The brief was prepared for GeoPolitica – a Romanian journal of political geography, geo-politics and geo-strategy

- for its special issue on Pakistan titled Pakistan: A Rising Global Player in the Emerging Geo-Strategic
Environment.

India and Pakistan faced a precarious stand-off on
February 14, 2019, when a Kashmiri Muslim Adil Dar
attacked India’s Central Reserve Police Force
contingent near Pulwama in Jammu & Kashmir,
killing more than 40 personnel and himself. Earlier,
Dar was arrested six times and tortured by the Indian
police between 2016 and 2018. Each time he was
released without any charges.1 India immediately
blamed Pakistan for the Pulwama attack.2 Islamabad
denied any involvement and offered a joint
investigation; New Delhi didn’t accept the offer.
On February 26, Indian jets violated Pakistan’s air
space and bombed territory ‘about 80 kilometres from
the Line of Control’3 near Balakot and claimed
destroying a training camp killing around ‘300
terrorists’4. The Indian foreign secretary stated that
‘India struck the biggest training camp of JeM in
Balakot. In this operation, a very large number of JeM
terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and groups of
jihadis who were being trained for fidayeen action
were eliminated’5. Pakistan denied the Indian claims
and took ambassadors, defence attachés and journalists
to Balakot. They ‘were shown bomb craters in barren
open spaces with no loss of human life or
infrastructure’6. The visitors ‘were allowed to interact
freely with students and teachers of the religious
madrassah situated in the area’7.
On February 27, Pakistan Air Force shot down two
Indian jets that were once again violating Pakistani air
space. An Indian pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan
was captured, however he was released on March 1 as
a goodwill gesture. This prudent step by Pakistan
helped in de-escalation of the precarious situation and
a looming war between two nuclear states was averted.
A few questions have to be understood and addressed
for clarity.
Was it the first time that India and Pakistan faced a
potentially precarious stand-off and a war-like
situation; will a similar situation not happen again?
The answer in both cases is unfortunately in negative.
India and Pakistan have faced similar stand-offs and
war-like situations many times in the past. Chandan
Mitra argues8 that the attack on the Indian Parliament

1 Kashmir Attack: Tracing the Path that Led to Pulwama. BBC News. May 1, 2019; Tribune.com.pk. The Reality of Pulwama Incident.
The Express Tribune. February 28, 2019.
2 Abi-Habib, Maria, Sameer Yasir, and Hari Kumar. India Blames Pakistan for Attack in Kashmir, Promising a Response. The New York

Times. February 15, 2019.

3 Rfe/rl. India Launches 'Preemptive' Air Strike on Pakistan-Based Militants. RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. February 26, 2019.
4 Indian Air Strike in Balakot Killed 300 Militants. The Economic Times. February 26, 2019.
5 MEA | Statements: “Speeches & Statements.” Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. February 26, 2019.
6 Dawn.com. Foreign Journalists given Access to Madressah near Site of Balakot Strike. Dawn. April 11, 2019.
7 Ibid.
8 Mitra, Chandan. ‘Book Review of Arundhati Roy's New Release 13 December: A Reader’. India Today. September 3, 2011.

