The 6th of February 2021 marks the 37th anniversary of the murder of Ravindra Mhatre, an Indian diplomat killed in Birmingham, UK. His killing set the scene for the violent insurgencies in India-administered Kashmir from the late 80s onwards. The legal status of Kashmir has been at the heart of the Indian-Pakistan dispute since 1947 as a result of the countries’ shared colonial past. Since 2019, the human rights situation in the region has been deteriorating once again.
Ravindra Mhatre was abducted by the Kashmir Liberation Army (KLA) in the evening of the 3rd of February 1984, on his way home. The previously unknown KLA demanded the release of several militants detained in India, including Maqbool Bhat, and the ransom of £ 1 million – demands which the Indian government was not willing to fulfil. After more than two days of captivity, Mhatre was killed on 6 February 1984 after being shot three times.
Leading up to these events of 1984, nationalism in Kashmir had been rising. Three wars between India and Pakistan had left Kashmir divided between three countries. Three-quarters of the territory in the south and south-east formed the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had a certain amount of autonomy under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Pakistan controlled the northern and western part, divided into Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan. China had taken over the Trans-Karakoram tract and Aksai Chin.
Yet, calls for a referendum on the future of Kashmir had never ceased and brought back the issue of self-determination for the Kashmir population. The request for a referendum goes back to 1947, when Lord Mountbatten, the General-Governor of India, remarked that a referendum on Kashmir’s future should be held upon accepting the accession of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir to India. This commitment had been reiterated by India later on, was recommended by the UN Security Council in 1948, and eventually became a crucial element for the settlement of the conflict. Nevertheless, a free and impartial plebiscite was never implemented for the predominantly Muslim region.
Insurgency in Kashmir
After Kashmir movements calling for independence, incorporation to Pakistan, or a special status in India had been unsuccessful in the early 80s, militant organizations, such as the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, emerged abroad to resist the Indian administration in Kashmir. In this regard, Mhatre’s assassination marked the turning point for the radicalization of autonomy movements and the beginning of violent uprisings in the late 80s. Anti-government demonstrations, strikes and violent attacks followed the (most likely rigged) 1987 elections. The opposition to Indian rule had lost its faith in the democratic framework, and the Indian government responded with military force.
The insurgency intensified through Afghan Mujahideen coming to Kashmir, after the Soviets had left Afghanistan 1989. Thousands of Islamic fighters saw in Kashmir the opportunity to continue their freedom fight on behalf of a Muslim population. This export of Afghan Jihad was also facilitated by Pakistan, which, moreover, supported Kashmiri militant groups with arms, funds and training in their fights against the Indian government. Thus, the insurgency had reached the threshold of an armed conflict by 1990.
Up to 150 different militias were involved in the Kashmir insurgencies, who had no overall control structure and pursued different political solutions. After the Islamization of the dispute, the Kashmir valley experienced the displacement of at least 250,000 Hindus (Kashmiri Pandits). Severe human rights violations were committed by all sides. According to the Indian government, the death toll from 1989 to 2008 was around 47,000, while others say fatalities reached well over 100,000.
Avoiding the repetition of events
Tensions in the Kashmir conflict are erupting periodically, the latest being the still ongoing lockdown. On 5 August 2019, the ruling regime in India had decided to revoke Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution, and thereby removed Kashmir’s autonomy, dividing it into federally governed territories. To prevent mass protests and violence in the region, this action was accompanied by a military siege and a communications blackout. Labelled as a security lockdown by the Indian authorities, a curfew was imposed, the press freedom and freedom of assembly were restricted, the internet access was shut down, and thousand opposition figures were put under preventive
detentions. Excessive force was used to keep control of Kashmir, while facilitating more pro-Indian politics, such as allowing Indian citizens to acquire property and land.
In the meantime, the US decided to withdraw from Afghanistan after a deal with the Taliban. What happens when a superpower leaves the region, can be drawn from the experience of 1989. After the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, foreign fighters immediately diverted to Kashmir and intensified the conflict. Now that US troops are disengaging, the spilling over of terrorism becomes a reasonable fear for India.
Kashmir is still one of the most densely militarized zones in the world. At the moment, Pakistan and India seem to be even further away from finding a permanent solution to the territorial conflict. The Line of Control has not been recognized as an international border between the two nuclear states and despite being the preferred solution, especially by younger people – as a recent survey in Kashmir showed, a plebiscite is highly unlikely.
Violent protests in Kashmir have increased in recent years and India – contrary to being the most populous democracy in the world – has chosen to gravely infringe upon civil rights in the name of “public security”, instead of seeking dialogue with the Kashmiri population and ensure their political inclusion. Rather than creating a fait accompli in Kashmir, India needs to acknowledge that this issue is not just an internal matter.
The anniversary of Ravindra Mhatre’s murder serves a reminder to all parties to increase their efforts to prevent the recurrence of the events from the 90s. To avoid further escalations in Kashmir, especially in light of the US withdrawal in Afghanistan, India and Pakistan have to take up negotiations and Pakistan’s sponsorship of militant groups has to end. The current militarized strategies have to be abandoned, and more attention should be given to the initial Kashmir formula, namely local self-governance, demilitarization, free movement and trade, as well as joint institutions.
The author holds an LLM degree in Human Rights Law from Queen Mary University of London. She has interned for several London-based human rights NGOs supporting marginalized groups, and is currently working at Peace for Asia as a Research Associate.