The Kashmir dispute is an unfinished agenda of the 1947 partition. Evaluate Pakistan's Kashmir policy for the solution of the problem.

Introduction

Kashmir is called the unfinished agenda of partition because, by the logic of the partition plan, a Muslim-majority state contiguous to Pakistan should have joined Pakistan or decided its future through the will of its people. Pakistan's Kashmir policy has sought this outcome for over seven decades, through war, diplomacy, dialogue and international advocacy, with limited success.

Background

The Maharaja's accession to India in October 1947, the war of 1947–48 and the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite created the dispute. The state was divided along a ceasefire line that became the Line of Control in 1972.

Phases of policy

1947–71: Pakistan relied on UN resolutions and, in 1965, attempted a military solution through Operation Gibraltar, which led to war but no change.

1972–89: After the 1971 defeat, the Simla Agreement committed both sides to bilateral settlement; Kashmir was relatively quiet.

1989–2003: A popular uprising in Indian-held Kashmir after the rigged 1987 elections led Pakistan to support the Kashmiri struggle politically and diplomatically; India accused it of backing militancy. The Lahore Declaration (1999) was undermined by Kargil.

2003–08: A ceasefire (2003) and the composite dialogue (2004) produced confidence-building measures — cross-LoC bus service and trade — and back-channel discussions on a framework of demilitarisation, self-governance and a joint mechanism, associated with President Musharraf's "out-of-the-box" proposals.

2008–19: The Mumbai attacks froze dialogue; Pakistan highlighted human-rights abuses after uprisings in 2010 and 2016.

Since August 2019: After India revoked Article 370, Pakistan downgraded relations, suspended trade, raised the issue at the UN Security Council, the Human Rights Council and the OIC, and published a new political map in 2020. Relations deteriorated further with the 2025 crisis.

Evaluation

Strengths: Pakistan has kept the dispute alive internationally; its position rests on UN resolutions and the right of self-determination; it has consistently highlighted human-rights violations; and periods of dialogue showed that creative solutions are possible.

Weaknesses: Policy has been inconsistent, swinging between military adventures and dialogue depending on governments. Military options (1965, Kargil) failed and damaged Pakistan's diplomatic standing. Association with militancy allowed India to portray the freedom struggle as terrorism, especially after 9/11. Pakistan's economic weakness and political instability reduced its diplomatic leverage, while India's economic rise attracted major powers. The Kashmiri voice itself has often been secondary in Pakistan's diplomacy.

Recommendations

Adopt a consistent, consensus-based national Kashmir policy; strengthen the economy, the foundation of diplomatic influence; pursue legal and diplomatic avenues — UN mechanisms, human-rights reporting, engagement with parliaments, media and diaspora; distance the cause from violent groups; keep channels of dialogue open with India while insisting on the Kashmiris' right to self-determination; and ensure good governance in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan as a model.

Conclusion

Pakistan's Kashmir policy has succeeded in keeping the issue on the international agenda but has failed to change the situation on the ground. A solution requires patient, consistent diplomacy backed by economic strength and moral clarity, centred on the wishes of the Kashmiri people.