1
in December 2001 was ‘a stage-managed affair
directed by intelligence agencies’ to kill Indians or
‘plot a massive stand-off with their nuclear-armed
western neighbour’. Not only the so-called attack that
led to mobilisation of around half a million troops to
the India-Pakistan border by India9, the Mumbai
incidents in 2008 that greatly deteriorated relations
between the two countries10, is another in many such
examples. There is now enough literature available
which attests that while on both these occasions India
immediately put the blame on Pakistan and exploited
the attacks to put pressure on it, the attacks were
planned and manipulated inside India.11
In view of the track record, it is very likely that similar
attacks will recur in the future because relations
between the two countries are intrinsically connected
with the long outstanding Kashmir (J&K) dispute.12
Indian journalist Arundhati Roy has rightly
commented that the Pulwama ‘attack was yet another
hideous chapter in the unfolding tragedy of
Kashmir’13. It is therefore necessary to examine the
genesis and the nature of the J&K dispute.
The Genesis of the Dispute
The perceptions in this regard vary to extremely
contradictory positions of the parties. Islamabad insists
that the root cause of the dispute is the denial of the
right to self-determination to the people of Kashmir as
enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, specific
UN resolutions and international law. New Delhi
claims that Kashmir is an integral part of India,
accession of J&K to India is final and cannot be
disputed; J&K is not a disputed territory; and the will
of the people of the State of Kashmir does not need to
be ascertained now through a plebiscite as their will
has been repeatedly ascertained through elections.
India also maintains that what happens in Kashmir is
an internal affair and the international community has
no business in it. New Delhi insists that the problem of
Kashmir is one of cross-border terrorism from
Pakistan and what happens in Kashmir is a terrorist
movement stoked by Pakistan.14
For a better understanding of the issue, a look at
history is essential.
The most significant point is related to the
independence of India and Pakistan in 1947 as a result
of the partition of India. The State of J&K was one of
the 564 quasi-autonomous princely states of India that
signed agreements with Great Britain in 1857 and
afterwards to exercise a certain level of internal
autonomy. According to the instruments of partition of
India, the rulers of the princely states were given the
choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or
to remain independent. They were, however, advised
to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into
consideration the geographical and ethnic issues. All
the three conditions were never fulfilled in case of the
State of J&K.
In accordance with the above principles of the
partition, on August 15, 1947, when India became
independent, Kashmir being a princely state, was not a
part of India. On August 14, the State of J&K had
signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan to handle
its affairs related to transit, communication, postal
service, electricity etc. which were earlier managed by
the British government. Subsequently, when Maharaja
Hari Singh, the then ruler of Kashmir, lost writ and
control over J&K owing to a popular uprising that was
going on since decades, wrote a letter enclosing
proforma Instrument of Accession and sought the help
of the Indian government. Legally, the letter and
proforma cannot be considered a substitute for
accession.15
Nonetheless, on October 27, Viceroy Lord
Mountbatten conditionally accepted the Maharaja’s
offer of accession and stated that ‘it is my
Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have
been restored in Kashmir, the question of the state’s

9 Dugger, Celia W. India and Pakistan Mobilizing Troops Along the Border. The New York Times. December 25, 2001.
10 Lalwani, Sameer, and Emily Tallo. India and Pakistan Aren't Ready for Another Terrorist Crisis. Foreign Policy. November 30, 2018.
11 Davidsson, Elias, The Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence, Pharosmedia publisher, 2017; Roy, Arundhati. 13 December: A

Reader, The Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament. (2006).
12 In January 2004, India and Pakistan agreed to hold 8-point Composite Dialogue to discuss the contentious issues including J&K dispute,

peace and security, confidence building measures, Siachen, Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage/Tulbul project, economic and commercial
cooperation, terrorism and drug trafficking, and promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields. There is so far no progress on these
contentious issues.
13 Roy, Arundhati. Kashmir is Potentially the Flashpoint for a Future Nuclear War. Huffington Post. March 1, 2019.
14 Embassy of India in Washington, A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir, Indian Position,
http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_files/Indian_Position.html.
15 Ahmad, Khurshid, Prof, Tehreek-e-Azadi-e-Kashmir: Badalte Halaat aur Pakistan ki Policy, First Edition 2016, p. 6, 8

