The ceasefire involving Iran, Israel, and the United States was never a resolution. It was a pause.
What has followed makes that clear.
Diverging interpretations, continued military activity, and the collapse of negotiations all point to a deeper reality: the region is not failing to communicate. It is failing to sustain agreements.
A Ceasefire Without Structure
Within hours of the ceasefire, its contradictions were evident.
Iran treated it as conditional and region-wide. Israel continued to operate with flexibility, particularly in Lebanon. The United States accepted ambiguity as a tool of temporary de-escalation.
This is not miscommunication. It is the predictable outcome of an agreement without enforcement.
The Shift to Chokepoints
As diplomacy stalls, the conflict is moving into a new phase—one defined by leverage over critical systems rather than direct confrontation.
Nowhere is this clearer than the Strait of Hormuz.
Here, escalation is no longer about territory. It is about the ability to disrupt global energy flows and impose economic cost.
Each actor is constructing its own deterrence:
Iran through economic chokepoints
Israel through military dominance
The United States through naval projection
But these are not coordinated. They are parallel—and that makes them unstable.
The Agreement That Already Existed
There is a deeper irony at the heart of the current crisis.
Many of the demands now being placed on Iran were not only discussed before. They were formally agreed to.
Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran explicitly reaffirmed that it would “under no circumstances… seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” This commitment aligned with the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and was endorsed by the United Nations.
The issue, therefore, is not the absence of agreement.
It is the collapse of the framework that once sustained it.
When the agreement unraveled, so too did the mechanisms of verification, compliance, and trust. What we are witnessing today is not negotiation from first principles, but an attempt to reconstruct a system that was already built—and then dismantled.
The Problem of Asymmetry
This crisis is further complicated by structural imbalance.
Iran operates within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel remains outside it while maintaining strategic ambiguity.
This asymmetry is not incidental. It shapes the negotiation environment itself.
You cannot demand compliance from one side while exempting the other—and still expect stability.
A Familiar Pattern
This dynamic extends beyond the Middle East.
In Jammu and Kashmir, ceasefire understandings between India and Pakistan have long existed without producing durable stability.
There, too, agreements are shaped by ambiguity and weakened by the absence of sustained structure.
Conclusion
The Middle East is not failing to reach agreements.
It is failing to sustain them.
Without a coordinated framework that aligns deterrence, diplomacy, and enforcement, every ceasefire will remain temporary—and every negotiation, repetitive.
Peace is not built by agreements alone.
It is built by the systems that ensure those agreements hold.
The ceasefire involving Iran, Israel, and the United States is already being described in diplomatic circles as a success.
It is not.
It is a failure disguised as a pause—one that once again exposes the absence of any credible deterrence architecture in the Middle East.
Pakistan’s role in bringing the parties to the table was significant. It created a moment of de-escalation where none seemed possible. But what has followed makes one thing clear:
A ceasefire without consequence is not stability. It is delay.
The Reality Behind the “Ceasefire”
Within hours, its contradictions became obvious.
Iran treated it as conditional and region-wide. Israel treated it as limited and operationally flexible, continuing actions in Lebanon. The United States accepted the ambiguity as a price worth paying for temporary calm.
This is not miscommunication. It is structured ambiguity in a system with no enforcement.
And that is precisely why it will not hold.
Diplomacy Without Power
Pakistan’s mediation did not fail. It revealed its limits.
Mediation can open channels. It cannot impose compliance—especially on actors outside its sphere of influence.
This is the fundamental flaw in the current approach to regional stability: agreements are negotiated without mechanisms to enforce them.
Without consequence, compliance becomes optional.
The Missing Element: Credible Deterrence
For years, the region has oscillated between two extremes:
Diplomatic fragmentation
Calls for full-scale military alliances
Neither has produced stability.
But there is a harder truth that policymakers have been reluctant to confront:
Deterrence without the credible possibility of enforcement—including military enforcement—lacks weight.
This does not mean war is the objective. It means that the option of collective action must exist for deterrence to function.
That is the principle that underpins NATO.
Rethinking a Regional NATO
The idea of a NATO-style framework in the Middle East—bringing together states such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan—is often dismissed as dangerously escalatory.
That risk is real.
But so is the alternative: a region where no collective mechanism exists to impose costs, where actions carry limited consequence, and where ceasefires are repeatedly negotiated only to be reinterpreted and eroded.
The question, then, is not whether deterrence should exist.
It is whether it will remain implicit and ineffective, or become structured and credible.
A regional framework that combines diplomatic, economic, and legal pressure with a clearly defined, collectively agreed last-resort enforcement mechanism would not increase instability.
It would introduce something the region currently lacks: predictability.
The Israel Question
Any discussion of deterrence inevitably raises the question of Israel.
At present, Israel operates with significant strategic freedom—not only because of its capabilities, but because it faces no unified regional mechanism capable of imposing consistent costs.
This freedom is further enabled by a persistent international double standard, where violations by some actors are met with immediate condemnation and consequence, while similar actions by others are absorbed into the language of “security” and “self-defence” without equivalent accountability.
This is not sustainable.
Deterrence is not about targeting a specific state. It is about ensuring that no actor operates entirely outside consequence.
A Pattern That Extends Beyond the Region
The same dynamic is visible in Jammu and Kashmir, where ceasefire understandings between India and Pakistan have long existed without producing durable stability.
There, too, agreements are shaped by ambiguity and weakened by the absence of a broader framework capable of sustaining them.
From Pause to Structure
The lesson of this ceasefire is not that diplomacy has failed.
It is that diplomacy, in the absence of structure, cannot succeed.
Pakistan created a pause. The region has already begun to move beyond it.
If future ceasefires are to hold, they must be embedded within a system that does more than facilitate dialogue. They must be backed by mechanisms that ensure shared interpretation, consistent enforcement, and credible consequence.
That includes, whether acknowledged or not, the possibility of collective action.
Conclusion
The Middle East does not lack agreements. It lacks accountability.
Until that changes, every ceasefire will follow the same trajectory: Announced with urgency, interpreted with flexibility, and undermined without consequence.
Deterrence is not the pursuit of war.
It is the condition that prevents it.
And without it, peace will remain temporary—no matter how many ceasefires are signed.
