The Kashmir Conflict: Recent Developments and India's Position
internet
Executive Summary
The Kashmir conflict, an enduring territorial dispute between India and Pakistan since the 1947 partition of British India, remains a critical geopolitical flashpoint. This report provides an update on the conflict, focusing on the recent May 2025 military confrontation and elucidating India's official stance. The 2025 crisis was triggered by a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, on April 22, prompting immediate diplomatic and military retaliation from India, followed by reciprocal actions from Pakistan. This escalation, characterized by the novel use of drones and missiles, highlighted the rapid pace of military technological change and the inherent instability of the region.
The core of the conflict is shaped by fundamentally divergent narratives: India bases its claim on the legal Instrument of Accession signed in 1947, viewing Kashmir as an integral part of its secular union, and frames the ongoing unrest as cross-border terrorism supported by Pakistan. Conversely, Pakistan champions the Kashmiri people's right to self-determination, citing unfulfilled UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite, and attributes unrest to indigenous grievances against Indian rule and alleged human rights violations. While India insists on bilateral resolution, rejecting third-party mediation, the 2025 crisis underscored the crucial role of external actors, particularly the United States, in de-escalation. The involvement of China, with its growing strategic and economic interests, further complicates the dynamics, transforming the dispute into a triangular contest. The ceasefire of May 2025, while welcomed, has not resolved the underlying issues, indicating a persistent cycle of tension and the urgent need for a comprehensive, long-term solution that prioritizes the aspirations and well-being of the Kashmiri people.
1. Introduction: The Enduring Kashmir Conflict
The Kashmir conflict stands as one of the longest-standing unresolved international disputes, with its origins deeply rooted in the tumultuous 1947 partition of British India.1 This historical division led to the creation of Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, leaving the fate of numerous princely states, including Kashmir, uncertain.1 Kashmir, a region with a predominantly Muslim population, became a flashpoint when its Hindu Maharaja, Hari Singh, opted to accede to India, directly triggering the first Indo-Pakistani War.2 The region remains physically divided by a 450-mile Line of Control (LoC), with India administering areas such as Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, and Ladakh, while Pakistan controls Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. A third party, China, also holds a portion of the region, Aksai Chin.1
The significance of Kashmir as a geopolitical flashpoint cannot be overstated. The dispute has historically escalated into three major wars and numerous smaller armed skirmishes.2 A critical dimension was added in 1974 when both India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapon capabilities, transforming the regional conflict into a matter of profound international concern.1 The mutual possession of nuclear weapons by these two states means that any conventional conflict carries the acute danger of spiraling into a nuclear exchange, prompting urgent international calls for de-escalation during periods of heightened tension.1 This report specifically aims to provide an update on the Kashmir conflict, with a particular focus on the recent 2025 crisis and a detailed exposition of India's official position within this complex historical and geopolitical landscape.
The conflict over Kashmir extends beyond mere territorial claims; it embodies the foundational ideologies and national identities of both India and Pakistan. For Pakistan, Kashmir's Muslim majority aligns with its very conception as a Muslim homeland, rendering its claim over the region existential.2 Any perceived concession on Kashmir could be viewed as undermining the core national narrative of Pakistan. Conversely, for India, Kashmir's accession, despite its Muslim majority, is seen as a powerful affirmation of its secular identity, demonstrating that people of all faiths can coexist and thrive within its diverse, democratic union.4 This deep ideological entanglement means that any potential compromise is exceptionally difficult, as it could be perceived as challenging the fundamental self-perception of either state.10 The leaders of both countries have historically "compounded the original problem when they turned Kashmir into a badge of their respective national identities," raising the stakes enormously.10
Furthermore, the genesis of the Kashmir problem can be traced directly to the inadequate and ambiguous mechanism for princely states to accede to either India or Pakistan during the 1947 partition.4 The British failure to provide a clear and equitable framework for accession, particularly for states like Kashmir with a Hindu ruler governing a Muslim majority, left a critical void that was immediately filled by conflict.4 This historical oversight created a foundational dispute that continues to cripple relations between the successor states. The Maharaja's initial hesitation to join either dominion, followed by his accession under pressure from Pakistani-backed tribal invasions, immediately plunged the region into war, setting a dangerous precedent for decades of unresolved conflict.
