disputing_the_disputed_status

In an act of defiance against India’s sinister design to strip the Muslim-majority part of its nominal autonomy, Kashmiris are ready to rebel the controversial decision, the revocation of article 370. Foreseeing the whole scenario ahead of the announcement, India deployed thousands of extra troops to the valley and imposed curfew as an early measure to the unrest being feared ahead.
Initial protests were reported by foreign media, which were completely denied by Indian officials. The voice of the Kashmiris cannot be unheard, as Indian brutalities have been exposed not only by western media but also by local Indian politicians and senior journalists, like Arundhati Roy. This on-going crisis has re-shifted the focus of the international community back to Kashmir after the Pulwama attack.
The role of Pakistan, from highlighting India’s atrocities in Kashmir to taking up the matter to the United Nations Security Council meeting, has been commendable. The time taken to apprise the international community of the gravity of the situation could have been saved if the world had learned a lesson from the Pulwama attack and the issue hadn’t died down. It was already known that BJP had something in store for Kashmir in their election manifesto. The BJP consistently advocated stripping Kashmiris of their special rights, and according to their manifesto, article 35A was a hindrance to the development of the state and an obstacle for the integration of Kashmir with the rest of India. Intention became action and India smoothly advanced from occupation to annexation. Pakistan approached friendly countries in order to get a desirable response and ultimately had to rely on China in the UNSC meeting. After the meeting, the U.S and France have now started putting pressure on India to resolve the dispute and avoid escalation.
The United Nations did what it often does, nothing constructive enough to even lift the curfew from Kashmir. Regardless, Kashmir has now become an international issue and it is the responsibility of all powerful nations to take notice of the serious human rights violations occurring in the Indian Occupied Kashmir. As Prime Minister Imran Khan has warned the world of ethnic cleansing in Kashmir, ignorance towards Indian actions would be appeasement.
Realistically, no country will support Pakistan, even with a strong moral case for Kashmir to get its due right, unless Pakistan has something to offer them in return. A country’s economic stability and strong diplomatic standing can get votes in its favour. Let’s take an example of India; many Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are being closely tied to New Delhi by virtue of bilateral trade. India’s economic confidence brought New Delhi to the day that it took such a bold decision on Kashmir unilaterally. It violated all bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan since 1948, when the matter was first taken up in United Nations.
Taking up the matter to UNSC after fifty years and getting some recognition regarding the disputed territory can be called a ‘’diplomatic victory’’ for Pakistan, but in a realist world, ‘who supported whom’ is the real game changer. Even the U.S stepping in to play its role as a mediator is for a vested purpose as well.
The current scenario, if seen as a bigger picture, relies more on changing the internal dynamics of India. Four various assumptions can be taken in view. First, the Indian Supreme Court will view the abrogation of Article 370 in purely constitutional terms and set aside this controversial decision taken by the parliament. Second, the Indian civil society will rise up to speak against the use of brute force and human rights violation in Kashmir. Third, minorities across India will rise up to demand the protection of minority rights, and fourth, Kashmiris will fight tooth and nail to turn the tables in their favour and make the cost of sustaining Modi’s Kashmir policy prohibitive.
Despite the suspension of phones and internet, educational institutions being shut down, heavy deployment of Indian forces from all sides, complete ban on holding any public meetings and protests, political leadership under house arrest, and shortage of food and medicines, Kashmiris are resilient and they refuse to give in. India not only used brute force to suppress the voice of Kashmir, it also concocted an alternate history to propagate its own narrative of Kashmir to turn common Indian perception against the plight of Kashmiri Muslims. Every effort to subdue Kashmiris from their fight for self-determination ended up being a fiasco.
Pakistan has pledged to take up the issue with every forum of the world because it is a matter of the lives of eight million people. The Hindu supremacist agenda of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Kashmir poses an alarming situation. Pakistan has always advocated solutions through bilateral talks but India has surpassed the limits of cordiality. Prime Minister Imran Khan has expressed grave concerns for Kashmir in his latest interview and has now refused to talk to India on the matter. 

The writer is a Researcher at Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS). This article was first published at Strafasia https://strafasia.com/. The writer can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The West: The History of an Idea

The world is witnessing the collapse of the Western order, if not the emergence of an alternative one. The idea of ‘West’ as against the rest is still at the root of contemporary understanding of world politics. Georgios Varouxakis, a remarkable voice on Modernity and Nationalism, has provided the historical origins and modern connotations attached with the idea of ‘West’. In his book ‘The West: The History of an Idea’, Varouxakis has argued that the West is not an eternal entity, rather it is a modern socio-political construct that emerged in the political philosophy of the early 19th century and evolved with the passage of time. The book provides an in-depth historical analysis of the idea to determine the roots of its modern interpretation.

Read More »

Space-Enabled Warfare in the 21st Century: Pathways for Developing States

Space has emerged as a distinct domain of warfare alongside land, sea, air, and cyber. Developed countries like the United States, Russia, and China possess offensive and support capabilities in space. In the shadowed expanse of Low Earth Orbit (LEO), where satellites operate like silent custodians, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine transformed the nature of modern conflict. As Russian troops marched forward, the commercial satellites like Maxar and Planet, which are operated by Western firms, captured high-resolution imagery of Russian troops, providing real-time intelligence to Ukrainian commanders, unlike ever before.

Read More »

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »