Stimson Logo

South Asia Program

Kashmir Forum Proposals 

  • The Strategic Foresight Group in Mumbai, India has published a number of research items on the Kasmir dispute.  More information can be found at www.strategicforesight.com

Sreenivasan contends that the model of "dynamic autonomy" used for South Tyrol might be applicable to Kashmir in the future. Whereas both conflicts involve the dissolution of an empire, forceful annexation of territory, UN intervention, and terrorism, the Kashmir conflict differs in its historical complexity. In South Tyrol, a territory that was contested by Austria and Italy with Italy eventually annexing it, Italy granted increased autonomy to the German minority desirous of unification with Austria, in exchange for Austria’s pledge to not interfere with the internal politics of the region. Autonomy was established in South Tyrol without the need to redraw borders or resettle populations.  Thus far, this model has not seemed applicable to Kashmir because Kashmir is a fundamental issue to Pakistan and its identity, and because religion is an important variable for Kashmir.  Religion was not a factor in South Tyrol. Previously, the South Tyrol model was not of interest to Pakistan but Pakistan appears to be adopting a more flexible stance at present by moving away from its UN plebiscite stance and may be more amenable to the notion of autonomy in Kashmir contingent on Pakistan’s free access to the Kashmir Valley in the future.

Hasan presents a multi-part solution to the Kashmir issue. First, India and Pakistan would provide joint military support for the defense of Kashmir. India and Pakistan would declare a “no-war” policy in Kashmiri territory allowing for the demilitarization of the Line of Control (LoC). There would also be joint responsibility over foreign relations. Kashmiri products would have duty-free access to India and Pakistan’s markets and Kashmiris would enjoy freedom of travel between the two countries. Indian and Pakistani currencies would be accepted, while India and Pakistan would provide financial support for twenty years. As a result, Hasan predicts greater security for both India and Pakistan due to the demilitarization of the LoC.  There would also be increased trade and travel opportunities for Indians and Pakistanis, as well as economic growth in Kashmir.

  • Ved Bhasin, “Indo-Pak Relations and Kashmir,” Remarks Delivered at the South Asia Free Media Association's Regional Conference on Inter-State Conflicts in South Asia (New Delhi, October 9-10, 2004)

Ved Bhasin argues that current discussions on Kashmir frame the Kashmir issue within Indian and Pakistani state interests and ignore a fundamental human aspect of the conflict: the violence endured by the Kashmiri people through terrorist activities and human rights violations by Indian security forces. Bhasin offers several confidence-building measures including the reopening of land routes across the Kashmir divide; the removal of landmines by security forces; the repealing of draconian security laws; and the release of political detainees imprisoned under these laws. Bhasin suggests that the prerequisites for any solution to Jammu and Kashmir must include restoring the state in its entirety; preserving its plural, democratic and federal nature; and safeguarding the interests of minorities. Pakistan and India would jointly guarantee the state’s security which would be handled by a joint council of Pakistan, India, and Kashmir. Both Pakistan and India would agree, with international guarantees, not to station troops in Jammu and Kashmir, except as necessary for the defense of the state.

  • “Kashmir Proposal” - Kashmir Research and Record Council (2001)
The Kashmir Research and Record Council suggests a two-stage solution. The first stage seeks to restore normalcy to life in Kashmir. Proposed measures include removal of heavy artillery and landmines from LoC and army bunkers from populous areas, opening up for traditional routes across the LoC, and restoring state subject citizenship rules for residents of Gilgit and Baltistan. The second stage consists of an electoral process. First, a referendum would be held in all of Jammu and Kashmir to determine the three most popular Kashmiri political parties. Subsequent to the referendum, selected parties would name their candidates who would contest a statewide election. Election winners would form Kashmir’s parliament which would pass a verdict on the future of Kashmir, with 80% of votes required for any plan to be approved.

Dr. Fai asserts that the current status quo in Kashmir is intolerable and is a continual threat to peace in South Asia.  Fai calls for the parties to pursue a “pragmatic, realistic, and tangible strategy.” Commending the efforts of President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh to build on the momentum of peace, Fai cautions that any settlement without the consent of the Kashmiris will not work. Fai defines the crucial steps towards peace as: the demilitarization of the arena of conflict; a ceasefire followed by inter- and intra-Kashmir dialogue; the release of political prisoners; the restoration of rights of peaceful association, assembly, and demonstration; an increase in travel by Kashmiris; and finally, the engagement of a third party for the success of the India-Pakistan dialogue. Fai concludes by calling comprise the essential ingredient to a solution as all parties must be willing to make concessions in order to reach common ground.  Formulation of a win-win solution will only be achieved when all parties in the region are committed to non-violence and continued peaceful negotiations.