The latest ceasefire dynamics involving Iran, Israel, and the United States are being widely described as a diplomatic success. They are not.
They are a reminder of a deeper and more dangerous reality: in the absence of credible deterrence, ceasefires become little more than temporary pauses—fragile, contested, and easily reversible.
What makes the current situation striking is not that the parties disagree, but that they are supposed to. Iran treats the ceasefire as conditional and regionally expansive. Israel interprets it narrowly, preserving operational flexibility, particularly in Lebanon. The United States, for its part, appears comfortable with this ambiguity, using it as a tool to manage escalation rather than resolve conflict.
This is not a breakdown in communication. It is a reflection of a structural vacuum.
The Middle East today lacks a coherent framework capable of aligning regional responses and imposing consistent costs. In that vacuum, ambiguity thrives—and with it, instability.
The temptation, in such a context, is to reach for a familiar model. Calls for a NATO-style alliance—bringing together countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan—have grown louder. The logic is simple: deterrence through collective defense.
At a conceptual level, this instinct is not misplaced. The success of NATO lies precisely in its ability to make the cost of aggression unacceptably high.
But the Middle East is not Europe.
A formal military alliance explicitly positioned against Israel would almost certainly trigger immediate escalation, draw in global powers, and risk a multi-front conflict with unpredictable consequences. The region does not need more militarization. It needs more coordination.
What is missing is not power, but the ability to organize power effectively.
Israel operates with confidence not only because of its military capabilities, but because it faces no unified regional response. Iran, similarly, extends its influence across multiple theatres precisely because responses remain fragmented and inconsistent.
The result is a cycle that has become all too familiar—from the Gaza Strip to Lebanon: escalation, pause, re-escalation.
Breaking this cycle requires rethinking deterrence itself.
Deterrence is not synonymous with war. It is the prevention of war through credible consequence. And credible consequence does not have to be military compulsorily .
A more viable path lies in the creation of a coordinated, non-military deterrence framework—a strategic bloc that integrates diplomatic pressure, economic leverage, legal accountability, and narrative alignment.
Such a framework could operate through synchronized action at the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, leverage influence within energy markets through bodies like OPEC, and pursue sustained legal engagement at institutions such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
Equally important would be the alignment of narratives across state and diaspora networks, shaping global public opinion and influencing policymaking in key capitals.
This is not a call for confrontation. It is a call for structure.
Without such coordination, ceasefires will continue to be negotiated in ambiguity, interpreted in contradiction, and violated without consequence.
The implications extend beyond the Middle East. In Jammu and Kashmir, ceasefire understandings between India and Pakistan have similarly failed to translate into lasting stability, precisely because they exist in the absence of sustained international engagement and coordinated pressure.
In both regions, the lesson is the same: ceasefires do not fail because they are violated. They fail because they are unsupported.
The Middle East does not simply need another ceasefire. It needs a framework that makes ceasefires meaningful.
Until then, every pause will remain temporary—and every agreement, an illusion.
For decades, the story of Kashmir has been told—both to the world and to ourselves—through the lens of 1947. It is a story framed as a dispute between two states, shaped by wars, ceasefire lines, and diplomatic engagements between India and Pakistan.
But what if the starting point itself is incomplete?
What if the roots of Kashmir’s political reality lie not in 1947, but in 1846?
On 16 March 1846, under the Treaty of Amritsar, the British East India Company transferred control of Kashmir to Gulab Singh for 7.5 million rupees.
This was not a transition of power based on the will of the people. It was a transaction.
A land—and its people—were handed over without consultation, without consent, and without representation.
This moment is not merely historical. It is foundational.
Yet, for too long, Kashmiris have allowed their narrative to begin in 1947. In doing so, the issue has been confined within the binary of India and Pakistan—two states negotiating, contesting, and defining the terms of a dispute in which the primary stakeholders, the people of Kashmir, are often reduced to the background.
This framing has had consequences.
Internationally, Kashmir is seen largely as a bilateral issue. Calls for resolution are routinely directed toward dialogue between India and Pakistan, reinforcing the idea that the conflict is one to be managed between two states rather than addressed as a question of people and their political rights.
Over time, this has also diluted the centrality of international commitments, including the framework established through United Nations resolutions, which recognized the principle that the future of Kashmir should reflect the will of its people.
The shift toward bilateralism, particularly after the Simla Agreement, further entrenched this approach. What was once an internationally acknowledged issue increasingly became subject to state-to-state engagement, often sidelining the very population at the heart of it.
This is not to deny the significance of developments since 1947. It is to recognize that by beginning the narrative there, we accept a framework that is already limiting.
Because 1947 does not explain how sovereignty over Kashmir came to be structured in the first place.
1846 does.
It reveals that the very foundation of political authority in Kashmir was laid through a colonial-era arrangement that excluded the people entirely. It explains why questions of legitimacy, consent, and representation continue to persist across generations.
Re-centering 1846 is not about revisiting the past for its own sake. It is about reclaiming the narrative.
This is not about replacing one narrative with another, nor about diminishing the many ways in which Kashmir has been understood and articulated over time. For many, the question of Kashmir is also framed in moral and ethical terms, including resistance to injustice. Yet even within that understanding, the denial of a people’s agency in 1846 remains a critical starting point that cannot be overlooked.
It allows Kashmiris—both within the region and across the diaspora—to articulate their position beyond the confines of an India-Pakistan binary. It places Kashmir within a broader global context of colonial histories, where questions of imposed authority and denied consent are widely understood.
More importantly, it restores the focus where it belongs: on the people of Kashmir.
A narrative that begins in 1846 does not erase 1947—it contextualizes it.
It shifts the discussion from territorial dispute to historical continuity. From state rivalry to questions of legitimacy. From diplomacy between governments to the rights of a people.
For too long, others have defined the starting point of Kashmir’s story.
It is time Kashmiris redefine it themselves.
Because how a story begins often determines how it is understood—and how it is resolved.
And if the story of Kashmir is to be told truthfully, it must begin where its modern political reality truly started:
Every year on 5 February, Pakistan observes Kashmir Solidarity Day—a reaffirmation of moral, political, and historical support for the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. The symbolism is familiar. The speeches are predictable. Yet, five years after India’s unilateral actions of August 2019, the distance between solidarity in words and strategy in action has become dangerously wide.
