For more than three decades, Kashmir has lived through one of the gravest, yet least acknowledged, human rights crises of our time. Over 150,000 Kashmiris have lost their lives in the past 35 years alone. Between 8,000 and 10,000 people have been forcibly disappeared. More than 2,700 mass graves have been discovered in a single district—Kupwara. These are not contested figures; they are part of a grim and expanding record of suffering.

As Indian novelist Arundhati Roy once observed, nearly 900,000 Indian troops have turned Kashmir into the most militarized zone on earth. The consequences have been devastating: extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, arbitrary detentions, collective punishment, and the systematic silencing of dissent. Over time, the brutality has become so normalized that Kashmiris are increasingly condemned to invisibility—ignored not because the facts are unknown, but because the world has grown weary of acknowledging them. Kashmir has become a forgotten land, its people a forgotten people.

Inside Kashmir, however, these realities are deeply understood. Grassroots leaders such as Mohammad Yasin Malik, Shabir Ahmed Shah, and Masarat Aalam Bhat mobilized the population through peaceful calls to action until they were incarcerated by the Indian state. Their leadership was organic and responsible, and the people responded in the only way left to them—through mass protests, sometimes numbering in the thousands, at other times in the millions. The press reported these events, but often without sustained attention or urgency.

Yet the international record is unmistakable. A European parliamentary delegation famously described Kashmir as “the most beautiful prison on earth.” In August 2019, major international newspapers documented a region cut off from the world, calling it a “living hell” of fear and anger, while warning that Indian democracy itself was being hollowed out in silence. In January 2022, genocide scholar Dr. Gregory Stanton testified before the U.S. Congress that there were early warning signs of genocide in Kashmir. International press freedom watchdogs have since reported that journalism in Kashmir is on the brink of extinction.And still—after 79 years of occupation—we remain waiting, as if for a miracle.

At this critical juncture, the responsibility of the global Kashmiri diaspora cannot be overstated. Real change will not occur without a fundamental shift in how the diaspora organizes, advocates, and presents itself to the world. Fragmentation has been our greatest weakness. What is urgently needed is a united front—one that inspires people on the ground and reassures them that their voices are not diluted by competing narratives abroad.

 

Unity does not require uniformity of opinion; it requires discipline of purpose. A united diaspora leadership would demonstrate that Kashmiris are Kashmiris first—not members of isolated political factions lacking a collective mandate. Only a united leadership can amplify the aspirations of the people and advance the ultimate objective: the right of self-determination.

Kashmiris themselves have never lost faith in that right. They do not need reminders; they need pathways. The role of the diaspora is not to lecture, but to open doors, create opportunities, and translate popular will into effective international advocacy. History shows that this has not yet been achieved—and it will not be achieved unless unity exists not only at the grassroots but at the leadership level.

Kashmiri diaspora leadership must also exercise moral caution. Any statement—intentional or not—that suggests reconciliation with oppression risks weakening the movement. Fatigue is understandable after decades of struggle, but public expressions of exhaustion can be misinterpreted as surrender. Movements do not collapse only under repression; they collapse when resolve appears to waver.

This crisis of disunity was laid bare to me years ago during a visit to Washington by Roger Godsiff, then the Chairman of British parliamentarians Kashmir Group. He was accompanied by Lord Eric Avebury, Justice Abdul Majid Malik of Mirpur, Lord Nazir Ahmed who was then the Councilor. Roger Godsiff confided that while he regularly met Kashmiri delegations in Britain, they arrived with conflicting narratives—some advocating accession to Pakistan, others independence—making it impossible for him to advance a coherent case in Parliament. His plea was simple: present one narrative that could be pursued with credibility.

That is the heart of the problem—and it must be acknowledged honestly. A solution was proposed by Professor Zafar Khan of England, Head of JKLF Diplomatic Bureau who suggested a principled common ground: the unrestricted right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This demand does not pre-judge outcomes; it restores agency to the people themselves.

The moral and legal foundation for this demand already exists. In April 1948, under U.S. leadership, the United Nations Security Council unanimously affirmed that Kashmir’s future must be determined by the will of its people. The United States voted for all subsequent substantive resolutions on Kashmir. That international commitment has never been nullified.

 

Nonviolent resistance inside Kashmir has been sustained and extraordinary. Hundreds of thousands have participated since 2007, often facing lethal force. Despite years of imprisonment under inhumane conditions, Kashmir’s grassroots leadership – Mohammad Yasin Malik , Shabir Ahmed Shah and Masarat Aalam Bhat - has not surrendered. Their resilience deserves unified and strategic amplification from abroad.

The urgency of diaspora action has only intensified in light of global developments. In May 2025, South Asia stood on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. International leaders, including President Donlad J. Trump openly acknowledged that Kashmir remains the core dispute between India and Pakistan. Opportunities for mediation—long absent—have resurfaced when President Trump offered his office of mediation. It is the responsibility of the Kashmiri diaspora to press for inclusive, tripartite dialogue in which Kashmiris themselves are represented, regardless of imprisonment.

History offers precedent. Nelson Mandela represented his people from prison. So will Mohammad Yasin Malik, Shabir Ahmed Shaha and Masaraat Aalam Bhat. Moral legitimacy does not depend on physical freedom.

Finally, the international community already possesses the tools to resolve this conflict peacefully. The United Nations has successfully supervised transitions in Namibia, Cambodia, East Timor, and South Sudan. It was prepared to do so in Kashmir more than seven decades ago. Countless lives might have been spared had that process been allowed to proceed.

The United Nations Secretary-General today has both the moral authority and legal responsibility to revive that commitment. The people of Kashmir deserve nothing less than a free, fair, and internationally supervised exercise of their will.

Until then, silence is not neutrality—it is complicity.

 

(Dr. Fai is also the Secretary General, World Kashmir Awareness forum. He can be reached at: WhatsApp: 1-202-607-6435  or  gnfai2003@yahoo.com, www.kashmirawareness.org