Table of Contents

Table of Contents............................................................................................................... 2
I. Letter from the Chairpersons.................................................................................... 4
II. Introduction to the Committee................................................................................6
III. Introduction to the United Nations....................................................................... 7
DISEC...............................................................................................................................................................8
ECOFIN........................................................................................................................................................... 9
SOCHUM..................................................................................................................................................... 10
SPECPOL...................................................................................................................................................... 11
ADMIN...........................................................................................................................................................12
LEGAL............................................................................................................................................................ 12
IV. Key Terms......................................................................................................................16
V. Overview of the Topic............................................................................................... 20
VI. Past Actions.................................................................................................................22
a) The Kashmir region under British Colonial Rule....................................................... 22
b) The 1947 Partition of British India and the 1947-1948 Indo-Pakistan War.....
24
c) The 1965 Indo-Pakistani War................................................................................................... 27
d) The 1971 Indo-Pakistani War and the Simla Agreement..................................... 29
e) The Insurgency in Kashmir and Jammu........................................................................ 32
f) The Aftermath of the 2019 Pulwama Attack................................................................. 35
VII. Current Situation......................................................................................................37
VIII. Legal Framework..................................................................................................... 41
I. Agreement on Bilateral Relations between the Government of India and
the Government of Pakistan (Simla Agreement, 1972)............................................... 41
II. Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019).......................................................43
III. Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir (1947):.................................. 45
IV. The Transfer of Kashmir and its surrounding territories from the British
Empire to Maharaja Gulab Singh (Treaty of Amritsar, signed on March 16,
1846):............................................................................................................................................................. 47
V. Tashkent Declaration...................................................................................................................48
VI. United Nations Security Council Resolution 39........................................................50
VII. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47........................................................51
IX. Main Actors.................................................................................................................. 55
a) Republic of India..............................................................................................................................55
 b) All Parties Hurriyat Conference.............................................................................................56
c) Islamic Republic of Pakistan................................................................................................... 58
d) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.....................................60
e) People’s Republic of China....................................................................................................... 61
X. Points to be Addressed............................................................................................ 64
XI. Bibliography and Further Reading..................................................................... 66
 I.​ Letter from the Chairpersons

Esteemed delegates,

We are incredibly pleased to welcome you to the very first edition of Caragiale
Model United Nations, and we would like to congratulate you on applying to
this conference, and especially on choosing the United Nations Security
Council for the upcoming four days. We are beyond excited to meet you all
and to guide you through this academic journey, as we truly wish to make it
an unforgettable and fulfilling experience for each and every one of you!

This year, in the United Nations Security Council , we shall be discussing a

matter which has been previously debated, however not as efficiently and not
to the fullest extent. Addressing the situation in the Kashmir region requires a
multifaceted approach, seeing as it persists as an actual issue even in the
context of being under tight security. We truly believe that the following days
of the conference will help you gather information about this issue, and we
are very eager to see you debate it during the Committee Sessions.

As chairpersons, we genuinely believe that, along with guiding the

committee and taking care of procedural matters, our most important
attribution is that of supporting you, our delegates, in your journey during the
whole course of the conference, so that you may come to fully appreciate this
extraordinary experience and view your academic performance proudly in
retrospect. We invite all of you to come forward with any questions or matters
that need clarification, both during and outside of the committee, as we are
more than happy to guide and assist you.

Lastly, for first-time delegates, as well as for those with experience, the
beginning of a conference may seem intimidating. Our advice is to take this
opportunity to step out of your comfort zone and understand that skills are
often developed through mistakes. Be courageous and never hesitate to ask
questions. The awkward feeling of the unknown dissipates as you raise your
placard high and the committee and you see the gazes of every person in the
room, eager to hear your ideas. Moreover, while Model United Nations
conferences are formal academic events, they also represent opportunities to
build meaningful connections, create lasting memories, and enjoy the
experience as a whole.

Therefore, delegates, we warmly encourage you to make the most of your

time at Caragiale Model United Nations 2026!

Best regards,

The Presidents of the United Nations Security Council,

Constantin Olaru & Asterion Rakitzis

II.​ Introduction to the Committee

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs
of the UN system and is the primary organ responsible with the maintenance
of international peace and security. It has 5 Permanent Members (the P5) with
Veto rights,meaning that if any of the P5 vote against substantive matters
(amendments and resolutions), they automatically fail. The P5 consists of: the
People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the
United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and 10 rotating Member States. Under the Charter of the
United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council
decisions.

Like the United Nations as a whole, the Security Council was created after
World War II in 1945 in the hope of preventing future wars and maintaining
world peace, as the League of Nations had been formed following World War
I. It held its first session on 17 January 1946 but was largely paralyzed in the
following decades by the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet
Union (and their allies).

The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to
the peace or an act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to
settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or
terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to
imposing sanctions or even authorise the use of force to maintain or restore
international peace and security.
III.​ Introduction to the United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is a diplomatic and political international

organization whose stated purpose is to maintain global peace and security,
foster relations among nations, promote international cooperation, and serve
as a center for harmonizing national actions. It is the world’s largest
international organization.

The UN was established after the Second World War to prevent further world
wars.

The United Nations (UN) replaced the defunct League of Nations following
World War II, with the mission of averting future international conflicts. The
UN Charter was drafted during a summit in San Francisco, California, on April
25, 1945, and was ratified on June 25 of the same year. The convention
brought together fifty nations. When the UN started operating on October 24,
1945, the charter went into force. The UN's charter outlines its goals, which
include preserving world peace and security, upholding international law,
providing humanitarian relief, protecting human rights, and promoting
sustainable development. The UN now has 193 member nations, or nearly all
of the sovereign states in the world, as of 2023, down from 51 at its founding.

The larger UN System, which consists of a vast network of organizations and

entities, includes the UN. The General Assembly, Security Council, Economic
and Social Council, International Court of Justice, and UN Secretariat are the
five main bodies that make up the organization and were founded under the
UN Charter. Following the independence of Palau, the last UN trustee
territory, on November 1, 1994, the sixth key entity, the Trusteeship Council,
ceased to exist.
The International Court of Justice is based in The Hague, while four of the five
main organs are located at the UN's headquarters in New York City. The
majority of other significant agencies are housed in the UN offices in Nairobi,
Vienna, Geneva, and other UN organizations are spread around the globe. The
UN and its divisions are exempt from the laws of the nations in which they
conduct business thanks to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
of the UN, which protects the UN's neutrality toward both host and member
nations.

The UNGA is responsible for the UN budget, appointing the non-permanent

members of the Security Council, appointing the UN secretary-general,
receiving reports from other parts of the UN system, and making
recommendations through resolutions. It also establishes numerous
subsidiary organs to advance or assist in its broad mandate. The UNGA is the
only UN organ where all member states have equal representation.

The six Main Committees are: the Disarmament and International Security
Committee (First Committee); the Economic and Financial Committee
(Second Committee); the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee (Third
Committee); the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth
Committee); the Administrative and Budgetary Committee (Fifth Committee);
and the Legal Committee (Sixth Committee).

( “[Link] - United Nations )

DISEC

The Disarmament and International Security Committee (First

Committee)
The First Committee addresses disarmament, global challenges, and threats
to peace that affect the international community, and seeks solutions to these
challenges within the international security regime.

It considers all disarmament and international security matters within the

scope of the Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any other
organ of the United Nations; the general principles of cooperation in the
maintenance of international peace and security, as well as principles
governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments; promotion of
cooperative arrangements and measures aimed at strengthening stability
through lower levels of armaments.

The Committee works in close cooperation with the United Nations

Disarmament Commission and the Geneva-based Conference on
Disarmament.

ECOFIN

The Economic Financial Committee (the second committee of the

General Assembly)

Also known as ECOFIN or the UN Second Committee, it stands as one of the

primary committees within the United Nations General Assembly. It was
established alongside the UN's other major bodies during its inception.
ECOFIN is recognized as a vital component of the UN, as it plays a pivotal role
in allocating funding to various programs and committees. The committee's
responsibilities include devising solutions to persistent economic inequalities
and addressing emerging challenges in global finance.
The ECOFIN Committee comprises all 193 member states of the United
Nations, each holding equal voting power, and its delegates are entrusted
with addressing critical issues in areas such as economics, global finance,
development operations, financing, and poverty eradication. In pursuit of
these objectives, ECOFIN dedicates substantial efforts to addressing issues
such as economic disparity, agricultural development, sustainable growth,
and the establishment of essential economic and financial institutions
worldwide.

SOCHUM

The Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee (the third

committee of the General Assembly)

The Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, often known as
SOCHUM, is a key body charged with addressing human rights issues,
humanitarian challenges, and broader societal concerns. The committee,
considered one of the most important entities within the United Nations
framework, meets once a year, usually in early October, with the aim of
concluding its deliberations by November. The committee, which is open to
all 193 member states, undertakes a thorough evaluation of human rights
issues, drawing on ideas from the Human Rights Council's special processes.

