Kashmir’s Future: The Views of India, Pakistan, China and the Kashmiri People

For more than seven decades, the question of Kashmir has stood at the heart of South Asia’s most enduring and painful conflict. It is a story of politics, identity, faith, and belonging but also of people: millions whose daily lives have been shaped by borders drawn on maps, and by promises that remain unfulfilled.

The future of Kashmir is not only a matter of international diplomacy; it is also the human story of a land divided. India, Pakistan, and China all hold parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, while the Kashmiri people themselves remain scattered across valleys, towns, and diasporas.

Their voices, though often drowned by the noise of politics, continue to ask the same question: Who decides our destiny?

The Partition and the Origins of Dispute

When British India was divided in 1947, more than 560 princely states were asked to remain independent, or join either India or Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu monarch over a Muslim-majority population, initially tried to remain independent.

That independence was short-lived. In October 1947, a uprising broke out in western Kashmir in response to the weakening Dogra rule and the decades of torture communities in Kashmir endured. As the conflict spread towards Srinagar, the Maharaja sold the Kashmir state to India.

Many Kashmiris believed that the Dogra rulers were heavily influenced and bribed into signing Kashmir over to India, a decision made for personal benefit, without the consent or will of its people. By that time, the nation had already endured generations of hardship, surviving under oppressive and unjust rule.

This decision became the foundation of India’s claim and the beginning of Pakistan’s contest. Pakistan argued that the people of Kashmir, overwhelmingly Muslim, had the right to choose their future themselves. India, in turn, claimed that the accession was legal and final. Kashmiris knew that the Maharaja was bribed and he made a decision for personal gain and not for the Kashmiri people.

By 1949, after the first Indo-Pak war, a ceasefire line was established, dividing the territory into two parts: one administered by India, the other by Pakistan. That line, later renamed the Line of Control (LoC), remains today.

🇮🇳 India’s View: Kashmir as an Integral Part of the Union

Legal Foundation

India’s central argument rests on the Instrument of Accession signed in 1947. It views this document as a legitimate and binding act that made Jammu and Kashmir an inseparable part of India. However, Kashmiris say that this document signed through bribing the leaders of the time.

The Indian position is that the Maharaja, like all other princely rulers, had full legal authority to decide which dominion to join. Therefore, India considers any talk of plebiscite or self-determination unnecessary and obsolete.

Kashmiri’s say that this legal authority was only valid through the will of the people, in this instance, the majority Muslim nation was against the idea of an Kashmir standing with India.

Political and Constitutional Integration

For decades, Jammu and Kashmir held a special status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, granting it limited autonomy, its own flag, and constitution. In August 2019, India revoked this special status and reorganised the region into two union territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

For New Delhi, this move was meant to “integrate” the region fully into the Indian Union. For many Kashmiris, however, it felt like another chapter of dispossession, a decision made about them, not with them.

Diplomatic Stance

India insists that Kashmir is an internal matter. It rejects all forms of third-party mediation, including by the United Nations, and prefers the Simla Agreement (1972) as the only framework for discussions with Pakistan.

It also portrays unrest in the Valley as terrorism backed by Pakistan, rather than as a movement for self-determination. This narrative dominates Indian diplomacy and media.

Human Impact

From Delhi’s perspective, integration will bring economic opportunity and stability. Yet in the Valley, militarisation, internet restrictions, and political detentions have left scars. For many Kashmiris, the reality feels less about progress and more about control.

🇵🇰 Pakistan’s View: The Right to Self-Determination

The UN Framework

Pakistan’s stance has been consistent since 1947: Kashmir’s future must be decided through a UN-supervised plebiscite. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) called for India and Pakistan to withdraw their troops, and then a plebiscite to determine whether Kashmir would join India or Pakistan.

While the demilitarisation steps were never implemented, Pakistan continues to argue that Kashmiris have an inalienable right to self-determination, a right that remains unfulfilled because of India’s refusal to honour UN resolutions.

Constitutional Support

Pakistan’s own Constitution (Article 257) recognises that “when the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people.”

This clause preserves the idea that Kashmir’s destiny must be decided by its own people, not imposed from above.

Political and Moral Support

Every year on 5 February, Pakistan observes Kashmir Solidarity Day, a public holiday to express support for Kashmiri self-determination. Pakistan raises the issue regularly at the United Nations, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and in its diplomacy abroad.

It also provides political and humanitarian support to Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), the part of the territory it administers. However, critics note that while AJK has its own assembly and president, real power remains with Pakistan’s federal institutions.

Between Principle and Reality

Pakistan’s support for self-determination is rooted in ideology, faith, and shared history. Yet, in practice, the choice it envisions, between joining India or Pakistan. Whilst initially an Independent Kashmir was on the table too. as time progressed, Pakistan no longer supports the idea of an Independent Kashmir.

🇨🇳 China’s View: Strategic, Silent, and Calculated

So far in our series, we have touched only briefly on the areas of Kashmir held by China. This is because the primary issues and tensions lie between the territories administered by India and Pakistan. Nonetheless, when we speak of Kashmir as a whole, the regions under Chinese control are equally significant and form an important part of the wider story.

