Kashmir – India and Pakistan

Fatima Shafique

1108435

Negotiation in Business

BADM 4360

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

 Introduction

Conflicts and disputes are unavoidable since each person has unique needs, preferences,

and objectives. Negotiation becomes necessary because it allows people to achieve a settlement

or consensus while avoiding conflict and controversy. There are many different scenarios where

negotiations take place: personal or family ties, foreign affairs, industrial conflicts and justice

systems. It is expected that people will attempt to get the greatest possible results from their

interests and perspectives in the event of a dispute. Negotiations that go well can help break

down communication obstacles and provide equally positive results to all relevant parties.

However, not every discussion is effective and results in good outcomes. Certain aspects of the

bargaining process, such as negotiating tactics and strategies, wrong appraisal of events,

substantial differences in expectations and insights, and other unknown elements, can impact

how people behave and respond throughout the negotiation period. Based on the negotiation

style, monetary advantages as well as other tangible advantages, power control, professional ties

and even human lives might be the main problems involved. This essay will examine the

Kashmir – India and Pakistan conflict, which has been ongoing since 1947. Different facets of

the Kashmir crisis negotiations will be discussed in this essay. This essay will address the aims

and views of the relevant parties, the procedures and strategies utilized in the negotiations, the

variables affecting the negotiations and the results of the negotiations.

Overview of the Kashmir – India and Pakistan Conflict

The dispute between India and Pakistan has been in existence since 1947 and is a

territorial dispute over Kashmir. It began following India's division in 1947, when both Pakistan

and India laid claim to the entireness of the previous princely state of Jammu & Kashmir.
 Pakistan and India were on the verge of declaring freedom from Britain in August 1947.

The British, commanded at the time by Louis Mountbatten, the viceroy, split the British Empire

into Pakistan and India (Kumar, 2019). The British India Empire included a number of princely

territories as well as territories directly ruled by the British. Princely territories had the freedom

at the time of the separation to decide whether to give in to Pakistan or India. Overall, the

Muslim populations migrated to Pakistan whereas the Hindu population came to India.

Kashmir, on the other hand, was an exception. The king of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari

Singh, was a Hindu, despite the fact that the large majority of people were Muslim (Farman,

2015). But that wasn't the only instance. The State of Junagadh encountered a dispute of this

kind also. Junagadh's ruler was a Muslim who, against the desires of his people, desired to merge

into Pakistan (Farman, 2015). Mountbatten advocated for Junagadh to be transferred to India not

only due to the fact that it was a densely inhabited state, but also due to the fact that it was totally

bordered by India. The king, however, surrendered to Pakistan. Infuriated, India seized Junagadh

under the guise that Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammed Ali Jinnah had warned that Muslims

and Hindus could never coexist in one country and that they dreaded rioting (Hajari, 2015).

The scenario, however, was distinct once it came to the Kashmir territory. Despite the

fact that Kashmir was a Predominately Muslim territory with a Hindu monarch, Mountbatten

suggested that it be given to India. Hari Singh, on the other hand, determined that Kashmir

would declare independence, at least for the time being, since he was concerned that Muslims of

Kashmir would be unhappy with India, while the Hindus and Sikhs of Kashmir would be

unhappy in Pakistan. In various Kashmir regions there were uprisings against the king during

such a time of uncertainty. As a result, Pakistani tribespeople and force crossed into Kashmir in

an effort to seize the town of Srinagar while robbing and ravaging the territory (Copland, 1991).
Hari Singh begged India to help him fight the chaos, and eventually, he gave Kashmir to India.

This resulted in the very first war between Pakistan and India known as Indo-Pakistani war,

commonly remembered as the very first Kashmir war. Both parties in Kashmir cemented their

positions by the end of 1948. A truce was agreed upon, and a line of control (LOC) was created

(Dutta, 2019). India retained nearly two-thirds of Kashmir, whereas Pakistan got possession of

one-third of the state. This was the beginning of these two countries' battles and struggles for

Kashmir.

Analysis of the Major Stakeholders and the Negotiation Process

The Kashmiri people are perhaps the most important stakeholders in the Kashmir dispute.

They are unquestionably the most important stakeholder. They are immediately affected by any

consequence of the Kashmir dispute. Assume the uprising/liberation movement grows in power.

