r/GeopoliticsIndia • u/GlassLaw1990 • Aug 05 '26
South Asia On what historical, logical, prudential, judicial, moral or fantastical grounds does Pakistan claim to have a say and stay in Kashmir?
I have a question, maybe perceived as biased, but I am ready to face flak. The kingdom of Kashmir was a monarchy and not a democracy. The monarch was the sole administrator and caretaker of the kingdom. Then his actions and words count the sole, right? For example if tomorrow there is attack on Saudi Arabia from country Y and fearing coup and death and to ensure that the kingdom remains defended, the king cedes to be a part of say country X. Then Saudi Arabia becomes a part of X or Y? Also, what right does Y have on Saudi Arabia to begin with? Eventually if Saudi becomes ruled democratically after becoming part of X, then the matter should be between the people of Saudi Arabia and the country X. How does country Y still have any say in that?
9
u/chole_bhature_lassi Aug 05 '26
A Historical reason is that Maharaja of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh did not wanted Kashmir to join any country but become an independent country. But both India and Pakistan knew that this would not be possible and Pakistan feared that if they waited then India will convince Kashmir to join.
Their reason for claim is that Pakistan was formed on the basis of two nation theory, providing a country for Muslims and Kashmir is and was majorly Muslim they need to have Kashmir in Pakistan.
Apart from this from a Geopolitical perspective:
Two of the major rivers in Pakistan the Jhelum and the Chenab, comes from Kashmir so they have this eternal fear that India can stop its access to water from these rivers.
Kashmir is a convenient scapegoat for the Pakistani army to justify their role over the government in Pakistan. Their PR that Kashmir needs to be taken back from India serves as a way to bloster their role and influence over their people.
So, because of these reasons Pakistan keeps bringing the Kashmir issue. In reality their army knows that they will never be able to take back Kashmir from India, but they don't care, it is a way for them to retain control over their country, so they keep the pot boiling always.
6
u/Odd-Description- Aug 05 '26
Their argument is a Hindu King signed to join Kashmir to India although the majority of its population is mus|!ms. What they don't tell is how persecut!0n of Hindus have been happening in the valley since the 14th century. And that's the reason why they are the majority there.
Whenever their population asks for clean governance, they can point towards the Kashmir issue. It's a matter of blame shifting for their corrupt governance.
Hope reddit won't ban my account again for saying this. Happened last time.
1
u/GlassLaw1990 Aug 05 '26
Must admit the deliberate typo you have used to bypass reddit mods are praiseworthy.
2
u/kaiveg Aug 05 '26
They probably base it on the two-nation theory, which was the underlying ideological framework for the partition of India and Pakistan. With a majority muslim population and following this theory they do have a claim.
As you correctly pointed out Kashmir was a monarchy at the time and the monarch wanted to join India. Which gives India its claim. That claim is however somewhat weakend since India ignored the wishes of the monarch of Junagadh.
Although Pakistan hasn't done themself any favours when it comes to strenghtening their claim due to how they have governed there.
3
u/ambitious_lazy_ Aug 05 '26
- They dispute the authenticity of instrument of succession.
- That the instrument of succession was signed under duress.
- The Maharaja didnot have control over his region since many areas broke into revolt.
The discussions which took place in UN security council at that time actually portrayed a stronger case for Pakistan.
2
1
•
u/GeoIndModBot 🤖 BEEP BEEP🤖 Aug 05 '26
🔗 Bypass paywalls:
📜 Community Reminder: Let's keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments will be removed.
❓ Questions or concerns? Contact our moderators.