UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL PUNJAB

Final project name.

The role of un in resolving Indian illegal annexation of Kashmir.

Group members:
Ali Iqbal (0179)
M. Awais (0162)
M. Umar (0174)
M. Hamza (0177)
Saeed Sultan (0194)
Sikandar Basheer (0196)

Submitted to:
Prof. Shamroze Khan
Class: BSCS-5D
Dedication:
 This project is dedicated to us by my parents and Prof.
Shamroze Khan.
Introduction:
During British rule, the subcontinent was governed in part through territories that British
authorities directly administered and in part through a number of semi-autonomous vassals
known as Princely States. One of the largest of these Princely States was Jammu and Kashmir,
situated in the northwest corner of British India. The territory came under British suzerainty in
1846 when the British East India Company sold the Valley of Kashmir to the Raja of Jammu,
Gulab Singh, and recognized him as a Maharaja in return for his acceptance of British
overlordship (Schofield 2000, 7–10). When the British withdrew from the subcontinent in 1947,
they partitioned their former colony roughly along sectarian lines to create India and Pakistan
in a futile effort to reduce the bloodshed between supporters of the bitterly feuding All India
National Congress of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru and the Muslim League of
Muhammad Ali Jinnah. As part of this partition, all the Princely States would be forced to sign
the
Instruments of Accession which would incorporate their lands into one of the new states.
Although the respective ‘princes’ could choose which state their realm would be absorbed into,
they were encouraged by the British to consider both their geographical location and the
demographics of their subjects (Behera 2006, 5–14).
At the time of the British withdrawal, Kashmir was approximately 77% Muslim and bordering
the western wing of Pakistan. This would have theoretically ensured that joining Pakistan would
have been a natural choice. However, there also existed several minorities within Kashmir
which favored India, most notably the Buddhist Ladakhi’s in the north and the Sikhs and Hindu
Dogra’s in the south (Behera 2006, 104–105). Additionally, the Muslim population of Kashmir
was not homogeneous, with many following the mystic Sufi tradition of Islam with significant
pockets of Shia and orthodox Sunni populations (Snedden 2013, 9–10). A final issue came from
the political leanings of the local authorities and personalities of Kashmir. Although there were
supporters for acceding to either India and Pakistan, the key Kashmiri political actors at the
time were the Hindu Maharajah, Hari Singh, and the leader of the All Jammu and Kashmir
National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah.
Singh had ruled Kashmir with increasing despotism since he ascended to the throne in 1925,
paying little attention to his ministers or local council when passing laws, imposing
discriminatory taxes on Muslims. As a result, Singh was a highly unpopular ruler and often had
to use his military, often with the assistance of British forces, to crush local unrest (Schofield
2000, 17–18). Nonetheless, as the Maharajah, Singh was empowered to make the decision
whether to accede his kingdom to India or Pakistan. However, Singh personally disliked both
Jinnah and Nehru and clearly wished to maintain his control over Kashmir. Thus, Singh
deliberately equivocated in declaring for either India or Pakistan, seemingly believing that by
delaying the decision he could achieve de facto independence for Kashmir (Subbiah 2004, 175).
Abdullah and the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference represented the main local
opposition to Singh. Hence, their primary policy aims were concerned with ending the
Maharaja’s rule and establishing a secular representative government in Kashmir. Yet, while
Abdullah hated the ideological concept of Pakistan and was good friends with Nehru, his clearly
preferred status for Kashmir since 1944 was to establish it as ‘an independent political unit like
Switzerland in South Asia’ (Lamb 1991, 187–190; Snedden 2013, 25).
By the end of October 1947, two months after Britain formally withdrew from the
subcontinent, both India and Pakistan were growing impatient for Singh to make his accession
decision. It was Pakistan, increasingly convinced that India was trying to smother it or at least
cheat it out of economic and strategically important territory, that moved first (Hajari 2015,
180–189). In an effort to secure Kashmir for Pakistan, several members of the Pakistani military
and government orchestrated an invasion of pro-Pakistan Islamic zealots from the Pashtun
tribes on Pakistan’s western frontier. The Maharaja’s forces, already occupied trying to pacify
an unrelated anti-Maharaja pro-Pakistan rebellion in the Poonch region, were completely
unprepared to resist such an invasion and were swiftly routed. India refused to assist unless
Singh signed the Instrument of Accession in favor of India. Thus Singh, recognizing that his
political position had collapsed and desperate to gain Indian help in repulsing the invasion,
formally signed the document in favor of India on 26 October 1947 (Schofield 2000, 41–54).
Despite the obviously coerced nature of Singh’s signature and the fact that it went against the
pro-Pakistan or independence aspirations of many Kashmiris, India’s leadership was convinced
that Singh’s accession gave India both the legal and moral right to the Princely State. This
mentality was buttressed by the fact that India was able to rush in enough troops to halt the
advance of Pakistan’s proxy forces upon the Kashmiri capital of Srinagar and even reverse some
of their territorial gains. However, India was not able to inject enough troops into Kashmir to
advance far before winter made further operations impossible. With the weather ending any
further campaigning from either side, Nehru decided to call upon the Security Council to
mediate believing the UN would compel Pakistan to withdraw (Subbiah 2004, 176–177). Thus,
on 1 January 1948, Nehru wrote a letter to the UN Security Council
(S/628), arguing that:
Under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations, any member may bring any situation,
whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to
the attention of the Security Council. Such a situation now exists between India and Pakistan
owing to the aid which invaders…are drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and
Kashmir, a State which acceded to the Dominion of India…The Government of India requests
the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put to an end immediately…[this] act of aggression
against
India.
Pakistan responded with their own letter to the UN Security Council on 15 January 1948
(S/646), rejecting India’s claims, outlining its own position concerning Kashmir and airing
several other grievances regarding India’s conduct.
Much to India’s indignation, the UN Security Council did not order Pakistan to withdraw but
instead passed Resolution 39 on 20 January 1948 establishing the UN Commission for India and
Pakistan (UNCIP). The UNCIP was empowered to investigate the facts on the ground and act as
a mediator between India and Pakistan and to resolve the dispute (S/RES/39). Notwithstanding
the Security Council’s efforts, combat operations began to resume in February, with both sides
clashing as soon as the territory began to thaw. After a few months of deliberation, the UN
Security Council passed the more detailed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948 in an effort to provide
the basic guidelines for resolving the conflict. In essence, Resolution 47 called upon Pakistan to
secure the withdrawal of its proxies, followed by a withdrawal of Indian troops. The UN would
then establish a temporary Plebiscite Administration in Kashmir, with the mandate to conduct a
fair and impartial plebiscite ‘on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan’
(S/RES/47). To oversee the implementation of this Resolution, the UNCIP was expanded and
immediately dispatched to the subcontinent.

The History:
Kashmir, the oldest dispute at the UN Agenda
The Kashmir dispute is the oldest unresolved international conflict in the world today. Pakistan
considers Kashmir as its core political dispute with India. So does the international community,
except India.
India's forcible occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 is the main cause of the
dispute. India claims to have ‘signed' a controversial document, the Instrument of Accession, on
26 October 1947 with the Maharaja of Kashmir, in which the Maharaja obtained India's military
help against popular insurgency. The people of Kashmir and Pakistan do not accept the Indian
claim. There are doubts about the very existence of the Instrument of Accession. The United
Nations also does not consider Indian claim as legally valid: it recognizes Kashmir as a disputed
territory. With the exception of India, the entire world community recognizes Kashmir as a
disputed territory. The fact is that all the principles on the basis of which the Indian subcontinent
was partitioned by the British in 1947 justify Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan: The State
had majority Muslim population, and it not only enjoyed geographical proximity with Pakistan
but also had essential economic linkages with the territories constituting Pakistan.

History of the dispute:

The State of Jammu and Kashmir has historically remained independent, except in the anarchical
conditions of the late 18th and first half of the 19th century, or when incorporated in the vast
empires set up by the Mauryas (3 rd century BC), the Mughals (16th to 18th century) and the
British (mid-19th to mid-20th century). All these empires included not only present-day India
and Pakistan but some other countries of the region as well. Until 1846, Kashmir was part of the
Sikh empire. In that year, the British defeated the Sikhs and sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh of
Jammu for Rs. 7.5 million under the Treaty of Amritsar. Gulab Singh, the Mahraja, signed a
separate treaty with the British which gave him the status of an independent princely ruler of
Kashmir. Gulab Singh died in 1857 and was replaced by Rambir Singh (1857-1885). Two other
Marajas, Partab Singh (1885-1925) and Hari Singh (1925-1949) ruled in succession.
Gulab Singh and his successors ruled Kashmir in a tyrannical and repressive way. The people of
Kashmir, nearly 80 per cent of who were Muslims, rose against Maharaja Hari Singh's rule. He
ruthlessly crushed a mass uprising in 1931. In 1932, Sheikh Abdullah formed Kashmir's first
political party—the All Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference (renamed as National
Conference in 1939). In 1934, the Maharaja gave way and allowed limited democracy in the
form of a Legislative Assembly. However, unease with the Maharaja's rule continued. According
to the instruments of partition of India, the rulers of 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.
In Kashmir, however, the Maharaja hesitated. The principally Muslim population, having seen
the early and covert arrival of Indian troops, rebelled and things got out of the Maharaja's hands.
The people of Kashmir were demanding to join Pakistan. The Maharaja, fearing tribal warfare,
eventually gave way to the Indian pressure and agreed to join India by, as India claims, ‘signing'
the controversial Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. Kashmir was provisionally
accepted into the Indian Union pending a free and impartial plebiscite. This was spelled out in a
letter from the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, to the Maharaja on 27 October
1947. In the letter, accepting the accession, Mountbatten made it clear that the State would only
be incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the people of Kashmir.
Having accepted the principle of a plebiscite, India has since obstructed all attempts at holding a
plebiscite.
In 1947, India and Pakistan went to war over Kashmir. During the war, it was India which first
took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on 1 January 1948. The following year, on 1
January 1949, the UN helped enforce ceasefire between the two countries. The ceasefire line is
called the Line of Control. It was an outcome of a mutual consent by India and Pakistan that the
UN Security Council (UNSC) and UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed
several resolutions in years following the 1947-48 war. The UNSC Resolution of 21 April 1948--
one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmir—stated 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”. Subsequent UNSC
Resolutions reiterated the same stand. UNCIP Resolutions of 3 August 1948 and 5 January 1949
reinforced UNSC resolutions.

KASHMIR ISSUE IN A NUTSHELL

The current agitation in Indian-Held Kashmir is rooted in the struggle of the people for the
exercise of the right of self-determination. Peaceful processions chanting demands for freedom
were fired upon by Indian Army and police. Thousands of men, women and children have been
killed or wounded.

1. New Delhi's allegation of assistance to the Kashmiri people from the Pakistan side is
unfounded. Objective reports in foreign media testify that the Kashmiri agitation is
indigenous.
2. Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in
accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions
of 1948 and 1949 provide for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the
determination of the future of the state by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
3. The basic points about the UN resolution are that:

 The complaint relating to Kashmir was initiated by India in the Security Council;
 The Council explicitly and by implications, rejected India's claim that Kashmir is legally
Indian territory;
 The resolutions established self-determination as the governing principal for the
settlement of the Kashmir dispute. This is the world body's commitment to the people of
Kashmir;
 The resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached
through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and
specified conditions.