Kashmiris are picking weapons toward India increasingly. So it is more probable that you'll

come across households whose able-bodied individuals have turned insurgents and rebels. They

will be trained in unlawful actions. More conflicts will take place with the Indian army. There

will be even more individuals dead. Households will be left with heads of households who have

died or been murdered. Families' economic potential will be harmed as a result of this. Women

and children will be compelled to begin working sooner. There will be disruption to economic

operations. The industry of tourism will have a very big negative impact reducing the tourists.

India would be compelled to respond forcefully to the uprising/independence battle. This will

lead to an upsurge in violations of human rights. This would directly affect the citizens of

Kashmir. Now assume that the uprising/liberation movement subsides. Once again the people of

Kashmir will be affected but beneficially. Less individuals battling India means more economic

possibilities for Kashmiri households. They have much more available revenue. As a result, they
are much more inclined to enroll their youngsters to schools or colleges in order to enhance their

earning ability. There would be more visitors in Kashmir, on both the Pakistan and India sides.

In both cases, whether it’s negative or positive Kashmiri people are very much affected by the

outcomes of the Pakistan and India conflict which makes it one of the major stakeholders of the

Kashmir conflict.

Another major stakeholder in the Kashmir conflict is India. Azad Kashmir which is

controlled by Pakistan brings it into connection with China and blocks India in Afghanistan. This

provides Pakistan with a reliable supply line in the event that India attempts to exclude Pakistan.

China is influencing Pakistan enormously to reduce Indian control. If India gains total control, it

will be in a better place to exclude Pakistan and build a deeper connection with Afghanistan in

order to strengthen its impact in Central Asia. Furthermore, there is a possibility that perhaps the

war would spread to other areas of India. India would undoubtedly be on the losing side. Despite

having a greater Economic output than Pakistan, India remains an underdeveloped nation. India

would be compelled to increase military expenditures while lowering funds for other areas such

as medical and schooling. Businesses will close down. Tourist industry will decline. Individuals

will be terrified. Firms will withdraw funds from India. It would definitely be a loss for India.

Hence why India wants Kashmir to be a part of their nation.

Lastly Pakistan is also one of the major stakeholders of the Kashmir conflict. Pakistan is

India's biggest opponent. Pakistan would not let India to acquire an advantage in the area.

Furthermore, Pakistan would strive to surround and isolate India, and that is very likely to be

accomplished through a strong partnership with China (Farman, 2015). Furthermore, Pakistan

must confront any events that benefit India. Such a circumstance exists when India controls the

flow of water within Pakistan. Pakistan wants to gain full possession of Kashmir in order to
prevent that. They cannot, however, strike India overtly. Therefore, the optimum alternative

appears to be a low impact dispute. Pakistan will thus keep wanting to give the uprising help.

Pakistan would do all in its power to undermine India and want Kashmir to be a part of Pakistan.

Conclusion

Although hostilities in Kashmir has decreased, the underlying reasons of the conflict has

not. I believe that Pakistan and India separately cannot fix the Kashmir problem mutually, even

if they are prepared to collaborate on resolving their disagreements. This is due to the fact that

the dispute involves several sides, including Pakistan, India, the five Kashmiri states, and several

political groups. Harmony in the area would necessitate both Pakistan and India reconciling the

many communities of the area's numerous–and sometimes competing–ambitions. The permanent

solution to one of the longest-lasting wars in the world can arise only when local ambitions are

acknowledged, tackled and discussed together with Pakistan and India’s patriotic and tactical

aims.
 References

Copland, I. (1991). The Princely States, the Muslim League, and the Partition of India in 1947. The

International History Review, 13(1), 38-69. Retrieved June 9, 2021, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40106322

Dutta, P. K. (2019, August 09). Kashmir: How Line of Control has changed in 70 years.

Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/kashmir-how-line-of-

control-has-changed-in-70-years-1579118-2019-08-09

Farman Ali, Rao. (2015). Kashmir: A Century Struggle(1846-1948). 10.2139/ssrn.2625479.

Hajari, N. (2015, June 09). How a Few Days in 1947 Turned India and Pakistan Into

Sworn Enemies. Retrieved from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/06/how-india-

and-pakistan-became-enemies-excerpt-from-nisid-hajaris-midnights-furies.html

Kumar, R. (2019, August 28). Lord Mountbatten's The Last Supper: How the British empire

botched up the future of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6753808/