THE Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan has been the primary source of continuing tensions and is widely recognized as one of the longest-running and most violent disputes in the world. It remains one of the hotspots of the South Asian region. The dispute came to a worse situation when Narendra Modi revoked the special status of Indian-occupied Kashmir on August 5, 2019, by scrapping Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution without the consultation of Kashmiri representatives. Modi’s abrogation changed the constitutional fabric of Kashmir’s position and allowed non-residents to permanently settle, buy property and hold government jobs in the region, effectively ending state-level domicile protections.
The region lost its statehood and was integrated into the Union Territories, placing it under the direct control of New Delhi. Moreover, the region was stripped of its right to have its own separate constitution, flag and penal code. In this regard, the Indian government has ignored the ground realities that Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognized dispute and has remained on the agenda of the UN Security Council for over eight decades. The Modi regime’s selective actions are probably a reflection of its vision of the Hindutva philosophy, which is shifting the country from a secular republic to a Hindu-dominant state and promoting the institutional integration of Hindu values.
In fact, the Kashmir tragedy is presented as the by-product of a protracted conflict in which Indian state policies that victimize Kashmiris are often rendered invisible. The removal of Kashmir’s special status has deflected attention from this broader historical context. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah described Kashmir as the “jugular vein” of Pakistan, highlighting its strategic and economic significance. The rivers originating in Kashmir sustain Pakistan’s agricultural economy and support millions of livelihoods. Any loss of control over these vital water sources could expose the country to serious political, strategic and economic vulnerabilities. Consequently, Kashmir’s geographical and economic importance remains central to Pakistan’s national security, foreign policy and diplomatic priorities.
Historically, the tragedy of Kashmir started not only with the partition of British India in 1947, but its catastrophic situation emerged when Indian forces entered the region unlawfully without prior approval of the concerned authorities and the Kashmiri population was subjected to violence. Although the fate of Kashmir was declared as per the notification of the Secretary of State for India, Lord Listowel, who declared: “We do not, of course, propose to recognize any states as separate international entities.” The discretion was left to the respective rulers of the states to seek accession to either of the two Dominions in accordance with the broad principles of the partition itself; Muslim-majority states located in territories contiguous to Pakistan would accede to Pakistan and the rest would go to India. On the other hand, despite Kashmir’s religious, ethnic, geographical and civilizational affinities and the majority population’s desire to join
Pakistan, the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession in favour of India, which was against the spirit of the Partition Plan and against the will of the majority of the population. In fact, India’s forcible occupation of Kashmir and its claim to have signed the Instrument of Accession with the Maharaja of Kashmir were illegitimate and illegal. Thus, the Kashmiri people do not accept India’s claim and it was also declared by Lord Mountbatten to the Maharaja on October 27, 1947, that the acceptance of Kashmir’s accession would only be incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the people of Kashmir. Since then, Kashmir has continued to be a major flashpoint and India has obstructed all attempts to hold a plebiscite.
Furthermore, the United Nations Security Council resolutions of 1948–1949 categorically rejected consideration of India’s claim and recognized Kashmir as a disputed territory. The resolutions stated that the fate of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. In this regard, India’s founding father, Jawaharlal Nehru, repeatedly stated that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by the wishes of its people through a referendum or plebiscite. Thus, the current agitation in Indian-held Kashmir is rooted in the struggle of the people for the exercise of their right to self-determination. Peaceful processions chanting demands for freedom were fired upon by the Indian Army and thousands of innocent men, women and children have been killed or wounded. However, Pakistan considers Kashmir its core political dispute with India and has continuously urged the UN Security Council to enforce its historical resolutions ensuring the right to self-determination for the Kashmiri people.
—The writer is a defence and security analyst based in Islamabad.