In addition to human rights matters, the Third Committee addresses a wide

range of social development issues. These include concerns related to youth,
familial connections, the challenges associated with ageing populations, and
the rights and well-being of disabled persons. Furthermore, the committee
focuses on issues including crime prevention, criminal justice systems, and
international cooperation on drug control. The Third Committee's
comprehensive agenda is to make a significant contribution to advancing
human rights, promoting social development, and addressing global
challenges affecting the most vulnerable.

SPECPOL

Special Political and Decolonization Committee (the fourth committee

of the General Assembly)

The Fourth Committee is responsible for a wide range of issues, such as

decolonization, international cooperation for the peaceful uses of outer space,
effects of atomic radiation, assistance to Palestinian refugees, questions
related to information, peacekeeping operations, special political missions, as
well as mine action (every two years) and University for Peace (every three
years).

The Decolonization process is one of the main goals of the United Nations.
Under the leadership of the Organization, more than 80 countries whose
people were under colonial domination have become Members of the United
Nations as sovereign and independent States. Moreover, many other people
who were once under colonial rule have achieved self-determination through
political association or integration with other independent States.

However, the UN hasn't achieved the goal of complete decolonization; 17

Non-Self-Governing Territories remain to be decolonized, following a
case-by-case approach in accordance with relevant United Nations
resolutions and decisions on the matter.
ADMIN

The Administrative and Budgetary Committee ( the fifth Committee of

the General Assembly)

The Fifth Committee of the General Assembly oversees the Organization's

administrative functions and approves its budgets.

Like the other Committees of the General Assembly, it meets during the
"main session" from September to December, at the start of the General
Assembly sessions, as well as during two "resumed" sessions in March and
May each year.

The main topics addressed by this Committee are the following: the
Organization's biennial regular budget. The annual budgets of peacekeeping
operations. The triennial scales of assessments for the apportionment of
expenses among Member States in relation to the regular budget and
peacekeeping operations​
The issues related to the Organization's human resources management. In
addition, the Commission deals with all matters of administration and
building infrastructure, security at the various locations, auditing of accounts,
and supervision of the activities of the various bodies, funds, and programs of
the Organization, as well as the harmonization of its technical and logistical
procedures, among many others.

LEGAL

The LEGAL committee ( the sixth Committee of the General Assembly)

The Sixth Committee's main function is to examine legal issues in the
Programme of the General Assembly.

One of the main items is the International Law Commission (ILC) annual
report. This is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, created in 1947,
which assists the GA in the discharge of its art. 13 functions under the United
Nations Charter, which provides that the General Assembly shall encourage
the progressive development of international law and its codification.

The Sixth Committee of the General Assembly also addresses other legal
issues referred by the Assembly's Bureau on an annual or biannual basis.
These include the annual resolution on "Measures to eliminate international
terrorism", under which the General Assembly adopted several important
international conventions to combat terrorism.​

Other items on the agenda of the Commission include the criminal

responsibility of officials and experts from the United Nations mission; the rule
of law at the national and international levels; the scope and application of
the principle of universal jurisdiction; the administration of justice at the
United Nations; the status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict;
and measures to improve the protection and security of missions and
diplomatic and consular representatives.

Other Relevant Sub-Bodies

The United Nations Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) is a United Nations

intergovernmental advisory body established by the General Assembly and
the Security Council to support peacebuilding efforts in conflict-affected
countries. A key addition to the capacity of the international community in
the broad peace agenda, it was established in 2005

The Peacebuilding Commission, which plays a unique role in advancing

intergovernmental coherence through its cross-pillar mandate, has already
diversified its working methods to enhance its flexibility as a dedicated
intergovernmental platform.

The PBC is one of the new entities created by the reform process initiated
during the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly, as part of
the 2005 World Summit Outcome. The debate over reforming the United
Nations system is not new. Since the creation of the organization (June 1945),
most delegates and commentators believed that the structure they had
given birth to was a merely temporary one as a first step towards the
establishment of the new multilateral system. Indeed, the third paragraph of
Article 109 is a clear clue to this initial orientation, as it states that a General
Conference to review the UN Charter should be convened from the tenth
annual session of the General Assembly onward. But the first attempt to
reform the UN structure failed at the 10th session, when the General
Assembly, even though it was aware of the need for reform, decided to
postpone any decision. Various attempts to reform the UN took place during
the decades, but the core issues (Security Council reform, veto power, and UN
enforcement) failed to be properly addressed. The PBC was inaugurated in
June 2006, with the inclusion of Burundi and Sierra Leona as the
commission's first cases, as previously requested by the Security Council, to
develop a country-specific model aimed at contributing to the
implementation of post-conflict tasks in each of the two countries.
Standing and Ad Hoc committees

The Security Council regularly establishes Committees, which consist of

representatives from each Council member state and generally meet at
headquarters, to assist the Council in its work. Standing Committees are
open-ended and were generally established to address procedural questions,
such as the admission of new members. Ad hoc committees are established
for a limited time and to address a specific issue. The Council also often
creates committees to monitor sanctions and other mandatory measures.
IV.​ Key Terms

Kashmir region- a mountainous, strategically vital region in the northwestern

Indian subcontinent, defined by a complex division between India, Pakistan,
and China following British colonial rule's end in 1947;

Kashmir Valley- an intermontane valley, part of Indian-administered Union

Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, with a predominantly Muslim population;

Jammu region- the southern, predominantly Hindu part of the

Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory, serving as the
winter capital and historically the seat of the Dogra dynasty, with diverse
geography and culture;

Ladakh province- is a high-altitude Union Territory in North India situated

between the Kunlun and Himalayan mountain ranges, with a predominantly
Buddhist population, part of the Union Territory of Ladakh;

Line of Control- the heavily militarized, de facto border separating India and
Pakistan in the disputed region of Kashmir, established after the 1971 war;

Territorial dispute- territorial dispute between states is a disagreement over

which nation holds sovereignty and control over a specific land, maritime, or
airspace area, potentially leading to international tension or conflict;

Self-determination- the right of a people within a territorial unit to determine

their own political status;
Plebiscite- a vote by which the people of an entire country or district express
an opinion for or against a proposal especially on a choice of government or
ruler;

Colonialism- the practice of extending and maintaining political, social,

economic, and cultural domination over a territory and its people by another
people in pursuit of interests defined in an often distant metropole, who also
claim superiority;

Post-colonial state- nations that have gained independence from colonial

rule, particularly in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean;

Regional stability- a state of equilibrium and security within a geographical

area, where nations are able to coexist peacefully without significant conflicts
or threats;

Proxy warfare- a military conflict in which one or more third parties directly
or indirectly support one or more state or nonstate combatants in an effort to
influence the conflict’s outcome in order to advance their own strategic
interests;

State-sponsored terrorism- terrorist violence carried out with the active

support of national governments provided to violent non-state actors;

Ethnic conflict- military, political or social conflict between or among groups

who differ from each other in terms of culture, religion, physical features, or
language;
Insurgency- violent, armed rebellion by small, lightly armed bands who
practice guerrilla warfare against a larger authority;

Jihadism- neologism for modern, armed militant Islamic movements that

seek to establish states based on Islamic principles;

Indus Waters Treaty- signed on September 19 1960 that fixed and delimited
the rights and obligations of both countries concerning the use of the waters
of the Indus River system;

Semi-autonomous region- a territory within a country that has partial

self-governance, managing some internal affairs like local laws, culture, or
economy, but remains subject to the central government's ultimate authority,
particularly in areas like defense, foreign policy, and overall sovereignty;

Inclusive governance- a system where all members of society, especially

marginalized groups (like women, youth, people with disabilities, minorities),
are actively involved in decision-making, have equal access to services, and
benefit from policies;

Confidence-building measures- actions, often military or diplomatic, taken

between potential adversaries to reduce fear, mistrust, and the risk of
misunderstanding or accidental conflict by increasing transparency and
predictability;

Security Sector Reform- amend the security sector of a state towards good
governance and its principles, such as freedom of information and the rule of
law;
Inter-services intelligence- Pakistan's primary military intelligence agency,
responsible for foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and covert
operations, coordinating the intelligence functions of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force;

Organization of Islamic Cooperation- intergovernmental organization with

57 member states across four continents representing the collective voice of
the Muslim world to safeguard the interests of Muslim nations, promote
international peace, and foster cooperation in social, economic, and political
fields;

Indian Armed Forces- the military forces of the Republic of India;

United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan- a

peacekeeping mission established in 1949 to monitor the ceasefire between
India and Pakistan in the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir;
V.​ Overview of the Topic

The Kashmir region is a geopolitically significant and historically complex

territory in South Asia, situated in the western Himalayas at the intersection of
India, Pakistan, and China, and it has long been a source of regional instability
due to overlapping territorial claims, competing national identities, and
unresolved questions of self-determination.