This is not for lack of advice, ideas, or policy direction.
Over the past years, Kashmir House has formally submitted detailed, written policy briefs to Pakistan’s Prime minister as well as foreign minister and to Pakistan’s diplomatic mission in
Türkiye, outlining concrete, actionable steps to reposition the Kashmir issue internationally. These submissions were grounded in international law, diplomatic precedent, and the lived realities of Kashmiris—particularly those under occupation and in exile.
Kashmir Solidarity Day therefore raises a legitimate and unavoidable question:
what happens to these proposals—and diplomatic opportunities—after they are placed on record?
From Constitutional Distractions to Self-Determination
In our formal submissions to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we made a clear argument: Pakistan’s advocacy must remain anchored in the right of self-determination under international law, not diverted into debates around Indian constitutional provisions such as Article 370.
Article 370 was never a mechanism of liberation; it was part of India’s constitutional architecture of control.
In fact, Article 370 itself was inserted into the Indian Constitution as a temporary provision, explicitly pending the final disposition of the Jammu & Kashmir dispute in accordance with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. Even theoretically, therefore, the restoration of Article 370 does not resolve the Kashmir question—it merely postpones it. The core issue of final disposition, as mandated by international law, remains untouched.
Framing Kashmir around the “restoration” of Article 370 thus accepts India’s constitutional prism while sidestepping the fundamental question: how and when will the people of Jammu & Kashmir exercise their right to determine their own future? Restoration, at best, reverts to an interim arrangement; it does not address the legally required end-state.
Its abrogation in 2019 did not create a new injustice—it merely exposed the colonial nature of India’s presence in Kashmir. Continuing to frame Kashmir through this lens weakens, rather than strengthens, Kashmir’s international case.
Time-Bound Negotiations or Endless Normalisation
Our submissions to the Prime minister as well as Foreign Minister and Pakistan’s Ambassador in Türkiye stressed the need for time-bound, internationally guaranteed negotiations, with the inclusion of authentic Kashmiri representation.
Endless dialogue frameworks, unmoored from timelines or guarantees, serve only one purpose: the normalisation of occupation. Five years after August 2019, the absence of a defined diplomatic endgame has allowed India to consolidate facts on the ground while the international community adjusts to the “new normal.”
A Missed Diplomatic Opening: The Silence on Neutral-Space Talks
Most strikingly, even when a diplomatic opening briefly emerged, it failed to generate sustained discussion or strategic follow-up.
Following the most recent ceasefire understanding, the United States publicly indicated its willingness to facilitate talks in a neutral venue. This was not a mediation imposed on either side, nor a binding proposal—but it was an acknowledgment that Kashmir remains an unresolved dispute requiring structured dialogue.
Yet this offer was neither seized upon nor meaningfully debated—not in Pakistan’s parliament, not in official diplomatic messaging, and not in public discourse. Silence prevailed, allowing the moment to pass without cost to India and without strategic gain for Kashmir.
For a state that repeatedly calls for international engagement on Kashmir, the absence of a clear response to such openings raises serious questions. Diplomatic opportunities do not need to be ideal to be useful; they need to be framed, internationalised, and politically leveraged. None of this happened.
Demographic Engineering Is Not a Side Issue
One of the most urgent warnings in our policy briefs concerned India’s demographic reengineering of Jammu & Kashmir. Millions of domicile certificates have been issued, permanently altering the region’s political and electoral character in violation of international law governing disputed territories.
This is not a future risk—it is a present and accelerating reality. Yet Pakistan’s international engagement on this issue remains episodic, lacking a sustained legal and diplomatic campaign proportionate to the scale of the threat.
The Unprotected Frontline: Overseas Kashmiris
Equally concerning—and addressed in detail in our internal policy note ahead of this Kashmir Solidarity Day—is Pakistan’s failure to institutionally protect overseas Kashmiri diaspora activism.
Overseas Kashmiris have become the most credible advocates for the cause in Western political and media spaces. At the same time, they face growing risks of transnational repression: surveillance, intimidation, threats, and administrative harassment.
If overseas Kashmiris are to be treated as Pakistan’s advocacy strength, their security cannot remain an individual burden. It is a state responsibility.
Kashmir Solidarity Day should not be an annual ritual disconnected from policy outcomes. It should be a moment of strategic accountability.
The Kashmiri people are not asking Pakistan to invent new positions. They are asking Pakistan to:
• act on proposals already submitted in writing,
• protect those carrying the advocacy burden abroad,
• and respond proactively when diplomatic openings—even imperfect ones—emerge.
History will not judge how many speeches were delivered on 5 February.
It will judge whether solidarity remained ceremonial—or whether it was finally converted into strategy, protection, and international consequence.
I had the opportunity to speak in a webinar organised by Centre for International Strategic Studies Azad Kashmir ( CISS AJK ) to commemorate the tragic events of November 6, 1947 remembered as the #JammuGenocide .
Herewith below is the speech I made .
Distinguished scholars, respected colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,
I am deeply honored to speak before this esteemed gathering at a time when the world is once again debating the boundaries of justice, memory, and impunity.
Today, I wish to recall an event that remains largely absent from international discourse yet it lies at the heart of the unresolved question of Jammu and Kashmir.
That event is the Jammu Massacre of November 6, 1947 one of South Asia’s earliest and most silenced genocides .
A Silenced Genocide
Seventy-eight years ago, in the autumn of 1947, the plains and hills of Jammu became the site of a planned and systematic extermination of Muslims.
In just a few weeks, between 200,000 and 500,000 people were killed.
More than 700,000 were expelled from their homes and forced across the border into newly created Pakistan.
Entire villages vanished. Families were told they were being taken to safety only to be ambushed and slaughtered on the way to Sialkot.
The perpetrators were not mobs acting in chaos; they were Dogra state forces and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) militias operating with coordination and impunity.
The late Ved Bhasin, one of Jammu’s most respected journalists and an eyewitness, wrote:
“What happened in Jammu in 1947 was a systematic and planned massacre of Muslims. It changed the demography of the region forever and yet, it remains
erased from India’s official history.”
