Ethnic conflicts with a strong religious component often result in domestic and foreign consequences. As a result, the internationalization of ethnic conflict can aid in the understanding of how a lack of acceptance amongst different cultural diversities can impede on the progress of humanity. In terms of the Kashmir Conflict, India’s foreign policy related to Kashmir will be analyzed within the context of religion. The aim of this study is to apply a foreign policy approach that simultaneously incorporates domestic and external factors in an analysis of how and in what ways religious elements of the Kashmir question affect India’s liberalistic approach. Many people in the Kashmir territory do not want to be governed by India and would rather be independent or with Pakistan because they are a largely Muslim population.This need to be with a group of people who are the same religious background is Initially, the Kashmir conflict began However it is now In the current situation, the debate ought to focus on the experiences and aspirations of the people in the Kashmir valley, Habibullah pointed out. The majority of Jammu and Kashmir’s population of 5.4 million is resident in the Kashmir Valley. Their religion is 98 percent Islam with distinct Sufi characteristics. Jammu Division, on the other hand, has a population of 4.4 million, over 60 percent of whom are Hindus and 30 percent Muslims, where the latter represent a majority in three of Jammu’s 6 districts. The languages are variations of Punjabi and different from Kashmiri, spoken largely in the valley. The third component, the largest of the three in area and the most remote, is Ladakh, with a population of approximately 233,000, which has a slim Muslim majority. This is mostly Shia, as distinct from the overall Sunni majority in the Kashmir Valley.GeographyAnother key reason why the Kashmir conflict continues to remain unsolved is because of the exuberant economic advantages a country would possess if they were to acquire it’s land. Geographically, Kashmir is home to bodies of water that flow through the region including: the Indus river, Economically, Kashmir is of vital importance to the needs of Pakistan, producing all the timber for Pakistan and housing three rivers, Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, which flow from the Kashmir region into Pakistan and control the agricultural growth. These three main rivers provide potential for large-scale hydroelectric power plants for Pakistan and economic prosperity. Neither country is willing to part with these resources, India moreso than Pakistan. To illustrate just how firm India is regarding the safeguarding of Kashmir’s waterways India’s prime minister Narendra Modi claims that: ” ‘Blood and water cannot flow together,’ This is a recent quote from Pakistan regarding the Kashmir conflict in response to the natural resources that Kashmir has and who will take over it, and clearly elucidates the long history of bad blood between the two nations. SolutionsThe United NationsThe first attempt to address the problem of the Kashmir conflict was Knowing the historical background of India and understanding how both countries India’s military intervention on behalf of the besieged Maharaja led to the first India-Pakistan war over Kashmir. India aired the dispute before the United Nations, calling for international intervention in the matter. After their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48, India and Pakistan signed a ceasefire agreement on January 1, 1949. India and Pakistan went to war over Kashmir again in 1965, and the resulting line of control divided old Jammu and Kashmir into four political units: Established after World War II, the United Nations served as a replacement for the ineffective League of Nations. The ultimate and sole purpose of the United Nations to serve and protect the people of the world and maintain international peace. However, accomplishing this task has not always been feasible and in the event of the Kashmir Conflict, it remains to be settled. The United Nations was introduced to the Kashmir Conflict on January 1, 1948 when India sent a complaint under Article 35 of the United Nations Charter arraigning Pakistan with ‘aiding and abetting’ the Pakistani tribal invasion in Jammu and Kashmir. “In the United Nations, India claimed that all the territories of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir legally belonged to India by virtue of the treaty of accession signed by the Hindu king of the Kingdom with the Indian Union. Two weeks later, Pakistan responded to the Indian complaint with counter charges. Pakistan denied having aided the raiders, accused India of annexing Kashmir and of trying to throttle Pakistan in its infancy ” The U.N Military Observers Group was later established in Kashmir- with offices in both Indian part Kashmir and Pakistan part of Kashmir- known as the “U.N Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan” (UNMOGIP) which sought to investigate and report complaints of ceasefire violations along the “ceasefire line” in Kashmir to the United Nations.Thus, the United Nations intervention began. The United Nations intervened for 17 years (1948-65). The U.N Security Council passed a number of resolutions between this time 1948 and 1971, 23 resolutions to be exact. All of these resolutions were rejected because the United Nations cannot coerce either nation to agree to the terms. In other words the resolutions are recommended and can be enforced only if both parties agree, in this case India and Pakistan. In fact, to this day, the UN Secretary General has spoken up in regards to this-“As I have stated in the past, if both countries request it, I am ready to engage further to assist in resolving this issue,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in an interview with Indian news agency PTI published on December 9. It is important to understand that the United Nation’s success is deemed through peaceful means so India has continually rejected U.N resolutions. To understand why India continually rejected these resolutions we must take a further look upon the key elements behind the conflict.Sheikh AbdullahAnother proposed solution was to allow Kashmir to remain as an independant nation, so that neither country could benefit economically, politically, or socially from Kashmir. This famous solution was proposed by none other than Kashmiri politician Sheikh Abdullah who “has been the most important figure of in Kashmiri politics”. Abdullah believed that http://peacekeeping.un.org/mission/past/unipombackgr.htmlThe Simla AgreementThe Third Phase: 1969-79 Simla Agreement Following the third India-Pakistan war in 1971, both countries signed the Simla Accord in July 1972. Clause (ii) of the Article VI of the Simla Agreement stated that “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease fire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of the use of force in violation of this line.” Article VI of the Simla Agreement further committed both sides to “discuss further modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalisation of relations, including…a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and resumption of diplomatic relations. The Simla Agreement was an agreement between India and the government of Pakistan which was instrumental in the development of the relations of the Kashmir conflict because it was a step towards the end of the conflict that the United Nations