Before 1947, Kashmir existed as the state of Jammu and Kashmir under British
colonial rule, governed by a Hindu monarch despite having a predominantly
Muslim population, and when the British Empire withdrew from what was
formerly known as the British Raj and partitioned it into India and Pakistan
along religious lines, the ruler’s decision to collaborate with India sparked
widespread unrest and the first Indo-Pakistani war, which ended with a
ceasefire that divided the territory along what later became known as the
Line of Control, leaving both India and Pakistan in control of different portions
of the region while maintaining their claims over the entire area. Since that
time, Kashmir has been at the center of multiple wars between India and
Pakistan, including conflicts in 1947–48, 1965, and 1999, as well as persistent
military confrontations and diplomatic crises, while China also emerged as a
stakeholder after consolidating control over Aksai Chin following the
Sino-Indian War of 1962, further complicating the dispute.

The region’s strategic importance is heightened by its rugged terrain,

proximity to nuclear-armed states, and control over critical mountain passes,
as well as by its role as the source of major rivers such as the Indus, Jhelum,
and Chenab, which are essential to agriculture, drinking water, and
hydroelectric power in both India and Pakistan, making water security an
underlying but crucial dimension of the conflict. Internally,
Indian-administered Kashmir has experienced decades of political instability
and armed insurgency, particularly since the late 1980s, driven by allegations
of electoral manipulation, economic marginalization, heavy military presence,
and demands ranging from greater autonomy to full independence or
accession to Pakistan, with India accusing Pakistan of supporting militant
groups and Pakistan denying these claims while emphasizing the Kashmiri
right to self-determination.

The United Nations Security Council has played a notable role in the early
resolution of the Kashmir issue, particularly through resolutions adopted in
1948 and 1949 that called for ceasefire, the withdrawal of forces, and a
plebiscite to allow the Kashmiri population to determine their future,
establishing the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan
(UNMOGIP) to monitor ceasefire violations, although these resolutions have
been interpreted differently by the parties involved. While India has
increasingly argued that Kashmir is a bilateral issue governed by later
agreements such as the Simla Agreement of 1972, Pakistan, however,
continues to emphasize the relevance of Security Council resolutions and
continues to try to bring the issue to light and find a solution to it.
VI.​ Past Actions

a)​The Kashmir region under British Colonial Rule

Historically, Kashmir was an independent kingdom, led by a series of Kashmiri

Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim rulers. Starting in the sixteenth century, the
region was ruled by the Mughals, the Afghans, and finally, the Sikhs. The
events of the
mid-nineteenth century
were to shape the course
of Kashmir’s modern
history. On March 16,
1846, the English East
India Company, a
joint-stock company that
transformed from a
spice-trading venture
into a powerful, de facto
colonial ruler that owned large amounts of territory from British India, sold a
cobbled-together territory of Jammu and Kashmir, as you can see in the
photo below, to Gulab Singh, a warlord from the Hindu Dogra family in
Jammu, in return for his assistance in helping the British defeat the Sikhs in
the Anglo-Sikh wars of the mid-nineteenth century.

The Treaty of Amritsar is recalled as a “sale deed” in Kashmir as Singh agreed

to pay the British government a sum of 7.5 million Nanakshahi Rupees. lakh
and an annual token for recognition of supremacy of “one horse, twelve shawl
goals of approved breed, and three pairs of Cashmere shawls.” When
Kashmiris resisted this treaty, the British threatened an invasion and the
Dogras, an Indo-Aryan ethno-linguistic group native to the Duggar region
under the leadership of Gulab Singh, were able to secure the region,
consolidating their newly acquired princely state, and establishing the Dogra
dynasty over the entire Kashmir region. This was to be the first in a series of
treaties in Kashmir’s modern history where the people were completely left
out of a momentous decision that would come to shape their lives.

Kashmir became one of over 565 princely states under the Dogras, within the
broader ambit of British colonial rule. They inherited a diverse territory, which
included the regions of Jammu, Ladakh, the Kashmir Valley, Gilgit and
Baltistan, and later, Poonch.

During British
Colonial rule, the
British used 'divide
and rule' to exert
control over the
country. As a result,
people who had been
living in harmony,
despite their varying
religions, were now
exposed to a
classification that
created artificial
boundaries between them, fueling ethnic and cultural divisions between the
people of Jammu and Kashmir, which would heavily influence the conflict in
the future. This was predominantly the case between Hindus and Muslims. By
the last British census before Partition, in 1941, Muslims constituted the
majority of the entire princely state and were nearly 77 per cent of the total
population. Hindus comprised just over 20 per cent of the total population.
The Dogras’ native region of Jammu had a population that was over 60 per
cent Muslim, and the remainder, Hindu.

b)​The 1947 Partition of British India and the 1947-1948

Indo-Pakistan War

British rule over the Indian subcontinent ended in 1947, through the 1947
Partition Act, which resulted in the establishment of the dominions of India
and Pakistan. The princely states that found themselves under British
Paramountcy were given a choice to either join Pakistan or India, or remain
independent. The princely states of Jammu and Kashmir, under the rule of
Maharaja Hari Singh, opted for independence.

Pakistan opted for numerous measures to convince the Princely States to

accept Pakistani sovereignty, which were denied by the government of these
states at the time, prompting agents from the Muslim League, Pakistan’s
government’s leading party, to infiltrate the Pooch region encourage the local
Muslims to an armed revolt, exploiting an internal unrest regarding economic
grievances, resulting in the Pooch Rebellion in August 1947, where Muslim
rebels attacked Kashmiri convoys escorting refugees from India. Soon after, in
October 1947, Pashtun Tribal militias, with support from Pakistani forces,
invaded Kashmir and Jammu in order to support the Pooch rebels and seize
the capital, Srinagar. Kashmiri troops could not handle the situation, as they
were outnumbered by the tribal militias and could not keep up with their
guerilla warfare tactics, and so they were quickly pushed back. Due to the
direness of the situation Mahoraja requested military support from Delhi in
order to combat the Pakistani invasion, support which would be granted only
under the condition that the princely states of Jammu and Kashmir accede to
Indian rule.

On October 26 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession,

which officially transformed Jammu and Kashmir into semi-autonomous
regions under Indian administration. Pakistan objected to the accession of
Jammu and Kashmir, stating that the Muslim population of the princely
states would have opted to join Pakistan, while India claimed that the
Instrument of Accession complied with the terms of the Partition Act and was
therefore legally and morally acceptable and undisputable. On October 27
1947, the Indian National Army was deployed against the Pakistani Tribesmen
and Muslim rebels, triggering the First Indo-Pakistani War. The Pakistani army
continued to supply the tribal militias and Muslim rebels, which were dubbed
the Azad Kashmir Regular Force (Azad meaning freedom in Hindi and Urdu,
and thus the name symbolized the purpose of the militia to obtain freedom
from the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh), with weapons, munitions and
equipment, and officially entered the conflict in May 1948.

Fighting continued until 1948. The conflict officially ended in 1949 through
mediation from the United Nations Security Council, that adopted Resolution
39 on January 20 1948, which established a UN Commission for India and
Pakistan, tasked with securing a peaceful end to the conflict, and later
Resolution 47 on April 21 1948, that came into force on January 1 1949, which
demanded that a ceasefire be established between the two parties. The
resolution further states that Pakistan is to remove its regular forces and tribal
militias from Kashmir, and that India is to reduce its number of troops to the
minimum required to maintain stability and order in the region, in
collaboration with the UNCIP, whose number of representatives was
increased to 5 members. After these conditions were met, India was tasked
with organizing a plebiscite in order to determine the future status of the
Kashmir and Jammu regions. India and Pakistan signed the Karachi
Agreement in July 1949 and established a ceasefire line to be supervised by
observers. After the termination of the UNCIP, the Security Council passed
Resolution 91 (1951) and established a United Nations Military Observer Group
in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to observe and report violations of the
ceasefire.

India gained control

of about two-thirds
of the Jammu and
Kashmir princely
state, including the
Kashmir Valley, the
Jammu province
and Ladakh.
Pakistan had
control of one-third
of the state: three
western districts
later named Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the northern areas including the
Gilgit district, the Gilgit Agency and the Baltistan tehsil of the Ladakh district.

Even though the Security Council adopted numerous measures to ensure a

peaceful resolution to the Kashmir conflict, political disagreements regarding
the legal ownership of the territory between India and Pakistan, as well as
continued acts of aggression between both parties would lead to future new
conflicts.
 c)​ The 1965 Indo-Pakistani War

India’s reaction to continued ideals to independence and sovereignty

amongst the people of Jammu and Kashmir( especially the Muslim-kashmiri
population), constituted of continued repression and attempts to integrate
the Kashmir region into India. In 1954, the Indian Parliament passed Article
370 of India’s constitution, which granted the Kashmir region special political
status as an autonomous region under Indian rule, reflecting its unique
accession, but this also meant limited central control initially. The Indian
government also quickly oppressed any large scale movements in support of
Kashmiri independence, often through military force, and denied the
Kashmiri people the right to determine the region’s states through the
plebiscite mandated by Resolution 47 of the UNSC, stating that the region
was far too unstable for a plebiscite to take place, as India and Pakistan did
not agree on demilitarization terms, and as such both sides of the region
contained high numbers of military personnel. The denial of fundamental
rights to self-determination, oppression and militarization by the Indian
National armies fueled anti-Indian sentiment and the desire of the Kashmiri
people to become independent from Indian rule, sentiments which Pakistan
would later attempt to exploit.

Following its failure to fully annex the Kashmir region, Pakistan continued to
support covert military and political groups operating in Indian Kashmir, with
the purpose of maintaining their degree of influence in the region and
weakening Indian control. These operations culminated in January 1965,
where Operation Gibraltar was carried out by Pakistani troops, emboldened
from India’s loss against China in the costly Sino-Indian War of 1962, which
crossed the ceasefire line and infiltrated Indian Kashmir. The plan was for the
infiltrators to incite the local population to rebellion, while guerrilla forces
targeted bridges, airports, tunnels and Indian military installations in the
region, in order to create conditions for a Kashmiri armed revolt. The plan
failed as Pakistani soldiers were turned in to the Indian authorities by the
people in mass numbers, and Indian forces engaged with Pakistani guerrilla
fighters. Pakistan claimed that the soldiers were Kashmiri freedom fighters,
rebelling against Indian oppression of the Kashmiris. Indian forces continued
to engage with forces from Pakistan that were targeting communication
channels from Kashmir to India, as well as trying to mix in with the population
and further attempt to incite a rebellion. On 1 September, Pakistan launched
an attack across the Cease Fire Line, targeting Akhnoor, a city located on the
banks of the Chenab River in the Jammu region, in an effort to cut Indian
communications into Kashmir. In response, India broadened the war by
launching an attack on Pakistani Punjab across the international border.

The People’s Republic of China was already present in the Kashmir region,
following their victory in the Sino-Indian War of 1962 and their annexation of
the Aksai Chin province in northern Kashmir, and provided military and
financial support to Pakistan during the 1965 war. Chinese troops were
assembled around the border with India, and China issued ultimatums to
India, accusing New Delhi of
military incursions into Chinese
territory (specifically the Sikkim
border) and demanding the
dismantling of alleged military
structures.

The war lasted until 23 September,

ending in a stalemate. Following
the Tashkent Declaration, both the sides withdrew to their pre-conflict
positions, and agreed not to interfere in each other's internal affairs. The 1965
war served as proof that tensions related to the ownership of the Kashmir
region still remained unresolved and furthermore, it set a precedent for
Pakistani’s future use of proxies and insurgencies to destabilize Indian
Kashmir, as well as introduce the influence of the People’s Republic of China
in the issue of Kashmir.

d)​The 1971 Indo-Pakistani War and the Simla Agreement

After the exiled government of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared the

independence of the state of Bangladesh from Pakistani rule on March 26,
1971, as a result of atrocities committed against the Bengal minority of East
Pakistan by the Pakistan army (Operation Searchlight) India offered military,
political, economic and humanitarian aid to the independence movement,
therefore directly entering into conflict with Pakistan. India’s motives to
support the Bangladesh independence movement came mainly for their
support for the democratic ideals promoted by the Rahman liberal
government, security threats caused by the ensuing humanitarian crisis and
refugee influx from East Pakistan into India and preemptive strikes carried
out by the Pakistani army in India in order to discourage them from involving
themselves in the conflict. Pakistan justified its military crackdown as an effort
to prevent secessionist forces from destabilizing East Pakistan.

The political crisis in the region also presented an opportunity for India to
assert its regional dominance. According to a declassified American Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) briefing dated December 13, 1971, Gandhi, the
president of India at the time, was confident of a victory that would establish
India as “the dominant power in South Asia.” President Indira Gandhi also
believed the war would lead to the fall of Pakistan’s military regime and pave
the way for a democratic government throughout the country.

Both countries had been preparing intensely for the upcoming conflict since
November, as they had already clashed twice before over the thorny issue of
Kashmir. India responded by immediately mobilizing its Armed Forces and
launching combined ground, air, and naval operations: while Indian forces on
the western front held off the Pakistani offensive, the eastern front saw a
full-scale invasion aimed at capturing the capital of East Pakistan, Dhaka. On
the western front, after repelling Pakistani attacks, the Indian Army launched
a highly successful counteroffensive, occupying territory in Azad Kashmir,
Punjab, and Sindh (which India returned to Pakistan as a goodwill gesture in
1972 through the Simla Agreement), and decimating Pakistan’s I and II Corps
as well as the Punjab Marine detachment.

The conflict also drew in the two superpowers diplomatically and militarily:
the United States supported Pakistan, while the Soviet Union backed the
Bengalis and Indians. However, the overwhelming success of the Indian
Armed Forces forced the U.S. to accept the new balance of power in
Southeast Asia and adjust its policy accordingly.

With swift victories on the ground, the Indian military quickly encircled the
Pakistani troops in the east. The final blow came with the capture of Dhaka,
East Pakistan’s capital. On December 16, Pakistani forces in East Pakistan
surrendered. The following day Pakistani President Yahya Khan agreed to a
ceasefire in West Pakistan. The fighting officially concluded with the signing
of the Simla Agreement on July 2 1972.
Although the dispute over Kashmir was not the direct cause of the 1971 war,
the region was still highly affected by the fighting. Despite the fact that the
fighting was concentrated in the East Pakistan region, the western front saw
heavy fighting in the Kashmir region, as both parties deployed large numbers
of armed forces to secure the de facto border. India had forces organized into
several Army Corps in the Western Sector, with significant numbers
concentrated around the border in Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan had forces
like the 23 POK (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir) Division, an Armoured Division,
and an Independent Armoured Brigade positioned for potential offensives in
the Western Sector, including Kashmir. Furthermore, the Simla Agreement of
1972 converted the cease-fire line of 17 December 1971 into the Line of Control
(LOC) between India and Pakistan and it was agreed that "neither side shall
seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal
interpretations".
 e)​The Insurgency in Kashmir and Jammu

The insurgency in Indian-Administered Kashmir is one of the main

characteristics of the crisis the region faces, as increasing activity of terrorist
organizations pushing separatist ideals has led to an increased oppression of
the Kashmiri population, militarization of the area and heightened tensions
between the states claiming sovereignty over the territory.

The insurgency started in 1989, after the 1987 elections for the National
Assembly of Kashmir were allegedly rigged by the Indian government against
the Muslim United Front, the party supported by the Muslim-majority of the
Kashmir Valley. There were already a number of active militia groups in
Jammu and Kashmir that advocated for independence from India, such as
the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, but the numbers of active insurgents in
the region grew exponentially after 1987. The main cause of the insurgency
were the growing separatist ideals of the Muslim population in Kashmir,
fueled by a lack of political representation. Democratic development was
limited in Kashmir, as most local elections were considered illegitimate due to
the Indian governments’s alleged interference in local elections in order to
ensure that parties who supported integration with India, such as the
National Conference (JKNC), remained in power in the Jammu and Kashmir
Legislative Assembly. The elections of 1975 were considered to be the first fair
elections in the territory's history, as the administration of Indira Gandhi opted
for a policy of political reconciliation with the Kashmiri population, in an
attempt to stabilize the region.

However, by 1988, many of the democratic reforms provided by the Indian

government had been reversed and non-violent channels for expressing
discontent were limited, which caused a dramatic increase in support for
insurgents advocating violent secession from India. The insurgency was
actively opposed in Jammu and Ladakh, with a majority of the population
being Hindu that favored integration with India and opposed the idea of
autonomy and independence, where it revived long-held demands for
autonomy from Kashmiri dominance and greater integration with India.
Spearheaded by a group seeking creation of an independent state based on
demands for self-determination, the insurgency was taken over within the
first few years of its outbreak by Pakistan-backed Jihadist groups striving for
merger with Pakistan, with some notable examples being Lashkar-e-Taiba
and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

The militancy continued through the 1990s and early 2000s, by which time it
was being driven largely by foreign militants and spread to parts of the
adjoining Jammu region. The Indian National Army responded quickly, by
deploying large numbers of troops to occupy the region and combat
insurgents. The fighting resulted in thousands of casualties, both civilian and
combatants. Human rights violations were allegedly committed by both
sides, as Islamist armed groups fighting for independence, began targeting
Kashmiri Pandits (Hindu-Kashmiris native to the Kashmir Valley) and Indian
armed forces were suspected of singling out Muslim-Kashmiris and carrying
out multiple mass-killings and imprisonments of civilians that were thought
to be affiliated with insurgents groups. The high-degree of violence against
the Hindu population resulted in the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in early-1990,
where a large proportion of Kashmiri Pandits migrated from the region to
avoid the violence coming from Islamist insurgents: 90,000–100,000 Pandits
of an estimated population of 120,000–140,000 fled the Valley between
January and March 1990, according to several estimates of the UN
Commission on Human Rights.
The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence actively armed, trained and
supported the Islamist insurgents, and as a result, tensions between India and
Pakistan increased, as India and the international community criticised
Pakistan’s involvement in the insurgency. In 1999, Pakistani troops attempted
to infiltrate Indian-administered Kashmir, disguised as Kashmiri militants,
which resulted in the 1999 Kargil War, which served as one of two examples of
conventional warfare between two nuclear powers. The conflict began in early
May when the Indian military learned that Pakistani fighters had infiltrated
the Indian-administered territory in February as part of Operation Badr, which
aimed to capture the Kargil region and force India to negotiate a settlement
of the Kashmir dispute. After detecting the infiltration, India launched a
military operation code-named Vijay (“Victory”), ordering its army to push
back the intruders, who included regulars of the Pakistan Army, and
recapture occupied areas. On July 11 1999, Pakistan announced that all
militants would retreat from Indian Kashmir, with the war ending on July 26.

