Abstract

 Kashmir is primarily a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. There is a substantial ideological component to the intentions of the two nation-states in this matter, which go beyond simple geopolitical or strategic considerations. The role of the United Nations (UN) in the face of human rights violations in Kashmir is the subject of this article. This article continues to cover the conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Hence, it highlights the significance of the UNs' involvement in the Kashmir conflict. The failure of UN resolutions on the Kashmir dispute and the Indian government's rejection of outside engagement are both extensively addressed. In Kashmir, the physical and emotional pain has resulted from the failure of the international community to protect human rights. The research concludes that India would never be able to find a lasting solution to the situation in Kashmir because there have been no significant political or economic repercussions on India as a result of the Kashmiri conflict.

Key Words

Human Rights Violation, Kashmir Issue, UN Role, India-Pakistan Conflict

Introduction

The Kashmir war has been going on longer than any other international conflict that hasn't been solved yet. More than seventy years have passed since the British colonial rulers left, and the Indian subcontinent was partitioned into India and Pakistan, yet the Kashmir problem has not been resolved (Bhat, 2019). And it's because of this fundamental difference that tensions between the two countries persist. It would be impossible to exaggerate the damage done to ties as a direct outcome of the conflict between India and Pakistan. Expert in resolving conflicts, Shaheen Showkat Dar Indians view Pakistanis as Muslims, raiders, terrorists, and eternal enemies, and they consider Kashmir to be an essential part of their country. The current situation in Pakistan is a direct result of the opposite. They see Indians as “anti-Muslim” and “eternal foes,” as well as “non-Muslims” (Kafirs) who are “occupying” and “imperializing” their land of Kashmir. The unresolved situation in Kashmir has contributed to the development of a combative attitude. Sixty-five percent of Indians have a poor impression of Pakistan and consider it to be their country's greatest security danger. Similarly, in Pakistan, 75% of people think India is a bigger threat than either Al Qaeda or the Taliban ((Pew Research Center, 2011).

The progression of United Nations (UN) resolutions on the Kashmir issue is intrinsically linked to the war's history. Tabassum (2012) says that India and Pakistan, the world's two main nuclear enemies, have often expressed concern over the Kashmir issue. The British failed to develop a workable mechanism for integrating states in Pakistan and India, which contributed to the Kashmir conflict. The Indian government is not prepared to resolve the matter bilaterally with Pakistan or on a multilateral basis through international mediation, while Indian security forces are committing an unparalleled act of terror in occupied Kashmir, which is being widely reported throughout the world. India and Pakistan both have jurisdiction over a portion of Jammu and Kashmir, which is divided by the Line of Control (Human Rights Watch, 2019). During the course of four conflicts, these two countries have faced each other four times (1947–1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999). The latest war, known as the Kargil War, took place while both countries were fully equipped with nuclear weapons. In the meantime, Pakistan and India engaged in guerrilla warfare in Kashmir (Cheema, 2019). Both endogenous and exogenous factors contributed to the war. Exogenous factors include the hostility between Pakistan and India, the UN Security Council's ineffectiveness, and militant groups based in Pakistan, including Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. On the other hand, the endogenous sources include the politics of Kashmir, economic inequality, poor governance, corruption, and poverty.