2. The 2025 Crisis: A Recent Escalation
The immediate catalyst for the May 2025 military confrontation between India and Pakistan was a devastating terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, on April 22, 2025.1 Gunmen killed 26 people, including 25 Indian nationals and one Nepalese national, and injured more than 20 others.1 The Resistance Front (TRF), a militant group identified by India as an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility for the attack but later retracted its statement.1 India promptly attributed the attack to Pakistan-based insurgent groups, a claim vehemently denied by Pakistan, which called for an independent investigation into its origins.1
The Pahalgam attack served as a direct trigger for India's subsequent military response, "Operation Sindoor," which in turn initiated a rapid, tit-for-tat escalation of military strikes by both India and Pakistan. This sequence of events demonstrates a clear cause-and-effect chain where a terrorist incident quickly translates into cross-border military action, highlighting the hair-trigger nature of the conflict.
In the immediate aftermath, India responded with a series of diplomatic and economic measures. It expelled Pakistani diplomats, recalled its own diplomatic staff, cut off visa services, and announced the temporary suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, a crucial agreement regulating river basin management, asserting this would remain until Pakistan ceased its alleged support for cross-border terrorism.1 Pakistan retaliated swiftly, closing its border, stopping bilateral trade, suspending visas for Indian nationals, closing its airspace to Indian aircraft, and threatening to suspend all bilateral treaties, including the Simla Agreement.1
The military confrontation unfolded from May 6 to May 10, 2025. On the night of May 6-7, India launched "Operation Sindoor," conducting a series of military strikes against targets in both Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan's internationally recognized territory.1 India stated its objective was to target "terrorist infrastructure," a claim Pakistan disputed, asserting that civilian areas were hit.1 This initiated a series of escalatory strikes, primarily involving drones and missiles, targeting each other's military infrastructure and air defense systems.1 Both sides also engaged in exchanges of small arms and artillery fire along the Line of Control, resulting in civilian casualties.1
A significant evolution in the India-Pakistan conflict was observed during the 2025 crisis, characterized by the extensive and innovative use of drones and missiles, rather than traditional ground incursions or manned aircraft crossing enemy airspace. This marked the first instance of drone warfare in the rivalry, with both sides employing these systems with the intent of causing damage.9 India reportedly utilized a range of drones, including Israeli-made (IAI Searcher, Heron, Harpy, Harop) and indigenous models (Nagastra-1 suicide drone, Rustom-2, Archer-NG), as well as MQ-3B Predator drones acquired from the United States.19 Pakistan, in turn, deployed Chinese (CH-4) and Turkish (Bayraghtar Akinci) drones, alongside its indigenously developed Burraq and Shahpar drones.19 India likely sustained losses of several aircraft to Pakistani counter-air operations on May 7.9 This indicates a strategic shift towards more precise, standoff attacks and asymmetric capabilities, setting a new baseline for future military confrontations and highlighting the rapid pace of military technological change in the region.
A ceasefire was eventually declared on May 10, 2025, following four days of intense fighting.1 The United States was reportedly the key broker in arranging this cessation of hostilities, with the United Kingdom also involved in the discussions.1 However, analysts quickly pointed out that despite the ceasefire, the fundamental, underlying drivers of the conflict, such as the sovereignty of Kashmir or the issue of cross-border terrorism, remained unresolved.1 This suggests that the ceasefire is merely a temporary de-escalation, and the core grievances persist, making future escalations highly probable and indicating a persistent cycle of violence and temporary calm.1
3. Historical Foundations of the Dispute
The enduring conflict over Kashmir is deeply rooted in the 1947 partition of British India, which led to the creation of two independent nations: Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan.1 During this partition, the rulers of the 560-odd princely states were given the choice to accede to either dominion or, theoretically, to remain independent.4
The pivotal moment for Kashmir occurred in October 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of the Muslim-majority princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, initially sought independence.2 However, his state was subsequently invaded by Pakistani tribal militias and pro-Pakistani rebels.2 Faced with this armed rebellion, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, legally ceding Jammu and Kashmir to the Dominion of India in exchange for immediate military assistance.3 This act directly triggered the First Indo-Pakistani War (1947-48).2 The core historical dispute is fundamentally shaped by these conflicting interpretations of Kashmir's accession. India's claim rests on the legal validity of the Instrument of Accession.3 However, Pakistan and many Kashmiris emphasize the unfulfilled condition of a plebiscite, explicitly mentioned by Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor-General of India, in his acceptance letter to the Maharaja, stating that the question of accession "should be settled by a reference to the people".24 They also question the Maharaja's legitimacy to accede given the popular uprising against his rule.3 This fundamental disagreement on the foundational event perpetuates the conflict, as both sides view their position as historically and legally righteous.
