Kashmir, majority of muslims, yet this strategic location

Kashmir, or rather commonly renownedas Paradise Valley with the attribution, ascribed by the indigeneous to the regionis the junction point of the countries where India, Pakistan, Afghanistan andChina converge. Located at the most northern demarcation line of India, theterritory is of utmost strategic value to the Indian state insomuch as itnaturally provides an inherent protection for a larger Indian maneuver in Northand renders a more dynamic security to the dettriment of its rivals. To maintainthe the region under control and in the Indian borders, India is seemingly obligedto enforce the military stance over the issue. Therefore, the Indian motives ofKashmir for imposing superiority over Pakistan characterize the stark traces realism, which especially typfies those of offensive.

1 At the parttition plans devised bycommission established by the British to assign the new demarcation linesbetween the recent states of Pakistan and India, Indian side wielded theirclose association with Britain to secure the only accessible routes to Kashmirunder its control. At the original partition plot, the district of Gurdaspur, which is a gateway to the land routes winding through the Kashmir Valley, wasto fall within Pakistani border as stipulated by the partition act that themajority of the district should determine to side with either Pakistan orIndia,  and this region was populated bya majority of Muslims, yet this strategic location was plotted in Indian sideat the expense of Pakistan thanks to Indian manipulations to suit the partitionto their purpose and advantage. 2  Such supervision and control so close thePakistani border as in Gurdaspur would undoubtedly endow India with an effectivetool to maintain national security and surveillance over Pakistan. Besidesthe Gurdaspur, the Indian attempts to increase its land mass and win at allcost and by all means so as to secure the districts of Junagadh and Kashmir arealso well worth mentioning to expose the strategic value of the region anddemonstrate the realist Indian actions. The provisions for partition of Kashmirand Junagadh contradist each other.

As stated clearly by the partitionact,  the states ruled by princes andbordering India or Pakistan should accede to either with the decision to be madeby ethnic majority in these states. Much to India’s surprise, the district ofJunagadh sided with Pakistan as the muslim ruler went for Pakistan despite thewish of some 80% Hindus there. As a matter of course, India, who had the fearsto lose the control of princely states,  repudiated the result and deployed the army toJunagadh and seized it, as a consequence of which a plebiscite was taken by thepopulace to determine which side they should remain with. The outcome of the votingwas certainly in favor of Indian accession in advance thanks to the largenumber of the Hindu voters.

Compared to the case in Junagadh, the precept onthe accession process of Kashmir to India clearly clashes with what Indiadisplayed with that of Junagadh. 1Varun, “ Negotiating the India-Pakistan Conflict,” 5575 Kapur, “ Peaceand Conflict,” 66. 2 Rahman, Divided Kashmir, 52.