The New York Times - 06.08.2019

A6 0 N THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONALTUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2019

Kashmir, a mountainous valley
that borders Pakistan and India,
has been a center of conflict be-
tween the two nuclear-armed
countries since the 1947 partition
of British India.
At the time of the partition, the
British agreed to divide their for-
mer colony into two countries:
Pakistan, with a Muslim majority,
and India, with a Hindu majority.
Both nations covet Kashmir,
which is Muslim majority, and oc-
cupy portions of it with military
forces.
For decades, an uneasy stale-
mate has prevailed, broken by oc-
casional military incursions, ter-
rorist attacks and police crack-
downs. But on Monday, the Indi-
an government decided to
permanently incorporate the ter-
ritory it controls into the rest of
India.
The administration of Prime
Minister Narendra Modi revoked
Article 370 of the Indian constitu-
tion, a 70-year-old provision that
had given autonomy to the state
of Jammu and Kashmir, which in-
cludes the Hindu-majority area of
Jammu and the Muslim-majority
Kashmir valley.
The government also intro-
duced a bill to strip the region of
statehood and divide it into two
parts, both under direct control of

the central government.

Mr. Modi, a Hindu nationalist,

had campaigned for re-election in

part by stoking patriotic fervor

against Muslim-led Pakistan. He

promised the full integration of

Kashmir, a cause which his party

has championed for decades.

Pakistan condemned India’s

moves. Pakistan’s prime minister,

Imran Khan, called on President

Trump to follow through on an of-

fer he made two weeks ago to me-

diate the Kashmir dispute.

What are the roots of the conflict?

In 1947, the sudden separation of

the area into Pakistan and India

prompted millions of people to mi-

grate between the two countries

and led to religious violence that

killed hundreds of thousands.

Left undecided was the status of

Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-

majority state in the Himalayas

that had been ruled by a local

prince. Fighting quickly broke

out, and both countries eventually

sent in troops, with Pakistan occu-

pying about one third of the state

and India the rest.

The prince signed an agree-

ment for the territory to become

part of India. Regional autonomy,

which was formalized through Ar-

ticle 370, was a key inducement.

Despite efforts by the United

Nations to mediate the Kashmir

dispute, India and Pakistan con-

tinue to administer their portions

of the former princely territory

while hoping to get full control of

it. Troops on both sides of the so-

called line of control regularly fire

volleys at each other.

What is Article 370?

Article 370 was added to the Indi-

an constitution shortly after the

partition of British India to give

autonomy to the former princely

state of Jammu and Kashmir until

a decision was made about its

rule. It limited the power of India’s

central government over the terri-

tory. A related provision gave

state lawmakers the power to de-

cide who could buy land and be a

permanent resident — a provision

that irked many non-Kashmiris.

Although it was intended to be

temporary, Article 370 says that it

can only be abrogated with the

consent of the legislative body

that drafted the state constitution.

That body dissolved itself in 1957,

and India’s Supreme Court ruled

last year that Article 370 is there-

fore a permanent part of the con-

stitution.

The Modi government dis-

agrees and says the president of

India, who is beholden to the rul-

ing party, has the power to revoke

the article.

Why did the conflict heat up this

year?

The immediate cause was the Feb.

14 suicide bombing by a young Is-

lamic militant, who blew up a con-

voy of trucks carrying paramili-

tary forces in Pulwama in south-

ern Kashmir.

Indian aircraft responded to

that attack by flying into Pakistan

and firing airstrikes near the town

of Balakot. The Indian govern-

ment claimed it was attacking a

training camp for Jaish-e-Moham-

med, the terrorist group that

claimed responsibility for the

bombing.

The next day, Pakistani and In-

dian fighter jets engaged in a skir-

mish over Indian-controlled terri-

tory, and Pakistani forces downed

an Indian aircraft — an aging So-

viet-era MiG-21 — and captured

its pilot. It was the first aerial

clash between the rivals in five

decades.