India subsequently took the dispute to the United Nations in January 1948.3 UN resolutions passed in 1948 and 1949 called for a ceasefire and a "free and impartial plebiscite" for Kashmiris to decide their future status.1 A ceasefire line was established on January 1, 1949, and later formalized as the Line of Control (LoC) in the Simla Agreement.1 Despite these resolutions, the promised plebiscite was never held, remaining a core grievance for Pakistan and many Kashmiris, who continue to call for their right to self-determination.3
The conflict has seen several subsequent escalations and attempts at resolution:
1965 War: A full-blown war erupted after a skirmish between border controls.2
1971 War: This conflict, primarily fought over East Pakistan, resulted in India's decisive victory and the creation of Bangladesh.1
1972 Simla Agreement: Signed after the 1971 war, this peace accord established the LoC as a provisional military control line and committed both sides to resolve the conflict peacefully and bilaterally.1 The Simla Agreement, intended as the "bedrock of India-Pakistan relations," has shown its fragility in recent escalations, with Pakistan threatening to suspend it in response to India's actions, indicating that even long-standing foundational accords are vulnerable during periods of heightened tension.1
1999 Kargil Conflict: Pakistani soldiers crossed the LoC, sparking a limited war that ended after ten weeks with US intervention and the restoration of the pre-conflict status quo.2
A significant development occurred in August 2019 when India unilaterally abrogated Article 370 of its constitution, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special semi-autonomous status and reorganizing it into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.2 This move, a long-standing agenda of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was accompanied by a severe lockdown, extensive communication blackouts, and the detention of political leaders in the region.3 Pakistan condemned this action as a violation of the Simla Agreement and a "grave injustice".2 The abrogation of Article 370 represents the culmination of a gradual process of eroding Kashmir's special autonomous status.11 While framed by India as a step towards integration and development, it was perceived by Pakistan and many Kashmiris as a unilateral attempt to consolidate control and alter the region's demographic and political character, significantly intensifying anti-India sentiments and drawing international criticism.2
Table 1: Key Milestones in the Kashmir Conflict (1947-2025)
4. India's Official Stand and Arguments
India's official position on the Kashmir conflict is multifaceted, resting on legal, constitutional, political, and security arguments, which have been consistently articulated through its policy actions.
Legal and Constitutional Basis
India's primary legal claim to Jammu and Kashmir is founded on the Instrument of Accession, signed by Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26, 1947.3 India maintains that this document legally and irrevocably ceded J&K to the Dominion of India, thereby making it an "integral part" of the Indian Union.3 This foundational claim asserts that the accession was a legitimate act by the then-ruler of the princely state, consistent with the provisions of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. This position is non-negotiable and forms the basis for all subsequent policy decisions.
The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 is viewed by India as an internal constitutional matter and a sovereign decision to fully integrate Jammu and Kashmir into the national mainstream.2 The Indian government argues that this move was aimed at promoting socio-economic development, empowering the people, removing discriminatory laws, and bringing equity and fairness to those who had been historically marginalized.42 The government asserts that the special status under Article 370 was a temporary provision that hindered the region's progress and fostered separatism, and its removal was necessary for the full application of the Indian Constitution and its associated rights and benefits to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.27 This action is presented as a domestic act of integration rather than a redefinition of disputed territory, firmly solidifying India's position that Kashmir is a settled internal matter, not an international dispute, and its actions are aimed at reinforcing this stance, rejecting any external questioning of its territorial integrity.
Political and Security Perspectives
India consistently frames the Kashmir issue through a counter-terrorism lens, asserting that Pakistan supports, finances, and trains cross-border militant groups responsible for attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir.1 This strategic use of the counter-terrorism narrative allows India to divert international attention from the political dispute over sovereignty and instead focus on cross-border infiltration and Pakistan's alleged support for militant groups. India's military actions, such as "Operation Sindoor" in May 2025, are justified as punitive strikes against "terrorist infrastructure" located in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.1 By emphasizing terrorism, India seeks to align its position with global counter-terrorism efforts, gaining international sympathy and legitimacy for its actions, while simultaneously dismissing Pakistan's calls for self-determination as support for militancy. This narrative also helps to deflect criticism regarding human rights in Kashmir by linking unrest to external terrorist influence.
