Pakistan-administered Kashmir: Denied Rights in a Disputed Land

As often happens in Piazza della Libertà in Trieste, Kashmir has been one of the most discussed topics in recent weeks. It is a land frequently mentioned, yet truly understood by very few. Driven by my natural curiosity and my desire to look beyond newspaper headlines, I decided to explore one of the most complex geopolitical disputes of our time.

I was already on holiday—although, to be honest, my mind never really switches off—when, while browsing TikTok, I came into contact with a 32-year-old Kashmiri man. He shared his story with remarkable clarity and dignity. In his homeland, he earned a Master of Science (MSc) in Economics and had planned to continue his academic career by pursuing an M.Phil. Like many other young people from his region, however, he eventually decided to attempt what migrants call the game: the long and dangerous journey across multiple borders in the hope of building a better future in Europe.

Today he lives in Italy, but his path toward integration is still marked by bureaucratic obstacles. During his journey through Türkiye, he lost his university documents and has therefore been unable to begin the process of having his degree officially recognised. Behind what appears to be a simple administrative issue lies a much deeper reality: a qualified and educated person whose opportunities remain suspended because of circumstances beyond his control.

His testimony became the starting point for understanding not only the complex history of Kashmir but also the concrete consequences that decades of political tensions and territorial disputes continue to have on the daily lives of millions of people.

Kashmir is far more than a line on a map. It is a historical, legal and human wound that has shaped the Indian subcontinent since 1947, involving India, Pakistan and China. Before the Partition of British India, the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh. Following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, the territory was divided by a ceasefire line, which later became the Line of Control (LoC) after the 1972 Simla Agreement. Under that agreement, both India and Pakistan undertook to respect the Line of Control without prejudice to their respective legal positions or any unilateral alteration of the status quo.

Before the 1947 Partition, the former princely State of Jammu and Kashmir covered approximately 222,236 km². Today, the territory is administered by three different countries. India controls about 101,387 km², including Jammu, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. Pakistan administers approximately 86,268 km², comprising Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. China controls around 42,424 km², including Aksai Chin and the Shaksgam Valley. The latter was transferred by Pakistan to China under the 1963 boundary agreement, an arrangement that India does not recognise and continues to dispute, maintaining its claim over the entire former State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Today, Kashmir remains divided among India, Pakistan and China. Yet this tripartite administration should not obscure one fundamental reality: behind every territorial dispute are people, families and communities exposed to violence, poverty, interrupted public services and chronic political uncertainty. International law cannot merely acknowledge geopolitical complexity; it must also address the effective protection of the civilian population.

In recent weeks, Pakistan-administered Kashmir has once again become the focus of international attention due to a large-scale mobilisation led by the Joint Awami Action Committee, a civic movement advocating for political, economic and social rights. According to Amnesty International, on 5 June 2026 the local authorities designated the movement as a prohibited organisation under the anti-terrorism legislation of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, while reports emerged of communications blackouts, mass arrests and the use of lethal force against protesters.

In 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh initially sought to preserve the independence of the princely state. Following the invasion of tribal militias entering from Pakistan, he requested military assistance from India. According to India's position, military intervention took place only after the signing of the Instrument of Accession, whereas Pakistan disputes the validity of that accession. The First Indo-Pakistani War (1947–1948) ended with a United Nations-mediated ceasefire, leaving Kashmir divided along what is now known as the Line of Control (LoC). Following the Sino-Indian War of 1962, China consolidated its control over Aksai Chin, while in 1963 Pakistan and China signed a boundary agreement concerning the Shaksgam Valley, an agreement that India has never recognised.

One of the movement's most controversial demands concerns the abolition of the twelve seats in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly reserved for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir living in Pakistan. According to the protesters, this mechanism gives disproportionate political influence to individuals who do not reside in the territory. The authorities, on the other hand, argue that these seats are constitutionally protected and represent people displaced by the conflict. The Associated Press reported that the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir upheld the constitutional status of these seats, making the issue a central topic ahead of the regional elections.

If confirmed as described by the organisers and international human rights organisations, the reported repression of the protests raises serious legal concerns. At the same time, it is important not to use the term genocide lightly. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide requires the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Even extremely serious suffering does not automatically meet that legal threshold.

However, rejecting the genocide label does not minimise the gravity of the allegations. Extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, denial of medical care and indiscriminate restrictions on communications may constitute serious human rights violations and, in the most severe cases, violations of international law.

