INDIA’S decision to revoke Article 370 and bifurcate the illegally Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir into two Union’s territories is considered as fascist unilateral move of the Modi Government that undermines the principles of international law.
On August 5, 2019, the Indian Government revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir protected under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. This move, which involved altering the region’s autonomy, is seen by many as an unlawful unilateral action that not only contravenes the international norms, but also the principles of the 1972 Shimla Agreement.
On August 5, 2019, the Indian Government revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, which was granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. This action, led by the BJP-led government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, stripped the state of its autonomy. The decision has been a subject of significant debate and legal challenges, with many arguing that by revoking article 370 and 35-A, India violated the constitution’s provisions regarding the Kashmir state’s autonomy. Moreover, India’s August 5 actions have been described as unlawful and unilateral, specifically the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. This action has been widely criticized and is viewed by many as a grave violation of international law. The actions taken, including the alteration of the region’s status, have led to international condemnation and concerns regarding human rights and self-determination.
In response to India’s actions of August 5, the Secretary-General of the United Nations issued a statement on August 8, 2019, refraining India to take steps that could affect the status of Jammu and Kashmir. Broadly speaking, Indian actions of August 5 severely undermined international law in five major aspects: first, reversing Kashmir special status as a disputed territory, second, a violation of Kashmiris’ right to self-determination, third, a violation of UN’s resolutions, fourth, a violation of bilateral agreements and finally undermining regional peace and stability.
The Indian move to revoke the Kashmir special status sparked widespread concern and condemnation globally. The move is seen as a serious and grave violation of international law. This action disregarded the disputed status of Kashmir. This self-claimed and devious move has been an attempt to wipe out the erstwhile disputed status of the Kashmiri territory. This move of the Modi Government also violated the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination, which has been a longstanding Kashmiris’ demand, granted to them under the UNSC resolutions and the UN’s Human Rights Charter. The UN’s Charter has recognized the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future. By unilaterally altering the status of Kashmir, New Delhi undermined the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
Furthermore, India’s actions are and were in clear violations of the UN’s resolutions. The UN has passed several resolutions regarding Kashmir, calling for a plebiscite to determine the region’s future. India’s decision to revoke article 370 and to bifurcate the disputed territory into two Union’s territories absolutely disregarded the UN’s resolutions and undermined the originality of the Kashmir disputed status. And also, the move is seen as a breach of the Shimla Agreement signed in 1972 between the two states, which categorically emphasized the need for a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir dispute.
Annexing an occupied territory is unlawful under international law. ‘’International law prohibits the annexation of occupied territories due to the principle that territorial acquisition through the use of force is illegal. This prohibition is rooted in the UN Charter, which forbids the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.’’ Furthermore, international humanitarian law (IHL) dictates that occupations are temporary and that the occupying power cannot assert sovereignty or change the laws of the occupied territory. India is accused of illegally altering the demographics of the Indian-occupied Jammu & Kashmir region. This is allegedly being done to maintain its occupation of the area to potentially shift the Muslim-majority population.
And undeniably, the August 5 Indian move clearly posed a significant threat to regional peace and stability. The move heightened the tension between two nuclear-armed states, India and Pakistan, which already remained engaged in 5 wars since 1947. There is no second opinion that after the recent Indo-Pak conflict in May, 2025, the international community has expressed genuine and warranted concerns regarding the potential consequences of India’s actions, including the humanitarian crises and the implications of ruthless imposition of laws that conflict with prescribed international norms and HR practices.Recently, the European Parliament has expressed concerns about human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, particularly highlighting violence against minorities, nationalistic rhetoric and divisive policies.
Following the events of Marka-e-Haq, US President Trump offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. This offer was made in June, 2025 and was followed by a scheduled high-level meeting between the two sides. In July, the White House categorically expressed its willingness to support efforts aimed at resolving the dispute. There can be no denying that South Asia’s regional situation underscores the need for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
Though India is rejecting US mediation in the Kashmir conflict, the truth is Kashmir is no longer India’s internal matter. India fears that the US mediation will fail Indian’s mala fide agenda to annex an occupied Kashmiri territory. India fears that mediation could lead to internationalization of the dispute, marring its fake claim of sovereignty over a disputed Kashmir’s territory. Since Independence, Pakistan has been defending the freedom right of the Kashmiris. Make no mistake, Pak Field Marshal Asim Munir is fully determined to principally support the Kashmiris’ legitimate struggle for freedom envisaging the fulfilment of their right of self-determination.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.
