Image Source:

This article is penned by Sarthak Gupta, from the Institute of Law, Nirma University. This is a comprehensive article about the contention between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue and the scope of the third party, mediator. This article is articulated with a neutral point of view.


A suffering contention combined with an inner uprising characterizes the present condition of the contention between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The conditions are currently set up to offer an outsider the chance to go about as a third party, a mediator in the long‐standing struggle, just as in the contest between India and the Kashmir rebellion. The international mediation theory isn’t adequate to apply to this contention. Developing and built up hypotheses of mediation with respect to both global and inward parts of the contention are thought of. The advancement and status of the debate, just as the elements of the triadic connection among India, Pakistan and the United States are inspected and uncovered, that the interests intrinsic in the United States‐India and the United States‐Pakistan connections are combined. Vital and economic interests that encourage outsider mediation are considered thoroughly. The role of the United States as a third party mediator is then brought into centre against a foundation of geopolitical change and bilateral stalemate. The issue of whether going for mediation will influence the result of intervention is considered in a hypothetical investigation. United Nations and other nations, previously have come forward to act as a third party, a mediator in the Kashmir issue, but each time both the countries saying that this is a bilateral relations issue, they wouldn’t invite any third party into this issue.


History of the Kashmir

The region

As per folklore tales, a parsimonious named Kashyapa recovered the land currently involving Kashmir from an immense lake. That land came to be known as Kashyapamar and later, Kashmir. Buddhism was presented by the Mauryan ruler Ashoka in the third century BCE, and from the ninth to the twelfth century CE, the district seems to have accomplished extensive conspicuousness as a focal point of Hindu culture. A progression of Hindu traditions controlled Kashmir until 1346 when it went under Muslim guidelines. The Muslim time frame endured about five centuries, finishing when Kashmir was added to the Sikh realm of Punjab in 1819 and afterwards to the Dogra realm of Jammu in 1846.

Therefore, the Kashmir locale in its contemporary structure dates to 1846, when, by the treaties of Lahore and Amritsar at the finish of the First Sikh War, Raja Gulab Singh, the Dogra leader of Jammu, was made maharaja (administering sovereign) of a broad. However, fairly poorly characterized Himalayan realm “toward the eastbound of the River Indus and westbound of the River Ravi.” The making of this august state helped the British protect their northern flank in their development to the Indus and past during the last piece of the nineteenth century. The state accordingly framed a piece of a complex political cradle zone intervened by the British between their Indian domain and the realms of Russia and China toward the north. For Gulab Singh, an affirmation of title to these mountain regions denoted the finish of right around 25 years of battling and political exchange among the frivolous slope realms along the northern borderlands of the Sikh domain of Punjab.

A few endeavours were made in the nineteenth century to characterize the limits of the region, however, the exact definition was much of the time crushed by the idea of the nation and by the presence of colossal tracts lacking perpetual human settlement. In the far north, for instance, the maharaja’s power unquestionably stretched out to the Karakoram Range, however past that lay an easily proven wrong zone on the outskirts of the Turkistan and Xinjiang districts of Central Asia and the limit was never differentiated. There were comparable questions about the arrangement of the outskirts where this northern zone evaded the district known as Aksai Chin, toward the east and joined the better-known and all the more absolutely outlined limit with Tibet, which had served for a considerable length of time as the eastern fringe of the Ladakh locale. The example of limits in the northwest became more clear in the most recent decade of the nineteenth century when Britain, in exchanges with Afghanistan and Russia, delimited limits in the Pamirs locale. Around then Gilgit, consistently comprehended to be a piece of Kashmir, was for key reasons composed as an extraordinary organization in 1889 under a British operator. 

The Kashmir issue

For whatever length of time that the domain’s presence was ensured by the United Kingdom, the shortcomings in its structure and along its peripheries were not of incredible result, yet they got obvious after the British withdrawal from South Asia in 1947. By the terms consented to by India and Pakistan for the parcel of the Indian subcontinent, the leaders of royal states were given the option to select either Pakistan or India or with specific reservations to stay free. Hari Singh, the maharaja of Kashmir, at first accepted that by postponing his choice he could keep up the autonomy of Kashmir, however, made up for the lost time in a train of occasions that incorporated an upset among his Muslim subjects along the western fringes of the state and the mediation of Pashtun tribesmen, he marked an Instrument of Accession to the Indian association in October 1947. This was the sign for mediation both by Pakistan, which believed the state to be a characteristic expansion of Pakistan and by India, which proposed to affirm the demonstration of promotion. Limited fighting was kept during 1948 and finished, through the mediation of the United Nations, in a truce that produced results in January 1949. In July of that year, India and Pakistan characterized a truce line—the line of control—that isolated the organization of the domain. Viewed at the time as an impermanent catalyst, the segment along that line despite everything exists.

