What will it take to Force India to accede on Kashmir?

[Didact]

This thread asks a very basic question: What will it take to force India to make concessions on Kashmir? The word concession is being intentionally left vague: members can choose its interpretations according to their understanding/expectations.

There are two broad frameworks for Pakistan to force India to negotiations/concessions as far as Kashmir is concerned:
1. Conventional conflict
2. Covert support (moral/monetary/logistical)-This will include completely indigenous uprisings

This thread attempts to quantify in measurable terms (according to members here) as to when India's hold on Kashmir will be sufficiently weakened/broken to force concessions. As such I request the participants to provide numbers (absolute of range) for the following parameters:
1. Casualty figures of combatants(annual or overall or in percentage terms) or surrenders
2. Costs of holding Kashmir (financial-annual/overall)
3. Area under control of PA/Insurgents etc (Percentage or specific sectors)

This thread is not concerned with morality or ethicality of the method(s) used/imagined. What it intends is to map what the members here believe will cause a catastrophic failure of the Indian control over Kashmir; failure sufficient enough for Pakistan to negotiate from a dominating position.

Participants (if any) are also welcome to present their own ideas which may be outside the framework I've put forward-One specific example that comes to mind is cutting off the Akhnor sector from India, where strategic defeat can be effected without any drastic costs in terms of men or finances through cutting off the vital road network

 

[Ali Tariq]

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

This thread asks a very basic question: What will it take to force India to make concessions on Kashmir? The word concession is being intentionally left vague: members can choose its interpretations according to their understanding/expectations.

There are two broad frameworks for Pakistan to force India to negotiations/concessions as far as Kashmir is concerned:
1. Conventional conflict
2. Covert support (moral/monetary/logistical)-This will include completely indigenous uprisings

This thread attempts to quantify in measurable terms (according to members here) as to when India's hold on Kashmir will be sufficiently weakened/broken to force concessions. As such I request the participants to provide numbers (absolute of range) for the following parameters:
1. Casualty figures of combatants(annual or overall or in percentage terms) or surrenders
2. Costs of holding Kashmir (financial-annual/overall)
3. Area under control of PA/Insurgents etc (Percentage or specific sectors)

This thread is not concerned with morality or ethicality of the method(s) used/imagined. What it intends is to map what the members here believe will cause a catastrophic failure of the Indian control over Kashmir; failure sufficient enough for Pakistan to negotiate from a dominating position.

Participants (if any) are also welcome to present their own ideas which may be outside the framework I've put forward-One specific example that comes to mind is cutting off the Akhnor sector from India, where strategic defeat can be effected without any drastic costs in terms of men or finances through cutting off the vital road network

Or we should allow Modi to rule India for more years, probably...He handed us Kashmir spiritually....No Kashmiri likes India but very few.

India has Kashmir..still, doesn't have

 

[313ghazi]

I'm not sure it's possible short term. I don't see a diplomatic solution at all, and the military one is highly unlikely to be successful and would require a huge sustained financial and military commitment.

It would require a massive guerilla conflict in Kashmir, sustained for a couple of decades minimum where India was losing thousands of security personel a year.

The loss of manpower and equipment alone would not be enough, the public opinion would need to be changed against the occupation and one of the only ways of doing that would be by targeting civillian targets and infrastructure in mainland India by freedom fighters, to make the Kashmir conflict something that hurts Indians at home. Initially this would increase support for the occupation, but escalation and a long term campaign (10-15 years) might bring about a situation where Indians start asking if it's worth it. I consider any such action immoral and don't endorse it. It's also worth noting that in the history of the armed Kashmiri resistance, nothing of the sort has ever been done.

Conventional conflict is also very unlikely, and could only be successful as a follow on to a sustained unconventional campaign. If we assume it doesn't escalate to a nuclear conflict, the approach of both armies would be to grab enemy territory to then exchange later on when conflict ends. PA would probably have a massive push in Kashmir to take advantage of non conventional gains and might choose not to return that territory. The chances of that being successful are low and would require;

- conflict fatigue on the Indian side
- PA to have taken enough Indian territory to offer in return that India could not refuse to not make a deal.

As you can see the situation of freeing Kashmir by force is unlikely. That doesn't mean that conflict is unlikely. Pakistan should be using unconventional forces to loosen up Indian grip on Kashmir.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Two front war in which India gets defeated decisively. Other than that there is no other scenario in which India will let go of Kashmir.