1. The Security Council has rejected the Indian contention that the people of Kashmir have
exercised their right of self-determination by participating in the "election" which India
has from time to time organized in the Held Kashmir. The 0.2% turn out during the 1989
"elections" was the most recent clear repudiation of the Indian claim.
2. Pakistan continues to adhere to the UN resolutions. These are binding also on India.
3. The Simla Agreement of 2 July 1972, to which Pakistan also continues to adhere, did not
alter the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory:

 Para 6 of the Agreement lists “a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir" as one of the
outstanding questions awaiting a settlement.
  Para 4 (ii) talks of a "Line of Control" as distinguished from an international border.
Furthermore, it explicitly protects "the recognized position of either side." The
recognized position of Pakistan is the one, which is recognized by the United Nations and
the World Community in general.
 Article 1(iv) obviously refers to the Kashmir issue when it talks of "the basic issues and
causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the
last 25 years"

Kashmir and the UN:

The Indian government, after ending the special status of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir
and its subsequent annexation to the Indian Union in blatant violation of the UNSC resolutions,
has been making strenuous efforts to have the Kashmir issue removed from the agenda of the
UNSC.
Last week, India made yet another attempt by asking the UNSC to remove Kashmir from its
agenda to prevent Pakistan from raising it at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly,
which begins in New York later this month. However, it failed to achieve its objective.
Pakistan’s permanent representative at the UN Munir Akram was right on the money when he
said that Indian representatives were either deluding themselves or deluding their public by
asserting that they would have Kashmir removed from the Security Council’s agenda. According
to UNSC procedures and rules, an item once put on the UNSC’s agenda cannot be removed until
the issue is settled or there is a consensus among the members of the Security Council to do so.
Pakistan annually requests retention of the agenda item called ‘the India-Pakistan Question’
under which the Kashmir issue has been discussed since 1948.
No matter how hard India tries, there is no possibility of the Kashmir issue ever being removed
from the UNSC agenda – even with the support of its strategic partners like the US, UK and
France – unless the issue is resolved. Building a consensus for the removal of the Kashmir issue
from the UNSC agenda while China supports Pakistan’s stance on the issue is next to impossible.
The UNSC has three times discussed the issue brought to the council by Pakistan with the
support of China in the backdrop of Indian action in Occupied Kashmir and it has reiterated that
the Kashmir dispute needs to be resolved in accordance with principles of the UN charter and the
relevant resolutions. There could not have been a stronger rebuttal of the Indian moves and
narrative than the report declaring Indian action in Kashmir as illegal. Further, the UN Military
Observers Group in India and Pakistan remains stationed in Jammu and Kashmir which is
another affirmation that the Kashmir dispute remains on the agenda of the Security Council.
It is pertinent to point out that India has failed to sell its narrative to the global community and
the UN that the issue of Occupied Kashmir is its ‘internal matter’. The international media
despite denial of access to the state has regularly been reporting about the humanitarian crisis in
Kashmir and the killing spree continued by the Indian security forces. The diplomatic offensive
launched by Pakistan to sensitize the world community about the gravity of the situation in
Occupied Kashmir and the issue being about the right of self-determination of the people of
Kashmir as enshrined in the UNSC resolutions, has also contributed immensely to thwarting the
Indian efforts to mislead the world.
For Pakistan, Kashmir is an unfinished agenda of Partition. The spokesman of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs was right in saying that Pakistan would ensure that the India-Pakistan question
remains on the agenda of the UN Security Council until resolution of the dispute in accordance
with relevant UNSC resolutions.
One really wonders at the naivete of the Indian government in entertaining the thought of having
the Kashmir issue removed from the UNSC agenda, notwithstanding the foregoing realities. The
BJP regime, inebriated by the RSS ideology of Hindutva, has also adopted a belligerent posture
towards Pakistan. It has violated the ceasefire agreement between the two countries along the
LOC more than 1600 times this year to divert the attention of the world from its reign of terror in
Occupied Kashmir.
Not only that, BJP stalwarts and Indian military leaders have also been hurling threats at Pakistan
and even dared to send planes to hit an imaginary terrorist camp at Balakot in February 2019.
That could have easily escalated into an open military confrontation between the two nuclear
powers. But Pakistan showed remarkable restraint to defuse the situation reaffirming its desire
for peaceful existence with its neighbours. Nevertheless, by downing two Indian planes and
capturing one pilot it made a strong statement to India as well as to the world community that
Pakistan is fully capable of thwarting any aggressive designs of the enemy.
The prime minister of Pakistan has repeatedly warned the world about the lurking dangers and
Indian designs against Pakistan, urging the UN and the world powers to realize the gravity of the
situation and pressurize India not only to rescind its actions in Kashmir but also implement the
UNSC resolutions on Kashmir. That is the only way to resolve the dispute and ensure peaceful
coexistence.
The BJP regime in India also must realize that they are treading a very dangerous course by
doing what they are doing in Occupied Kashmir and adopting a threatening posture towards
Pakistan. The Kashmiri freedom struggle is gaining strength with every passing day and cannot
be subdued with barrel of the gun. Pakistan cannot be intimidated through aggressive actions and
by the threat of more arms. It is a nuclear power and fully capable and determined to give a
matching response to any aggressive action by India as it proved in February 2091, though it
remains committed to peaceful resolution of disputes.
India, therefore, should have no illusion about the determination and capability of the Pakistan
armed forces in defending their motherland. Pakistan Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa
while addressing an investiture ceremony held at GHQ on September 6 declared unequivocally
that Pakistan is ready to respond to any misadventure with full might. Rightly blaming India for
jeopardizing regional peace by irresponsibly changing the status of Indian-occupied Kashmir, he
made it clear that Pakistan would never accept India’s unilateral decision.
General Bajwa said: “On the eve of Defence Day, I want to convey the message that Pakistan is
a peace-loving country but would give a befitting reply to the enemy if war was imposed” India
as well as the world community need to ponder over this.

Self-Determination, Sovereign Territorial Integrity and the UN:

One significant source of tension that exists within the theory and practice of international law is
between the principle of self-determination and the norm of state sovereignty, especially when it
concerns the state’s territorial integrity. Broadly defined, self-determination is the philosophical
and political principle that people should have the right to shape their own political, economic
and/or cultural destiny. In contrast, the norm of sovereignty refers to the claim of a state,
recognized by other states, to be the exclusive political authority within a specific territory.
Whilst self-determination is often the foundation for a state, it becomes an issue when an aspirant
people seek to separate from an established state, either attempting to establish their own
separate state (secessionism) or to join another state (irredentism) (Taras and Ganguly 2006, 41–
44). The norm of state sovereignty has two primary components.
The first is the principle of non-interference, or the expectation that states should be free to
conduct their internal affairs without any outside interference. The second is the principle of
territorial integrity, or that a state’s borders are sacrosanct and thereby should not be altered
without the consent of all relevant parties. In other words, the territorial integrity aspect of the
norm does not recognize the right of people to engage in a unilateral secession, whilst the
noninterference requirement ensures that international actors cannot legitimately compel the state
to do so (Makinda 1998, 103–105). Hence, the principle of self-determination frequently finds
itself in conflict with the norm of state sovereignty. Interestingly, despite the UN’s well-earned
reputation for being divided and equivocating upon many issues, it has been surprisingly united
and consistent in its favoring the norms of non-interference and the territorial integrity of a
sovereign state over the self-determination of peoples. The only example of the UN
unequivocally embracing the principle of self-determination was its support movement for
decolonization. This consideration was most clearly articulated in two General Assembly’s
declarations. The first of these was Resolution 1514 (XV), more commonly known as the
Declaration Granting Independence to Colonial Territories, Countries and Peoples, proclaimed in
December 1960. This declaration decreed that ‘the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation,
domination and exploitation… is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations’ and proclaimed
that ‘all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of this right, they freely determine
their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development’
(A/RES/1514 [XV]). The second declaration was Resolution 2625 (XXV), more commonly
known as the Declaration on Principles of International Law, Friendly Relations and Co-
operation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, proclaimed in
October 1970. This declaration explicitly stated that the principle of self-determination’s goal
was ‘to bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard for the freely expressed will of the
peoples concerned’ (A/RES/2625 [XXV]). Furthermore, it specified that ‘the establishment of a
sovereign or independent state, the free association or integration with an independent State or
the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of
implementing the right of self-determination’ (ibid.). However, once the process of
decolonization is complete, the focus of the right to self-determination within the UN organs
shifts from the people to the state itself. Indeed, the Declaration on Principles of International
Law proclaimed: Nothing in the forgoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or
encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial
integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states conducting themselves in
compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples described above
and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory
without distinction as to race, creed or color (ibid.). In other words, the General Assembly was
asserting that once the process of decolonization is complete, the state’s sovereign rights to
territorial integrity and political autonomy take precedence. The basis of this post-colonial pivot
towards the norm of state sovereignty is based upon the principle ofuti possidetis. In essence, the
principle of uti possidetis stipulates that when a former colony secedes from an empire, the new
state’s borders should match its former administrative boundaries (Taras and Ganguly 2006, 45).
Any alteration of these borders only occurring after an international agreement involving the new
state or with the state’s own consent. Thus, any unilateral efforts by secessionist or irredentist
movements to break away from an existing state are not recognized by any UN organs, with such
actions only becoming legitimate if the existing state accepts the split (Chandhoke 2008, 2–4). In
part, the adoption of the principle of uti possidetis has been purely pragmatic owing to the
difficulty of adequately establishing a territorial state that does not contain some minority within
it and the general reluctance for established states to accept being bifurcated. Yet the favoring of
the nation-state has also been partly adopted by design, with several scholars arguing that an
unstated goal of the UN has been to freeze the political and territorial map after the process of
de-colonization (Saini 2001, 60–65; Taras and Ganguly 2006, 45–46). By and large, this freezing
of territorial boundaries has been a boon for international peace as the late twentieth
century saw a marked reduction of interstate wars over territory and for ‘national reunification’.
Indeed, most of the international community could agree that the maintenance of colonies was
against the principle of self-determination and that as colonies are by definition not part of a
state’s core territory, they were hard to justify by appealing to their sovereignty. However, this
peace has come at the UN’s sacrifice of a broader application of the principle of self-
determination to any aspirant non-self-governing peoples in non-colonial states who see little
future within their current borders or otherwise wish to break away. During the UN’s first five
years, there were several cases of no self-governing territories that the General Assembly or
Security Council could have sought to apply the principle of self-determination to any aspirant
peoples rather than defer to existing state interests.[1] One of the most prominent of these cases
was the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir.
The Origins of the Jammu and Kashmir Dispute:
During British rule, the subcontinent was governed in part through territories that British
authorities directly administered and in part through a number of semi-autonomous vassals
known as Princely States. One of the largest of these Princely States was Jammu and Kashmir,
situated in the northwest corner of British India. The territory came under British suzerainty in
1846 when the British East India Company sold the Valley of Kashmir to the Raja of Jammu,
Gulab Singh, and recognized him as a Maharaja in return for his acceptance of British
overlordship (Schofield 2000, 7–10). When the British withdrew from the subcontinent in 1947,
they partitioned their former colony roughly along sectarian lines to create India and Pakistan in
a futile effort to reduce the bloodshed between supporters of the bitterly feuding All India
National Congress of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru and the Muslim League of
Muhammad Ali Jinnah. As part of this partition, all the Princely States would be forced to sign
the Instruments of Accession which would incorporate their lands into one of the new states.
Although the respective ‘princes’ could choose which state their realm would be absorbed into,
they were encouraged by the British to consider both their geographical location and the
demographics of their subjects (Behera 2006, 5–14). At the time of the British withdrawal,
Kashmir was approximately 77% Muslim and bordering the western wing of Pakistan. This
would have theoretically ensured that joining Pakistan would have been a natural choice.
However, there also existed several minorities within Kashmir which favored India, most notably
the Buddhist Ladakhis in the north and the Sikhs and Hindu Dogras in the south (Behera 2006,
104–105). Additionally, the Muslim population of Kashmir was not homogeneous, with many
following the mystic Sufi tradition of Islam with significant pockets of Shia and orthodox Sunni
populations (Snedden 2013, 9–10). A final issue came from the political leanings of the local
authorities and personalities of Kashmir. Although there were supporters for acceding to either
India and Pakistan, the key Kashmiri political actors at the time were the Hindu Maharajah, Hari
Singh, and the leader of the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah.
Singh had ruled Kashmir with increasing despotism since he ascended to the throne in 1925,
paying little attention to his ministers or local council when passing laws, imposing
discriminatory taxes on Muslims. As a result, Singh was a highly unpopular ruler and often had
to use his military, often with the assistance of British forces, to crush local unrest (Schofield
2000, 17–18). Nonetheless, as the Maharajah, Singh was empowered to make the decision
whether to accede his kingdom to India or Pakistan. However, Singh personally disliked both
Jinnah and Nehru and clearly wished to maintain his control over Kashmir. Thus, Singh
deliberately equivocated in declaring for either India or Pakistan, seemingly believing that by
delaying the decision he could achieve de facto independence for Kashmir (Subbiah 2004, 175).
Abdullah and the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference represented the main local
opposition to Singh. Hence, their primary policy aims were concerned with ending the
Maharaja’s rule and establishing a secular representative government in Kashmir. Yet, while
Abdullah hated the ideological concept of Pakistan and was good friends with Nehru, his clearly
preferred status for Kashmir since 1944 was to establish it as ‘an independent political unit like
Switzerland in South Asia’ (Lamb 1991, 187–190; Snedden 2013, 25). By the end of October
1947, two months after Britain formally withdrew from the subcontinent, both India and Pakistan
were growing impatient for Singh to make his accession decision. It was Pakistan, increasingly
convinced that India was trying to smother it or at least cheat it out of economic and strategically
important territory, that moved first (Hajari 2015, 180–189). In an effort to secure Kashmir for
Pakistan, several members of the Pakistani military and government orchestrated an invasion of
pro-Pakistan Islamic zealots from the Pashtun tribes on Pakistan’s western frontier. The
Maharaja’s forces, already occupied trying to pacify an unrelated anti-Maharaja pro-Pakistan
rebellion in the Poonch region, were completely unprepared to resist such an invasion and were
swiftly routed. India refused to assist unless Singh signed the Instrument of Accession in favor of
India. Thus Singh, recognizing that his political position had collapsed and desperate to gain
Indian help in repulsing the invasion, formally signed the document in favor of India on 26
October 1947 (Schofield 2000, 41–54). Despite the obviously coerced nature of Singh’s
signature and the fact that it went against the pro-Pakistan or independence aspirations of many
Kashmiris, India’s leadership was convinced that Singh’s accession gave India both the legal and
moral right to the Princely State. This mentality was buttressed by the fact that India was able to
rush in enough troops to halt the advance of Pakistan’s proxy forces upon the Kashmiri capital of
Srinagar and even reverse some of their territorial gains. However, India was not able to inject
enough troops into Kashmir to advance far before winter made further operations impossible.
With the weather ending any further campaigning from either side, Nehru decided to call upon
the Security Council to mediate believing the UN would compel Pakistan to withdraw (Subbiah
2004, 176–177). Thus, on 1 January 1948, Nehru wrote a letter to the UN Security Council
(S/628), arguing that: Under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations, any member may
bring any situation, whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international
peace and security to the attention of the Security Council. Such a situation now exists between
India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders…are drawing from Pakistan for operations
against Jammu and Kashmir, a State which acceded to the Dominion of India…The Government
of India requests the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put to an end immediately…[this]
act of aggression against India.[2] Pakistan responded with their own letter to the UN Security
Council on 15 January 1948 (S/646), rejecting India’s claims, outlining its own position
concerning Kashmir and airing several other grievances regarding India’s conduct. Much to
India’s indignation, the UN Security Council did not order Pakistan to withdraw but instead
passed Resolution 39 on 20 January 1948 establishing the UN Commission for India and
Pakistan (UNCIP). The UNCIP was empowered to investigate the facts on the ground and act as
a mediator between India and Pakistan and to resolve the dispute (S/RES/39). Notwithstanding
the Security Council’s efforts, combat operations began to resume in February, with both sides
clashing as soon as the territory began to thaw. After a few months of deliberation, the UN
Security Council passed the more detailed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948 in an effort to provide
the basic guidelines for resolving the conflict. In essence, Resolution 47 called upon Pakistan to
secure the withdrawal of its proxies, followed by a withdrawal of Indian troops. The UN would
then establish a temporary Plebiscite Administration in Kashmir, with the mandate to conduct a
fair and impartial plebiscite ‘on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan’
(S/RES/47). To oversee the implementation of this Resolution, the UNCIP was expanded and
immediately dispatched to the subcontinent.

