The entire world recognizes the Jammu and Kashmir conflict as a nuclear flashpoint, risking regional destruction and catastrophe as the threat of atomic war crosses borders. This escalation also highlights that it is high time to resolve the conflict before it becomes an “incurable disease,” affecting not only the two countries but the entire world.

Rejecting every solution

In 1947-48, when war broke out over Kashmir, it was a spontaneous response to the partition of the subcontinent and the subsequent occupation of Kashmir by India. The conflict persisted for over a year and to resolve the Kashmir issue, India itself took to the United Nations. It ended with a cease-fire imposed by the U.N. in 1948. The U.N. also passed a resolution on Jan. 5, 1949, calling for “an impartial plebiscite” in Kashmir, to give the Kashmiris their right to self-determination and decide their future.

India is refusing to accept the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution on the very issue that it took to the U.N. for resolution. This is a clear violation of international norms.

Several U.N. resolutions and proposals, including Sir Owen Dixon’s formula, Graham’s plan and Musharraf’s four-point formula, were proposed to resolve the Kashmir dispute. However, India remained firm and rejected all possible options and UNSC resolutions, claiming this internationally recognized dispute as its internal matter and an integral part of its sovereignty.

In 1965, a full-scale war broke out between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, but it was managed through another U.N.-brokered cease-fire.

Again in 1971, another war occurred between India and Pakistan, not primarily over Kashmir, but it affected the issue. Following the war, in 1972, the Shimla Agreement was signed, with both nations agreeing to settle disputes peacefully and bilaterally through negotiation. However, India repeatedly refused bilateral talks on Kashmir and took unilateral actions, sparking further debate.

Kashmiris started a freedom movement against Indian occupation in 1989, resulting in severe human rights violations, forced disappearances, mass rape, killings, detentions and imposition of Black laws like the Public Safety Act (PSA), and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to suppress the dissenting voices. Even the Kargil conflict of 1999 was resolved through Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) and a cease-fire along the Line of Control (LOC). The band-aid approach was once again applied to Kashmir, leaving the wounds to bleed.

In 2019, India unilaterally revoked Articles 370 and 35A of Jammu and Kashmir from the Indian Constitution, which granted the special autonomous status to the only Muslim majority state, and a severe lockdown, human rights violations further exacerbated the situation, leading to a halt in discussions and suppression of international voices.

It not only broke previous bilateral accords, but also international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, which restrict demographic shifts and forced occupation. The United Nations Human Rights Council issued reports (2018-19) outlining significant human rights violations by Indian forces in Kashmir. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized the violations. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation spoke out in favor of the Kashmiri people against India’s actions.

Escalation as strategy

The long-term focus on crisis management instead of conflict resolution in Kashmir has not only increased mistrust and ongoing cycles of violence but has also pushed two nuclear powers close to war, a situation that could have serious consequences for global peace and security.

This crisis management strategy raises serious concerns that the conflict will continue to be addressed through management strategies that have consistently failed and contributed to persistent human rights violations. Or will a comprehensive and practical framework for its resolution ever be developed and implemented?

The escalation following the Pahalgam incident in 2025 raised serious concerns about the risk of nuclear war, and international intervention was relatively successful in de-escalating the tense situation and bringing the Kashmir issue back to national and international forums, which India refused to discuss.

This time, another significant positive development is that Pakistan has a strong position due to its strategy and response during the Pahalgam crisis, earning praise from the international community. Initially, U.S. President Donald Trump called the Kashmir dispute a “1,000-year-old issue,” and U.S. Vice President JD Vance stated that “India and Pakistan should de-escalate tensions, but the U.S. cannot control the nuclear-armed Asian neighbors, and a war between them would be none of our business.”

However, after Pakistan’s response to India, the scenario shifted and the U.S. seemed to realize the gravity of the situation, declaring readiness to intervene and assist in resolving the conflict. Pakistan has shown the international community that its stance is based on truth and reality, while India blames Pakistan without any investigation, and Pakistan also calls for a joint investigation, but India, as usual, has rejected.

After this recent escalation, once again, the cease-fire brokered by the U.S. in Kashmir has been highlighted as a “nuclear flashpoint,” yearning for resolution.

Whenever escalation occurs between India and Pakistan, Kashmiris hope that freedom might be near. Even this time, they believed that something might happen, given the sacrifices they had made, the pain they had endured, and their hope remained alive, especially after the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A. To seize this opportunity, Pakistan, as an advocate of Kashmir, should take a firm stand and urge the international community to resolve the Kashmir issue.

The U.N. should pressure India to grant the right to self-determination to the Kashmiris, allowing them to decide their future as per their wishes. The sacrifices they have made for their just cause over the past 78 years deserve dignity and a peaceful resolution through the right to self-determination.

Historically, tensions tend to resurface between the two nuclear powers after a brief period of management. Pakistan’s position on resolving the Kashmir issue is clear. As the director general of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) states, “Kashmir is an internationally recognized dispute, not India’s an integral part or internal matter, and it should be resolved as per UNSC resolutions and with the will of the Kashmiri people.” It is now time to move beyond temporary management and work toward a lasting resolution. Such a resolution could be “an impartial plebiscite.” Only this option can restore dignity to the nuclear states and offer a “win-win” solution for both nations and Kashmiris. If the issue is managed once again as it has been in the past, the wound will continue to bleed and have a global impact.