OIC Rallies Global Support For A Just And Lasting Resolution In Kashmir

OIC Rallies Global Support For A Just And Lasting Resolution In Kashmir

By Our Special Correspondent

OIC wants to intensify efforts toward a peaceful, equitable, and sustainable resolution of Kashmir.

New York, New York – On September 23, 2025, during the opening of the High-level Segment of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) organized a Contact Group on Jammu & Kashmir meeting in Room 11 at the UN headquarters in New York. The OIC Contact Group, which has met yearly since 1994, was represented by the Deputy Secretary-General His Excellency Ambassador Yusuf Al-Dubai’e, as well as official delegates and esteemed dignitaries from Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Niger. It was a powerful session that began by an official statement of the Secretary-General of the OIC, H.E. Hissein Brahim Taha.

The Secretary General emphasized that a just and lasting solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute is essential for peace and stability in South Asia and beyond. The recent escalation of tensions in the region once again highlights its status as nuclear flashpoint. Therefore, it is imperative that the international community take serious note of this situation and intensify efforts toward a peaceful, equitable, and sustainable solution in line with relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

Ambassador Yusuf Al-Dubai’e as a Special Envoy of Secretary General on Jammu and Kashmir himself has undertaken multiple visits to Azad Kashmir, including one in 2025. He has remained closely engaged with key stakeholders such as the leadership of successive administrations in Azad Kashmir and the leadership of All Parties Hurriyat Conference.

The statement by His Excellency Ishaq Dar, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Pakistan read by Ambassador Tariq Fatemi, State Minister of Foreign Affairs highlighted the serious catastrophic situation in Indian Occupied Kashmir. He said that “For nearly eight decades, India has sought to incrementally consolidate its illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir. Since its unlawful and unilateral actions of 5 August 2019, India has pursued a systematic campaign to further disenfranchise, disempower, and disinherit the Kashmiri people. Through demographic engineering and legislative manipulation, India has sought to erode the distinct cultural identity of Kashmiris. Gerrymandering of constituencies, induction of outsiders on voter rolls, and new domicile and land laws are all designed to alter the occupied territory’s character in gross violation of international law.

Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar reiterated that the root cause of instability in South Asia remains the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Until it is settled in accordance with Security Council resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people, the region will remain hostage to such recurring crises. Pakistan, he added seeks peace and good-unneighborly relations with India, grounded in mutual respect and sovereign equality. But dialogue cannot be one-sided. India has chosen hostility over diplomacy, repression over reconciliation. In a nuclearized region of two billion people, such adventurism is reckless and perilous.

The foreign Minister of Pakistan suggested that the OIC should; Employ political and economic leverage to press India to end its repression in Indian occupied Kashmir; Demand release of political prisoners; Repeal of draconian laws; and Withdrawal of occupation forces from civilian areas; Support an impartial investigation into India’s gross and systematic human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law in the occupied territory.

Amb. Berris Ekinci, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkiye said that the Kashmir dispute remains one of the oldest unresolved conflicts on the agenda of the United Nations. Despite the passage of decades, it continues to demand the urgent attention of the international community. She added that it is incumbent upon the international community to play its due role in facilitating a peaceful, equitable. and lasting resolution to the Kashmir dispute – one that reflects the aspirations of the Kashmiri people and contributes to the broader goal of regional stability.

Ambassador Ekinci made the stand of Turkish government clear by stating that the solidarity of Turkey with Kashmiri brothers and sisters will continue with a view to ending their suffering though a peaceful, comprehensive and lasting solution to the problem.

Ambassador Elnur Mammadov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan spoke persuasively on the deep brotherhood with Pakistan and the people of Kashmir committing to raise awareness of the atrocities whenever the opportunity arose. He emphasized the unique relationships between the two countries – Pakistan and Azerbaijan – that he described as a ‘unbreakable’ and insisted that India honour both bilateral commitments and UN resolutions to resolve the issue.

Saudi delegate said that OIC needs to explore ways and comprehensive strategy to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Kashmir conflict needs to be resolved through peaceful dialogue and the people of Jammu and Kashmir need to be given their legitimate right to decide their future.

Dr. Farhan Mujahid Chak, the Secretary-General of Kashmir Civitas and a Professor of Political Science currently a Sessional at MacEwan University was invited to present his research and findings, which he has comprehensively documented in his book, “Nuclear Flashpoint: The War Over Kashmir.” This research-based publication has received wide book-reviews from leading academics on Kashmir. He explained that fascist Hindutva government has allied with genocidal Zionism against the rights of Muslims and other minorities in India. He drew the attention to six urgent ways in which the current fascist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in India poses a geopolitical and security threat to Muslim countries and the international order. This threat is not simply regional; it is systemic and global: Alliance of Hindutva and Zionism; Fifth Column; Operations in Muslim State; Neo-Imperial Exploitation in Africa; Nuclear Brinkmanship; Proliferation of Hazardous Materials; Global Islamophobia.

Dr. Chak warned that these actions constitute grave breaches of International Humanitarian Law, including the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. They must be assessed beyond the limited prism of Pakistan-India bilateral tensions. India’s rapacious drive for superpower status—combined with its imperial ambitions—has weaponized its geographic and cultural proximity to the Muslim world and global South. This poses an imminent and multifaceted challenge that we must collectively confront. We must take initiative in collaborating with all those states and civil society organizations in the Global South and North who oppose hegemony and inequality.

Dr. Chak maintained that the people of Kashmir urgently require the principled support of OIC. But equally, the broader Muslim world must recognize that India’s current trajectory poses a systemic threat to international peace, security, and prosperity. It is imperative that we respond decisively and collectively to these challenges as we navigate an evolving world order.

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General of World Kashmir Awareness Forum, speaking during OIC Contact Group on Jammu & Kashmir said, “The struggle of the Kashmiri people is not just about land. It is about dignity, survival, and the right to decide their own future. As the world awakens to the reality of Palestine, let us remind ourselves that justice for Kashmir is equally overdue. The people of Kashmir cannot be asked to wait another generation.

Dr. Fai added that even Kashmir’s economy is being strangled. The fruit industry, which is the backbone of Kashmir’s livelihood, is under deliberate attack. Apples and walnuts, harvested with the hard work of farmers, are blocked on highways, left to rot before they reach markets. Families lose their income, and entire communities sink deeper into despair. This is not mere neglect; it is an intentional economic blockade; part of a broader settler-colonial project designed to weaken and disempower the Kashmiri people.

Dr. Fai proposed to the OIC to play a stronger role in several ways. First, it must keep Kashmir firmly on the agenda of the United Nations and international organizations. Second, it should encourage mediatory efforts that include Kashmiri representatives, so their voices are not silenced. Third, it must provide ‘safe havens’ for the Kashmiri Diaspora, especially those fleeing oppression in Occupied Kashmir. Fourth, it must provide scholarships for meritorious students. Fifth, it must convince the United Nations to persuade Government of India to rescind all draconian laws including Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) but in particular the Domicile Law which is designed to change the demography of Kashmir and change the majority Muslim character into a minority community. Sixth, it must persuade the Government of India to release all political prisoners unconditionally, including Mohammad Yasin Malik, Shabir Ahmed Shah, Masarat Aalam Bhat, Aasia Andrabi, and others to create a condition for a sustained and meaningful dialogue between India, Pakistan and genuine Kashmir leadership.

