Kashmir is an independent state.

My opponent forfeited and thus has not met the burden of proof. I will just add that it is literrally a territory of the Indian Union meaning that it is absolutely not an independent state in any sense of the word. 

Unfortunately I was unable to present my argument and I did not forfeit intentionally. Back to the point, To understand the issue of Kashmir we need to go back to the time the Sub Continent was partitioned. Kashmir was one of the many princely states whose fate was to be decided by the people and the rulers. Generally states with more Muslim population sided with Pak and hindus ans other religion sided with india. Kashmir was one of the few unique cases as the ruler was a hindu raja while majority of the population was Muslim. After what was a controversial series of events. The Raja acceded Kashmir to india. This was met with heavy resistance from the local population who revolted against the unjust decision made by their ruler and as a result a war broke out (backed by Pakistan) which saw 1/3 of Kashmir being liberated which is now known as AJK. The remaining to this day remains in the firm grasp of more than 1 million Indian military soldiers present in the region. After the situation slipped out of the Indian govt hands they took the matter to the UNSC. Where resolution 39 and later 47 were passed asking the withdrawal of Pakistani militants, the Indian military and the conduction of a fair peblescite in the region allowing the locals to decide their future whether it lies with Pakistan, India or neither. The then PM of India accepted this decision but later on when they realised their mistake and were made aware of the ground reality in the region which heavily weighed in Pakistan’s favour. They decided to back out and increased their military presence and barred the UN administrator assigned to the region from entering the Indian side. To this day the resolution has not been acted upon and the people of Kashmir still await justice. 

Quite simply Kashmir is not independent, and it is still controlled by the Indian Union. 

First Pro says that to understand the issue we have to evaluate history, however this is irrelevant  to the resolution which uses the present tense is. We are not asking if Kashmir, was an independent state, if it will become an independent state, or if it should be an independent state. The resolution simply says that it is an independent state in the status quo which is clearly false. 

Next Pro says that the AJK was liberated, but the AJK is not Kashmir anymore so it does not prove the resolution true either. 

Next Pro says that there is a military presence in Kashmir from the Indian government and that the "people of Kashmir await justice", but this only goes to show that Kashmir is indeed not free in the status quo. Even if they should be free they simply are not free or in any way an independent state. As Pro points out, any autonomy that Kashmir once had has been revoked. 

I apologise for the inconvenience. I'm new on the site and probably was unclear I wanted to debate on the future of Kashmir rather than it's present. This debate has practically led to nothing. I apologise and will publish a new one soon. Hope to see you there.

Thank you to pro, and please vote neg.