FOR generations, Kashmiris have expressed their desire for political freedom through different forms of resistance, political mobilization, public protest, and advocacy. Their experiences and political preferences are not necessarily uniform, and no single organization or government can claim to speak for every Kashmiri. Yet the fundamental demand that the people should have a meaningful voice in determining their future remains central to the dispute. Any durable settlement must recognize Kashmiris as participants in the peace process rather than treating them as passive subjects of negotiations between New Delhi and Islamabad.
Human rights remain among the most serious concerns associated with Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir. International human rights organizations and UN human rights experts have raised concerns over alleged extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, the use of security legislation, and accountability for abuses. Families affected by violence and disappearances have endured profound uncertainty, while journalists, political activists, and civil society members have faced restrictions that have raised questions about the space available for peaceful dissent.
The revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status by the Indian government in August 2019, followed by the reorganization of the former state into two union territories, intensified these concerns. The accompanying security restrictions, communications shutdowns, and detentions drew international scrutiny. New Delhi argues that constitutional changes have promoted integration, development, and improved governance. Pakistan, however, considers these measures unilateral steps that undermine the disputed territory’s political status and disregard the wishes of its people. Development and economic investment cannot, by themselves, resolve a political dispute or substitute for fundamental rights. Roads, schools, employment opportunities, and infrastructure matter, but they must go hand in hand with political participation, civil liberties, and accountability. For Pakistan, Kashmir remains a matter of national policy, public sentiment, and moral responsibility. Islamabad has consistently supported the Kashmiri demand for self-determination through diplomatic engagement, political advocacy, and humanitarian appeals.
Pakistan’s most effective contribution will depend on maintaining a principled, consistent, and peaceful diplomatic strategy. Its advocacy should center on the rights and aspirations of Kashmiris, credible documentation of human rights concerns, and the pursuit of an internationally supported political settlement. Islamabad must also continue to emphasize that military confrontation between two nuclear-armed neighbors would carry catastrophic consequences for the entire region. Supporting Kashmiris and pursuing regional peace are not contradictory objectives; a just and sustainable peace requires that their rights be addressed rather than postponed indefinitely.
The international community must move beyond expressions of concern. The UN should keep the dispute on its diplomatic agenda, encourage meaningful engagement among the relevant parties, and support conditions in which human rights can be protected and political dialogue can proceed. UN member states should press for credible investigations into alleged abuses, respect for fundamental freedoms, access for independent observers where appropriate, and the release of people detained arbitrarily. Major powers have particular responsibilities. Their strategic, commercial, and defence relationships with India should not prevent them from raising legitimate concerns about civil liberties and the unresolved dispute.
The voices of Kashmiris themselves must be central to any credible process. A settlement designed exclusively by external powers, without meaningful Kashmiri participation, would struggle to command legitimacy. Political representatives, civil society, and communities across the region should have opportunities to express their views freely and safely. Dialogue must also acknowledge the suffering and concerns of all communities affected by decades of conflict, including displaced people and families separated by borders and violence. Solidarity with Kashmiris should remain grounded in diplomacy, international law, human rights, and the peaceful pursuit of self-determination. Lasting stability will require confidence-building, respect for civil liberties, and a willingness to engage seriously with the political aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
A durable solution will not emerge from force, repression, competing national narratives, or periodic declarations of solidarity alone. It will require sustained negotiations, meaningful Kashmiri participation, respect for human dignity, and a settlement consistent with relevant UN resolutions and the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned. On October 27, Pakistan renews its commitment to stand with the Kashmiri people. The deeper message of Kashmir Black Day, however, extends beyond one country: peace in South Asia cannot be secured by indefinitely postponing justice. The promise of self-determination must remain a living commitment—not a forgotten resolution—in the pursuit of a peaceful, stable, and humane future for Kashmir.
—The writer is editor, political analyst & author of several books based in Islamabad.
