The struggle of Kashmir stands as an enduring symbol of unresolved injustice, fueled by international inaction and power dynamics, and posing an ongoing challenge to global peace and human rights.

Kashmir is one of the oldest items on the Security Council's agenda. The issue involves violations of two fundamental principles of the UN Charter and international law: the right of peoples to self-determination and the prohibition of acquiring territory through the use of force.
For various reasons, the international community has failed, for over seven decades, to make the difficult decisions necessary to impose just solutions for Kashmir.
Diplomatic initiatives on Kashmir, particularly in the Security Council, remained largely dormant for decades until 2019. Neither India nor Pakistan, each for its own reasons, sought to activate the Security Council on Kashmir. India preferred to address the Kashmir issue bilaterally, where it enjoys the advantage of size. Pakistan, on the other hand, was concerned that due to geopolitical developments and support for India from the U.S. and other permanent members, the existing UN position on Kashmir—namely, the Security Council’s call for a plebiscite—could be undermined if the issue was brought to the Council. However, since August 5, 2019, when India unilaterally altered the status of occupied Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan was compelled to raise the issue in the Security Council. It did so on three occasions between August 2019 and August 2020.
In the case of Kashmir, a just solution has not been secured for two primary reasons: first, the injured party—the Kashmiri people and Pakistan—have lacked the military capability to enforce such solutions; and second, veto-wielding major powers—the U.S., the UK, France, and Russia—have, directly or indirectly, discouraged further multilateral action to enforce the provisions of the Security Council resolutions.
The "cost of silence" is immense. In Kashmir, the cost is less visible due to India’s information blackout; however, it is no less real and could potentially be far more significant than the one-sided consequences imposed by Israel in Palestine and the Middle East.
Jammu and Kashmir
The events of the past 15 months in the Middle East also offer valuable lessons for addressing the Kashmir dispute. The most obvious lesson is that injustice—the suppression of a people's right to self-determination and foreign occupation—will inevitably lead to conflict and possibly a wider war.

To this day, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrest of innocent civilians, widespread use of torture, enforced disappearances, rape and sexual violence, denial of freedom of expression and religion, and confiscation of land and natural resources of Kashmiris, continue in IIOJK.

For several decades, Kashmir's quest for freedom and self-determination was pursued through political means and negotiations between the Kashmiris, India, and Pakistan. The Kashmiri freedom movement was carried out through non-violent protests, civil disobedience, and political mobilization. It was only after the massacre of over 100 Kashmiri protesters by Indian forces in December 1989 that the Kashmiris launched their freedom struggle, which some referred to as "the Kashmiri Intifada."
India responded with systemic oppression, including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and the massive militarization of the occupied territory. Despite this oppression, during the decade of the 1990s, the Kashmiri resistance movement intensified.  Kashmiri youth, women, and civil society collectively stood up to oppose India’s political subjugation, economic marginalization, and gross human rights violations. 
The Kashmiri Intifada entailed immense suffering for the people of occupied Jammu and Kashmir. But it drew significant international attention to the cause of the Kashmiri people. It exposed India’s massive use of force, the suppression of basic Kashmiri human rights, and the suppression of all dissent. Despite brutal crackdowns, including information blackouts and restrictions on the freedom of expression, the resistance movement amplified the demand for self-determination. The resilience of the Kashmiri people garnered solidarity from global human rights organizations, international media and the UN human rights machinery. It spurred debates on the urgent need for a peaceful resolution. When Pakistan proposed a UN investigation in the Human Rights Commission in 1994, India agreed to a bilateral dialogue on Kashmir. However, the Kashmiri freedom struggle was brutally suppressed by India’s occupation forces, and the resistance movement was compromised through infiltration, false flag operations, and connections with global terrorist groups.
Following the nuclear explosions conducted by both India and Pakistan, an attempt was made to normalize India-Pakistan relations through the Lahore Declaration. However, it did not provide an assurance for an equitable solution for Kashmir. The brief détente was shattered by the Kargil conflict.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, India’s oppression in Kashmir obtained the benediction of all the permanent members of the Security Council, apart from China. Despite Pakistan’s role in support of America’s “war on terror”, Pakistan was obliged to give assurances that its territory would not be used to promote terrorism, an implicit acceptance of India’s narrative against the Kashmiri freedom struggle. This created a fertile political ground for intensified Indian accusations that Pakistan was sponsoring terrorism in occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
After the near-war of 2002 between India and Pakistan, both sides made efforts to find a solution for Kashmir. In the dialogue between the government of former President Musharraf and Indian Prime Ministers Vajpayee and, later, Manmohan Singh, a Plan was formulated for enhanced autonomy, shared governance and demilitarization for the regions of Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC). This was to be implemented in a phased approach, starting with confidence-building measures (CBMs), the reduction of hostilities, and the fostering of mutual trust to be followed by a lasting solution. 
However, the Plan faced domestic challenges in both countries from public opinion and some key “stakeholders”, including the opposition party, Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), in India. The Plan was abandoned with the political departure of Musharraf and Manmohan Singh. 

