Sinnerman108
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,994
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It doesn't work like that. There are multiple issues with such a proposal.
As part of Union of India, Pakistan does not possess the strength to even take 10 square kms of Kashmir. Why then would India need to give the duties of external defense to any third party? As a far stronger country and military, by giving away defense of Kashmir to a third party, India is losing its advantage.
Secondly, once the election commission refreshes the legislative seats in J&K, India will be hold elections for the people of J&K to run their state like every other state of India does. Why then do we need people of Pakistan to be involved in decisions for J&K.
Lastly and most importantly, any treaties with Pakistan are not worth the paper they are written on. Pakistan does not honour any treaties and will no longer be trusted.
I am glad that India has started coming out of the old ways of thinking where leaders thought Pakistan could be trusted. Pakistan must be treated the way it acts, not how we want it to act.
You can't declare J&K a truly autonomous region without India and Pakistan reducing their forces to a bare minimum or completely, which brings us back to the same issue that prevented a plebiscite per the UNSC Resolutions - an agreement between India & Pakistan on demilitarization. India wants Pakistan to unilaterally withdraw all her forces while India retains all her forces - that is a completely ludicrous demand and will never work. And if both countries do agree on a bilateral withdrawal, why not just proceed with implementing the UNSC Resolutions at that point and allow the UN to hold a plebiscite?