Habibullah discusses the economic dimensions of the Kashmir conflict highlighting lost economic opportunities due to misguided development policies in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K); corruption; the lack of cooperation between India and Pakistan; and political turmoil. This lack of economic development and prospects has been one of the primary causes of Kashmiri disaffection fueling greater violence and militancy. Habibullah argues that if Kashmiris are to feel less alienated, governments in the Indian and Pakistani parts of Jammu and Kashmir must grant their people freedom, not merely by granting elections but by rescinding restrictions on business, terminating government monopolies in trade and commerce, and encouraging international investment by bodies such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. Key areas of investment are watershed development, the timber industry, fruit processing, and power generation. Moving forward, Habibullah calls for an end to Pakistani sponsorship of cross-border terrorism which would in turn allow India to reduce its own military presence in J&K. India could move to improve health services and governance.Such a move would help rebuild the Kashmiri public's self-confidence and set a course for India and Pakistan to peacefully resolve their differences.

This roundtable views the announcement of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service as a window of opportunity to promote indigenous Kashmiri initiatives to end the conflict.  Roundtable participants view the participation of Kashmiris as essential for a peaceful settlement and their absence from peacemaking efforts as a significant reason for earlier failures. Recommending a ceasefire followed by negotiations, roundtable participants call for the cessation of all human rights violations. The roundtable recommends the opening of truck routes and other transportation avenues in order to facilitate increased market and people-to-people interactions.  Additionally, the roundtable recommends increased cooperation and information sharing between the divided parts of Kashmir. Finally, the roundtable cautions against the complete rejection of previous UN resolutions regarding Kashmir, stating that these resolutions provide a legal foundation for the future of Kashmir.

Verghese states that Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is on the road to normalcy. The Pakistani establishment probably now realizes that it will not be able to wrest Kashmir from India even after years of sponsoring cross-border militancy. A vital prerequisite for peace is that India fashion an internal settlement on its side of J&K by addressing human rights violations; restoring a sense of dignity and trust; and allowing the Kashmiris greater autonomy within the contours of the Indian Union while permitting links with Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Verghese would have the Centre  talk with all stakeholders including the Hurriyet, leaving out those who choose to remain aloof. The opening of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service could mark the beginning of wider connectivity, trade and other exchanges between the people of J&K across the Line of Control. Pakistan and India could then develop cross-border mechanisms and institutions for managing an increasingly soft boundary. Ultimately, it is possible to envision an informal co-federal relationship between the two parts of J&K, each autonomous within India and Pakistan. The dividends for Pakistan would be legitimization of its control of  "Azad" Kashmir and the Northern Areas, of which it is in illegal occupation and to which it has denied any kind of democratic rights. It would also gain access to the Indian part of J&K and a sense of security and the advantage of access to the growing Indian market. This would enable the people of J&K on both sides to "enjoy a meaningful azadi, with the best of both worlds at low cost."

  • "Guidelines for a Kashmir Settlement" - Michael Krepon and Ashley Tellis

1) Seek a Kashmir settlement through peaceful means alone and take into account the wishes of all concerned.

2) All parties stop resorting to force, violence and coercion.

3) Do not threaten by force or violence the governing institutions and political processes currently existing on both sides of the Kashmir divide pending the resolution of their status through a final settlement involving all parties.

4) Respect the lives, liberty, human rights, and dignity of the people living on both sides of the Kashmir divide.

5) Relieve burdens on those who have suffered, especially the targeting of noncombatants.

6) Consequently, we advocate that the following measures be taken as soon as possible, not awaiting for a final settlement of the Kashmir issue in all of its dimensions:

    a) the cessation of firing across the Kashmir divide

    b) the cessation of crossings by those bearing arms and other military equipment

    c) humanitarian initiatives, such as reuniting divided families and the reopening of designated routes for people-to-people contact across the Kashmir divide

    d) the resumption of trade across the Kashmir divide

    e) economic assistance and development projects

    f) the cessation of custodial killings

    g) the release of prisoners who have been detained for non-capital crimes without charges

    h) creating conditions for the return of Kashmiri Pandits to their homes

  • Strategic Foresight Group, "The Final Settlement: Restructuring India-Pakistan Relations" (New Delhi: Strategic Foresight Group, 2005)

The Strategic Foresight Group proposes that the Line of Control become a Line of Cooperation and India and Pakistan should adopt policies of autonomy and devolution towards Jammu and Kashmir. The government of India would restrict the powers of the governor while the Pakistan government would integrate the Gilgit-Baltistan region with Azad Jammu and Kashmir. India, Pakistan, and representatives from Jammu and Kashmir would together design a framework which would establish both a permanent body to monitor the efficient functioning of the autonomy arrangement, and committees from each side which would meet bi-annually to discuss economic, social, and cultural issues. A Joint Economic Development Council of Jammu and Kashmir would also be formed to promote trade, investment and joint ventures. As terrorism subsides and the governments of India and Pakistan relax travel restrictions, a fast-track visa process for Kashmiris would be created so that Kashmiris could travel freely between the two sides.

  • "Proposals for Areas of Free Trade and Movement in Jammu and Kashmir" and "A Karakoram Peace Park: A High Road Toward Peace in South Asia" -  Joseph E. Schwartzberg (E-mail: schwa004@umn.edu)

Joseph E. Schwartzberg explains how a comprehensive resolution to the disputed territory of Kashmir is necessary in view of the alternatives of international terrorism, costly military adventures, and the risk of a catastrophic nuclear war.  Looking at the historical experiences of three semi-sovereign territories of Andorra, the Aland Islands, and South Tyrol, Schwartzberg proposes three different measures.  The first is the establishment of the Karakoram Peace Park which would be recognized as a UNESCO world natural heritage site and would be centered around the Siachen Glacier.  The second proposal is the establishment of an area of free trade and movement (AFTM), which would convert progressively larger portions of the state of J&K into areas of free trade and movement, beginning with the Valley.  This area would allow for people and goods from either India or Pakistan to enter the AFTM, but not go beyond it into the other country, unless one had the appropriate visa, or in the case of commercial goods, unless applicable tariffs were paid.  Residents of AFTM would enjoy the right to move freely into or out of both India and Pakistan and be able to ship their goods freely to either country as well.  The final  settlement proposal that Schwartzberg outlines is based on the 1998 Livingston Proposal of the Kashmir Study Group, which would set up one or two sovereign Kashmir entities.

Vijay Sazawal defines four structural challenges that are impediments to a peaceful Kashmir settlement.  The first two are focus and issues.  Focus on either Indian-administered Kashmir or Pakistan-administered Kashmir, or the former princely State of Jammu and Kashmir will frame the issues and concerns of the conflict and change the set of considerations employed in a settlement.  The third challenge is the type of solution sought, ranging from strict land-centric to people-centric initiatives.  The final challenge is which groups or outside parties will serve as guarantors of a settlement.  Sazawal states that the proposed set of solutions need to move away from land-centric solutions to people-centric solutions. Sazawal identifies peace, prosperity, democratization, and human development as the essential building blocks for future solutions.  While peace and prosperity can be largely derived from improved bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, democratization and human development will require an intra-Kashmir dialogue across the LoC.  Looking ahead, Sazawal expects improved economic and political relations between Pakistan and India, but is skeptical that the processes of democratization and human development on both sides of the LoC will reach their full potential.

  • State Autonomy Committee, State Autonomy Committee Report (Jammu, India: April 1999)

The State Autonomy Committee introduces guidelines for relations between an autonomous State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Central government of India.  The Central State would govern matters of defense, external affairs, and communications, while the Jammu and Kashmir legislature would preside over all other matters within the State.  Elections to this legislature would be regulated by a regional body instead of the Central State.  The Supreme Court would continue to have jurisdiction in Jammu and Kashmir, but the State would be able to appoint and remove its own High Court judges.  The State would still require economic support from the Central government, and the people of Jammu and Kashmir would have the same fundamental rights as other Indian citizens.

  • Verghese Koithara, Crafting Peace in Kashmir: Through a Realist Lens (New Delhi: Sage, 2004)

Verghese Koithara considers that the true current needs of India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri discontented, the logic of their asymmetric strengths and the popular-level desire there is for peace make conflict-abatement possible through three inter-linked paths. (A) The existing LoC, with some topography-dictated changes, should become the settled border. But it must also be a soft border permitting easy intercourse across it.  (B) The two parts of J&K, divided politically, but linked socio-economically through cross border connections, should be given substantial and equal autonomy, and military presence there greatly reduced. (C) Autonomy should cascade down to divisions and districts so that the linguistic, religious-sectarian and ethnic divisions there are on both sides can be negotiated. A settled but soft border between the two parts of J&K, parallel and cascading autonomy, and substantial and balanced force reduction will not only address the grievances of the Kashmiris but will also enhance the political and military security of both India and Pakistan.  

  • Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War (London: IB Tauris & Co Ltd, 2003)

Victoria Schofield believes a resolution to the Kashmir dispute will only be reached after India and Pakistan agree to return in good faith to the negotiating table and to incorporate the Kashmiri people in negotiations. To create this good faith and an atmosphere conducive to negotiation, each side would have to be ready to make some concessions. India could declare that it has no claim over the Northern Areas and Azad Jammu and Kashmir [referred to by the Indian government as 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' (POK)].  Similarly, Pakistan could indicate which areas of the state it has no claim over, as well as acknowledging that a plebiscite is not a viable solution. The Kashmiri people could concede that an independent state of Jammu and Kashmir is not a feasible goal as neither India nor Pakistan would be willing to accept that outcome. Both India and Pakistan could withdraw significant military forces from the state and a soft border could be created across which the Kashmiri people could travel freely. With, if necessary,  the United States as a possible facilitator [or other acceptable country or individual], India, Pakistan, and agreed Kashmiri representatives might then be able to negotiate a realistic solution involving greater autonomy for the region and an adjustment of the Line of Control if Pakistan continued to maintain that the current line was unacceptable.

Jandayal suggests that India and Pakistan annex the parts of Jammu and Kashmir which are currently under their respective control. India and Pakistan would then grant full autonomy to those regions whose inhabitants so desired. Those people who had been displaced from their land since the mid-nineteen eighties would be allowed to return, while those who left the region after partition to become citizens of another country would not be allowed to return. Non-residents would be required to leave. Each autonomous part would write its constitution based on the principles of secular democracy. A Joint Commission with representatives from India and Pakistan would preside over cross-border issues such as trade, travel, and tourism, while India and Pakistan would be responsible for External Affairs, Defense, and Communications on their respective sides. The entire region would be deregulated and made into a free trade region. The Line of Control would become the official international border, "though in reality the physical border would, over time, disappear."

This proposal is a revision of the Kashmir Study Group’s 2000 proposal. It also calls for portions of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir to be reconstituted as sovereign entities without international personality and enjoying free access to and from both India and Pakistan.  There would be three portions, Kashmir, Jammu, and Ladakh, established on what is currently Indian controlled Kashmir, and two portions, Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, would be established on what is currently Pakistani controlled Kashmir. These entities would be self-governing, and would be part of an All-Kashmir body which would coordinate areas of broader interest such as regional trade, tourism, environment, and water resources. Each entity would have its own democratic constitution, while India and Pakistan would still be responsible for defense of the entities on their side of the Line of Control (LoC). India and Pakistan would open their borders to the Kashmiri entities. They would issue passports to Kashmiri citizens on their side of the LoC. The LoC would continue to exist until India and Pakistan agreed to change it, but India and Pakistan would withdraw their forces from the LoC and the Kashmiri state. In addition, all displaced persons who left any portion of entities would have the right to return to their home localities.

  • Regional Autonomy Committee, Regional Autonomy Committee Report (Jammu, India: April 1999)

The Regional Autonomy Committee advocates the decentralization of (Indian) political and economic power so as to empower the State of Jammu and Kashmir.  Two alternate models for managing the internal autonomy are presented. One model calls for the creation of eight Regions/Provinces within the State and a Council for each Region/Province which would allow the State’s diverse ethnic groups to participate in democratic governance and development programs. The other model involves District Councils which would be established in the existing districts in the State and would also emphasize local self-governance.  The Committee also recommends changes in the Academy of Art, Culture and Languages in order to greater promote the Kashmiri cultural identity as a means for improving social cohesion and religious tolerance. Click here for excerpts of the report.

The Pugwash Conference participants recommended curtailing violence and increasing dialogue as steps towards eventually resolving the Kashmir dispute. The ceasefire on the Line of Control (LoC) would be extended to the rest of Jammu and Kashmir, security forces would be reduced, and the governments on both sides would promote the de-legitimization of violence in civil society.  The LoC would be softened so as to allow for greater travel and dialogue between the two sides. To promote economic interaction, bus services and trade routes across the LoC would be opened. The governments of India and Pakistan and the leadership from the State of Jammu and Kashmir would engage in serious dialogue and create confidence building measures.  The continued strengthening of this dialogue and increases in interaction are necessary to eventually find a solution satisfactory to all sides.

Vijay Sazawal stresses the importance of confidence building measures (CBMs) between India, Pakistan, and the people of Jammu and Kashmir as part of the peace process.  These CBMs need to first address the violence in Kashmir and eliminate the "gun culture" which hinders any work towards a peaceful resolution. After this both sides must work together to bolster the economy in Kashmir and tackle poverty and corrupt governance. CBMs must also be used to create a Kashmiri identity which incorporates both Muslims and Pandits and promotes religious tolerance. The success of these CBMs would create a cooperative environment in which the three parties could reach a final resolution to the conflict.

Ershad Mahmud argues that a satisfactory solution to the Kashmir conflict requires the representation of the people of Kashmir in the ongoing Indo-Pakistan dialogue. However before this can happen, Kashmiri leaders must engage in an intra-Kashmir and inter-Kashmir dialogue. Currently, Kashmiri society is starkly divided on ethno-religious lines. The Kashmiri leadership needs to unite its society and adopt a common strategy. To facilitate the inter-Kashmir dialogue, the Line of Control must be softened to allow travel so that people from different sides can interact and exchange ideas. This increase in interaction would help to create a common identity for the Kashmiri people.  In addition, Kashmiri leaders should involve the militant groups in the dialogue. These groups cannot be ignored as they can potentially derail the peace process through violence.  After this intra- and inter-Kashmir dialogue has occurred and a common identity and goal of the Kashmiri people has been established, then the Kashmiri leaders can productively participate in the dialogue between India and Pakistan.

  • Sumantra Bose, Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003)

Sumantra Bose argues that the territorial status quo and Indian and Pakistani sovereignty over their respective areas of Kashmir should not be altered.  India should establish a system of self-rule on its side.  Similarly, Pakistan should establish a system of self-rule in Azad Kashmir so as to create an autonomy symmetric to that on the Indian side.  In order to reduce violence in the region, both sides would work for greater enforcement of human rights, better policing arrangements, and the release of political prisoners. The Line of Control would remain in place, but it would become an open border promoting cross-border economic development and political cooperation. Cross-border institutional links, such as a cross-border Jammu and Kashmir ministerial council, would be created and would serve to integrate the two sides.  The governments of Pakistan and India would be responsible for foreign affairs, external defense, currency, and macroeconomic policy for their own side. Before this plan could take effect, it would have to be ratified by parliaments in India and Pakistan, and approved through a referenda on both sides of Jammu and Kashmir

Muhammad Abd al-Hameed proposes a two-stage solution. In the first stage, India and Pakistan will simultaneously withdraw military forces in Jammu and Kashmir, dissolve the state governments, and ban political parties and activities. A Joint Council on Jammu and Kashmir will be formed with two representatives from each side. It will be responsible for defense, foreign affairs, currency, and telecommunications and will require a consensus on all decisions. This system will be in place for five years. During this time, the Line of Control (LoC) will be open for travel between the two sides and the Pakistani and Indian parliaments will grant autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.  After five years have elapsed, the second stage will begin with the election of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly.  The Assembly will be responsible for integrating the two parts of the state and abolishing the LoC.  It will also vote on the future of Jammu and Kashmir. The options for the future include, but are not limited to, accession to Pakistan or India; continuation of joint control by Pakistan and India through the Joint Council for another five years; and; UN mandate for five years.

  • Kanti Bajpai, Dipankar Banerjee, Amitabh Mattoo, Salman Khurshid, Arun Varma, and B.G. Verghese, Jammu and Kashmir: An Agenda for the Future (Delhi Policy Group: New Delhi, 1998)

The Delhi Policy Group proposes changes in four areas of India's Kashmir policy. 1) Center-state relations: the central government would grant Jammu and Kashmir greater autonomy while making sure to integrate it "within the national mainstream." 2) Governance: the state and central governments would work together to create a strong economic infrastructure in Kashmir, establish an efficient administrative system, institute an effective judiciary system, and revive Kashmir's traditionally tolerant society. 3) Internal Security: India would strengthen its counterinsurgency forces and improve its management of the Line of Control. 4) Foreign Policy: India would make an agreement with Pakistan to postpone the search for a final resolution to the Kashmir dispute and in the meantime, India would promote cooperation with Pakistan in four areas: military, political, economic, and social. Under this agenda, Jammu and Kashmir would enjoy greater autonomy and stability, and India would strengthen its relations with Pakistan.

