WI: First Indo-Pakistani War sees an independent Kashmir?

The problem, as I see it, is that no one intimately involved in the conflict wanted that as an outcome, so there's very little chance of it happening. The only outside powers with the ability to force both parties to accept the settlement would be the USSR and the USA, working together (US pressure on Pakistan and Soviet pressure on India), and there's really no reason for the superpowers to do that.
 
What if a more costly, protracted War led to superpower mediation and the creation of a buffer state, or perhaps a Saar-style arrangement where the local population resolved their status via plebiscite after 5/10 years?
a bit of a stretch, but it's the closest scenario I could think of
 
Could it occur? As part of a peace process at the end of the war. Either as revival of the Princely State or as a Republic.

The partition was based on a MUSLIM INDIA and a HINDU (secularist in theory) India. Ethnicity, language and culture were not acceptable (still aren't) as a reason for seperate statehood.

An independant Kashmir opens the door for a Sikh state in the Punjab, a Tamil state, a Gujarati state, a Baluchi state and so on. You could easily end up with 20 odd states.
 

Ismail

Banned
An independant Kashmir opens the door for a Sikh state in the Punjab, a Tamil state, a Gujarati state, a Baluchi state and so on. You could easily end up with 20 odd states.
So basically an independent Kashmir, which would itself probably be quite unstable, would lead to separatist sentiment for all sorts of cultural groups within India? I can see autonomy movements, but how serious would it be in 1947-50 or so?
 
So basically an independent Kashmir, which would itself probably be quite unstable, would lead to separatist sentiment for all sorts of cultural groups within India? I can see autonomy movements, but how serious would it be in 1947-50 or so?

More serious that OTL. Also the logic of an independent Kashmir but unity for everyone else would be difficult to explain.

The reason for partition was religion and both countries wanted to keep it that way. In Pakistans case an independent muslim Kashmir means why not a Bangladesh or Baluchistan.
 
Whole thing was a mess, best outcome that I can see for all involved would of been the British having a quiet word with the Maharaja and either bribing or telling him in no uncertain terms that he had to decide to join with Pakistan. Would of avoided the following wars and general bad blood between Pakistan and India.
 

Cook

Banned
Could it occur? As part of a peace process at the end of the war. Either as revival of the Princely State or as a Republic.

Bit of a problem that. As a Princely State it would be a Hindu ruled state with a Muslim majority living right next door to the Muslim State. An insurgency either supported by Pakistan’s government or not would seem to be inevitable, both on religious grounds and as a push for democracy.

As a republic it becomes another Muslim home state, so the inevitable question would be why not part of Pakistan?
 
IIRC wasn't it a low level insurgency, suspected to be backed by Pakistan, that prompted the Maharaja to call on Mountbatten for help which kick started India's intervention? Have to agree with Cook and others that independence just wasn't a viable option.
 
Top