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

[MH.Yang]

we indians dont consider it part of solution .

Oh, I see.
Indians fear a chain reaction, and Indians fear that other state will follow Kashmir.
Or the Indian government needs enemies.
They need to intimidate the people with Muslims and Pakistan to avoid national division.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Oh, I see.
Indians fear a chain reaction, and Indians fear that other state will follow Kashmir.
Or the Indian government needs enemies.
They need to intimidate the people with Muslims and Pakistan to avoid national division.

India giving away territory to Pakistan is a non-starter. We never gave it away when we were weak and isolated back in the 60s, why do you think we will do it now when the tables are turned?

 

[Baltistan scouts]

You already gave land away in the rann of kutch and kashmir is not yours give it already belongs to the kashmiris.

 

[adelphi]

No one trusts Pakistan after the Kargil fiasco, India made the mistake of believing the Pakistani civilian leadership to be the one running the show, but it was soon made clear who the real boss is… civilian leadership was swept aside like garbage by the Pak army.
Rest is history…. Biggest backstabbing of our times.

Hence we can try all sort of peace negotiations, but keep a big stick ready just in case..!!

No one in Kashmir trust India after back tracking on it's promise of plebiscite in past & abrogation of 370 recently. A history of back stabbings. No wonder even after 73 odd years, India is still trying to pacify Kashmir.

 

[PakLeader]

An independent Kashmir is not a realistic or sustainable option. An independent Kashmir will be a land locked country dependent on its neighbors to survive and sustain itself. That will make it open to both India and Pakistan playing their proxies to maintain their influence. Pakistan is still more likely to accept an independent Kashmir than India (though it will be our last choice), given 1. Historical ties and support for the kashmiris and their cause 2. Maintain land access to China and CPEC. 3. Unrestricted access to water which flows through kashmir. India won't support independence for those very reasons because Pakistan still benefits and an independent kashmir will start a chain reaction of independence movements in India.

The easiest option was what Musharraf had proposed and was almost a done deal. Make borders irrelevant, let Kashmiris travel freely and have self government, not implanted puppets, while India Pakistan withdraw troops but jointly control the territory. Essentially making it a shared territory without giving up any control over the part of Kashmir each country has. After x number of years the Kashmiris decide what they want. The only problem with this was again for India, what if Kashmiris say we choose Pakistan or independence after 10 or 20 years.

The other peaceful option which will not happen because it means India has to give up land is to further divide Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh into separate territories and let Kashmir go to Pakistan and keep Jammu and Ladakh. They have already divided jammu, kashmir and ladakh by revoking kashmirs special status so they can change the ethnic make up of the region and turn the Muslim majority into a minority. They are not fooling anyone. This solution is far fetched now and would have been something that could have been negotiated before India revoked Kashmirs status but not now.

Ultimately it comes down to this. There can be no peaceful solution to Kashmir because India holds the upper hand and will not compromise. They have no reason to negotiate or find a solution at this time. There is no international pressure on them or other reason either. So they will hold on to kashmir and do as they wish until they are pushed to the wall or their arm is really twisted.

 

[SIPRA]

You already gave land away in the rann of kutch and kashmir is not yours give it already belongs to the kashmiris.

Generally, no state, on its own, gives away territories, whether held legitimately or illegitimately. They are either taken by use of force or are given away under force of certain compelling circumstances.

 

[Kaleem.61]

I never heard a peaceful solution for Kashmir from India as their intentions are to undo Pakistan and liberate Baluchistan. (Don't know whether to cry or laugh)

Kashmir can have only one solution: WAR! And it will undo one county Either India(now) or India(later)!

Kashmir issue is a source of income for certain groups inside and outside Indo-Pak hence unresolved.

 

[Fahad20007]

After much reading and thinking, I have come to the conclusion that a soft border is the only possible outcome.

Both India Pakistan are nuclear armed. A territorial victory is impossible for both sides.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

There is only two solutions, There is no third option -

1. Make LoC permanent and live peacefully and allow kashmiri people to live peaceful.. It will actually great help to them. Open the trade at the borders in Jammu and Kashmir for Kashmiri people.

2 . Have a fight & War if anyone survives then take the whole jammu and Kashmir including india and pak parts including GB.


There is no 3rd option. So I failed to understand that why still Pakistan government believes that Indian government will compromise on their part of lands.

Even a few Indian also have the same kind of Pakistani government mentality that india will get the part of Pakistani Kashmir including GB.

Practically, it is not possible.... So now, jammu and Kashmir only became a topic for internal vote politics in the both countries. Few big people are earning lots of money the name of j&k, in the both countries...

Even establishments of both countries know that nothing can happen now.