2
accession should be settled by a reference to the
people’16. At the same time, Indian Prime Minister
Nehru wrote to Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaquat Ali
Khan: ‘I should like to make it clear that the question
of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in
any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our
view which we have repeatedly made public is that the
question in any disputed territory or state must be
decided in accordance with the wishes of people
and we adhere to this view’17.
There was yet another substantial issue related to the
chronology of the events, which contradicts the Indian
claims. Prof. Alastair Lamb, a renowned British
scholar, has brought undeniable arguments in his two
scholarly books18 and contested that Indian troops had
entered Srinagar on October 26, 1947, i.e. before
Mountbatten’s acceptance of the Maharaja’s offer. In
fact, he argues that Hari Singh had already left
Srinagar for Jammu under pressure of public revolt. He
further argues that it was not possible to get the
Instrument of Accession signed before October 27. He
also maintains that the signed copy of the Instrument
of Accession had not been presented at any
international forum. Lamb’s research nullifies the
legal validity of the Instrument of Accession. Legally,
Kashmir has a sui generis status. India’s occupation of
Kashmir is transitional and temporary because
Kashmir has not been legally integrated with the
Indian Union. India does have de facto control over
Kashmir but does not have a de jure control.
Irrespective of the controversy of the date of the so-
called Instrument of Accession, the Government of
Pakistan (on October 30) refused to accept the
accession of Kashmir to India which was against the
will of the people of Kashmir19 and could not be
justified on constitutional, geographical, cultural or
religious grounds. The conflict turned into the first war
between India and Pakistan in 1947.20 The war ended
in a stalemate. Kashmiris, with the help of Pakistan,
liberated one-third of the area and declared it as Azad
Jammu & Kashmir (AJK). The rest of the area
remained under Indian occupation. Meanwhile, India
took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on
January 1, 1948.21 It assured the UNSC that: ‘Once the
soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and
normal conditions were restored, the people would be
free to decide their future by the democratic method of
plebiscite or referendum… under international
auspices.’
J&K dispute at the United Nations
On January 1, 1949, the UN mediators brokered
ceasefire line, which was eventually declared as the
Line of Control. It was an outcome of mutual consent
by India and Pakistan under the UN auspices. Later, in
the resolution of April 21, 1948, UNSC noted with
satisfaction that “both India and Pakistan desire that
the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir
to India or Pakistan should be decided through the
democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”.
The UNSC instructed the UNCIP in the same
resolution to proceed to the Indian subcontinent and
ensure “the holding of a plebiscite”22.
The UNCIP adopted two further resolutions on August
13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, which were accepted
by India and Pakistan. The UNCIP noted that the
governments of India and Pakistan ‘reaffirm their wish
that the future status of the State of Jammu and
Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the
will of the people of Kashmir’23. The UNSC and the
UNCIP continued to work with the two countries and
passed 15 resolutions from 1948 to 1998.
Unfortunately, the settlement of the dispute is still
pending.24
This makes it clear that J&K is a disputed territory
pending its final settlement through a plebiscite under

16
Mir, Tabish Rafiq, Despite Everything, Why Kashmir Should Be A Part Of India (But Only After A Plebiscite), March 6, 2017.
17 Sattar, Abdul. Pakistan's Foreign Policy, 1947-2016: A Concise History. Oxford University Press, 2019. p. 27. Quoted in Chaudhri
Muhammad Ali, op. cit., 288 from K. Sarwar Hasan, The Kashmir Question: Documents on the Foreign Relations of Pakistan, op. cit.,
100.
18Lamb, Alastair. Kashmir: a disputed legacy, 1846-1990. Vol. 150. Hertingfordbury: Roxford Books, 1991.
19 Sattar, Abdul. Pakistan’s Foreign Policy 1947-2016, A Concise History. Oxford University Press, 2019, 4th Edition. p. 28.
20 Britannica, ‘Kashmir’. Encyclopaedia Britannica.
21 ‘Pakistan Mission to United Nations.’ Kashmir - Pakistan Mission to UN. Accessed June 27, 2019.
http://www.pakun.org/kashmir/history.php.
22 UNSC Resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 at 286th meeting of UNSC.
23 UNCIP Resolution adopted for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
24 UNSC adopted Resolution 1172 on 6 June 1998 in the backdrop of the nuclear tests conducted by India on 11 and 13 May 1998 and by

Pakistan on 28 and 30 May 1998 and urged India and Pakistan ‘to resume the dialogue on all outstanding issues’ and ‘find mutually
acceptable solutions that address the root causes of those tensions, including Kashmir.’

