the winter of
1998–1999. The incident was immediately condemned as a massacre by the Western countries and the
United Nations Security Council.
This was one of the events that led NATO to decide that the conflict could only be settled by
introducing a military peacekeeping force under the auspices of NATO, to forcibly restrain the two
sides. NATO gave the power to the Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, to authorise air strikes
against targets on FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) territory to achieve a settlement of the
conflict and to avoid a humanitarian crisis. In February 1999, a conference (Rambouillet Conference)
was organized in order to find a solution for the conflict and to guarantee peace in the area. The so-
called 'Rambouillet Accords' called for granting Kosovo the status of an autonomous province,
disarmament of the UÇK and the deployment of 30,000 NATO troops with an unhindered right of
passage for NATO troops on Yugoslav territory. The contract was signed on 18 March 1999 by the
Kosovo-Albanian, American and British delegation, but was rejected by the Serbian and Russian
delegations. Albanians wanted an independent Kosovo, while the Serbs wanted to return them
autonomy, but refused disarming their forces there or allowing international peacekeepers to be
deployed. The peace talks failed. How can the Security Council react now? NATO is very willing to
step in. Is there a way, the international community can achieve an agreement?
FACTS AND FIGURES

 Between March 1998 and March 1999, before NATO governments decided upon military action,
over 2000 people were killed as a result of the Serb government's policies in Kosovo.

 During the summer of 1998, a quarter of a million Kosovar Albanians were forced from their
homes as their houses, villages and crops were destroyed.
 In January 1999, evidence was discovered, by a United Nations humanitarian team, of the massacre
of over 40 people in the village of Racak.

 The United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimated that the campaign of ethnic cleansing
had resulted in 226,000 refugees in Albania, 125,000 in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
and 33,000 in Montenegro.3

3
Rohan Lambore, 'Ethnic Conflict And The Journey To Peace: A Comparative Analysis Of Macedonia
(FYROM) And Kashmir' (Catalog.ihsn.org, 2018) <http://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/citations/85820>
accessed 23 November 2018.
 ORHID AGREEMENT

The Ohrid Framework Agreement was the peace deal signed by the government of the Republic of
Macedonia and ethnic Albanian representatives on 13 August 2001. The agreement ended the armed
conflict between the National Liberation Army and the Macedonian security forces and set the
groundwork for improving the rights of ethnic Albanians.
The Agreement also included provisions for altering the official languages of the country, with any
language spoken by over 20% of the population becoming co-official with the Macedonian language
at the municipal level. Currently only the Albanian language, with an approximate 25% of the
population fulfils this criterion. According to the document, the version in English language is the
only authentic version of the Ohrid Framework Agreement. The Macedonian Government had to
adapt the Constitution of Macedonia to give the Albanian minority living in Macedonia fifteen basic
rights. The lead negotiator on the behalf of the United States in the Ohrid Agreement was James W.
Pardew, who had been dispatched by then-Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

The Ohrid Agreement, signed on 13 August 2001, ended Macedonia's armed conflict between
Albanian rebels and Macedonian security forces. A month after the agreement was signed, The
Economist forecast:

"Any peace will be artificial. Having created a politically modified Macedonia, the West is going to
have to police it – or leave it to fresh violence, not just between the two main communities, maybe,
but between the moderates and hardliners of the Slavic one."

Six months later, the political scientist Alice Ackermann warned that "there is a succinct threat and
fear that the peace accord already holds the seeds of another war."

There is little doubt that the conflict in Macedonia could have turned into a full-scale war, as had
happened in other parts of the former Yugoslavia in the previous decade. Both sides had access to an
ample supply of weapons: the ethnic Albanian rebels could rely on supplies from Kosovo; ethnic
Macedonian leaders controlled the army and the police. In addition, according to The Economist,
Interior Minister Ljube Boskovski had distributed about 10,000 Kalashnikov rifles to civilians and
police reservists in the spring of 2001. Leaders on both sides could have referred to a rich heritage of
grievances, stereotypes and emotionally laden pieces of historical fabric to fuel violence. In addition,
there were individuals from the ethnic Albanian and Macedonian population willing to escalate and to
undermine the peace process. But it did not happen: the conflict was successfully contained. Fighting
stopped after less than seven months, claiming fewer lives 250 lives.