Furthermore, India firmly insists that the Kashmir dispute is a bilateral issue to be resolved solely through negotiations with Pakistan, as stipulated by the 1972 Simla Agreement.1 India consistently rejects any third-party mediation or internationalization of the conflict.1 This stance is aimed at preventing external actors from legitimizing Pakistan's claims or interfering in what India considers its internal affairs. However, this rigid insistence on bilateral resolution stands in contrast to the reality of increasing international involvement, particularly from major powers like the US and China, and the UN's historical role. The 2025 crisis demonstrated that external actors still play a crucial role in de-escalation, highlighting a gap between India's stated policy and practical geopolitical dynamics. India also maintains the status quo on the Line of Control, respecting it as the de facto border and expecting Pakistan to do the same, viewing any cross-LoC activity as a violation.1
Recent Policy Actions (Post-Pahalgam Attack)
Following the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack, India swiftly implemented a range of diplomatic and economic measures. These included the expulsion of Pakistani diplomats, the recall of its own diplomatic staff, the cutting off of visa services, and the announcement of a temporary suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty.1 These actions were framed as direct responses to Pakistan's alleged support for cross-border terrorism.
Militarily, India launched "Operation Sindoor" on the night of May 6-7, 2025, conducting missile strikes on alleged terrorist targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.1 India claimed that its integrated air and missile defense system largely defeated several waves of Pakistani drone attacks.9 Post-ceasefire, India acknowledged that the cessation of hostilities was reached after military contacts with Pakistan, notably without publicly endorsing any US mediation efforts.21 India continues to focus its discourse on addressing terrorism and asserting its sovereignty over the territory controlled by Pakistan.1
5. Pakistan's Official Stand and Arguments
Pakistan's official stance on the Kashmir conflict is deeply rooted in international law, the principle of self-determination, and a strong focus on the human rights situation in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Legal and International Law Basis
Pakistan's core argument for Kashmir rests on the unfulfilled promise of self-determination for the Kashmiri people, as explicitly recognized and enshrined in multiple UN Security Council resolutions from 1948 and 1949.1 Pakistan insists that these resolutions, which call for a "free and impartial plebiscite" under UN supervision, are binding on both India and Pakistan and remain unfulfilled nearly 80 years later.23 This forms the bedrock of its claim, framing the conflict as a matter of international law and human rights rather than a bilateral territorial dispute.
Pakistan disputes the legal validity of Maharaja Hari Singh's Instrument of Accession, arguing that he lacked the popular mandate to make such a decision, especially amidst a rebellion against his rule by pro-Pakistani residents.3 It highlights that the accession was provisional, pending a plebiscite, as indicated in Lord Mountbatten's letter accepting the accession.23 Furthermore, Pakistan contends that Kashmir, with its Muslim majority and strong geographical and economic linkages, should have naturally acceded to Pakistan based on the principles of the 1947 partition, which largely divided British India along religious lines.3
Political and Human Rights Perspectives
Pakistan directly contradicts India's narrative of cross-border terrorism by asserting that the unrest and insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir are primarily indigenous.1 It denies providing direct support to militant groups, arguing that the agitation stems from widespread resentment against India's "harsh and undemocratic rule" and the denial of the Kashmiri people's right to self-determination.1 This counter-narrative aims to shift international focus from Pakistan's alleged support for militants to India's internal governance of the region.
Pakistan consistently highlights alleged human rights abuses by Indian security forces in Indian-administered Kashmir. These include restrictions on civil liberties, communication blackouts, mass detentions of political leaders and activists, excessive use of force (such as pellet guns), and extrajudicial killings.3 Pakistan calls for independent international investigations into these issues.1 Concerns regarding human rights and political freedoms also exist in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, with reports of suppression of independence movements and discrimination against religious minorities.46
Pakistan actively seeks to internationalize the Kashmir issue, welcoming third-party mediation and consistently bringing the matter to international forums like the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council.1 This consistent internationalization effort highlights its strategic goal of externalizing pressure on India, directly challenging India's insistence on bilateralism and seeking to leverage international opinion and institutions to achieve its objectives.