Dr. Fai concluded by saying that the OIC has the moral duty and the political weight to stand by the people of Jammu & Kashmir with concrete action. Only then will our commitment to justice be complete.

 

#GeneralAssembly #India #IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #OIC #UN #UNGA #UnitedNations

When The UN Fails: Kashmir And The Crisis Of Global Mediation

When The UN Fails: Kashmir And The Crisis Of Global Mediation

By Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai

“80 years. Longer than the average human lifespan. Normally this would be a moment to celebrate but are we really in a mood for celebration. Instead of celebrating, one might rather ask: where is the United Nations, which was created to save us from hell? Where is the United Nations as conflicts spread, as our planet burns, as human rights are trampled? Our answer must be clear: We are not giving up. We are here. We see you…The world needs the United Nations. In no way would we be better off without it…Yes, our world is in pain. Indeed. But imagine how much more pain there would be without the United Nations.”

These are the opening remarks of Ms. Annalena Baerbock after assuming the presidency of 80th session of the UN General Assembly on September 9, 2025. Ms. Annalena Baerbock is an internationally known diplomat who served as Germany’s Minster of Foreign Affairs between 2021 to 2025.

António Guterres, the Secretary General of the UN echoed the same sentiments on September 12, 2025 when he said,

“Eighty years ago, the United Nations emerged from the ashes of war to pursue the cause of peace. That mission is the beating heart of our Organization. But today, peace is under siege. Conflicts are multiplying. Civilians are suffering. Human rights and international law are being trampled — leaving scenes that disgrace our common humanity…Even in a fractured world, we can come together to let peace ring. Let’s answer that call.”

I concur with both the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary General of the United Nations that, despite achieving certain successes, the United Nations has failed humanity. And because of the shortage of time, I will share only a few striking examples.

If we were to judge the UN based upon its history of involvement in efforts to resolve international conflicts, the simplest answer is that it has been an enormous failure. Specifically, if we consider the fact that its fundamental mission in being created was to be a means of preventing global catastrophes like the Second World War, then conflict resolution would have to be considered Job One.

Counted among the greatest failures of the UN is Srebrenica, a town in eastern Bosnia only ten miles from the border of Serbia, which came under attack by the Serbs in July 1995 during the Bosnian war. Although U.S. and British officials knew several weeks in advance that the Serbs intended not only to attack the village but also intended to separate all the men and boys from women and children and kill them, they did nothing to protect them. UN forces were not reinforced. No plan to evacuate them was made. The official policy was to allow the Serbs to take the town because it had been surrounded by Serb forces and was considered indefensible, despite being guaranteed as a “safe zone” by the UN. More than 8,000 men and boys were slaughtered in a matter of days.

In 1994, a far worse genocide occurred in Rwanda when close to a million Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutus. The UN knew that this was going to occur in advance and yet allowed massive genocide to occur and did not block it. As an article in the Telegraph points out,

“A 1999 inquiry found that the UN ignored evidence that the genocide was planned and refused to act once it had started. More than 2,500 UN peacekeepers were withdrawn after the murder of ten Belgian soldiers. In one case, the peacekeeping forces deserted a school where Tutsis were taking shelter – hundreds of people inside were immediately massacred.”

The most glaring example of the failure of the United Nations is Gaza, where innocent lives continue to be lost every single day. Despite countless resolutions and impassioned debates, the international community has been unable—or unwilling—to take meaningful action to stop the bloodshed. The shocking ineffectiveness of the organization not only defies explanation but also undermines the very principles on which it was founded. Gaza stands today as a tragic reminder that when the UN fails to uphold justice and protect the vulnerable, its credibility and relevance are called into question.

In context, Kashmir cannot be brushed aside, perhaps for no other reason than the conflict there has gone on for 78 years and seems destined to continue as long as the Indian armed forces continue to occupy the region. Dr. Gregory Stanton, Chairman, Genocide Watch warned in January 2022 that there are early signs and processes of genocide in Kashmir. Of course, the Indian government continues to ignore such calls, because it believes that such ruthless tactics are the only way to deal with opposition to its policies. Such policies are almost a guarantee that yet another great tragedy in the UN’s history will occur.

It is undeniable that in matters of international conflict resolution, that can only imply the involvement of a third-party mediator. Most importantly, without a third party’s impartial diligence in pursuing a settlement, breakdowns in lines of communication or other disputes that may arise will inevitably create barriers to resolution, and the process will fail. The side in the dispute which offers initiatives will always be seen as weak when both are out rattling their sabres; hence no progress can be made.

We believe that Ms. Annalena Baerbock as the President of General Assembly can persuade India and Pakistan to go back on their position in respect to the UN. Alternatively, she can suggest to both neighbouring countries to simply agree that some other neutral party which perhaps professionally engages in conflict resolution might work between the two countries, creating an unbroken line of communication between them so that differences can in fact be resolved. That is what President Donald Trump has suggested multiple times that he was willing to mediate between India and Pakistan to help resolve the Kashmir conflict.

It would be the task of such an independent agency or a personality of an international stature to review solutions to the dispute which have garnered some attention and agreement in the past and to propose steps that would bring Pakistan and India together on points of alignment, with the full inclusion of the Kashmiris themselves. Since the future of Kashmir is at stake, it is vitally important that its own interests, however varied among Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and others, be a party to any discussions that are to take place.

It is clear that resolving this dispute requires a careful evaluation of its many points of contention and addressing them one by one in a carefully drawn-out process in which coming to an agreement on each sets the stage for moving on to the next. The most basic set of principles must be established and adhered to regarding human rights, the interests of the Kashmiris themselves, and the preservation of vital interests that both India and Pakistan have at stake, and then to proceed with steps toward objectives that result in a win-win solution for all.

We truly believe in the sincerity of the fascinating and inspiring words of Ms. Annalena Baerbock when she said at the UN General Assembly:

“I will be impartial, a bridge builder, guided by only one thing – our United Nations Charter. It will be my North Star.”

However, when economically powerful countries such as India object to such impartial positions, they often lobby and exert pressure to ensure that others refrain from adhering fully to the principles of the UN Charter.

An example of this can be seen in the statement of Ms. Baerbock she made on October 9, 2022: “Germany also has a role and responsibility with regard to the situation in Kashmir. Therefore, we support intensively the engagement of the United Nations, to find peaceful resolutions in the region.” Yet, shortly thereafter, under evident pressure from India, the German Foreign Office issued a clarification:

“There has been no change in our position. Together with the European Union, Germany believes that it is for India and Pakistan to find a peaceful solution to the conflict through direct dialogue. At the same time, Germany supports efforts of the UN to monitor the situation on the ground.”

