Study Guide SPECPOL Zain Raza

Committee Description
Special Political and Decolonization is the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. When the United Nations was founded in 1945, almost one-third of the member nations' people were living in a territory that was dependent on a colonial government, with no right to self-rule. The Special Political and Decolonization Committee has since been a forum for the discussion of the rights of self-determination and self-governance. Since the founding of the United Nations, more than eighty colonies have gained their independence. The mandate of SpecPol now covers a wide variety of issues, making it arguably the most dynamic committee in the General Assembly. The Fourth Committee covers such issues as the rights of refugees, peacekeeping, mine action, public information, atomic radiation, and outer space. As a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, SpecPol is open to all 192 member states of the United Nations, which provides a very diverse cross-section of opinions and a strong international mandate for action. The diversity of topics available to SpecPol makes it possible for every nation to have a large stake in the debate. This committee often leads delegates to ask some of the most basic and challenging questions that the United Nations faces: Where is the line between national sovereignty and international collaboration? Is there a moral imperative to intervene during a crisis? Does the United Nations allow for an effective way for nations to discourse, or is it dominated by the more powerful nations? SpecPol will undoubtedly be an exciting and intellectually stimulating experience for everyone involved. The most recent sessions of SpecPol have dealt with peacekeeping missions, assistance to Palestinian refugees, human rights, humanitarian assistance to refugees, treatment of prisoners of war, the register of space objects, such as satellites and spacecraft, and the occupation of Syria. As a committee of the General Assembly, the SpecPol committee is unable to pass a binding resolution, but they are able to make strong recommendations to the Security Council.

Topic 1: Displacement of Palestinian Refugees

Statement of Issue
As a result of Israels 1948 War of Independence, between 500,000 and 750,000 Palestinian Refugees fled what is now Israel between the years 1948-1949. Today, this group of refugees has expanded to include more than 4 million, and has become the victim of one of the worlds largest and most enduring refugee crises. UNRWA, or the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, is responsible for providing relief support to individuals defined as persons "whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 and 1967 conflicts. One third of registered Palestinian refugees, about 1.4 million, currently live in 58 recognized camps throughout Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. A camp, according to UNRWA's working definition, is a plot of land placed at the disposal of UNRWA by the host government to accommodate Palestinian refugees and to set up facilities to cater to their needs. UNRWA also maintains schools, health centers and distribution centers in areas outside camps where Palestinian refugees are concentrated, such as Yarmouk near Damascus, Syria. The plots of land on which camps were set up are either state land or, in most cases, land leased by the host government from local landowners. This means that the refugees in camps do not "own" the land on which their shelters were built, but have the right to "use" the land for a residence. Socioeconomic conditions in the camps are generally poor, with high population density, cramped living conditions and inadequate basic infrastructure such as roads and sewers. While administration and policing of the camps is the responsibility of host authorities, UNRWA is responsible for providing services and administering its installations. Due to the circumstances listed above, and increasingly deteriorating conditions for Palestinian refugees, the issue of their displacement has reached an unprecedented need to be addressed. Additionally, other issues like education, health care services, overall human development, and the sustainability of the UNRWA require attention.

History and Discussion of Issue

UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), also known as the UNs Refugee Agency, is currently mandated to assist and aid refugees worldwide. Considering UNRWAs dwindling funds, it may prove important in the near future to discuss the UNHCRs possibly increased role and accountability in the issue. Additionally, the hosting of Palestinian refugees by nations like Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria poses various security concerns. For one, refugees are often targeted for recruitment by militant organizations including Hamas and Hezbollah. While many have argued the extent to which these organizations are terrorist groups or legitimate governing bodies, Israel and the United State continue to view them as high security threats. Recent complications in the situation include rapidly increased Israeli settlement activity in Occupied Palestinian Territory. As recently as November 15, 2010, the UN SPECPOL Committee has discussed everything from extending the mandate of UNRWA until June 30, 2014 to demanding an immediate, complete halt to Israeli settlement activity. In regard to the extension of the UNRWA, the committee recorded a vote of 163 in favor to 1 against (Israel), with 8 abstentions (Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States). Fruitful discussion of the issue will include recent developments as well as an examination of the varied interests nations may have in voting on SPECPOL mandates. Lex Takkenberg, Senior Ethics Officer of the UNRWA writes that it is important to engage in reflection and debate that might foster the Agencys continued success in fulfilling its mandate and help the refugees live in dignity pending a just and comprehensive solution to their plight. Indeed, his advice addresses one of the most fulgent aspects of the topic, ensuring dignity for the displaced refugees.