Recent Policy Actions (Post-Pahalgam Attack)
Following the April 2025 Pahalgam attack, Pakistan denied any involvement and called for an independent investigation into the incident.1 In response to India's diplomatic and economic measures, Pakistan retaliated by suspending visas for Indian nationals, closing its airspace to Indian aircraft, cutting off all trade with India, and threatening to suspend the Simla Agreement.1
Militarily, Pakistan launched retaliatory strikes against Indian military infrastructure and exchanged fire along the Line of Control.1 Pakistan claimed that Indian strikes targeted civilian areas, including mosques, and asserted that it had successfully downed a number of Indian jets and damaged Indian infrastructure.1
In terms of UN engagement, Pakistan requested and participated in informal, closed-door UN Security Council consultations on May 6, 2025, to discuss India-Pakistan tensions.17 This move aimed to highlight the Kashmir dispute and human rights concerns on an international platform. Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN stated that Islamabad's objectives were "largely served and achieved" by the discussion, with several members recognizing the imperative of peacefully resolving the Kashmir dispute in accordance with UNSC resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people.17
Table 2: Comparative Stances on Kashmir: India vs. Pakistan
6. International Perspectives and Mediation Efforts
The Kashmir conflict, particularly given the nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan, draws significant attention from the international community, leading to various attempts at mediation and expressions of concern from global powers and organizations.
United Nations
The UN has a long history of involvement in the Kashmir dispute, dating back to its inception. Following the First Indo-Pakistani War, the UN Security Council (UNSC) passed resolutions in 1948 and 1949, calling for a ceasefire and a "free and impartial plebiscite" for Kashmiris to decide their future status.1 It also established the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to facilitate peace and a referendum.4
In response to the May 2025 crisis, the UN Security Council held informal, closed-door consultations on May 6, 2025, at Pakistan's request, marking the return of the issue to the UNSC agenda after six years.17 While no formal statement was issued due to a lack of consensus among members, the discussions saw members condemning the Pahalgam attack and calling for de-escalation and peaceful resolution.17 The UN Secretary-General also offered his good offices for mediation, underscoring the need to "avoid a military confrontation that could easily spill out of control".49
Beyond political mediation, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and successive UN High Commissioners for Human Rights have repeatedly voiced "deep concerns" over alleged human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir. These concerns include restrictions on communications, mass detentions, and the use of force.29 India has consistently criticized these remarks as "unfounded and baseless" and "purely internal" matters.47 Concerns also exist regarding human rights in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, with reports of restrictions on political freedoms and suppression of independence movements.46
United States
The longstanding US position on Kashmir is that the territory's status should be settled through negotiations between India and Pakistan, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.43 The US aims to prevent conflict escalation in the region and supports a strategic partnership with India, while also maintaining cooperative relations with Pakistan and attention on human rights and religious freedom.43
During the 2025 military confrontation, President Trump offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute, claiming credit for the ceasefire.20 This offer, however, contradicted India's consistent stance on bilateral resolution and was publicly rejected by India.21 Initially, US officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, stated that the US would not get involved in "a war that's fundamentally none of our business".44 Despite this initial reluctance, the US was reportedly the key broker in facilitating the ceasefire between India and Pakistan.1 The US views India as a large and growing market for defense systems and a crucial partner in its strategy to counter China's influence in the Indo-Pacific region.22 US support for India could, in turn, influence Pakistan's approach to negotiations.8
China
China is no longer a distant observer but has emerged as a direct and significant stakeholder in the Kashmir dispute.6 Its involvement dates back to the early 1960s, including territorial claims over Aksai Chin, which it seized from India during the 1962 Sino-Indian war, and substantial infrastructure development in the region.1 For Beijing, Aksai Chin is not merely a strategic buffer zone but a crucial land link connecting Tibet to Xinjiang.6
A significant aspect of China's economic engagement is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project under China's Belt and Road Initiative, valued at over $60 billion.6 CPEC connects China's western region of Xinjiang with Pakistan's Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea, with a substantial portion passing through Gilgit-Baltistan (Pakistan-administered Kashmir), a territory claimed by India.6 India views CPEC as a strategic threat due to sovereignty concerns and the geopolitical implications of a strengthened China-Pakistan nexus operating in disputed territory.6
