The Kashmir dispute remains a cornerstone of South Asian geopolitics, rooted in colonial partition and perpetuated by conflicting national doctrines. While Pakistan seeks international intervention and multilateral dialogue to resolve the issue, India adheres strictly to a bilateral framework, rejecting third-party mediation. This editorial explores the legal, diplomatic, and geopolitical dimensions of these opposing approaches, evaluates their effectiveness, and questions whether Kashmir can truly be internationalized in today’s global landscape. Against the backdrop of shifting alliances, a redefined global order, and increasing human rights concerns, the time has come to reassess the viability of Pakistan’s multilateralism and the rigidity of India’s bilateralism. Accordingly, this discourse aims to unpack both strategies and their relevance in an evolving global context.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
The conflict over Jammu and Kashmir dates back to 1947, when British India was partitioned into two sovereign states—India and Pakistan. At the heart of the dispute was the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which, despite its Muslim-majority population, acceded to India under contentious circumstances during a tribal invasion. As a result, the first Indo-Pak war erupted, culminating in a United Nations-brokered ceasefire in 1949. This ceasefire established the Line of Control and set the stage for decades of contestation. Importantly, the UN Security Council adopted several resolutions, most notably Resolution 47, mandating a plebiscite under UN supervision to ascertain the will of the Kashmiri people. However, these resolutions have yet to be implemented, leaving the matter unresolved.
Moreover, the continued presence of these resolutions on the UN agenda signifies their enduring legal relevance. Therefore, while the historical origins of the conflict are deeply entangled in post-colonial legacies, they also established a framework for international legal intervention—one that remains valid, even though largely ignored. This legal foundation continues to inform Pakistan's call for multilateralism and underscores the international dimension of the dispute.
Divergent Doctrines: Bilateralism versus Multilateralism
Over the decades, India has maintained that Kashmir is an internal matter, citing the Shimla Agreement (1972) and the Lahore Declaration (1999) as foundational to its bilateral approach. Conversely, Pakistan has consistently advocated for internationalization through platforms such as the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and various global human rights forums. This fundamental divergence in doctrines has only deepened over time. The revocation of Article 370 in August 2019—which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its semi-autonomous status—widened the diplomatic rift considerably. In response, Pakistan intensified its appeals for global arbitration, asserting that India's actions constituted a breach of international norms and bilateral understandings.
Nevertheless, despite widespread international concern and moral support, Pakistan’s strategy has failed to translate into actionable outcomes. This stalemate raises an essential question: in a world increasingly shaped by geopolitical interests, can Pakistan’s call for multilateralism overcome India’s entrenched bilateral posture? The persistence of this question forms the crux of the debate on the internationalization of Kashmir.
Legal Basis for Internationalization
To begin with, Pakistan’s multilateral approach rests on a robust legal foundation, especially United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 (1948), which mandates a plebiscite after demilitarization. Unlike treaties that expire or are contingent upon mutual consent, this resolution remains active and unfulfilled. As confirmed by the United Nations in several reports, including the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions of 1948 and 1949, the right to self-determination through a free and impartial plebiscite remains a standing international commitment. Furthermore, Chapter VI of the UN Charter on the Pacific Settlement of Disputes explicitly supports mediation and arbitration when bilateral efforts stall—strengthening Pakistan’s case for global involvement. Consequently, the legal rationale for international oversight is both credible and compelling.
That said, India counters this narrative by citing the Shimla Agreement, which emphasizes bilateralism and discourages third-party involvement. However, the Shimla Agreement does not legally supersede UN mandates; it merely encourages peaceful resolution. In legal hierarchy, international obligations, especially those concerning human rights and self-determination, often override bilateral treaties. Thus, while India’s position may be rooted in sovereignty, it does not nullify the international legal framework underpinning Pakistan’s demands.
Global Precedents for Internationalized Territorial Conflicts
Additionally, international history offers multiple examples of successfully internationalized territorial disputes. East Timor, Kosovo, and South Sudan illustrate how multilateral efforts can lead to conflict resolution. These cases were characterized by a combination of sustained UN involvement, regional diplomacy, and international public opinion. Importantly, they demonstrate that internationalization is not an anomaly—it is a tested diplomatic instrument, particularly when bilateral mechanisms have exhausted their utility. For instance, East Timor’s independence from Indonesia was facilitated through a UN-supervised referendum, despite initial resistance and widespread violence. This mirrors aspects of the Kashmir issue, where ethnic identity, historical grievances, and prolonged occupation intersect. Hence, Pakistan’s aspiration for a similar model is not far-fetched—it aligns with international practices and legal norms. The difference, however, lies in the level of sustained global engagement, which Kashmir has yet to receive.