This sequence demonstrates the unfortunate influence of political and economic pressures, which risks undermining the very impartiality and principled leadership that Ms. Baerbock pledged to uphold under the UN Charter.

While bilateral talks in theory are the path to resolution, in practice they have repeatedly failed without international facilitation or at least quiet support. Germany’s suggestion is diplomatically cautious, but realistically, bilateralism alone is unlikely to produce a final resolution unless both sides shift positions significantly. I believe that leaving Kashmir to be resolved bilaterally between India and Pakistan risks giving India de facto veto power, thereby obstructing a fair resolution.

India and Pakistan have had more than 150 official rounds of talks in the last seven and half decades to discuss Kashmir conflict between them. The by-product of every round of talk was an agreement to meet again to talk. In consequence, the peace process between India and Pakistan has always remained an illusion. We believe that the missing element is sustained and coordinated diplomatic pressure by peace-loving democratic powers, including the United States and Germany. If the world powers do not deem it prudent to get directly involved, there is no reason why the Security Council of the United Nations or, with the Council’s support, the Secretary General should not be urged to play a real facilitating role.

We trust that the personal involvement of Ms. Annalena Baerbock in this matter will bring its influence to bear on both India and Pakistan to initiate a peaceful negotiation with which the United Nations as well as the genuine leadership of the people of Jammu & Kashmir will be associated so as to ensure that settlement arrived at will be based on the principles of justice.

 

#India #IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #Pakistan #UN #UnitedNations

Water Wars: How India-Pakistan River Politics Threaten Regional Stability

Water Wars: How India-Pakistan River Politics Threaten Regional Stability

By Uriel Araujo

Tensions between India and Pakistan are rising amid accusations of water weaponization after floods displaced 1.8 million people. Control of the Indus River has long been a geopolitical fault line, now aggravated by climate change, erratic monsoons, and Trump-era trade shocks. The stakes are global, with SCO and BRICS offering alternatives to fragile US diplomacy.

The Indian subcontinent is once again at the brink of confrontation. Pakistan has accused India of deliberately weaponizing water flows to aggravate the catastrophic floods that have displaced nearly 1.8 million people across Punjab and Sindh. In fact, both countries have been severely hit by climate-related calamities, and India itself has also suffered from the same torrential rains. Yet the accusation is politically loaded: control over the Indus River system has always been a matter of sovereignty, survival, and confrontation between Delhi and Islamabad.

Historically speaking, the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, often hailed as a rare case of successful conflict management, has survived wars and crises. But it has also been a tool of leverage. Whenever tensions in Kashmir flare, India has not hesitated to threaten suspension of the agreement, thereby endangering Pakistan’s already fragile water security. The issue of water has thus always been as decisive as military deployments in shaping the contours of South Asia’s geopolitical disputes.

As I’ve commented before, the deepening of US-India ties must also be seen in light of these tensions. The Kashmir attack — described by CNN as the deadliest civilian assault in over two decades — prompted India to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, close the Wagah border crossing, and expel Pakistani diplomats. Pakistan responded by shutting down its airspace to Indian aircraft and suspending trade. Hydropolitics is in fact woven into every layer of the India-Pakistan conflict, from border skirmishes to economic disruption.

Thus far, the accusations of water weaponization remain difficult to prove, but they resonate in a region where every drop of water has existential implications. Whether or not India deliberately opened dams to flood Pakistani territory (it does not seem to be the case), the perception alone is combustible enough to escalate tensions. So, no wonder voices in Islamabad are framing the episode as part of a pattern of coercion.

The hydropolitical dispute cannot be separated from broader economic and geopolitical tremors. According to Huma Rehman (a Visiting Research Fellow at the James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies), US President Donald Trump’s tariffs on India have created economic shockwaves that have impacted Indian exports and domestic politics, thereby weakening India’s already strained trade ties with Pakistan.

Trump by the way has often presented himself as a “deal-maker” capable of peace-making, but in the Indo-Pakistani case, his interventions are thin, to say the least. Meanwhile, the Indo-Pakistani rivalry continues to shape global geopolitics. As I’ve previously argued, this is not merely a local quarrel: it ripples across Eurasia, influencing energy corridors, Chinese investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and the strategic calculus of both NATO and BRICS nations.

What remains underreported is the degree to which climate change (whether human-driven or otherwise) magnifies old disputes. The Himalayan glaciers are melting faster than expected, monsoon cycles are becoming erratic, and both India and Pakistan are struggling to adapt. This ecological upheaval is colliding with outdated political frameworks. The Indus Waters Treaty was designed in an era when such climate change was not part of the equation. Today, hydropolitics is no longer a mere bargaining chip; it is a question of national survival.

In a striking parallel, in a different geopolitical theatre, the melting of Arctic ice, for instance, is opening corridors for navigation that were once deemed impossible — with significant geopolitical ripple effects.

Back to the Indian-Pakistani case, by ignoring these realities, policymakers in both capitals remain entrenched in zero-sum thinking. Instead of seeking cooperative water management, both sides resort to nationalist rhetoric. The result is a feedback loop where every natural disaster becomes politicized, thereby eroding trust and paving the way for miscalculation.

In any case, water is increasingly becoming the resource over which future wars may be fought. The Indo-Pakistani conflict illustrates this broader global trend: in regions from the Nile Basin to Central Asia, the control of rivers is shaping geopolitics as decisively as oil pipelines once did. Thus, hydropolitics may well define the twenty-first century’s conflicts.

South Asia is a particularly dangerous case because of the nuclear dimension. Whenever Pakistan accuses India of weaponizing water, it is not merely an environmental dispute — it risks spiralling into a military confrontation.

In this dangerous context, institutions such as the SCO and BRICS may offer a credible path forward. Both include India and Pakistan as members, which creates at least the formal possibility of mediation. Thus, while Washington’s interventions have thus far yielded little, a multipolar diplomatic architecture could step in to de-escalate tensions. Should Delhi and Islamabad continue down the path of securitizing every flood and drought, this would risk bringing about the destabilization of Eurasia at large.

To sum it up, hydropolitics is not a peripheral issue but a central driver of Indo-Pakistani hostility. Whether the recent floods were the result of Indian engineering decisions or of nature’s wrath is then almost secondary. Perceptions matter, and in South Asia, perceptions kill.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#BRICS #China #Eurasia #Geopolitics #India #IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #Pakistan #SCO #SouthAsia

When An Expat Kashmiri Met A Pandit In Northern Virginia

When An Expat Kashmiri Met A Pandit In Northern Virginia

By Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai

The strength of Kashmir has always been its diversity.

Washington, D.C. – Sometimes circumstances bring back old gold memories. That is exactly what happened few days back when I was at a grocery store in Northern Virginia and unexpectedly met an old friend from Kashmir, who happened to be from the Pandit community. At first, he was genuinely happy to see me after such a long time. We then went outside to a nearby restaurant, but soon the conversation became a little tense. He asked me why the Muslim community had let them down in the 1990s, and why they do not openly say that the Pandits should return to the Valley. Why should not Yasin Malik face the justice when he was responsible for the exodus of Pandits in 1990s?