China is also Pakistan's largest arms supplier, providing advanced weapons systems, aircraft, and naval assets.6 The two nations regularly conduct joint military exercises and have strengthened coordination in areas such as intelligence and cybersecurity.6 Diplomatically, China frequently defends Pakistan in international forums, including blocking India's attempts to list Pakistan-based militants under UN terror sanctions.6 The use of modern Chinese military technology by Pakistan in the 2025 conflict, such as J-10C fighters and PL-15 air-to-air missiles, also garnered significant interest.9 While officially maintaining a position of neutrality, China has supported Pakistan's determination to safeguard its national sovereignty and has called for an independent investigation into the Pahalgam attack.51 China's actions in Kashmir are part of a broader geopolitical strategy to counterbalance Indian power and secure its own strategic depth across South Asia.6
European Union & United Kingdom
Both the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) condemned the Pahalgam terrorist attack and consistently called for restraint, de-escalation, and dialogue between India and Pakistan during the 2025 crisis.1 The UK's longstanding position is that the dispute is bilateral and can only be resolved through negotiations between both sides, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.1 The UK was also reportedly involved in the discussions that led to the May 10 ceasefire.1
Both entities have expressed concerns regarding human rights in Kashmir. The UK Parliament, in particular, has voiced alarm over the "marked erosion of democratic rights" in Indian-held Kashmir since 2019 and called for greater access for international observers, including British parliamentarians and diplomats.39 The EU also expresses concern over restrictions on fundamental freedoms and human rights in Kashmir.18 However, the EU's priorities are also influenced by its significant trade relations with India and its focus on other global issues like the war in Ukraine and the situation in Gaza, leading to what some analysts describe as a "Realpolitik position" less focused on human rights in Kashmir.18
Russia
Russia has adopted an evolving and "marked neutrality" in its diplomatic stance between New Delhi and Islamabad, despite its historical strategic partnership with India.45 Following the Pahalgam attack, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered condolences and reiterated Moscow's readiness to cooperate with India in combating terrorism.54 However, Russian statements have been carefully balanced, notably lacking explicit support for India's actions or an acknowledgment of its right to self-defense.54
Russia's approach involves a delicate balancing act between its stronger strategic interests with India, particularly in defense cooperation and trade, and its understanding of China's interests in Pakistan, alongside its own efforts to strengthen ties with Islamabad, especially on counter-terrorism and Afghanistan-related issues.45 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly offered to mediate the conflict, conditional on both sides' willingness to accept such mediation.45 As both India and Pakistan are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and its Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS), Moscow is compelled to maintain this delicate balance whenever new tensions arise, promoting the SCO as a mechanism for de-escalation and trust-building in Eurasia.45
Conclusion
The Kashmir conflict remains a deeply entrenched and highly volatile geopolitical flashpoint, fundamentally shaped by conflicting national identities and historical narratives. The May 2025 crisis underscored the inherent fragility of peace in the region, demonstrating how a localized terrorist attack can rapidly escalate into a significant military confrontation between two nuclear-armed states. The shift towards advanced asymmetric warfare, particularly the extensive use of drones and missiles, signals a new and concerning dimension to future escalations, emphasizing the need for enhanced mechanisms for de-escalation and strategic stability.
India's unwavering claim of full sovereignty over Kashmir, legally rooted in the 1947 Instrument of Accession and reinforced by the 2019 abrogation of Article 370, defines its approach to the dispute. This stance frames Kashmir as an integral, internal matter, with India consistently employing a counter-terrorism narrative to justify its actions and reject third-party mediation. Conversely, Pakistan's core argument rests on the unfulfilled promise of self-determination for Kashmiris, as mandated by UN resolutions, and it actively seeks to internationalize the dispute, highlighting alleged human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir. These fundamentally irreconcilable positions, coupled with the erosion of trust in bilateral agreements like the Simla Accord, perpetuate a cycle of tension and temporary ceasefires rather than lasting peace.
While India maintains its preference for bilateral resolution, the 2025 crisis vividly illustrated the indispensable role of external actors, notably the United States, in brokering de-escalation. The growing strategic and economic interests of China, particularly through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and its military support for Pakistan, further complicate the geopolitical landscape, transforming the conflict into a triangular contest. The evolving, cautious neutrality of Russia and the human rights concerns voiced by the EU and UK also reflect the complex web of international interests.
Ultimately, the ceasefire of May 2025, while providing a temporary respite, did not address the core issues of sovereignty, self-determination, or cross-border terrorism. The underlying drivers of the conflict persist, ensuring that the region remains susceptible to future escalations. A durable resolution for Kashmir necessitates a multifaceted approach that transcends the current deadlock, acknowledging the complex historical grievances, the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, and the evolving geopolitical realities involving all key stakeholders. Without a genuine commitment from all parties to address the root causes of the conflict, the specter of instability and potential escalation in this nuclearized region will continue to cast a long shadow over South Asian and global security.
