In August 2019, the Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi unilaterally revoked Article 370 and 35A of its Constitution, stripping the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir of its semi-autonomous status. This move was not merely a political stunt but a fundamental constitutional betrayal, one that violated India’s constitutional structure, its solemn commitments to the people of Kashmir, its pledges before the United Nations, and the principles of international law.
The Indian Supreme Court’s complicity in rubber-stamping this revocation reflects a deeper erosion of institutional checks and balances in India.
The Indian Supreme Court, which should have been the final constitutional bulwark against such executive overreach, instead legitimised this unilateral aggression. In a controversial judgment delivered in December 2023, the Court upheld the revocation, citing the “temporary” nature of Article 370—ironically ignoring its permanent incorporation post-1957 with the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ceasing to exist. This verdict contradicted decades of Indian constitutional jurisprudence and exposed the Court’s selective interpretation, raising serious questions about judicial independence and fidelity to foundational legal principles.
Historically, Article 370 was the bridge that tethered Jammu and Kashmir to India following the 1947 accession under highly specific and disputed circumstances. It granted a unique status to the region, limiting Indian legislative authority to only a few subjects like defence, foreign affairs, and communications. Any other constitutional application required concurrence of the state government—a safeguard now rendered meaningless by the dissolution of the state’s political structure under President’s Rule and the imposition of Delhi’s will through undemocratic fiat.
India’s revocation of Article 370 did not merely dismantle internal constitutional protections; it fundamentally altered the nature of a territory that remains disputed under international law. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has passed multiple resolutions—particularly Resolutions 47 (1948), 91 (1951), and 122 (1957)—asserting that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir must be decided through a free and impartial plebiscite. By annexing the region through constitutional manipulation, India has willfully defied these resolutions, undermined the UN Charter, and trampled upon the right to self-determination guaranteed under international human rights law.
The situation is further exacerbated by India’s seven-decade-long record of atrocities in Kashmir. Over 100,000 Kashmiris have lost their lives in the struggle against occupation. Mass blinding by pellet guns, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions under draconian laws like the Public Safety Act and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), and the brutal suppression of media and civil liberties are not mere incidents but part of a systematic campaign to erase Kashmiri identity and quash resistance. The post-2019 clampdown, including a communication blackout and mass detentions, has turned Kashmir into one of the most militarized and surveilled regions in the world.
Not only has India persecuted Kashmiris within its borders, but it has also extended its illegal actions beyond. Recent disclosures and international investigations have implicated Indian intelligence agencies in orchestrating extrajudicial killings of dissenters and activists in foreign countries, including Canada and the United States. These extraterritorial operations expose India’s growing authoritarianism and its disregard for international norms of sovereignty and human rights.
By annexing the region through constitutional manipulation, India has willfully defied UNSC resolutions and trampled upon international law.
India’s legal contradictions are glaring. On one hand, it claims Kashmir is an “integral part” of India. On the other hand, it used Article 370, a temporary, transitional provision, to initially cement its control over the region, and then later mischaracterized its revocation as a matter of internal restructuring. If Kashmir were fully integrated, why would such extraordinary constitutional maneuvers be necessary? Why has India refused to allow international observers or human rights organizations into the region, and why has it reneged on every international commitment made on the issue?
The Indian Supreme Court’s complicity in rubber-stamping this revocation reflects a deeper erosion of institutional checks and balances in India. The Court ignored the deliberate exclusion of Kashmiris from the decision-making process and dismissed procedural irregularities, such as using the Governor in place of an elected assembly to give consent for revocation. It also sidestepped the fact that the constitutional mechanism for abrogating Article 370 could only be invoked by the now-defunct Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, a legal dead-end known to the drafters of the Indian Constitution.
Against this backdrop of constitutional betrayal, regional instability, and international violations, Pakistan stands at a critical juncture. In May 2025, Pakistan demonstrated its military resolve by successfully thwarting Indian aggression in a decisive and strategic defense campaign. This victory was not only a deterrent but a statement of sovereignty and strength. It has shifted the diplomatic calculus in the region, providing Islamabad with a renewed platform to amplify its position on Kashmir and broader regional peace.
Post-May 2025, Pakistan must use this moral and strategic ascendancy for a comprehensive diplomatic offensive. As a current member and rotational chair of the United Nations Security Council, Pakistan holds unprecedented leverage. It must aggressively push for a reactivation of the Kashmir dossier at the UNSC, demand the appointment of a UN special envoy on Kashmir, and advocate for a commission of inquiry into human rights violations in the region. The long-standing plebiscite promise must be revived with renewed legal and political urgency.
The IWT must be elevated into international legal forums as part of the broader Kashmir dispute.
Pakistan should also reinvigorate its diplomatic capital in key global capitals, Washington, London, Brussels, Beijing, Ankara, and Riyadh, using evidence-based advocacy, human rights documentation, and diaspora networks. The recent international scrutiny of Indian transnational repression provides fertile ground for coalition-building among countries concerned with the erosion of international law and regional security.
Digital diplomacy must be a central pillar of Pakistan’s strategy. India has dominated the narrative through aggressive information warfare and lobbying in Western media. Pakistan must now counter this by engaging digital platforms, think tanks, international legal forums, and global academic institutions. Social media, international campaigns, documentary projects, and multilingual advocacy must be mobilized to internationalize the Kashmir struggle and expose India’s constitutional and international contradictions.
Equally critical is the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), brokered by the World Bank in 1960, which governs the use of rivers flowing from Kashmir into Pakistan. India’s recent actions to unilaterally alter dam projects and disrupt river flows are not only violations of the treaty but constitute water aggression, another instrument of pressure on Pakistan. If Kashmir is occupied and the rivers are manipulated, Pakistan’s economic and ecological security is at risk. The IWT must be elevated into international legal forums as part of the broader Kashmir dispute, given that the rivers originate in the contested territory. The World Bank must be pressed to act under its role as a guarantor.
The way forward is clear: Pakistan must adopt a proactive, coordinated, and multi-level international legal and diplomatic strategy. Kashmir is not merely a bilateral issue; it is a test case for the credibility of the international legal order. If the world fails Kashmir, it fails its principles of justice, self-determination, and rule of law. Permanent peace in South Asia is not possible without a just resolution of the Kashmir conflict.
Pakistan must adopt a proactive, coordinated, and multi-level international legal and diplomatic strategy.
India’s attempt to bury the Kashmir issue through legal distortions, military occupation, and narrative control has failed. The world has begun to see through the façade. Pakistan’s decisive post-May 2025 defense, its legal consistency, and its growing international support now provide the momentum needed for a final political solution.
It is time to reframe the Kashmir conflict not just as a human rights tragedy but as a legal and diplomatic failure that the international community must urgently rectify. The future of South Asian peace, the sanctity of international law, and the fate of over 13 million Kashmiris depend on it.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