UN Involvement in the Jammu and Kashmir Dispute:

The clear intention of Resolution 47 was to put into practice the principle of self-determination.
However, in practice the question of self-determination was quickly superseded by concerns
about international peace. Indeed, by the time the UNCIP arrived in July, on the 20 April 1948
Jinnah which authorised the Pakistan Army to occupy the territory held by their tribal proxies
and pro-Pakistani rebels, had begun to be pushed back by an Indian offensive. Although this
order was given prior to Resolution 47, Pakistan disregarded the UN Resolution’s call for a
ceasefire and withdrawal, with Pakistani Army units arriving in force in May. Hence, the UNCIP
considered its duty first and foremost to be brokering a truce between India and Pakistan rather
than any efforts to determine the Kashmiris’ desires or even lay the groundwork for a plebiscite.
To that end, the Commission passed a resolution on 13 August 1948 proposing that both sides
issue a ceasefire and accept a truce overseen by the UN (S/1100, 28–30). However, this plan was
largely unimaginative, with the UNCIP simply proposing that the ceasefire be monitored by UN
observers before reiterating the model for resolving the dispute outlined in Resolution 47.
Although both India and Pakistan eventually agreed to a ceasefire and a Line of Control, which
came into effect on 1 January 1949, the UNCIP was unable to broker any agreement as to how to
demilitarise Kashmir or how the plebiscite should be conducted (Snedden 2005, 72–74). Pakistan
remained unwilling to withdraw its forces, believing that India had attempted to seize Kashmir
using ‘fraud and violence’ and would not uphold its obligations (Subbiah 2004, 178–179).
Pakistan therefore insisted upon more details as to how the plebiscite would be held and for any
Pakistani withdrawal to be synchronised with India’s military (see Annex 1 in S/1196, 12–14).
India for its part took the position that the Instrument of Accession made Kashmir legitimately
part of India and that Pakistan had launched an unprovoked war of aggression to annex the
territory. Hence, India considered that it was the UNCIP’s role to force Pakistan to withdraw,
refusing to move before Pakistan and remaining lukewarm on the necessity of holding a
plebiscite (Hajari 2015, 246). Although the UNCIP’s focus had quickly turned to ending the war
between India and Pakistan, it did at least attempt to uphold the principle of self-determination
by continuing to insist on holding a plebiscite. However, the history of multiple UN efforts to
implement the plebiscite in Kashmir illustrates how it was already beginning to defer to the norm
of state sovereignty whenever it clashed with the principle of self-determination. This policy
approach manifested in two significant ways. Firstly, the UNCIP and its successors largely
neglected to consult or otherwise engage with the various political actors within Kashmir itself.
It is recorded that some UNCIP members did stay in Srinagar from 1 to 9 September 1948,
during which time they met with Sheik Abdullah at least once (S/1100, 75). However, there is no
mention or elaboration of what was discussed or observed. The Commission also reported
receiving several letters and having an ‘informal’ meeting with the pro-Pakistan ‘Azad Kashmir
Government’ (S/1100, 15 and 41). Regardless, it is evident that the Commission paid little heed
to these Kashmiri authorities, disregarding their calls to place greater emphasis on the plebiscite
and recognising them only as ‘local authorities’ (Snedden 2013, 88–89). Although the UNCIP
formally recognized Sheik Abdullah as the ‘Prime Minister of the State of Jammu and Kashmir’,
it mostly avoided engaging with him and his administration throughout their time on the
subcontinent. The UNCIP also went to great lengths to avoid indirectly bestowing any legitimacy
upon the Azad Kashmir officials, explicitly resolving to ‘avoid an action which might be
interpreted as signifying de facto or de jure recognition of the “Azad Kashmir Government”’
(S/1100, 25). There is no evidence that the UNCIP attempted to meet, interview or correspond
with Maharaja Hari Singh. These decisions by the UNCIP to disregard these ‘local authorities’
clearly stemmed from its belief that its mandate was to mediate between the governments in New
Delhi and Karachi rather than identifying the preferences of Kashmiris. Hence, in choosing to
recognize India and Pakistan as the only parties to the dispute, UNCIP was deferring to the norm
of state sovereignty rather than engage in a genuine effort to advance the principle of self-
determination. Secondly, the UNCIP and the Security Council clearly considered the Kashmir
conflict to be simply a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. Hence, at no point does the
Security Council or its agents appear to have countenanced any option of independence for
Kashmir. Indeed, there is no mention in any of the UNCIP’s three reports (S/1100, S/1196 and
S/1430) of even a discussion over whether the proposed plebiscite should include an option other
than a straightforward vote as to which state to join. Yet this is in stark contrast to the wishes of
the dominant political force in Kashmir during this period, Sheik Abdullah. Although Abdullah
clearly favored India over Pakistan, he seemingly preferred to achieve Kashmiri independence
or, failing that, ensure that Kashmir effectively remains a semi-autonomous protectorate rather
than a regular state of India (Lamb 1991, 191–195). Indeed, during this period, Abdullah
frequently argued, to any foreign dignitary that would listen, the necessity of including the option
for independence on any plebiscite so that the people of Kashmir could determine where their
‘true well-being lies’ (Lamb 1991, 189 –190; Snedden 2005, 83). It is unclear what support the
option for independence had amongst the majority of Kashmiris. Nonetheless, the point still
stands that having the option in a plebiscite would have more holistically encompassed their right
to determine their political destiny that is at the heart of the principle of self-determination. In
disregarding such sentiments, the UNCIP and the Security Council were, intentionally or not,
accepting that India and Pakistan were the sole successor states of British India and thereby
tacitly implementing the principle of uti possidetis even at this early stage. In December 1949,
the UNCIP submitted its final report to the Security Council in which it frankly acknowledged its
failure to mediate the dispute between India and Pakistan or convince them to demilitarize.
Although, the UNCIP maintained that a plebiscite remained the most effective means of
determining legitimate sovereignty over Kashmir, it did state that the framework established in
Resolution 47 was already ‘a rather outmoded pattern’ and suggested that their successors should
consider alternative methods of resolution, including arbitration (S/1430, 78–79). Hence, the
Security Council decided to appoint what turned out to be a series of individual representatives
empowered with greater flexibility to mediate between India and Pakistan and try to pave the
way for the plebiscite. Arguably the most notable of these was the Australian judge and
diplomat, Sir Owen Dixon. Although Dixon, like all the Security Council’s delegations, dealt
primarily with the governments of India and Pakistan, he was unique in that he based himself in
Srinagar for a full month between June and July 1950. Interestingly, Dixon notes that he had
‘more than one interview with Sheik Abdullah’ but, like the UNCIP, he did not elaborate as to
what was discussed during them (S/1791, 3). During his stay in Kashmir, Dixon travelled
extensively throughout the disputed territory and therefore recognized more clearly than other
UN officials that the straightforward plebiscite outlined in Resolution 47 was unworkable.
Indeed, he noted in his report that ‘the State of Jammu and Kashmir is not really a unit
geographically, demographically or economically. It is an agglomeration of territories brought
under the power of one Maharajah’ (S/1791, 28). Indeed, it was evident that the Buddhist
Ladakhi and the Hindu Dogra minorities feared being oppressed by a Muslim Kashmiri majority,
whether this was in Pakistan or as part of an independent Kashmir (Behera 2006, 109–114). In
response to this issue, and the seeming inability of India and Pakistan to agree on virtually
anything, Dixon proposed that the plan for the plebiscite outlined in Resolution 47 be modified
in order to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Specifically, Dixon argued that the situation within
Kashmir ultimately required that it be partitioned and suggested two potential models for how to
do so. The first proposed breaking the former Princely State into different ethnonationalist
regions which would vote as to which country they would prefer. The second model proposed
simply allocating those areas that were certain to prefer accession to either India or Pakistan
respectively and then holding a plebiscite in the uncertain territory of the Valley of Kashmir
itself (S/1791, 17–18). Though the Indian government initially indicated it was willing to explore
a division of Kashmir, Pakistan refused to divert from the original plebiscite plan ensuring that
Dixon’s suggestions were ultimately rejected by both states. The UN Security Council also
proved unwilling to force the issue and simply continued to exhort the two feuding states to
continue negotiations (Snedden 2005, 75). After Dixon, the UN Security Council appointed two
further representatives to ensure the ceasefire held, and tried to induce India and Pakistan to
demilitarize Kashmir so the plebiscite could be held or to find some other way around the
impasse. However, neither seriously engaged the local Kashmiri authorities, and instead
fruitlessly attempted to coax the increasingly disinterested and skeptical India and Pakistan into
some form of agreement (Lamb 1991, 175–178). India’s willingness to hold the plebiscite
quickly waned as it began to realize that it was unlikely to win any popular vote regarding
Kashmir’s accession. Furthermore, India grew increasingly truculent and obstructionist towards
any UN proposals, believing that the Security Council generally, and Britain and the US
especially, were biased towards Pakistan (Ankit 2010; Hingorani 2016, 192–217). Though
Pakistan was ostensibly more amenable to holding a plebiscite, it remained distrustful of India
and refused to make any first move. The prospects of holding a successful plebiscite were further
spoiled by the frequent and ruthless suppression of Kashmiri rights on both sides of the Line of
Control soon after the 1949 ceasefire. India organized the dismissal and arrest of Sheik Abdullah
in 1953 for his pro-independence stance, replacing him with a series of pro-Indian puppets who
were kept in office via allegedly rigged elections (Lamb 1991, 199–204; Snedden 2005, 75).
Pakistan similarly began administering the areas of Kashmir it controlled autocratically,
establishing a puppet government in Azad Kashmir and governing the northern areas of Gilgit
and Baltistan directly. In late-1954, Nehru unilaterally declared that the US’s alliance with
Pakistan had ‘changed the whole context of the Kashmir issue’ and that the plebiscite was no
longer an option that India supported (Snedden 2005, 75–76). The UN Security Council
eventually responded by passing Resolution 122 in January 1957, which expressed the UN’s
frustration with the lack of progress and restated its position that the future of Kashmir could
only be decided by a free and fair plebiscite (S/RES/122). However, the UN remained unwilling
to force the issue by imposing sanctions or other measures that would undermine state
sovereignty. Gradually the UN gave up trying to enact the principle of self-determination for
Kashmir. In 1958, the UN neglected to appoint another representative for India and Pakistan,
effectively washing its hands of the issue. Indeed, during both the 1965 and 1971 India-Pakistan
wars, the Security Council only passed resolutions demanding a ceasefire between the two sides,
making no reference to the people of Kashmir or the right to self-determination (see S/RES/211
and S/RES/307).