Works cited
Kashmir: Renewed India-Pakistan tensions - The House of Commons Library, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10264/
Conflict Between India and Pakistan | Global Conflict Tracker, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-between-india-and-pakistan
Pahalgam attack: A simple guide to the Kashmir conflict | India ..., accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/2/pahalgam-attack-a-simple-guide-to-the-kashmir-conflict
An Overview Of Political And Historical ... - Migration Letters, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/download/11127/7446/27227
Kashmir conflict - Wikipedia, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict
Kashmir's Third Stakeholder: China's Growing Shadow, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://brighterkashmir.com/kashmirs-third-stakeholder-chinas-growing-shadow
Understanding the Kashmir and Jammu Dispute: Historical Context, Current Challenges, and Possible Solutions - Mondo Internazionale, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://mondointernazionale.org/focus-allegati/understanding-the-kashmir-and-jammu-dispute-historical-context-current-challenges-and-possible-solutions
Kashmir Dispute - (AP Human Geography) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-hug/kashmir-dispute
Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025 - Stimson Center, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.stimson.org/2025/four-days-in-may-the-india-pakistan-crisis-of-2025/
Kashmir: Future Paths and Challenges - Brookings Institution, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/kashmir-the-roads-ahead/
The India-Pakistan Crisis Reveals Shifting Geopolitical Realities - IGCC, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://ucigcc.org/podcast/the-india-pakistan-crisis-reveals-shifting-geopolitical-realities/
India-Pakistan war: A chilling 2019 study had predicted a nuclear war in 2025 and what could happen - The Economic Times, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/india-pakistan-war-a-chilling-2019-study-had-predicted-a-nuclear-war-in-2025-and-what-could-happen/articleshow/120920791.cms
Mist over mountains: Forecasting future of Kashmir conflict | The Business Standard, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.tbsnews.net/thoughts/mist-over-mountains-forecasting-future-kashmir-conflict-1129356
Role of United Nations in Kashmir Conflict: An Exploratory Study - Annals of Human and Social Sciences, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.ojs.ahss.org.pk/journal/article/download/855/894/1590
2025 India–Pakistan crisis - Wikipedia, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_crisis
EU backs India's 'right' to act against terror, urges both sides to de-escalate, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/european-union-india-pakistan-conflict-pahalgam-terror-attack-operation-sindoor-2721671-2025-05-08
UN Security Council Holds Informal Talks on India-Pakistan ..., accessed on June 22, 2025, https://m.thewire.in/article/diplomacy/unsc-informal-talks-india-pakistan-tensions-no-statement
India-Pakistan tensions: Where does the EU stand? – DW – 04/30/2025, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.dw.com/en/india-pakistan-tensions-where-does-the-eu-stand/a-72398394
The May 2025 India-Pakistan Conflict: Neither Quite the Same Nor Quite Another, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.nbr.org/publication/the-may-2025-india-pakistan-conflict-neither-quite-the-same-nor-quite-another/
US confirms Trump's willingness to mediate Kashmir dispute after India-Pakistan ceasefire, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.arabnews.com/node/2604106/pakistan
Trump's mediation offer renews focus on Kashmir after India-Pakistan clash risked broader war | AP News, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-india-pakistan-trump-38027d8167f32805121a5f8faca0fda2
Analysis: Trump-brokered India-Pakistan Ceasefire Welcomed ..., accessed on June 22, 2025, https://themedialine.org/by-region/analysis-trump-brokered-india-pakistan-ceasefire-welcomed-experts-warn-kashmir-needs-long-term-solution/
Kashmir, the oldest dispute at the UN Agenda - Permanent Mission ..., accessed on June 22, 2025, https://pakun.org/kashmir-at-the-un
Dispute in Kashmir | CFR Education - Council on Foreign Relations, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://education.cfr.org/teach/mini-simulation/dispute-kashmir
byjus.com, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/this-day-in-history-oct26/#:~:text=On%2026%20October%201947%2C%20the,the%20Indian%20Independence%20Act%201947.
Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) - Wikipedia, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Accession_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)
Article 370 of the Constitution of India | Kashmir, Abrogation, History, & Facts | Britannica, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Article-370-of-the-Constitution-of-India
Analyses of Past and Future Initiatives in the Kashmir Disputes, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://ojs.jssr.org.pk/index.php/jssr/article/download/394/306
What is The Jammu & Kashmir Dispute? - Pakistan Mission to the Un | Geneva, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://pakungeneva.pk/what-is-the-jammu-kashmir-dispute/
pakun.org, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://pakun.org/kashmir-at-the-un#:~:text=The%20UNSC%20Resolution%20of%2021,a%20free%20and%20impartial%20plebiscite%22.
