While both India and Pakistan hold opposing views on the Kashmir conflict, their respective approaches have differed dramatically over time. India’s handling of the issue has been marked by a series of actions and policies that have not only contravened international norms and human rights conventions but have also intensified the suffering of the Kashmiri people. India’s reluctance to address the legitimate grievances of Kashmiris has deepened the crisis and prolonged the conflict.
Indian-Occupied Kashmir has become one of the most militarized regions in the world, with hundreds of thousands of troops deployed since 1947. This overwhelming military presence has led to numerous human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and excessive use of force. A particularly controversial element of India’s security policy is the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants sweeping powers to the military, including the authority to arrest or kill with near-total impunity. Enacted in 1990, AFSPA has enabled systemic abuses, often without accountability or recourse for victims.
In contrast, Pakistan has maintained a principled and peaceful stance on the Kashmir issue, consistently advocating for diplomacy, dialogue, and adherence to international law. Pakistan’s position has centred on supporting the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination and calling for a peaceful, negotiated resolution that aligns with their aspirations.
Since the beginning of the conflict, Pakistan has actively raised the Kashmir issue at international platforms, including the UN and the OIC. Through persistent diplomatic engagement, Pakistan has succeeded in internationalizing the Kashmir dispute and drawing attention to the human rights situation there. It has repeatedly called for a UN-backed plebiscite to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide their own future, in line with UN Security Council resolutions. Furthermore, Pakistan has appealed to major global powers— like the USA, China, and European nations— to pressure India into upholding international human rights standards and respecting the will of the Kashmiri people.
Pakistan has consistently extended political and moral support to the people of Kashmir. It has backed political leaders and parties in AJK who advocate for the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. The AJK leadership has regularly expressed solidarity with those living in Indian-Occupied Kashmir. In times of crisis— such as natural disasters or periods of intensified military crackdowns— Pakistan has provided humanitarian assistance to the residents of Indian-Occupied Kashmir.
Additionally, Pakistan has supported refugees fleeing violence in Indian-Occupied Kashmir by offering shelter and aid in AJK. To raise awareness about the Kashmir issue, Pakistan has actively promoted public campaigns at both national and international levels, aiming to keep global attention focused on the plight and rights of the Kashmiri people. In contrast to India’s militarized approach, Pakistan has advocated for a diplomatic solution through dialogue involving Pakistan, India, and the Kashmiri leadership.
Pakistan has repeatedly invited India for negotiations and has welcomed the involvement of international mediators to help resolve the conflict. Even in the face of continued refusals from India, Pakistan’s commitment to peaceful engagement remains firm. It has urged India to demilitarize the region, uphold the fundamental human rights of the Kashmiri people, and allow them the freedom to determine their own future.
Pakistan has also stressed the importance of preserving the cultural and religious identity of Kashmir, especially in light of India’s attempts to alter the demographic composition of IIOJK. The Pakistan government strongly opposes the settlement of non-Kashmiris there, viewing such actions as efforts to dilute the Kashmiri Muslim identity— central to the struggle for self-determination.
Until then, all other alternatives and their promotion should be paused, and the focus should solely be on uniting under Pakistan’s leadership to push India to the negotiating table and grant Kashmiris their right to choose their future. This approach is the key to resolving the Kashmir issue. All stakeholders must work together, setting aside differences, to achieve a resolution.
Moreover, Pakistan has consistently drawn international attention to the ongoing human rights violations. It has urged organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others to investigate the abuses committed there. By keeping the spotlight on these violations, Pakistan seeks to ensure that the suffering of Kashmiris is neither ignored nor forgotten by the world.
The Line of Control serves as the de facto boundary between AJK and Indian-Occupied Kashmir. While it marks the military division between the two sides, Not recognized as an international border, it is a product of the unresolved status of Jammu and Kashmir.
One notable aspect of the LoC is Pakistan’s decision not to fortify it with fences or barriers, unlike India, which has physically reinforced its side. Pakistan’s choice to leave the LoC unfenced reflects not an absence of security concerns, but a principled stance rooted in international law, the relevant UN resolutions, and its commitment to a peaceful and just resolution.