The UN, Self-Determination and Jammu and Kashmir Today:

As the case of Kashmir demonstrates, the UN’s deference to state sovereignty over the principle
of self-determination was demonstrated early in its history. Whilst there was the possibility for
the UN to have strengthened the principle of self-determination during its earlier years, that
moment has well and truly passed. By the 1970s, the debates within the UN General Assembly
and Security Council established the principle that only colonized peoples had an explicit right to
self-determination. This position has led supporters of India’s position, especially to point out
that Kashmir is not a colony and therefore the arguments for Kashmiri self-determination do not
apply (Hingorani 2016, 166–171; Saini 2001, 72–73). Although the UN Security Council has
largely accepted this logic and disengaged from the Kashmir conflict, it does continue to
maintain a formal interest in the form of the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan,
which continues to monitor activities on both sides of the Line of Control. In recent years, the
focus of the UN has again turned to Kashmir, albeit due to the human right concerns rather than
engaging in any effort to uphold the principle of self-determination. Since 1989, a medium-
intensity insurgency has raged in Indian Administered Kashmir, triggered in large part by desires
for greater self-determination and Kashmiri frustration over India’s erosion of local autonomy.
Although the Kashmir insurgency was originally driven by secessionist sentiments, it was
quickly hijacked by Islamist insurgents several of whom were supported by Pakistan. India’s
response has been draconian only serving to alienate much of the Kashmiri population (Mohan et
al. 2019). A new wave of unrest erupted in 2016 after Indian security forces killed Burhan Wani,
a young and popular local insurgent commander, and the Indian Army and paramilitary police
responded with crackdowns. This prompted the first significant UN action on Kashmir in
decades, with the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) publishing a report identifying
numerous human rights abuses committed by the Indian Army during its efforts to crush the
unrest (OHCHR 2018). While the UNHRC report also addressed similar issues in Pakistan
Administer Kashmir, India strongly rejected the findings of the report, declaring it to be
fallacious, prejudiced and a violation of its ‘sovereignty and territorial integrity’ (MEA 2018). In
response, the UNHRC simply stated it was ‘disappointed’ with India’s reaction to the report,
with the General Assembly and Security Council taking no action or making any comment
(Mohan 2018). On 5 August 2019, the last vestiges of Kashmiri self-determination in India were
removed when the recently reelected Bhartiya Janata Party government placed Kashmiri political
leaders under house arrest, revoked the articles in the Indian Constitution which made Kashmir
an autonomous Indian state and broke Ladakh off to be an independent province. Although
Kashmiri self-determination has been eroded by Indian centralization efforts in the past, this
move makes Kashmir a Union Territory that will be directly administrated from New Delhi,
albeit with its own legislature to handle local issues (BBC 2019; Rej 2019). Pakistan vehemently
condemned India’s move, pledging to raise the issue at the UN Security Council and potentially
take it to the International Court of Justice (Hashim 2019). Pakistan eventually convinced its
tacit ally China to call for an emergency closed door session of the Security Council on 16
August 2019, marking the first time in decades that the UN body had directly considered the
Kashmir issue. However, the Council ultimately took no action, and instead urged both sides to
‘refrain from taking any unilateral action which might further aggravate the…situation’ (UN
News 2019). The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, also released a statement appealing
for ‘maximum restraint’ and reiterating the UN’s position that ‘the status of Jammu and Kashmir
is to be settled by peaceful means, in accordance with the UN Charter’ (UN News 2019). These
exchanges are characteristic of the UN’s conduct towards issues of self-determination more
generally; the UN’s inherent preference over upholding state sovereign rights ensures that it
remains reluctant to act or even pressure an existing sovereign state over issues of self-
determination. Generally speaking, this stance by the UN has helped maintain international peace
by establishing the state’s post-colonial borders as a clear and workable template for resolving
interstate disputes. However, the UN’s commitment to non-interference and the principle ofuti
possidetis also means that the UN remains far from being a friend of self-determination as such.
Rather, the UN’s position often ensures that any aspirant self-determination movement’s
demands need to be accepted by existing sovereign state(s) before the international community
can even formally engage with them. Thus, most contemporary self-determination movements
frequently develop an antagonistic, if not outright combative, relationship with the state(s) they
reside in, as the case of Kashmir also ultimately demonstrates. Without some dramatic change of
heart from India, Pakistan or the UN Security Council, the people of Kashmir are unlikely to see
an end to the stalemate or any genuine chance to choose their destiny anytime soon.

Notes [1] Apart for the situation in Kashmir, two of the most notable examples from this period
are the UN General Assembly’s 1947 vote to accept the partitioning of Palestine
(A/RES/181B[II]) and 1950 vote to accept the federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea
(A/REES/390A[V]), over the objections of the Arab and Eritrean populations respectively. [2]
The Article 35 referred to in India’s letter is part of Chapter VI of the UN Charter which
stipulates that the Security Council has the right to investigate any international dispute or
situation likely to endanger international peace (Article 34) and recommends appropriate
procedures or terms to resolve the dispute (Articles 36, 37 and 38).
The Case of UN Involvement in Jammu and Kashmir:

The year 2018 marks the 70th anniversary of the First Indo-Pakistani War over Jammu and
Kashmir (simplified as Kashmir from hereon in) and United Nations (UN) Security Council
Resolution 47. This resolution stipulated that both India and Pakistan should withdraw their
military forces and arrange for a plebiscite to be held in order to provide the people of Kashmir
the choice of which state to join (S/RES/47) Ostensibly this resolution was an effort by the UN
Security Council to put the right to self-determination into practice. Yet I argue that a closer
inspection reveals that the Security Council, by limiting the choice for the people of Kashmir to
accession into either India or Pakistan, and its lackadaisical efforts to implement the plebiscite
the resolution called for, was in fact privileging another norm: the existing sovereign state’s
rights. The basis for this decision is at the heart of the UN Charter itself. Although the UN
Charter famously calls for the ‘equal rights and self-determination of peoples’ in Article 1,
Article 2 also clearly states ‘nothing contained in the present [UN] Charter shall authorise the
UN to intervene in matters that are essentially within the jurisdiction of any state’ (1945, 3). As
the peoples seeking self-determination are inherently within a state, the norm of self-
determination typically finds itself in conflict with the norm of state territorial integrity. The
situation becomes further confused when the people in question occupy a territory that is
contested between two sovereign states, as is the case in Kashmir. The Kashmir situation is far
from unique. Though few other self-determination movements exist within territory actively
disputed between two states, the UN has been consistently reluctant to recognise any self-
determination movements seeking to break from already recognised states. This remains the case
whether the movements have already established a de facto state, such as Somaliland and
Transnistria, or are aspirant independence movements, such as those undertaken by the Tibetans,
Kurds or West Papuans. This chapter is dedicated to illuminating the tension that exists between
the principle of self-determination and the rights of state sovereignty that is inherent within the
UN. In using the case of Jammu and Kashmir, one of the earliest incidences where this
normative clash occurred, this chapter demonstrates that while the UN formerly advocates for
self-determination, it in practice upholds the principle of territorial sovereignty. However, before
we can explore the history and ramifications of the UN Security Council’s actions concerning
Kashmir, we must first define these terms, explore why they are often in conflict with each other
and how the UN has sought to employ them. 

Kashmir and the UN Security Council

WASHINGTON
India’s Ambassador to the United Nations T. S. Tirumurti has asked the Security Council to take
off the "outdated agenda item" of the "India-Pakistan question,'' from the Council.
Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram responded, “Indian representatives
are either deluding themselves, or deluding their public, by asserting that they will remove
Kashmir from the Security Council’s agenda.”
“Indian indulgence into coercive diplomacy has no future. It cannot override the express
commitments of permanent and non-permanent members of UN Security Council,” said Dr.
Syed Nazir Gilani, head of the Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights.
Summary statement by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres of matters of which the Security
Council is seized was issued Jan. 2. Fifty-six items have been considered by the Council at a
formal meeting during the period from Jan. 1, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2019, while 13 were not.
However, all 69 agenda items were identified “as matters of which Security Council was
currently seized,” including “The India-Pakistan Question.”
It is worth mentioning here that an item can be removed from the agenda only in accordance
with the basic rules of procedure governing the function of the Security Council.
The removal can take place if the conflict has been resolved or there is a consensus among all 15
members of the Council to remove a particular agenda item.
In the case of Kashmir, none of these conditions apply. As we know the presence of the United
Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) in Srinagar, the capitol of
Jammu and Kashmir, affirms that the Kashmir dispute is a matter seized by the Council.
India calls the Kashmir dispute an “outdated agenda item.” Much is being made of the fact that
seven decades have passed since the principled solution for Kashmir was formulated by the UN
with almost universal support.
Mere passage of time or the flight from realities cannot alter the fact that these resolutions
remain unimplemented until today. UN resolutions can never become outdated or obsolete, or
overtaken by events or changed circumstances.
The passage of time cannot invalidate an enduring and irreplaceable principle: The right of self-
determination of the people of Kashmir. If passage of time were allowed to extinguish solemn
international agreements, then the United Nations Charter should suffer the same fate as the
resolutions on Kashmir.
If non-implementation were to render an agreement defunct, then the Geneva Convention in the
21st century in many countries is in no better state than these resolutions.
The UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir are not of a routine nature. Their text was
meticulously negotiated between India and Pakistan and it is after each provision was accepted
by the two governments concerned that they were adopted by the Security Council. The assent of
the two governments was conveyed in writing to the Council.
They thus not only embody a solemn international agreement, but have been endorsed repeatedly
by the Council and by successive UN representatives.
They explicitly recognize the right of the people of Kashmir to determine the future status of
their homeland. This right remains unaffected by the non-performance by either side of the
provisions of the resolutions.
The idea that the dispute over the status of Jammu and Kashmir can be settled only in accordance
with the will of the people, which can be ascertained through the democratic method of a free
and impartial plebiscite, was the stand taken by India. It was supported without any dissent by
the Security Council and prominently championed by the US, Britain and other democratic
states.
India’s Ambassador to the UN Sir Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, while presenting his government's
case to the Council on Jan. 15, 1948, stated: "The question … whether she [Kashmir] should
withdraw from her accession to India, and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent with a
right to claim admission as a member of the United Nations - all this we have recognized to be a
matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir."
Mahatma Gandhi is known for his statement that “The will of Kashmiris is the supreme law in
Kashmir."
Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the founding prime minister of India said Nov. 2, 1947: “We have
declared the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have
given not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it.”
Ambassador Warren Austin of the US stated during Security Council meeting 235 on Jan. 24,
1948: “When India accepted the accession of Kashmir, it made its act stand for a great principle
by stating as a part of the acceptance, that it was conditional on fair plebiscite being held to
determine the will of the people of Kashmir with respect to accession. I think an example was
made in history at that point.”
US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated Feb. 5, 1957 that, "We continue to believe that
unless the parties are able to agree upon some other solution, the solution which was
recommended by the Security Council should prevail, which is that there should be a plebiscite.”
India, however, was soon undeceived of its delusions about Kashmir's political yearning.
Recognizing that its people would never freely vote accession to India, it contrived excuse after
excuse to frustrate a plebiscite. When the UN proposed arbitration, a reference to the World
Court, or any other method of resolving minor demilitarization quarrels, India nixed them all.
After a few years, it dropped all pretense of acceding to a referendum by unilaterally proclaiming
its annexation of Kashmir. And Aug. 5, 2019, in violation of all international agreements, India
abrogated Article 370 and 35A. India's proclamation has never been accepted by the UN, which
continues to list Kashmir as disputed territory and subject to the Security Council's self-
determination resolutions.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir are thankful to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for
stating the principled position that the Kashmir conflict should be resolved under the UN Charter
and applicable to UN Security Council resolutions.
He has been consistent in urging India and Pakistan to initiate a process leading to a resolution of
the Kashmir problem and to avail of his assistance toward that end. Until now, India has made no
constructive response to this offer, instead India has cautioned the secretary- general not to
interfere in her “internal matters.”
The secretary-general is empowered by the Charter of the United Nations to bring a matter of
this nature to the attention of the Security Council. We fully realize, however, that, in the present
circumstances and, given the policies and attitudes of the permanent members, this right and
power of the secretary-general might advisably be held in reserve.
Short of invoking Article 99, the secretary-general could help turn the situation towards a
cessation of human rights violations and beginning of a dialogue among the three parties – the
people of Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan – by sending a special envoy to the region to
explore all possible options to settle the Kashmir dispute to the satisfaction of all parties
concerned.
Such a mission could visit all parts of Jammu and Kashmir as well as the capitals of India and
Pakistan, and verify the truth of allegations from either side. The matter is much too urgent to be
relegated to the routine mechanism of the Human Rights Council and various bodies established
to monitor various conventions.
The secretary-general should also alert the P5 – China, France, Russia, UK and US -- that the
existing confrontation between India and China, and constant hostilities between India and
Pakistan – all nuclear powers and share borders with Kashmir – will lead the whole region to
nuclear catastrophe with immense consequences for the whole world if the Kashmir conflict
remains unresolved.
We trust that world powers in general, and the United Nations in particular, will bring immense
moral and political influence to bear on initiating a peace process which will lead to a speedy,
just and honorable settlement of the dispute and restore to the people of Kashmir their
inalienable right to self-determination.