He added that, although he personally does not subscribe to it, some Pandits still speak of having a separate homeland in Kashmir. We had lunch and spent more than two hours together, and I tried to address all his concerns so that he would feel more at ease when discussing these issues with his family. I wish to present a summary of our discussion for the benefit of the wider Pandit community.

To begin with, in addressing the Pandit community, we could evoke the memories, the sympathies and the aspirations and much else that is intangible which together constitute Kashmiriyat — now as in the past. However, due to propaganda that has been unleashed by certain elements, even an expression of genuine sentiment is liable to be misunderstood.

I believe that the time has come for the members of the Pandit community mentally to extricate themselves from India’s fatal grip and reattach to Kashmir. In Kashmir, they have same future as their compatriots. For what can India do for you? It is, of course, large enough to accommodate you. But it can only provide you shelter in a refugee camp. It cannot make possible you’re living as a community. Torn away from Kashmir, the Pandit community will become a mass of dispersed individuals and families, forced to speak alien tongues, driven to cope with an inhospitable climate, made to walk on unfamiliar soil. I tell you most sincerely that we are dismayed by that prospect.

You have left the Valley in large numbers, living rootless lives in an unfeeling environment. You are not only uprooted; you are also told lies. You are being kept in Delhi and Jammu in conditions of insult and injury merely to be used as concocted evidence against the resistance in Kashmir. The privileged members of your community can fend for themselves even in a calamity, but our concern is for those who are not so resourceful. They must be rehabilitated in safety and with honour in their homes in Kashmir. Even that process of rehabilitation will depend for its success on the goodwill which your Muslim compatriots have for you, and which draw an affectionate welcome from them. The smiling embrace of your neighbours must mark your return to your homes.

Late Syed Ali Geelani, former Chairman, All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), consistently said that Pandits are an integral part of Kashmiri society and that Kashmir would be incomplete without them. Geelani said on January 20, 2017, as reported by Deccan Chronicle that, “We will welcome return of Pandits to the Valley. They are a part of our society, and we have always asked them to return, and we will welcome if they are willing to settle within us and in our society.”

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, former. Chairman, APHC said while meeting with the leadership of the Jammu & Kashmir Peace Forum in New Delhi in January 2025 that “I would once again ask Pandit brethren to return to their motherland which awaits them, and live here as they did in the past, in our common and shared heritage. It’s time to reconcile and rebuild the broken bonds. We owe it to our next generation.”

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani, Chairman, Jammu Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) and a renowned Jurist has consistently advocated for the return of Kashmiri Pandits to their homeland. He has emphasized that their displacement is a significant loss and has condemned it in various reports, including the 1996 JKCHR report which was submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations where he stood for their right to return to their homes in safety and dignity.

A group, we are told has emerged among you with the slogan of ‘Separate Homeland. We are appalled at the group’s blindness to reality and at the self-induct desperation that drives it to demand for itself a separate homeland. Why prefer a ghetto to a home – the home of all Kashmiris, the home that has been devastated by Indian occupation, yet devastated homes are repairable?

I totally agree with Mr. Sanjay Tickoo, Chairman of Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti, who said that “the separate zones will set a dangerous precedent.” He added, “Wherever there is minority (community) it should live with the majority.”

Mr. Tickoo truly represents the sentiments of all Kashmiris when he emphasized that “Separate settlements will go against the basic ethos of Kashmir and Sufi tradition.” You will fall into a trap devised by those who do not – and cannot – wish your community well.

It is alleged that you trusted your Muslim compatriots who let you down. The fact is that you did not trust them. In reality, the Muslim community did not let Pandit community down. You have so isolated yourselves from Kashmir that not once, have you raised a voice against the barbarities being committed by Indian army on civilian population there. The brutal forces of Indian occupation wanted you out of Kashmir in order to misrepresent – indeed, to disfigure – the resistance as an anti-Hindu campaign and also to clear the field for acts of mass slaughter and rape arson. We doubt that you can be happy with the results. This was a fatal blunder. That is the sad part of the story. The happy part is that the blunder is reversible.

We all know that the Pandits languishing in the refugee camps in Jammu, Delhi and elsewhere were victims of the tragedy of Kashmir for which the Government of India must take responsibility. Only Governor Jagmohan made this Pandit community flee and desert Kashmir at its hour of trial. They were made to abandon their own people. It is a pity that India is using these helpless victims of India policy as pawns in a cynical propaganda game. Kashmiri Pandits want to return to their homes. Muslim families, despite their own plight, are ready to welcome them back. But I am afraid that Indian authorities will try to score points in the debates. To them human rights are of secondary importance.

Some Kashmiri Hindus (Pandits) have realized that their fleeing from Kashmir was misguided and ill advised. Dina Nath Raina (Kashmiri Pandit) described the exodus in his book Kashmir: Distortions and Reality. There is evidence that the transport was provided in a planned manner to Pandit families in particular localities and the police department was fully involved in organizing the exodus.

Dr. Farooq Abdullah, former Federal Minister of India & Chief Minister of former Jammu and Kashmir said on March 22, 2022, that late Jagmohan Malhotra, Governor of Jammu & Kashmir in 1990, had put Kashmiri Pandits in buses and told them they would be brought back in two months. However, that did not happen, he said.

Now, the question is why shouldn’t Yasin Malik face justice? The answer to this question was given by one of the eminent journalists of India and a seasoned diplomat, Ambassador Kuldip Nayyar, who wrote in Redfiff.com on August 7, 1999, “The first militant, Yasin Malik, who raised his gun at a public meeting in the heart of Srinagar, has turned nonviolent and vegetarian. Now he is a follower of Mahatma Gandhi.”

Let me mention a report published in local newspaper in April 2015. It says that a group of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley joined JKLF chairman Mohammad Yasin Malik in the protest at Maisuma early this week. Reportedly, “The procession marched towards Lal Chowk chanting slogan Sang Sang Jiyain Gay, Sang Sang Marain Gay (we will live together and die together).

We all know that because of his non-violent ideology, Yasin Malik was invited by Dr. Manmohan Singh on February 17, 2006, for strengthening a dialogue between the Governments of India & Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.

Considering these factors, we are of the view that releasing Yasin Malik could serve as a constructive step toward fostering dialogue and reconciliation among India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri leadership, thereby strengthening the broader peace process.

In conclusion, let us agree that both Muslims and Pandits of Kashmir have endured tremendous pain over the last three and half decades. While the Pandits faced displacement and exile, the Muslim community has suffered daily under conflict, with countless families torn apart. Recognizing each other’s suffering is the first step toward healing.

It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Kashmiri Muslims want the Pandits to return to the Valley. Their presence is part of our shared history, culture, and identity. The call for their return is not just a matter of politics but of conscience — Kashmir feels incomplete without them. It is also true that while some Pandits have spoken of a separate homeland, this idea only creates division. True security and dignity for Pandits will not come from isolation, but from living side by side with their Muslim neighbours, as was the case for centuries. The strength of Kashmir has always been its diversity.