Pakistan quickly returned the

pilot, easing the diplomatic ten-

sions. But Mr. Modi exploited a

wave of a nationalist fervor over

the Pulwama attack as part of his

re-election campaign that helped

his Bharatiya Janata Party win a

sweeping victory.

Will the United States and other

global powers get involved?

On July 22, Mr. Trump hosted Mr.

Khan at the White House. Al-

though the meeting was focused

on how to end the war in Afghani-

stan, Mr. Trump told reporters

that Mr. Modi had asked him to

help mediate the Kashmir dispute.

Mr. Khan welcomed his involve-

ment. The Indian government de-

nied making any mediation re-

quest and has long insisted on di-

rect negotiations with Pakistan to

resolve the dispute.

Under Mr. Trump, American

foreign policy has shifted away

from Pakistan, a longtime recipi-

ent of American aid, toward India,

which the administration views as

a bulwark against China’s rising

influence in Asia.

China, for its part, has become a

close ally and financial patron of

Pakistan. China shares a border

with Jammu and Kashmir state,

and India and China still do not

agree on the demarcation line.

What is likely to happen next?

The constitutional changes, is-

sued through a presidential order,

could face legal challenges.

Pakistan said it will “exercise

all possible options to counter the

illegal steps” taken by India.

Mr. Modi’s moves to integrate

Kashmir into India are likely to be

popular in much of the country.

But there is widespread panic in

Kashmir, where there have been

decades of protests against Indian

rule.

How Kashmir Became a Sticking Point in India-Pakistan Relations

areaaa

New

Delhihihi

INDIANDIANDIA

CHINA

TAJIKISTAN

Controlled

by Pakistan

Line ofe of

controol

INDIA

PAKISTAN

GILGIT–

BALTISTAN

JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JAMMU

KASHMIRKA LADAKH

VALLEYVA

100 MILES

By VINDU GOEL

Suhasini Raj contributed report-
ing from New Delhi, and Ayesha
Venkataraman contributed re-
search from Mumbai, India.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Both India and Pakistan keep

military forces within Kashmir.

paramilitary forces traveling on a

highway, killing at least 40 sol-

diers. A banned terrorist group,

Jaish-e-Muhammad, which is

based in Pakistan, claimed re-

sponsibility.

It was the deadliest attack in the

region in three decades, and set

off a tense military standoff be-

tween India and Pakistan that cul-

minated in a dogfight between In-

dian and Pakistani warplanes. Pa-

kistan shot down and captured an

Indian pilot, whose return helped

calm the tensions.

President Trump recently met

Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pa-

kistan in Washington and offered

to mediate on Kashmir, but India

rejected that, saying Kashmir was

a domestic, not an international,

issue.

In a written statement on Mon-

day, the State Department said it

was following developments

closely and that it was concerned

about reports of detention in

Kashmir. It urged all parties to

maintain peace along the dividing

line between India- and Pakistan-

controlled territory.

On Monday night, Kashmir

seemed quiet. According to a few

people who spoke to their rela-

tives in the state government

(some officials were given satel-

lite phones), most streets were de-

serted. Soldiers were everywhere.

Many people were scared to leave

their homes.

voice. Last year, the regional Par-

liament was dissolved and the

state fell under federal rule.

Kashmir never fit neatly into

the bigger India picture. When In-

dia and Pakistan won independ-

ence from Britain in 1947, Kashmir

originally opted to remain a small

independent state.

Soon after independence,

though, militants from Pakistan

invaded the territory, leading it to

seek protection from India. Kash-

mir agreed to become part of In-

dia, but only under the autonomy

enshrined in Article 370. That arti-

cle was like a contract, guarantee-

ing that Kashmir would be differ-

ent from other Indian states and

have a say on what kind of federal

laws could be imposed on it.

