The Kashmir dispute is not merely a territorial issue but a multifaceted legal, political, and human rights matter that has remained unresolved due to a series of complex commit-ments, international resolutions, and unfulfilled promises. India’s control over Kashmir, es-pecially since the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, has increasingly come to resemble an occupation, rather than the legitimate governance of a fully integrated region. The following argument presents the key reasons why India’s control over Kashmir lacks a solid legal foun-dation, and why Kashmir’s case for self-determination remains strong and supported by in-ternational law.
1. Historical and Bilateral Commitments: The Sovereignty of Kashmir. India’s legal and historical relationship with Kashmir is based on commitments made at vari-ous stages, beginning with the bilateral understanding between India, Pakistan, and the Brit-ish authorities in the wake of Partition. On 26 October 1947, India made a commitment to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, and, subsequently, to Pakistan (31 October 1947) and the United Nations (15 January 1948), that the political future of Kashmir would be de-cided by the will of its people, in a manner that would respect their right to self-determination.
This promise was reinforced in India’s 1948 statement to the UN, which emphasized the need for a peaceful plebiscite under international supervision once order and peace were restored in Kashmir. This established the framework for a future plebiscite, which would al-low the Kashmiri people to determine their own future, independent of external influence. India’s actions since then, particularly the imposition of unilateral constitutional changes such as the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, violate this foundational commitment. By re-fusing to honor the pledge made in 1947 to let the people of Kashmir decide their future, India is undermining its own legal obligations, both to the Kashmiri people and to the inter-national community.
2. Kashmir’s Sovereignty: The Significance of Visa Restrictions (1947-1959)
A critical piece of evidence demonstrating Kashmir’s sovereignty, and its separate status during the early post-Partition period, is the imposition of visa restrictions for Indian citizens wishing to visit Kashmir from October 1947 to March 1959. This period of restrictions was a significant assertion of Kashmir’s autonomy and its governance separate from that of India. The restriction was only lifted on 31 March 1959 by the then Prime Minister of Kashmir, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, at the direct request of India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. This unilateral decision to lift the visa restrictions on Indian citizens was made only after a period of more than a decade, during which Kashmir maintained a level of autonomy consistent with its unique political status.
The fact that visa restrictions were in place for over a decade after the alleged accession of Kashmir to India serves as a clear proof that Kashmir was not simply an integral part of India in the immediate aftermath of Partition. The imposition of such restrictions from Oc-tober 1947 to March 1959 suggests that Kashmir operated under a de facto sovereign status during that period, and that India had not yet assumed full control over the region. India’s own actions acknowledged Kashmir’s autonomy at that time, further supporting the argu-ment that Kashmir was a distinct political entity with its own set of governance norms and rules.
3. UN Resolutions and Article 103 of the UN Charter
The Kashmir dispute is not merely a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan; it is an inter-nationally recognized conflict with implications for international peace and security. Follow-ing India’s request for UN intervention in 1948, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions that laid out a framework for the peaceful resolution of the dispute. UNSC Resolutions 47 (1948), 51 (1948), and others clearly called for a plebiscite in Kashmir to allow its people to decide their future once peace was restored. These resolutions have never been fully im-plemented, and India’s actions, such as the revocation of Article 370 and continued military occupation, are seen as violations of the terms set by the UN.
Under Article 103 of the UN Charter, India’s obligations under international law supersede conflicting national laws. Its unilateral actions in Kashmir, including constitutional amend-ments and governance changes, violate UN resolutions and undermine the principle of self-determination central to the dispute. These actions disregard international commitments, eroding India’s legal and moral standing.
Kashmiris, both within India-administered Kashmir and abroad, have persistently resisted Indian control. This resistance—manifested through peaceful protests, armed struggles, and global advocacy—reflects an unwavering demand for self-determination. Severe repression, including curfews, martial law, and curbs on civil liberties, has not quelled these aspirations. Documents like the State Autonomy Committee Report (2000) and the Gupkar Declaration (2018) underscore the Kashmiri people’s struggle to restore their autonomy.
Pakistan, a key party to the dispute, has long championed Kashmir’s right to self-determination in line with UN resolutions. The presence of 2.5 million Kashmiri Muslim ref-ugees in Pakistan highlights the transnational nature of the issue. Resolutions by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) call for military withdrawal, regional demilitarization and a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future. India’s military presence and demographic changes blatantly contravene these resolutions, reinforcing Kashmir’s dis-puted status under international law.
India’s 2019 revocation of Article 370, which stripped Kashmir of its autonomy, constitutes an unlawful occupation. Occupation under international law is defined as control without the people’s consent, maintained through force. India’s actions—rejecting self-determination, altering the region’s demographics, and violating UN mandates—have shifted its control over Kashmir from a legal claim to de facto occupation.
This undermines both Kashmir’s sovereignty and the moral legitimacy of India’s governance in the region. Since 1947, Kashmir’s sovereignty has remained unresolved. The region’s autonomy during its early years, coupled with ongoing resistance and international legal commitments, high-lights its status as a disputed territory. The international community must prioritize a peace-ful resolution that upholds Kashmir’s right to self-determination. Until then, India’s actions in Kashmir remain a violation of international law and the foundational principles of justice and sovereignty.
—The writer is President Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights.