Territories Under Chinese Control

China controls Aksai Chin, a high-altitude desert between Ladakh and Tibet and the Trans-Karakoram Tract (Shaksgam Valley), ceded to it by Pakistan in 1963. India claims both as part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

For China, these areas are strategic corridors linking Xinjiang and Tibet, vital for its internal security and infrastructure, particularly the G219 highway and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that runs through Gilgit-Baltistan.

Political Position

China maintains a neutral but carefully worded stance. It calls Kashmir a “dispute left over from history” that must be resolved peacefully through dialogue between India and Pakistan, consistent with UN resolutions.

At the same time, it opposes India’s unilateral moves, particularly the 2019 reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir, because India included Aksai Chin within its new map of Ladakh.

Strategic Partnership with Pakistan

China’s partnership with Pakistan is both economic and military. The CPEC, a flagship project of the Belt and Road Initiative, passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, territory India also claims. This gives China a direct interest in stability on the Pakistan side of the LoC and a reason to oppose India’s expansion of control in the region.

Border Tensions with India

Tensions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh, particularly the deadly Galwan Valley clash in 2020, reflect how the Kashmir question overlaps with broader Sino-Indian rivalry.

China’s focus, however, is not identity or ideology; it is strategic geography. Its goal is to protect its borders, secure access routes, and maintain influence in South Asia, not to champion Kashmiri nationalism.

The Kashmiri People’s View: Between Borders and Belonging

A People Divided

The people of Kashmir are spread across three administrations:

• Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh,
• Pakistani-administered Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, and
• smaller communities displaced or exiled, including the Kashmiri diaspora in the UK, Europe, and the Gulf.

While their political conditions differ, the shared experience is one of division, families separated, communication restricted, and an uncertain future hanging over generations. There are three main narratives at play in Kashmir today:

Voices for Pakistan

Many in Azad Kashmir and sections of the Kashmir Valley identify emotionally and religiously with Pakistan. They see Pakistan as the only state that consistently supports their cause internationally and as part of their wider Muslim identity.

Voices for Independence

There is also a strong presence of people who call for complete Azadi, a call for an independent, united Kashmir. This vision goes beyond joining either India or Pakistan. It reflects a yearning for self-rule, dignity, and peace, shaped by decades of loss.

For these Kashmiris, both powers have failed them: one through occupation, the other through political dependency.

Voices for India

In Jammu, Ladakh, and among displaced Kashmiri Pandits, very few prefer remaining part of India. They value its democracy, diversity, and economic potential. For them, Indian citizenship offers stability after years of insurgency and migration.

A Common Cry

Despite differing political dreams, almost all Kashmiris share common pain:

• Decades of violence and militarisation;
• Disappearances, detentions, and displacement;
• Economic hardship and loss of autonomy;
• A fading sense of agency over their own story.

Whether they call for Pakistan, India, or independence, most Kashmiris ultimately seek what all people desire — peace, justice, and the right to live freely in their homeland.

🌏 The International Dimension

The United Nations

The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions since 1948 affirming Kashmir’s right to self-determination. However, none have been implemented due to lack of agreement between India and Pakistan.

In practice, the UN now plays a limited observer role, while both sides use its resolutions to justify their opposing claims.

Learn more about the United Nations (UN) Resolutions on Kashmir

The World’s Response

Major global powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, officially call for peaceful dialogue but avoid direct involvement.

The issue often resurfaces only during human rights crises or border escalations.

The Kashmiri Diaspora

Across Britain, Europe, and North America, diaspora Kashmiris have become active voices for awareness and advocacy.

Their campaigns highlight the humanitarian dimension, the need for demilitarisation, accountability, and dialogue. For many, activism abroad is both a duty and a way to stay connected to a land they or their parents were forced to leave.

⚖️ Comparing the Four Perspectives

💬 Beyond the Politics: The Human Cost

Beneath every headline about sovereignty or resolutions lies a quieter reality. Thousands of families live divided across the Line of Control, unable to meet. Children grow up under curfews and checkpoints. The mountains that once united the valley’s people now stand as barriers between communities.

More than 70,000 people have died in the conflict since the late 1980s, and countless others have vanished. Generations have known little except uncertainty. Yet despite all, the Kashmiri spirit remains patient, poetic, and resilient.

🌿 The Road Ahead

The future of Kashmir depends not only on states but on the courage to listen. India and Pakistan must recognise that military control cannot substitute for moral legitimacy. China must understand that strategic maps cannot erase human identity.

And the world must accept that silence is no longer neutrality — it is complicity.

A lasting peace can only begin when the Kashmiri people themselves are restored to the centre of the conversation. Their right to speak for their future — whether for India, Pakistan, or independence — is not a threat to sovereignty but the essence of it.

Finding the Solution

Kashmir’s story is more than a territorial dispute; it is a test of humanity’s conscience. For India, it is about unity. For Pakistan, about justice. For China, about strategy. But for the Kashmiri people, it is about existence.

They remain the heart of the valley’s tale, standing amid rivers and snow-capped peaks that have witnessed empires come and go. Their struggle, unbroken through decades, reminds the world that borders may divide land, but not the longing for freedom.

Kashmir’s future, when it finally arrives, will not be written by treaties or armies, but by the will of its people.