The Ohrid Framework Agreement of 2001, as it is officially called, does not read like a classic peace
accord. While the cessation of hostilities, disarmament of the Albanian rebels and a general amnesty
were among its key provisions, most of the agreement concerned increased rights for the Albanian
minority – rights that would require substantial changes in key state institutions.4

4
'Clinton-Lands' (The Economist, 2018) <https://www.economist.com/europe/2016/11/19/clinton-
lands?zid=307&ah=5e80419d1bc9821ebe173f4f0f060a07> accessed 23 November 2018.
Similarities between Kosovo and Kashmir

After the death of Josip Broz Tito in 1980, Yugoslavia slowly started crumbling. The man who had
once ruled the MYROP with a strong, iron hand was no more. Very much like Kashmir, the Republic
of Yugoslavia was a country with various diverse ethnic groups, and with the death of Tito, the
federation started to show strains of ethnic tension and what followed was catastrophic.
The republic of Kosovo and Vojvodina were an autonomous territory. The Albanian Kosovars
enjoyed self-rule and although, they were a province of Serbia, there were ethnically Albanian. When
Milosevic’s government came to power, he revoked the autonomy of the province, enraging all
residing parties. Milosevic used jealousy and ethnic differences to come to power, and spread nation-
wide hatred amongst the Serbs towards the level of autonomy enjoyed by the Albanian Kosovars who
inhabited the province of Kosovo. Upon revoking their autonomy, the Kosovars formed a liberation
army to fight back. Regarded by many as a terrorist group, they did manage to fight back and win
their freedom but the damage had already been caused.
NATO had suggested an alternative, where Kosovo would remain an autonomous province but part of
Serbia. Many sovereign nations had sub units which enjoyed a certain level of autonomy (Quebec and
Canada, India and Kashmir [which will be further discussed]) and it seemed like a fair solution but
what NATO couldn’t account for was the fact that the Albanians weren’t a group that backed down
easily. They asked for complete independence, and wanted to establish themselves as a separate
nation. Many inhabitants wanted to align themselves with the neighbouring country of Albania, and
for this, they had to gain independence. If they remained a part of Serbia, there were no international
laws preventing a wide-scale Serbian invasion, and such a huge threat was detrimental to the working
of the province.
If we compare this situation to Kashmir, it is scarily similar. The State of Kashmir was a princely
state, and it remained independent for quite a while before Maharaja Hari Singh decided to sign the
treaty of accession and cede the territory to the Union of India. Although it was inducted into the
Union of India, it enjoyed a certain level of autonomy. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution provided
for a level of autonomous powers, and although when the State Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was
dissolved the section became redundant, if an assembly ever decides to convene again, the section can
be repealed.
If one were to align the Ohrid Agreement with the Kashmir Conflict and see where the
two are similar and different, the task would be revealing. Common in both regions is a long
history of recurring conflicts, albeit under differing conditions.

India and Pakistan are nuclear powers while not a single state in the southern Balkans is. In both
cases, the question of potential autonomy, leading to a suspension of conflict, is ultimately primarily
driven by religious and local understanding, as well as by national identity.

Macedonia is not a member of the EU, while India and Pakistan are members of the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). The latter serves as an intergovernmental
organization that promotes peace amongst its member states, while asking all to maintain civil and
economic progress.

Furthermore, both conflicts have been tri or quad-partite, inclusive of a host nation, a
support state (spoiler), and an insurgent group(s) fighting ostensibly for greater
representation/rights, or separatism. All players have made a series of moves that have either
moved them closer towards peace or suspension (as Macedonia has to an extent achieved) or a
permanent draw (which is what is occurring in Kashmir)

An argument is that a group is ghettoized or concentrated ethnically/religiously, they are more likely
to become victims of severe police-style repression but not ethnic cleansing and murder. However,
when a targeted group exists on a frontier, they are more likely to face
cleansing instead of murder. In this regard Macedonia and Kashmir are quite similar: the militaries of
both host states have been and continue to be responsible for human rights abuses against the minority
and majority populations of each respective region.
The border regions between Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia, and between Pakistan and
India can be viewed as frontiers, where murders or cleansing took place in small towns and
villages in the more remote areas. The ghettoes are the cities of Tetovo and Gostivar in
Macedonia and in Kashmir, Srinagar, where police repression has long been a more severe issue.

