THE recent remarks made by the Indian Army Chief during the 77th Army Day celebrations, where he accused Pakistan of orchestrating violence in Kashmir and emphasized the induction of 15,000 additional troops in 2024, have sparked significant reactions, particularly from Pakistan. While the situation in Kashmir is undeniably complex, it is important to address the issue within the broader historical context, international commitments and the necessity for a peaceful resolution that prioritizes the rights and aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
The Kashmir dispute is not merely a military issue but a deeply political and human rights issue rooted in the promises made at the time of India’s partition and the subsequent accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. The Government of India (GOI) has committed itself to a UN-supervised plebiscite in Kashmir, as outlined in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 47. The resolution calls for a fair and free process where the Kashmiri people can determine their future. This commitment was reaffirmed at the 230th meeting of the UNSC in 1948, which outlined the role of Indian forces in the region as supplementary and temporary, tasked only with ensuring law and order.
However, the ongoing militarization of the region—especially the recent induction of an additional 15,000 troops in 2024—directly undermines the spirit of these original agreements and international resolutions. The heavy military presence today stands in stark contrast to the intent of UNSC Resolution 47, which sought restraint in the appearance, number and stationing of forces in the region to avoid exacerbating tensions and to promote a peaceful resolution.
Britain’s Acknowledgment of the Insurgency and Diverse Stakeholders: During the 251st meeting of the UNSC, Britain acknowledged the continuation of the insurgency in Kashmir and pointed out that the conflict involves not just India and Pakistan but also six distinct interest groups within Kashmir itself. These groups—representing various political, social and ethnic constituencies—have long been anchored in the belief that the UN-supervised plebiscite is the ultimate solution. Their expectations, based on international commitments, have shaped the political discourse surrounding the Kashmir issue for decades.
Thus, when India’s Army Chief labels Pakistan as the “epicentre of terrorism,” it oversimplifies the situation and diverts attention from the core issue: the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future. While external actors may play a role, the primary concern is the political status of Kashmir and the aspirations of its people. The ongoing insurgency is rooted in both local grievances and the unresolved political status of the region and framing the issue as a purely external one fails to address these complexities. The focus should be on resolving the issue through political means, respecting the wishes of the Kashmiri people and honouring international commitments.
The Need for Demilitarization: Demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir is essential to creating an environment conducive to peace, dialogue and reconciliation. The continuing induction of military forces, such as the 15,000 additional troops in 2024, only serves to escalate tensions, perpetuate human rights violations and further alienate the Kashmiri people. The commitment to reducing the military footprint in the region is a crucial step toward restoring trust and creating conditions for a peaceful resolution.
India has made a specific commitment to reduce its military presence in the region. At the 608th meeting of the UNSC, India stated that the minimum necessary force to maintain order in Kashmir was 28,000. However, the Indian government also offered, in a significant gesture, that “on complete disbandment and disarmament of the Azad Kashmir forces, and as a further contribution towards a settlement, the GOI is prepared to effect a further reduction of 7,000 to a figure of 21,000, which is the absolute and irreducible minimum.” This force would be without any supporting arms, such as armour or artillery, as India emphasized the need to avoid further militarization of the region.
This offer of reduction should be seen as a positive step towards demilitarization, but it remains inadequate if the overall approach to Kashmir continues to prioritize military means over political solutions. There is no room for militarizing Kashmir further. The region cannot be resolved by force; it is the consent of the Kashmiri people and the promise of a UN-supervised plebiscite that must prevail. The military presence cannot replace the democratic rights of the Kashmiri people and the way forward must involve reducing the military presence while promoting dialogue, self-determination, and peace.
The Role of the Kashmiri People and the UN Template: The ultimate resolution of the Kashmir issue must centre around the will of the Kashmiri people, as guaranteed by the United Nations and the commitments made by both India and Pakistan at the UNSC in 1948. The heavy militarization of the region is at odds with the political and democratic aspirations of the Kashmiri people. The UN-supervised plebiscite remains the most legitimate path forward, one that respects the rights of Kashmiris to choose their future.
As highlighted in the State Autonomy Committee Report of June 2000, Jammu and Kashmir’s provisional accession was limited to three areas—defense, communications and foreign affairs. These restrictions must guide the future governance of the region. Any solution that involves continued militarization and repression will only deepen the divide. The focus must shift to fulfilling international promises, especially the commitment to a UN-supervised plebiscite and to ensuring that the political rights of the Kashmiri people are fully respected.
A Call for Peace and Political Dialogue: India and Pakistan, along with the international community, must move beyond military posturing and engage in genuine dialogue aimed at achieving a political resolution that respects the rights and aspirations of the Kashmiri people. The Kashmir issue cannot be solved by military means; it requires a political settlement that recognizes the legitimacy of the Kashmiri people’s demand for self-determination. India’s continued military presence in Kashmir must be reconsidered in the light of international commitments and the focus should be on reducing military forces while promoting a peace process that includes all stakeholders.
The path to peace in Kashmir lies in honouring the principles of self-determination and democratic governance. The UN-supervised plebiscite remains the only legitimate solution and India must reaffirm its commitment to this process, ensuring that the military does not stand in the way of the political aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
Conclusion: In conclusion, JKCHR advocates for the immediate demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir, in line with the United Nations’ framework and the promises made by both India and Pakistan. India’s offer to reduce its military presence to 21,000 troops without supporting arms should be viewed as a step towards peace, but it is essential that this reduction be part of a broader political resolution that respects the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. The solution lies not in military control but in political dialogue and the implementation of a UN-supervised plebiscite, ensuring that the people of Kashmir are the ones who determine their future.
—The writer is President JKCHR.