Latest clampdown in occupied Kashmir:

The latest clampdown in occupied Kashmir by the Indian government that started on August 5,
2019 completes one year today, with life far from normal for 12.5 million Kashmiris. As the year
passed and international pressure mounted to restore freedoms, Indian authorities claimed they
had 'eased' some restrictions, such as lifting roadblocks and restoring landlines and some mobile
phone services. Life, however, remains hard in occupied Kashmir, with hundreds of checkpoints
still in place and internet coverage patchy and slow. The economic effect has been dire while
coronavirus lockdown measures have only added to the hardship. Security operations against
Kashmiri fighters have accelerated, putting 2020 on course to be one of the bloodiest years for
some time. According to a rights group report in July, Indian-occupied Kashmir had seen at least
229 killings during more than 100 military operations since January. It also saw 55 internet
shutdowns and the destruction of 48 structures, the report by the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition
of Civil Society said. India has also granted tens of thousands of people from outside the region
the same rights as Kashmiris, meaning they can now buy land for the first time — a move critics
and residents say is an attempt to change the demographic makeup of the region.

AUGUST:
Aug 3: Tourists flee, troop buildup creates panic:
Thousands of tourists and students scrambled to get places on planes and buses leaving Indian-
occupied Kashmir after the Indian government warned of the threat of “terror” attacks. Panic
gripped occupied Kashmir since late July after India announced deploying at least 10,000 more
soldiers to one of the world's highest militarized areas.
Aug 5: India revokes Article 370 through rushed presidential decree:
With an indefinite security lockdown in Indian-occupied Kashmir (IoK) and elected
representatives under house arrest, India's ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) stripped Kashmiris
of the special autonomy they had for seven decades through a rushed presidential order.
By repealing Article 370 of the constitution, people from the rest of India will now have the right
to acquire property in occupied Kashmir and settle there permanently. Kashmiris as well as
critics of India’s Hindu nationalist-led government see the move as an attempt to dilute the
demographics of Muslim-majority Kashmir with Hindu settlers.
Aug 8: 500 arrested, clampdown challenged in Supreme Court
Indian security forces arrested more than 500 people since August 5, it emerged.

Police taking an activist of Jammu and Kashmir Youth Congress into custody during a protest
against the Indian government on Aug 10. — AFP
A petition was filed in India's top court challenging the lockdown by opposition Congress party
activist Tahseen Poonawalla, seeking immediate lifting of curfew and other restrictions,
including blocking of phone lines, internet and news channels in Kashmir.
He also sought the immediate release of Kashmiri leaders who have been detained, including
Omar Abdullah and Mehboob Mufti.

Aug 9: Thousands protest over new status despite clampdown

Indian police used tear gas and pellets to fight back at least 10,000 people protesting Delhi's
withdrawal of special rights for Jammu and Kashmir in its main city of Srinagar.
The crowd was pushed back by police at Aiwa bridge, where a witness said tear gas and pellets
were used against them. “Some women and children even jumped into the water,” a witness said
at Srinagar’s Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, where pellet victims were admitted.
“They (police) attacked us from two sides,” another witness said.

Aug 14, 15: Pakistan observes 'Kashmir Solidarity Day', 'Black Day'
Pakistan observed Independence Day as 'Kashmir Solidarity Day' to express solidarity with
Kashmiris and highlight their plight. Prime Minister Imran Khan, while addressing a special
session of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly on August 14, warned Indian
premier Narendra Modi that any action by India in Pakistan would be countered with a stronger
response.
August 15, India's Independence Day, was observed as Black Day across Pakistan. Prime
Minister Imran warned that should ethnically cleanse of Muslims take place in the region, there
would be severe repercussions in the Muslim world.

Aug 16: UNSC Kashmir moot gives lie to Indian claim

For the first time since 1965, the UN Security Council (UNSC) held a meeting exclusively on
occupied Jammu and Kashmir, nullifying India’s claim that this was an internal matter.
Although the council did not agree on a statement, China’s UN Ambassador Zhang Jun summed
up the discussions, expressing serious concern over the situation.
“The UNSC members are concerned about the human rights situation there and they (want) the
parties concerned to refrain from taking any unilateral action that might further aggravate the
tension there since the situation is already very tense and very dangerous,” he said.
Aug 18: Thousands detained since India took away autonomy
A magistrate, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said that since August 5, at
least 4,000 people were arrested and held under the Public Safety Act (PSA), a controversial law
that allows authorities to imprison someone for up to two years without charge or trial.
“Most of them were flown out of Kashmir because prisons here have run out of capacity,” the
magistrate said, adding that he had used a satellite phone allocated to him to collate the figures
from colleagues across the Himalayan territory amid a communications blackout imposed by
authorities.

Aug 23: Kashmiris defy curbs, clash with Indian forces

Occupation forces used tear gas against stone-throwing residents in Srinagar, after a third
straight week of protests in the restive Soura district despite the imposition of tight restrictions.

Kashmiri residents throw stones towards Indian security forces during restrictions in Srinagar. —
Reuters
“We are neither safe at home, nor outside,” said Rouf, who declined to give his full name. He
had rubbed salt into his face to counteract the effects of tear gas.
Police tried to enter Soura, which has emerged as a centre of the protests, as hundreds of locals
staged a protest march against Modi’s decision to withdraw autonomy. Posters appeared
overnight in Srinagar, calling for a march to the office of the UN Military Observer Group for
India and Pakistan, to protest against India’s decision.
Aug 26: India stops politicians from visiting occupied Kashmir
Indian authorities defended blocking opposition politicians from visiting occupied Kashmir,
saying it was to "avoid controversy", as the crippling security lockdown entered its fourth week.
The administration of occupied Kashmir sent back a delegation of India’s top opposition leaders,
including former Congress president Rahul Gandhi, shortly after they landed in Srinagar.
Afterwards, Rahul Gandhi said that he had experienced firsthand "the draconian administration
and brute force unleashed on the Jammu & Kashmir people".

Aug 30: Stories of torture emerge, India tries to portray 'normalcy'

People in occupied Kashmir accused Indian security forces of carrying out beatings and torture
in the wake of the government's decision to strip the region of its autonomy, BBC News reported,
as India tried to portray "calm, normalcy" in the region.
The BBC heard from several villagers who said they were beaten with sticks and cables, and
given electric shocks. The author of the article, journalist Sameer Hashmi, wrote that residents in
several villages showed him injuries. "Doctors and health officials are unwilling to speak to
journalists about any patients regardless of ailments, but the villagers showed me injuries alleged
to have been inflicted by security forces," he said.

SEPTEMBER:

Sep 3: Thousands march to Indian High Commission in London as lockdown enters 30th
day
Thousands of protesters took out a rally in London to express solidarity with the people of
Indian-occupied Kashmir, as a crippling lockdown entered its 30th day.
A boy attending the protest holds a placard that describes Narendra Modi as another Hitler. —
Dawn
More than 5,000 protesters assembled at Parliament Square in the British capital and marched to
the Indian High Commission to protest Kashmiris' oppression at the hands of Indian security
forces. Protesters carrying placards and waving Kashmir flags chanted slogans of "Terrorist
terrorist, Modi is a terrorist!" and "Hum chheen kay lain gay — azaadi!" (We will take by force
— freedom!).
Sep 5: Amnesty International launches 'urgent campaign' to end blackout
Amnesty International India launched a global campaign in a bid to highlight the human cost of
the month-long lockdown in occupied Kashmir.
"The draconian communication blackout in [occupied] Kashmir is an outrageous protracted
assault on the civil liberties of the people of Kashmir," read a press release by the human rights
watchdog.
"In response to this indefinite communication blackout, Amnesty International India has
launched the campaign #LetKashmirSpeak on 5 September, 2019 – which marks a month of the
communications blackout, to ask for immediate lifting of the lockdown," stated Amnesty
International India.
Sep 15: Number of protests held since Aug 5 more than 700
A senior government source said since August 5, an average of 20 protests per day took place in
occupied Kashmir against Indian rule. Despite a curfew, restrictions on movement and the severe
curtailment of internet and mobile phone services, public demonstrations against India — mostly
in the largest city Srinagar — have been constant, the official said.
Altogether 722 protests were recorded since August 5, with Baramulla district in the northwest
and Pulwama in the south the biggest hotspots after Srinagar, the source said.
Sep 21: Lockdown puts economy in tailspin
In one of the world’s largest apple growing regions, the lockdown cut transport links with buyers
in India and abroad, plunging the industry into turmoil. Despite being harvest time, the market in
the northern Kashmiri town of Sopore — usually packed with people, trucks and produce at this
time of year — remained empty, while in orchards across occupied Jammu and Kashmir
unpicked apples rot on the branch.
Sep 28: Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia speak up for Kashmiris at UNGA
Prime Minister Imran arrived in the United States for a week of global diplomacy, with his trip
dubbed 'Mission Kashmir'. The highlight of his more than 45-minute-long speech at the 74th
session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York was intense criticism of India for
its annexation of occupied Kashmir and the continued restrictions imposed in the region.

Mohammad Siddiq, 70, said he was wounded when an Indian police man fired a pellet gun at
him while returning home from a mosque, badly damaging his left eye. — AP
"(Nearly) 100,000 Kashmiris have died in the past 30 years because they were denied their right
of self-determination. Eleven thousand women were raped. The world hasn't done anything," he
said. "What is going to happen will be a blood bath. The people will come out."
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the forum said said despite UN resolutions, the
territory had been invaded and occupied. In his address, Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan criticized the international community for failing to pay attention to the Kashmir
conflict, which, he said, awaits solution for 72 years.

OCTOBER:

Oct 1: 9-year-old among 144 minors detained

A police list seen by AFP showed that Indian authorities in occupied Kashmir had detained 144
minors, including a nine-year-old, since the government removed the region's special status in
August.
Sixty of the minors were under 15, according to the document submitted to a committee
appointed by India's Supreme Court to look into allegations of illegal detentions. Reasons given
by the police for detaining the minors included stone pelting, rioting and causing damage to
public and private property, the committee said in its report.

Oct 3: Lockdown and communications clampdown in effect for 2 months

The lockdown and communications blackout in occupied Kashmir entered its 60th day on Oct
3 as millions remained isolated from the world and concerns were raised about lack of medical
supplies in the area.
Scores of British Kashmiris in London gathered at Parliament Square. — AP
Scores of British Kashmiris in London gathered at Parliament Square for a candlelight vigil to
mark two months from the date that the Indian government revoked Article 370.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Imran cautioned people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) against
crossing the Line of Control to support the struggle of the residents of occupied Kashmir.
Oct 6: Kashmiri party delegation meets detained leadership after 2 months
The Indian administration granted permission to a delegation from the National Conference party
to meet their top two leaders. The meeting with party President Farooq Abdullah and Vice
President Omar Abdullah took place in Srinagar.
National Conference spokesperson Madan Mantoo told Press Trust of India that the Indian
government granted permission after provincial head Devender Singh Rana made a request to
Satya Pal Malik, occupied Jammu and Kashmir’s governor.

Oct 10: India decides to lift travel advisory while residents continue to live under lockdown
India will lift a travel advisory on occupied Kashmir, said authorities. "The governor [Satya Pal
Malik] directed that the Home Department's advisory asking tourists to leave the Valley be lifted
immediately. This will be done with effect from October 10," an official spokesman was quoted
as saying by India Today.
Authorities also released three low-level politicians, Yawar Mir, Noor Mohammed and Shoaib
Lone, in occupied Kashmir amid international pressure to ease clampdown.
Oct 15: Farooq Abdullah's sister, daughter detained for holding 'anti-India protest'
Police detained at least 12 women, including the sister and daughter of former occupied Jammu
and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah, for holding an anti-India protest.
Kashmiri women argue with an Indian police officer after they were stopped from staging a
protest in Srinagar. ─ AP
The women, carrying placards reading “Respect Fundamental Rights” and “Why downgrade
Jammu and Kashmir,” assembled in a park in Srinagar. Police whisked them away to a nearby
police station as they tried to march through the main business area of Lal Chowk.
Oct 24: India holds village council polls despite lockdown, boycott by parties
Village council elections were held across occupied Kashmir, with the detention of many
mainstream local politicians and a boycott by most parties prompting expectations that the polls
would install supporters of BJP.
Indian officials hoped the election of leaders of more than 300 local councils would lend
credibility amid a political vacuum and contended they would represent local interests better than
corrupt state-level political officials.
Heavy contingents of police and paramilitary soldiers guarded polling stations across the region.
At some places, soldiers patrolled streets around polling stations. Police said no violence was
reported.
Oct 29: Far-right Euro MPs visit occupied Kashmir as UN body demands full restoration
of human rights
Nearly 30 Euro MPs, drawn mainly from extreme right-wing parties, were the first international
delegation to visit occupied Kashmir since authorities imposed a security clampdown in August
to back the ending of the region's autonomy. While the Indian government backed the visit, the
European parliament and European Union hierarchy were not involved, raising some diplomatic
doubts.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), meanwhile, expressed
"extreme concern" over human rights abuses in occupied Kashmir and asked the Indian
authorities to "fully restore" human rights in the occupied territory.
The human rights body also criticised the Indian judiciary over the way it is dealing with the
situation in occupied Kashmir. "The Supreme Court of India has been slow to deal with petitions
concerning habeas corpus, freedom of movement and media restrictions," it said.
Oct 31: Occupied Kashmir officially loses special status and is divided
Shops and offices were shut in occupied Kashmir and the streets largely deserted as federal
authorities formally revoked the restive area’s constitutional autonomy and split it into two
federal territories.

