USA: Declaring Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of India does not resolve the dispute or address the aspirations of its people. A peaceful, negotiated settlement grounded in international law remains essential to lasting peace in South Asia.

The United Nations was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War with a promise to build a world in which disputes would be settled through international cooperation, respect for law and peaceful negotiation. Among the principles enshrined in its Charter is the right of peoples to self-determination. Yet, more than eight decades after the establishment of the United Nations, the unresolved question of Jammu and Kashmir continues to test the credibility of that promise.

The debate at the United Nations General Assembly's Fourth Committee, the Special Political and Decolonization Committee, during its 81st session in October 2026 offers a timely opportunity to revisit a fundamental question: can a lasting peace be achieved by repeatedly asserting competing national positions, or must the parties return to dialogue, international commitments and a settlement that addresses the aspirations of the people concerned?

For Kashmir, the answer deserves serious consideration. Repeating that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and inalienable part of India may reaffirm India's official position, but repetition alone cannot resolve a longstanding international dispute. Nor can Pakistan's assertions produce a settlement. The challenge is to move beyond entrenched rhetoric towards a peaceful and negotiated process that can command legitimacy and reduce the danger of renewed conflict.

The right of peoples to self-determination is one of the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter. Article 1, paragraph 2, identifies the development of friendly relations among nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, as one of the purposes of the organization.

Following the Second World War, self-determination acquired particular significance as countries and territories sought freedom from colonial rule. In 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Its first article declares that all peoples have the right to self-determination and that, by virtue of this right, they freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, also reaffirmed the importance of self-determination, including in the context of peoples living under colonial domination, foreign occupation or other forms of subjugation.

These instruments establish the importance of self-determination in international law. Their application to a particular territorial dispute, however, must be considered in light of the relevant legal framework, the history of the dispute and the commitments undertaken by the parties. It is precisely this relationship between principle and practice that makes Kashmir such a consequential question.

On 1 October 2026, Ambassador Coly Seck of Senegal presided over the opening of the Fourth Committee's 81st session. The Committee's work on decolonization provides a forum for examining the responsibilities of the international community towards territories whose political futures remain unresolved.

The debate has highlighted a striking degree of international emphasis on the principles of self-determination, peaceful settlement and the completion of the decolonization process. Representatives speaking on behalf of regional and international groupings, as well as individual countries, have stressed different aspects of this agenda.

The representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis, speaking on behalf of CARICOM, reaffirmed the importance of self-determination and completing the decolonization process in accordance with international law and the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Belize, speaking on behalf of the Central American Integration System, emphasized that the right to self-determination is inalienable and does not diminish with the passage of time.

Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, reaffirmed its commitment to peaceful solutions in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions. Qatar called for cooperation towards just settlements that take account of the particular circumstances of each question. Lesotho emphasized genuine dialogue and the peaceful settlement of decolonization-related disputes.

Other interventions underscored the urgency of completing an unfinished historical task. Mozambique challenged the international community to consider whether the United Nations would remain faithful to its founding principles or merely manage historic injustices without resolving them. Zimbabwe observed that the mission of decolonization remains incomplete as long as some peoples have not fully exercised their right to determine their future. Timor-Leste highlighted the importance of listening to people's concerns and creating conditions in which they can freely determine their destiny.

These interventions are not identical in their implications for every territorial dispute. Nor does support for decolonization automatically establish that every unresolved dispute falls within the same legal category. Nevertheless, the recurring themes are important: international commitments must be taken seriously, unresolved questions cannot simply be wished away, and peaceful solutions require sustained engagement.

The United Kingdom also reaffirmed its commitment to respecting the right of the people of each territory to determine their future in accordance with the UN Charter.

Representative of India emphasized that India's longstanding opposition to colonialism and stated that self-determination is on the Committee's agreed agenda.

The contrast between these broad principles and the sharply conflicting positions on Kashmir deserves attention. If dialogue, peaceful settlement and respect for international law are essential to resolving international disputes, they should not become expendable whenever a particular issue proves politically difficult.

During the Fourth Committee debate, Pakistan argued that the right to self-determination remained unfulfilled for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It invoked United Nations Security Council resolutions and the historical commitment to a free and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices.

India responded that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and inalienable part of India and accused Pakistan of misrepresenting the situation.

Pakistan, in its right of reply, rejected India's characterization of the matter as an internal issue, arguing that the dispute remains before the United Nations and cannot be resolved through unilateral declarations.

These exchanges reflect a dispute that has persisted for generations. They also illustrate the limits of diplomatic argument when it becomes an exercise in repeating established positions rather than exploring avenues for agreement.

The people of Kashmir must not disappear from this debate. Their aspirations, experiences and legitimate concerns cannot be reduced to competing claims made by two neighbouring states. Any credible peace process must take those concerns seriously while addressing the security interests and political realities of the parties.

The central issue is not whether India or Pakistan can deliver the most emphatic statement at the United Nations. It is whether the international community and the parties themselves can help create conditions for a peaceful, durable and mutually acceptable resolution.

The Kashmir dispute came before the United Nations in 1948, following the conflict that accompanied the end of British rule in the subcontinent and the emergence of India and Pakistan as independent states.

The Security Council adopted Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948, addressing the restoration of peace and order and proposing a process involving a plebiscite. Earlier and subsequent United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions also formed part of the international framework developed to address the dispute.