Major Past UN Action

The displacement of Palestinian refugees and their right to return is often painted as more controversial than reality suggests. The UN has continually reaffirmed article 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194, first passed December 11, 1948, since its inception. Article 11: Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be

permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible. Israel, considered to be in violation of international law, has continually contested the Resolutions guarantee of what is commonly referred to as the Palestinian right to return. In discussing this issue, it may prove vital to examine viewpoints of all blocs on the right to return, and the status of its enforcement.

Questions a Resolution Must Answer

As you begin your research, it will be necessary to keep in mind the following questions that all resolutions must be able to answer. Hopefully, there will be several valid answers, ensuring a lively and productive debate. What can the committee do to uphold UN Resolution 194, and establish a universally accepted definition of the Palestinian right to return? What kind of administrative system could best ensure the wellbeing of displaced Palestinians in refugee camps? Does the UNRWA hold ultimate responsibility for the refugees, and is the livelihood of these refugees incumbent on the agencys existence? How does Israeli settlement building in Occupied Palestinian Territory complicate the possibility of a two-state solution, and the future of displaced refugees? To what extent does a solution to the issue lie in the hands of external agencies like the UNRWA? Is the only true solution capable at the hands of Israeli and Palestinian parties? What can NGOs do to help the UNRWA in its aid to Palestinian refugees? How can the committee help reduce legal discrimination, and improve education for Palestinian refugees in host nations? How important is the past in dealing with the future of displaced refugees?

Bloc Positions
Israel: Israel has continued to build settlements in OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territory), despite international condemnation. Israel claims that the right of return, guaranteed by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 on November 22, 1974 as an inalienable right, does not apply to Palestinian refugees. Additionally, Israel views Palestinian refugees as security threats, due to a history

of recruitment by militant organizations like Hamas, and Lebanon-based Hezbollah. The presence of these militant groups has led Israel to erect walls and barriers that impede economic growth in Palestinian territories, and leave refugees further impoverished. While Israel remains at odds with the international community on the legality of the Palestinian right to return, it maintains that its actions are in the name of a security threat posed by the influence of militant groups on the refugees. Recent actions, including a widely publicized raid on a Turkish aid flotilla headed to the Gaza strip, have led to an international outcry against Israels handling of the Palestinian refugee crisis.

United States: Quite recently, the Obama administration publicly condemned

Israeli settlement activity, but has abandoned attempts to establish a settlement freeze. The United States maintains the position of being a staunch ally of Israel. Therefore, the United States continues to remain ineffective in affecting improvement in the Palestinian refugee crisis as long as militant organizations like Hamas, which has been deemed a terrorist organization by Israel, the European Union, the US, Canada, and Japan, is connected with the refugees. However, the United States continues to offer humanitarian aid to Palestinians. USAID, or the United States Agency for International Development, has programmed $3.3 billion since 1994, and is the leading provider of bilateral and development assistance to Palestinians. On the other hand, as recently as 2007, the United States signed a ten-year $30 billion aid agreement in military aid alone. In the midst of an economic crisis, President Obama included a record breaking $3 billion in military aid to Israel in his 2011 budget to Congress.

