WI: India cedes Kashmir to Pakistan post-1949?

I haven't seen this mentioned before, but presuming there's some sort of deal, what would the effects be, in both Pakistani-annexed Kashmir and in India in-re politics and public discontent?
 
Well Nehru's family was originally from Kashmir so I'm guessing that he probably still had a fair amount of family there which might possibly throw a spanner in the works. Plus IIRC whilst the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu was majority Muslim, Jammu was mostly Hindu and I think it was the eastern part around Ladakh actually had a large amount of Buddhists. A decent idea might be to partition the state with Jammu going to India, Kashmir to Pakistan, and Ladakh could go either way and have some interesting consequences.

An amicable split whilst still having the clusterfuck of partition is going to make relations between the two countries much more amicable, although I doubt they'd be bosom buddies. Come 1962 if the China decides to press their territorial grievances militarily then whoever got the east of the state is going to come into play - if India received it then it remains a wholly Sino-Indian affair as in our timelime, if Pakistan received it then you could be looking at a two simultaneous conflicts. Having a mutual enemy could see them working closer together. In our timeline India apparently liked to stir up trouble in Afghanistan as a way of inconveniencing Pakistan and giving them another problem to deal with whilst China backed Pakistan to help mess with India. With no real hostility India's monkeying around in Afghanistan doesn't happen and if the Sino-Indian War becomes the Sino-Pakistani/Indian War then Pakistan certainly wont be allying with China, who IIRC helped a great deal with their nuclear weapons programme. A western orientated Pakistan with a hostile communist China on their border is likely to see large amounts of American air roll in, at least until the mid to late-60s. The hostile border, and possibly occupied territory however would probably unfortunately mean that the military is still able to take a fairly large slice of government funds and associated national influence.
 
Well Nehru's family was originally from Kashmir so I'm guessing that he probably still had a fair amount of family there which might possibly throw a spanner in the works. Plus IIRC whilst the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu was majority Muslim, Jammu was mostly Hindu and I think it was the eastern part around Ladakh actually had a large amount of Buddhists. A decent idea might be to partition the state with Jammu going to India, Kashmir to Pakistan, and Ladakh could go either way and have some interesting consequences.

Ladakh, if given a choice between India and Pakistan, would almost certainly choose to remain with India (which has treated the still majority Buddhist population benignly and better). It's too small population-wise to be functionally independent and most likely China would swallow or dominate an "independent" Ladakh, anyway, being the only non-Chinese occupied portion of the Tibetan plateau.
 
Here's a solution: Pakistan actually backs up Junagadh, and holds onto it, while India militarises in Kashmir, thus Junagadh is used as leverage....plebiscites are held, and lo and behold: India retains it, while Kashmir goes to Pakistan. But they will certainly not be amicable.
 
Ladakh, if given a choice between India and Pakistan, would almost certainly choose to remain with India (which has treated the still majority Buddhist population benignly and better). It's too small population-wise to be functionally independent and most likely China would swallow or dominate an "independent" Ladakh, anyway, being the only non-Chinese occupied portion of the Tibetan plateau.
Shame, I was hoping for simultaneous Sino-Pakistani and Sino-Indian Wars. But even if they go with India and keep it a wholly bilateral war, Kashmir going to Pakistan has significantly decreased Indo-Pakistani tensions.


Here's a solution: Pakistan actually backs up Junagadh, and holds onto it, while India militarises in Kashmir, thus Junagadh is used as leverage... plebiscites are held, and lo and behold: India retains it, while Kashmir goes to Pakistan. But they will certainly not be amicable.
IIRC Junagadh is completely landlocked and surrounded by India so I'd more likely expect to see them either surrounding the place and blockading them into submission or possibly just invading as with Hyderabad and the Portuguese State of India. Leverage only really works when the other side can't just either neutralise it or take it away from you.
 
Here's a solution: Pakistan actually backs up Junagadh, and holds onto it, while India militarises in Kashmir, thus Junagadh is used as leverage....plebiscites are held, and lo and behold: India retains it, while Kashmir goes to Pakistan. But they will certainly not be amicable.

What Simon has said about Junagarh is right. Pakistan had no border with Junagarh and had no way to support the Nawab. V.P. Menon, the Home Secretary and the right hand man of Sardar Patel, who visited the Nawab plainly told him that he had to sign the instrument of accession to join India and if not, India would just annex Junagarh and even the lives of the Nawab and his family could be in danger. The Nawab could do nothing but sign the documents presented by Mr. Menon.
 
What Simon has said about Junagarh is right. Pakistan had no border with Junagarh and had no way to support the Nawab. V.P. Menon, the Home Secretary and the right hand man of Sardar Patel, who visited the Nawab plainly told him that he had to sign the instrument of accession to join India and if not, India would just annex Junagarh and even the lives of the Nawab and his family could be in danger. The Nawab could do nothing but sign the documents presented by Mr. Menon.
I meant for a few months, not for years....it has been speculated that Jinnah was trying to create a precedent for a plebiscite, so as to let Kashmir have one later on. An alternative could be that one or two of the Rajput states had been toying with the idea of joining Pakistan, citing better gains...and that could be used as leverage.
 
On second consideration Ladakh going to India is actually probably the best think for Pakistan as it greatly reduces the likelihood of any military confrontations with anybody else. Pakistan developing without the animosity with India and the need for a massive army can only be a good thing for the country.
 
On second consideration Ladakh going to India is actually probably the best think for Pakistan as it greatly reduces the likelihood of any military confrontations with anybody else. Pakistan developing without the animosity with India and the need for a massive army can only be a good thing for the country.
Well, there was war of Bangladesh liberation. So East Pakistan still may be some source of tensions.
 
Maybe in the short term but nowadays relations don't seem to be all that bad. I was always under the impression that what happened with Bangladesh wasn't really an issue, it was always Kashmir that seemed to be the problem. Give it five-ten years to work things out and I think you would be back to fairly normal relations.
 
As long as Pakistan upholds its claim over Jammu-Kashmir, normal relations with India is not likely. The foundation of Pakistan is hatred of India and there isn't much chance of developing friendly relations with India. There is no reason for India to cede Kashmir to Pakistan, as keeping that area under control is strategically more important than developing friendly relations with Pakistan.
 
Top