In the case of Kashmir, the Indian military security apparatus has carried out what amounts to
ethnic cleansing in the Valley, which serves as a frontier region. Furthermore, when the Indian state
carries out severe police repression in Srinagar, this leads to ethnic cleansing that has occurred in the
border villages located in the frontier villages.
In these cases, Albanians and Kashmiri Muslims are heavily concentrated but geographically fluid,
meaning that they are transient and move across borders to seek military/logistic assistance,
temporary refuge, or even permanent relocation. Thus, in a frontier, the victims are not concentrated
around urban areas where they can find refuge from the state, leading to a higher body count.5

5
Rohan Lambore, 'Ethnic Conflict And The Journey To Peace: A Comparative Analysis Of Macedonia
(FYROM) And Kashmir' (Catalog.ihsn.org, 2018) <http://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/citations/85820>
accessed 23 November 2018.
Applicability of Ohrid Agreement on Kashmir.

The Ohrid Agreement, which this paper wants to implement for Kashmir, shall consist of nine main
sections and three annexes which outline the terms of the cease fire, new laws to be adopted,
required changes to existing laws, benchmarks to be reached for a successful implementation of the
Agreement, and a timetable for reaching those benchmarks. The specific areas addressed by each
section of the Agreement are: decentralization of the Government, non-discrimination, equitable
ethnic representation in public institutions, restructuring of Parliamentary procedures, the use of
languages, education, and permissible expressions of identity.

1. Decentralization - The Agreement calls for a legislative framework that delegates more power
and financial authority to local governments to ensure individual municipalities have adequate
levels of influence over local policy and resources.

2. Equitable Representation - To address ethnic inequities in the government and public

administrations, the Agreement mandates hiring policies that ensure all of Pakistan’s and
India’s public institutions generally reflect the ethnic composition of the population of the two
countries.

3. Parliamentary Procedures - Under the agreement, laws pertaining to local-self-government,

culture, use of language, education, personal documentation and the use of symbols are all
subject to a double-majority voting system, which requires a majority of the ethnic minority
members of parliament in addition to an overall majority of parliament to vote in favour of a
law for the law to be adopted.

4. Education - The Agreement mandates equitable school and university funding, the availability
of education in languages spoken by more than 20% of the population, and the application of
positive discrimination in state university enrolment.

5. Expressions of Identity - Under the agreement, majority ethnic groups in any municipality are
permitted to place emblems representing their cultural identity alongside the emblem of the
State. This was specifically included to allow ethnic Pakistani municipalities to fly the
Pakistan flag in front of municipal building.6

6
(2018) <https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mk-ohrid.htm> accessed 23 November
2018.
Conclusion.
With the paper examining separationist, violent aspects of both the areas; agreements such as
the Ohrid agreement examine the possibility that through agreeing to the most basic of mutual
co-operation areas, the goal of peace at the highest level can be realised.

However, a way forward towards peace in the Kashmir peninsular is filled with turmoil. Third
parties such as People’s Republic of China, The United States, and The Russian Federation all
have vested interest in the region, and thus, coming to a singular, long-lasting agreement is
highly unlikely.

With two right-wing, nationalist parties leading the administration at the centre of each
country, convincing the two Heads of States, Narendra Modi, and Imran Khan to leave their
vested interests in the area and come to a mutual consensus is relatively unforeseeable.

However, it is the position of this paper that Kashmiris should be able to decide the future of
the area of the conflicted Kashmiri Peninsular; and the implementation of a plan similar to the
Orhid agreement agreed to at the end of the Kosovo conflict can lead to a pathway towards a
sustainable future, upholding which will bring stability, peace, and security in the area.