His words capture both the enormity of the crime and the scale of its erasure.
⸻
The Purpose Behind the Violence
The killings were not random. They had a political and demographic purpose.
Before 1947, Muslims made up more than 60 percent of Jammu’s population.
After the massacre and forced migration, that number dropped to nearly 30 percent transformation so dramatic it could only have been deliberate.
—
The goal was to permanently alter the demography of Jammu and ensure that any future political arrangement for Jammu and Kashmir would be tilted against its Muslim population.
British records from the time confirm the involvement of the Dogra administration in organising “evacuations” that became instruments of extermination.
Ian Stephens, then editor of The Statesman, described Jammu as “an emptied land.”
It was, in many ways, the first act of structural genocide in the modern history of Kashmir.
Erasure as a Continuation of Violence
What followed was a silence almost as devastating as the massacre itself.
There was no investigation. No memorial. No recognition.
Refugees who crossed into Pakistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir were stripped of property and citizenship.
Those who remained in Jammu saw their lands confiscated, mosques destroyed or repurposed, and their history erased from the public record.
To this day, no official record, textbook, or state commemoration acknowledges what happened in Jammu in 1947.
This deliberate amnesia is not a historical oversight it is a political decision.
It extends the violence by denying the victims their humanity and the survivors their truth.
Unfortunately our leaders like Sheikh abdullah was responsible for this erasure . We Kashmiris within the valley did not know about the enormity of this for lot of time and I remember that in 2015 Zafar choudhary a journalist published his book
“Kashmir Conflict and Muslims of Jammu, (2015)”” wherein this genocide was described in a detailed manner and I am witness that as a part of civil society organisation we publicly acknowledge as well as asked from forgiveness from the jammu Muslims of not projecting this genocide in our discourses on kashmir .
Today is a good occasion to take that forward .
The Continuum: From 1947 to the Present
The Jammu Massacre did not end in 1947.
Its logic – the logic of demographic domination now re-emerged in the twenty-first century.
When India revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status on August 5, 2019, and imposed new domicile and land laws allowing non-residents to settle in the region, it marked the institutionalization of the same project that began in 1947.
The policies introduced since then —land transfers, military colonies, and politically driven redistricting —replicate the demographic engineering first tested in Jammu.
The difference is that what was done with rifles in 1947 is now being done with regulations, bureaucracy, and legal instruments.
This is why we describe the Jammu Massacre not as a single event but as a continuum of structural violence one that connects the past to the present, and erasure to occupation.
Why the World Must Acknowledge Jammu 1947
Despite its scale, the Jammu Massacre has been excluded from global genocide discourse.
Under international law, it clearly meets the threshold of a crime against humanity involving mass killings, forced displacement, and persecution on religious grounds.
Acknowledging this history is not about reopening wounds. It is about naming a wound that never healed.The world cannot uphold the principles of genocide prevention while ignoring one of its earliest and most complete examples in South Asia.
As the Kashmir Diaspora Coalition, we call upon international human rights institutions, scholars, and governments to recognize November 6 as the Jammu Massacre Memorial Day- a day of remembrance and reflection on the cost of silence.
⸻
Policy Imperatives
Recognition must be accompanied by action.
A policy paper needs to be formulated , “The Jammu Massacre of 1947: Erased Genocide and Its Enduring Consequences,” which should outline several urgent steps:
1. International Recognition:
Include the Jammu Massacre within UN and global genocide prevention frameworks.
2. Truth and Accountability:
Establish an Independent International Historical Commission on Jammu 1947 to document the massacre through archival and oral evidence.
3. Restitution and Memorialization:
Recognize the rights of displaced families, protect remaining Muslim heritage sites in Jammu, and ensure institutional remembrance through education.
Closely monitor India’s post-2019 domicile and land policies to ensure they comply with international law and human rights norms.
5. Declassification of Archives:
Release British, Indian, and Pakistani archival material that can illuminate the events of 1947 and help build an authentic historical record.
Remembrance as Justice
Ladies and gentlemen,
the denial of justice begins with the denial of truth.
For Kashmiris, remembering the Jammu Massacre is not just about history; it is about survival.
Every act of remembrance is an act of resistance against erasure.
And every act of recognition by the world community is a step toward preventing recurrence not just in Kashmir, but anywhere that power seeks to rewrite the truth of the oppressed.
The Jammu Massacre was designed to erase a people from their land.
To remember it is to refuse that erasure.
To demand justice for it is to insist on the universality of human rights.
Conclusion
As policymakers, scholars, and advocates, we must ensure that the victims of Jammu 1947 are not confined to the margins of history.
Their story is not a footnote to Partition it is a defining chapter in the struggle for dignity and self-determination in Kashmir.Seventy-eight years later, the question before us is simple yet profound:
Will we allow silence to remain the last word on Jammu 1947?
Or will we, at last, give the victims of that genocide the justice of acknowledgment and the power of memory?
My speech in both Istanbul on 25 th as well as in Ankara on 27 th
Distinguished guests, Excellencies, Brothers and sisters in humanity,
Asalamalikum .
Today, we gather to remember a date that altered the destiny of an entire nation — 27 October 1947, the day when Indian troops landed in Srinagar under the pretext of “assistance” to the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir.
For Kashmiris, this was not assistance. It was the beginning of military occupation — an occupation that, seventy-eight years later, continues to shatter lives, suppress freedoms, and defy international law.
Occupation Cannot Be Self-Defence /Counter Terrorism
India has long attempted to justify its military presence in Jammu and Kashmir through the language of self-defence and counterterrorism including narrative terrorism. But as we all know, occupation cannot be self-defence or counterterrorism or even the new labelling they are promoting of narrative terrorism by which they are putting behind bars anyone who speaks out besides registering police reports (FIR) to every section of our society .
Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the right of self-defence applies only when a state faces an armed attack from another state. Once a state occupies a territory, its actions there are governed by the law of occupation — a principle affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2004 Wall Advisory Opinion.
The Legal Framework and the Broken Promise
The United Nations Security Council, through Resolution 47 of 1948, affirmed that the future of Jammu and Kashmir was to be decided by a free and impartial plebiscite. India’s entry into the territory was accepted by the UN based on that condition. That promise was never fulfilled. Articles 1(2), 2(4), and 55 of the UN Charter enshrine the right of peoples to self-determination and prohibit the acquisition of territory by force.