Diplomatic Deadlock and Bilateralism’s Failure
Equally important is the failure of bilateralism to produce any meaningful progress on Kashmir. India’s preference for bilateral dialogue has rarely translated into actionable diplomacy. Since the 1970s, talks have been sporadic, often derailed by armed conflicts (such as Kargil in 1999), major terrorist incidents (like the 2008 Mumbai attacks), 2019 Pulwama bombing, and more recently, the 2025 Pahalgam attack. Moreover, the abrogation of Article 370 was carried out unilaterally, signaling a departure from even symbolic bilateralism. Notably, the Indian government's August 2019 revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status occurred without consultation with Pakistan, despite repeated Pakistani protests and the fact that Kashmir remains an internationally recognized disputed territory. Thus, what remains of the bilateral doctrine is largely performative rather than practical. If this framework were genuinely effective, it would have yielded at least a roadmap or a negotiation protocol. Instead, both nations remain locked in a zero-sum impasse, with occasional escalations along the Line of Control. In such a scenario, Pakistan’s argument for international mediation gains legitimacy as a viable alternative to perpetual stagnation.
Human Rights as a Pathway to Internationalization
Furthermore, the human rights dimension adds an urgent and universally resonant layer to the Kashmir issue. Following the 2019 lockdown, global human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN Human Rights Council documented alarming patterns of abuse, including communication blackouts, arbitrary detentions, and the use of excessive force. The UNOHCHR’s 2018 and 2019 reports went so far as to recommend the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry—a rare and serious step in international diplomacy. This evolving human rights narrative shifts the Kashmir dispute from a purely territorial question to one of moral and humanitarian concern. Under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, if a state fails to safeguard its citizens’ rights, international actors may be justified in intervening through non-military means. Therefore, Pakistan’s human rights advocacy resonates with growing global emphasis on civil liberties and minority rights, although it requires consistent and credible follow-through to maintain momentum.
Geopolitical Shifts and the Role of Major Powers
Lastly, the shifting geopolitical landscape plays a critical role in determining whether Kashmir can be internationalized. While the United States has typically avoided direct mediation, occasional statements, like Donald Trump’s 2019 offer, reflect an awareness of the issue's volatility. In July 2019, during a joint press conference with Prime Minister Imran Khan, President Trump stated, “If I can help, I would love to be a mediator,” explicitly referring to the Kashmir dispute. Predictably, India rejected such overtures, but they highlighted the fact that third-party engagement is not unthinkable. Meanwhile, China’s support for Pakistan’s multilateral position remains consistent due to its interests in Aksai Chin and broader regional dynamics.
Additionally, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) continues to pass resolutions condemning India’s actions, and Pakistan’s narrative has gained traction in the European Parliament, UK Parliament, and UN forums. For instance, the European Parliament debated human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, with several members calling for international accountability. These developments suggest that internationalization is not absent—it is just informal and fragmented. Therefore, for Pakistan to achieve formal multilateral engagement, it must move beyond symbolic gestures and cultivate strategic alliances within forums like BRICS+, SCO, and the Global South. Strategic diplomacy, not just moral persuasion, will be key.
Join Sir Kazim’s Extensive CSS/PMS English Course Starting July 7
Sir Kazim's CSS/PMS English Essay & Precis course starts July 7 at 8 p.m. Only 60 seats; apply early! Submit a 200-word paragraph to secure your spot. Fee: Rs. 15,000/month.
In sum, while Pakistan’s multilateral approach has strong legal and ethical foundations, it is constrained by the realpolitik of global diplomacy. India’s economic influence and strategic partnerships often shield it from deeper scrutiny, while Western states tend to prioritize security cooperation and economic ties over human rights advocacy. On the other hand, Pakistan must address internal weaknesses—such as diplomatic inconsistency and political instability—that undermine its international credibility. Thus, unless Pakistan refines its diplomatic strategy and builds durable coalitions, internationalization will remain aspirational. Simultaneously, India’s rigid bilateralism may prove unsustainable if human rights issues continue to draw international concern and civil society pressure.
The Kashmir dispute is emblematic of a broader struggle between legal norms and geopolitical calculations, between ethical imperatives and strategic interests. Pakistan’s multilateral approach, grounded in UN resolutions and human rights advocacy, offers a legitimate pathway toward resolution—particularly in light of the repeated failure of bilateral talks. India’s insistence on bilateralism, though rooted in sovereignty concerns, appears increasingly out of sync with both regional realities and global norms of conflict resolution. Reframing the Kashmir issue through a multilateral lens does not undermine India's sovereignty nor elevate Pakistan's position unjustly. Rather, it recognizes the complexity and enduring nature of the dispute—one that cannot be addressed effectively through outdated doctrines alone. In today’s interconnected world, peace and stability demand inclusive diplomacy. Therefore, internationalization of Kashmir should not be viewed as provocation, but as a necessary and overdue step toward lasting peace, justice, and regional harmony.
