Territorial disputes: Kashmir (Part 2) [Post 12]

Dr. Parasaran Rangarajan, Consultant for South Asia Analysis Group and Editor-in-chief for the International Law Journal of London, in the abstract about his paper “A Kashmiri Equation” summarises the answers to the questions posed by our previous post (Post 11)


A Kashmiri Equation


“The issue of the Kashmiri question is the longest dispute as of today going back to the formation of the United Nations in 1947. There have been many solutions put forward to find a solution which has been suggested involving all five stakeholders in this complex equation; The Republic of India, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, The People’s Republic of China, Azad Kashmir, and independence organizations with each having its own claim to a part of this region.

In addition, the newly formed BJP led government of India would like to have a debate on Article 370 of the Constitution of India and possibly abrogate it since it gives autonomy and special territory status to the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. Questions such as are what are the legal repercussions of removing the article for the Indian side of the border considering Indian national legislation such as The Delhi Accord (1952) or 1974 Indira-Sheikh Accord? Is there any future for the current bi-lateral treaties (ex: The Simla Agreement (1972) or Washington Accord (1999)) between India and Pakistan to play a role in the final status of Kashmir taking into account The Vienna Law of Treaties (1969) under international law? Will the Jammu & Kashmir of India’s we have known it be left without any link to the Union if Article 370 is abrogated, therefore, liberating it? Or will it default to the Union like an automatic resulting trust would when there is no certainty on the subject matter are valid and good questions to ask. The Pakistani side of the border of the once Kingdom of Jammu &Kashmir; namely Gilgit-Baltistan’s (aka formerly known as “Northern Areas”) relationship with Pakistan is also examined and how that will factor into a political equation considering the political parties operating there and local aspirations. Will separatist movements gain anything by sustaining or abrogating Article 370 or executing the bilateral treaties to find a political solution? To what extent does China’s role extend to with its claim to Aksai Chin in the context of an entire political solution? We will examine the legal implications of abrogating Article 370 first including the validity of bi-lateral treaties and second, examine a political solution which was endorsed by pro-Indian Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir’s first Prime Minister before the position was abolished in the 1965; namely a “condominium” based on the principles of “joint sovereignty” under international law with considerations to a “coregency” as well.”


Complete text available at:


Jorge Emilio Nunez

Twitter: @London1701

13th March 2018

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s