An Indian soldier stands guard as the Indian flag flies atop the government secretariat in Srinagar
on Oct 31. —AP
Just after midnight on Oct 30, the federal government’s orders went into effect, dividing up
occupied Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories; one Jammu and Kashmir, and the other
the Buddhist-dominated high altitude region of Ladakh. “Everything changes on Thursday,” said
a retired Kashmiri judge, Hasnain Masoodi, a member of India’s Parliament. “The entire exercise
is unconstitutional. The mode and methodology have been undemocratic. People were
humiliated and never consulted.”

NOVEMBER:

Nov 3: Pakistan rejects new maps by India

On November 2, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification detailing the
boundaries of the so-called union territories of occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and
also issued a new political map of India.
The new map showed areas under AJK inside Ladakh, and not in Jammu and Kashmir as
depicted earlier.
A day later, as the lockdown hit the 90-day mark, Pakistan rejected the political maps of India,
saying the maps issued by India were "incorrect, legally untenable, void and in complete
violation of the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions".
A day later, at least one person was killed and 17 wounded in a grenade blast at a crowded
market in Srinagar. 18 people were also injured.
Nov 12: Occupied Kashmir marks 100 days of annexation
Dozens of journalists held a silent demonstration against the internet blackout, holding their
laptops with blank screens or placards with the words “100 days no internet” and “stop
humiliating Kashmir journalists”.

Kashmiri journalists protest against internet blockade put by India's government in Srinagar. —
AFP
Authorities justified the ban as necessary to ‘‘stop fighters from neighboring Pakistan from using
internet to fan radicalization’’ in occupied Kashmir. They instead set up an office with 10
internet-enabled stations for around 200 working journalists, who queue up to use the computers
for 15 minutes each.
The very next day, the Congressional Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a hearing to
“examine the human rights situation in the former state of Jammu and Kashmir in India in
historical and national context”.
“We have concerns about Kashmir, and we are watching the situation very closely,” said Eliot L.
Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as another congressional panel
reviewed the consequences of India’s decision to revoke the valley’s special status.
Pakistan lauded the US commission for becoming the voice of Kashmiris "brutally silenced by
India".
Nov 17: Ex Indian army official faces backlash for remarks advocating rape, death in
Kashmir
President Arif Alvi termed the remarks of a former Indian army official advocating the rape of
Kashmiri women as "disgraceful". "Imagine the fate of women in Indian occupied Kashmir
where such men wield power with total impunity," he added.
In a tweet, the president condemned the comments made by retired Major General SP Sinha on a
TV show on Hindi news channel TV9 Bharatvarsh, in India, in which he can be heard saying:
"Death in return for death, rape in return for rape."
Pakistan also rejected the “unfounded remarks” made by the Indian external affairs minister in
an interview with a French newspaper and during his interaction with certain other media outlets
that the “situation is back to normal” in Kashmir.
Nov 25: Indian team barred from going outside Srinagar
In a stark indication that the situation in occupied Kashmir is far from normal, a delegation of
civil society activists from India was stopped by police from going outside Srinagar.
The Times of India reported that for the second consecutive day, the five-member delegation led
by former Union minister Yashwant Sinha was not allowed to go out of the main city of
occupied Kashmir.

DECEMBER:
Dec 7: Resolution in US Congress seeks end to repression
A bipartisan resolution moved in the US Congress urged India to end the restrictions on
communications and mass detentions in occupied Kashmir as swiftly as possible and preserve
religious freedom for all residents.
Resolution 745 was jointly moved by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat, and
Congressman Steve Watkins, a Republican. Born in Madras (Chennai), Jayapal is the first
Indian-American woman to serve in the US House of Representatives.
The movers rejected arbitrary detention, use of excessive force against civilians, and suppression
of peaceful expression of dissent as proportional responses to security challenges.
A lock is seen on the entrance gate of grand Jamia Masjid, the main mosque in Srinagar. — AP
A day later, a four-member delegation of human rights activists from Canada after meeting
Mushaal Hussein Mullick, the wife of imprisoned Kashmiri leader Mohammad Yasin
Malik, vowed to raise their voice against excesses being committed by India in occupied
Kashmir.
Dec 10: Imran urges global community to act
In his message on global Human Rights Day, Prime Minister Imran Khan appealed to the
international community to act against the "illegal annexation" of occupied Kashmir by the
Indian government.
"On Human Rights Day, we must appeal to the world's conscience, to upholders of international
law [and] to the UNSC to act against the illegal annexation of IOJK by the Indian occupation
government," he said in a tweet.
That day, India was set to allow some incoming text messages into Kashmir, officials said, four
months after they were first blocked when New Delhi moved to strip the region's autonomy.
They will still be unable to send messages, the officials said.
Dec 20: Indian FM cancels meeting with US lawmakers over Kashmir criticism
Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar cancelled a meeting with senior
members of the United State's Congress this week over Kashmir criticisms, the Washington
Post reported.
According to the report, US lawmakers had refused demands to exclude from the meeting a
congresswoman, Pramila Jayapal, who had criticised the Indian government's actions and
policies in the occupied valley.
“It’s wrong for any foreign government to tell Congress what members are allowed in meetings
on Capitol Hill,” said Senator Kamala Harris when India’s External Affairs Minister S.
Jaishankar refused to attend a meeting with American lawmakers because Congresswoman
Pramila Jayapal was also on the guestlist.
Dec 31: India to restore text messaging services in occupied Kashmir
Authorities in occupied Kashmir announced they will restore text messaging services in the
disputed region, almost five months after the security and communications lockdown. Local
government spokesman Rohit Kansal said the decision was made after a review of the situation.
He said broadband internet services in government-run hospitals will also be restored.

JANUARY, 2020:

Jan 2: Text messaging services partially restored, clampdown crosses 150 days
Contrary to earlier claims, authorities in occupied Kashmir only partially restored text messaging
services for the residents of the valley almost five months after India revoked the region's special
autonomy, First Post reported.
The region's top administrative official, Baseer Khan, confirmed that text messaging services
were only restored for the users of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Meanwhile, an Airtel official
stated that the order to restore services was "under implementation", the report added.
The partial restoration of text messaging services angered citizens who mourned the fact that
they were unable it get in touch with their loved ones as the new year rolled in, added the
publication.

Jan 9: EU diplomats reject Indian invitation of 'guided tour' to occupied Kashmir

Ambassadors from European countries rejected India's invitation for a two-day visit to occupied
Kashmir, seeking instead the "freedom to meet the people unescorted", several Indian media
outlets reported.
According to Associated Press, envoys from 15 countries including the United States visited
occupied Kashmir for two days.
Quoting diplomatic sources, The Hindu reported that diplomats from EU had decided not to
accept the invitation and asked for "more freedom to travel and meet people unescorted".
Consequently, the Indian government decided to organise a separate visit for the European
envoys at a later date, the report added.
Jan 10: India's Supreme Court terms internet shutdown in occupied Kashmir
'unconstitutional'
India's Supreme Court, while hearing petitions challenging the restrictions on movement and
communication imposed in occupied Kashmir, said that freedom of internet is a fundamental
right and ordered the administration to review all restrictive orders.
In a rebuke for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government, the court termed shutting
down the internet "unconstitutional". “Freedom of speech and expression includes right to
internet within Article 19 of the constitution. So the restrictions on internet has to follow the
principles of proportionality under Article 19(2),” said the Supreme Court bench, according
to Hindustan Times.
The court observed that internet suspension without “any particular duration and indefinitely” is
a violation of telecom rules, reported The Wire.
Jan 16: UN Security Council reviews situation in occupied Kashmir
The United Nations Security Council held a meeting on Jammu and Kashmir and reviewed the
situation in the occupied valley.
Although the meeting took place behind closed doors, Chinese Ambassador Zhang Jun spoke to
journalists outside the chamber, confirming that the council had reviewed the situation in the
occupied valley.
“We had a meeting on Jammu and Kashmir,” he said. “The Security Council heard a briefing
from the secretariat on the situation.”
Asked what China’s position on the situation in Kashmir was, he said: “Our position is very
clear.”
China recognizes Kashmir as a territory disputed between India and Pakistan and openly
supports Islamabad’s demand for a plebiscite to enable the Kashmiri people to decide their own
future.

Jan 27: Protest outside Indian mission in London on republic day

Kashmiri and Sikh protesters line the pavement to protest outside the Indian mission on Sunday.
— Dawn
Hundreds of Sikh and Kashmiri protesters observed a black day by gathering outside the Indian
High Commission as India marked its Republic Day.
Demonstrators from across London as well as Birmingham and other cities traveled to Aldwych
on coaches and buses, carrying placards and banners calling out the Narendra Modi-led Indian
government’s atrocities in held Kashmir.
The groups said the Indian government’s celebration of Republic Day is hypocritical as it
continues to impose a curfew and communications blackout in the occupied territory to suppress
dissent.

February:

Feb 5: India's clampdown in occupied Kashmir crosses 6 months

As India's clampdown crossed six months, Pakistanis came out in droves on streets and avenues
across the country to observe Kashmir Solidarity Day.
Prime Minister Imran addressed a special session of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK)
Legislative Assembly on the day, and said Modi’s annexation of occupied Kashmir would
eventually lead to its independence.
Feb 6: India extends detention of ex-chief ministers of occupied Kashmir under 'draconian'
law
India extended the detention of four political leaders in occupied Kashmir, including former
chief ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehboob Mufti.
The detention order was issued under the draconian Public Safety Act, which allows detention
without charges for up to two years, officials in Srinagar told Reuters. The officials said the
detained include Abdullah, Mufti and regional party leaders Ali Mohmmad Sagar and Sartaj
Madni.
Feb 14: US senators call for assessment of rights situation in occupied Kashmir
Four key US senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting an assessment
of human rights situation in India-occupied Kashmir and of the rights of religious minorities in
India, it emerged.
The letter was released to the media days before Donald Trump’s Feb 23-26 visit to India, his
first as the US president.
“India has now imposed the longest-ever internet shut down by a democracy, disrupting access
to medical care, business, and education for seven million people. Hundreds of Kashmiris remain
in ‘preventive detention’, including key political figures,” wrote the senators.
Meanwhile, India announced plans to offer around 6,000 acres of land in occupied Kashmir as
part of a business summit planned for April or May “to help” the disputed region after
withdrawing its special rights and making sweeping administrative changes.
Feb 19: India cracks down on use of VPNs in occupied Kashmir to get around social media
ban
At hospitals and universities, only administrative staff can use broadband, leaving doctors unable
to access research. — AFP
Authorities in occupied Kashmir started cracking down on virtual private network (VPN)
applications used to circumvent a months-long ban on social media, police said. With social
networks such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram still blocked, residents used VPNs or
proxy servers to bypass the restrictions.
Police said many VPN users were trying to stir trouble and were liable to face action.
“We have identified 100 social media users and are in the process of identifying more users for
misuse of social media, for disseminating fake and false secessionist, anti-India propaganda,”
said the cyber police chief Tahir Ashraf.
Feb 25: Trump during New Delhi visit reiterates offer to mediate on Kashmir
US President Donald Trump, while addressing a press conference in the Indian capital on the last
day of his two-day visit, reiterated his earlier offer to mediate between India and Pakistan on
Kashmir.
"They [Pakistan] are working on Kashmir. Kashmir has been a thorn in lots of people's sides for
a long time. There are two sides to every story. We discussed terrorism at length today," he said,
following his meeting with Modi.
"Kashmir obviously is a big problem between India and Pakistan, they are going to work out
their problem. They have been doing it for a long time."
Trump, however, made no statement regarding the lockdown in India-occupied Kashmir during
his visit.

March:

March 4: Ban on access to social media lifted but other internet restrictions remain
Authorities in occupied Kashmir lifted the ban on access to social media websites, India
Today reported, saying that people in the region would be allowed unrestricted 2G internet
access. Internet services would also be available on landline connections but the permission
would be granted after verification, the report added.
Meanwhile, Reuters reported that the speed restrictions on mobile internet access would remain
in place.
March 19: Pakistan asks India to lift blockade to curb spread of coronavirus
The first case of Covid-19 was detected in occupied Jammu and Kashmir on March 18.
Pakistan called on India to lift the communication blockade and ensure supplies of essential
commodities in the valley to contain the spread of Covid-19 and mitigate the suffering of
Kashmiris.
The Foreign Office spokesperson said that because of the continuing lockdown, Kashmiris were
being deprived of their fundamental freedoms; their right to liberty, health, education and food.

