What's new

A political solution for Kashmir and lasting peace for India and Pakistan

The only way we have peace within Kashmir is by allowing Kashmiri their own faith.

You mean religion ? I never spoke of that.

Or you mean something else ?

with respect who are you to tell a member what name to use? That’s really a ridiculous request.

I didn't ask him to change his name but just to modify its all-caps lettering. You will know that on the internet all-caps is basically shouting.

Perhaps you being a daily resident here should look at the reason why he dislikes Indians - do you not see the regular infestation of troll posts? Please spare me the nativity

I know that there are a few Hindutvadi trolls who drone on irrespective of sensible responses, but should those trolls be countered by PAKISTANFOREVER by himself droning about "ugliness" of Indians and so on ? Why can't he make calm posts ?
 
Last edited:
You have too many issues, I don't even know where to begin.

Please stop the mischaracterization of our Pakistani and Kashmiris brothers.

@Saahir Malik is a Kashmiri. He never called himself Indian.

@PAKISTANFOREVER can use whatever username, profile pic he wants. We value his words on this forum.

Same for brother @hussain0216 .

I dont know why you defend open Hindu trolls and then demean Muslim Paks, but it is getting very old.
Salaam @panislamic,,,bro I'm kashmiri pakistani,, I'm incomplete without being mentioned kashmiri Pakistani...bro u can't imagine how much our family is Suffering..
It is only coz we openly say we are kashmiri pakistani.my only wish is to die & to be buried in the land of pious pakistan..plz pray for me..
I'm not scared of india,
This is my cell no [Mod Edit: No phone numbers]
Any indian want to debate with me ..he is welcome...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only thing acceptable to India is complete and unconditional surrender of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in front of Hindu hegemon. Nothing less will be acceptable to them. I dont know why some Pakistanis are unable to understand this fact, even after losing 70,000 lives.
They have also derived a mathematical formula based on their delusions to gauge goodness and evil.
That formula is as follows:
Islam = bad
secularism = good
Kemalism = very nice
 
Any indian want to debate with me ..he is welcome...

Hi, can you tell me what is your objection to the solution I presented in the OP ?

I am aware of the problems that Kashmiris face in their day-to-day life. For example, read this thread which is an article by an American reporter Dexter Filkins who visited Kashmir with the Indian reporter Rana Ayyub in 2019.
 
Why lasting peace or solution...

there is so much benefits for both countries due to this,...

both countries get so much fighting experience
both countries invest a lot in military tech
both countries are always on edge
...
I say perpetual warlike stance is pretty good for both...
...
too bad LOC type situation is not possible between china India due to plateau terrain on Indi Tibettan border... chinese missing much need battle experience thr
 
Why lasting peace or solution...

there is so much benefits for both countries due to this,...

both countries get so much fighting experience
both countries invest a lot in military tech
both countries are always on edge
...
I say perpetual warlike stance is pretty good for both...
...
too bad LOC type situation is not possible between china India due to plateau terrain on Indi Tibettan border... chinese missing much need battle experience thr

Surely you are joking !

If the Indian and Pakistani militaries need battle experience they can go to Syria to help the Syrian armed forces fight those tens of thousands of international terrorists.
 
Surely you are joking !

If the Indian and Pakistani militaries need battle experience they can go to Syria to help the Syrian armed forces fight those tens of thousands of international terrorists.

neither pak or Indian military has any point expending resources on issues they dont have any dog in fight...
this always on edge routine is what keeping our militaries disciplined trained and powerful not only that providing
good enough competition on trade and other fronts and now when china and west is getting involved
the competition is only increasing ....

the competition is the only thing that gives one boost to go ahead from rest...
India is literally putting so much effort to get some local MIC to tackle challanges by pak china...
if thr was no challange India would be like nigeria
 
@Baibars_1260, your reply is below. I am generally logging-off now. Will reply to any reply of yours tomorrow :
Bangladesh is irrelevant. Apart from optics and massive "feel good" anti-Pakistani propaganda and " Don't forget 1971 " chant, that nation means nothing to any bi-lateral agreement between India and Pakistan. It was irrelevant even in July 1972. For 10 years India hardly ever mentioned the "1000 year victory.". Even today with a Hindutva government in power the Indian MEA never mentions Bangladesh or the "historic victory "

in its dealings with Pakistan. Not even Natwar Singh the most hawkish foreign ministers to visit Pakistan ever mentioned Bangladesh when talking to Pakistan.