The ICJ Namibia Advisory Opinion of 1971 reaffirmed that unlawful occupation cannot confer sovereignty.
The denial of the right of self determination/ plebiscite has resulted from 1947 ,killing of more than about 6-700000 Kashmiris if not a million, 150000-500000 civilians arrested from time to time , 8500 -10000 custodial killings, 12000 disappearances, 110000 structures destroyed/ arsoned, 11,170 rape cases, with injured running in hundred of thousands with at least 7000 with pellet injuries and out of them at least 700 with eye injuries resulting in blindness of different levels. Besides we have about 20000 widows as well as 1500 half widows while the number of orphans are more than 120000 .
Occupation Disguised as Counterterrorism includingnarrative terrorism
Over the decades, India has sought to rebrand its occupation through the lexicon of counterterrorism. The Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations are explicit: the acts of an occupying power are regulated by international humanitarian law, which prohibits collective punishment, arbitrary detention, and restrictions on political expression. Hundreds of political leaders, human rights defenders, and youth languish in prisons across India — from Tihar in Delhi to Agra and Kot Bhalwal — imprisoned under draconian laws such as the UAPA(Unlawful andprevention act ) and PSA.(Public safety act ) which are called out by amnesty international as lawless laws .
The Case of Yasin Malik and Political Prisoners besides human right defenders
Yasin Malik, Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, who chose the path of non- violence and dialogue, is now condemned to lifeimprisonment. Alongside him, leaders such as Shabir Shah, Ashiq Hussain Faktoo , Asiya Andrabi, Masarat Alam, and Nayeem Khan remain silenced.
In case of Shabir shah he has spent more than 33 years in jail while Ashiq hussain Fakhtoo 34 ,Masarat alam 30 years .
Besides we have one of our well know human right defender Khurram pervaz in prison for last 4 years while as another well know human right defender Mr Muhammad Ahsan Untoo has been in and out of prisons and has spent his 30 years of life in Indian prisons .
In international law, such political leaders are protected persons, not criminals.
Human Rights Violations Under Occupation
The ongoing violations in Kashmir breach the ICCPR( International covenant on civil andpolitical rights ) CAT ( committee against torture ) CEDAW (convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against women ) and CRC( Convention on the rights of children )Arbitrary arrests, torture, and denial of education to children continue. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the OHCHR have repeatedly called attention to these abuses.
The Right to Resist Occupation
UNGA Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV) affirm that peoples under foreign domination possess the right to self-determination, including the right to struggle to achieve it. The 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions recognises such struggles as legitimate, not terrorism.
Double Standards in International Justice
“The world’s double standards on justice have not only deepened the suffering of occupied peoples but also eroded faith in the rule of international law itself.”
Around the world, we see that the principles of international law are invoked selectively — applied to some, denied to others.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, the International Criminal Court moved within months, issuing arrest warrants and mobilising global condemnation.
Yet, when the people of Gaza are bombarded or when Kashmir has lived underoccupation for seventy-eight years, the same institutions fall silent.
This is not only hypocrisy — it is the collapse of the very idea of universal justice.
As highlighted in recent international legal commentaries, the system of accountability has been captured by power politics: those with vetoes in the UN Security Council or strategic alliances with powerful states are shielded from scrutiny.
If international law is to have meaning, it must apply equally — from Kyiv to Gaza to Srinagar.
Kashmir cannot remain an exception to the world’s conscience. The credibility of the entire international order depends on ending this selective enforcement and holding every occupying power to the same legal and moral standard.
Accountability and International Responsibility
The Rome Statute defines torture and denial of fair trial as war crimes. Universal jurisdiction allows any state to prosecute such crimes. The 2018 and 2019 OHCHR reports urged creation of a Commission of Inquiry into violations in Jammu & Kashmir which never happened .
Call to Action: Restoring Integrity to International Justice
To correct this global hypocrisy, we must call upon both governments and people of conscience to act:
1. Governments must uphold consistency in international law — the same principles invoked in Ukraine must be applied to Kashmir and Gaza. Selective justice erodes the very legitimacy of the global legal order.
2. Member States of the UN must move beyond the paralysis of the Security Council and activate the UN General Assembly to establish independent investigative mechanisms for Kashmir under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
3. Countries of the Global South — from Türkiye to South Africa, from Malaysia to Latin America —should unite to demand reform of international justice institutions so that no power, however large, remains above the law.
4. Civil societies and individuals must insist that their governments end complicity through silence — by conditioning partnerships, trade, and security cooperation on adherence to human rights and humanitarian law.
5. The international legal community — scholars, jurists, and human rights defenders — must treat Kashmir as a living test of whether law or politics governs the world order.If the world could act with urgency in Ukraine, it cannot turn away from Kashmir.
Justice cannot depend on geography, religion, or power — it must depend only on truth.
Generations in Captivity
Entire generations have grown up under curfews and fear. The trauma of seventy-eight years cannot be measured in statistics alone.
Checkpoints replaced schools with almost every far flung villages have these check points at the start and end of villages , graveyards replaced playgrounds.
The Moral and Legal Imperative
The occupation of Jammu and Kashmir is a test of the international legal order. States have an ergaomnes (rights are owed towards all ) obligation to ensure respect for international law. Silence in the face of such violations is complicity.
Closing Appeal
India cannot claim self-defence or terrorism of any type while occupying Kashmir. It cannot imprison an entire people and call it peace. And it cannot criminalise the dream of freedom — a dream that began long before 1947 and will not die behind prison walls.On this 27th of October, as the world observes Black Day, let us reaffirm that occupation cannot outlast the will of a people determined to be free.
The world may have forgotten, but Kashmir has not .
And as long as justice remains denied, the voice of Kashmir will continue to echo — in Srinagar, in Istanbul, in London, in washington as-well as Johannesburg and all over the world and in every conscience that refuses to accept silence as peace.