In spite of the fact that there was a reasonable Muslim community majority in Kashmir before the 1947 partition and its financial, social, and geographic contiguity with the Muslim-larger part zone of Punjab could be convincingly illustrated, the political advancements during and after the segment brought about a division of the district. Pakistan was left with an area that, albeit fundamentally Muslim in character, was meagerly populated, generally difficult to reach and monetarily immature. The largest Muslim meeting in the Kashmir Valley, which was estimated to have the majority of the population throughout the locality, was held under the Indian administration and its previous outlets were obstructed through the Jhelum Valley Course.

Numerous recommendations were therefore made to end the disagreement about Kashmir, however, pressures mounted between the two nations following the Chinese invasion into Ladakh in 1962, and fighting broke out between India and Pakistan in 1965. A truce was set up in September, trailed by an understanding marked by the different sides at Tashkent (Uzbekistan) towards the beginning of January 1966, in which they set out to attempt to end the question by tranquil methods. Battling again erupted between the two out of 1971 as a feature of the India-Pakistan war that brought about the production of Bangladesh. An understanding marked in the Indian city of Shimla in 1972 communicated the expectation that hereafter the nations in the district would have the option to live in harmony with one another. It was generally accepted that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, at that point head administrator of Pakistan, may have implicitly acknowledged the line of control as the true fringe, despite the fact that he later denied this. After Bhutto was captured in 1977 and executed in 1979, the Kashmir issue by and by turned into the main source of contention between India and Pakistan.

Insurrection and counterinsurgency in Kashmir

Frustrated with the absence of progress through the just procedure, militant associations started to spring up in the locale in the late 1980s. Their motivation was to oppose control from the Indian association government. By the mid-1990s the militancy had developed into a rebellion, and India occupied it with a crackdown battle. The meticulousness of the battling subsided in the mid-1990s, however, periodic savagery kept on occurring. The Kargil region of western Ladakh has regularly been the site of fringe clashes, remembering a genuine episode in 1999. In May of that year, Pakistan strengthened cannons shelling of the Kargil area. In the meantime, the Indian armed force found that aggressors had invaded the Indian zone from the Pakistan side and had built up positions inside and west of the Kargil territory. Serious battling resulted between the infiltrators and the Indian armed force and endured over two months. The Indian armed forces figured out how to recover the greater part of the territory on the Indian side of the line of control that had been involved by the infiltrators. Threats at long last finished when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan gave his confirmation that the infiltrators would withdraw. Be that as it may, shelling over the line of control proceeded discontinuously into the mid-21st century until a truce understanding was reached in 2004. Pressures in the locale hence lessened, and India and Pakistan looked for progressively heartfelt relations when all is said and done and more noteworthy provincial collaboration. 

Constrained traveller transport administration started in 2005 between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad on either side of the outskirts, and, after the overwhelming seismic tremor in the district soon thereafter, India and Pakistan permitted survivors and trucks conveying help supplies to cross at a few focus along the line of control. Furthermore, in 2008, the two nations opened cross-outskirt exchange interfaces through the Kashmir area just because since the 1947 segment; trucks conveying privately created products and fabricates started working between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad and between Rawalkot, Pakistan, and Punch, India. 

In spite of these advances, strains have kept on ejecting intermittently in the locale. Delayed rough fights erupted over control of a land parcel utilized by Hindu pioneers visiting the Amar Nath cavern place of worship east of Srinagar in 2008 and again in 2010 after Indian warriors executed three Pakistani townspeople who they asserted were activists attempting to penetrate over the line of control. A resulting examination uncovered that the fighters had in actuality attracted the men to the region and killed them without a second thought. Another pattern of turmoil started after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) cleared decisions across India in 2014. The gathering had won an altogether larger part in the national lawmaking body and started pushing strategies across the country.

Government and alteration in the resolutions  

The BJP, which firmly preferred the association of Kashmir with India, hosted the second biggest gathering in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and framed a solidarity government with the marginally bigger People’s Democratic Party (PDP), whose stage fixated on the execution of self-rule in Kashmir. As the policies and professional India arrangements of the BJP stirred the nerves of the locale’s dominatingly Muslim populace, Kashmir saw an uptick in agitation. The developing pressures emitted into revolt in July 2016 after the administrator of an Islamic activist gathering was executed inactivity by Indian security powers. India’s association government, commanded by the BJP, started affirming expanded power over the state as an issue of national security and propelled a crackdown on activists. In late 2018, the association government broke down the administration of Jammu and Kashmir and started the direct standard of the state after the BJP left the state’s solidarity alliance and caused its breakdown. Kashmir encountered its most noteworthy grating in decades in February 2019. 