The LoC was formally established following the 1972 Simla Agreement. The agreement designated the LoC as a temporary arrangement pending the final resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Both parties agreed not to alter the status of the region unilaterally or by force, acknowledging that the issue remained unresolved. Pakistan’s decision not to fence the LoC distinctly contrasts with India’s approach, which involves extensive fortification and security measures along its side. This difference reflects the core of Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir conflict—namely, the recognition that Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory whose status remains unresolved.
The roots of the Kashmir dispute date back to the 1947 partition of British India, when the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir—despite having a Muslim-majority population—acceded to India. This decision, made by the Hindu Maharaja against the will of the majority population and neighbouring Muslim regions, sparked strong opposition and led to the first war between India and Pakistan in 1947–1948.
The conflict concluded with a United Nations-brokered ceasefire, which left the region divided and the dispute unresolved. Since its inception, the Kashmir dispute has remained a central issue between India and Pakistan. Pakistan has consistently maintained that Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory, and its future should be determined by the people of Kashmir, in accordance with the UNSC resolutions. Among the most significant is Resolution 47 (1948), which explicitly calls for a plebiscite to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide whether to accede to India or join Pakistan.
Pakistan’s stance is firmly grounded in the internationally recognized principle of self-determination, enshrined in the UN Charter and other global human rights instruments. According to this principle, all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Pakistan believes the Kashmiri people must be granted the opportunity to exercise this right free from coercion or external pressure.
In this context, Pakistan’s decision not to erect a fence along the LoC carries symbolic and diplomatic weight. This policy aligns with its commitment to the Simla Agreement. By refraining from fortifying the LoC, Pakistan underscores its respect for the Agreement and its broader commitment to diplomacy and peaceful coexistence.
Pakistan’s choice also reflects its consistent call for dialogue and peaceful resolution of the dispute. Unlike India’s heavily militarized approach— which includes constructing extensive fencing and security installations along the LoC— Pakistan’s approach leaves space for the potential of cross-border interaction, trade, and people-to-people exchanges. Such openness fosters trust, facilitates humanitarian cooperation, and keeps the door open for negotiations. In contrast, India’s fencing of the LoC has further entrenched divisions, restricted civilian movement, and contributed to a worsening humanitarian situation.
From a humanitarian perspective, Pakistan’s policy also seeks to minimize the impact on communities living along the LoC. Many families reside there, and the construction of a fence would disrupt their livelihoods and social fabric. Limited yet vital cross-border movement— whether for trade, communication, or family connections— helps to alleviate some of their hardships. Maintaining an unfenced LoC thus demonstrates Pakistan’s sensitivity to the humanitarian needs of the population on both sides of the divide.
By refusing to fortify the LoC, Pakistan sends a clear message that it does not accept the status quo as final or legitimate. It reaffirms its position that Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India, and that any lasting solution must come through a democratic process guided by international law and UN resolutions. Fencing the LoC, in contrast, would suggest an acceptance of a permanent division— something Pakistan fundamentally rejects in favour of a just and peaceful settlement rooted in the will of the Kashmiri people. The decision not to fence underscores Pakistan’s commitment to the belief that Kashmiris should have the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination in the future, as enshrined in international law. In contrast, India’s construction of a fence along the LoC clearly reflects its intentions to move towards the integration of Indian-Occupied Kashmir into India, disregarding the will of the Kashmiri people and violating UN resolutions.
This clear divergence in the approaches of Pakistan and India should serve as a wake-up call for those who claim to advocate for independence or harbour anti-Pakistan sentiments. Pakistan has consistently demonstrated unwavering support for the Kashmiri people and the Kashmir cause. It is now essential to put aside political differences and work together under the banner of Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue. The first and most critical step is to compel India to grant Kashmiris their right to self-determination. Only after this fundamental step should other options be considered.
Until then, all other alternatives and their promotion should be paused, and the focus should solely be on uniting under Pakistan’s leadership to push India to the negotiating table and grant Kashmiris their right to choose their future. This approach is the key to resolving the Kashmir issue. All stakeholders must work together, setting aside differences, to achieve a resolution.
