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.

How the Nature of Warfare Affects the AI Optimism

Since the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a pressing question is being asked: Is Clausewitz still relevant? The game-changing potential of AI and the idea of human-machine teaming (centaur systems) have led many to doubt the seemingly unchanged nature of war. Apparently, it has given rise to the belief that AI-powered systems will replace humans (generals) in the command loop. However, this view is detached from the complex nature of warfare, which remains fundamentally a human endeavour guided by violence, chance and friction.

Just like other social institutions, war is generally an interpretivist paradigm rooted in complex human nature. It is a non-linear phenomenon whose conduct and outcomes cannot be determined by analytical predictions or algorithmic patterns. In other words, war usually does not proceed on pre-determined rules of engagement, prescriptive manuals, established patterns and predictive modelling. Instead, it is fought on judgment, adaptation to changing realities, commander’s intuition and paying attention to the unfolding of the unknown. 

Read More »

Two Faces of the Atom: India’s Nuclear Exceptionalism

ew examples capture the inconsistencies of the nuclear world order more starkly than the events of 2 March 2026: as Prime Ministers’ Mark Carney and Narendra Modi signed a landmark 1.9 billion USD uranium supply deal for India’s civil nuclear sector, Iran was subjected to the third day of indiscriminate airstrikes by the US and Israel under the banner of nuclear non-proliferation, despite Iran agreeing to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium just days prior. This event, unfortunately, was not an isolated one, rather it reflects a pattern of nuclear exceptionalism where certain states such as India, continue to be rewarded for non-compliance with international regulations, while others such as Iran, are censured and even subjected to military action based on hypothetical realities.

The latest deal would see Canada sell close to 22 million pounds of uranium concentrate to India over 8 years, starting in 2027, a sale more than ten times the last Canada-India uranium agreement of 2015, which supplied 7 million pounds of concentrate over 5 years.

Read More »

Data Centres as the New Military Targets in Modern Conflicts

The character of warfare has evolved in tandem with the changing nature of military targets. In early March 2026, Iran bypassed traditional military targets and struck the physical part of the digital infrastructure at Amazon Web Services (AWS) data centres in the UAE and Bahrain. Until now data centres had been considered an unassuming target, as they did not house any military equipment or hardware. However, the US-Israel war on Iran, has transformed these billion dollar sites into high-value targets because of their ability to act as server farms on which adversaries’ websites, apps, AI systems and the entire digital infrastructure run.

Data centres are digital ecosystems where the delivery of cloud services depends on the integrity of physical infrastructure. Disruption in any one part of the shared infrastructure does not remain isolated and risks triggering widespread systemic failure. In the case at hand, Amazon operated multiple availability zones within each region in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Iran struck two of the three availability zones in the UAE, while in Bahrain, a zone was damaged by drone debris causing an extended power outage and connectivity problems that further disrupted service across the Gulf.

Read More »