Pakistan’s involvement in the insurgency extended in the 2000s through

international terrorist organizations affiliated with its government, such as
ISIS and al-Qaeda, which, although they lack a physical presence in the
region, have been found to have deep ties with insurgents groups in the
region, using them to spread jihadist extremist ideals and spread the
insurgency throughout the region. As a result, levels of terrorist activity
increased greatly and have been the cause of multiple armed skirmishes
between India and Pakistani forces, as India associates Pakistan's support for
insurgents as a direct military provocation, and Pakistan's saw India’s
increasing military buildup as a direct threat. Multiple air and land skirmishes
took place in 2008, 2012 and 2016, as terrorist organizations in Kashmir used
local protests to gain influence and carry out attacks against local law
enforcement and Indian forces.
This period was marked by an uptick in border skirmishes that began in late
2016 and continued into 2018, killing dozens and displacing thousands of
civilians on both sides of the Line of Control. In 2017, more than three
thousand cross-border strikes were reported, while nearly one thousand were
reported in the first half of 2018. Militants launched attacks in October 2017
against an Indian paramilitary camp near Srinagar and, in February 2018,
against an Indian army base in the Jammu region, which killed five soldiers
and a civilian. During this time, violent demonstrations and anti-India protests
calling for an independent Kashmir also continued; over three hundred
people, including civilians, Indian security forces, and militants, were killed in
attacks and clashes in 2017. After months of Indian military operations
allegedly targeting both Kashmiri militants and demonstrations, India
announced in May 2018 that it would observe a cease-fire in Kashmir during
the month of Ramadan for the first time in nearly two decades; operations
resumed in June 2018. Later in May, India and Pakistan formally agreed to a
cease-fire along the disputed Kashmir border that would restore the terms of
their 2003 Ceasefire Agreement.

f)​ The Aftermath of the 2019 Pulwama Attack

In February 2019, an attack on a convoy consisting of 70 Indian paramilitary

vehicles in Pulwama, Indian-administered Kashmir, killed 46 soldiers, when
their vehicle was rammed into by a car carrying around 200 kilograms of
explosives. The attack, claimed by the Pakistani militant group
Jaish-e-Mohammed (“The Army of Mohammad”) , was the deadliest in
Kashmir in three decades. India retaliated by conducting an air strike that
targeted terrorist training camps within Pakistani territory; these were
answered by Pakistani air strikes on Indian-administered Kashmir. The
exchange escalated into an aerial engagement, during which Pakistan shot
down two Indian military aircraft and captured an Indian pilot; the pilot was
released two days later.

In August 2019, following a deployment of tens of thousands of additional

troops and paramilitary forces to the region, the Indian government moved to
revoke Article 370 of the Indian constitution, removing the special status of
the Indian-administered Kashmir, and splitting the region into two separate
administrative divisions: The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, and the
Union Territory of Ladakh. The abrogation of Article 370 removed Kashmir’s
ability to determine its own property and settlement laws, forcing Kashmiris
to abide by Indian property and customary law and effectively diminishing
their autonomy. The ruling not only angered Kashmiris but was also viewed as
a “grave injustice” by Pakistan.

Violence along the Line of Control peaked in 2020, with more than four
thousand reported cross-border firings. India also observed an increase in
militant recruitment despite a slight drop in militant activity.
VII.​ Current Situation

The political status of the Kashmiri population, under the administrations of

India, China and Pakistan, continues to remain one of the main causes for
political instability in Kashmir, as the desire of certain populations from the
region for self-governance and territorial claims of regional powers clash.

Following the revocation of Article 370, India-administered Kashmir remained

under lockdown for over a year, with internet and phone services
intermittently cut off and thousands of people detained. While India claimed
that the shutdown was a necessary measure in order to address security
issues in the region, it has also led to increased resentments amongst the
local population. Much to the dismay of Kashmiri locals, the Indian Supreme
Court upheld the legality of the abrogation of Article 370 in December 2023,
cementing the removal of Indian-administered Kashmir’s special status. In
Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the regions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and
Gilgit-Baltistan enjoy a higher degree of self-governance, as Azad Jammu and
Kashmir functions as a self-governing state with its own constitution,
president, and prime minister, yet closely integrated with Pakistan, and
Gilgit-Baltistani holds limited autonomy as a semi-provincial region.

The demand for rights is also central to this dispute. The political autonomy
that Kashmir did enjoy early on has become limited due to the Indian
government’s policies, and has led to an increased desire for independence
amongst the Kashmiri population. Hence, the current demand is for a three
choice referendum which would include independence, apart from the
choice of acceding to Pakistan or India.
Moreover, the Kashmir region is facing a declining humanitarian situation as a
result of increased security threats and armed clashes in the Kashmir Valley.
As the activity of insurgents increases, the Indian Armed Forces have amped
up the scale of their counter-terrorism operations, and the rigidness of
anti-terrorism laws. Continued clashes between non-state actors recognized
as terrorist organizations and the Indian Armed Forces have caused civilians
from the area to be caught in the cross fire, leading to large numbers of
civilian casualties. Ethnic based violence carried out by Muslim militants also
contributes to the humanitarian crisis. Attacks against Kashmiri Pandits have
spiked in recent years, increasing ethnic tensions and violence amongst the
Kashmiri population, highlighting the fact that this conflict is also rooted in
identity, based on geographic location, religion, language and culture. In
Pakistani Kashmir, the erosion of human rights is characterized by similar
aspects as surveillance, arbitrary arrests, and the use of anti-terrorism laws
target those advocating for independence or criticizing Pakistani
administration

Throughout 2024, violence continued in Kashmir in response to increasing

efforts by New Delhi to consolidate territorial control. Attacks specifically
targeted Indian travelers and workers in the region. In June 2024, militants
opened fire on a bus carrying pilgrims traveling to a Hindu shrine in the town
of Reasi. The attack killed nine and injured over thirty. In October, militants
killed seven in Kashmir at a construction site for a tunnel project connecting
Kashmir to the northern region of Ladakh.

On April 22, 2025, tensions escalated after militants attacked Indian tourists in
Kashmir, killing twenty-five Indian nationals and one Nepalese national. The
incident marked the deadliest terrorist attack in Indian territory since the
2008 Mumbai attacks. India blamed Pakistan for harboring the group
responsible for the attack and arrested two Pakistani nationals as suspects.
Pakistan denied any involvement, and its defense ministry even suggested
the attack was a “false flag operation.” Although no group has been officially
identified as responsible for the attack, the Kashmir Resistance claimed
responsibility online.

In the wake of the attack, actions undertaken by India and Pakistan have
driven bilateral relations to their lowest point in recent years. On April 23, India
suspended the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, citing state-sponsored terrorism from
Pakistan as justification, a treaty that had survived 3 major wars between
India and Pakistan, which provided an efficient framework for water sharing
between the two parties, despite historical tensions. India further terminated
a visa-free travel regime with Pakistan, and closed the Attari border crossing
between the two countries. In turn, Pakistan rejected the suspension of the
water treaty, warning that any attempts to alter Pakistan’s Indus River flows
would be considered “an act of war.” Islamabad also moved to close Pakistani
airspace to all Indian commercial airlines, halted a special visa regime for
Indian citizens, and suspended bilateral trade.

Armed clashes between Indian and Pakistani forces persisted along the Line
of Control until May 10 2025, after a political mediation from the United States
of America, but tensions still remain high and both parties maintain a
sustainable military presence along the Line of Control. Tensions between
China and India continue to escalate over the province of Aksai Chin,
controlled by China ever since 1962 as both sides are building new dual-use
infrastructure projects along the Line of Actual Control in order to assist with
strengthening their military presence in the region, adding to the tensions
building up in the region.

