If one traces back the background of the clash on the issue of Kashmir, it can be understood that the friction all started back in 1947-48 when the nations of India and Pakistan got engaged in warfare over the land of the state. The clash was based on the fact that the state had a majority population comprising of Muslims. As the partition of India and formation of Pakistan was based on the population density based on religious beliefs, Pakistan went on to place its claim on the soil of Kashmir based on the religious majority of Islamic people.
After the two nations got engaged in war over the dispute of Kashmir, the United Nations stepped in to pacify the clash. Under the supervision of the UN, both of these countries agreed to ceasefire along a line. This made Pakistan take over one-third of the state (what was named as Azad Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistan), while the remaining two-third part (that include Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and Jammu) was administered by India. According to BBC News article, “The Future of Kashmir?”, it was by the terms of the Simla agreement that the line of ceasefire was taken to be the Line of Control in the year 1972. However, India still claims the entire state to be its part. According to The Telegraph article, “A brief history of the Kashmir conflict” (2001), Pakistan has continually refused to accept the LOC as the border. Apart from this, there has been constant struggle by a section of the Kashmiri people since the year 1989 who want total independence for the entire state. Thus, it can be comprehended that the status quo of Kashmir is quite complicated.
The possible options for a solution to the issue of Kashmir can be introspected so as to understand in which way peace can be obtained neutralizing all the disputes. One of the possible solutions can be the acceptance of the current line of control as the international border. That would bar any further political changes in the state of Kashmir, and would neutralize the problem. However, Pakistan is not ready to comply with this option. A second option can be the joining of entire Kashmir with Pakistan through the process of a plebiscite that might go in favor of Pakistan as the people would opine for joining the nation. However, that would lead to hegemony over the minority population in the state. A third option can be the joining of Kashmir with India in its entirety. However, this option might trigger further tensions in the region. In a fourth scenario, Kashmir might be given its independence. However, that would mean the compromise of both Pakistan and India on the issue.
Apart from this, a smaller region in Kashmir can be made independent. In such a case, the strategically important positions of the state would be left with the respective countries of India and Pakistan. But, this option is also quite unlikely to be accepted by India or Pakistan. Also, an independent Kashmir valley can satiate the demands of the people fighting for the independence of the state, and can bring peace. However, the economic viability of the region sans any external help is a matter of concern. The seventh alternative can be the division of Kashmir along the line of the river Chenab. But that would leave India with only 3000 square miles of the total 84000 square miles of the state. Hence, this option does not seem viable either as India would not want it that way.
As such, it should be sensible to opine that the present line of control between the two countries seems to be the best demarcation that would deter any further clashes or disputes. With active participation from both the countries in peace talks, wars can be averted. The nations can oblige to take the present line of control to be the new international border. That would make both the nations satisfied to some extent without harming the holistic peace and milieu of the state of Kashmir.
(2001). A brief history of the Kashmir conflict. The Telegraph. Retrieved from
The Future of Kashmir? BBC News. Retrieved from