Host Nations:

Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria: The main recipient of Palestinian refugees, Jordan has long tried to maintain a delicate demographic balance between those of Palestinian origin and other Jordanians. In fact, the UNRWA currently estimates that Palestinian refugees compose 32% of the Jordanian population. Jordan has recently condemned remarks by a UN official who said that Palestinian refugees must not be deluded about their right to return and that Arab countries must resettle them. Wajih Azaizeh, the director of Jordans Palestinian Affairs Department, deemed the remarks, made by Andrew Whitley, the NY director of the UNRWA, irresponsible. Jordan houses approximately half of all Palestinian refugees, and is the only country that has allowed permanent resettlement to some of the refugees. Lebanon, on the other hand, has long placed severe restrictions on Palestinian refugees in the country, largely as a result of structural marginalization and legal

discrimination. According to one Palestinian refugee of a camp in Lebanon, Palestinians are deprived of all human rights, whether in regard to work, health, education, safety, residence or shelter. Palestinians live in constant fear. However, recently, Lebanons stance on the refugee crisis has changed. As of June 15, 2010, the Lebanese Parliament has considered a series of draft amendments that would Palestinian refugees in Lebanon with an increased measure of basic rights. While this may improve the situation for refugees residing in Lebanon, it is not a long-term solution. Syria has long attempted to help Palestinian refugees, and has been thanked by the UNRWA for hosting more than 400,000 refugees. Along with Jordan and Lebanon, Syria continues to support the Palestinian right to return.

South America:

On December 6, 2010, Argentina declared recognition of a Palestinian state. They announced that they were recognizing Palestine as a free and independent state, and that they were agreeing with Uruguay and Brazil, who had recognized the state of Palestine based on its pre-1967 borders. While they did not explicitly comment on the status of Palestinian refugees, the decision of these South American countries to recognize a free and independent state of Palestine represents a growing global response to Israeli settlement building activity. It is also important to note the heavy presence of the Palestinian diaspora in Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, Honduras and Peru, although many of the Palestinians in these countries are not refugees of the 1948 War of Independence, but rather Christians who left Palestine during Ottoman rule.

Possible Solutions:
Possible lasting and durable solutions to the problem may include a further extension of the mandate of what was initially meant to be a temporary UNRWA. The UNRWA could play the role of highlighting the urgent need for a solution as a result of its long experience and knowledge of Palestinian refugees. Additionally, it may prove vital to foster a climate of inclusion in the international communitys engagement with Palestinian issues. If the international community feels engaged with the peace process, and is lent a sense of culpability for the lives and futures of the refugees, progress may be achieved. Most apparently, it may be important to provide Palestinian refugees with the dignity of acknowledgement. If they are given a say in the process, political action may arrive faster, as the imperative nature of their situation is voiced. Host states also need to address security concerns posed by a population of malnourished, and impoverished refugees. Efforts need to be made by the UNRWA, and other NGOs,

to help the host nations provide education and basic human rights to the refugees.

Suggestions for Further Research

While this background guide should serve as an introduction to the topic, it is by no means comprehensive of all information available on the subject. Further research should be done on the history of the conflict, especially in relation to your respective member state. It will prove essential to sift through un.org and unrwa.org for recent UN actions, in order to maintain a relevant and effective committee. Additionally, news organizations like Reuters, the Associated Press, and BBC news offer useful information on recent developments. It may also help to read political commentaries on the subject from a wide range of viewpoints. These can be found at the Huffington Post, the Economist, Haaretz, Al Jazeera, and Foreign Policy. If you really want to dig deep, it may help to consult electronic databases and journals at websites like oxfordjournals.org http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=86 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gaspd468.doc.htm Turk, Volker, and Elizabeth Eyster. "Strengthening Accountability in UNHCR." International Journal of Refugee Law 22.2 (2010): 159-72. Print. "At a Glance: Occupied Palestinian Territory." www.unicef.org. Web. 23 Nov. 2010. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gaspd472.doc.htm. Williams, Dan. "Israel says S. American Palestine nods hurt peace | Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B61V420101207 Gassner*, Ingrid Jaradat. "Palestinian Refugees Living in Diaspora ." (PMC)- . N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. http://www.palestinepmc.com/details.asp?

cat=3&id=1228 http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/aboutUs.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-ruebner/us-cant-afford-militarya_b_478104.html http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/3/ares3.htm

Topic 2: The Kashmir Dispute

Background
The valley of Kashmir, an irregular oval of land, is one of the most beautiful places in the world. On a map the valley appears remote and landlocked, extending for no more than ninety miles, isolated by successive ranges of the Himalayan Mountains high above the plains of the sub-continent. Over twenty passes provide points of entry, making the valley both a crossroads and a place or refuge. At all times, its peoples have retained a strong attachment to their Kashmiriyat their cultural identity which transcends religion. The Kashmiri language is distinct from the Hindi or Urdu spoken by the inhabitants of the plains. (Schofield) Presently, due to disputes and significant issues during the partition of the Subcontinent in 1947, Kashmir sits between India and Pakistan without a state to govern its land. Over the years, wars have been fought, arguments have been made and other nations' militaries have gotten involved, but as of yet, a solution to the question of to whom Kashmir belongs has not been found.