---

Musharraf was dealing with a Hindutva driven regime. The window to normalize was immediately after 1975 when Indira Gandhi was firmly in control, and after Mujib's assassination the " victory " in Bangladesh seemed hollow.
With the death of Indira Gandhi in 1984, the prospect of another secular and powerful leader coming to power in India is remote.
There will be Hindutva nationalism for the foreseeable future.
It is not Kashmir anymore. It is a Hindu Muslim conflict that has developed into a threat of nuclear annihilation.

It is a Hindu Muslim religious conflict, not a territorial one.
 
Why lasting peace or solution...

there is so much benefits for both countries due to this,...

both countries get so much fighting experience
both countries invest a lot in military tech
both countries are always on edge
...
I say perpetual warlike stance is pretty good for both...
...
too bad LOC type situation is not possible between china India due to plateau terrain on Indi Tibettan border... chinese missing much need battle experience thr

you want war for fighting experience ?

lol ... :D
 
Last edited:
@Baibars_1260, your reply is below. I am generally logging-off now. Will reply to any reply of yours tomorrow :
Liked your OP.
Here are my views. I have no arguments against your proposal.
The solution proposed by you to the Kashmir problem is an ideal one, and based on ideal conditions which did largely exist at one time. India and Pakistan at one time ( 1972-1975 ) had a political and social parity with left of center governments in power. Both India and Pakistan had a strong political leadership from 1972-1977. Nationalist passions had cooled in both countries after a bloody stalemate ( 16th Dec to 21st Dec, 1971 ) over Kashmir. Neither superpower ( the USA or the Soviet Union) was willing to unequivocally back their ally, though the Soviet Union was very disappointed that India failed to make a military breakthrough in the west during the war. The Soviet Union then began to court Pakistan ( setting up the Karachi steel mill ). Both Pakistani and Indian economies had a large public sector component. The general mindset of both the population was still largely secular.

So what went wrong.

There was every likelihood of a rapprochement. This did not happen due to various reasons related to internal political developments in both countries.
India's insistence on resumption of consular services, road, rail and air travel, trade, phone, communications and postal links ( in other words complete normalization) before finally settling the border was unacceptable to
Pakistan.
To recap my earlier posts.
Indira Gandhi was no religious nut.
Logically I should be disliking Indira Gandhi for what she did to my country. But de-classified documents 50 years later show a completely different picture. War was distasteful to Indira Gandhi . Even though Indian military and strategic planners, had long planned a separation of Pakistan's eastern wing Indira Gandhi had restrained them. The spillover from the Civil War was the prime reason for India's intervention. Perhaps it was a deliberate quick capitulation on Pakistan's part ( to concentrate on defending the West) , which even India didn't plan for ; but the events in Bangladesh were quickly overshadowed by developments in the West. Indira briefly flirted with the idea of a military enforced reunion of West Pakistan or at least a recovery of Kashmir. But the realities of India's military limitations hit home over the next five days of fighting. A "demoralized " Pakistan should have logically surrendered in the West also.
Instead the bitter resistance to the Indian offensive in the West, bogged down into a bloody stalemate resulting in heavy Indian casualties. The Indian military brass were surprised at the resilience of the Pakistani defence. Any rabidly fanatical leadership would have continued a war of attrition. Instead Indira looked to the future, swallowing the humiliation of a military stalemate on the Western border against a far inferior supposedly "defeated" enemy.
Bangladesh was now far less relevant so far as India's future foreign and strategic vision was concerned.
The blunt fact then was that India is Northern centric and the majority of India's population had a rough linguistic and cultural affinity with Pakistan. If India was to be truly a big power, it could not afford a hostile neighbor on its sensitive and strategic border. Ideally that enemy neighboring country should have been militarily defeated, overrun and occupied with large chunks torn off and assimilated back, and a rump demilitarized territory left to fend for itself. The USA did exactly that with Mexico, But like the USA's border conflict with Canada, India had no military capabilities to do to Pakistan what the USA had done to Mexico. Pakistan was not Mexico.
Just as the USA resolved its border dispute with Canada and made the two neighbors "borderless" India under Indira Gandhi attempted to do this in 1972 just seven months after the war on the Western front ended. The grim possibility of a perpetual and growing enmity with Pakistan was very real.
It is significant that after the Tripartite agreement of 1974 NO OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION from India to Pakistan has ever mentioned Bangladesh or any reference to that nation. Even the Simla Summit agreement doesn't mention Bangladesh. Not even Modi has been able to undo Indira Gandhi's legacy.
So far as communications between India and Pakistan is concerned Bangladesh is irrelevant and never mentioned.
Let us come to India's stance first.
So India's ambitions have not changed over the last 50 years.
India still would like to develop as a superpower; but it can't until it has a secure border, either through complete hegemony over it's neighbors ( like
USA over Mexico) or a complete accommodation ( like between USA and Canada).
Depending on the type of government in power India has attempted to solve its problems with Pakistan by either the hegemony approach or the accommodation approach. Both methods have failed .
1. With its military limitations India cannot have hegemony over Pakistan.
2. Any accommodation attempts are stiffly resisted by the Opposition Lawmakers.
( To be continued)
 
