There a conflict in South Asia, which has outlasted most post-World War II disputes. This long-festering dispute is the one in Kashmir, and it is the primary cause of hostility between India and Pakistan and a source for endless misery for the people of Kashmir.
As far as the Kashmiri is concerned, the Delhi and Islamabad governments share one key characteristic: both perceive Kashmir's realities and interests as subservient to their own. This affinity between the Pakistani and Indian positions is ironic in view of the fundamental contrast between the two in relation to Kashmir. India is, in the language of political science, a "status quo power". That is, it actually holds the area it covets, and its policies are intended to preserve the existing territorial situation. Pakistan's position, on the other hand, is that of a "revolutionary power" one which seeks to change that status quo.
The reality is that New Delhi's moral isolation from the Kashmiri people is total and irreversible. It might be reversible if India were to envisage a qualitatively different relationship with Kashmir, but so far New Delhi has evinced no inclination in this direction. But can India's loss translate into Pakistan's gain?
The answer is it cannot. Policy makers in Islamabad like to believe otherwise, and this is not unusual. Although Pakistani decision makers know the problem to be fundamentally political, since 1948 they have approached it in military terms. While officially invoking the Kashmiri right to self-determination, Pakistan's governments and politicians have pursued policies which have all but disregarded the history, culture, and aspirations of the Kashmiri people.