The Role of International Organizations in Addressing the Jammu and Kashmir Conflict, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.kiir.org.pk/Research-Paper/the-role-of-international-organizations-in-addressing-the-jammu-and-kashmir-conflict-8397
The Kashmir Dispute: A Forgotten Promise of Self-Determination - Modern Diplomacy, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/02/04/the-kashmir-dispute-a-forgotten-promise-of-self-determination/
Why India and Pakistan fight over Kashmir and what's at stake for US and China - BBC World Service - YouTube, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4i8b-QRVNE
Backchannel Diplomacy and Secret Talks: Evaluating Quiet Engagements in India–Pakistan Relations (2016–2024) - ResearchGate, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392247991_Backchannel_Diplomacy_and_Secret_Talks_Evaluating_Quiet_Engagements_in_India-Pakistan_Relations_2016-2024
Challenge to the Abrogation of Article 370 - Case Page - Supreme Court Observer, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/challenge-to-the-abrogation-of-article-370-case-background/
Jammu and Kashmir: The Real Cost of Article 370 Abrogation - Sri Lanka Guardian, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://slguardian.org/jammu-and-kashmir-the-real-cost-of-article-370-abrogation/
Jammu and Kashmir in the Aftermath of August 2019 - Ifri, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.ifri.org/en/papers/jammu-and-kashmir-aftermath-august-2019
Indian Kashmir: Freedom in the World 2025 Country Report, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://freedomhouse.org/country/indian-kashmir/freedom-world/2025
UK Parliament urges renewed talks on Kashmir - World - DAWN.COM, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.dawn.com/news/1911856
Verbatim report of proceedings - Situation in Kashmir (debate) - Tuesday, 17 September 2019 - European Parliament, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-2019-09-17-ITM-018_EN.html
Un High Commissioner For Human Rights On Jammu & Kashmir - Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations | Geneva, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://pakungeneva.pk/un-high-commissioner-for-human-rights-on-jammu-kashmir/
Impact of Abrogation of Article 370 On J&K - PIB, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1694784
Kashmir: Background, Recent Developments, and U.S. Policy - Congress.gov, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45877
Donald Trump Damages India–US Ties by Misjudging Pakistan's ..., accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/donald-trump-damages-india-us-ties-by-misjudging-pakistans-terror-strategy/
Can India rely on Russia to diplomatically isolate Pakistan? It seems unlikely, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/english/research/can-india-rely-on-russia-to-diplomatically-isolate-pakistan-it-seems-unlikely
Country Report: Pakistan-administered Kashmir 2025 - Genocide Watch, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/country-report-pakistan-administered-kashmir-2025
India criticizes UN human rights chief for 'unfounded' remarks on Kashmir and Manipur, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/03/india-slams-un-human-rights-chief-for-unfounded-remarks-on-kashmir-and-manipur/
Kashmir Conflict and Its Impact on the Socio-economic Development ..., accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.kiir.org.pk/Research-Paper/kashmir-conflict-and-its-impact-on-the-socio-economic-development-of-neelum-valley-3047
India/Pakistan: Emergency Closed Consultations : What's In Blue - Security Council Report, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2025/05/india-pakistan-emergency-closed-consultations.php
The Interests of Major Powers in the India-Pakistan War, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.arabprogress.org/en/the-interests-of-major-powers-in-the-india-pakistan-war/
The China Factor Can't Be Ignored in the India-Pakistan Conflict Over Kashmir - The Wire, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://m.thewire.in/article/diplomacy/china-india-pakistan-kashmir-indian-ocean
China's Approach Towards Kashmir Conflict: A Viable Solution - Minhaj University Lahore, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://mul.edu.pk/crd/assets/jprss/Chinaapproachtokashmirnew.pdf
India/Pakistan: Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on the latest developments, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/india/indiapakistan-statement-high-representative-behalf-european-union-latest-developments_en
Russia's Balancing Act: Navigating the Indo-Pak Rift Post-Pahalgam, accessed on June 22, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/russia-s-balancing-act-navigating-the-indo-pak-rift-post-pahalgam
0 تعليقات
Hi, How are you dear. Hope you are good