These protections lead to spe-

cial property rights for Kashmiris

that blocked non-Kashmiris from

owning land.

India and Pakistan then fought

several wars over the area. And

today, most of Kashmir is adminis-

tered by India, with a smaller slice

controlled by Pakistan.

Many of the original provisions

of the Kashmir-India partnership,

like Kashmir having its own prime

minister, had already been done

away with.

Long-simmering tensions with

Pakistan reached a breaking point

in February, when a Kashmiri mil-

itant rammed a vehicle filled with

explosives into a convoy of Indian

peace and investment to the war-
torn region.
But the voice of the Kashmiris
was silenced, as the government
authorities cut off practically all
communication from the area.
Several top Kashmiri poli-
ticians were taken into custody.
Mehbooba Mufti, a former chief
minister of Kashmir, managed to
get out a message shortly before
she was arrested on Monday
night.
“The Fifth of August is the
blackest day of Indian democracy
when its Parliament, like thieves,
snatched away everything from
the people of Jammu and Kash-
mir,” she said.
Her daughter, Iltija Javed, who
succeeded in transmitting a mes-
sage to The New York Times on
Monday night, summed up the
desperation of many Kashmiris.
“We feel there is an atmosphere
of death looming over us,” she
said. “We don’t know what to ex-
pect. We are not allowed to get out
of our houses. Telecommunica-
tions are all down. For the first
time in 30 years, they snapped
landline connections as well. So
there is no way even ordinary
Kashmiris here can like communi-

cate with each other, and know
what exactly is going on. Every-
body is in a state of absolute shock
and panic.”
The Indian consul general in
New York said in a statement that
the action to revoke Kashmir’s au-
tonomy, which was granted under
Article 370 of India’s Constitution,
was “purely administrative” and
was intended to “improve good
governance and deliver socio-eco-
nomic justice to the disadvan-
taged sections of the people in the
State.”
The consul general added that
restrictions related to Article 370
“seriously discouraged” invest-
ment in the region, limited eco-
nomic opportunities and hurt
younger generations.
India’s government had been
carefully preparing for this action,
which instantly raised tensions
across the border in Pakistan. For
the past two weeks, tens of thou-
sands of extra troops had been de-
ployed across Kashmir, and many
Kashmiris had been expecting
something big.
Still, many people were stunned
that the government actually
made the decision. It was widely
seen as another bold, muscular
move by the administration of
Narendra Modi, India’s forceful
prime minister, to consolidate
power.
Many Indians believe Kashmir
is a legitimate part of India, and
several other political parties, in-
cluding progressive ones, lined up
behind the government.
With an overwhelming major-

ity, the upper house of Parliament

passed a related bill Monday

evening that split the state of

Jammu and Kashmir, which in-

cludes the Kashmir Valley and the

Ladakh area, into two federal ter-

ritories: Jammu and Kashmir,

which will have a state legislature,

and Ladakh, a remote, high-alti-

tude area, which will be ruled di-

rectly from New Delhi.

If this clears the lower House,

which is expected in the coming

days, Kashmir loses the special

status it has enjoyed since 1947

when it chose to join India.

Officials in Pakistan were con-

tacting allies around the world to

try to oppose the action, but many

analysts said Pakistan had little

credibility on the issue. Pakistan

has a long history of covertly sup-

porting militant groups in Kash-

mir despite pressure from allies to

stop.

Human rights activists said

that the moves to change Kash-

mir’s status were only the first

steps in a broader plan to erode

Kashmir’s core rights and seed

the area with non-Kashmiris, al-

tering the demographics and

eventually destroying its charac-

ter. Previous laws barred out-

siders from owning property.

Several legal scholars said they

believed the government did not

have the legal authority to change

Article 370. The issue, they said,

was headed for a showdown in In-

dia’s Supreme Court.

“The whole bill is not only un-

constitutional, it’s a fraud,” said

A. G. Noorani, a constitutional

lawyer.

