Wars have been fought over Jammu and Kashmir, negotiations have repeatedly failed, diplomatic campaigns have continued for decades, and United Nations resolutions have remained part of international discourse.
Yet a durable and peaceful conclusion has remained elusive.
One of the principal reasons for this failure is that the issue has often been viewed only through political, diplomatic, and emotional lenses, while insufficient attention has been paid to constitutional history and changing ground realities.
Kashmir cannot be understood merely as a territorial dispute. It is also a question of identity, history, competing national narratives, and evolving geopolitical interests.
In my book Aaina-e-Kashmir (The Kashmir Mirror), I attempted to examine nearly thirty proposed solutions and assess them against present-day realities. The purpose was not to revive old slogans, but to search for a practical and workable framework.
It would be unrealistic to ignore the wider strategic environment. South Asia today lies within the orbit of multiple nuclear powers and global actors whose interests intersect in the region. The major international powers continue to view Kashmir through the prism of regional stability and security.
This broader context explains why no viable solution can emerge without balancing local aspirations with geopolitical realities.
Jammu and Kashmir has passed through many political eras over centuries. Muslim rule, which lasted for nearly five centuries, consolidated the Valley’s Muslim-majority identity. Sikh rule followed in 1819, and after the Treaty of Amritsar in 1846, the Dogra rulers brought together geographically and culturally distinct territories into a single princely state.
However, this arrangement was not founded on popular consent or a shared national consciousness. It emerged under colonial patronage and coercive political arrangements. To regard the princely state as an eternal and indivisible political entity ignores the realities of history itself.
The various regions of the former state possess distinct identities and political orientations. The Kashmir Valley developed a separate political consciousness shaped by its Muslim-majority character and resistance politics. Jammu largely evolved under Dogra influence and today remains predominantly aligned with India. Ladakh possesses its own Buddhist and Tibetan cultural identity. Gilgit-Baltistan has a separate historical and administrative evolution with a multi-ethnic social structure.
Collapse of Political Arrangement
The only force that historically held these regions together was the Dogra authority. Once British colonial rule ended in 1947, that structure began to unravel rapidly.
Maharaja Hari Singh’s indecision, public unrest, uprisings in Poonch and Mirpur, and developments in Gilgit fundamentally altered the political landscape. The establishment of the Azad Government on 24 October 1947 occurred before the controversial accession of 26 October 1947. What followed was less the fragmentation of a unified nation and more the collapse of an imposed political arrangement.
Political realities have further changed dramatically since then.
India’s constitutional integration measures, shifting international priorities, changing regional alignments, and particularly the developments after 5 August 2019, have made the implementation of that framework increasingly difficult.
Modern political issues are rarely resolved solely based on historical claims. They are shaped by current realities, strategic interests, and practical feasibility.
The present reality is that Jammu and Ladakh are deeply integrated with India, while Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan have remained aligned with Pakistan. The issue now primarily revolves around the Kashmir Valley, Pir Panjal, and the Chenab region, where competing political aspirations and allegations of human rights violations continue to fuel instability.
Even within the Valley, there is no singular political consensus. Any serious peace process must acknowledge this diversity instead of relying on simplified narratives.
The prolonged hostility between India and Pakistan has imposed enormous costs on both countries. Economic development, regional integration, and democratic consolidation have repeatedly suffered under the shadow of perpetual conflict. South Asia has paid a heavy price for the absence of political imagination and sustained dialogue.
The central question today is whether there can be a zero-sum contest, or whether a more realistic and gradual approach is possible.
After examining numerous proposals over the years, I believe the most workable path lies in realism, gradualism, and mutual accommodation rather than absolutist positions. History shows that even deeply entrenched conflicts can move toward resolution through patience, sustained dialogue, and confidence-building.
Europe itself transformed centuries of warfare into cooperation, not through sudden miracles, but through incremental political engagement.
Pakistan and India must eventually return to meaningful negotiations, whether publicly or through sustained back-channel diplomacy. Reports already indicate that limited communication channels have reopened in recent years, though they require greater seriousness and institutional continuity.
No Military Solution
Neither side can impose a military solution. Four wars and decades of confrontation have already demonstrated that reality. The Line of Control, regardless of official positions, has increasingly acquired the character of a political and geographical reality in the eyes of the international community.
The real challenge, therefore, is not how to perpetuate confrontation, but how to reduce tensions while safeguarding human dignity and regional stability.
Several practical measures deserve serious consideration.
First, both countries should move away from waiting for an ideal final settlement and instead pursue gradual and achievable steps that improve lives on the ground.
Second, cross-Line-of-Control movement, trade, and human interaction should be expanded. Isolation only deepens mistrust and alienation.
Third, existing administrative realities should be acknowledged with maturity and pragmatism rather than denied through rhetoric.
Fourth, meaningful autonomy and constitutional guarantees should be explored for the Kashmir Valley and adjoining Muslim-majority regions without necessarily redrawing international borders.
Fifth, the return, rehabilitation, and legal protection of displaced communities, including Kashmiri Pandits and displaced Muslims, must become part of any humane political framework.
Sixth, Pakistan and India should establish a permanent institutional mechanism for arbitration and dialogue, modelled on the Indus Water Treaty framework, so that disputes can be managed through institutions rather than crises.
Finally, Pakistan must also address constitutional and administrative ambiguities within the territories under its administration. Stable governance and democratic clarity strengthen both domestic confidence and international credibility.
The enduring truth remains that Kashmir cannot be treated through force. Sustainable peace can emerge only through dialogue, realism, coexistence, and responsible leadership.
The time has come to move beyond slogans and emotional posturing toward a framework that recognises realities while preserving dignity, peace, and stability for all the people of the region.
(Justice (R) Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani is a former Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir. He has written extensively on constitutional law, governance, and the Kashmir dispute. His recent work, Aaina-e-Kashmir (The Kashmir Mirror), examines the historical, legal, and political dimensions of the conflict and proposes a realistic framework for peace and reconciliation in the region.)
Have you liked the news article?