 

[SIPRA]

Pakistan shall never ever forego its claim for the right of self determination of Kashmir. If it does so, it will be like nailing its own coffin. It would amount to accepting Indian hegemony, and, in fact, theoretically denying its own foundational and ideological basis that Muslim majority areas had the right to independence and freedom, as sovereign state(s) separate from Hindu-dominated India.

 

[Varunastra]

Well say we are willing to give up Kashmir(highly unlikely) , what can Pakistan give us in return? Giving Kashmir is out of the question if there is no land swap, so what would you bring to the table to maintain the balance given the strategic significance of Kashmir?

 

[jamahir]

Well say we are willing to give up Kashmir(highly unlikely) , what can Pakistan give us in return? Giving Kashmir is out of the question if there is no land swap, so what would you bring to the table to maintain the balance given the strategic significance of Kashmir?

India giving up Kashmir is not required, neither in my solution nor what Musharraf proposed in at the Agra Summit in 2001. I quote his four-point formula :

1. Demilitarisation or phased withdrawal of troops

Millions of troops, on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC), are stationed in Kashmir. According to Musharraf, both India and Pakistan would have scaled back its troops in the region for a lasting peace. Whether this would be gradual, phased withdrawal or not had to be worked out by the two sides.

2. There will be no change of borders of Kashmir. However, people of Jammu & Kashmir will be allowed to move freely across the Line of Control (LoC).

The LoC is effectively a ceasefire line, which both sides accepted in the Shimla Agreement of 1972. However, neither India nor Pakistan accepts it as the International Border. Both nations claim all of Kashmir. If Musharraf’s plan were to be accepted, India would have to accept Pakistan’s sovereignty over Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (which Pakistan refers to as its province of Azad Kashmir) and in return, Pakistan would accept Indian suzerainty over the part of Jammu and Kashmir on India’s side of the LoC. The ceasefire line would then become the International Border and both sides would give up claims over the other half of Kashmir. However, the people of Jammu and Kashmir would be allowed to move freely to the other half of the region.

3. Self-governance without independence

Pakistan has long been an advocate of what it calls ‘Kashmiri self-determination’ but Musharraf was willing to give that up in favour of a greater measure of autonomy. Vajpayee would likely not have too many objections with this clause of the agreement because the Indian Constitution already allows autonomy for J&K under Article 370. While this would have meant that the BJP would have to give up one of its core ideological positions, the repeal of Article 370, it would put an end to Pakistani support to pro-independence Kashmiri insurgents.

4. A joint supervision mechanism in Jammu and Kashmir involving India, Pakistan and Kashmir.

Musharraf’s decision to include local Kashmiri leadership in the supervision mechanism would have given him a greater chance at selling a potential Musharraf-Vajpayee accord to the people back home in Pakistan.

But seems this formula was rejected in India-administered Kashmir by separatist leader, the now-late Syed Ali Shah Geelani, and as I have read, in the Indian government by LK Advani.

 

[Varunastra]

India giving up Kashmir is not required, neither in my solution nor what Musharraf proposed in at the Agra Summit in 2001. I quote his four-point formula :

But seems this formula was rejected in India-administered Kashmir by separatist leader, the now-late Syed Ali Shah Geelani, and as I have read, in the Indian government by LK Advani.

My answer was more geared towards the members saying the only way to peace was to get Kashmir. We know getting it through war is very close to impossible then can a land swap work, if so what can Pakistan offer in such a case?

 

[adelphi]

Well say we are willing to give up Kashmir(highly unlikely) , what can Pakistan give us in return? Giving Kashmir is out of the question if there is no land swap, so what would you bring to the table to maintain the balance given the strategic significance of Kashmir?

You get secured peaceful western borders with Khalistan part of history. Road access to Afghanistan & Central Asia to boost trade n economy. Can negotiate eastern borders with China fully knowing that Pakistan is out of equation.

Alternately you got a low level insurgency in Kashmir which can flare up anytime. A hostile Afghanistan under Pak/China influence which is a huge security risk. A possible revival of khalistan. Co-ordinated Pak/China miliyary pressure on borders are few headaches.

I'm sure Indian Stretegic planners are fully aware of the risks & how they plan their next move is yet to be seen. The key is to understand that India is no Israel & their Israeli inspired actions in Kashmir will have implications.

 

[jamahir]

You get secured peaceful western borders with Khalistan part of history. Road access to Afghanistan & Central Asia to boost trade n economy. Can negotiate eastern borders with China fully knowing that Pakistan is out of equation.

Alternately you got a low level insurgency in Kashmir which can flare up anytime. A hostile Afghanistan under Pak/China influence which is a huge security risk. A possible revival of khalistan. Co-ordinated Pak/China miliyary pressure on borders are few headaches.

I humbly state that I have a better idea to achieve the items in the first paragraph and avoid the items in second paragraph if you read the thread OP. A progressive political and social beginning for both India and Pakistan. A common progressiveness.