Liked your OP.
Here are my views. I have no arguments against your proposal.
The solution proposed by you to the Kashmir problem is an ideal one, and based on ideal conditions which did largely exist at one time. India and Pakistan at one time ( 1972-1975 ) had a political and social parity with left of center governments in power. Both India and Pakistan had a strong political leadership from 1972-1977. Nationalist passions had cooled in both countries after a bloody stalemate ( 16th Dec to 21st Dec, 1971 ) over Kashmir. Neither superpower ( the USA or the Soviet Union) was willing to unequivocally back their ally, though the Soviet Union was very disappointed that India failed to make a military breakthrough in the west during the war. The Soviet Union then began to court Pakistan ( setting up the Karachi steel mill ). Both Pakistani and Indian economies had a large public sector component. The general mindset of both the population was still largely secular.

So what went wrong.

There was every likelihood of a rapprochement. This did not happen due to various reasons related to internal political developments in both countries.
India's insistence on resumption of consular services, road, rail and air travel, trade, phone, communications and postal links ( in other words complete normalization) before finally settling the border was unacceptable to
Pakistan.
To recap my earlier posts.

Let us come to India's stance first.
So India's ambitions have not changed over the last 50 years.
India still would like to develop as a superpower; but it can't until it has a secure border, either through complete hegemony over it's neighbors ( like
USA over Mexico) or a complete accommodation ( like between USA and Canada).
Depending on the type of government in power India has attempted to solve its problems with Pakistan by either the hegemony approach or the accommodation approach. Both methods have failed .
1. With its military limitations India cannot have hegemony over Pakistan.
2. Any accommodation attempts are stiffly resisted by the Opposition Lawmakers.
( To be continued)
What has changed over time is the mindset of the population.
The generation that had seen a united British ruled India is dead.
Progressive think tanks believed that once the generation ( both in Pakistan and India ) that saw Partition died off relations between the two nations would dramatically improve. The mindset of a young generation would not be tainted with communal religious hatred and extreme jingoism.
In fact the opposite happened.
The generation that saw Partition had bitter memories but also had nostalgia for a united country. That generation was aware of the culture, and a significant number could speak read and write a common language ( Urdu , and Hindi ). A common language Hindustani existed.
At one peak moment in India ( 1970s) centrist and left wing elements of this generation was in power. They wanted to see an India Pakistan Federation in their lifetime.
In particular the issue of Kashmir was to be determined by future generations and the Simla Agreement in 1972 was to fix the "border to make a borderless Kashmir" within Pakistan and India.,
This policy was promoted by five eminent Kashmiri pundits (T.N. Kaul, D.P. Dhar, P.N.Haksar, P.N. Dhar, and R.N. Kao). Indira Gandhi was herself of Kashmiri Pundit origin.
Indian held Kashmir remained peaceful throughout the 1971 war and for almost 13 years thereafter .

Up to 1984 the Partition generation that ruled India wanted Kashmir ( Indian held ) with its people. The reasons were political as they were strategic . A prosperous and peaceful Muslim majority state within India was a powerful reminder to the world that India was a secular state and Partition and Pakistan was an unpleasant colonial anomaly that would be addressed. Internally the ruling Congress Party backed by centrist, left wing parties ( the CPI, CPM etc. ) kept the fascist forces off balance showing a peaceful Kashmir

From 1977 onwards, events based on internal politics in India began to charge the mindset of the population. ( to be discussed in a separate post ) . It is sufficient to say that the younger generation mindset is far more polarized, and communalized with extreme jingoistic fervor than any generation before. Indian Muslims, Kashmiris, and Pakistanis are all classified as ONE enemy.
The current regime in India with a massive mandate from a younger polarized vote bank enjoys complete support in this policy of classification of the enemy.
The present generation of Indians wants complete elimination and removal of Indian Muslims and Kashmiris ( and of course the destruction of Pakistan).
So India as of today wants the land and territory of Kashmir without the people ( implied Muslims) .
India also wants the rest of its territory cleansed of Muslims but that is beyond the scope of this topic.
A parliament resolution in 1991 in India demanded Pakistan vacate Azad Kashmir and resolved to use "all means " to recover the territory.

