Power Politics and the Prolonged Pain of Kashmir

Power Politics and the Prolonged Pain of Kashmir

Kashmir is not just a long-standing dispute. It is a prolonged human tragedy shaped and sustained by power politics. For decades, the suffering of its people has unfolded before the world, yet meaningful action has remained absent.


By Fatima Sajjad

International institutions have issued resolutions and statements, but their inability to enforce them shows how political interests often outweigh humanitarian concerns. This gap between commitment and action has allowed militarization to intensify, deepening violations of fundamental human rights.


The roots of this crisis trace back to 1947, when control over Kashmir was assumed without the consent of its people, setting the stage for a dispute that remains unresolved. Since then Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed recurring cycles of curfews, communication blackouts, and restrictions on daily life.


Schools and businesses have been shut down, healthcare access has been disrupted, and reports of arbitrary arrests, excessive use of force, and civilian hardships have become a recurring reality. Those who raise their voices often face detention, further shrinking the already limited space for dissent.


Such conditions stand in stark contrast to the principles enshrined in international humanitarian law. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions emphasizes humane treatment for all individuals in conflict situations, regardless of affiliation. Yet, the lived reality in IIoJK reflects a gap between legal commitments and their implementation on the ground.


At its core, the Kashmir issue demonstrates how global power structures influence conflict outcomes. Efforts such as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and UN Security Council resolutions, including the promise of a plebiscite, remain unimplemented.


This failure is not merely procedural but political, as enforcement is often constrained by the strategic priorities of powerful states. As a result, international law appears selective, applied where interests align and overlooked where they do not.


Kashmir’s geostrategic importance further embeds it within the logic of power politics. Its location connects South Asia to Central Asia and China, while its rivers sustain the wider Indus basin, making control over the region critically significant. These factors strengthen India’s position and attract the quiet support or neutrality of global powers seeking to protect their own interests.


India has consistently framed the dispute as a bilateral issue and resisted external mediation, limiting broader international engagement. Repeated but unsuccessful peace efforts have stalled dialogue, leaving Kashmir trapped between geopolitical interests and human suffering, where the cost of inaction continues to be borne by its people.


With no third-party interference, tensions escalated, due to which India and Pakistan fought three wars over Kashmir, i.e., 1947–48, 1965, and 1999 (Kargil War), which caused regional instability and nuclear risks. India crossed the limits of human rights violations and caused civilian casualties, missing persons, psychological and social impacts on families, restrictions on freedom of expression and speech, and arrests of journalists and activists so that no one could hear the news of abuses of the basic principles of international humanitarian law


“According to a 2016 US State Department report, more than 90 people were killed during protests in Kashmir, while over 4,500 civilians and 4,000 security personnel were injured.” They did this to create fear among Kashmiri people so that they would not even think of separating from India, or it might be due to religious differences and extremism.


Article 370 and 35A were also revoked. The special autonomous status that was given to Jammu and Kashmir was taken away. It divided Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories, i.e., Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, on which India justified that it did this for national integration, development, and security concerns.


Debates on federalism and autonomy were held, and petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India, but this made no difference. On the other hand, Kashmiris feared demographic transformation and outsiders purchasing land and settling in IIoJK. This also increased regional tensions “Reports in August 2019 stated that more than 2,000 people had been detained after the revocation of Article 370, while some reports estimated detentions at around 4,000 people”.


The concerns were there, but strong international intervention was lacking despite these concerns. This shows the weakness of international organizations because they are saying that what is happening is wrong but are not taking any action.


The Kashmir dispute remains one of the longest unresolved conflicts in modern international politics despite decades of involvement by the United Nations. The inability of international institutions to implement resolutions prolonged political instability and humanitarian suffering in Kashmir.


The use of vetoes made this conflict more prolonged and weakened the effectiveness of the UN Security Council and prevented timely action in humanitarian crises. To resolve these kinds of conflicts, permanent members (veto members) should not be allowed to use veto power in cases of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and large-scale human suffering, and at least two permanent members should be required to veto a resolution before it is blocked. Humanitarian protection should be prioritized over geopolitical interests.


Fatima Sajjad is a student of Peace and Conflict Studies at National Defence University, Islamabad. She serves as a researcher at KIIR and is also a member of the HEAL Pakistan Organization.

Facebook Twitter

Related Detail