On February 14, 2019, self-destruction aircraft-related with an activist dissenter bunch executed 40 individuals from India’s Central Reserve Police Force, the deadliest assault on Indian security powers in three decades. With an intense political race cycle drawing nearer, India’s BJP-driven government confronted pressure from its supporters to make a mighty move. Days after the fact India sent warriors flying over Kashmir’s line of control without precedent for five decades and later professed to have directed airstrikes against the activist gathering’s biggest preparation camp. Pakistan denied the case, saying that the planes had struck a vacant field. The following day, Pakistan killed two Indian streams in its airspace and caught a pilot. However, regardless of the exacerbation, numerous experts accepted that India and Pakistan expected to keep away from heightening. In the repercussions, Pakistan actualized a crackdown on activists in its nation, giving captures, shutting an enormous number of strict schools and promising to refresh its current laws. A couple of months after this, BJP won an avalanche triumph in India’s decisions, extending its portrayal in the parliament’s lower chamber. 

As the BJP proceeded with its compelling push in Jammu and Kashmir, the association government in August developed its military nearness in the state and inside days attempted activity to formalize its immediate control there. Abusing an established arrangement that permitted the association government to incorporate Jammu and Kashmir upon the endorsement of a not, at this point surviving chosen body, it suspended Jammu and Kashmir’s self-governance and applied India’s constitution completely to the region. It likewise passed enactment to downsize the state sometime in the future to an association region along these lines permitting the association government full authority over its administration and to separate the Ladakh district into a different association domain of its own.

United Nations and the Kashmir discordance

The early endeavours at intercession by the United Nations were made after India took its grumbling against Pakistan’s constrained control of parts of Kashmir (PoK) to the UN Security Council on January 1, 1948. The UN at that point set up the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) which proposed interceding a goal along with a three-point activity plan: Pakistani disarmament of the Kashmir district, trailed by Indian decrease in military nearness, and proposed last goals by an unbiased U.N. controlled vote to “decide the desires of the Kashmiri individuals”. The arrangement never got off the ground as Pakistan never consented to neutralize, and India under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru clarified that a voting system could never be acknowledged. Where the UNCIP was effective was in intervening a truce in 1949 and arranging the geological area of the truce line which would be checked by the United Nations Military Observer Group In India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). 

Individual U.N. agents kept on visiting the two sides from 1949 to 1953 however neglected to improve the climate for goals or to persuade either side to neutralize the different sides of the LoC. The main United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan (UNRIP) delegated to intercede the contest was Sir Owen Dixon, an Australian legal scholar, who was trailed by Frank Graham, an American ambassador, who surrendered after his proposition was dismissed by New Delhi and Karachi (at that point the capital of Pakistan) in April 1953. The main special cases to this horrid record were the 1960 World Bank ensured Indus Water Treaty and a regional concurrence on the Rann of Kutch intervened effectively by the British government in 1965. Soviet Premier Kosygin additionally directed between Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan to facilitate the 1965 Tashkent harmony understanding, yet the bargain has consistently been set apart by doubt and questions, polluted by Shastri’s abrupt passing at Tashkent.

The United Nations have come multiple times to represent as a mediator, to resolve the issue, but keeping in mind, the Indian government saying Kashmir as an internal issue of the country, respectfully thanked and rejected the mediation proposal.

United States intervention

In 1993, the new organization of United States President Bill Clinton chose to swim into the Kashmir issue, showing more than once that it wished to intercede among India and Pakistan. At the U.N. General Assembly in September, Mr Clinton alluded to settling “common wars from Angola to the Caucasus to Kashmir,” and after a month, the United States Aide Secretary of State Robin Raphel scrutinized the legitimacy of Kashmir’s ‘Instrument of Accession’ during a press conference. At an ongoing occasion, the Union Minister for Housing and Urban Affairs, Civil Aviation (and Minister of State, Commerce, and Industry), Hardeep Puri, related how India gave a solid dissent. Mr Puri was then the Joint Secretary (Americas) and decided to authority in Washington with a cautiously however emphatic message cleared by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. Mr Puri stated, “We set straight the United States organization that time, and succeeded astoundingly in drawing a red line on the issue [of mediation].”

The United States President Donald Trump asserted that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had looked for intercession in Kashmir when they met during the G-20 summit in Osaka. In Parliament, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar completely said that Mr Modi didn’t demand Mr Trump to “intercede or meditate” on the Kashmir issue. He said India stays focused on talking about all issues with Pakistan respectively.

