Indian EAM’s Kashmir Claims: A Fiction of Legal Sovereignty

India’s persistent narrative on Kashmir’s integration faces scrutiny as historical facts and international resolutions continue to challenge the country’s claim.

On March 18, 2025, during the annual “Raisina Dialogue” in New Delhi, Dr. S. Jaishankar, India’s Minister of External Affairs, made a provocative statement, asserting that India’s occupation of Kashmir is the longest-standing illegal occupation since World War II. He emphasized that the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan (once known as Northern Areas), had acceded to India in 1947. Let’s examine the legitimacy of this assertion. At what point did Kashmir legally become a part of India, and by what rightful means?

To start with, historical records show that in October 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, fled his capital in Srinagar amidst an insurgency and sought military assistance from India. However, India’s intervention was conditional on the signing of the Instrument of Accession by the Maharaja, which was accepted by Lord Mountbatten, then the Governor-General of India, but with the caveat that it should be subject to a plebiscite by the people of Kashmir. Between October and December of 1947, Azad Kashmir forces liberated a third of the region, resisting India’s armed intervention. Unable to quell this resistance, India took the issue to the United Nations in January 1948, which set forth a plebiscite as the solution to determine Kashmir’s future. Jaishankar Ji, though you assert the legality of the accession, it is essential to remember that the Indian delegate to the United Nations, Sir Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, acknowledged on January 15, 1948, that the future of Kashmir should be decided by the Kashmiri people after the restoration of normal life. This was a commitment to a plebiscite under international oversight, which remains unresolved to this day.

India also contends that the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly’s decision further legitimized its accession. However, the Indian government had assured the United Nations that this decision would not prejudice the plebiscite. Therefore, using the Assembly’s decision to claim full sovereignty over Kashmir contradicts earlier assurances made to the international community. Time alone cannot determine the legitimacy of an occupation. Despite decades of Indian rule, Kashmiris remain opposed to the Indian presence. The fact that Kashmiris have persistently resisted occupation underscores their refusal to accept India’s sovereignty.

Jaishankar Ji, you are undoubtedly aware that India’s claim to Kashmir is based on a narrative entrenched in legal fiction. The accession, made by a feudal ruler under duress, has no clear legal standing in the face of Kashmir’s popular resistance. If India is so confident in the strength of its position, why not allow an impartial, international examination by the World Court? The hesitation to do so suggests a fear that such an inquiry would expose the fragility of India’s claim.

Mahatma Gandhi’s timeless message emphasizes that “the real sovereign of the state are the people.” In his words, a ruler who does not serve the people is not the legitimate ruler. Gandhi’s teachings resonate even today in Kashmir, where the people have repeatedly asserted their right to determine their future. Ambassador Minoo Masani, a distinguished Indian diplomat, recounted an experience where he compared the global belief in India’s ownership of Kashmir to the Soviet Union’s claim over Lithuania. This analogy highlights the dangerous precedent of ignoring the will of the people and asserting territorial control without legitimacy.

India’s continued insistence on Kashmir being an “integral part of India” is not a sustainable solution. In fact, the situation has only worsened over the past 78 years. Former Defense Minister Krishna Menon acknowledged that a free self-determination vote in Kashmir would likely result in India’s loss, which raises the question: Why does India need nearly 900,000 soldiers to enforce its occupation if only a few militants oppose it? It is time for India and Pakistan to reconsider their policies. A peaceful solution, based on the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future, is the only viable path forward. The five regions of Kashmir—the Valley, Ladakh, Jammu, Azad Kashmir, and Gilgit-Baltistan—must be allowed to chart their destiny. International powers, including the United States, must recognize that enabling Kashmiris to determine their future is the key to breaking the cycle of violence and ensuring long-term peace in the region.