April:

April 1: India issues new domicile law for occupied Kashmir

The government issued new domicile rules about eight months after the abrogation of Article
370, which meant that a person who has resided in Jammu and Kashmir for 15 years will now be
able to call the occupied territory his or her place of domicile.
Prior to this, 35A of the Constitution of J&K empowered it to define a resident. A person will
also be deemed domiciled if he/she is registered as migrant by the relief and rehabilitation
commissioner in the union territory.
April 9: Pakistan 'deeply concerned' over lack of medical supplies in occupied Kashmir
Foreign Office spokesperson Aisha Farooqui said Pakistan was "deeply concerned" at the lack of
medical supplies and assistance in occupied Kashmir where 170 cases of Covid-19 and five
fatalities from the disease had been reported by April 9.
A day earlier, six international human rights organisations issued a joint statement demanding
India release political detainees and restore high-speed internet in occupied Kashmir.
Although the statement was issued in the backdrop of aggravating coronavirus pandemic in
India, it was emphasised by the issuing groups that the concerns raised by them relating to
torture, ill-treatment, or arbitrarily depriving people of their liberty were not limited to the
Covid-19 pandemic.

May:

May 3: Security men, Kashmiri fighters killed in occupied valley

Five Indian security personnel and four suspected Kashmiri fighters were killed in two gunfights
in occupied Kashmir, officials said on May 3.
Shortly after, hundreds of Indian soldiers launched an operation late after receiving intelligence
that Hizbul Mujahideen commander Riyaz Naikoo was hiding in a village in south Kashmir's
Pulwama district. They killed four Kashmiri fighters in gun battles, including Naikoo, the
commander of the biggest separatist group fighting New Delhi in the disputed Himalayan region.
Authorities also disabled mobile internet across the Kashmir region to forestall large crowds
from gathering in the streets to mourn his killing.
May 13: Clashes erupt in occupied Kashmir after young man killed
Indian soldiers fatally shot a young man at a checkpoint in occupied Kashmir, residents and
officials said, triggering anti-India protests and clashes in the disputed Himalayan region.
As news of his death spread in his village, hundreds of men and women began chanting “Go
India, go back” and “We want freedom” and demanded that the victim’s body be returned to the
family for burial. Authorities did not immediately hand over the body.

June:

June 2: World urged to intervene over killings in Kashmir

Pakistan's Foreign Office urged the world to intervene over killings and human rights abuses in
occupied Kashmir by Indian forces.
“The international community must take immediate steps to stop India from committing serious
crimes against the Kashmiri people and hold it accountable under international law and relevant
human rights conventions,” the FO said in a reaction to the killing of 13 Kashmiris.
“Pakistan is deeply concerned over unabated extra-judicial killings of Kashmiri youth in fake
encounters and so-called ‘anti-infiltration’ operations,” the FO statement said, adding that killing
of 13 Kashmiris in a single day spoke about Indian cruelties in the valley.

July:

July 2: Protests after Indian troops kill elderly man travelling with 3-year-old grandson
Relatives of civilian Bashir Ahmed Khan shout slogans as they grieve inside his residence on the
outskirts of Srinagar on July 1. — AP
Hundreds of people in occupied Kashmir staged protests, accusing government forces of killing
an elderly man in front of his minor grandson during a gun battle with Kashmiri fighters, which
also left a trooper dead.
The Kashmiri fighters opened fire from a mosque attic in the northern town of Sopore, setting off
a battle with security forces, paramilitary police spokesperson Junaid Khan told AFP.
The family of Bashir Ahmed Khan said that he was dragged out of his car after the showdown
and shot dead by paramilitary troopers.
His three-year-old grandson, who was travelling with him, was later pictured sitting on his chest.
July 9: UN officials seek probe into torture, custodial deaths of Muslims in occupied
Kashmir
Four UN special rapporteurs have asked the Indian government to investigate the alleged torture
and custodial killings of several Muslim men since January 2019, it emerged in July.
A report was sent to the Indian government over “the continued deterioration of human rights
conditions” in occupied Kashmir, documenting several cases of “arbitrary detentions, violations
to the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and rights of persons belonging to minorities".
“We remain deeply concerned about the ongoing human rights violations,” said the report shared
on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHCR) website.
They called on New Delhi “to conduct an impartial investigation into all the allegations of
arbitrary killings, torture and ill-treatment and to prosecute suspected perpetrators.”
August

August 2: One year on, India's lockdowns ruin occupied Kashmir's economy
A Kashmiri houseboat owner Ghulam Qadir shows his guest entry book which was last filled in
July 2019, in Srinagar, July 28. — AP
“We’ve not earned a single penny for a year now,” said Ghulam Qadir Ota, a houseboat owner.
“All we have are these boats. We don’t have any other means to earn.”
When India suddenly scrapped disputed Kashmir's semi-autonomous status in August 2019,
followed by an unprecedented security clampdown, economic ruin ensued.
“It was not just a political change. It destroyed our livelihood,” said Abdul Rashid, 60, who has
now turned to growing vegetables to feed his family.
The Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries has pegged the economic loses in the region
at $5.3 billion and about half a million jobs lost since August last year.

Pakistan’s Kashmir Policy Post-Article 370:

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has been no different than his predecessors with regard to
Kashmir policy, as his government both uses bilateral talks and raises the issue internationally.
However, India’s move to abrogate the special status of the Kashmir Valley last August, which
observers expect to result in demographic changes in the valley, has been significant. It was the
first occasion where India made a unilateral move disregarding earlier agreements, resulting in
the failure of bilateral talks.
The conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir dates back to 1947 when the British
withdrew from the subcontinent and the colonial empire divided into two nation states. Kashmir
acceded to India after an attack from tribal invaders. However, Pakistan views Kashmir as an
integral part of its territory, owing to the strategic location and the valley’s Islamic identity.
Since then, the territory has been disputed between India and Pakistan, with bilateral talks at
times but, often, a militaristic approach to resolving the issue.
The historic Simla Agreement signed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan in July 1972 established that the matter should be solved
bilaterally. That principle was followed through various successive agreements between Indian
and Pakistani leaders. The two parties were closest to an agreement at the Lahore Declaration in
February 1999, under Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his Pakistani counterpart,
Nawaz Sharif. However, the results turned sour after conflict broke out in Kargil in May 1999.
The two sides met multiple times after the war, but failed to reach a consensus each time.
Furthermore, militancy and the outbreak of violence has complicated the issue even more.
Pakistan’s Kashmir policy in the last decade has been reactionary, largely responding to India’s
moves in the subcontinent. This characteristic was observed during the violent protests following
the killing of Kashmiri militant leader Burhan Wani in 2016 by Indian soldiers. Following
Wani’s death, violent protests ramped up; 90 civilians lost their live and over 2,300 were injured.
Showing solidarity with the militant leader, then-Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif called
Burhan Wani a “martyr” and said July 19 will be observed in Pakistan as “Black Day” to express
solidarity with the people of Kashmir.
Speaking in 2015 on a TV interview, Khan had said that Kashmir is a core issue and needs to be
resolved through dialogue with India. Khan added that he wanted to have good ties with India
and trade relations. Khan’s passive tone on Kashmir was evident during the elections in 2018,
where the disputer remained a non-issue. Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) chose to
ignore the issue of Kashmir in the election manifesto. Even the opposition Pakistan People’s
Party, which had vowed to make Kashmir part of Pakistan, ignored Kashmir during the election.
A few months after winning the election, Khan notched a diplomatic achievement with the
inauguration of the Kartarpur corridor, allowing pilgrimages for the Indian Sikh community to
Kartarpur in Pakistan. But the goodwill was soon overshadowed by a terror attack in Kashmir.
On February 14, 2019, a terrorist attack on a convoy of Indian security forces killed around 40
soldiers in Kashmir. The suicide bombing, believed to be carried out by Pakistan-backed forces,
led the two countries to the brink of war. A few days later, India carried out a preemptive strike
in Pakistan territory on targets which India believed to be terrorist outfits; Pakistan retaliated.
A few months later, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was re-elected with a huge mandate.
The larger campaign of the ruling party centered around the terror attack believed to be
orchestrated in Pakistan. Soon after the election, the Indian government carried out its long-
awaited ambitious project in Kashmir: scrapping Article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution,
which gave special status to Kashmir. The amendment brought changes to land ownership rights
and preferential treatment for the people of the state in jobs and education.
Imran Khan immediately called the move illegal and a violation of the UNSC resolutions on
Kashmir and the Shimla Agreement between the two countries. In an article for the New York
Times, Khan called the move an illegal annexation of Kashmir and warned of a nuclear shadow
looming over the world. Still, Khan, like his predecessors, maintained that the issue can be
resolved through dialogue and negotiations between the two parties.
After the abrogation of Kashmir’s special status, however, Pakistan had more support. Initial
solidarity came from China, which said that it would support Pakistan in “issues related to its
core interests.” Turkey and Malaysia also supported Pakistan on Kashmir. The Organization of
Islamic Cooperation also called for the peaceful resolution of the issue and maintained that
Kashmir remained one of the OIC’s topmost agenda items. But the diplomatic success was short
lived. Saudi Arabia maintained neutrality over the Kashmir issue and backed India on cross-
border terror during Modi’s visit to Riyadh in October 2019. The UAE too has described the
decision to scrap Article 370 as India’s internal matter. Moreover, four permanent members of
the UN Security Council – the United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom —
rejected the Chinese proposal for the council to take up the Kashmir issue.
The case of the United States is particularly interesting. U.S. President Donald Trump has time
and again mentioned that he is willing to mediate between the two countries if they wanted it.
India has been clear that it does not want U.S. meddling in the Kashmir issue, while Pakistan
continues to bring up the possibility. The U.S. State Department had earlier issued a balanced
statement in August 2019, stating India’s insistence that the scrapping of Article 370 was India’s
internal matter. Analysts believe that India has replaced Pakistan as the United States’ strategic
partner, while Islamabad remains a tactical partner in the subcontinent.
Meanwhile, China is an increasingly important player in the subcontinent, and considers Pakistan
as “all-weather friend.” The ambitious China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) also has a
strong stake in Kashmir, as it passes through the Pakistan-administered part of the valley. Some
analysts have also claimed that the Kashmir issue provided the catalyst for the recent standoff at
the Galwan Valley between China and India.
A year since India’s move in Kashmir, Imran Khan has failed to the resolve the issue with
bilateral talks. The bid to internationalize the issue hasn’t gone far, either, thanks to setbacks
from Pakistan’s previous track record of harboring terrorism. However, the recent developments
in the subcontinent, especially the India-China standoff, have been positive signifiers for
Pakistan’s goal of maintaining the status quo in its Kashmir policy.

India’s brutality in occupied Kashmir has to be stopped, but by whom?

Today marks a year since New Delhi revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution that had granted
special status to Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir since its partition in 1947. Fearing a protest by
Kashmiris who consider Aug. 5, 2019, to be a “black day,” India once again imposed a lockdown
yesterday with immediate effect.
Article 370, along with Article 35A, established special status for the disputed territory and defined a
separate set of laws for the Kashmiri people. These included limited citizenship, ownership of property and
fundamental rights for current residents of Jammu and Kashmir, which were critical for a plebiscite to be
held under the United Nation's auspices. Due to this law, Indian citizens from other states could not
purchase land or property in Jammu and Kashmir, but that has changed as India has maintained its illegal
annexation agenda and set new rules after revoking Article 370.
India championed the move as a step that would bring development and peace to Kashmir, but instead,
daily violence has increased, the economy has collapsed and the livelihoods of Kashmiris have been
destroyed. Since then, India has brought in new draconian laws such as the Public Safety Act and the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, as well as new residency rules such as the Jammu and Kashmir
Grant of Domicile Certificate (Procedure), which are aimed at shifting the demographics of the Muslim-
majority region, according to locals who want independence from India or unification with Pakistan.
The Kashmiri people have been struggling for 73 years since the day the British decided to end their 200-
year rule on the Indian subcontinent and divide it into two separate nations: Muslim-majority Pakistan and
Hindu-majority India. The partition process was not simple because, in addition to the British-controlled
territories, the subcontinent also consisted of about 550 sovereign princely states ruled by local monarchs
and other territories under French, Portuguese or Omani rule. Kashmir is the sole unfinished agenda of
partition and the only region of British India that has not become a part of one of the two countries or
gained independence.
The Kashmiri crisis was one of the first issues brought to the U.N. in 1948 in the post-World War II era. It
has been 72 years since the Kashmir dispute was first debated there, but a solution has yet to be reached.
On April 21, 1948, U.N. Security Council Resolution 47 was adopted concerning the Kashmir conflict.
Accordingly, the Kashmiris were going to decide their future with a plebiscite – either they would accede
to Pakistan or India. Although Security Council resolutions are legally binding, India was belligerent,
refused to cooperate and blocked the implementation of the vote. Today, there are 11 Security Council
resolutions for a free and impartial plebiscite in Kashmir, but New Delhi doesn't just block them, it also
uses violent methods to continue its illegal occupation.
Since 1989, over 100,000 Kashmiris have been killed by Indian forces. According to official figures, out of
these, more than 7,200 people have been murdered in Indian custody, more than 23,000 women have been
widowed, more than 110,000 children have been orphaned and more than 11,000 women have been raped
by Indian occupation forces. In addition, over 7,000 unnamed mass graves have been discovered with
thousands of victims. Some 10,000 Kashmiri youth have been injured due to the deliberate use of pellet
rounds. With the deployment of around 200,000 additional troops last year, which raised the number of
Indian occupation forces in the state to 700,000, Jammu and Kashmir became the most militarized zone
and largest prison in the world today.
Unfortunately, emboldened by international silence toward its illegal annexation agenda and motivated by
ideological compulsions, Indian aggression is systematically increasing. The situation in Jammu and
Kashmir requires urgent international attention, but the world is silent and deaf, and the tension between
nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan, which have fought two wars over Kashmir, has not been
eased. Experts have already begun to calculate the effects of a possible war to determine how many
millions of people will die and how many billions of people will suffer in the aftermath.
The Kashmiri crisis from time to time attracts attention from numerous actors inside and outside the
affected region, but in the middle of a power struggle, every country is looking to gain its own benefits.
Pakistan has been knocking on everyone's door in order to mobilize the international community and find a
diplomatic solution, but disappointingly, its efforts have yet to go anywhere. So, it looks like Islamabad has
to do more than just ask the world to do something.
Showing the international community that you are ready to act unilaterally if outside states continue to be
blind and deaf, and that your nation will not wait any longer is the new way of diplomacy in today’s world.
This is compelling diplomacy. These days, getting started on a critical issue is the only way of showing
that something has to be done. This is the only way to say, “If you do not do what is necessary, then I will
do it.”
If Islamabad acts more boldly, it will be a reminder and a message to the world that no one will or can start
to save the Kashmiris except Pakistan. Only then will the Kashmir issue hit the headlines, and no one will
be able to ignore it.

