It would seem that the Indian army managed on three separate occasions to beat its Pakistani opposite, but did not press these advantages by occupying the Pakistani portion of Kashmir.
The three separate occasions:
In the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947, over Kashmir, the Indian army managed to repulse the Pakistani backed infiltrators from Srinagar and the valley proper. However,they then did not press ahead with the offensive to wrest the remaining part of Kashmir from Pakistan. India instead took the matter to the UN, a move that allowed Pakistan to settle down in the part of Kashmir it had managed to salvage.
In the 1971 war, India, despite having routed Pakistani forces and captured tens of thousands of Pakistanis as prisoners of war (PoW), entered into the 1972-Simla Agreement with Pakistan instead of pressing Pakistan to pull out its troops from Kashmir, a precondition in the UN resolutions of 1948-49 which had given India (rather than Pakistan) a kind of legitimacy in Kashmir of holding the plebiscite (under UN supervision).
Finally, again, in the 1999-Kargil stand-off, India, after forcing Pakistan to vacate their positions in the strategic mountains just didn't press Pakistan into "doing more".
In light of these events. I wonder, is this version of history correct? If so, then my question is, why is it that India in each one of the above three episodes relented and allowed Pakistan to retain the part of Kashmir it seized control of in 1947-48 despite having had a clear military upper hand over Pakistan?
Is it possible that a reason for this restraint is that, similar to the Pakistani military establishment, the Indian military establishment does not wish the Kashmir issue to go away so it can continue to be of significance in the country?