he conflict over Jammu and Kashmir remains one of the most enduring and volatile disputes in South Asia. Its roots go back to the partition of British India in 1947, when the British left behind a deeply divided subcontinent. As part of the exit strategy, the princely states were allowed to join either India or Pakistan. While most of them did so without much contention, Jammu and Kashmir became a serious flashpoint. The communal violence during Partition, which saw massive bloodshed and the largest mass migration in modern history, had already ignited hostility between the newly formed states of India and Pakistan. When tensions flared in Kashmir, both countries rushed to assert control over the territory. The conflict escalated into the first Indo-Pakistan war in 1947-48. The United Nations intervened after India took the matter to the Security Council, which called for a ceasefire and a plebiscite to allow the people of Kashmir to decide their future. However, due to mutual mistrust and differing narratives, the plebiscite was never held. Two more wars followed one in 1965 and a limited war in Kargil in 1999 further entrenching the deadlock.

Over the years, especially after 2014 when Narendra Modi came to power in India, tensions along the Line of Control have intensified. Skirmishes and cross-border shelling have become more frequent, often resulting in civilian casualties on both sides. The Indian government’s decision to revoke Article 370 in August 2019, which had granted Jammu and Kashmir a special constitutional status, further worsened the situation. Consequently, the region was placed under lockdown, communication channels were cut off and political leaders were detained. Pakistan strongly condemned the move and sought international intervention, but the Modi government insisted it was an internal matter. Since then, there has been a rise in ceasefire violations and border tensions. Modi’s hyper-nationalist security policy has often framed Pakistan as the aggressor, hence reinforcing nationalist sentiment in India. For Pakistan, the increasing militarisation of Kashmir represents a denial of the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination, a principle Islamabad has championed at global forums.

A significant flashpoint in recent years was witnessed in February 2019, when India blamed Pakistan-based militant groups for the Pulwama suicide bombing that killed more than 40 Indian paramilitary personnel. In response, the Indian Air Force launched airstrikes on Balakot in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Expectedly, Pakistan responded with its own air strikes, and in the ensuing skirmish, the Pakistan Air Force downed an Indian fighter jet and captured its pilot. The pilot was later returned as a gesture of peace. While an all-out war was avoided, the Pulwama-Balakot episode marked the first time in decades that two nuclear-armed rivals had used air power against each other. It revealed how Kashmir was not only a bilateral territorial dispute but also a potential trigger for regional war with global consequences. It also illustrated the alarming pace at which rhetoric can translate into military engagement, underscoring the urgent need for robust conflict prevention mechanisms.

The strategic importance of Kashmir for Pakistan goes beyond historical claims and ideological positions. For Islamabad, Kashmir is central to national security and regional peace. A key dimension is the control of water resources. The rivers of the Indus basin, particularly the Jhelum and Chenab, originate in Indian-held Kashmir and flow into Pakistan, thus sustaining agriculture, drinking water supplies and energy needs for millions. These rivers are governed by the Indus Waters Treaty (1960), a landmark agreement brokered by the World Bank. India’s unilateral decision to suspend the treaty amid the most recent India-Pakistan military standoff marks a serious breach of international obligations. Should New Delhi proceed with infrastructure projects – such as more dams and barrages without consulting Islamabad, it will not only provoke conflict but also set a dangerous precedent in international law.

Such unilateralism also sets a precedent for other regional powers. China, being the upper riparian state in many transboundary rivers flowing into South Asia, may feel justified in invoking similar actions should border tensions rise, particularly in regions such as Ladakh. If India deems it acceptable to disregard a treaty and take action based on security considerations, it effectively undermines international legal norms and reciprocity. China could one day leverage this logic to justify halting water flows into India or building strategic infrastructure on shared rivers whenever border clashes erupt. The long-term implications of such policy shifts are far-reaching and destabilising, especially for an already fragile South Asian security architecture.

Moreover, the future of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, an important project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, is also tied to the stability in Jammu and Kashmir. While CPEC promises economic transformation through infrastructure development, connectivity and energy projects, its security is increasingly vulnerable to cross-border hostilities in addition to India’s vocal objection to the project. India argues that the CPEC passes through disputed territory in Gilgit-Baltistan, which it claims, though not legally, as part of the Jammu and Kashmir region. Pakistan and China, however, maintain that the corridor is purely economic and meant to uplift the socio-economic conditions of an underdeveloped region. Yet, an unresolved Kashmir conflict not only threatens peace between India and Pakistan but also endangers multilateral development efforts that are vital for regional economic integration.

Given the stakes strategic, economic, and humanitarian there is no viable alternative to a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict. The UN resolutions passed between 1948 and 1951, though old, remain legally and morally relevant. They call for a demilitarisation of the region followed by an UN-supervised plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people. While both India and Pakistan have since shifted their positions on the modalities of this process, the fundamental principle of self-determination must not be ignored. Any lasting resolution must begin with the restoration of trust between the parties, facilitated by third-party mediation. The roadmap should include resumption of dialogue, reversal of unilateral actions such as the unilateral abrogation of Article 370 and international guarantees regarding water-sharing mechanisms under the Indus Waters Treaty.

Last but not the least, Pakistan has consistently advocated for dialogue and multilateral diplomacy, calling on the international community, particularly the UN and influential global powers such as the US, to play a more active role in conflict resolution. India, on the other hand, has maintained that Kashmir is a domestic issue, thus resisting any outside involvement. This rigid stance, however, only perpetuates the deadlock and ignores the suffering of millions of Kashmiris caught in the middle. Hence, peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict is not just a legal imperative but also a strategic choice that could ensure regional stability, economic cooperation, and long-term prosperity for nearly two billion people across South Asia.

The writer has a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University and post-doc experience at University of California, Berkeley. He is a DAAD, FDDI and Fulbright fellow and an associate professor at Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at ejaz.bhatty@gmail.com