People in Kashmir had to deal with violence, torture, physical harm, and social disapproval. Thousands of people have died because of the constant killing in Jammu and Kashmir. Several people were harmed, rendering them all economically useless (Wani et al., 2013). Many families have lost a loved female family member, which is extremely heartbreaking. Several women have also lost their husbands, who were the only people who could give them money. Many homes and businesses were burned down during the riots, and another property was damaged. Kashmiris have been treated like second-class citizens in their own country for a long time. They got wiped out, mocked, and smeared. People in Kashmir have been treated worse than slaves and have no way to fight back. Security personnel from India aggressively resorted to killing, torturing, and interrogating local Kashmiris. No one in Kashmir thinks they have all their democratic rights (including freedom, the rule of law, justice, and safety). Everyone in Kashmir is constantly on edge. Universities, colleges, and other places of learning had to close for long periods of time because of the violent routine. The state of emergency and the subsequent bloodshed have affected every single person in Kashmir. In the name of an encounter, a lot of young Kashmiris died, women were harassed and beaten, and old men were disrespected. The fires hurt or destroyed schools, businesses, structures, and bridges, among other buildings and pieces of infrastructure (Dixit, 2014). There were also roles for the police and the Indian military. The only entities with the right to arbitrarily frighten Kashmiris are the military, police, task forces, and so-called bad people. Journalists are not allowed to tell the truth about serious human rights violations. Police and soldiers beat up some journalists very badly. During times of curfew and hartal, people are not allowed to go to the hospital. People in Kashmir are not free to gather or do so in a peaceful way. Because of all the trouble in Jammu and Kashmir, thousands of people have died, thousands have been hurt, thousands are missing, and hundreds have killed themselves (Cheema, 2015).

Kashmir's ongoing conflict is about territory as much as it is about people's right to freedom (Haq, 2017a). To put it another way, the UN instantly proclaimed that Kashmiris should be allowed to select their own fate and future; this is also known as a plebiscite, which simply means that people are free to make their own decisions. The UN did an excellent job of halting hostilities and hostile behaviour between India and Pakistan, but it did not play a big role in defending the rights of Kashmiris as an international organization. The Kashmir dispute involves more than simply India and Pakistan's shared border; the Kashmiri people themselves play an integral role in the conflict. It's a reality that Kashmiris have had it much worse than everyone else. Israeli Jews harass Palestinian civilians and violate human rights in Palestine, much as Indian forces, paramilitary forces, and police, backed by India, do the same in Kashmir. Moreover, the Indian government has always officially recognized Kashmir as being a part of India. Yet Pakistan still claims that India was "fraud and bloodshed" to acquire Kashmir. The lack of compromise between these groups' positions over the past seventy years has fuelled violence and led to major violations of human rights in the region (Marks, (2011).

What was wrong with the people of Kashmir demanding their basic human rights? If the UN had acted, the situation in Kashmir might have been resolved, but every educated person knows that negotiations and interests underpin every aspect of international politics. One of the key reasons India has never accepted outside mediation or interference in the Kashmir dispute is that India has historically resisted the idea of elections and referendums. Since 1947, Kashmiris have protested India's harsh and discriminatory policies in an effort to secure their individual rights, particularly the right to decide one's own fate independently. The UN has been silent and has done nothing to stop India's practice of violence and cruelty toward the Kashmiris, despite the fact that many crimes such as mass murders, arbitrary detention, humiliation, rape, and physical molestation, as well as constraints on free speech and the ability to congregate for religious purposes. have been committed and are still being committed in Jammu and Kashmir (Mustafa, 2019). Have the UN's primary aims and agenda been neglected? Human blood is so important and expensive that no one can afford to pay for it, making it imperative that we take measures to safeguard the lives of all people, whether they are from Kashmir or elsewhere. The entire South Asian area will continue to be plagued by mistrust and unrest. 

The UN's credibility as a respected international agency will be shattered if the UN does not play a constructive role in the Kashmir dispute. In the immediate aftermath of WWII, the UN faced a number of pressing crises, including the Korean Peninsula War and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both of which involved Kashmir. On a UN platform, the Kashmir conflict was brought up for the first time and debated for the first time more than sixty years ago. Paradoxically, the problem persists and needs a thorough resolution. Most of the UN involvement in the Kashmir dispute lasted 17 years (1948-1965) (Kaul & Teng, 2019). After the Indo-Pak (India-Pakistan) conflict in 1965, interaction with Kashmir remained minimal until the third Pakistan-Indian war in 1971. The Shimla Agreement, a peace treaty signed between India and Pakistan in 1972, ended the UN's involvement in the Kashmir dispute by making it clear that the conflict needed to be solved bilaterally. The UN worked on the Kashmir dispute for 23 years, from 1948 to 1971. During that time, they passed a number of resolutions that tried to end the conflict through mediation and talks. The Kashmir conflict was talked about in 23 resolutions by the UN Security Council between 1948 and 1971. The UN resolutions on the issue of Kashmir do not always have to be followed. In other words, India and Pakistan are the opposing parties, and the rulings are the only suggestions that can be implemented if both countries agree (Kaul & Teng, 2019). India's refusal to follow UN resolutions about Kashmir has put it on the periphery of the conflict. Also, the hoped-for UN vote would have let the people of Kashmir decide for themselves what their political future would never happen. In the same way, Victoria Schofield points out that “the Kashmiri war remains both a fight over land and a fight over people's right to decide their own fate.” (Schofield, 2019) Kashmiris have been engaged in a political struggle for self-determination despite ongoing human rights violations in their region.