Both parts of the Kashmir region continue to face issues related to

administration and development following an increase in tensions and
violence, as well as due to a lack of stable and effective governance structures
established by the central governments. In May 2024, protests erupted in
Azad Kashmir. Local authorities responded with force, resulting in the deaths
of at least three protesters and a police officer. The government responded
with promises of subsidies and reforms. In 2025, the Jammu Kashmir Joint
Public Action Committee, a civil society coalition comprising traders,
transporters, students, lawyers and other groups, re-emerged as a major
driving force for protests in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. In late September
2025, the JKJAAC announced a regional-level strike, sometimes referred to as
a "lockdown", starting on 29 September, aimed at pressing the government
into establishing new structural and administrative reforms for the region.

Overall, the situation in Kashmir continues to pose a major risk for regional
security. It is not characterized simply by a dispute between regional powers,
but also by the ethnic and cultural divisions that shape regional politics and
has led to the spread of terrorism and abuses. The tensions between India,
Pakistan and China are growing day by day, and as both sides are solidifying
their military power in the region,at the expense of the local population, a
conflict could erupt at any time. In light of the escalating security crisis, the
Kashmiri population continues to suffer as a result of the oppressive security
policies imposed by all governments that claim territory in Kashmir, and their
aspirations for independence and political rights continue to clash with the
desire of regional powers to solidify control through any means possible.
VIII.​ Legal Framework

I.​ Agreement on Bilateral Relations between the Government

of India and the Government of Pakistan (Simla Agreement,
1972)

1. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that
the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have
hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and
harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the
sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources
and energies to the pressing talk of advancing the welfare of their peoples.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the

Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

- (i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations
shall govern the relations between the two countries;

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful
means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means
mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of
the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter
the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or
encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and
harmonious relations;
(iii) That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and
durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to
peaceful co-existence, respect for each other’s territorial integrity and
sovereignty and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, on the basis
of equality and mutual benefit;

(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedevilled the
relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by
peaceful means;

(v) That they shall always respect each other’s national unity, territorial
integrity, political independence and sovereign equality; That in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations they will refrain from the threat or use
of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each
other.

2. Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile
propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the
dissemination of such information as would promote the development of
friendly relations between them.

4. In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both

the Governments agree that:

(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the
international border.

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of
December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the
recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally,
irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further
undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.

(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement
and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.

II.​ Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019)

Section 3 - Reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir

“On and from the appointed day, the existing State of Jammu and Kashmir
shall cease to exist and shall be reorganised into the following Union
Territories, namely:-​
(a) the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir;​
(b) the Union Territory of Ladakh.”

Section 4 - Territory of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

“The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir shall comprise all those territories
which, immediately before the appointed day, were comprised in the State of
Jammu and Kashmir, except the territories specified in section 5.”

Section 5 - Territory of the Union Territory of Ladakh

“The Union Territory of Ladakh shall comprise the territories of the districts of
Leh and Kargil in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.”
Section 6 - Legislature for Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

“There shall be a Legislative Assembly for the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir.”

Section 7 - Composition of the Legislative Assembly

“The total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir to be filled by persons chosen by direct election shall
be eighty-three.”

Section 12 - Council of Ministers

“There shall be a Council of Ministers consisting of not more than ten per cent
of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly, with the Chief
Minister at the head, to aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor in the exercise
of his functions.”

Section 13 - Responsibility of the Council of Ministers

“The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative

Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Section 21 - Application of Article 239A of the Constitution

“The provisions of article 239A of the Constitution shall apply to the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.”
Section 73 - Application of the Constitution of India

“The provisions of the Constitution of India shall apply in relation to the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir in the same manner as they apply to other
Union Territories.”

III.​ Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir (1947):

Now, therefore, I Shriman Indar Mahandar Rajrajeshwar Maharajadhiraj Shri

Hari Singhji, Jammu Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipathi, Ruler of
Jammu and Kashmir State, in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my
said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and I hereby
declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the
Governor-General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and
any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion
shall, by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the
terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation
to the State of J&K (hereinafter referred to as `this State') such functions as
may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in
force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August 1947 (which Act as so
in force in hereafter referred to as "the Act").

I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to the
provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by
virtue of this my Instrument of Accession.

I accept the matters specified in the Schedule hereto as the matters with
respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for this State.
I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that
if an agreement is made between the Governor-General and the Ruler of this
State whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this State of
any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of this
State, then any such agreement shall be deemed to form part of this
Instrument and shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any

amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such
amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act 1947, unless such
amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this
Instrument.

Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make

any law for this State authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any
purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purposes
of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to acquire
any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense or if the land
belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed, or, in
default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the
Chief Justice of India.

Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to

acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to
enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future
constitution.

Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and

over this state, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of
any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or
the validity of any law at present in force in this State.
I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that
any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be
construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.

Given under my hand this 26th day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Forty
Seven.

IV.​ The Transfer of Kashmir and its surrounding territories from

the British Empire to Maharaja Gulab Singh (Treaty of
Amritsar, signed on March 16, 1846):

Article 1- The British Government transfers and makes over for ever in
independent possession to Maharajah Gulab Singh and the heirs male of his
body all the hilly or mountainous country with its dependencies situated to
the eastward of the River Indus and the westward of the River Ravi including
Chamba and excluding Lahol, being part of the territories ceded to the British
Government by the Lahore State according to the provisions of Article IV of
the Treaty of Lahore, dated 9th March, 1846.

Article 2- The eastern boundary of the tract transferred by the foregoing

article to Maharajah Gulab Singh shall be laid down by the Commissioners
appointed by the British Government and Maharajah Gulab Singh
respectively for that purpose and shall be defined in a separate engagement
after survey.

Article 3- In consideration of the transfer made to him and his heirs by the
provisions of the foregoing article Maharajah Gulab Singh will pay to the
British Government the sum of seventy-five lakhs of rupees (Nanukshahee),
fifty lakhs to be paid on or before the 1st October of the current year, A.D.,
1846.

Article 5- Maharajah Gulab Singh will refer to the arbitration of the British
Government any disputes or question that may arise between himself and
the Government of Lahore or any other neighboring State, and will abide by
the decision of the British Government.

Article 6- Maharajah Gulab Singh engages for himself and heirs to join, with
the whole of his Military Forces, the British troops when employed within the
hills or in the territories adjoining his possessions.

Article 9- The British Government will give its aid to Maharajah Gulab Singh in
protecting his territories from external enemies.

Article 10- Maharajah Gulab Singh acknowledges the supremacy of the British
Government and will in token of such supremacy present annually to the
British Government one horse, twelve shawl goats of approved breed (six
male and six female) and three pairs of Cashmere shawls.

V.​ Tashkent Declaration

Article 1- The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan agree that
both sides will exert all efforts to create good neighbourly relations between
India and Pakistan in accordance with the United Nations Charter. They
reaffirm their obligation under the Charter not to have recourse to force and
to settle their disputes through peaceful means. They considered that the
interests of peace in their region and particularly in the Indo-Pakistan
Sub-Continent and, indeed, the interests of the peoples of India and Pakistan
were not served by the continuance of tension between the two countries. It
was against this background that Jammu and Kashmir was discussed, and
each of the sides set forth its respective position.

Article 2- The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have
agreed that all armed personnel of the two countries shall be withdrawn not
later than 25 February, 1966 to the positions they held prior to 5 August, 1965,
and both sides shall observe the cease-fire terms on the cease-fire line.

Article 3- The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have
agreed that relations between India and Pakistan shall be based on the
principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each other.

Article 4- The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have
agreed that both sides will discourage any propaganda directed against the
other country, and will encourage propaganda which promotes the
development of friendly relations between the two countries.

Article 5- The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have
agreed that the High Commissioner of India to Pakistan and the High
Commissioner of Pakistan to India will return to their posts and that the
normal functioning of diplomatic missions of both countries will be restored.
Both Governments shall observe the Vienna Convention of 1961 on Diplomatic
Intercourse.
VI.​ United Nations Security Council Resolution 39

A. A Commission of the Security Council is hereby established, composed of

representatives of three Members of the United Nations, one to be selected
by India, one to be selected by Pakistan, and the third to be designated by the
two so selected. Each representative on the Commission shall be entitled to
select his alternates and assistants.

B. The Commission shall proceed to the spot as quickly as possible. It shall act
under the authority of the Security Council and in accordance with the
directions it may receive from it. It shall keep the Security Council currently
informed of its activities and of the development of the situation. It shall
report to the Security Council regularly, submitting its conclusions and
proposals.

C. The Commission is invested with a dual function: (1) to investigate the facts
pursuant to Article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations ; (2) to exercise,
without interrupting the work of the Security Council, any mediatory
influence likely to smooth away difficulties ; to carry out the directions given
to it by the Security Council ; and to report how far the advice and directions, if
any, of the Security Council have been carried out.