Partition
The Indian Subcontinent was, until August 1947, a British colony. But the grip that the British had over the Subcontinent had been decreasing ever since the 1900s. After the Second World War, they were exhausted, bankrupt, and could no longer

handle the growing tensions between Hindus and Muslims on the Subcontinent. Arguments, instability, and violence between both groups was reaching an alarming level. The British were clearly no longer welcome, and they decided that it would be best if their rule over the historic land finally came to an end. Two main political parties represented the people of the Subcontinent at the time. The Indian National Congress, which claimed to represent the entire Subcontinent, Muslims and Hindus alike, aimed to create a secular and democratic state after the departure of the British. In this state, all religions were to be treated equally, and the state of India was to be kept as it was. The leader of this group was Mahatma Gandhi. The All-India Muslim League represented solely the Muslim population of the Subcontinent, and no longer trusted the Indian National Congress, due to the party's failure to keep similar promises of equality in the past. The All-India Muslim League wanted a separate state to be created for the Muslims of the Subcontinent. This group was represented by Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The British announced that they would be leaving the Subcontinent in 1947. After much argument, it was decided that the Indian Subcontinent would be split into two separate states for Hindus and Muslims; India and Pakistan. This was a victory for the All-India Muslim League, as they had finally achieved what they had been fighting for since the Pakistan Resolution in 1940. The Indian National Congress also took it as a partial victory, as they were finally able to drive the British out of the Subcontinent, which had been one of their main goals since the beginning.

The Rules for Partition

Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy of the British Rule, announced guidelines as to how the provinces of the Subcontinent were to be divided and placed into Pakistan and India. Separate rules were made for princely states within the Subcontinent, one of which was the state of Kashmir. The rules were simple. Rulers of the 550 princely states of the Subcontinent could either join India or Pakistan. In accordance with the Indian Independence Act they were not allowed to declare themselves independent states. Lord Mountbatten stated that certain geographical compulsions would have to be kept in mind, to provide the emergent states with somewhat contiguous territories. For example the ruler of Khairpur in Sindh was forced by geography to accede to Pakistan. In the same way, the ruler of Hyderabad in southern India had to become a part of India, as it was surrounded on all sides by Hindu states. The second rule that Lord Mountbatten gave was that states that were predominantly Hindu would become part of India and the states that were predominantly

Muslim, would become part of Pakistan. As simple as these rules sounded, they were not at all easy to implement, especially because of the scale at which they were to be applied.

The Kashmir Issue

There were three main princely states that were to pose problems to the newly formed governments; Kashmir, Junagadh, and Hyderabad. In each, the ruling family belonged to one religious community and the great majority of the population to the other. Junagadh and Hyderabad were not contiguous to Pakistan, but Muslim princes were ruling over Hindu populations. India surrounded the two states and forced them to become a part of India against the will of the rulers, claiming that it conformed to the will of the Hindu majorities. Over three-quarters of Kashmirs population was Muslim, while the state itself was under Hindu monarchy. Junagadh and Hyderabad had been contiguous to India, and according to the rules set down by the British, they had no choice but to accede to India. Kashmir however, bordered both India and Pakistan and the contiguity principle did not apply. This time, though, even though majority of the population was Muslim, India could still claim that the people of Kashmir were willing to join India, as a major Muslim political organization in the state, the Kashmir National Conference, opposed becoming a part of Pakistan despite the state's Muslim majority. The leader of this organization was Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. To add more to the dilemma, the ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, did not wish to become a part of either India or Pakistan. He harbored visions of independence and hoped that Kashmir would emerge as a separate state. Pakistan and India were both desperate for Kashmir to join with them; the land was of great importance due both to its large population and its close proximity to China, and these concerns were especially crucial to two new countries lacking in resources.