Research Methodology

This study was qualitative in nature, and the secondary data collection tools used to get the data from internet articles and journals. Some of the information for this research has been gathered from the publications of various researchers. The information that is obtained through the use of this technique is in the form of words and sentences. In general, this methodology is used for social sciences, and it offers specific information regarding the subject of the research (Ruggiano & Perry, 2019).

Discussion and Analysis 

There have been human rights for as long as there have been humans. The belief that individuals possess inherent, inalienable rights in opposition to the monopoly on legitimate violence exercised by sovereign states is grounded in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. As everyone has the right to life by their original condition in the state of nature, according to Thomas Hobbes, no one can deny anyone that right. He called for a rule of universal equality with no exceptions (Lafont, 2010). John Locke developed the idea even further. He believed strongly in people's inherent rights. He argued that people had an inherent right to survival, independence, and ownership. Since they had these rights before any civil or political society existed, it would be unconstitutional for any government to take them away now (Two Treatises of Government 1632-1704). According to Rosenblatt (2008), all men are born free but confined somehow. According to Rousseau, all men have the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The slogan of the French Revolution originated from this notion.




Kashmir Valley

Jammu Kashmir is an Indian state that spans 32.28° to 37.06° north latitude and 72.53° to 80.32° east longitude, with elevations ranging from 220 to 8611 m (Snedden, 2015). The Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab border the state to the south, and the international boundary and Line of Control (LOC) with Pakistan and China, respectively, border the state to the west and east. This region is made up of several mountain ranges, beginning with the Siwaliks in the south and progressing up via the Pir Panjal, the Greater Himalaya, the Zanaskar range, and finally the Karakoram in the north. The climates of Jammu in the south, Kashmir in the centre, and the freezing desert of Ladakh in the east are all considerably distinct ( Gupta & Arora, 2017). Each of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ten administrative districts, for a total of 22 in the state. Geologically, the state preserves a temporal record of the Himalayan orogeny's sedimentation, tectonics, and volcanism, with rocks ranging from the Archean to the most recent alluvium. Snow and glaciers dominate most of the state above 3600 meters, with the largest glacier, Siachen, located in Ladakh. Because they bring water from melting snow and ice, the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers are crucial to the 300 million people who live upstream and downstream in the Indus basin (Akbar, 2018). The state is well-known for its many freshwater lakes and wetlands, with over 3650 of them spread over the state. Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is a culturally varied tapestry of people and places, with a population of 12.55 million and a density of about 100 people per square kilometre in 2011 (Rasool et al., 2018). It is part of the Himalayas, an area known as a global biodiversity hotspot, and provides habitat for a wide range of animals.