D. The Commission shall perform the functions described in clause C : ( 1) in

regard to the situation in the Jammu and Kashmir State set out in the letter
'of the representative of India addressed to the President of the Security
Council, dated 1 January 1948,4 and in the letter from the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15 January 1948 ;
5 and (2) in regard to other situations set out in the letter from the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15
January 1948, when the Security Council so directs.
E. The Commission shall take its decision by majority vote. It shall determine
its own procedure. It may allocate among its members, alternate members,
their assistants, and its personnel such duties as may have to be fulfilled for
the realization of its mission and the reaching of its conclusions.

F. The Commission, its members, alternate members, their assistants, and its
personnel shall be entitled to journey, separately or together, wherever the
necessities of their tasks may require, and, in particular, within those
territories which are the theatre of the events of which the Security Council is
seized. G. The Secretary-General shall furnish the Commission with such
personnel and assistance as it may consider necessary.

VII.​ United Nations Security Council Resolution 47

A. Restoration of peace and order

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours :

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of
tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have
entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion
into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those
fighting in the State;

(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and
the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State,
regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the
question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should
co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

2. The Government of India should:

(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in
accordance with the Council's resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are
withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have
become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a
plan for withdrawing their own forces from J ammu and Kashmir and
reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the
support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;

(b) Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce
the completion of each stage;

(c) When the Indian forces have been reduced to the minimum strength
mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the
stationing of the remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the
following principles :

(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or
appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State ;

(ii) That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas ;

(iii) That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength
should be located within their present base area.

3. The Government of India should agree that until such time as the Plebiscite
Administration referred to below finds it necessary to exercise the powers of
direction and supervision over the State forces and police provided for in
paragraph 8, they will be held in areas to be agreed upon with the Plebiscite
Administrator.

4. After the plan referred to in paragraph 2 (a) above has been put into
operation, personnel recruited locally in each district should so far as possible
be utilized for the re-establishment and maintenance of law and order with
due regard to protection of minorities, subject to such additional
requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referred to
in paragraph 7.

5. If these local forces should be found to be inadequate, the Commission,

subject to the agreement of both the Government of India and the
Government of Pakistan, should arrange for the use of such forces of either
Dominion as it deems effective for the purpose of pacification.

B. Plebiscite

6. The Government of India should undertake to ensure that the Government

of the State invites the major political groups to designate responsible
representatives to share equitably and fully in the conduct of the
administration at the ministerial level while the plebiscite is being prepared
and carried out.

7. The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in

Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a plebiscite as soon
as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan.

8. The Government of India should undertake that there will be delegated by

the State to the Plebiscite Administration such powers as the latter considers
necessary for holding a fair and impartial plebiscite including, for that
purpose only, the direction and supervision of the State forces and police.

9. The Government of India should, at the request of the Plebiscite

Administration, make available from the Indian forces such assistance as the
Plebiscite Administration may require for the performance of its functions.

10. (a) The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations will be appointed to be the Plebiscite
Administrator.
(b) The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as an officer of the State of Jammu
and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate his assistants and other
subordinates and to draft regulations governing the plebiscite. Such
nominees should be formally appointed and such draft regulations should be
formally promulgated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(c) The Government of India should undertake that the Government of

Jammu and Kashmir will appoint fully qualified persons nominated by the
Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within the State judicial
system to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator
have a serious bearing on the preparation for and the conduct of a free and
impartial plebiscite.

(d) The terms of service of the Administrator should form the subject of a
separate negotiation between the Secretary-General of the United Nations
and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix the terms of
service for his assistants and subordinates.

(e) The Administrator should have the right to communicate directly with the
Government of the State and with the Commission of the Security Council
and, through the Commission, with the Security Council, with the
Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the
Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the
foregoing (as he in his discretion may decide) any circumstances arising
which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the freedom of the plebiscite.
IX.​ Main Actors

a)​Republic of India

Indian-administered Kashmir is the largest portion of the Kashmir region,

covering around 55% of the region and encompassing over 70% of its
population. Historically, India has strongly upheld claims that the Kashmir
Valley was an integral part of India, citing the Instrument of Accession signed
in 1947 as the legal basis for India’s rights over Kashmir, which from the Indian
government’s point of view grants them full sovereignty over the entirety of
the Kashmir region, including districts controlled by China and Pakistan.

The Indian government has struggled throughout the years to address the
insurgency in Kashmir, and has adopted a stricter governance policy for
Indian Kashmir, as armed groups continue to operate in the region. Following
the Pulwama attack of 2019, the Indian government revoked Article 370 of the
Indian Constitution, centralizing control over the internal affairs of
Indian-Kashmir and adopted new anti-terrorism in order to combat terrorist
activity and propaganda supporting secession from India. Additionally, the
military presence of the Indian Armed Forces increased in the past years, as
the Kashmir region is considered the most militarized area in the world, with
around 600.000 Indian troops stationed in the area. The government justifies
this approach by saying it’s needed to prevent violence associated with
Jihadist militancy in the region. Any ideals that promote secessionist
sentiments or the independence of Kashmir from India are seen as direct
threats to the integrity and security of India.
India’s relations with Pakistan are characterized by historical hostility, as India
considers that Pakistan’s hold over Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan as
illegitimate, and advocates for the integration of these territories within India.
Additionally, India upholds the fact that terrorism in Indian Kashmir is directly
fueled by Pakistan’s military and logistical support for armed groups, in an
attempt to destabilize the region, and has previously criticized Pakistan for
alleged trans-border terrorism, lack of political representation in Pakistan
administered Kashmir and human rights violations, and has in the past called
for actions against Pakistan from the Security Council for these actions.

However, despite its requests for an international response against Pakistan,

India has been sceptical of international interference, especially from the
Security Council, when it comes to resolving or mediating the border dispute
stating that the Simla Agreement of 1972 clearly stipulates that the issue of
Kashmir is to be resolved between India and Pakistan. Furthermore, India
claims that Resolutions 39 and 47 of the Security Council cannot be
implemented as one of the conditions set in these resolutions was for the
retreat of Pakistan from the Kashmir region, and as such India is not forced to
comply with these resolutions.

This hard opposition of international involvement has made it complicated for

the Security Council to intervene in the dispute, as India considers any outside
presence in the region as a violation of its national sovereignty.

b)​All Parties Hurriyat Conference

The All Parties Hurriyat Conference is an alliance made up of multiple political,

social and religious organizations, that support secessionist ideals and
full-autonomy from India, founded on March 9 1993. The alliance has
historically been viewed positively by Pakistan as it contests the claim of the
Indian government over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The organisation is
split into two main factions, the Mirwaiz faction, who is generally considered
moderate and open to dialogue with the Indian government, and the Geelani
faction, maintaining a rigid stance, refusing to engage with India unless the
region was recognized as disputed. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq is the founder and
chairman of Mirwaiz faction and Masarat Alam Bhat is the interim chairman
of Geelani faction, who succeeded Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the founder of the
faction after his death.

On an international level, the APHC has been recognized as the

representative of the Kashmiri population and their desire for self-governance
by Pakistan, and enjoys an observer’s status in the Organisation of Islamic
Conference(OIC).

Parallel to this, Pakistan has attempted to internationalize the issue of

Kashmir, portraying terrorist activity in Jammu and Kashmir as an indigenous
uprising against Indian sovereignty. It was in this context that the Hurriyat
was formed as an umbrella body for all over-ground secessionist
organisations. Since the international community frowned upon the resort to
violence by non-state actors, the Hurriyat was an ideal platform to promote
the Kashmiri secessionist cause. Other international actors engaged with the
Hurriyat Conference, but the goal was more about promoting dialogue
regarding the political climate of Jammu and Kashmir, rather than endorsing
their separatist stance.

According to the Hurriyat Conference, Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed

territory with legitimate rights to autonomy and India’s control over the
region is not justified. It supports the claims that Kashmir is “the unfinished
agenda of Partition” and needs to be solved “as per the aspirations of the
people of Jammu and Kashmir”. APHC perceives itself as the sole
representative of the Kashmiri People, a claim that has so far been endorsed
only by Pakistan. The political movement’s primary purpose has been to
project a negative image of the counter-insurgency operations conducted by
the Indian government and to mobilise public opinion against the Indian
security forces, highlighting decades of political and cultural oppression
through violence. All APCH factions support the right to self-determination as
per UN Security Council Resolution 47.