  • Robert Wirsing, Kashmir in the Shadow of War: Regional Rivalries in a Nuclear Age (London: M.E. Sharpe, 2003)

Robert Wirsing argues that it is currently impossible to resolve the Kashmir dispute in a manner that can satisfy both sides because of India and Pakistan's hostile relationship.  Wirsing proposes that the search for a resolution be indefinitely postponed while India and Pakistan strengthen their relations. Based on the past failures to improve bilateral relations, Wirsing advocates a multilateral strategy in which an international peacekeeping force led by the UN would be responsible for the enforcement and demilitarization of the LoC.  The implementation of this peacekeeping force would be approved by both India and Pakistan, if necessary in exchange for economic or political incentives.  This international presence would allow India and Pakistan to negotiate a reduction in violence and promote a more cooperative environment in which to resolve the Kashmir issue.

  • Raju G.C. Thomas, "Reflections on the Kashmir Problem," in Raju G.C. Thomas, ed., Perspectives on Kashmir (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1992)

Raju Thomas proposes that India and Pakistan assume joint control over an autonomous Kashmir. India and Pakistan would both withdraw military forces from Kashmir, and the region would be opened up to trade and tourism. Only native Kashmiris would be able to own land in Kashmir (Indians and Pakistanis would not be allowed to migrate there), and Kashmiris would be free to live and/or work in India or Pakistan.  This would be the first step toward the eventual goal of a "single decentralized democratic confederation of several autonomous 'republics' in South Asia."  These autonomous republics would be created based on India’s ethnic diversity in conjunction with "overarching Indian consciousness and unity."  The republics would retain political and cultural autonomy while the central Indian government would be responsible for defense, foreign affairs, communications, and currency.

Dorschner proposes a solution to the Kashmir dispute modeled after the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement.  The final goal is an internationally administered referendum to determine the status of Kashmir.  Both sides would first agree to postpone a resolution of the dispute. A ceasefire would be negotiated immediately and forces on both sides would withdraw from the Line of Control (LoC) and eventually from all of Kashmir. Azad Kashmir would be autonomous within Pakistan, and the Indian state of Kashmir would be autonomous within the Indian Union. The people of Kashmir would be free to travel on both sides with an identification card.  Such a period of demobilization would increase contact and cooperation between the two sides and improve relations to the point that a referendum could be endorsed by all sides.

The International Crisis Group does not provide a specific plan for resolving the Kashmir dispute. It proposes five forms of dialogue that would widen a peace process and make it more sustainable. 1) Dialogue on normalization of relations: India and Pakistan discuss confidence building measures with the goal of returning their relations to at least where they were before the 1999 Kargil conflict.  2) Dialogue with Kashmir: The Indian and Pakistani governments discuss increasing autonomy and local governance with the Kashmiri authorities. 3) Dialogue within each country: India and Pakistan emphasize the importance of normalization of relations based on the heavy cost of decades of conflict. 4) Dialogue within Kashmir: Authorities in Kashmir discuss how to improve the lives of Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC and how to unify a society divided by its three religious groups. 5) Dialogue across the Line of Control: Kashmiris increase their social and economic interaction across the LoC. 

The Kashmir Study Group calls for "a portion of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir [to] be reconstituted as one or more sovereign entities without international personality enjoying free access to and from both India and Pakistan." The portion would be determined by an international body based on the Kashmiri peoples' desires. India and Pakistan would agree to accept the ascertainment of the international body and to acknowledge the sovereignty of this new state. This sovereign state would have its own secular, democratic constitution with India and Pakistan responsible for its defense.  India and Pakistan would open their borders to the Kashmiri state, and would issue passports to Kashmiri citizens on their side of the Line of the Control (LoC). The LoC would continue to exist until India and Pakistan agreed to change it, but India and Pakistan would withdraw their forces from the LoC and the Kashmiri state.