The Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains one of the most enduring conflicts on the global stage.

While fundamentally political in nature, it has increasingly acquired a profound human rights dimension that demands urgent international attention. Any durable resolution must reconcile both these aspects; addressing political aspirations while ensuring the protection of fundamental human rights. At the heart of the dispute lies the principle of self-determination, a cornerstone of the United Nations Charter. This principle affirms that peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development without coercion. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, outlined a framework for a plebiscite to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide their future. Despite initial acceptance, implementation of these resolutions has remained elusive for over seventy-eight years now.

The continued denial of this political process has contributed to deep frustration among Kashmiris. Over time, grievances have been compounded by allegations of political marginalization, erosion of local autonomy, and restrictions on civil liberties. The revocation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution in August 2019 marked a significant turning point, ending the region’s autonomous status and reorganizing it into two union territories.

This move has been widely debated, with critics arguing that it further alienated local populations and intensified existing tensions. The human rights situation in the region has been a subject of international concern for decades. Since the late 1980s, cycles of unrest and insurgency have been met with heavy security responses. Reports by international human rights organizations have documented allegations of excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly. Civilian populations have often borne the brunt of the conflict, with recurring curfews, communication blackouts, and disruptions to daily life.

Particularly troubling are reports concerning the treatment of detainees and the use of laws that grant sweeping powers to security forces. Legislation such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA) has been criticized by human rights groups for enabling prolonged detention without trial and providing legal immunity to security personnel. Critics argue that such frameworks risk undermining accountability and due process, which are essential components of the rule of law.

Women and vulnerable groups have also been disproportionately affected. Allegations of gender-based violence, including instances of sexual assault, have been raised in various reports over the years. These claims, whether contested or substantiated, underscore the urgent need for transparent investigations and justice mechanisms that inspire confidence among affected communities.

Another contentious development has been the introduction of new domicile laws in April 2020, allowing non-residents to acquire residency rights in Jammu and Kashmir. Critics contend that such measures could alter the demographic composition of the region, raising concerns under international humanitarian law, including provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit demographic changes in occupied territories. Indian authorities, however, maintain that these changes are aimed at promoting development and integration.

The cumulative effect of these developments has transformed the Kashmir dispute from a purely political question into a pressing humanitarian issue. The scale and persistence of alleged human rights violations have drawn the attention of international organizations, legal experts, and advocacy groups. Calls for independent investigations and accountability have grown louder, reflecting the need for credible and impartial oversight.

Efforts to internationalize the human rights dimension have also taken legal forms. In recent years, attempts have been made to invoke the principle of universal jurisdiction in foreign courts, seeking accountability for alleged violations. While such initiatives face complex legal and diplomatic hurdles, they highlight the increasing global scrutiny of the situation. Moving forward, addressing the human rights dimension of the Kashmir dispute is essential for building trust and creating conditions conducive to dialogue. Immediate steps could include easing restrictions on civil liberties, ensuring transparency in law enforcement, and facilitating access for independent observers and humanitarian organizations. Restoring political engagement with local stakeholders and revisiting governance arrangements may also contribute to reducing tensions.

Ultimately, a sustainable resolution of the Kashmir dispute will require a balanced approach that integrates political dialogue with a firm commitment to human rights.

The international community, including the United Nations and major global powers, has a role to play in encouraging constructive engagement and adherence to international norms. Addressing humanitarian concerns is not merely a moral imperative and is also a practical necessity. Without safeguarding the rights and dignity of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, any political solution will remain fragile. A rights-based approach, therefore, offers a pathway toward lasting peace, stability, and reconciliation in the region. Indeed, humanitarian dimension of Kashmir dispute are most significant, hence needs immediate attention of UN and international community. India must stop making demographic changes in its occupied parts of the state. Pakistan must raise the humanitarian dimension of the dispute at all international forums.

— The writer is Professor of Politics and IR at International Islamic University, Islamabad.

© Pakistan Observer