Scope of a third-party in the mediation

India’s inflexible stance against mediation on Kashmir or some other issue comes from a few reasons, most prominently a verifiable doubt, since the 1950s and 1960s, as intervened talks by the United Nations and World Bank, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia have been ineffective in settling the issues among India and Pakistan. Best case scenario, the endeavours have worked for diffusing pressures, or cancelling threats at the Line of Control and the International Border, yet not as far as their adversary guarantees over Jammu and Kashmir. Another explanation is that India considers itself to be a local head and doesn’t require any help with sifting through its issues with other local nations. Also, the boundless conviction is that mediation favours the more vulnerable gathering by making everything fair, and with its more grounded customary and non-regular military ability, India has seen no huge addition from bringing an outsider into its 70-year-old clash with Pakistan.

In the wake of winning the war with Pakistan that saw the formation of Bangladesh, India, in 1972, arranged the Shimla Agreement, which got rid of any thought of future mediation or third party intervention between the two nations. As indicated by the Agreement marked on July 2, 1972, by Indira Gandhi and by then-President Bhutto, the two nations resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them”.

In February 1999, the Lahore affirmation marked by Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee additionally attested the two-sided nature of issues and their goals. In this manner, in any event, when Mr Trump, President of the United States said India’s reaction in Parliament was to summon the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration saying that they “give the premise to determine all issues among India and Pakistan respectively”. These reciprocal endeavours are at an end at present and little has moved since the keep going exchanges on Kashmir in 2003-2008 when Indian and Pakistani mediators talked about the four-advance equation. India hosts kept up its resistance to third-get-together intervention, in any case, and regardless of offers from a few heads including South African President Nelson Mandela, UN Chief António Guterres, and all the more as of late the Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna Solberg has stated, “much obliged, however, forget about it”.

In a statement, Indian foreign ministry spokesman Raveesh Kumar said: “Jammu and Kashmir have been, is and will continue to be an integral part of India. The issue that needs to be addressed is that of vacation of the territories illegally and forcibly occupied by Pakistan. Further issues, if any, would be discussed bilaterally. There is no role or scope for third party mediation.”

“We hope the UN Secretary-General would emphasize on the imperative for Pakistan to take a credible, sustained and irreversible action to put an end to cross-border terrorism against India, which threatens the most fundamental human right – the right to life, of the people of India, including in Jammu and Kashmir,” Kumar said.

It clearly states India is not going to give consent to the third party to act as a mediator for any negotiation.

Revocation of Article 370 in the Indian Constitution

On August 5, 2019, the Mr Narendra Modi-driven National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government reported significant changes in Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that conceded “special status” to the province of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), including the Ladakh district. Renouncing this unique status to completely incorporate J&K into India has been a longstanding politico-ideological interest of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),  the BJP’s 2019 Lok Sabha Election declaration plainly makes reference to the gathering’s chronicled position on the “revocation” of Article 370 and the cancellation of Article 35A, which permitted the J&K governing body to characterize perpetual inhabitants of the state.

India’s choice to change Jammu & Kashmir’s unique status is probably going to additionally confound India-Pakistan’s two-sided relations. Late geopolitical improvements, for example, the foreseen withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the conceivable return of an encouraged Taliban in Kabul and the U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks with respect to the intercession of the Kashmir issue may have constrained the Modi government to assist the way toward rejecting the unique status of J&K before the rainstorm meeting of the Indian parliament finished on August 7, 2019. New Delhi is likely stressing that if the United States pulls back from Afghanistan and the Taliban comes back to control, Pakistan-sponsored dread gatherings may get prepared in Afghanistan and direct their concentration toward J&K. With the issue of Kashmir and revocation of Article 370, these invitations can be seen.

With the revocation of the exceptional status of J&K, New Delhi is probably going to look for an adjustment in the story around the Kashmir issue, changing the position it has kept up since the 1972 Shimla Agreement that India and Pakistan ought to examine their debates reciprocally. The Kashmir debate may now turn into a “carefully inner issue” of India as opposed to a two-sided issue to be talked about with Pakistan as the subsequent party. It is conceivable that the Modi government may now concentrate on formalizing the Line of Control and International Boundary, which Pakistan alludes to as the Working Boundary, with an end goal to render the present division of domain in Kashmir non-debatable.


A number of stages since its inception have been in the dangerous conflict between India & Pakistan and Kashmir. In the early stages of the crisis, the Security Council sought to use its mediating influence but could not deliver a permanent solution. One explanation for its failure is that the Kashmir’s legal status issue was handled solely as a political problem by the Security Council. By not informative on the central legal issue of the conflict, namely the Instrument of Accession, the Security Council weakened its recommendations. The legal framework of accession may have made obligations more explicit and more difficult to avoid for India and Pakistan. The role of the third party, a mediator is slightly difficult to take place as it consists of the consent of both parties. India’s statement about Kashmir being an internal issue, clearly depicts that India is not going to give consent to the third party to decide the issue of Kashmir. And Pakistan is not going to negotiate on this, thus leaving the issue of Kashmir and the lives of Kashmiris openly wounded.


LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here