Can Kashmir wrest independence without Pakistan's help?

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Can Kashmir wrest independence without Pakistan's help?

I am not referring to bullshit like moral and diplomatic support.

My question is whether Kashmir can wrest independence from India without active Pakistani help like supply of arms etc. If I am more explicit in explaining I would be banned.

Or can Kashmiris sustain the insurgency without Pakistan's active physical help?

 

[Sully3]

it will be Kashmiris own people that will get freedom. the 3rd generation growing up in kashmir now blinded by pellets they wont forgive the state for this.

also hindu terror in the rest of India might make muslims in India again rise for seperation

 

[Fireurimagination]

Kashmir can't wrest independence neither with or without Pakistan's or anybody's support

 

[Jaanbaz]

Gangu land needs hundreds of thousands of troops to keep one little area under occupation.

 

[ashok321]

Kashmir Bharat ka ek atoot ang hai.
As per the Indian constitution, Whole Kashmir is part of India.

Can Kashmir wrest independence?
Can India wrest "Azad Kashmir" from Pakistan?

4 years and counting despite 56" nationalist Modi aka Jeep driver and Chaiwala ruling India.
Afraid of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Gangu land needs hundreds of thousands of troops to keep one little area under occupation.

If I am not wrong, the ratio of soldiers to region's population is similar in case of Russia-Chechnya conflict.

 

[PurpleStone]

Can Kashmir wrest independence without Pakistan's help?

I am not referring to bullshit like moral and diplomatic support.

My question is whether Kashmir can wrest independence from India without active Pakistani help like supply of arms etc. If I am more explicit in explaining I would be banned.

Or can Kashmiris sustain the insurgency without Pakistan's active physical help?

They can if some other country starts to provide "moral" support replacing Pakistan.

I would rather ask the question, Can Kashmir wrest independence with Pakistan's help? I would say, No.

Kashmir would get Independence only if India desires or India fails.

 

[Goenitz]

I have to repeat again... in 90s..
Chinese delegation asked Pak Cabinet people and generals "You want Kashmir but at what cost" .. then B.Bhutto asked Gen Gul that she wold reply... she said.. "we want Kashmir but not at cost of Pakistan" meaning w/o a full blown war...

India succeeded in making B.desh bcz of USSR backing so US couldn't interfere..
in todays time, it is very easy for insurgents to challenge army as weapons are lethal (force multiplier)..
however, international burden/sanction etc prevent a country helping openly ..
so in ideal scenario if Kashmirirs get weapons from Pakistan they can get independence.. if pak also send troops then it will be very easy too...

War is nothing but continuous line of supply... so if locals aren't on your side, you can fight but cannot sustain..

see TTP.. they had all modern weapons even Humvees and local support.. They had sympathies of people.. but when they started targeting civilians they lost that.. otherwise, even political parties were talking for reconciliation and not for army action..

anyway, in Op of Swat, SSG were dropped behind enemy lines to cut any reinforcements... even then Pak amry assault was stopped several times, despite our cavalry charged..

anyway TTP depleted both in firearms and manpower so they got defeated.. similar to FSA (syria) ... Assad just remained in power as he got help from Iranian Qudus, and Hizbullah.. both in terms of manpower and weapons...
But Qadafi was unlucky so he was killed.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

I have to repeat again... in 90s..
Chinese delegation asked Pak Cabinet people and generals "You want Kashmir but at what cost" .. then B.Bhutto asked Gen Gul that she wold reply... she said.. "we want Kashmir but not at cost of Pakistan" meaning w/o a full blown war...

India succeeded in making B.desh bcz of USSR backing so US couldn't interfere..
in todays time, it is very easy for insurgents to challenge army as weapons are lethal (force multiplier)..
however, international burden/sanction etc prevent a country helping openly ..
so in ideal scenario if Kashmirirs get weapons from Pakistan they can get independence.. if pak also send troops then it will be very easy too...

War is nothing but continuous line of supply... so if locals aren't on your side, you can fight but cannot sustain..

see TTP.. they had all modern weapons even Humvees and local support.. They had sympathies of people.. but when they started targeting civilians they lost that.. otherwise, even political parties were talking for reconciliation and not for army action..

anyway, in Op of Swat, SSG were dropped behind enemy lines to cut any reinforcements... even then Pak amry assault was stopped several times, despite our cavalry charged..

anyway TTP depleted both in firearms and manpower so they got defeated.. similar to FSA (syria) ... Assad just remained in power as he got help from Iranian Qudus, and Hizbullah.. both in terms of manpower and weapons...
But Qadafi was unlucky so he was killed.

What was the reason Pakistan failed to grab Kashmir in 1965?

 

[third eye]

if Kashmirirs get weapons from Pakistan they can get independence.. if pak also send troops then it will be very easy too...

Both these options have been tried , tested & have failed.

Sending troops into J&K by Pak would suit India admirably for the options it would open.

The last time it happened the Pak PM found himself at the doorstep of Clinton uninvited on their national holiday.

 

[Cuirassier]

Wait for an incentive.

 

[Goenitz]

What was the reason Pakistan failed to grab Kashmir in 1965?

@third eye
in 65 Ayub knew India would retaliate heavily, if Akhnor is captured so he delayed it.. Anyway, India widened the front which ended war... Plus, in 65 Kashmiris didn't support actively as they were supposed in Army plan...
similar thing happened on kargil, Pak could snub Siachen supply and thus Siachen vacation, so India, brought airforce etc.. as Pak couldn't afford a full war, so remained herself to ground troops deployment.. however, Pak was sure that this time front would remained limited due to recent nuclear tests...

 

[thesolar65]

Kashmir issue will be settled in one day if IA considers present situation as war with Kashmir terrorists and stone peltters. IA just now being only defensive. And if PA is involved directly? IA wants that...

 

[Trango Towers]

Kashmiris will not be free until they diversify the conflict.
They need to start hitting targets not only in Kashmir but anywhere and everywhere. Especially the financial parts of India. Major bridges. Railways. Military and non military targets ensuring civilian casualties to a minimum..Until they force India's hand India will not give way.
Problem is if Kashmir goes other states in India will follow and Delhi knows this

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Wait for an incentive.

@Goenitz
Do Kashmiris have the caliber to emulate Chechens who indegeniously arranged for funds to buy weapons and have shaken up the Russian might on their own? If I am not wrong, there is no Pakistani equivalent in Chechnya's case to provide them with arms and training and also infiltrators (hope mods don't ban me for calling spade a spade)? Chechens have done it all on their own without any or negligible external help. On the other hand when there's shortage of arms in Kashmir, Kashmiris resort to stone-pelting and gun snatching from security forces.

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.