"Few things have been said in the course of this controversy more silly than this one. The assumption behind the argument is that the states of India are held together by force and not by a sentiment of a common nationality. It is an assumption that makes a mockery of the Indian nation and a tyrant of the Indian state."

Contrary to the impression that has been created by the defenders of the status quo in Kashmir, it is the non-settlement of the Kashmir dispute, rather than its settlement, that threatens the territorial integrity of India, and it may be added, of Pakistan. A just and fair settlement of the dispute, in whatever form, would give to each country a mutually recognized and secure frontier and thus encourage their respect for each other's territorial integrity. It would strengthen internal cohesion in both countries. The only real safeguard against disintegration is peace and absence of external and internal conflict.

On the question of Kashmir becoming independent - regardless of whether the possibility is practical or theoretical -  it has been argued that the emergence of another sovereign entity in the subcontinent would encourage secessionist tendencies in both India and Pakistan and lead to the collapse of their existing federal structures. What seems to be at work here is the notorious and now discarded falling dominoes theory. No area which is today part of India or Pakistan was dragged into a union against its will; all joined by a volition expressed or confirmed in a popular vote. The only exception is Kashmir, which has never been provided the opportunity to decide its own status or affiliation. What, therefore, applies to Kashmir does not apply to Assam or Tamil Nadu in India or to Sind in Pakistan. This is also plain from the fact that both countries accepted an international obligation under the auspices of the United Nations regarding Kashmir which neither as a sovereign state would accept regarding any of its constituent units, namely the obligation to withdraw their forces from the territory and let the people decide its status. The dispute over Kashmir is sue generis. The demilitarization of Kashmir and the holding of a plebiscite in it, in accordance with an international agreement, does not logically justify a bid for secession by other territories nor - what is more important - psychologically encourage it. Moreover another consideration that the Indian contention ignores is that part of Kashmir can emerge as independent and other parts join India or Pakistan. This would mean consolidation and common agreement rather than fission and dispute.

Finally, what is the commonsense view of the matter? The Indian contention that the de-annexation of Kashmir would lead to the breakup of the Indian Union implies that the constituent units of that Union are only waiting for an example to be set in Kashmir which they would follow and splinter off. The reality, however, is that they are in the Indian Union  because (a) they identify themselves as parts of a larger nation, and (b) it is in their perceived interest - economic, social and cultural - to be within the Union rather than face the hazards of a separate, independent existence. If and where the sense of identity and interest is lacking, the unit will secede in course of time regardless of what happens in Kashmir. The danger of the disintegration of the Kashmir dispute is thus only a spectre raised to obstruct that settlement.