Malik Zohaib Tariq
The people of Jammu and Kashmir have been living under foreign occupation since the signing of the Treaty of Amritsar in 1846, when the British sold the territory to the Dogra ruler Gulab Singh for a sum of 7.5 million rupees, a dark and oppressive chapter in the region’s history, particularly for the Muslim-majority population. Under Maharaja Gulab Singh and his successors, Kashmiris endured systematic repression, economic exploitation, and religious discrimination that laid the foundation for deep socio-political grievances, some of which continue to resonate today. This transaction, devoid of the Kashmiri people’s consent, laid the foundation for one of the longest-standing occupations in modern history, culminating in the controversial accession of the region to India in 1947, which, for Kashmiris was nothing more than a transfer of legacy. For over 175 years, the Kashmiri identity, culture, and dignity have remained hostage to successive regimes that have denied them their fundamental right to self-determination, as guaranteed under international law. Despite the passage of time, the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved. Since the 1960s, diplomatic efforts have stagnated, and agreements such as the Simla Accord (1972) have further confined the issue to a bilateral framework, undermining its international character. The situation was exacerbated by India’s unilateral revocation of Article 370 and 35A in 2019, which stripped Kashmir of its special constitutional status. On August 5, 2019, the Indian government unilaterally abrogated Article 370 and 35A, effectively annexing Jammu and Kashmir and stripping it of its internal autonomy. The region was downgraded from a state to a Union Territory, bringing it under the direct rule of New Delhi. This move was conducted without the consent of the Kashmiri people; In the absence of a functioning elected government in J&K; Under a complete military lockdown, with massive troop deployment, communication blackouts, curfews, and arrests of thousands of political leaders, activists, and civilians. Under international humanitarian law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), foreign occupation is defined not solely by territorial conquest but by control without sovereign consent or popular legitimacy. According to Article 42 of the Hague Regulations (1907), “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.” India may claim legal sovereignty over J&K, but sovereignty is disputed as multiple UN Security Council Resolutions (e.g., Resolution 47) recognises Kashmir as a disputed territory, not an internal matter of India. The revocation occurred under explicit force and coercion, meeting the criteria of de facto military occupation. Legal Nullification of Autonomy: By revoking the laws that granted J&K a special status and altering its political structure without a constituent assembly or referendum, India reversed the conditions of the 1947 accession. This unilateral change, especially during a prolonged lockdown, violates international legal norms that prohibit altering the demographic or legal structure of an occupied or disputed territory.
While this move initially drew global attention, the momentum for international engagement quickly dissipated, leaving Kashmiris more vulnerable than ever. In this context, Pakistan must reconsider and recalibrate its official Kashmir policy. The current position of providing “diplomatic and moral support” is no longer adequate in the face of mounting repression, demographic manipulation, and legal erosion of Kashmiri rights. A bold yet legally grounded step would be to extend this support to include “material assistance”, in line with the principles of international law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/43, adopted on 22 November 1982, provides an important legal precedent in this regard. The resolution reaffirms the right of peoples under colonial and foreign domination to self-determination and recognises the legitimacy of their struggle by all available means, including armed resistance. Crucially, it calls on the international community to offer material, political, and moral assistance to such movements. This principle draws a clear distinction between terrorism and legitimate resistance against foreign occupation, especially when peaceful avenues are obstructed. When we see this UNGA resolution in light of UN Charter, UNSC resolution 47, Fourth Geneva convention, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993), Pakistan can indeed build a case that Kashmir is under foreign occupation not since 1947 but since 1846 and ‘material assistance’ is a need of time where international community must acknowledge if not become part of it, at least.
In strategic terms, a reinvigorated Kashmir policy can also have stabilising effects on Pakistan’s internal frontiers. By engaging the Indian military apparatus more deeply in Kashmir, Pakistan can reduce pressure on its western frontiers, especially Balochistan, allowing space for development and greater security, which in turn strengthens regional projects like CPEC. Even if the international community remains hesitant to adopt Pakistan’s narrative outright, initiating a global legal and diplomatic debate on Kashmir’s occupation and the legitimacy of resistance can itself be a significant achievement. By shifting the discourse from passive sympathy to active responsibility, Pakistan can lay the groundwork for eventual recognition of Kashmiri resistance as a lawful liberation movement—thus challenging India’s narrative and reviving international engagement on Kashmir.
The author is a graduate of London School of Economics and holds a gold medal in International Relations & Politics. He can be reached at [email protected]