India’s unilateral measures since August 5, 2019, violate Security Council resolutions 47, 91, and 122, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international humanitarian law. Under international law–as recently confirmed in the ICJ’s conclusions in the case of Palestine–India’s oppression in occupied Kashmir amounts to war crimes.

The benign bilateral dynamics changed completely in 2014 with the assumption of office by the Modi-led BJP government. Since 1945, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP’s political parent, has promoted the Hindutva dream of annexing Jammu and Kashmir by force. The Pulwama-Balakot crisis of February 2019 marked a critical turning point in the already tense relations between India and Pakistan, bringing into sharp focus the aggressive policies of the Modi government regarding Kashmir. This crisis could have led to a full-scale war between two nuclear powers had it not been for Pakistan’s measured military response and restraint. The crisis should have alerted the international community to the ever-present danger of an eruption of conflict between Pakistan and India at short notice, with the potential for sharp escalation.
The weak and one-sided response of the major powers to India’s unilateral attack on Balakot is likely to have encouraged the Modi government to take the unilateral measures of August 5, 2019 to reverse Article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its “special” and autonomous constitutional status and splitting Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh into two separate “Union territories” and annexing them in what the BJP leaders ominously termed as the “Final Solution” for Kashmir. 
Anticipating Kashmiri opposition to these moves, India augmented its occupation army, which now numbers 900,000 troops in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). A complete lockdown was imposed which lasted over a year. All political leaders were incarcerated. Over 13,000 young Kashmiri men were abducted and many of them tortured. To this day, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrest of innocent civilians, widespread use of torture, enforced disappearances, rape and sexual violence, denial of freedom of expression and religion, and confiscation of land and natural resources of Kashmiris, continue in IIOJK.  
In a classic colonial gambit, India has sought to change the demographic composition of Occupied Jammu and Kashmir from a Muslim majority State to a Hindu majority territory. India has issued over 4.2 million domicile certificates to non-Kashmiris; seized Kashmir lands and allowed non-Kashmiris to buy real estate.
India’s unilateral measures since August 5, 2019, violate Security Council resolutions 47, 91, and 122, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international humanitarian law. Under international law–as recently confirmed in the ICJ’s conclusions in the case of Palestine–India’s oppression in occupied Kashmir amounts to war crimes.
To intimidate Pakistan from challenging the annexation, India has adopted an aggressive posture. The Indian Foreign Minister has made statements claiming Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), while the Indian Defense Minister has threatened to "take over" this territory by force. The Indian Army Chief has threatened to cross the LoC. India’s armed forces have adopted dangerous doctrines, such as “Cold Start,” which envisions a surprise attack against Pakistan, and another advocating for fighting a “limited war under the nuclear overhang.” Pakistan has exercised restraint in response to these reckless threats. However, it goes without saying that Pakistan will respond with all its capabilities to any Indian aggression.
The danger of another India-Pakistan war should not be underestimated. It could be triggered by another violent incident in which Indian occupation forces suffer major casualties at the hands of the Kashmiri resistance. India would no doubt blame Pakistan for any such event. Indeed, India could justify aggression by staging a false flag operation. Or, India could be encouraged by Israeli’s example to unilaterally conduct a strike or incursion across the LoC and/or the international border. Unlike Israel’s neighbors, however, Pakistan does not lack the means to respond robustly to such attacks or incursions. The continued credibility of Pakistan’s conventional and strategic deterrence is vital to prevent Indian aggression. 
A conflict once started could escalate sharply, militarily and geographically. If the conflict is prolonged, India’s conventional advantage may compel Pakistan to deploy its strategic capabilities. Threats from India’s friends are unlikely to deter Pakistan if it faces an existential threat. Nor can Pakistan ignore the danger of a preemptive “strike” on its strategic capabilities by India. 
The major powers are well aware of this dangerous dynamic. Their response should be to seek a resolution of India-Pakistan disputes, especially Kashmir, and to promote ways to reduce tensions and build stability in South Asia. Instead, the U.S. under the Biden Administration–enamored by its strategic partnership with India to “contain” China–has sought to compromise Pakistan’s capability for strategic and conventional deterrence, e.g., by seeking one-sided restrictions on Pakistan’s missile programme, its fissile material production and acquisition of advanced technologies and equipment even for civilian and conventional use. Pakistan has rightly rejected these discriminatory restrictions. They are clearly designed to consolidate Indian domination over Pakistan and other South Asian countries and to “free” India’s military capabilities to confront China. What Washington may be beginning to realize is that India, committed to its “strategic autonomy,” and knowing full well the consequences, will never confront China.
A failure to prevent another India-Pakistan conflict will have consequences that could dwarf those of the recent Gaza conflict. The challenge for Pakistan’s diplomacy is to convince the international community of the “cost of silence” on the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan can and should utilize its current two-year term on the Security Council to secure international action to resolve the Kashmir dispute and prevent another India-Pakistan conflict.
Pakistan has offered several reasonable proposals to this end, including the proposal for a South Asian regional restraint regime, regional CBMs, and a resumed dialogue on Kashmir and peace and security between Pakistan and India. It is time to activate these initiatives. 

The author is the Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations in New York.