The first right at stake is the right to life. If demonstrators or civilians have been killed through disproportionate use of force, the authorities have a legal obligation to conduct prompt, independent, effective and transparent investigations. The second is the right to personal liberty: no one should be subjected to arbitrary detention, deprived of judicial safeguards or labelled a terrorist without concrete, individual and verifiable evidence. The third concerns the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association. Peaceful demonstrations may be regulated for legitimate public order reasons, but they cannot be suppressed through emergency measures used as instruments of political intimidation.

The communications blackout deserves particular attention. In a region already affected by political tensions, weak infrastructure and geographic isolation, shutting down Internet access means far more than restricting social media. It prevents access to information, banking services, healthcare, communication with relatives and the documentation of possible human rights violations. Reuters reported that the restrictions paralysed everyday life in the region, with at least twenty-four people killed during the protests, more than five hundred detained according to police sources, and severe consequences for workers, financial services, fuel supplies and access to essential goods.

These protests should therefore not be viewed merely as an electoral dispute. They also represent demands for substantive citizenship: functioning hospitals, safe roads, access to healthcare, political representation, employment opportunities, efficient public services and human dignity. International human rights law protects not only freedom from State interference but also the conditions necessary for a life of dignity. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires States to progressively realise social rights, while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects life, liberty, due process, political participation, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

This situation also highlights a striking political contradiction. Pakistan frequently raises concerns before the international community regarding alleged human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir. However, any claim grounded in the protection of human rights requires consistency. A State cannot invoke the dignity and freedoms of Kashmiris when they are under another country's administration while restricting those same rights within the territory under its own effective control. The same principle applies equally to India and to every State involved in the region. Human rights are not instruments of political convenience; they are universal legal obligations binding every authority that exercises effective control over a territory.

It is equally important to give voice to those who live in the border areas. Living in a militarised region means existing in a state of permanent uncertainty, where lives, homes, livelihoods and economic activities are constantly exposed to the consequences of political and military tensions. In such circumstances, the law must not remain an abstract concept. It must translate into tangible protection through humanitarian access, functioning healthcare systems, judicial oversight of arrests, restoration of communications, protection for journalists and human rights defenders, and meaningful dialogue with civil society.

The perspective shared by the young Kashmiri I interviewed reflects precisely this reality. In his words, the issue is not one of seeking special treatment but of demanding fundamental rights that should be guaranteed to every human being. He describes a region where generations have grown up amid instability, where essential infrastructure—including hospitals, roads and airports—remains inadequate, and where every attempt to demand political or social rights is often met with repression, intimidation or arrest.

According to his testimony, people living on both sides of Kashmir—whether under Indian or Pakistani administration—have endured decades of violence, insecurity and neglect. Coming himself from a border area, he explained that his community lives with the constant fear that military escalation could at any moment threaten their lives, homes and means of livelihood. His experience illustrates how geopolitical conflicts are ultimately lived by ordinary civilians, whose aspirations are often far removed from the strategic interests of States.

The Early Day Motion presented before the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 8 June 2026 expressed concern over reports of communications blackouts, lockdown measures, mass arrests, restrictions on access to healthcare, due process violations and the criminalisation of peaceful protest. It called for the restoration of communications, respect for fundamental freedoms and renewed dialogue between the authorities and civil society. This demonstrates that developments in Pakistan-administered Kashmir are no longer merely a domestic issue. They increasingly concern the international community, the Kashmiri diaspora and organisations monitoring the protection of fundamental rights.

The most responsible legal approach is therefore one based on caution in the use of the most serious legal classifications while remaining uncompromising in the defence of fundamental rights. There is no need to stretch the legal definition of genocide in order to recognise the seriousness of alleged abuses. The rights to life, liberty, healthcare, information, peaceful assembly and due process, together with the obligation to investigate unlawful deaths and enforced disappearances, already provide a robust legal framework through which these events must be assessed.

Kashmir remains one of the most complex and unresolved disputes in contemporary international law. Yet its complexity should never become an excuse for indifference. Territorial disputes may last for decades, but violations of fundamental rights produce immediate and lasting consequences for those who experience them every day.

Whenever a population asks for representation, essential public services, dignity and respect for the rule of law, the response cannot be silence, indiscriminate accusations of terrorism or the excessive use of force. Any lasting solution for Kashmir will require far more than diplomatic negotiations between India, Pakistan and China. It must also involve listening to the voices of the Kashmiri people themselves, protecting civil society, ensuring accountability for human rights violations and reaffirming one fundamental principle of international law: no reason of State can ever justify the denial of human dignity.