The tragedy unfolding in Gaza today did not happen overnight. It is the result of decades of deliberate inaction. The world allowed Israel to defy UN resolutions, to expand settlements, to entrench occupation, and to silence Palestinian voices under the guise of “security.” Each time, international leaders responded not with action, but with calls for “dialogue” and “bilateral negotiations.” The result has been catastrophic: a population pushed to the edge of survival, mass displacement, cultural erasure, and today, one of the worst humanitarian disasters of our time.
For Kashmir, this is not just a warning. It is a mirror.
Kashmir’s Broken Promises
When the United Nations first addressed the Kashmir conflict in 1948, it recognized the territory’s disputed status and called for a free and impartial plebiscite to determine its future. India and Pakistan both agreed in principle. Yet more than seven decades later, no plebiscite has been held.
Instead, the world has fallen into the trap of bilateralism—the idea that India and Pakistan must resolve Kashmir through direct talks, with the UN standing aside. This framework has failed at every stage:
• 1962–63: Swaran Singh–Bhutto Talks — brokered by the United States and Britain after the Sino-India war, these talks sidelined the UN resolutions and set the dangerous precedent of “bilateralism.”
• 1966: Tashkent Agreement — a ceasefire, but no progress on Kashmir.
• 1972: Shimla Agreement — India insisted Kashmir was a purely bilateral matter, effectively freezing UN involvement.
• 1999: Lahore Declaration — derailed by the Kargil conflict.
• 2001: Agra Summit — collapsed after last-minute Indian resistance.
Each attempt ended the same way: India buying time while tightening its grip on Kashmir.
The End of Autonomy
The last decade has made clear that India is not interested in a negotiated solution. In August 2019, New Delhi unilaterally abrogated Article 370 of its Constitution, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of the limited autonomy it had left. This was done under military lockdown, with mass detentions of political leaders, journalists, and civil society activists. Internet shutdowns silenced dissent. New domicile laws opened the door to demographic engineering, threatening to permanently alter the Muslim-majority character of the region.
Today, nearly one million Indian troops are stationed in Kashmir—making it the most militarized zone in the world. Reports of custodial torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings continue to surface. Books are banned, online archives erased, and Kashmiri culture is under systematic assault.
Yet the world looks away. Just as it looked away from Palestine.
The Failure of Bilateralism
Bilateralism has not just failed—it has been weaponized. India invokes it to block international scrutiny, while refusing to negotiate in good faith. Kashmiris themselves have been excluded from these talks altogether, treated as objects of negotiation rather than subjects with rights.
More than 65 years after Swaran Singh and Bhutto sat across the table, it is obvious: bilateralism is dead.
Lessons from Palestine
The Gaza catastrophe shows what happens when the international community substitutes “dialogue” for accountability. By treating Israel as above international law, world powers allowed the situation to spiral until it became almost irreversible. Sanctions, boycotts, and diplomatic isolation should have been imposed decades ago. Instead, the world normalized occupation, and now we are left with genocide.
Kashmir risks the same fate. If the world continues to hide behind “bilateralism” and economic partnerships with India, it will one day awaken to a tragedy beyond repair.
The Case for Sanctions
The time has come to move beyond empty resolutions and statements of concern. Targeted sanctions against India are both morally justified and strategically necessary.
Sanctions can take many forms:
• Diplomatic: Suspension of high-level visits, exclusion from forums until compliance with UN resolutions.
• Economic: Restrictions on arms sales, high-tech exports, and trade privileges.
• Cultural & Academic: Visa bans on officials implicated in human rights abuses; suspensions of joint cultural and academic projects.
This is not unprecedented. The world united to impose sanctions on Apartheid South Africa, despite powerful Western business lobbies opposing them. Sanctions helped isolate the regime and empower the global anti-apartheid movement. The same must happen with India.
Grassroots efforts—such as boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns—has to be put in place . But without state-backed measures, the impact will remain limited. What is needed is political courage from governments and multilateral bodies, beginning with the OIC, the UN Human Rights Council, and sympathetic nations in Europe, Africa, and Latin America.
The Moral Imperative
Silence is complicity. The UN Security Council once promised Kashmiris the right to self-determination. That promise has been betrayed for more than 70 years. Meanwhile, an entire generation has grown up under siege, denied basic freedoms, and told that the world has forgotten them.
If the world had acted earlier in Palestine, Gaza might not be burning today. If the world acts now in Kashmir, perhaps it can still prevent another catastrophe.
Conclusion
The choice is stark. Continue to hide behind bilateralism, and watch Kashmir slide into permanent occupation, cultural erasure, and large-scale violence. Or act decisively—through sanctions, international accountability, and renewed insistence on UN resolutions—to honor the promises made to Kashmiris.
Kashmir cannot wait another decade. The cost of silence is too high.
On July 13, 2025, the Indian state exposed the hollowness of its claims over Kashmir when Omar Abdullah, the present chief minister and mainstream political figure, was blocked from visiting the Mazar-e-Shuhada in Srinagar. This act symbolized the complete closure of civic space, even for those previously aligned with the Indian state ( whom Kashmiris at large label as collaborators ). It reminded the world that Jammu & Kashmir is not a functional democracy but a territory under permanent emergency, characterized by surveillance, demographic engineering, and suppression of political agency.
The incident occurred after almost a month ( precisely 19 days after )Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) held its 51th Session of The Council of Foreign Ministers in Istanbul , where Kashmir was discussed with renewed urgency. On that occasion, the Kashmir Diaspora Coalition (KDC) of which I am presently the head submitted a response which was communicated to the OIC urging the OIC to move beyond symbolic resolutions toward action rooted in international law and moral responsibility.
Today escalating India-Pakistan tensions, and increased Kashmiri diaspora mobilization, the moment has arrived to implement a comprehensive roadmap for just peace in Kashmir.
Strategic Continuity: A Framework Rooted in Justice
The core principles I laid out in 2020 remain unchanged and now gain deeper international legitimacy:
1. Right to Self-Determination:
Enshrined in UN Resolutions 47 through 122, this principle is non-negotiable. It calls for a UN-supervised plebiscite—a promise the world has yet to fulfill.
2. Stoppage of Demographic Change:
The systematic dilution of Kashmiri identity through the Domicile Law is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. India’s settler-colonial project must be reversed.