Kashmir's valley has always been a sign of diversity in religion, philosophy, and intellectual pursuits. Thus, the state's many distinct religions have been a source of strife rather than unity and a boon to the local culture. Kashmir and the rest of the globe were affected by the insurgency and counter-insurgency that happened on the Indian side of the valley in the late 1980s (Haq, 2017b). The Kashmir Valley is usually considered the deadliest location on earth. There has been a lot of political tension in the Jammu and Kashmir region since India and Pakistan were split up in 1947. The local populations on both sides have contributed to the simmering tensions between India, the largest democracy in the world, and Pakistan, its neighbour (Pakistan). Both sides fought on the battlefield and in diplomatic talks to show off their high-tech weapons. People in the state of Kashmir are worried about their future because they don't know what will happen, and there isn't a clear answer to the political problem. The Kashmir Valley used to be known for its beauty, but now it is the world's most dangerous and heavily armed control zone (De Jong et al., 2008). India's counter-insurgency operations have killed around 90,000 people, making Kashmir's killing fields similar to those in Palestine and Tibet (Zia, 2019). In the face of military invasions and terrorist attacks, Kashmir has lost its beauty and the money it brings in from tourists. 

Human Rights Violations in Kashmir

Since Jammu and Kashmir's independence movement began, over 70 years have passed. The Jammu and Kashmir conflict has been ongoing since 1947, not long after Pakistan and India won their respective independence wars. During that time, the British controlled over 562 different princely states, including Jammu and Kashmir, which was one among those states. Maharaja Hari Singh, the last sovereign monarch of Kashmir, put off making choices regarding his people's future after the British left, leading to the Kashmir conflict (Wani et al., 2013). The Maharaja felt helpless in the face of the tribal invasion by Pakistani invaders, so he made the difficult decision to reach out to India for relief. In return for the Maharaja's signature on the letter of the instrument of accession, Lord Mountbatten's viceroy in India promised to provide the Maharaja with a certain amount of military assistance. 

More than 60 years have passed since nuclear-armed neighbours first started fighting over Kashmir. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister made the statement, "Kashmir's future must be decided by plebiscite," on national radio on November 2, 1947. Afterwards, at other conferences and international forms, he restated his dedication. However, the promised referendum has not yet taken place (Dhall,  (2018). There is, in fact, a war going on in Kashmir between militant groups and the Indian government. Most Kashmiri families have suffered losses from relatives, friends, neighbours, or even members due to the violence endured since independence. Kashmiri Sikhs and Hindus were also persecuted for their faiths, and many of them left the valley for other areas of India, taking their homes, goods, and customs with them. The fear that a family member would be asked to leave the house briefly by security personnel or militants and never return causes terror in families when there is a late-night knock on the door. Militant bombs go out unexpectedly in crowded marketplaces. The Indian government claims that its security forces are protecting the people of Kashmir from Islamic radicals and militants (Cheema, 2019). On the other hand, militants claim they are defending Muslims against the brutal Indian army and fighting for Kashmiri independence. Truth be told, all sides have broken international humanitarian law and committed numerous and widespread human rights abuses, making life miserable for the civilian population. The Indian armed forces and paramilitary groups have committed serious and widespread human rights abuses in Kashmir. 

Human rights advocates have reported that militants caught are often executed rather than placed on trial due to the security risk posed by keeping them in custody. “The abuse of human rights here is unprecedented,” said Bahaddin Farooqi, a former chief justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. We have just scraped the surface of the problem, but it is impossible to understand the full scope of the issue since we are constrained by laws and cultural standards that do not apply to us (Adhikari & Kamle, 2011). This is the root of the issue. The UN and the Indian constitution provide comprehensive protections. However, there are still serious human rights abuses. These problems are extremely common in Kashmir. Serious human rights violations include extrajudicial executions, other politically motivated killings, disproportionate use of force by security forces, torture, rape, and the death of detainees while in police custody. Every Kashmiri who raised their voice to support their people's right to self-determination was punished with torture and incarceration (Misri, 2019). In the Kashmir valley, security forces were stationed ostensibly to safeguard locals. Still, they soon began committing egregious human rights violations in the territory currently occupied by the Indian military. The Indian armed forces and other security forces are violating international law and abusing the rights of the people of Kashmir (Chatterji, 2010). For instance, law enforcement officials may arbitrarily detain any Kashmiri resident without a warrant and then transport them to a torture chamber where they will be burned alive with short-circuit coal and fire. Death in custody, extrajudicial executions, disappearances, and extrajudicial executions are other examples.

