By Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
Conflicts among human societies are as old as civilization itself. Differences of belief, territory, power, and perception have repeatedly driven nations and communities into confrontation. History shows that such disputes are resolved in only a few recognized ways: through the imposition of force, through reconciliation by mutual consent, or through impartial mediation underpinned by law and moral authority. Where none of these paths is pursued sincerely, conflicts harden over time, embedding themselves into collective memory and passing unresolved from one generation to the next. Since the mid-twentieth century, the world has witnessed only a few disputes of such longevity, notably the division of the Korean Peninsula, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the unresolved dispute over Jammu and Kashmir between Pakistan and India.
Among these, Kashmir remains one of the most morally troubling, anchored in clear international commitments that have remained unfulfilled for more than seven decades. The legal and moral foundation of the Kashmir dispute lies in the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan in 1948 and 1949. These resolutions affirmed a simple yet powerful democratic principle: the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was to be determined by the free and impartial will of its people, expressed through a plebiscite conducted under United Nations supervision.
Both Pakistan and India accepted these resolutions, which laid down detailed safeguards to ensure fairness, including demilitarization, the withdrawal or neutralization of armed forces, the appointment of an internationally respected Plebiscite Administrator, the release of political prisoners, the protection of minorities, freedom of expression and assembly, and the complete absence of coercion or intimidation. A ceasefire came into effect on 1 January 1949, raising hopes that a just settlement was within reach. Yet the plebiscite was never held. Disagreements over procedure, coupled with political reluctance and shifting strategic calculations, froze the process, leaving the promise itself outstanding.
Despite the passage of time, Kashmir continues to feature on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council, a rare acknowledgment that the dispute has neither been resolved nor rendered obsolete. Meanwhile, realities on the ground have steadily deteriorated. In Indian-administered Kashmir, generations have grown up amid heavy militarization, prolonged states of emergency, restrictions on political activity, and recurring cycles of unrest and repression. The revocation of the region’s special status in 2019 further deepened Kashmiri anxieties, particularly fears of demographic engineering and the erosion of cultural and political identity. Allegations of human rights violations, curbs on religious practices, and restrictions on communication have reinforced the sense of collective grievance and alienation.
For Pakistan, Kashmir has never been merely a territorial dispute. It occupies a central place in the country’s ideological, historical, and strategic consciousness. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s description of Kashmir as the “jugular vein of Pakistan” was not rhetorical flourish but an articulation of an existential reality. The Muslim majority of Kashmir, its cultural and religious affinities with Pakistan, and the logic underpinning the Partition of 1947 made its unresolved status a profound anomaly. The Two-Nation Theory, which formed the basis of Pakistan’s creation, rested on the recognition of distinct religious, cultural, and political identities. The continued denial of self-determination to the people of Kashmir stands in stark contradiction to that principle and remains a source of enduring instability in South Asia.
Beyond ideology and history, Kashmir’s importance is inseparable from Pakistan’s economic and environmental security. The great rivers that sustain Pakistan’s agriculture and economy—the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—originate in the Himalayan region of Kashmir. These waters irrigate fields, generate electricity, and provide drinking water to millions. Control over their sources therefore carries implications far beyond cartography. Repeated disputes over water management and challenges to the Indus Waters Treaty have heightened fears that water, one of the most vital resources of life, could become a tool of political pressure. In this sense, Kashmir is not simply a contested territory; it is a lifeline whose stability directly affects Pakistan’s survival and prosperity.
The strategic dimension of Kashmir further complicates the dispute. Its geography places it at the crossroads of South and Central Asia, making it vital for regional trade, security, and defence. The Line of Control remains one of the most militarized and volatile borders in the world, where even minor incidents carry the risk of escalation between two nuclear-armed states. The continued instability of the region not only threatens bilateral relations but also undermines broader regional peace.
(The writer is a seasoned parliamentary expert with over two decades of experience in legislative research and media affairs, leading policy support initiatives for lawmakers on complex national and international issues, and can be reached at editorial@metro-Morning.com)
#KashmirDispute #RightToSelfDetermination #UNResolutions #PakistanIndia #HumanRights #SouthAsiaPeace #StrategicKashmir #WaterSecurity #RegionalStability #KashmirSolidarity