In the next post Pakistan's Kashmiri policy will be discussed
( to be continued).
 
What has changed over time is the mindset of the population.
The generation that had seen a united British ruled India is dead.
Progressive think tanks believed that once the generation ( both in Pakistan and India ) that saw Partition died off relations between the two nations would dramatically improve. The mindset of a young generation would not be tainted with communal religious hatred and extreme jingoism.
In fact the opposite happened.
The generation that saw Partition had bitter memories but also had nostalgia for a united country. That generation was aware of the culture, and a significant number could speak read and write a common language ( Urdu , and Hindi ). A common language Hindustani existed.
At one peak moment in India ( 1970s) centrist and left wing elements of this generation was in power. They wanted to see an India Pakistan Federation in their lifetime.
In particular the issue of Kashmir was to be determined by future generations and the Simla Agreement in 1972 was to fix the "border to make a borderless Kashmir" within Pakistan and India.,
This policy was promoted by five eminent Kashmiri pundits (T.N. Kaul, D.P. Dhar, P.N.Haksar, P.N. Dhar, and R.N. Kao). Indira Gandhi was herself of Kashmiri Pundit origin.
Indian held Kashmir remained peaceful throughout the 1971 war and for almost 13 years thereafter .

Up to 1984 the Partition generation that ruled India wanted Kashmir ( Indian held ) with its people. The reasons were political as they were strategic . A prosperous and peaceful Muslim majority state within India was a powerful reminder to the world that India was a secular state and Partition and Pakistan was an unpleasant colonial anomaly that would be addressed. Internally the ruling Congress Party backed by centrist, left wing parties ( the CPI, CPM etc. ) kept the fascist forces off balance showing a peaceful Kashmir

From 1977 onwards, events based on internal politics in India began to charge the mindset of the population. ( to be discussed in a separate post ) . It is sufficient to say that the younger generation mindset is far more polarized, and communalized with extreme jingoistic fervor than any generation before. Indian Muslims, Kashmiris, and Pakistanis are all classified as ONE enemy.
The current regime in India with a massive mandate from a younger polarized vote bank enjoys complete support in this policy of classification of the enemy.
The present generation of Indians wants complete elimination and removal of Indian Muslims and Kashmiris ( and of course the destruction of Pakistan).
So India as of today wants the land and territory of Kashmir without the people ( implied Muslims) .
India also wants the rest of its territory cleansed of Muslims but that is beyond the scope of this topic.
A parliament resolution in 1991 in India demanded Pakistan vacate Azad Kashmir and resolved to use "all means " to recover the territory.

In the next post Pakistan's Kashmiri policy will be discussed
( to be continued).

Pakistan's stance on Kashmir is simplistic, and legalistic.
  • Unlike India which refutes the logic of Partition itself Pakistan views Kashmir as an unfinished agenda of Partition.
  • Pakistan's case is that as a contiguous territory with a Muslim majority Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. The people of Kashmir want to belong to Pakistan.
  • Pakistan cites the 1948 U.N. Resolution for a plebiscite as a legal case.
In my earlier post we have seen that India's attempts in 1971 to regain Azad Kashmir were unsuccessful. Pakistan's attempt in 1965 to regain Indian Occupied Kashmir was also unsuccessful for the following reasons.
  1. The population in Indian Occupied Kashmir did not to support the Pakistani operations, and in fact in some cases colluded with the Indian Army defending the territory. The reason was that at time India had a largely secular government in power and mostly democratic in structure. Pakistan was under martial law and the population of Indian Administered Kashmir preferred a secular democratic partial autonomy to an uncertain status under Pakistan.
  2. Whatever the reasons, the non-cooperation of the Indian Occupied Kashmiri population resulted in heavy casualties for Pakistan. Worst of all the non-cooperation of the Kashmiri population emboldened India to expand the conflict outside Kashmir onto the international border threatening Pakistan's key cities including Lahore , Sialkot and other cities in Sindh. In fact with initial successes India was even contemplating retaking Azad Kashmir.
  3. For Pakistan, the focus of the war changed from regaining Indian Occupied Kashmir to the defense of Pakistan itself. A courageous and brilliant defense by Pakistan's Armed forces shattered any ambitions by India to either retake Azad Kashmir or to punish Pakistan by seizing chunks of territory within Pakistan itself.
Except for India's losses in the Chambh Jhaurian sector in 1971 ( the icy wastes of Siachen, and Turtok notwithstanding ), the tactical situation on the ground hasn't changed much to either Pakistan or India's advantage. Even the 1999 Kargil war did not change the situation much.