 

[kvpak]

What will it take to force India to make concessions on Kashmir?

Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris, not to Hin-dians. I disagree with the word concession. Kashmiris do not have to beg for concessions, they demand their fundamental right.

Tamil nationalists stand with all oppressed peoples.

 

[PAKjunoon]

Simple:

1. Instigate a civil disobedience movement in IOK,Protest,Road Blocking,Eradicating any symbol of Indian Control,like flags,id cards,etc.
2. Targeted highly publicized attack on the occupational force.
3. Support other liberation movements going in India.
4. After a few years Indian citizens will be fed up of these daily insurgency and protest.
5. Pakistan and India jointly conduct a Plebiscite in Kashmir.
6. Kashmiris decide their fate.

 

[boxer_B]

Neither Pakistan Army, nor separatists and now not even India is in favor of solution of Kashmir.

Pak army needs steady flow of funds and reason to have nukes. So India is a scapegoat.
Separatists are collecting "Kahiraat" from both hands and making mansions in Dubai etc.
India feels that Kashmir is a great distraction for Pakistan and it's costing huge to next Pak generation and economy.

Till the time IWT is not touched, i don't think any side has benefit of resolving Kashmir.

 

[newb3e]

ohh this will be fun!

bring it on Indians! create bs facts right out of your a55es!

 

[Advaitagrata]

Simple:

1. Instigate a civil disobedience movement in IOK,Protest,Road Blocking,Eradicating any symbol of Indian Control,like flags,id cards,etc.
2. Targeted highly publicized attack on the occupational force.
3. Support other liberation movements going in India.
4. After a few years Indian citizens will be fed up of these daily insurgency and protest.
5. Pakistan and India jointly conduct a Plebiscite in Kashmir.
6. Kashmiris decide their fate.

Haven't you tried all of this before ?

Its has only strengthened our resolve. You have not been able to convince even 1% of India to give up kashmir.

How many Indians who has come on pdf has agreed to give up kashmir ? Can you point out even a single person ?

 

[PAKjunoon]

Haven't you tried all of this before ?

Its has only strengthened our resolve. You have not been able to convince even 1% of India to give up kashmir.

How many Indians who has come on pdf has agreed to give up kashmir ? Can you point out even a single person ?

Most of Indian members on PDF come for a versy specific reason, that is to criticize Pakistan and Pakistanis.

Their mind is set from the beigining.So, its hard to change them.


And All these tactics have not been part of one complete strategy.These have been employed seperately.

If done in coherent manner, it can have very severe effect.

 

[WreckingBall]

Pak had a chance in 1962 and could have forced India's hand by opening a new front while India was fighting China. India had a chance in 1971 and could have forced Pakistan's hand after a large chunk of their troops were POWs.

I can't think of a scenario under which India's hand can be forced.

 

[El Sidd]

India has already lost Kashmir. It is the rest of the states it needs worrying about.

 

[jetray]

The loss of manpower and equipment alone would not be enough, the public opinion would need to be changed against the occupation and one of the only ways of doing that would be by targeting civillian targets and infrastructure in mainland India by freedom fighters, to make the Kashmir conflict something that hurts Indians at home. Initially this would increase support for the occupation, but escalation and a long term campaign (10-15 years) might bring about a situation where Indians start asking if it's worth it.

All those dirty tactics have already been tried and failed. This includes driving away the pandits , killing govt officials ...etc
Bomb blasts in bus stands, markets during festivals , wanton killings of civilians have all taken place. Last of the big one was mumbai attacks which has only reinforced the opinion that these terrorists should not be allowed to succeed.

It is a common black mail trick , where threat of continuous bomb attacks is enacted to force the other party to gives out.

 

[comfortably_numb]

The moot cause of Pakistan's obsession with Kashmir is not their love for the Kashmiris or support for their right of self determination. It stems from their desire of controlling the headwaters of the rivers flowing through Pakistani Punjab, along with other expansionist agendas. That the average Pakistani throws a hissy fit and threatens calamitous warfare whenever we Indians rile them up with a mere mention of the abrogation of IWT is ample proof of that.

Pakistan can never stake a claim on Kashmir either by conventional or asymmetrical warfare for the simple reason that the cost involved to sustain such a protracted campaign will be too much to bear, even for a nation willing to survive solely on grass.