The United Nations' own documentary record establishes that Kashmir was considered by the Security Council and that a plebiscite formed part of the proposed framework. Resolution 47 remains an important historical document in understanding the international response to the dispute.

The passage of time has not erased the political consequences of the unresolved question. Nor has it made the need for a peaceful settlement less pressing.

There is a fundamental difference between stating a government's legal and political position and resolving a dispute in a manner that produces lasting peace.

When India declares Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of the country, it expresses a position central to its understanding of sovereignty and territorial integrity. But the repetition of that position does not, on its own, reconcile the competing historical narratives, address the international record or resolve the underlying political conflict.

A dispute cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion merely by declaring that it no longer exists. Equally, a settlement cannot be imposed simply by repeating the opposing claim. This is where political wisdom must prevail over political expediency.

The consequences of an unresolved Kashmir dispute extend far beyond diplomatic exchanges. India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed neighbors with a history of wars, military confrontations and recurring crises. Escalation between them carries risks that reach well beyond the subcontinent. The deadly attack at Pahalgam in April 2025 and the ensuing India-Pakistan crisis demonstrated how quickly violence can intensify an already dangerous confrontation. The events reinforced the need for effective crisis management, communication and diplomatic engagement.

Any outside diplomatic intervention that helps de-escalate a crisis can have value. But preventing an immediate confrontation is not the same as resolving the underlying dispute. A ceasefire or a temporary reduction in tensions may avert catastrophe; it cannot substitute for sustained political efforts to establish a more durable peace.

The greatest danger lies in allowing repeated crises to become the accepted rhythm of India-Pakistan relations. Each confrontation creates the possibility of miscalculation, loss of life and escalation beyond the control of the parties. In a nuclearized region, this is a risk neither country can afford to treat lightly.

A settlement that addresses the sources of conflict is therefore not merely a concession to one side's political demands. It is a practical necessity for regional security.

International human rights lawyer Dr. Karen Parker has argued that the right to self-determination has too often been reduced to political rhetoric or excluded from meaningful discussions about Kashmir. Her central point is that ignoring a claimed right does not resolve the dispute, and that a viable peace process must engage seriously with the question of the Kashmiri people's political future.

That argument deserves consideration as part of a broader discussion about what makes a settlement legitimate and sustainable.

No lasting political arrangement can be secure if it disregards the experiences and aspirations of the people whose lives it directly affects. At the same time, translating the principle of self-determination into a workable settlement requires careful consideration of the applicable legal framework, the different communities of the region, the interests of the parties and the practical arrangements needed to ensure peace.

A peace process that ignores the concerns of either state is unlikely to secure lasting cooperation; one that ignores the people of Kashmir is unlikely to achieve the legitimacy it needs. The objective should not be to predetermine the outcome. It should be to establish a credible process through which the outstanding issues can be addressed peacefully and the interests of the affected populations can be considered meaningfully.

One of the persistent obstacles to progress is the tendency to treat dialogue as a political concession. In reality, negotiations are an instrument through which states manage conflicting interests and prevent disputes from becoming permanent sources of instability.

India and Pakistan do not need to abandon their respective positions before they can engage in dialogue. They do, however, need to recognize that neither side can achieve a durable settlement simply by insisting that the other accept its position without discussion.

A renewed diplomatic process could begin with practical steps: restoring reliable channels of communication, reducing the risk of military miscalculation, addressing humanitarian concerns, encouraging people-to-people contact where feasible, and establishing a sustained framework for discussing outstanding issues.

The United Nations can provide an appropriate forum for examining the relevant international commitments and encouraging peaceful engagement. Its role should be guided by the Charter, the applicable resolutions and the objective of preventing conflict.

Any eventual settlement will require political will, patient diplomacy and a willingness to consider proposals beyond familiar talking points. It must also be grounded in respect for human dignity and the legitimate concerns of the people most affected.

The Fourth Committee's deliberations offer a reminder that the credibility of the international system depends not only on the principles it proclaims but also on the seriousness with which outstanding disputes are addressed.

The right to self-determination, the principle of territorial integrity and the obligation to settle disputes peacefully all form part of the broader international framework. Applying these principles to Kashmir requires legal care, political realism and a recognition that the parties disagree profoundly over the dispute's status and resolution.

India must recognize that repeatedly asserting its position cannot, by itself, eliminate the political and international dimensions of the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan must also contribute to an environment in which meaningful dialogue can take place. Both countries have a responsibility to prevent further escalation and to pursue peaceful avenues for resolving their differences. Above all, the people of Kashmir must be treated as participants in discussions about their future, not merely as subjects of competing national narratives.

Kashmir cannot be resolved by repetition. It cannot be resolved by denial, confrontation or an indefinite postponement of difficult questions. It requires a serious and sustained effort to reconcile competing positions, address legitimate concerns and develop a peaceful settlement consistent with international law.

The choice before India and Pakistan is not between surrendering their positions and continuing confrontation indefinitely. It is between allowing an unresolved dispute to remain a recurring source of danger and making a determined effort to negotiate a lasting peace.

For the sake of Kashmir, for regional stability and for the credibility of the international system, the path forward must be dialogue, diplomacy and a peaceful negotiated settlement.

 

(Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai can be reached at: WhatsApp: 1-202-607-6435 gnfai2003@yahoo.com)