Lastly, our children deserve a Kashmir where Pandits and Muslims live together with dignity, peace, and mutual respect — just as our ancestors once did. That is the future we must work toward.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#Hindus #India #IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #Muslims #USA

Kashmir Through The Lens: Film, Dialogue, And Diaspora Resolve

Kashmir Through The Lens: Film, Dialogue, And Diaspora Resolve

By Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai

Chicago, Illinois – It is a well-documented fact that people attend conferences for variety of reasons: to gain knowledge, to meet individuals they might not otherwise have the opportunity to meet, to cross paths with friends with whom they can spend quality time. That is exactly what happened at the 62nd Convention of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which took place at Labour Day Weekend in the city of Chicago. The Convention proved to be a place not only for learning but also for meaningful connections.

The Convention featured more than one hundred lectures and was attended by thousands of people who came from across the United States and Canada. A session on the subject of Kashmir was amongst them. The featured speaker was the acclaimed scholar Dr Khalid Beydoun, an expert on South Asian affairs and renowned for his work on constitutional law, civil rights and Islamophobia. Dr Beydoun is also Scholar-in-Residence at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Centre. The session was moderated by our own Majeeb Qazi, President of North Texas Islamic Council. Mujeeb Qazi moderated the discussion skilfully but also made his own substantive contributions as a moderator.

The ISNA Convention also had two screenings of Saffron Kingdom which is a cinematic testament to exile, memory, resistance and resilience – a Kashmiri story that refuses to forget and refuses to surrender.

The film is directed, written, and produced by Arfat Sheikh under Daffodil Studios, the Executive Producer is a well-known leader of ISNA and President, World Kashmir Awareness forum, Dr Ghulam N. Mir, Gastroenterologist by profession. Saffron Kingdom has already garnered attention by winning Best Feature at the LA Film & Documentary Awards and competing at the 2025 Chicago Filmmakers Awards. Both screening of Saffron Kingdom at ISNA Convention was attended by people of diverse background and the attendance was full to the capacity.

Besides attending the Convention, I had two amazing meetings, one of them at the residence of Javaid Rathore, nationally known human rights activist and prominent leader of Kashmiri diaspora community. Mujeeb Qazi also joined us at Javaid’s residence. We engaged in a deep conversation about what needs to be done to advance the Kashmiri cause as members of the diaspora. With his extensive experience in engaging government officials, Javaid offered valuable insights that can guide our future efforts.

I had two amazing meetings recently. One was at Javed’s residence, where we had a deep and heartfelt conversation about how the diaspora can better contribute to the Kashmiri cause.

The other meeting was with Yasin Chohan, a well-known community leader, businessman and dedicated human rights activist. The meeting took place at Serena restaurant, Chicago, where he had invited prominent community leaders for an in-depth discussion on the current crisis in South Asia. The exchange of perspectives was thoughtful and engaging, offering new ideas on how we, as a diaspora community, can respond to the challenges ahead.

Among others who were present included: Raja Razak, former President of Business Association, Dr. Inaam, a notable member of Islamic Medical Association of North America (IMANA), Syed Azhar Abbas who deals with real estate and mortgage business,  Muhammad Umar, businessman, Arshad Zubairi, owner of restaurant business and influential book writer, Riaz Chohan, businessman and Jake, a young American youth leader from Geneva, Illinois, deeply engaged in areas of civil liberties and human rights.

The exchange of perspectives in both gatherings was inspiring and thought-provoking, helping to shape ideas for our collective path forward.

In both meetings, I found a deep sense of urgency in Javaid Rathore, Yasin Chohan and Mujeeb Qazi. They repeatedly raised the question of what the diaspora can do to support our brethren in Kashmir. All three expressed their commitment to making every effort to attend the peaceful protest rally in New York on September 26, when Indian Prime Minster Modi will be addressing the UN General Assembly on the morning of September 26, 2025.

 

#IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #movie #SaffronKingdom #USA

Yasin Malik: Defiant And Unbroken In The Fight For Kashmir’s Freedom

Yasin Malik: Defiant And Unbroken In The Fight For Kashmir’s Freedom

By Our Special Correspondent

Washington, D.C. – Mowahid Hussain Shah, speaking at the site of the Mahatma Gandhi statue in front of the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, August 24, lauded the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi in struggling against racial injustice and oppression in South Africa for 21 years. Mowahid stated that he had visited Birla House in Delhi, where Gandhi was assassinated on 30 January 1948, by Nathuram Godse who, at that time, was a member of the RSS which, by common scholarly consensus, is a hate group that incites violence against Muslims and minorities.

The irony of fate, Mowahid noted, is that the ideology which murdered Mahatma Gandhi is ruling and dominating India today, in that Narendra Modi was and is a member of RSS. He said that not for nothing was Modi banned from entering America for 10 years because the U.S. State Department had actual evidence of his direct complicity in the Gujarat anti-Muslim pogroms and massacres when Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat.

Mowahid made it a point to welcome Rhonda Hamilton, D.C. mayoral candidate, as well as her campaign manager, Beatrice Evans. Mowahid cited the legacy of Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali. He connected Ali’s never-quit attitude with the indomitability of Yasin Malik, with whom, Mowahid emphasized, he was honoured to share a panel on Capitol Hill on July 20, 2006.

Mowahid also said that it is important to connect with the power of civil society, which was at its most effective during the anti-apartheid movement that led to the release of Nelson Mandela and the dismantling of apartheid. He also alluded to Bhagat Singh, who was hanged by the British on March 23, 1931, for resisting British colonial hegemony.

Mowahid said it was important to connect with important segments of Indian civil society who are ashamed and deeply apprehensive of what Modi is doing to India. He reiterated the “power of 1”, reminding how a young girl, Darnella Frazier, recorded the murder of George Floyd, providing evidence that led to the conviction of several police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Yasin Malik, he stated, stands tall and unafraid and, most importantly, he remains undefeated, in the cause of Kashmir. Mowahid recalled the example of his dervish father, Col. Amjad Hussain Sayed, who, on his deathbed, gave the parting advice to always speak Kalma-e-Haq. Mowahid said that all well-wishers of humanity and proponents of fairness in Kashmir, and advocating for the release of Yasin Malik, should not be bashful in speaking out loud and clear.

Mowahid’s remarks were particularly appreciated by Rhonda Hamilton and her entourage, who said they found it particularly inspirational. Mowahid also quoted the struggles raised by Malcolm X, who was not afraid to speak truth to power.

Mowahid Hussain Shah, attorney-at-law, author, and Member of the District of Columbia and U.S. Supreme Court Bars, served as Of Counsel to the late U.S. Senator James Abourezk. His book “Will & Skill” was launched in Washington, D.C.

