Naveed Aman Khan
The Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains one of the oldest unresolved issues on the agenda of the United Nations and a persistent flashpoint in South Asia. More than seven decades after the partition of the subcontinent, the dispute continues to threaten regional stability, nuclear peace, and the fundamental principles of international law. From Pakistan’s perspective, Kashmir is not a territorial dispute but a question of self-determination, human rights, and the credibility of the international legal order. Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir has been consistent, principled, and rooted in United Nations resolutions, while India’s control over Jammu and Kashmir represents an illegal occupation sustained through force rather than consent.
At the heart of the Kashmir dispute lies the principle of self-determination, enshrined in the UN Charter and reaffirmed through multiple UN Security Council resolutions. Resolutions such as UNSC Resolution 47 (1948) explicitly recognise Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory and call for a free and impartial plebiscite to allow the Kashmiris to determine their future. Pakistan has repeatedly emphasised that any durable solution must align with these resolutions. India, however, has consistently resisted their implementation, gradually consolidating its control over the region through administrative, military, and demographic measures that contradict international law.
India’s claim over the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) lacks legal legitimacy under international law and norms. The territory remains internationally recognised as disputed, and unilateral actions cannot alter its status. India’s revocation of Articles 370 and 35A in August 2019 marked a serious breach of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from altering the demographic composition of an occupied territory. Pakistan strongly rejected this move, viewing it as an attempt to permanently annex the region and silence the Kashmiri voice through constitutional manipulation rather than democratic consent.
Beyond legal arguments, the Kashmir dispute is fundamentally a human rights crisis. IIOJK has become one of the most militarised regions in the world. Over the decades, credible reports by international human rights organisations, independent observers, and Kashmiri civil society groups have documented widespread abuses, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture, and collective punishment. Over one hundred thousand Kashmiri civilians have lost their lives since the late 1980s, a tragic toll that reflects the scale of suffering endured by the population under prolonged military presence.
The use of laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) grants Indian forces near-total immunity, creating an environment where accountability is virtually non-existent. Pellet guns that blind civilians, prolonged curfews, communication blackouts, and mass arrests are not instruments of governance but tools of repression. Pakistan has repeatedly raised these concerns at international forums, arguing that India’s narrative of “internal matter” collapses when confronted with systematic human rights violations that demand international scrutiny. Pakistan’s position on Kashmir is not driven by expansionism or hostility but by adherence to international commitments. Islamabad has consistently called for a peaceful resolution through dialogue, diplomacy, and UN mechanisms.
Pakistan has supported the Kashmiri right to self-determination politically, morally, and diplomatically, while emphasising that the struggle of Kashmiris is indigenous and rooted in their aspirations, not externally manufactured. This distinction is central to Pakistan’s narrative, which contrasts sharply with India’s attempts to frame the issue solely through the lens of security and counterterrorism.
The role of the international community has been deeply disappointing. While global powers often express concern over human rights in Kashmir, these statements rarely translate into meaningful action. Strategic interests, economic ties, and geopolitical calculations have muted international resolve. The silence or selective engagement of major powers undermines the universality of human rights and weakens the authority of international law.
If UN resolutions can be ignored indefinitely by a powerful state, the credibility of the entire multilateral system comes into question. A just and lasting solution to the Kashmir issue lies squarely within the framework already agreed upon by the international community. The United Nations must move beyond rhetorical concern and actively facilitate the implementation of its resolutions. This includes appointing effective envoys, ensuring international monitoring of human rights, lifting communication restrictions, releasing political prisoners, and creating conditions conducive to a free and impartial plebiscite. Pakistan has repeatedly stated its willingness to support such a process under UN supervision.
The Kashmir dispute is a moral, legal, and political test for the international community. Pakistan’s stance remains clear: Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory under international law, India’s presence is an illegal occupation, and the Kashmiri people are entitled to decide their own future. Peace in South Asia cannot be achieved through force, demographic engineering, or denial of rights. It can only emerge through justice, respect for international law, and the recognition that the will of the Kashmiri people—not military might—must ultimately prevail.
The writer is an editor, political analyst, book ambassador and author of several books based in Islamabad. He can be reached at naveedamankhan@hotmail.com and X@AmanNaveed11.
