October 27, 1947, marks one of the darkest chapters in South Asian history; the day when India militarily invaded the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, violating the Indian Independence Act of 1947, the United Nations Charter, and above all, the will of the Kashmiri people.
Since then, Kashmiris across the world have observed October 27 as Black Day, rejecting India’s illegal occupation and reaffirming their demand for the right to self-determination promised under UN Security Council resolutions.
The roots of the Kashmir dispute lie in the partition of British India. On June 3, 1947, the British government announced its plan to divide the subcontinent into two dominions; India and Pakistan. The Indian Independence Act, passed on July 17, 1947, provided the legal framework for this transition, coming into effect on August 15, 1947.Under Article 7 of the Act, “the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act.” Thus, the princely states became sovereign entities, free to accede to either dominion or remain independent; with the choice guided by geography and demography.
The State of Jammu and Kashmir, ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, was overwhelmingly Muslim-majority (80%) and geographically contiguous to Pakistan on three sides. Its trade, river systems, and communication routes were integrated with Pakistan. According to the logic of partition, Kashmir’s natural alignment was with Pakistan.However, Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu ruler of a Muslim-majority state, initially tried to remain independent. His oppressive Dogra rule had already provoked resistance, culminating in the Kashmiri uprising. On October 24, 1947, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was formally established, rejecting Dogra Rule. Amid growing rebellion, the Maharaja sought military assistance from India. The Indian Government, led by Lord Mountbatten and Jawaharlal Nehru, conditioned help on the state’s accession to India.
India later claimed that Maharaja Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, and that Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar on October 27. However, this incorrect, since renowned historians Alastair Lamb (Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy) and Victoria Schofield (Kashmir in Conflict) have both confirmed that no original signed copy of this document has ever been produced. Even if such an instrument existed, it could not have been legally valid, because: a) Maharaja’s sovereignty had lapsed on August 15, 1947, under the Indian Independence Act, b) He no longer controlled the state, large parts of which were in rebellion and c) The supposed accession was conditional, explicitly stating that the state’s final status would be decided in accordance with the wishes of its people. Troops from the Patiala State, aligned with India, were already fighting near Uri by October 18, proving that the invasion preceded any legal accession.Hence, October 27, 1947, signifies an invasion, not accession. India’s entry into Jammu and Kashmir constituted a military occupation, not a lawful act of accession under international or domestic law. Recognizing the gravity of the conflict, India took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations on January 1, 1948. The UN Security Council passed a series of resolutions, notably Resolutions 47 (1948), 91 (1951), and 122 (1957); affirming that the future of Jammu and Kashmir must be determined through a free and impartial plebiscite under UN supervision.
The UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was established to monitor the ceasefire and organize the plebiscite. However, after accepting these resolutions, India reneged on its commitment. It delayed implementation, gradually refused UN involvement, and began falsely describing Kashmir as its “integral part”; a stance with no legal foundation.
In the 1950s, India twice attempted to change the status of IIOJK but bared by UNSC resolutions; 91 and 122.Following the 1972 Simla Agreement, India tried to redefinethe Kashmir issue as a bilateral matter, a move contrary to the UN resolutions. From 1989 onwards, a new wave of popular uprising erupted in Indian-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK).
India responded with brutal militarization, deploying nearly 900,000 troops, making it one of the world’s most militarized regions. The result has been mass killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and human rights abuses; all aimed at suppressing the Kashmiri demand for freedom from India.
On August 5, 2019, India took another illegal and unilateral step by abrogating Article 370 of its Constitution, which had accorded special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir.
Article 370, located in Part XXI of the Indian Constitution, explicitly described the state’s relationship with India as “temporary, transitional, and special.”By revoking it, the Modi government violated its own Constitution, UN resolutions, and the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (1957). This act amounted to a re-occupation of the territory, now divided into two “Union Territories”; Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. India is making demographic changes in IIOJK to alter the Muslim-majority. India’s constitutional and political positions on Kashmir are internally contradictory; the existence and later abrogationof Article 370 proved that Kashmir’s relationship with India was temporary and conditional, not integral. Thus, India’s continued occupation and post-2019 actions are illegal under international law, invalid under its own Constitution, and void under the UN Charter.
Despite seventy-eight years of repression, Kashmiris have never accepted Indian rule. Their struggle is rooted in international legitimacy, moral justice, and historical truth. Each year, October 27 is commemorated as Black Day, not only to remember the 1947 invasion but to renew their collective resolve.
— The writer is Professor of Politics and IR at International Islamic University,
Islamabad.