#India #IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #USA #YasinMalik

When Struggle For Freedom Becomes Treason: The Trial Of Kashmir’s Yasin Malik

When Struggle For Freedom Becomes Treason: The Trial Of Kashmir’s Yasin Malik

By Dr Imtiaz Khan

Yasin Malik (born 3 April 1966 in Srinagar, Kashmir) is a prominent leader for the movement of Kashmiri independence and the chairman of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. Raised in the Maisuma neighbourhood of Srinagar, Malik’s political activism began early, when he founded the Tala Party and later the Islamic Students League.

In the late 1980s, frustrated by blatant rigging of election in the 1987, he along with his colleagues launched a movement that demanded implementation of UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir, to which both India and Pakistan are signatory. The mass agitation received mammoth support from the people of Kashmir and international attention unnerved government of India. Yasin Malik was jailed and tortured and consequently, he developed heart ailment and lost his ability to hear from one of his ears. He has been checked for these conditions by several physicians in the United States, but the damage is so severe that the defect is beyond total cure.

It is important to mention Amy Waldman who wrote in the New York Times on August 24, 2002, that “Rigged elections in Kashmir in 1989 helped trigger the armed uprising that India estimates has taken more than 35,000 lives.”

Yasin Malik is not run of the mill politician, but a revolutionary leader who has flame of freedom burning in his heart. In media interviews he succinctly states that his involvement in “armed struggle” was outcome of the actions by Indian state. The voices of freedom were throttled and space for non-violent protests was diminished. Under mounting pressure from the people of Kashmir and the attention it received from international community, in 1994, a delegation headed by Ambassador Kuldip Nayyar was dispatched by Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao to contact Mr. Malik in the Jail. It was unequivocally affirmed that all cases against him will be dropped if he eschews violent measures.

The statement by eminent journalist Ambassador Kuldip Nayyar in Redfiff.com on August 7, 1999, bears testimony to his fulfilment of the promise. In Mr. Nayar’s words:

“The first militant, Yasin Malik, who raised his gun at a public meeting in the heart of Srinagar, has turned nonviolent and vegetarian. Now he is a follower of Mahatma Gandhi.”

A prominent journalist Bharat Bhushan, wrote in a prestigious daily ‘The Telegraph’ on February 4, 2007:

“The president of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), one of the first to wield the gun in Kashmir, is today training youngsters in non-violent politics. He uses a curious mixture of religion — Sufism — and non-violence to build a constituency for peace in Jammu and Kashmir.”

Indian government cannot ignore the fact that their former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, interacted with Yasin Malik on February 17, 2006, at 6.00 p.m. (India time) and meeting lasted for more than an hour.  Dr. Singh sought help from Yasin Malik and suggested him to take an initiative to bring separatist and militant voices into a dialogue process that can lead India–Pakistan peace parleys. It was conveyed to Yasin Malik by Prime Minister Singh that he had no qualms in visiting Pakistan to advance the peace talks. Subsequently, before visiting Pakistan, Yasin Malik flew to Washington and discussed the peace initiative with then the Assistant Secretary of State, Richrd A. Boucher. He also had a meeting with Elizabeth Millard in National Security Council.

Yasin Malik was invited by Dr. Micheal Krepon, President of Henry L. Stimpson Center, Washington; Dr. Stephen Phillip Cohen, senior fellow in foreign policy studies at Brookings Institutions, Dr. T. Kumar, the Director for International Advocacy at Amnesty International, Washington, DC, to speak on the peace initiative between India and Pakistan and his role in strengthening the dialogue process. Yasin Malik also spoke at New York based, Asia Society and Harvard University Asia Center. It would be illogical, irrational and insane to expect that Prime Minister of India or the representatives of state department or representative of American think-tanks would meet with a person who has committed murderous acts.

In April 2025, while still incarcerated, Malik told India’s Supreme Court that he is a “political leader, not a terrorist,” and highlighted that multiple Indian prime ministers who had previously engaged Yasin Malik in dialogue. He also defended his choice to represent himself in court and clarified that his organization was never officially listed as a terrorist group under UAPA post-1994 ceasefire. On August 8. 2025, Malik appeared virtually before Delhi High Court. He had pleaded for physical presence rather than appearance via virtual mode. His plea was rejected. Presently the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of India is asking for the enhancement of Mr. Malik’s life imprisonment into death penalty. The next hearing will be on November 19, 2025.

One wonders what his crime is. Earlier trial court had said that crimes committed by Malik struck at the ‘heart of the idea of India’ and were intended to forcefully secede Jammu and Kashmir from the union of India. One wonders how Kashmir can secede from India when according to all international agreements including the UN resolutions, Kashmir has never acceded to India in the first place. Associated Press reported that Yasin Malik said during the trial, “Terrorism-related charges levelled against me are concocted, fabricated and politically motivated” and that “If seeking Azadi (Freedom) is a crime, then I am ready to accept this crime and its consequences.”

Sampat Prakash—a prominent Kashmiri Pandit, trade union leader, and activist—described Yasin Malik, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) chairman, as a courageous leader who “lives in the hearts of the Kashmiri people.” He highlighted Malik’s transition from armed resistance to leading a peaceful struggle for Kashmir’s freedom and expressed pride in his friend for having spent much of his life in jail for the Kashmir cause. Sampat Prakash urged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to demonstrate sincerity toward resolving the Kashmir conflict by visiting Srinagar’s Martyrs’ Graveyard, bowing before the graves of innocent victims, and seeking forgiveness from the Kashmiri people. Despite ideological differences, Sampat Prakash publicly acknowledged Yasin Malik’s influence and commitment to the cause of Kashmir.

The plan and intentions of the current fascist regime are more sinister when it comes to the case of Yasin Malik. Narinder Modi is using Yasin Malik as a pawn for his domestic agenda. The fascist government is encountered with severe backlash due to recent defeat from Pakistan and failed foreign policy. Increase tariffs imposed by present US government has led to economic downturn and Modi’s popularity is in tatters. To ameliorate his political standing, Prime Minister Modi is using concocted, cooked up and contrived cases against Yasin Malik. It should be noted that earlier Indian supreme court had rejected curative appeals for seeking death sentence for Yasin Malik. The trial court ruled that the case did not meet the Supreme Court’s “rarest of rare” threshold for capital punishment. Indian agencies are pursuing nefarious activities by conducting fresh raids after more than three and half decades to manufacture evidence to achieve their iniquitous goals.

The International community must take cognizance of that historical behaviour of India in cases like late Afzal Guru where it was stated by Chief justice of supreme court that notwithstanding the lack of overwhelming evidence, the death sentence needs to be carried to fulfil the collective conscience of the majority. Thereafter, the chief justice was rewarded with seat in the Indian parliament on his superannuation.

By eliminating peace-loving leaders like Yasin Malik, the Indian regime is closing any avenues of peace in the region and pushing the youth of Kashmir towards actions that can be detrimental to the peaceful resolution of Kashmir conflict. We appeal to the United Nations and other world powers, including President Donald Trump to earnestly impress upon the Indian government to let international standards of justice prevail and free Mohammad Yasin Malik.