3
the auspices of the UN. It also authenticates that the
dispute is not a border or territorial conflict between
India and Pakistan nor an internal affair of India. It is
rather an unfinished agenda of the partition of India
and is a question of right to self-determination. Thus,
the dispute has four parties: ‘Pakistan, India, the UN
and the people of Kashmir, who have to decide their
future. The future of J&K dispute, therefore, lies in the
resolution of the dispute in accordance with the UN
resolutions and wishes of the people of Kashmir’.25
The question of elections vs referendum: As regards
the claim that elections are the substitute for the
plebiscite, the UNSC has rejected this oft repeated
Indian contention that the people of Kashmir have
exercised their right to self-determination by
participating in the elections. It has clarified that no
electoral exercise conducted by Indian authorities in
J&K could be accepted as a substitute to a plebiscite.
‘When India tried to seek a constitutional declaration
from an unconstitutional “Constituent Assembly”
declaring Kashmir an integral part of India, the UNSC
in a resolution on January 24, 1957, rejected that
declaration and reaffirmed that the future of Jammu
and Kashmir is yet to be decided in accordance with
the earlier UN resolutions.’26
Moreover, the history of elections held in J&K is full
of recorded evidence of irregularities, large-scale
centre-supported rigging, fraud, coercion and out-right
brutality in the early years and use of gunpoint to drag
the helpless Kashmiris out of their homes to cast votes,
in the later years. The Congress governments
controlled the ruling parties in the state with
handpicked nominees running the government.27 1989
turn out to be a watershed in the Kashmir dispute. ‘The
0.2% turnout during the rigged elections was a clear
repudiation of the Indian claim’.28 In a nutshell,
farcical and sham elections can never be treated as a
substitute for plebiscite.
The question of Freedom struggle being a terrorist
movement: Another contention that what happens in
Kashmir is not a freedom struggle but a terrorist
movement stoked by Pakistan is also a clearly
fabricated contention. The oppressed but valiant
people of Kashmir have waged freedom struggle with
25 Ahmad, Khurshid, ‘Tehreek-e-Azadi-e-Kashmir: Badalte Halaat aur Pakistan ki Policy’, First Edition, 2016, p. 6.
26 Prof. Ahmad, Khurshid, Foreword of book Mass Resistance in Kashmir by Tahir Amin. p. 4
27 Kashmir: Nuclear Flashpoint. Kashmir Times. Accessed June 27, 2019.
28 Pakistan Mission to United Nations. http://www.pakun.org/kashmir/history.php.
29 Interactive Session and Conversation with President of Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Atlantic Council: ‘Kashmir: Sardar Masood Khan's
Perspective,’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7q1lSdlXgA&t=115s
4
numerous sacrifices and around 400,000 Kashmiris
have embraced martyrdom since 1947. This includes
the massacre of 237,000 people by Maharaja Hari
Singh.
India has tried unsuccessfully to quell mass resistance
through the use of brute force. Objective reports in
international media testify that the Kashmiri agitation
is fundamentally indigenous and public movement.
Moreover, India has now fenced the entire LoC with
landmines, motion sensors, thermal imaging and
electronic surveillance, which have made crossings
impossible.29 In fact, India’s insistence on cross-border
terrorism from Pakistan is a false narrative to divert the
attention of the world from its own state-sponsored
terrorism, use of brute force and atrocities against the
people of Kashmir.
Special status of J&K in Indian Constitution: There
is yet another dimension to the whole issue i.e. as to
why J&K has been given a special status in the Indian
Constitution? J&K is the only state in India that enjoys
special autonomy and status under Article 370 of the
Constitution, according to which no laws enacted by
the Parliament, except for those in the fields of
defence, communication and foreign policy, will be
extendable in J&K unless ratified by the state
legislature. India has given this special status because
J&K has not yet been integrated into the Indian Union.
Similarly, Article 35A of the Constitution gives J&K
legislature a carte blanche to decide who are the
permanent residents of the state and confer upon them
special rights and privileges. Presence and continuity
