ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the issue of whether Kashmir can be a model of conflict transformation in which peace process and development activities can be con ducted simultaneously even as the conflict continues and parties negotiate their positions. Peace as a means of conflict resolution dawned in Kashmir in its full import only in the late 1990s, when parties to the conflict, particularly India and Pakistan, realised the futility of armed conflict in Kashmir. Though it is difficult to identify a steady conflict pattern in Kashmir, since its inception in the late 1940s, its emergence in the regional as well as wider Eurasian matrix as one of the most protracted conflicts in a volatile region with subsequent heavy costs propelled the parties to seek non-violent resolution as violence had failed to resolve the conflict. While factors like religious fundamentalism and terrorism emerged in later years as crucial factors in determining the contours of the Kashmir conflict, its location between three nuclear powers with complex equations between them, and its geopolitical relevance in the power rivalry in the wider regions makes Kashmir different from many other conflicts. Tangible and intangible costs aside, the region has not witnessed resolution of the conflict, partly owing to the rigid positions of the parties and partly due to persistence of violence, though intermittent. The post-2008 stalemate in India–Pakistan relations also brings into focus the way in which the Kashmir conflict is subject to shifting bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. Despite its own dynamics, the bilateral relations play a crucial role in determining the nature of conflict and peace in the region.