Before the 2019 removal of Article 370, the Hurryiat commanded the political
narrative of Kashmiri separatist movements, and was regarded as the main
voice of the Muslim population against Indian rule in Kashmir. As a result, the
political organization held massive amounts of influence amongst the
population, especially amongst the youth and students, being able to
mobilise large numbers of people through protests, demonstrations against
Indian law-enforcement and soldiers, funeral services for killed terrorist
soldiers and shutdown calls. However, their influence would greatly diminish
with time as the Indian government solidified political and military control
over the Kashmir Valley and the Jammu region, as a large part of its members
were placed under detention and its ability to coordinate protests and public
demonstrations diminished, due to the government seizing their funding and
resource supply lines. The removal of Article 370 was the final blow for the
APHC, effectively nullifying their previously held political influence.

c)​ Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Pakistan’s views on the Kashmir area are anchored in its foundational

narrative, security theory, and interpretation of international law, considering
Jammu and Kashmir as an unfinished agenda of the 1947 Partition of British
India. Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose final
status must be determined by a UN-mandated plebiscite, as outlined in
United Nations Security Council Resolutions (notably Resolution 47 of 1948),
and argues that India’s control over most of the region is illegitimate and
maintained through force. Historically, Pakistan’s prior activities include its
engagement in the first Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–48 following the princely
state’s contentious accession to India, after which the territory was separated
along the Line of Control (LoC).

Pakistan administers Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan,

which it defines as self-governing areas until a final solution. Pakistan has
continuously brought up the issue in international forums like the UN General
Assembly, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and bilateral
discussions, and subsequent wars in 1965 and 1999 (the Kargil conflict) further
solidified Kashmir as the primary flashpoint in Indo-Pak relations. Pakistan’s
official position strongly condemns India’s revocation of Article 370 and Article
35A of the Indian Constitution in August 2019, which removed Jammu and
Kashmir’s special status; Pakistan characterizes this move as an illegal
annexation that violates UNSC resolutions, bilateral agreements like the Simla
Agreement, and international humanitarian law.

In terms of present relations, Pakistan’s relationships with India remain highly

strained, with minimal diplomatic contact, degraded missions, stopped
commerce, and regular ceasefire violations along the LoC, although a revised
ceasefire deal in 2021 temporarily decreased cross-border gunfire. Pakistan
portrays itself as a diplomatic advocate for Kashmiri self-determination,
emphasizing alleged human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir,
including restrictions on movement, communications blackouts, arbitrary
detentions, and demographic changes, while India accuses Pakistan of
sponsoring cross-border militancy, an allegation Pakistan officially denies,
asserting that it offers only “moral, political, and diplomatic” support to what
it describes as an indigenous freedom struggle.

Strategically, Pakistan views Kashmir as vital to its national security and water
security, as major rivers feeding Pakistan originate in the region, linking the
dispute to concerns over the Indus Waters Treaty. Domestically, Kashmir
occupies a central place in Pakistan’s political discourse, military doctrine, and
national identity, with broad consensus across civilian and military institutions
on opposing Indian control and seeking international mediation.

d)​United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The United Kingdom was the colonial power over India, Pakistan and the
princely states of Jammu and Kashmir for almost 2 centuries. Through the
Partition Act in 1947, the UK granted independence to its colonies in the
Indian subcontinent. Coming out of the Second World War, the Indian
subcontinent saw communities separated by religious affiliation: Muslims and
Hindus. This identification as one of the two religious groups resulted from
the British colonial policy of categorizing its colonial subjects for effective
governance.

Differentiation between Muslims and Hindus allowed the British to favour one
over the other unjustly, increasing animosity between the two groups
artificially categorized by the British. Kashmir was not immune to this division
between Muslims and Hindus, as the ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh,
was Hindu, while the majority of his subjects were Muslims. This created
dissonance during the Partition/Accession period in 1947. Animosity grew
among communities and between the subjects and the ruler, exploding as
communal violence during the decolonization process of the subcontinent,
including in Jammu and Kashmir with the 1947 Jammu massacres. After the
1947 Partition Act, the UK left behind two nations, India and Pakistan, as well
as smaller princely states, governed by unstable governments, with a
hardened past characterized by colonial ethnic division that still fueled
tensions amongst the population.

The United Kingdom’s long standing policy regarding the Kashmir issue has
been one of diplomatic neutrality. The government emphasizes that the
Kashmir conflict remains an issue to be resolved bilaterally between India and
Pakistan, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. The UK has
in the past called upon India and Pakistan to pursue peaceful dialogue in
order to reduce tensions and stabilize the region, as well as cooperate when it
comes to the protection of human rights and combatting cross-border
terrorism.

e)​People’s Republic of China

China plays a central and increasingly influential role in the Kashmir question,
affecting both its political evolution and conflict dynamics through territorial
involvement, diplomatic activity, and strategic actions. China became directly
involved after the 1962 Sino-Indian War, which resulted in Beijing establishing
control over Aksai Chin, a sparsely populated but strategically vital area
claimed by India as part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.
This territorial reality transformed the dispute from a primarily bilateral
conflict between India and Pakistan into a trilateral issue, embedding
Kashmir within broader Asian geopolitics.
Politically, China has consistently supported Pakistan’s position in multilateral
forums, particularly at the United Nations, where it has emphasized the need
for dialogue and opposed unilateral changes to the region’s status. Following
India’s revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, which removed Jammu and
Kashmir’s special constitutional status, China formally raised the issue at the
UN Security Council and criticized the move for altering the status quo,
especially in areas bordering Chinese-controlled territory in Ladakh. These
actions reflect China’s strategic objective of limiting India’s regional
dominance while safeguarding its own territorial claims. From a conflictual
standpoint, China’s involvement is reinforced by security concerns and
infrastructure expansion.

The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor, launched in 2015 under the Belt and
Road Initiative, passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, a region internationally
recognized as disputed. Through investments in highways, energy projects,
and logistical networks, China has strengthened its long-term presence in the
area, provoking Indian objections on the grounds of sovereignty violations.
Militarily, tensions between China and India along the Line of Actual Control
have intensified, most notably during the 2020 Galwan Valley clashes, which
resulted in casualties on both sides and marked the deadliest confrontation
since 1967. These incidents demonstrate how unresolved border issues linked
to the wider Kashmir region continue to generate instability between two
nuclear-armed states.

At the same time, China maintains that it supports regional stability and
peaceful resolution, officially advocating bilateral negotiations while
consolidating its strategic gains. China’s close strategic partnership with
Pakistan, including defense cooperation and diplomatic coordination, further
reinforces its influence over the Kashmir issue. As a result, China’s importance
in the Kashmir question lies in its ability to reshape the dispute through
territorial control, political intervention, and economic and military actions,
thereby internationalizing the conflict and integrating it into the broader
framework of great power rivalry in South Asia. This expanded involvement
has also affected regional diplomacy, as India increasingly views the Kashmir
question through the lens of Sino-Indian competition rather than solely
Indo-Pakistani rivalry.
X.​ Points to be Addressed

1.​ What role should the UNSC play in mediating the border dispute in
Kashmir, keeping in mind the provisions of the 1972 Simla Agreement?
2.​ How do international principles and laws regarding the right to
self-determination apply in the case of the political status of the
Kashmir region?
3.​ What historical and legal grounds do India, Pakistan and China have to
back their claims of sovereignty over the Kashmir Region?
4.​ How can the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri population be
balanced with disagreements between Pakistan, China and India
regarding control over the territory?
5.​ How could ethnic, religious and ideological differences between the
populations of the Kashmir region affect the future status of the
region?
6.​ How does foreign influence of jihadist extremist groups affect the
region?
7.​ Do past resolutions adopted by the UNSC in regards to the situation in
Kashmir still apply today, and if so, what measures can be adopted in
order to enforce them?
8.​ What confidence building measures could be adopted in order to
reduce tensions between the countries claiming sovereignty over the
region and demilitarize the area?
9.​ What guarantee to humanitarian security do the Kashmir people have
in case of an armed conflict?
10.​Should the UNSC apply sanctions as a response to human rights
violations carried out by state and non-state actors alike?
11.​ How should the UNSC respond to allegations of state-sponsored
terrorism in Kashmir?
12.​Is intervention from the UNSC through the deployment of
peacekeeping troops necessary in order to reduce tensions and combat
terrorist activity?
13.​ What measures should be adopted to effectively monitor and prevent
illegal arms trafficking and military support for insurgent groups ?
14.​How does the decline in socio-economic development affect the
population and anti-government sentiments respectively?
15.​How has ethnic separation and discrimination from the colonial period
perpetuated ethnic conflicts in Jammu and Kashmir today?
16.​Is the region too unstable in order for any democratic processes related
to the political status of the Kashmir Valley to take place?
17.​ How can inclusive governance reforms help stabilize the situation and
reduce tensions between governments and the Kashmiri population?
XI.​ Bibliography and Further Reading

●​ [Link]
The-Kashmir-problem
●​ [Link]
●​ [Link]
●​ [Link]
onflict-from-past-to-present
●​ [Link]
onflict/
●​ [Link]
-abrogation-of-article-370/
●​ [Link]
●​ [Link]
[Link]
●​ [Link]
cratic-dilemma
●​ [Link]
n_Jammu_and_Kashmir
●​ [Link]
of-self-determination-is-a-moral-and-legal-right-international-law-essay
.php
●​ [Link]
●​ [Link]
●​ [Link]
t-militarized-regions-of-the-world-kashmir-is-disputed-by-india-and-pa
kistan/