Recently, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh made an unfounded assertion about Kash-mir’s “completion,” referring to its pre-1948 status before Indian forces illegally occupied the region. The concept of a “Complete Kashmir” needs to be re-examined, beyond India’s geopolitical ambitions.
India has long treated Kashmir as a trophy, focusing on occupying and controlling the entire region for its hegemonic expansion, disregarding the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people as outlined by the UN. Kashmir is divided into Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) — a semi-autonomous region governed by its indigenous people on the Pakistani side — and Indian Illogically Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIJOK), which is under Indian control. The region remains a point of contention between Pakistan and India, with both countries making competing claims. Pakistan upholds the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination, while India has refused to honour it.
The dispute over Kashmir remains unresolved under the UN Charter, with the region’s status changing unilaterally and illegally by India in 2019. India revoked the region’s autonomy, falsely presenting a sense of normalcy in the world’s most militarized zone. Singh’s com-ments claiming Jammu and Kashmir is “incomplete” without Pakistan-occupied Kashmir are misleading. In reality, it is AJK, ruled by the region’s indigenous people, that is incomplete without IIOJK.
A “complete” Kashmir can only be achieved through the self-determination of its people, a right India has denied them for decades. For Kashmir to be truly complete, its people across both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) must decide their future, free from colonial occupa-tion. Kashmir’s completion cannot be defined by territorial expansion or the militarization of IIJOK, as India seeks, but rather by the freedom and self-determination of the Kashmiri peo-ple.
Singh also suggested that Pakistan mistreats the people of AJK, which India refers to as Paki-stan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). If the treatment of a population were the criterion for territo-rial claims, India should cede territories such as Punjab to the Sikh community, Tamil Nadu to the indigenous Tamil people and Assam to Bangladesh, given the ongoing insurgencies within India.
India’s expansionist ambitions could lead to regional disaster rather than peace. On cross-border terrorism are misleading. There is no true border separating the two sides of Kashmir, only a Line of Control that demarcates the self-governance of AJK and the freedom struggle in IIJOK.
Singh’s accusation echoes Goebbels’s tactic of accusing others of one’s own wrongdoings. India’s role in regional and international terrorism, including in Pakistan, Canada, the United States and Australia, is well-documented. Ultimately, the idea of a “complete” Kashmir should focus on ending the suffering of the people in IIJOK. It should bring about a peaceful resolution to territorial disputes, promote socio-economic integration and allow the people of the region to determine their own fu-ture.
—The writer is associated with Baluchistan Think Tank Network, Quetta
