1.India - The main issue for India in this crisis was POK(Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir). It is a re-gion which India does not control but continues to claim sovereignty over. India wanted to dis-play its secularity by portraying all citizens had equal rights. Pakistan - Pakistan’s interests were to permanently occupy POK valley. The region is autono-mous with some degree of Pakistani influence displaying their desire for occupation. The gov-ernment also wanted to shift the focus from their internal ethnic conflict. Kashmiris - Thousands of Kashmiris had formed a liberation army known as “Azad” to free POK from Indian rule displaying the sentiments of these people. These people were ethnically Muslims who felt as they had been left behind during the partition. United States - The US Government’s rule was one of a conflict-resolution. They wanted to avoid a nuclear war over the valley which would ensure regional stability. Soviet Union - They were interested in maintaining the regional stability of South Asia as well. Even though they were an ally to India, their economic restructuring according to trade allowed them to be neutral towards the matter. 2.Both India and Pakistan had face internal conflicts during the Indo-Pak Crisis in 1990. The leaders of both the countries were facing immense pressure from their respective oppositionsto take action coupled with these conflicts. Singh, the Indian Prime Minister, was an advocate for ‘Harijans’, the lowest rung of the Hindu caste system which had angered a lot of other upper-caste Hindus. The coalition of the government formed with the BJP was also pushing the government to take action against Pak-istan while strengthening India’s nuclear strength as well. Riots followed his sympathetic actionscoupled with strenuous pressure from BJP projecting strong implications of war from India’s side to take over Kashmir.Bhutto, the Pakistani Prime Minister, was under similar stress as well from a conformist Muslim opposition. The rise of authoritarian power were weakening her attempts to rule the country with democracy and openness. Her rule was Pakistan’s first democratic rule after a seriesof dictatorial rules. The country’s fragility was at its peak, following an assassination of Zulfigar Ali Bhutto for his political ambitions. These factors wanted Pakistan’s to be fully committed to Kashmir’s independence, whether a war would be inevitable or not.3.The Indo-Pak crisis ended in 1990 after meetings between the countries but the discourse remains as high as ever. The non-weaponization of both states have allowed both countries to be-come more confident than ever as both of them keep on increasing their nuclear arsenal. The ideal situation states a less likely event of armed conflict, “the Kashmir valley has been in a state of upheaval in the years since 1990, with Indian troops having become permanent fixtures in the day-to-day lives of the people.”(10) The behavior signifies a concept we spoke in class about, theprisoner’s dilemma. As discussed in class, the options chosen by the participants always result inmutual loss rather than mutual benefit due to variables attached to them in regards to warfare.Additionally, both the states are reluctant to enter into an agreement to rescind their nuclear weapons, further complicating the circumstances of future armed conflict. India’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Ban adds to the situation as India seeks global nuclear disarmament first. I believe India and Pakistan will be cautious about entering armed conflict over Kashmir due to a multitude of outside factors. The United States’ intervention plays a role due to the eco-nomic impact the country has for both. Additionally, international pressures are a huge factor in avoiding nuclear war as the cost of nuclear war is too high for a tussle over