3. End to Human Rights Abuses:
India must halt its use of preventive detention laws like PSA and UAPA, and lift the military siege that has turned Kashmir into an open-air prison.
4. Prisoner Release and Rule of Law:
Kashmiris imprisoned since the abrogation of Article 370 & before that date must be released. India’s courts have failed to uphold even basic liberties; international mechanisms must now intervene.
The Trump Presidency: A Renewed Window for Diplomatic Intervention
The return of President Donald Trump to the White House in 2025 has reshaped the strategic context of Kashmir diplomacy. In a recent statement, President Trump publicly claimed credit for the latest ceasefire between India and Pakistan, describing it as the result of “quiet but firm American diplomacy.” More importantly, he signaled that his administration is willing to directly intervene in the Kashmir dispute, reviving his 2019 offer of mediation.
Unlike previous administrations that deferred to India’s “bilateralism” narrative, Trump views the Kashmir conflict through the lens of deal-making and global conflict resolution. His political persona, centered around decisive interventions and legacy-building, creates an unexpected yet powerful opening.
For Kashmiri diplomacy, this presents a unique opportunity:
• The current ceasefire creates breathing room for pushing confidence-building measures such as prisoner release, demilitarization, and international access.
• The Trump administration may be persuaded to back a regional economic framework—including my longstanding proposal of a Free Economic Zone across both sides of J&K—to position Kashmir as a peace corridor.
• The Diaspora particularly the Kashmiri-American diaspora and advocacy allies must immediately ramp up engagement with this administration, framing Kashmir not as a liability but as a peace dividend for South Asia and U.S. strategic interests.
Whether one agrees with Trump’s politics or not, his presidency offers a renewed diplomatic window—one that must be seized with urgency, focus, and realism.
The Path Forward: A Phased, Practical Roadmap
1. Free Economic Zone for Entire J&K
My longstanding proposal for designating both Indian- and Pakistani-administered Kashmir as a Free Economic Zone (FEZ) has gained renewed urgency. With CPEC gaining momentum and China’s increased interest in regional stability, declaring both AJK (Azad Kashmir ) and IOJK ( Indian occupied Jammu Kashmir ) as FEZs:
• Provides economic hope to the youth.
• Positions Kashmir as a bridge for peace rather than a nuclear flashpoint.
• Creates conditions for functional autonomy pending political settlement.
2. Recognition of AJK or Government-in-Exile
If India refuses international access and dialogue:
• Pakistan must consider declaring Azad Jammu & Kashmir an independent state, much like the PLO or Palestine, and seek international recognition.
• Alternatively, a Government-in-Exile should be declared, possibly based in Turkey or Malaysia, with representation from AJK and the global Kashmiri diaspora.
3. Mobilize Legal and Institutional Mechanisms
• Engage the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes in Kashmir.
• Move to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through friendly states (e.g. Gambia, Malaysia) to challenge India’s demographic changes and use of torture.
• Highlight misuse of PSA and UAPA as violations of civil and political rights.
Inspired by the Palestine solidarity movement, we must:
• Target international firms complicit in surveillance, arms sales, or occupation infrastructure.
• Picket and pressure entities investing in Kashmir’s illegal colonization.
• Use diaspora networks to stage global campaigns in front of consulates, corporate offices, and international forums.
5. Harness Cultural Resistance
• Support musicians, filmmakers, writers, and athletes who carry the Kashmiri story into the global conscience.
• Build platforms for young Kashmiri voices to counter the Indian state’s disinformation.
• Commission new works of resistance art and documentary journalism.
⸻
Conclusion: This Is the Moment to Act
History is shaped by those who combine moral clarity with strategic foresight. For too long, Kashmir has been trapped between rhetorical support and geopolitical compromise. But the global shift in perception—helped by the COVID-era understanding of lockdowns, the Ukraine war’s reminder of international double standards, and the enduring Palestinian struggle—has opened space for Kashmir on the world stage.
The world can no longer ignore the reality of Kashmir.
The time for resolutions alone is over. The time for actions rooted in justice, rights, and international law has begun.
I attended last night the above convention in presence of galaxy of speakers .
I tried to communicate in a structured manner our pain ,Muslim world pain ,the need of Pakistan to become truly the citadel of Islam in regard to #Palestine & #Kashmir .
Although I was able to speak almost everything in my allotted time but I am putting up this post for conveying the whole with the underlying reasoning .
AsalamAlikumAs a Kashmiri I would like to give my view on all the three points under discussion.
Please bear with me
Turmoil in Pakistan and its effect on the region
India has taken the most advantage of the situation in Pakistan particularly by the actions they are taking in Kashmir & unfortunately not talked about much by the world as well as for that matter in Pakistan except for lip service – a) the occupation has been strengthened by manipulation and getting the Supreme Court of india confirm the action of 5th august 2019 of the modi govt .as their Supreme Court is an extension of the executive particularly when it comes to Kashmir proved no of times in the execution of Maqbool Bhat & Afzal Guroo . b) further strengthening of the occupation by india of putting their plans of creating settler colonies just like Israel has done with the latest announcement of land allotments to retired Indian army personnel in the form of Sainik colonies which already had Sainik farms besides land for their different divisions as well as other lands c) The denial of the right of self determination has resulted in particularly from 1990 ,killing of more than 100000 Kashmiris ,150000 civilians arrested, 8500 custodial killings, 12000 disappearances, 110000 structures destroyed/arsoned, 11,170 rape cases, with injured running in hundred of thousands with at least 7000 with pellet injuries and out of them at least 700 with eye injuries resulting in blindness of different levels. Besides we have about 20000 widows as well as 1500 half widows while the number of orphans are more than 120000 and the prevalence of PTSD ( post traumatic stress disorder ) in hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris of all age groups . By adding all these figures and keeping in view our society having a minimum 10 family members resulting in that our 4.5 million people have been effected directly . The above situation is enough to invoke Article 2 of the Genocide Convention that there is a genocide going on in Indian occupied Kashmir . Some countries like South Africa have shown the way to go to ICJ while as Mexico & Chile has gone to ICC in case of Palestine .