of the two articles, in spite of attempts by some
extremist political groups in India, including the BJP
regime, to repeal them is yet another proof of the
disputed nature of the state.
Demographic changes in J&K: Other than attempts
to amend the Constitution, the Indian government is
trying to gradually change demography in J&K by
settling Hindu and Sikh refugees, who migrated from
Azad Kashmir to Jammu in 1947, building a separate
settlement for Kashmiri Pundits, allocating land for
retired army officials who have served in J&K, and
settling down non-Kashmiri Hindu businessmen and
industrialists. This is in violation of the Fourth Geneva
Convention and Additional Protocol I and the Statute
of the International Criminal Court that prohibit such
transfers and equate them with war crimes.30
Freedom movement is not a secessionist movement:
The Kashmiris’ movement is sometimes confused
with the separatist movements in India. There are more
than 36 secessionist movements and over 130
secessionist parties in Punjab and in the Northeast
including Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland,
Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur and Assam in addition
to Maoist and Naxalite insurgencies. These
secessionist movements drive strength from ethnic
conflicts, abject poverty, social and economic
injustices, caste system, and cultural-cum-linguistic
differences. Secessionist movements are aimed at
seeking the status of separate states or autonomy. On
the other hand, the freedom movement in J&K was and
is primarily driven by the right to self-determination;
it was never a struggle for a piece of land. While India
can handle the secessionist movements internally, it
cannot do so in the case of J&K because of the original
arrangement made in the partition principle of the
princely states and the UN resolutions.
Mass Resistance
From 1949 to 1989 Kashmiris continued with peaceful
political movement demanding freedom. They also
took part in elections to find a way out and possibilities
for some negotiated settlement towards their right to
self-determination.31 Nevertheless, such peaceful
moves remained practically unacknowledged. Rather
the elections were grossly manipulated and on
occasion the peaceful demonstrations were fired upon
by the Indian army and police. Kashmiris, while
suffering from heavy-handed repression in 1989, were
forced to launch an armed struggle. This is as per
internationally recognised legal right against
combatant Indian security forces in accordance with
UNGA Resolution A/RES/37/43 of December 3,
1982, for their self-determination and liberation.
Unfortunately, successive Indian governments have
resorted to the use of force, which has led to a spiral of
violence.
According to well-documented reports,32 from 1989
till 2016, the Indian security forces killed 94,495
Kashmiris, including 7,062 who were killed in
custody. They have kidnapped more than 10,000
people, mostly young men, while 136,436
civilians have been arrested. The documented number
of widows has reached 22,884, while 10,433 women
have been gangraped. There are now 107,586
orphaned children. Along with that 106,261 houses
and buildings have been demolished. While the
referendum under the UN auspices is still pending, the
Kashmiris are continuously expressing their will
through various means. Hundreds of thousands
participate in the funerals processions, where bodies
are wrapped in Pakistani flags. By all means, it is a
mass resistance. Yet, in sheer panic, India is
continuing with draconian laws33 to quell the
resistance, which is gaining further momentum and
intensity.
Human rights violations have been documented by the
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights (UNOHCHR) as well. On June 14, 2018, it
released it’s first-ever report34 in this regard. The
report has documented unlawful killings and incidents
of injuring, blinding by pellet guns, sexual violence,
enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, torture,
excessive use of force, lack of access to justice and a
culture of impunity for the LEAs. The report notes that
protests against Indian brutalities now have
participation from ‘more young, middle-class
Kashmiris, including females who do not appear to
have been participating in the past’35. The UNOHCHR
has also proposed to the UN Human Rights Council
to establish a commission of inquiry to conduct an

