Originally Posted by Kartajan

Why does the author presume that "Solving Kashmir" necessarily implies concession and even surrendering on India's part? If, as rest of his article tries to show, India's position is really that strong and Pakistan's that weak, a solution would definitely end up in India's favor.

Real Paks may or may not come up with more concrete challenges to the article (and I have no wish to feed them ammo by pointing out a few fallacies I noticed), but as a hypothetical Pak I can say this: Pakistan already has the initiative in atleast one front and against atleast one Indian by making him believe that a "solution to Kashmir" will be a lossy proposition to India.