On one side of the fulcrum Pakistan has a running policy of no trade with India after August 2019 & rightly so although the Kashmiri view at that time and still is that it should have been more as I pointed out to khan sahib when I met him last year in Zaman park . Now there is a talk of starting trade etc Unfortunately Pakistanis do not learn from history . No amount of talks or expectation of reinventing the wheel by doing trade can change Indian policy until and unless a strong leadership is in place who can see eye to eye and have the courage to expose the hindutva agenda or islamaphobia regime presently in place in India .
That the attack on a nuclear power Pakistan by Iran was intended to send clear messages to the United States and its allies, not least Israel, is hard to dispute.
We know who benefited from 9/11 . At this time in the world particularly in our region it is a similar situation. After 9/11 , 6 countries were demolished & destroyed. Now they have started in Gaza
Iran fired missiles on Pakistan & Pakistan fired back rightly to protect each other’s sovereignty. Yet when the sovereignty of our holy mosque Al Quds is violated, nothing is done.
I fear the region as well the Muslim world is going to suffer if we do not have a leadership in Pakistan who carries weight not only in the region but the world particularly when the economy of Pakistan is in dire straits .
Being a businessman without a stable environment no investments will come & the vision of Pakistan as the citadel of Islam will be a pipe dream .
2.Impact of Imran Khan on Muslim world/Region
Imran Khan, as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, has influenced the Muslim world and the region in several ways. His leadership has been characterized by efforts to foster diplomatic relations and promote peace. Khan sahib has been vocal on issues like Islamophobia which culminated in the UN declaring a day of 15th March as a day Islamophobia worldwide, Kashmir conflict, advocating for the rights of Kashmiris. Additionally, he has played a role in facilitating dialogues between Muslim-majority countries.( As per media even been able to break the ice between Iran & Saudia Arabia)
How Israel took advantage of the situation of a leadership vacuum in Pakistan who could have been a strong voice in OIC which could have been different as with their relentless war against Gaza which is going on with at least 32245 Palestinians (including 12660 children , 6860 women ) have been killed, over 62634 injured, 72440 homes destroyed completely besides 190250 buildings partially damaged .
The most unapologetic Muslim leader who spoke against the indirect American interference in Muslim nations unlike many Arab leaders who have accepted the American hegemony.
It is important that in the Muslim world there is a need to have a strong voice to add to the other strong voice like President Erdogan of Türkiye where I live whose people are behind him .
IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNISE THIS AS THERE IS A PATTERN OF GLOBAL ASSAULT ON ISLAM…. PALESTINE , KASHMIR,ROHINGYAS,EAST TURKMENISTAN,CHECHNYA,BOSNIA are examples . The pattern has been described in detail if we study
DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY.
THE LAUSANNE DECLARATION
CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT. MAN
GENERAL WESTMORELAND EXPOSE OF THE PENTAGON PLANS TO DESTROY AND DESTABILIZE THE ENTIRE MID EAST.
CHRISTIAN ZIONISM .
CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS BY HUNTINGTON
The Strengths of a State are Rule of Law and its ability to respond to UN Charter obligations.
State should not be seen fragile and failing to uphold the human rights and the constitutional guarantees. State should be seen administering rule of law and not persecuting Imran Khan.
Imran Khan has a constituency at home and abroad. Due regard should be given to it. I would like to recall that recently I met a Palestinain activist who told me in my discussion that in the Islamic world voice of Mahathir Mohammad is heard besides President Erdoğan & lamented the absence of Khan sahib whose voice would have changed the response of the Islamic world in regard to Gaza . This is a Palestinian talking .
3.Impact of cyphergate on US Pakistan relations
There is a difference in the perception of the public which I got living in Türkiye wherein I saw that Pakistanis when they meet me here or I met them on my visit to Pakistan that America was considered not an enemy but not a friend also but after cyphergate it is now perceived to be an enemy by interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan.
The truth is that Khan sahib has few friends in the West after prioritizing relations with Russia and China. “From a Washington perspective, anyone would be better than Khan,” says Michael Kugelman, the director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. The policy of prioritising was correct as we know how India took advantage at least with Russia economically .
I would like to tell the Kashmir perspective about What is the US Policy on Kashmir as it is important also to know the possibility of how the Pakistan America policy plays out as it is an important component of the relationship
– I as a person do not know for certain as they have a clear cut policy in case of Palestine but the policy on Kashmir is not yet clear completely.
In case of Palestine , America is Israel and Israel is America which is clear by their actions in the ongoing Gaza war with openly vetoing of ceasefire, no accountability of Israel when they are doing Genocide of Palestinians.
In case of Kashmir it has not reached a stage of that America is India or India is America yet .
My personal experience of getting release from Indian jails because of pressure primarily by America through senate hearings etc which put enough pressure on the Indian govt to release me showed at that time that the policy is try to act on human rights vis a vis Kashmir but not doing it in the case of persons like Khurram Pervaz since then reflects in either change of policy after need of India against China or enough pressure not put on the institutions in America like it was just after August 2019
Double speak in regard to human rights and false narrative building has been exposed of America in the case of Palestine & although in Kashmir they are publicly not yet doing the same .
One of the most important false narratives promoted and supported by America is labelling freedom fighters in Palestine or Kashmir as terrorists while as previously they in case of Afghans when they were fighting the soviets or Foreigners in Ukraine fighting the Russians as freedom fighters which exposes the hypocrisy.
America has not kept its commitment of getting settlement of Kashmir as per aspirations of Kashmiri people which was promised to General Ayub Khan so that Pakistan does not attack India when China attacked india in 1962 . The model of talks , talks and talks as has been the case of Palestine without any result .
After 1947 initially America was supporting our position , they were even sponsors of the resolution but unfortunately with time although they are not completely against but do not act as they should have for implementation of the UNSC resolutions
Keeping the above in view what will be the effect of cyber gate on the relationship between Pakistan America relationship can be imagined .
Is there any leader who can tell them the above facts in regard to kashmir and that also publicly
Who will talk to them on an equal footing and absolutely not basis to safeguard the sovereignty of Pakistan . People of Pakistan need to decide it decisively. Our basis of Kashmir settlement is on the basis of Right of Self Determination & certainly Pakistanis need to decide for themselves how they need to be governed & not only be a developed nation with dignity and honour but the citadel of Islam for which it was created .
Mubeen"s Blog 