But India’s ruling Bharatiya Ja-

nata Party, commonly referred to

as the B.J.P., may be difficult to

stop. Mr. Modi, the most domi-

neering leader India has had in

decades, just won a resounding

election victory in May, in part on

the promise of revoking Article

370.

Wiping away Kashmir’s special

status has been a dream of many

B.J.P. supporters who have spo-

ken of a Greater Hindustan, a

Hindu-dominated land that

scoops up Pakistan, Bangladesh

and other parts of South Asia. In-

dia is about 80 percent Hindu.

The B.J.P.’s leaders have cast

the Kashmir issue as a nationalist

cause and have raised fears of Pa-

kistani infiltrations and terrorist

attacks in the region.

“The application of Article 370

to foster vested interests have cre-

ated a climate of separatism,” the

consul general said in the state-

ment, adding that the “defense of

the security and stability” of the

region “has cost more than 40,

lives and been a major drain on re-

sources.”

Kashmir has been racked by

bloodshed for years. Many Kash-

miris do not want to be part of In-

dia, and a small but stubborn in-

surgency has been fighting Indian

forces. Countless Hindus across

India feel solidarity with Kashmiri

Hindus, a minority in that area,

who had been driven out over the

years during the conflict.

Officials in Mr. Modi’s party be-

lieve it is time to try something dif-

ferent. They say that if non-Kash-

miris are allowed to own land in

Kashmir, more investment and

development will follow, increas-

ing the chances for peace and na-

tional unity.

“Imposed divisions between In-

dians and Kashmiris have been

done away with,” said Rakesh

Sinha, a B.J.P. lawmaker. “The slo-

gan of ‘One Nation, One People’ is

now a reality for Indians.”

Some analysts say the timing is

suspicious. In recent weeks, Mr.

Modi’s government has come un-

der increasing criticism over a

weakening economy, with jobless-

ness rising. A sense of malaise is

beginning to seep through just

about all sectors of the economy.

Analysts say that Mr. Modi and

Mr. Shah, widely considered the

Indian leader’s right-hand man,

were desperate to shore up their

base and shift the conversation.

“This is exactly what national

populists do all over the world,”

said Christophe Jaffrelot, a re-

search fellow at CERI-Sciences

Po/CNRS in Paris. “Clearly, India

is entering a zone of economic tur-

bulence. So this is the right time to

return to the nationalistic

agenda.”

In Kashmir, a sense of doom had

been settling in. As federal forces

poured into the valley in recent

weeks, many Kashmiris grew to

believe that Mr. Modi’s govern-

ment was preparing to take signif-

icant action. Jammu and Kashmir,

with a population of about 13 mil-

lion, is India’s only Muslim major-

ity state.

Economic and political frustra-

tion permeates the Kashmir Val-

ley. The young have struggled to

find work as political turmoil has

hampered development, and

many people say they don’t have a

A police checkpoint in Jammu and Kashmir, a disputed region along the India-Pakistan border.

MUKESH GUPTA/REUTERS

A woman and child in the rain. Hindus have for years wanted a change in Kashmir’s special status.

RAKESH BAKSHI/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES

Hindu-Led India Puts

Clamp on Muslim Area

From Page A

A long-planned

sudden move to end

Kashmir’s autonomy.

Salman Masood contributed re-
porting from Lahore, Pakistan;
Ayesha Venkataraman and Vindu
Goel contributed from Mumbai,
India.

WASHINGTON — President

Trump signed an executive order

on Monday imposing new eco-

nomic sanctions on the govern-

ment of Venezuela, escalating his

campaign to remove President

Nicolás Maduro from office.

The White House announced

the action, which freezes the prop-

erty and assets of the Venezuelan

government and those of any indi-

viduals who assist Venezuelan of-

ficials affected by the order, on the

eve of an international conference

on Venezuela in Lima, Peru.