Dr Imtiaz Khan is a Kashmiri American Scholar and board member of World Kashmir Awareness Forum.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#India #IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #UN #YasinMalik

Kashmir’s Struggle for Justice And Freedom: ICNA Convention Calls For Global Action On Human Rights Violations

Kashmir’s Struggle for Justice And Freedom: ICNA Convention Calls For Global Action On Human Rights Violations

By Our Special Correspondent

Baltimore, Maryland – Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Chairman, World Forum for Peace & Justice was speaking during the 50th Annual Convention of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) on the topic of ‘The Struggle of Kashmir: Justice and Freedom of a Forgotten People.’

Dr. Fai said that the international policy making experts and agencies have always warned that the Kashmir dispute is known to have the potential of large-scale international conflict with the possibility of nuclear confrontation. They have cautioned that Kashmir has produced two wars between India and Pakistan and a third cannot be ruled out unless a resolution is sought to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

Dr. Fai emphasized that recent nuclear tension between India and Pakistan is a proof that although paused so that sanity shall prevail, but it has not ended altogether. The timely intervention by President Donald J. Trump persuaded both India and Pakistan to have an immediate ceasefire, otherwise the world would have witnessed the dangerous war games between two nuclear armed countries with devastating consequences and tens of millions of people would have been absorbed and destroyed by war and coming generations would have suffered from the ramifications of nuclear disaster.

“Global initiative, like the one initiated by President Trump in Kashmir will not only end the bloodshed and suffering in Kashmir, but also have a direct positive effect on international security by eliminating regional fighting, and national tensions. It is in everyone’s interest to settle the Kashmir conflict peacefully without further delay,” Fai added.

Fai remarked that there is a threat to fundamental human rights in Kashmir including freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. If you dare to speak out against Indian army in Kashmir, you will be immediately put behind the bars or even eliminated. One prime example is that of Khurram Parvez, Chairperson of Philippines-based ‘Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances” who documented 550 pages report on The Structure of Violence in Kashmir, (TSOV).

Khurram delivered the hard copies of the report to the office of ‘UN High Commissioner on Human Rights’ Office of the ‘UN Secretary General’, many international NGO’s and various dignitaries.

Although Khurram Parvez was recognized as one of the 100 most influential people of the world by US-based Time Magazine in 2022 but he can no longer present this report to anybody anymore because he was arrested by the National Investigative Agency (NIA) of India on November 21, 2021, under terror law, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Mary Lawlor, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defender tweeted: ‘Khurram Parvez is not a terrorist. He is a Human Rights Defender.’

Another example is that of Mohammad Yasin Malik, one of the most recognizable leaders of Kashmiri political resistance movement who was arrested on August 8, 2024. The plan and intentions of the current fascist regime are more sinister when it comes to the case of Yasin Malik. The international community must take cognizance of the historical behaviour of India. By eliminating peace-loving leaders like Yasin Malik, the Indian regime is closing any avenues of peace in the region and pushing the youth of Kashmir towards actions that can be detrimental to the peaceful resolution of Kashmir conflict.

What is the crime of Yasin Malik? He has said it at the hearing at Delhi High Court that “If seeking Azadi (Freedom) is a crime, then I am ready to accept this crime and its consequences.”

“Under a bizarre and illegal ‘Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Order, 2020’, the citizens of India will now be able to get Domicile Certificate and by virtue of this certificate they will be able to settle in Kashmir, own the property there and compete for jobs in the disputed territory of Jammu & Kashmir. Khurram Parvez, has highlighted that “By virtue of this order, outsiders are… going to be the claimants of jobs in Jammu and Kashmir, which already has a huge unemployment problem. This is an act against the interests of unemployed youth.”

“The situation in Kashmir is a living proof that the people of Kashmir will not compromise, far less abandon, their demand for self-determination which is their birth right and for which they have paid a price unparalleled in the history of South Asia,” Dr. Fai concluded.

Sardar Zarif Khan, Advisor to the President of Azad Kashmir, Sardar Shoaib Irshad, General Secretary, Kashmir American Welfare Association (KAWA), Sardar Zeeshan Khan, young human rights activist, and a delegation of Kashmiri Americans from Boston, including, Choudhary Irfan Ul Hassan, Choudhary Ejaz Ul Hassan, Choudhary Imran Ul Hassan, Hamza Irfan Choudhary travelled from long distances to attend the session.

 

#ICNA #India #IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #USA

Why India-Pakistan Conflict Is Not A Bilateral Issue But A Eurasian Flashpoint With Global Implications

Why India-Pakistan Conflict Is Not A Bilateral Issue But A Eurasian Flashpoint With Global Implications

By Uriel Araujo

The India-Pakistan conflict, intensified by alleged Taliban and Israeli involvement, underscores the need for multilateral platforms like SCO and BRICS to foster dialogue. Despite challenges, these forums offer pathways to address the evolving Eurasian crisis.

The India-Pakistan conflict, a perennial fault line in South Asian geopolitics, has by now taken on new dimensions, evolving into a complex Eurasian issue with alleged involvement of actors as diverse as the Taliban and Israel.

The recent escalations, marked by India’s Operation Sindoor in response to the Pahalgam terror attack, and Pakistan’s retaliatory Operation Bunyan Marsoos, underscore the fragility of the region’s security architecture.

While a supposedly US-mediated ceasefire, announced with characteristic bravado by President Donald Trump, has temporarily halted hostilities, its durability remains questionable. One may recall that third-party mediation, particularly on the contentious issue of Jammu and Kashmir, has long been a taboo for India, which insists on bilateral resolutions.

Yet, the involvement of extra-regional players and the shifting allegiances of the Taliban necessitate a broader multilateral approach. Herein lies the potential—albeit fraught with challenges—for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS to serve as platforms for dialogue, or even conflict resolution.

The complexity of the current crisis stems from its entanglement with actors beyond the subcontinent. Reports suggest that the Taliban, historically a Pakistani ally, is increasingly aligning with India, a development that has raised eyebrows in Islamabad.

This shift was evident when India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar engaged with Afghanistan’s acting Foreign Minister, who condemned the Pahalgam attack, marking a rare political-level contact since the Taliban’s 2021 takeover. There are nuances: the Taliban’s Kandahar faction, reportedly fostering ties with the Indian authorities in New Delhi, contrasts with the Haqqani Network’s deep connections to Islamabad, which thus highlights internal divisions that complicate the group’s role.

On top of that, allegations of Israeli support for India, including the provision of drones integral to New Delhi’s military strategy, further internationalize the conflict, drawing parallels with Israel’s own territorial disputes. Thus, the India-Pakistan conflict is no longer a purely bilateral affair by any shot but rather a Eurasian flashpoint with global implications.

Trump’s claim of brokering the ceasefire has stirred controversy, particularly in India, where it is seen as an overreach that undermines national sovereignty. Pakistani officials, conversely, have welcomed external mediation, with their envoy in Beijing explicitly endorsing Trump’s offer to mediate on Kashmir. So much for bilateralism, as Pakistan’s openness to international involvement contrasts sharply with New Delhi’s rejection of third-party roles.