The tyranny continues in Kashmir:

October 27 marks the beginning of Indian Occupation of the disputed territory of Jammu and
Kashmir. It is forever scarred in the collective minds of the Kashmiri people as the day they
became occupied.
The Kashmir conflict began in 1846 with the illegal, immoral and inhumane sale of the historic
state of Jammu and Kashmir to a non-Kashmiri Dogra family for services rendered to the British
Raj. From that point onwards, Kashmiris have longed for self-determination. Yet, tragically,
their legitimate aspirations were crushed with the grotesque, irregular and illegal ascension, by
the brutal foreign ruler Maharaja Hari Singh who did not have the consent of the people. With
the arrival of Indian soldiers—the historic Black Day of Occupation begins its most recent and
insidious manifestation.
The Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir obtained independence on August 15, 1947, when
British paramountcy lapsed. At that moment, under international law as understood by Indian
National Congress, the Muslim League and Great Britain, sovereignty in Kashmir devolved on
its peoples, not its autocratic Maharaja. Indeed, Kashmir was beset by wholesale domestic revolt
against the Maharaja when independence arrived, and widened in the initial months thereafter.
To save his despotism from collapse, the Maharaja requested the assistance of the Indian military
on October 27, 1947, after ostensibly signing an Instrument of Accession to that nation. British
Scholar, Alistair Lamb has convincingly demonstrated that the Instrument of Accession was as
bogus as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Donation of Constantine. An original has
never been found, and there is no plausible explanation for a disappearance if an original had
ever existed.
The people of Kashmir are constantly reminded of Resolution 47, adopted on April 21, 1948 that
states that the future status of Kashmir must be ascertained in accordance with the wishes and
aspirations of the people of the territory. This resolution was agreed upon by both India and
Pakistan, negotiated by the United Nations and accepted by the Security Council.
Ambassador Warren Austin of the United States said it the best in the Security Council on
January 24, 1948, “…When India accepted the accession of Kashmir, it made its act stand for a
great principle by stating as a part of the acceptance, that it was conditional on fair plebiscite
being held to determine the will of the people of Kashmir with respect to accession. I think an
example was made in history at that point.”
India, however, was soon undeceived of its delusions over Kashmir’s political yearning.
Recognising that its people would never freely vote accession to India, it contrived excuse after
excuse to frustrate a plebiscite. When the United Nations proposed arbitration, a reference to the
world court, or any other method of resolving minor demilitarisation quarrels, India nixed them
all. After a few years, it dropped all pretence of acceding to a referendum by unilaterally
proclaiming its annexation of Kashmir. India’s proclamation has never been accepted by the
United Nations, which continues to list Kashmir as a disputed territory who future status is yet to
be determined by its people.
History proved the British Prime Minister Clement Richard Atlee wrong when he said on
November 7, 1947, “…he (Pandit Nehru) undertook that the will of the people should be
ascertained, and he proposed that this should be done under the authority and supervision of the
United Nations…I can’t believe that Mr Nehru’s pledges have the sinister implications.”
India’s creepy design was also confirmed by Bertrand Russell who said in 1964 “The high
idealism of the Indian government in international matters breaks down completely when
confronted with the question of Kashmir.”
So; a false narrative was concocted by India, out of nothing more than thin air, in a vain attempt
to intellectually subjugate a people. This challenge is most serious, since it resonates, even today
with more vigour. How often do we hear outlandish statements like, ‘Kashmir is an integral part
of India’? These statements do not exist in a vacuum. They are loaded and violent. This form of
violence is more insidious, more difficult to confront, for it is attempting to indoctrinate
Kashmiris about their past, their present and direct them to a future that does not belong to them.
They had become the objects of history rather than the masters of it.
Another serious challenge that the people of Kashmir face—when attempts are made to confine
the Kashmir dispute to a bilateral matter between India and Pakistan as if Kashmiris were
inconsequential. This charade of sorts represents an outrageous attempt to restrict discussions of
Kashmir, to India and Pakistan to the exclusion of the most important party to the conflict—the
people of Kashmir. Today, this strikingly ignorant political strategy has collapsed after the
abrogation of Article 370 & 35 A on August 5, 2019 and no longer is considered an honest
initiative for resolving the Kashmir dispute. It has not achieved any of its desired objectives of
bettering relations or resolving Kashmiri aspirations for self-determination. It is evident that this
policy has proven a colossal failure. If, in more than 73 years, the ‘bilateral masquerade’ has
produced nothing more than cheap photo opportunities, then it is better to once and for all, put
this show to an end.
The world powers and the saner elements in both India and Pakistan need to realise that the
bilateral talks between India and Pakistan have always remained barren. And trilateral dialogue
between the governments of India, Pakistan and the leadership of Kashmir—without any
precondition from any side—is the only way to resolve the issue of Kashmir once for all.
Participation of Kashmiri leadership in the dialogue process is the sine qua non that will help to
achieve lasting peace and tranquillity in the region of South Asia.
In fact, a ‘Kashmir Quartet’ should be established that includes Kashmir, Pakistan, China, and
India. Moreover, outside intervention and mediation should include the United Nations. The
chairmanship of the Kashmir Quartet mediation should be undertaken by a person of
international stature, such as Kjell Bondevik former prime minister of Norway or President Mary
Robinson of Ireland.
Today, the challenge before us is that a new generation in Kashmir has been raised with blood
and tears for which death no longer poses a threat for what death can do that life has not done
before: their suffering is freeing them from fear. Kashmiris’ fearlessness has led to the powerful
protests and the largest demonstrations in recent years. The presence of hundreds of thousands of
people on the streets of Srinagar, marching towards the office of the UNMOGIP, is proof that the
freedom struggle is not a terrorist movement but a movement that is indigenous, spontaneous,
peaceful and popular.

Now, is the time that Mr. Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations brings
the situation in Kashmir to the attention of the Security Council under the provision of the
Article 99 of the United Nations Charter. It is here in the region of South Asia that not two but
three nuclear powers have been eyeball to eyeball for the last one-year? The Article 99
authorises the Secretary General to ‘bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter
which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security’. If not
now, then when can Article 99 be invoked to bring peace and stability to the region of South
Asia.
The UN Secretary General should listen to Mr. Gross, US Ambassador to the UN who said in the
Security Council on December 5, 1952, we feel that it is the role of the Security Council to assist
the parties in seeking to reach agreement.
So, now is no time for complacency or temporizing. And the chilling suffering and misery of the
Kashmiri people continues every day a peaceful resolution is deferred.

UN discusses Kashmir for third time since India ended autonomy:

The UN’s most powerful body did not take any action or issue a statement after the virtual
meeting behind closed doors.
New Delhi's move last year was accompanied by a total communication blackout and mass
detentions [File: Danish Ismail/Reuters]
6 Aug 2020
The UN Security Council discussed disputed Kashmir at Pakistan’s request on Wednesday for
the third time since India’s Hindu nationalist government decided to end the Muslim-majority
region’s semi-autonomy a year ago.
The United Nations’s most powerful body did not take any action or issue a statement after the
virtual meeting held behind closed doors.
Nonetheless, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said afterwards holding the
meeting signified “that Jammu and Kashmir is an international dispute firmly on the agenda of
the Security Council and has nullified, yet another time, the Indian self-serving claim that it is an
‘internal matter’.”
China is seriously concerned about the current situation in Kashmir and the relevant military
actions.
CHINA'S MISSION TO THE UN
On August 5, 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government stripped Indian-administered
Kashmir’s statehood, scrapped its separate constitution and removed inherited protections on
land and jobs.
The UNSC held its first closed consultations on Kashmir since 1971 following India’s surprise
action in August 2019 to change the Himalayan region’s status [File: Carlo Allegri/Reuters]
But the government said the change was necessary to develop the disputed region and integrate it
with the rest of India, but it infuriated many Kashmiris as well as neighbouring Pakistan.
Qureshi said in remarks circulated by Pakistan’s UN mission the international community
“should exercise its moral, legal and political authority to call out India to reverse the tide of
impunity and stop genocide of the Kashmiri people.”

‘Unilateral actions’
He urged India to reverse its unilateral actions, stop human rights and ceasefire violations,
remove restrictions on communications, movement and peaceful assembly and immediately
release Kashmir’s leaders.
The Pakistani minister expressed gratitude to the 15 UNSC members, especially China, for their
support in organising the meeting in the face of India’s “desperate attempts to prevent this
discussion”. When it went ahead, Qureshi said India tried “to minimise the importance and
significance of the meeting”.
“China is seriously concerned about the current situation in Kashmir and the relevant military
actions. We oppose unilateral actions that will complicate the situation,” China’s mission to the
UN in New York said in a statement.
More than half a million Indian troops are deployed in Kashmir, making it one of the most
militarised zones of the world [Tauseef Mustafa/AFP]
India’s new UN Ambassador TS Tirumurti tweeted after the meeting: “Another attempt by
Pakistan fails!”
“In today’s meeting of UN Security Council which was closed, informal, not recorded and
without any outcome, almost all countries underlined that J&K (Jammu and Kashmir) was
bilateral issue & did not deserve time and attention of Council,” he wrote.
Modi’s move last year was accompanied by a total communication blackout and mass detentions.
Some rights groups have been critical of the government’s handling of Kashmir, particularly
continuing internet curbs.
“This has been compounded by a censored media, continuing detention of political leaders,
arbitrary restrictions due to the pandemic with little to no redressal,” Amnesty International said
in a statement on Wednesday.
Kashmir issue
Kashmir became an issue at the end of British colonial rule in 1947 when the Indian subcontinent
was divided into predominantly Hindu India and mainly Muslim Pakistan and its future was left
unresolved.
India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over control of Kashmir, which had been
a Muslim-majority kingdom governed by a Hindu ruler.
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi urged India to reverse its unilateral actions, stop
human rights and ceasefire violations, remove restrictions on communications, movement and
peaceful assembly and immediately release Kashmir’s leaders [Farooq Naeem/AFP]
The first war ended in 1948 with a UN-brokered ceasefire that left Kashmir divided, with the
promise of a UN-sponsored referendum on its “final disposition” that has never been held.
The UN sent military observers to supervise the ceasefire in January 1949 and, following
renewed hostilities in 1971, the UN mission has remained in the area to observe and report to the
secretary-general – not to the Security Council as other peacekeeping missions do.

References:
1. https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/29/the-case-of-un-involvement-in-jammu-and-kashmir/
2. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/kashmir-and-the-un-security-council/1971039
3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48539128
4. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4032806.pdf
5. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/713501-kashmir-and-the-un
6. https://journals.sfu.ca/jmh/index.php/jmh/article/download/13/11
7. https://www.pakun.org/kashmir/
8. https://www.dawn.com/news/1514652
9. https://ndu.edu.pk/issra/issra_pub/articles/margalla-paper/margalla-papers-2015/07-
Pakistan's-Policy.pdf
10. https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1789&context=psilr
11. https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/pakistans-kashmir-policy-post-article-370/
12. https://www.geo.tv/latest/301098-indias-annexation-of-iojk-a-timeline-of-events-that-
transpired-post-august-5
13. https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/indias-brutality-in-occupied-kashmir-has-
to-be-stopped-but-by-whom
14. https://nation.com.pk/27-Oct-2020/the-tyranny-continues-in-kashmir
15. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/kashmir-and-the-un-security-
council/1971039#:~:text=And%20Aug.,Security%20Council's%20self%2Ddetermination
%20resolutions.
16. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/08/1044401
17. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/8/6/un-discusses-kashmir-for-third-time-since-
india-ended-autonomy