War of 1947
In August, the British rule over the Subcontinent ended and the issue of Kashmir was left undecided. During the first week of October, tribal rebellion broke out in southwest Kashmir. Pakistani troops disguised as local tribesmen, said to be motivated by the pleadings of their kinsmen, and quickly joined the rebels. By the 22nd, they had taken over the town of Muzaffarabad and the majority of the

Muslim troops joined the raiders, beginning to attack their Hindu counterparts, and heading towards Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir. (Owen Bennett Jones) Maharaja Hari Singh, unable to control the situation, sought help from the neighboring princely state of Patiala. The Patiala State Forces were unable to handle the Pakistani forces and Hari Singh was forced to appeal to Lord Mountbatten for assistance. Lord Mountbatten, upon receiving this request, called a meeting of the Indian Defense Committee with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. They decided that Indian troops would only be sent to help the maharaja if he signed the Instrument of Accession. A crucial part of the agreement, however, was that accession to India would have to be ratified by the population of Kashmir. (Owen Bennett Jones) Maharaja Hari Singh, given the prevailing chaos, was motivated by desperation to obtain Indian military assistance, and signed the Instrument of Accession without the consult of the people of Kashmir. Nehru agreed to accept the support of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah in lieu of a popular ratification. Lord Mountbatten accepted the signed Instrument of Accession and deployed troops in Kashmir to quell the Muslim rebellion, take over Kashmir, and add it to the Indian Union. Despite of the quick dispatch of Indian troops into Kashmir, the Pakistani forces had managed to capture about a third of the state. Over the next two months, neither of the forces made territorial gains and the fighting continued. A resolution was not in sight. Lord Mountbatten, at the end of December, decided to seek help from the UN Security Council. A complaint was lodged to the council on January 1, 1948. (Owen Bennett Jones) Resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 by the Security Council stated that due to threat to international peace and security, both India and Pakistan would bring about a cessation of all fighting. India and Pakistan would solve the problem of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. The war was stopped and a mutual ceasefire line was established. The plebiscite, however, was never held.

War of 1965
In 1965, in order to revive the hopes of the Kashmiri Muslims, Pakistan invaded India in order to gain control of Kashmir. When India retaliated, another war broke out. To stop the violence which had, by the beginning of September, reached an alarming level, the United Nations Security Council called another ceasefire and asked both countries to move all armed forces to their side of the line. Tension between the countries had only risen since partition, and General

Ayub Khan of Pakistan had thought that fighting Indian forces right after the death of their leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, would be easy, but he was mistaken.

War of 1971
In 1971, unstable relations between West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) resulted in Sheikh Mujibs party, along with majority of East Pakistan, demanding to be separated from Pakistan and given independence. Troops were sent from West Pakistan to East Pakistan with the intention of subduing the rebellious Bengalis. India interfered, leading once again to war. Even to this day, the loss of this war was the most humiliating defeat that Pakistan has ever had to face. Humanitarian feelings were the main motivating force behind this outcry, but many Indians also saw in the heart-rending situation an opportunity to cut Pakistan down to size. These were the words of Indira Gandhis biographer, Inder Malhotra (Schofield 117). India surrounded the Pakistani army in Dacca, gained control over parts of Sindh, including the areas that it had lost during the war of 1965, and Pakistans loss resulted in East Pakistan gaining independence as a new country, Bangladesh. Although the war did not extend to Jammu and Kashmir, it remained a barrier blocking the normalization of relations between the two countries. In an open letter to President Nixon, Indira Gandhi wrote: We do want lasting peace with Pakistan. But will Pakistan give up its careless yet powerless agitation over the last 24 years over Kashmir? (Schofield 117) The Simla agreement aimed to restore peace between the two countries after the war had taken place. However, the clause in the agreement mentioning Jammu and Kashmir was inconclusive. It only said that both countries would respect the line of control that had been established by the cease fire in 1971 and that they would not try to alter it under threat of the use of force. The issue of Kashmir was once again left unresolved.