The situation today

By 1972 it was clear to the Kashmiris in Indian Administered Kashmir that any India Pakistan war was not going to change their status.
Kashmiris in Indian Administered Kashmir had expected to retain their partial autonomy or special status within a secular democratic framework of the Indian constitution. With a peaceful secular democratic establishment Kashmiris in Indian Administered Kashmir had hoped to attract international support and intervention for a peaceful unification with Pakistani Administered Kashmir and the establishment of an autonomous region. Kashmiris were looking to independence rather than a merger with Pakistan.

We have seen earlier how the secular democratic environment in India has deteriorated to the point that any agreement at defusing tensions between India and Pakistan is unacceptable to the Indian masses.
The vilification of India's Muslim minority is as intense as the hatred for the Kashmiri Muslim. The enemy for the average Indian in the street is Muslims; regardless if that defines a Kashmiri, Indian or Pakistani.
The change in India's secular democratic setup has had a profound impact on the "Indian" Kashmiri Muslim mindset. A peaceful secular Indian Administered Kashmir is no longer possible in a vitiated communal environment in the rest of India, and Kashmiris do not wish to suffer the fate of Indian Muslims. Which is why the earlier reluctance for armed rebellion and collusion with Pakistan has changed. Kashmiri Muslims are actively resisting the Indian occupation, and one million Indian troops and paramilitary forces are needed to hold down a population of 12 million .

The communalizing of Kashmir has resulted in the displacement of Kashmiri Pundits from the Valley. There is a resumption of communal violence against Muslims in Jammu.

The struggle of Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir is no longer just a struggle for autonomy and independence, but also a struggle for preservation of their freedom to practice their religion.

This development has been a windfall for Pakistan. All of Pakistan's earlier efforts to motivate Kashmiri's in India had failed; most crucially in the 1965, 1971 ( non-existent ) , and 1999 conflicts. Pakistan's foreign policy think tanks are realistic enough to realize, that given the military realities on the ground Kashmiris will never oust the Indian forces on their own ; nor can Pakistan help them achieve this objective.
The window of 1949, and 1965 has passed forever. Pakistan also realizes with much satisfaction that India lacks the military capabilities of taking Azad Kashmir from Pakistan. India's earlier gambit of threatening Pakistan on the international border, and forcing it to choose between defending Azad Kashmir and protecting Lahore, is no longer viable because of the nuclear dimensions. Pakistan can with some immunity, keep the "pot boiling" in Kashmir, tying down huge numbers of Indian troops. With a fundamentalist religious nationalist regime in power with a huge nuclear armed military establishment and hatred of Muslims, it makes sense to keep such a formidable enemy off balance.

For Pakistan it is no longer an issue of Kashmir but survival. Pakistan needs to survive an existential threat from a vastly superior enemy. Kashmir is but one tool to keep its enemy off balance. Liberation or Integration of Kashmir is very distant in the minds of Pakistani security planners.

Progressive think tanks tend to view the Kashmir issue in economic, political and territorial terms. It was like that one time from 1972 to early 1980 when India and Pakistan were extremely reluctant to fight and had pushed the religious angle to the background. Even when the Soviet Union prior to invading Afghanistan, asked India to invade from the east retaking Kashmir and capturing large parts of Pakistan, India refused. The Soviet Union hoped to neutralize Pakistan which it knew would become a base for the western backed Afghan resistance.
India violated it's Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Understanding with the Soviet Union rather than get embroiled in another war with Pakistan. Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai ( whatever his drink he preferred ) should have been honored and given the Nobel Peace prize for averting a carnage on the sub-continent.

Today this is no longer the case. India has been swept by a wave of religious fundamentalist hysteria bent on a "1000 year revenge ".

( To be concluded )
 
Last edited:

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom