AUGUST 5 has become one of the defining dates in South Asia’s contemporary history. On August 5, 2019, India revoked Articles 370 and 35A of its Constitution, ending the special constitutional status of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. While New Delhi presented the move as an internal constitutional matter, its implications extended far beyond domestic politics, raising fundamental questions about international law, UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir and the legal principles governing disputed territories. Seven years later, what India projected as a decisive and permanent solution remains a source of political debate, diplomatic concern and regional uncertainty.
The Indian government appeared confident that an unprecedented security lockdown, the detention of mainstream political leaders, restrictions on civil liberties, curbs on the media and sweeping administrative changes would eventually silence dissent. Yet the experience of the past seven years suggests that while military control may alter physical realities, it cannot easily reshape political aspirations or deeply held convictions. Kashmir has witnessed prolonged security measures, arrests of political activists, restrictions on independent journalism and allegations of demographic engineering. Critics argue that these policies seek to alter the demographic composition of the region, thereby weakening the historical and political basis of the Kashmir dispute. Whatever the competing political narratives, one fact remains evident: Jammu and Kashmir continues to be one of the world’s most heavily securitized and politically contested regions.
History demonstrates that nations and peoples are sustained not merely by geography but by collective identity, historical memory and resilience. The Kashmir dispute has endured changing governments, shifting regional dynamics and evolving global priorities because it remains deeply rooted in the aspirations of millions of Kashmiris. For many, August 5 has become more than the anniversary of a constitutional decision; it symbolizes a struggle they believe remains unresolved and reinforces the reality that enduring political disputes cannot be settled through unilateral administrative or constitutional measures.
Pakistan has consistently maintained that the Kashmir dispute remains central to its foreign policy. Since 2019, Islamabad has repeatedly raised the issue at the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other international forums, emphasizing that Jammu and Kashmir remains an internationally recognized disputed territory whose final disposition should reflect the aspirations of its people in accordance with relevant UN Security Council resolutions. The present government has reaffirmed this longstanding position. Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif has consistently argued that lasting peace in South Asia cannot be achieved without a just and peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan maintains that diplomacy, dialogue and adherence to international law offer the only sustainable path toward regional stability.
Alongside its diplomatic efforts, Pakistan has strengthened its national defence posture under the leadership of Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, emphasizing preparedness, deterrence and the protection of its sovereignty. Islamabad maintains that while it seeks peace through dialogue, it will not allow its commitment to diplomacy to be mistaken for strategic weakness. Despite recurring tensions along the Line of Control, Pakistan continues to maintain that escalation serves neither country nor regional peace while reaffirming its resolve to safeguard its territorial integrity and national interests.
One of the most significant realities to emerge over the past seven years is that the constitutional changes of August 2019 have not brought closure to the Kashmir question. While India highlights infrastructure development, investment initiatives and electoral processes as evidence of normalcy, critics continue to question whether genuine political reconciliation can coexist with extensive security deployment and restrictions on political freedoms.
Pakistan, meanwhile, maintains that peace without justice cannot produce lasting stability. Despite facing its own economic, political and security challenges, successive governments have continued to highlight Kashmir during bilateral engagements, international conferences and diplomatic forums.
The people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir also remain an integral part of this broader national narrative. Their political, historical and emotional bonds with Pakistan continue to shape public opinion on both sides of the Line of Control. For many, the relationship between Pakistan and Kashmir extends beyond geography, rooted in shared history, cultural affinity, political aspirations and decades of common sacrifice. Seven years after August 5, the international community also faces difficult questions. Can internationally recognized territorial disputes be resolved through unilateral constitutional changes? Can international legal commitments be applied selectively? And can durable peace emerge without addressing the political rights and aspirations of the people directly affected? These questions extend beyond South Asia. They concern the credibility of the international legal order itself.
As August 5, 2026 arrives, Kashmir remains far from a forgotten dispute. For Kashmiris, it marks another year of endurance and determination. For Pakistan, it reaffirms a diplomatic position consistently maintained across successive governments. For the international community, it serves as a reminder that unresolved conflicts cannot simply be legislated away. History rarely delivers its final verdict through the exercise of power alone. Durable political settlements are more often achieved through dialogue, justice, respect for international commitments and recognition of the aspirations of the people most directly affected. Seven years after August 5, 2019, Kashmir continues to shape the future of South Asia, reminding the world that lasting peace requires not unilateral actions, but a genuine and negotiated political settlement.
—The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer and former member & Chairman Standing Committee of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council. Islamabad