War of 1999
In 1998, India tested five nuclear devices and Pakistan responded with six of their own. The next year, Prime Ministers from both countries met in Lahore, to set up an agreement ensuring that they were sharing a vision of peace and security. Each side sought to make the other understand that the nuclear dimensions of the situation would be an important factor in ensuring the avoidance of conflict. A Resolution was signed by both Prime Ministers that insisted on an increased

effort to resolve all conflicts between the countries, including the issue of Kashmir. (Bose) However, in the summer of 1999, Pakistani units supported by jehadi volunteers infiltrated the Indian side of the Line of Control and the Indian military retaliated with a massive land and air campaign. War broke out, and the fighting continued for six weeks until Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, had to withdraw Pakistani forces after a tense meeting with US President Bill Clinton. (Bose)

The Kashmir Issue Today

Over the years, attempts have been made by leaders from across the world, including those of India and Pakistan, to solve the issue of Kashmir. No agreement has yet been reached, and it does not seem like the issue is going to be decided very soon. The controversy underlying this subject is immense. Both countries have completely different accounts of what happened in Kashmir during the partition and ensuing wars, and it is very difficult to find common ground between the two. Some protesters are raising their voice for independence of the state of Kashmir, avoiding entirely a choice between India and Pakistan. Others demand that India should remove the thousands of paramilitary troops that have been placed in their once-peaceful state. Locals of the area want the Indian government to release political prisoners and lift laws that have been granting immunity to security officers. India, however, blocked all flights in and out of Srinagar, Kashmirs capital, on September 14th, 2010, and set a round-the-clock curfew. Events like these have not taken place in more than a decade. The gravity of the situation is obvious. Violence, frustration, and arguments between India and Pakistan are increasing dramatically, and the people left suffering in the midst of the conflict are innocent Kashmiri civilians. A resolution needs to be approached fast to save the people of Kashmir from further loss and destruction.

Possible Solutions
Before one can even begin to consider how to solve the Kashmir issue, one has to realize that the biggest obstacle to finding a possible solution lies in the fact that India and Pakistan less-than-positive relations with each other. There is little to no trust between their governments, and therefore any talks regarding Kashmir tend to fall through. The two nations must create some trust-building opportunities through the sharing of common opinions, if they want to enhance relations. Both nations, in addition to other UN countries, need to avoid shortsighted policies and political gains, and instead must focus their efforts on eliminating the poverty in

the region and raising the standard of living. The people living in this area must be the first priority. The best solution to this problem would be one in which both nations gain something, much the way a business transaction works; if one partner feels cheated, then the agreement is not likely to last. A resolution that will truly help to solve the dispute must be beneficial for both of the states involved, as well as the people of Kashmir. Questions to Consider How will the region be strengthened, and a solution found by raising the standard of living for those living in Kashmir? What mutual views do the nations share, and how can they be used to establish positive relations? Is the best approach to the issue division or integration of the Kashmir area?

Resources
Bennett, Jones Owen. Pakistan: Eye of the Storm. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2003. Print. "Timeline: Conflict over Kashmir - CNN." Featured Articles from CNN. 05 May 2003. Web. http://articles.cnn.com/2003-02-06/world/kashmir.timeline_1_indiaand-pakistan-indian-military-officials-kargil?_s=PM:asiapcf Bose, Sumantra. Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2003. Print. Dhar, L. N. "An Outline of the History of Kashmir." Kashmiri Overseas Association, Inc. Web. http://koausa.org/Crown/history.html Ganguly, Sumit. The Kashmir Question: Retrospect and Prospect. London: Frank Cass, 2003. Print. "Kashmir - Pakistan Mission to UN." Pakistan Mission to The United Nations. Web. http://www.pakun.org/kashmir/history.php Schofield, Victoria. Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unfinished War. London: I B Tauris &, 2000. Print. Sission, Richard, and Leo E. Rose. War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh. Berkeley: University of California, 1991. Print.

Widmalm, Sten. Kashmir in Comparative Perspective: Democracy and Violent Separatism in India. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002. Print.