30 Exclusive Interview with the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Sardar Masood Khan , Pakistan Politico, July 9, 2018,
http://pakistanpolitico.com/exclusive-interview-with-the-president-azad-jammu-and-kashmir-sardar-masood-khan/
31 Many of the resistance leaders, including Syed Ali Gelani had participated in elections until 1989
32 Amnesty International; Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, and the US Department of State reports.
33 Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA), Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) 1985, The Armed Forces (Jammu

& Kashmir) Special Powers Act, (AFSPA) 1990, Jammu & Kashmir Disturbed Area Act (J&KDAA) 1990, and Prevention of Terrorism
Act (POTA).
34 UNOHCHR report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir from June

2016 to April 2018, and General Human Rights Concerns in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan 14 June 2018,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IN/DevelopmentsInKashmir June2016 To April2018.pdf, Accessed on May 26, 2019. The
UNOHCHR had asked Pakistan to give it access to AJK which was in principle accepted though Pakistan requested the UNOHCHR to
ask India to simultaneously give access to J&K.
35 Ibid.

5
independent investigation into allegations of human
rights violations.
Similarly, in October 2018, the All Parties
Parliamentary Group on Kashmir in the British
Parliament called upon India for an immediate
cessation of human rights violations, ending the
impunity enjoyed by Indian security forces, repealing
draconian laws and enabling prosecution of its armed
forces and security personnel. Members of the
European Parliament also wrote an open letter to
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in March 2019
and called upon him to repeal draconian laws and
demanded independent and impartial investigations
into the use of pellet-firing shotguns. Three members
of the UN Human Rights Council, on March 18, 2019,
sent a letter to Modi listing 76 cases of torture and
killings of civilians.36 The Indian government has
recently decided to prevent Amnesty International
from presenting its report on the atrocities and
draconian laws, which are lawless laws.
Unfortunately, New Delhi is continuing with the state
of denial. It has bluntly rejected recommendations
given in the above-mentioned reports. The argument
stands that had India been logical, it would have
accepted the recommendations of international
organisations. The mere rejection of recommendations
clearly concedes that India is observing a belligerent
and uncompromising stance.
Conclusion
The J&K dispute is the main issue, irritant and cause
of deadlock in relations between India and Pakistan.
Incidents like Pulwama cannot and should not be seen
in isolation. These are part of a bigger problem and a
response to Indian policies in J&K. In all likelihood
such incidents may happen again and at any point of
time. The self-defeating approach of the Indian
government of using hard power, changing
demography in Kashmir and trying to withdraw the
special status of the State of J&K will keep the entire
region in crisis and turmoil. The study establishes that
if this main dispute is not resolved then peripheral
issues -- standoffs, conflicts, wars and war-like
situations -- will keep recurring and marring bilateral
relations.
The study also maintains that the J&K dispute is
neither a territorial dispute nor a border conflict or
36 Letter and report available on the website: https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?
gId=24476 accessed on 9 June 2019.
6
cross-border terrorism stoked by Pakistan or a
separatist movement. The study shows that since 1947
the people of Kashmir have consistently been
struggling for their legal and legitimate right to self-
determination. The harshest reality is that India has
denied this right and used brute force and atrocities
against the innocent Kashmiris to quell their freedom
movement. The continued resistance makes it
absolutely clear that the overwhelming majority of the
people of Kashmir does not want to live with India.
Horrendous human rights situation is prevalent in
J&K, which is evident from well-documented reports.
India has now two options. (1) To admit ground
realities and agree to resolve the J&K dispute in
accordance with the UN resolutions and wishes of the
people of Kashmir. It will bring peace, prosperity and
development in the Subcontinent and the risk of
nuclear flashpoint will be averted. There are some sane
voices coming from the Indian intelligentsia, writers
and scholars favouring this option. (2) The Indian
government intensifies hard power and muscular
policy, which is evident from the recent attack on
Balakot in wake of the Pulwama attack. It is likely that
as a result of this policy there will be more Pulwama-
like incidents. This self-defeating approach will keep
the entire region in crisis and turmoil.
The logical question then is how to deal with the status
quo? Should it be left without any action? By doing so,
we all will become complacent and reticent observers.
The need of the hour is to remind the UN and its
member states of all those commitments that were
made in the UN resolutions on holding a plebiscite in
J&K. It is the collective responsibility of the UN and
its member states to activate these resolutions for early
implementation. This step will be the greatest service
to the people of bleeding and burning Kashmir and
serve as the harbinger of peace, prosperity and
economic development in South Asia and contribute to
international peace and security.
The following specific points need attention of the
policy and opinion makers as well as scholars and
intellectuals.
 While the UNSC has been successful in
implementing its resolutions for the right to self-
determination to the people in cases like Northern
Ireland, East Timor and South Sudan, on the
 principles of fair play and equal rights for all
human beings, it has failed to implement
resolutions on Kashmir mainly because of
realpolitik in the backdrop of Cold War approach
and 9/11 dynamics. The UN, P5 and the
international community need to be reminded to
implement resolutions on Kashmir as mandated in
Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter. The
settlement of the J&K dispute is a test for the
credibility of the UN, in fact, for the global
governance system as well.
 It is encouraging to note that the UN, other
international organisations, and NGOs37 have
documented a number of reports on unprecedented
atrocities and horrendous human rights violations
in J&K. Nevertheless, there is little attention to
evolve a viable mechanism for the implementation
of recommendations contained in these reports;
especially on the establishment of inquiry
commission for investigations, sending fact-
finding missions for on-ground evaluation of
atrocities, repealing of draconian laws, and
stopping repression and human rights violations
and demographic changes in J&K.
 Pakistan, being a member of the UN and a party to
the dispute, has both a right and responsibility to
engage with governments through proactive and
aggressive diplomacy for seeking a fair resolution
of the J&K dispute. On the other hand, the
international parliaments, inter-parliamentary
unions, international civil societies, and
international media networks need to play their
role in creating awareness, drawing attention
towards the atrocities of the Kashmiri people and
resolving the dispute. In this regard, the Indian
intellectuals, academicians, scholars, writers and
thinkers are also expected to play their role. Those
who question India’s policy of repression in
Kashmir must give cogent recommendations to the
Indian government to allow sanity to prevail for
resolving the dispute for India’s long-term
cohesion, unity and development.
There can be no better conclusion than borrowing from
the statement of UNSC president, who rightly said in
May 1964 that India and Pakistan “have everything to
gain from re-establishing good relations with each
other and whose present disputes, particularly that
centring upon Jammu and Kashmir, should be settled
amicably in the interest of world peace”. 38

Prepared by:
Ambassador (Retd) Tajammul Altaf
Senior Research Associate
Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), Islamabad.

For queries:
Syed Nadeem Farhat
Senior Research Officer
nadeem@ips.net.pk | www.ips.org.pk

37 The European Union, the Human Rights Council, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the British Parliament, the US State
Department, Amnesty International and Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights.
38 Statement of the UNSC president, 18 May 1964, at the 1117th meeting of the Security Council.