Several Trump officials, includ-

ing the national security adviser,

John R. Bolton, and Commerce

Secretary Wilbur Ross, are sched-

uled to attend the gathering,

which will discuss ways to “re-

store democracy” to Venezuela,

according to Peru’s government.

Mr. Trump’s order cited “the

continued usurpation of power by

Nicolas Maduro” as well as “hu-

man rights abuses, including arbi-

trary or unlawful arrest and de-

tention of Venezuelan citizens, in-

terference with freedom of ex-

pression, including for members

of the news media, and continuing

attempts to undermine Interim

President Juan Guaidó and the

Venezuelan National Assembly’s

exercise of legitimate authority in

Venezuela.”

The Trump administration has

thrown its support behind Mr.

Guaidó, who has called Mr. Madu-

ro an illegitimate leader. In April,

the Trump administration sup-

ported his calls for generals to rise

up against the socialist president,

but Mr. Maduro retained the sup-

port of the military and squelch

the immediate threat to his power.

Using Mr. Trump as a foil, he has

cast himself as a brave survivor

against American imperial influ-

ence.

The effects of the sanctions

were not immediately clear. Sev-

eral sanctions experts on Monday

night questioned initial news me-

dia reports that characterized the

action as a total “embargo” on

Venezuela, noting that Mr.

Trump’s order did not seem to ap-

ply to Venezuelan trade with the

wider world. Given that Mr.

Trump has repeatedly placed

sanctions on Mr. Maduro’s gov-

ernment since taking office, some

predicted a modest economic ef-

fect.

“This appears to be more light

than heat,” said Richard Nephew,

a former State Department offi-

cial who has written a book on eco-

nomic sanctions. “This is not an

embargo. It does not create penal-

ties for business with Venezuela

altogether, it just denies such ac-

tivities with the government of

Venezuela and it is doubtful there

were any of those still extant to be

cut off by this action.”

Others predicted more severe

consequences.

While the sanctions prohibit do-

ing business only with the Vene-

zuelan state, they could harm the

country’s surviving private firms,

which already struggle to find

suppliers and make payments

abroad, said Francisco Rodríguez,

chief economist of New York-

based brokerage Torino Capital

and former economic adviser to a

Venezuelan opposition presiden-

tial candidate.

“Financial institutions will be

cautious not to make dealings

with Venezuelan private sector

firms, which could be perceived as

proxies for the Venezuelan gov-

ernment,” he said.

Fernando Cutz, who oversaw

South America policy at the White

House under Lt. Gen. H.R. Mc-

Master, the former national secu-

rity adviser, said the new order, at

a minimum, “puts Venezuela on a

list of really horrendous regimes

out there.”

The test, Mr. Cutz said on Mon-

day night, is whether the new

sanctions prevent Russia and

China from receiving Venezuelan

oil as part of a debt repayment

program. If so, “that’s a pretty sig-

nificant thing, and then the ques-

tion is how Russia and China will

respond, more than anything

else.”

He said that Russia was close to

being paid in full for its debt relief

to Venezuela, but that China was

on pace to be receiving oil from

the South American country until

early 2021.

“They might stand to lose

more,” said Mr. Cutz, now at the

Wilson Center, a think tank in

Washington.

Venezuela’s imports per capita

have already fallen to the lowest

level since 1950s. The country’s

imports totaled just $303 million

in April, down 92 percent from the

same month in 2012, according to

Torino Capital.

Venezuela’s economy was al-

ready forecast to decline 35 per-

cent this year, according to the In-

ternational Monetary Fund. By

the end of this year, the country’s

gross domestic product will have

shrunk by two-thirds since 2013.

Trump Adds

To Sanctions

On Venezuela

By MICHAEL CROWLEY

and ANATOLY KURMANAEV

Michael Crowley reported from

Washington, and Anatoly Kur-

manaev from Caracas, Venezuela.

Lara Jakes contributed reporting

from Washington.