Laraib Ehsan
At what point does sovereignty lose its legal and moral legitimacy? International law does not grant states unlimited power over people, especially in territories whose status is disputed. It places clear obligations on governments to respect human rights, uphold justice, and allow people a voice in determining their future. Nowhere is this tension more visible than in Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIoJK), where the actions of India continue to raise serious concerns about compliance with international law and the protection of fundamental rights.
The Kashmir dispute is not simply a political disagreement between India and Pakistan. It is, at its core, a legal issue rooted in the right to self-determination. Since 1947, the territory has been recognized by the United Nations as disputed. Through UN Security Council Resolution 47, the international community established a clear framework: the people of Kashmir were to decide their future through a free and fair plebiscite. More than seventy years later, this legal commitment remains unfulfilled, raising serious questions about the credibility of international law itself.
Over time, instead of moving toward a political solution, the region has experienced increasing militarization and legal centralization. The removal of Article 370 in August 2019 by the government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party BJP marked a turning point. This decision ended the limited autonomy of IIoJKand brought it under direct federal control. While the Indian government described this as a step toward integration and development, the method of implementation marked by mass detentions, communication blackouts, and heavy troop deployment drew widespread concern.
Security policies introduced after 2019 have further expanded state control. What has been described as Delhi’s “Seven Pillars” security doctrine is presented as a framework for stability. However, in practice, it resembles what many observers describe as “seven bars of an iron cage,” extending surveillance and restrictions into nearly every aspect of civilian life. Movement, communication, and political expression are closely monitored, limiting the space for normal civic life.
The human cost of this approach is significant. According to reports by the Research Section of Kashmir Media Service, Indian forces including the army, paramilitary units, Border Security Force, Special Operations Group, and police have killed over 1,059 Kashmiris since August 5, 2019, including at least 22 women. The same reports indicate that at least 2,690 individuals have been critically injured due to the use of pellet guns, tear gas, and other forms of force against protesters and civilians. While these figures are disputed by Indian authorities, they are widely cited by observers to highlight the scale of alleged abuses. Under international law, the use of force by state authorities must meet strict standards of necessity and proportionality. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsguarantees the right to life, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly. Excessive or indiscriminate use of force against civilians raises serious legal concerns and demands accountability.
Equally concerning is the legal framework that supports such actions. Laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act grant broad powers to security forces, including arrest without warrant and extended detention without trial. These provisions have been criticized by human rights organizations for undermining due process and enabling a culture of impunity.
The prolonged detention of Aasiya Andrabi illustrates this issue clearly. A 64-year-old political activist and founder of Dukhtaran-e-Millat, she has spent over 15 years in prison under charges such as “waging war against the state” and “terror-related conspiracy.” Her case is widely cited by critics as an example of how counter-terrorism laws, particularly the UAPA, can be used to suppress political dissent. The law’s vague definitions and restrictive bail conditions have raised serious concerns about fair trial rights and the shrinking space for dissent.
In addition to human rights law, international humanitarian law is also relevant in situations of prolonged conflict and heavy military presence. The Fourth Geneva Convention sets clear standards for the protection of civilians. While India does not consider Kashmir an occupied territory, the scale of military operations and repeated allegations of civilian harm invite continued legal scrutiny under these international norms.
Meanwhile, the situation on the ground remains fragile. Incidents such as the Pahalgam attack of April 2025 show that instability continues to define life in the region. While such events are often framed in terms of counter-terrorism, they also highlight the failure of existing policies to bring lasting peace. Civilians remain the primary victims, living between fear, uncertainty, and limited opportunities.
At its core, the Kashmir issue is not about territory alone. It is about justice, rights, and the credibility of international law itself. Legal principles such as self-determination, human dignity, and protection from arbitrary state power are not meant to be selective, they are meant to be universal. Yet, when these principles remain unenforced in cases like IIoJK, and similarly in places such as Palestine, where prolonged conflict and unresolved legal questions persist despite decades of international attention, the gap between law and reality becomes impossible to ignore. Each instance where the United Nations fails to ensure accountability weakens global confidence in the system it was created to uphold.
The author is serving as a member of HEAL Pakistan Organization, an initiative dedicated to promoting Humanity, Education, Awareness and Leadership in collaboration of Kashmir Institute of International Relations (KIIR). She can be reached at [email protected]