Role of UN

Democracy and accountability are like two sides of the same coin in modern political and legal systems; each helps the other succeed. On January 1, 1948, India complained to the UN Security Council against Pakistan over the Kashmir war, invoking Article 35 (Chapter VI) of the UN Charter. Pakistan, however, has denied all claims that it assisted in infiltrating Kashmiri tribes and has instead placed the blame for Pakistan's early instability on India. The first official discussion of Kashmir took place at the UN (under the name "Kashmir Issue") (Bin Shamsuddin, 2014). Additionally, the Pakistani delegation said that the struggle in Kashmir threatened Pakistan's very existence and that it should be interpreted in the context of India's efforts to deny the existence of the newly constituted State of Pakistan. The UN debate on the "Kashmir Issue" was reframed as the "India-Pakistan Conflict" after Pakistan made a compelling case. According to the manifesto of the UN, there are key epics that create the foundation for the fundamental estrangement of the United States of America (Schaffer, 2008). Human rights and the right of any state to protest are addressed in the aforementioned two sections. The UN further stresses that China has no claim to any part of Kashmir and that India and Pakistan both claim territory there. People in Kashmir will decide for themselves whether they want to join Pakistan or India in a public citation or referendum (Choudhry, 2017). Nevertheless, as they tackle the issue, there is a substantial disadvantage. In light of the global situation, it was not discussed what kinds of consequences every state would face if it did not comply. 

India has the largest corporate market in the world, enough to sustain any two governments, and even the non-state members of the UN (Human Rights Watch, 2019). There was still no action taken despite the fact that the matter had already been decided by the highest authority in the world. According to research by Pramanik and Roy (2014), the UN has been unable to break a stalemate between Pakistan and India over the land despite the fact that the two countries fought multiple wars over it (Choudhry, 2017). According to Sandeep et al. (2015), Pakistan has intentions of enforcing the 21 April 1948 UN resolutions that are in opposition to the plebiscite, the right to self-determination, and other human rights. According to Zulfiqar (2016), the Indian government made an unconstitutional change to its constitution that violated the rights of millions of Kashmiris. The article by Zulfqar (2016) highlights the UN's efforts to encourage restraint and de-escalation between India and Pakistan. During its 230th meeting, the UN voted to pass a resolution on the strife in Kashmir on January 20, 1948 (Fayaz, 2016). The committee was formed with three members, one of whom would be picked by Pakistan and the other by India. The first two committee members had the responsibility of selecting the third committee member. The panel was formed to draft a consensus recommendation outlining potential peace-making measures for the region. As a result of the failed proposal, alternative resolutions were developed.

Voting in Kashmir

During its 286th meeting, the UN issued a resolution in response to the initial conflict between Pakistan and India about Kashmir. The United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Colombia, China, and Belgium helped draft the resolution. After hearing arguments from both India and Pakistan, the Security Council unanimously passed the resolution which is 47 and sent the committee to the subcontinent to help restore peace and order and organize a referendum on the future of Kashmir. Resolutions issued under Chapter VI of the UN Charter are not considered binding and cannot be enforced as resolutions issued under Chapter VII  can (Tohid, 2016). According to the UN Security Council, the accession of Kashmir shall be decided by a free and impartial plebiscite using a democratic voting mechanism (Khurshid, 2016). If India is serious about holding a fair and impartial plebiscite, it must provide the plebiscite administration the power it needs to do its job. Command and control responsibilities will be shared between the state's armed forces and the police. According to Nawaz (2018), the resolution did not fully apply to both countries and their respective governments (Pakistan and India). Lack of trust and safety prevented the resolution from being implemented between India and Pakistan (Kiyani et al, 2017). Pakistan and India blamed each other for Kashmir even though the UN had passed multiple resolutions over several years but failed to put them into action. That's why neither India nor Pakistan could agree on a single plan. 




