India, at that point, had won the war and could have taken over the entire Kashmir.

However, they agreed to make the issue a two-party negotiation only, thus barring intervention by third parties. Indira Gandhi could’ve taken the whole Kashmir, or if she wanted to be so gentlemanly, then why not solve the issue once and for all?

Also, USSR was backing India and had previously brokered peace between Ind and Pak in the 1965 war. Why could the problem not be solved and made a two-party affair? Why not partition Kashmir, or give it whole to one party or something like a final solution?

  • 1
    Thanks for the edit. Commented Sep 27, 2022 at 13:38
  • 2
  • 2
    I don't see how the issue would be solved by having India absorb a bigger part that doesn't want to be part of India. The issue isn't that the Pakistani part wants to be in India, it is that the Indian part supposedly wants to be in Pakistan. Or at least is not allowed a referendum. And why would India have given ground on either of those 2 points, which might indeed have improved things, having just won a war??? Commented Sep 27, 2022 at 18:36
  • 2
    The feel I'm starting to get here is that the OQ really wants to have a nice argument with historical figures about what they could have done better, but since they aren't around will settle for our users. We aren't a discussion board, and even if we wanted to be don't really have the tools for that kind of thing. The best we can really do for you is to relate what happened and what the documented rationale for it was. With that in mind, what specifically do you want to know about the history of the matter? Just why a partition was not made?
    – T.E.D.
    Commented Sep 28, 2022 at 13:27
  • 1
    Are there no government records that explain the decision? This seems like a question that there should be evidence to answer.
    – MCW
    Commented Sep 28, 2022 at 14:00

1 Answer 1


Why was the Kashmir issue not completely solved at the end of Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971?

A 1948 UN resolution (Wikipedia summary) on Kashmir says there should be a plebiscite or referendum regarding the determination of the fate of Kashmir, and this fate would be determined by none other than the Kashmiri population. 1971 war had nothing to do with this said referendum.

Also, India couldn't open a new front in Kashmir because of the risk of China's involvement which the USSR kept in check. Remember, China claimed a part of Kashmir called Aksai Chin, and the Saksgram Vally was delivered to China by Pakistan through a land swap agreement. Thereby China and Pakistan became allies after 1962.

There was also a complex equation in progress regarding superpowers. The USA did not favor the USSR having too much influence in the region.

Why could the issue not be solved and made a two-party affair?

Kashmir issue is a two-party affair according to India. Pakistan wants it to make a multi-party affair which India opposes.

I wrote an answer in politics.SE regarding this.

Why not partition Kashmir, or give it whole to one party or something like a final solution?

Pakistan wants a referendum, and no one, not even a superpower, can exclude Pakistan from this dispute.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.