took in order to resolve the issue. In it, Global Understanding and SignificanceRealism vs. LiberalismWhen attempting to understand the fallout between India and Pakistan which led to the Kashmir Conflict, it is important to study the ideologies of both countries and how they were developed. In international relations, a set of ideas can explain how one nation approaches a dispute. Unlike an ideology, a theory of international relations is backed up with concrete evidence. The two major theories of international relations are realism and liberalism. While colonialism can be attributed to this conflict, the individual mindsets that coerce each country to not come to an agreement is just as important as a cause of the Kashmir conflict. In the case of this conflict, India’s liberalism and Pakistan’s realism greatly contribute to the lack of willingness to compromise. Before we can assess the problems associated with different mindsets, it is important to establish why and how India became so liberalistic and Pakistan is realistic.Realist thought has since then favored a balance of power in case of a potential conflict. Realist thinkers emphasize on self help and prioritize the perceived national interest in order to ensure their state’s survival. Realist thinkers try and define the world as it is instead of how they would ideally want it to be. One key factor in realist thinking is that in an anarchic world there can be no guarantee of a state’s very survival. Power is an important means by which states can endure and prevail over competing interests. Pakistan Understanding Pakistan’s perspective serves as an important foundation for understanding the Kashmir conflict. Some historians argue that “In the view of those who advocate the Cold War The UN Security Council Resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949, proposed the plebiscite option for settling the Kashmir dispute. These resolutions laid down the principles and procedures for a free and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices. Pakistan objected to this proposal on the ground that India had previously committed to hold a plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole. India indicated a willingness to consider a plebiscite, but only one limited to the Kashmir Valley and some adjacent areas. However, Indian suggestions as to the allocation of other territories among Pakistan and India were unworkably biased. Sir Owen recalled that Indian proposals “appeared to me to go much beyond what according to my conception of the situation was reasonable.” Pakistan refused to budge from its position, though it was amenable to straight partition if it was given the valley. This, however, was unacceptable to India. As a last resort, Sir Owen The Pakistani view is that they are providing moral support to the Kashmiri People in their fight for freedom against the brutal Indian Army who commit excessive humans rights abuses on the oppressed Muslims living in India, a non-Muslim country. The Indian perspective is that they are dealing with a proxy war by Pakistan who have never accepted the Kashmiri’s democratic reaffirmation of their accession to India. The Kashmiris themselves are split between supporting Pakistan, India and independence. But while the Pakistanis and Indians live in relative peace, it is the Kashmiri who suffers the most while the issue remains unresolved.IndiaAt the core of Indian position on Kashmir is New Delhi’s claim that the decision of the Maharaja Hari Singh to accede to the Indian Union, regardless of its circumstances, is “final and legal and it cannot be disputed.” If there is any “unfinished” business of partition it is the requirement that Pakistan relinquish control of that part of Jammu and Kashmir that it illegally occupies. India further maintains that the UN Resolutions calling for the will of the people to be ascertained are no longer tenable because Pakistan has not fulfilled the precondition of withdrawal from the territory it occupied through aggression. New Delhi further maintains that after Pakistan’s attempts to alter the status quo by force of war in 1965, Islamabad has forfeited the right to invoke the UN Resolutions. The will of the people does not need to be ascertained only through a plebiscite. The problem of Kashmir, according to India, is one of terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. The targets are Muslims in Kashmir, belying Pakistan’s argument that it is concerned about the welfare of Muslims in Kashmir. While India wants to resolve all outstanding issues with Pakistan through a process of dialogue, the integrity and sovereignty of India cannot be a matter for discussion. The Indian policy towards Kashmir operates at three distinct levels: local, bilateral and international. At the local level, the principal Indian goal is to crush the Kashmiri resistance by massive use of force on the one hand and by manipulating the differences among different Kashmiri resistance groups on the other. At the bilateral Indo-Pakistan level, India, while expressing its willingness to discuss all outstanding issues with Pakistan, has tended to avoid conducting any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan regarding Kashmir that involves a movement away from the stated Indian position that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Although India’s principal purpose in maintaining a posture of dialogue with Pakistan is to gain time to consolidate its hold over in Kashmir by pacifying the Kashmiri resistance, independent analysts believe that “already in possession of the larger and most prized section of the state and aware of the difficulty that would face any effort to pry Pakistan loose from the rest,” New Delhi would be willing to “accept conversion of the LoC…into a permanent international boundary.”5 At the international level, Indian policy on Kashmir is primarily aimed at three objectives: deflecting the Pakistani campaign alleging human-rights violations in Kashmir; emphasising that the Simla agreement provides the only viable forum to settle the Kashmir issue; and discrediting the Kashmiri resistance movement as a “terrorist activity” sponsored by Pakistan. 4 Ibid. 5 Robert G. Wirsing, India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: on Regional Conflict and Its Resolution. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), p.219-20. A question that is often pondered, and yet never sufficiently been able to be answered is: “Why is the Kashmir Conflict still going on?” In fact, “British efforts to exploit Hindu-Muslim differences to sustain their rule were Importance on HumanityThe conflict in Kashmir is not only the eleven-year war of insurgencies but it has been an ongoing struggle rooted deep in colonization, imperialism and religion. Conflicts such as the Kashmir conflict imapct the international community as a whole and can then impede the progression of humanity because the refusal to accpet others and wokr together can create mistrst and fuel aConclusionAfter having examined the reasons behind why the Kashmir Conflict continues to remain unsolved and the extent of blame one can place on colonialism, it is important to understand that unresolved conflicts can It is important to understand that “conflict is natural” and to be expected. However, this not interpersonal conflict because it is a part of humanity. A relationship without conflict is rare. Yet, these relationships can then benefit from conflict.