The alleged American intervention, while temporarily effective, lacks the institutional backing to ensure lasting peace, and its unilateral announcement by Trump before official statements from India or Pakistan has fuelled political backlash in New Delhi. This underscores the need for a more structured, multilateral framework to address the conflict’s root causes, particularly the Kashmir dispute. To put it bluntly, the West’s disarray, evident in Trump’s erratic ceasefire claims, underscores its diminishing coherence in navigating global conflicts like India-Pakistan.

This is where the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS could play a pivotal role, despite their limitations. The SCO, comprising India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Central Asian states, offers a unique platform where both adversaries are members. However, its lack of a formal conflict-resolution mechanism and New Delhi’s historical reluctance to internationalize the Kashmir issue pose significant hurdles.

As I noted back in 2021, the SCO’s potential as a mediator in conflicts is hamstrung by its focus on security cooperation rather than political dispute resolution.

Yet, the organization’s emphasis on regional stability and counterterrorism could provide a neutral space for dialogue, especially given the Taliban’s potential role as a complicating factor. India has been arguing for frameworks such as the Quad to get involved in Afghanistan—why not the SCO? As I wrote before, India’s participation in both the West-led Quad and the SCO is the very embodiment of New Delhi’s role as a “balancing power”.

.Be it as it may, The SCO’s 2025 agenda, which includes discussions on Afghanistan’s stabilization, could be leveraged to address cross-border terrorism—a key Indian grievance—while encouraging confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan.

BRICS, meanwhile, presents a complementary avenue. As I argued in 2022, BRICS’ economic focus and its inclusion of India and China—both wary of Western-dominated mediation—make it a potential forum for soft diplomacy. Pakistan’s bid to join BRICS, though currently blocked by New Delhi, underscores Islamabad’s desire to integrate into this bloc, which could incentivize cooperation. BRICS’ evolving role in fostering dialogue among members with divergent interests suggests after all that economic incentives could pave the way for political détente. For instance, joint BRICS initiatives on infrastructure or counterterrorism could indirectly reduce tensions by fostering interdependence, thereby creating stakes for peace.

The main challenge of course remains India’s steadfast opposition to third-party mediation, rooted in its belief that external involvement dilutes its sovereignty over Kashmir. This stance is compounded by the SCO’s and BRICS’ internal dynamics, where China’s support for Pakistan and Russia’s balancing act between New Delhi and Islamabad limit consensus. Moreover, the Taliban’s fragmented structure and alleged proxy roles for both India and Pakistan undermine trust. Yet, these challenges are not insurmountable. The SCO could initiate track-two diplomacy, involving non-governmental actors to build trust, while BRICS could prioritize economic cooperation to create mutual interests. Both platforms, by virtue of their multilateral nature, offer a less intrusive alternative to Western-led mediation, which India understandably distrusts.

The aforementioned involvement of extra-regional actors like the Taliban and Israel calls for a broader approach to the India-Pakistan conflict. One may recall that unilateral or bilateral efforts, such as the 1999 Lahore Declaration, often falter due to mistrust or external spoilers. The SCO and BRICS, again, despite their limitations, do provide platforms where India and Pakistan can engage under the guise of regional cooperation, sidestepping the sensitivities of direct mediation. For instance, SCO-led counterterrorism exercises could address India’s concerns about Pakistan-based militias, while BRICS’ economic forums could incentivize Islamabad to curb such activities in exchange for trade benefits. These steps, while incremental, could build the trust necessary for substantive dialogue.

In conclusion, the India-Pakistan conflict’s evolution into a fully Eurasian issue, with alleged Taliban and Israeli involvement, underscores the need for innovative approaches to peace. Trump’s ceasefire, while a temporary reprieve, highlights the pitfalls of ad hoc mediation. The SCO and BRICS, though not designed for conflict resolution, offer unique opportunities for dialogue due to their regional focus and inclusion of key stakeholders. By leveraging their platforms for confidence-building and economic cooperation, these organizations could pave the way for a more stable South Asia, provided India can be persuaded to embrace multilateralism. In a way, it should serve as a proving ground for multilateralism and alternative mechanisms in the emerging polycentric world.

Uriel Araujo is a Ph.D. scholar and anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#BRICS #Eurasia #Geopolitics #India #IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #Pakistan #SCO

Is Kashmir An Industry?

Is Kashmir An Industry?

By Dr Maqsood Jafri

Khawaja Faroque Ahmed, the former Minister of Azad Kashmir has posted the video of some Indian, who is saying:

“So many people around are very wise. Why don’t they resolve Kashmir issue? Kashmir is not the name of a territory; it is a big industry and people are getting advantage to keep Kashmir issue alive and do not want to solve this dispute.”

This statement of an Indian vicariously depicts his mindset that both, India and Pakistan are interested to linger on the matter and do not want to solve this dispute for some gains. Simply, I would like to say that this statement is quite contrary from Pakistan’s perspective. What is the benefit of Pakistan to keep this dispute alive or unresolved?

Pakistan wants that the Kashmiris should be granted the right to Self-determination and free and transparent plebiscite be held according to UN resolutions. India is a hurdle in this way for her malicious designs. India has constantly hindered the process of peaceful negotiations. India knows that the Kashmiris want to join Pakistan, hence she avoids plebiscite and averts from the right track. India is an aggressor.

The book of Khan Zaman Mirza titled “Who is Aggressor in Kashmir”, is a worth reading book on this issue. He was Director General of Kashmir Study Centre, Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir. He had kindly presented this book to me and I have quoted some paragraphs from this book in my two books on Kashmir.

India is the violator of UN Resolutions. The Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi got the articles 370 and 35/A abrogated from Indian constitution which grant special status to Kashmir. This annulment is a shear violation of Indian Constitution and UN Resolutions as well.

The visionless fascist PM of India attacked Pakistan on May 7, 2025, while violating International Law. The brave Pakistan Air Force reacted and taught India a lesson which even its lineage will remember. Kashmir may be an industry for India but it is not an industry for Pakistan. Pakistan had to face three imposed wars by India in 1947, 1965 and 1971.

Kashmir is the life line and integral part of Pakistan. We will fight till the last breath to get Kashmir free from the tenacious grip of India. Pakistan and Kashmir are inseparable. India is adamant and determined to destroy Pakistan. But our dauntless, efficient, committed, capable, patriotic and faithful armed forces are always vigorous and vigilant and in recent attack of India on Pakistan have thwarted Indian aggression, teaching them unforgettable lessons.

My two books titled “The Plight of Kashmir”, and “Kashmir: Under Siege” published by National Book Foundation Islamabad, throw ample light on the Issue of Kashmir. Better the Indian sloganeer, who is nefariously involving Pakistan in the rut and is insinuating us to be the beneficiaries in the industry of Kashmir, should know that we have given blood to the saplings of Kashmir. We are not beneficiaries; we are the victims of Indian aggression.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#India #IndianOccupiedKashmir #Kashmir #Pakistan