The UN Security Council’s Proposed Action

According to Dhall (2018), the proposals were made by the Security Council after hearing about the dispute over Kashmir from officials representing the governments of both Pakistan and India. Resolution 91(1951) of the UN Security Council stated that the Kashmir National Conference's proposed assembly could not help find a solution to the problem (1951) (Khurshid, 2016). Resolution 122, passed on January 24, was recalled by the Security Council at its 774th meeting, along with earlier decisions and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed its resolution on India and Pakistan on February 21. It was requested by the president of the Security Council that the Sweden envoy meet with the authorities of India and Pakistan to discuss possible solutions to the conflict in light of earlier resolutions passed by the Council. The mission of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan was to investigate the situation in the region and report back to the Security Council by April 15, 1957, at the latest (Fai, 2019). In performing his duties, he asked the governments of Pakistan and India to work with him. There was also a call for the Secretary-General and the UN ambassadors for Pakistan and India to offer any assistance he might want. The delegates were asked to make suggestions to the parties about what else could be done to help the agreements of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan from August 13, 1948, to January 5, 1949, be carried out in a way that would lead to a peaceful solution (Haq, 2017). As a result, the UN official authorized to handle the situation went to the Indian subcontinent. The UN representative was requested to provide the Security Council with an update on the situation as soon as possible. The study by Ashraf et al. (2018) contends that the 1965 War on Kashmir between the two nations significantly affected the UN's reputation and effectiveness. To resolve the Kashmir issue, "Minister-level conversations were to be held," as stated in the Tashkent Declaration, which was endorsed by both governments (Arif &Waqar, 2019). The failure of this initiative was aggravated by the fact that its participants (India and Pakistan) couldn't agree on anything. The Kashmir dispute remains unresolved despite the UN's countless sessions and arduous efforts to do so.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Most crimes against human rights in Jammu and Kashmir have been done by armed terrorists from Pakistan and Indian security forces. The war in Kashmir has been going on longer than any other issue before the UN Security Council right now. At the UN, there are now 23 resolutions of conflicts based on different claims by Indian governments to the right to self-determination. To stop the people of Kashmir from asking for basic human rights, the government in Kashmir used terror against civilians. Since India was split up in 1947, Kashmir has been the site of one of the worst conflicts in the region. Three wars were fought between India and Pakistan over Kashmir before the issue was taken to the UN (Qadeer, 2017).  After 1972, India and Pakistan agreed that bilateral talks were the best way to solve the Kashmir problem in a peaceful way. Although the war is still raging, it seems to have less to do with Indo-Pak ties now than it did in 1947. Since the UN Charter is predicated on the premise that future generations should be spared the horrors of war, this article highlighted some of the most essential arguments for why the Kashmir issue must be addressed within its rules and structure. 

Despite this, the UN's role in resolving the situation is frequently minimized. The UN must make resolving the Kashmir conflict a top priority and offer peace talks to both India and Pakistan. Furthermore, suggested by the findings is that negotiations between Pakistan and India over Kashmir have a long and troubled history marked by mutual mistrust and a string of failed agreements. There were several rounds of talks that never led somewhere productive. From 1948 (the first resolution) to the present day, India has consistently rejected all suggestions for demilitarizing and conducting a plebiscite in Kashmir (Kanjwal, 2019). The Indian government is opposed to Pakistan's proposal for mediation in the Kashmir conflict because doing so would "reveal the true nature of the war in Kashmir," which would be unacceptable from India's perspective. Thus, this article presented compelling evidence that problematic countries like Kashmir can find a way to peace and prosperity with the help of the world community. A paradigm shift is feasible if India, Pakistan, and Kashmir accept the UN's verdict on the matter.

The UN has been trying for at least 5 - 10 years to find a long-term solution to the conflict in Kashmir but has not been able to do so. Without it, there couldn't have been a ceasefire and the line of ceasefire couldn't have been made more democratic. The UN had made a number of ideas for how to solve the Kashmir dispute. However, the process took longer because the two countries were at odds with each other. The best chance of stopping the fighting in Kashmir is to follow the UN Security Council's rules (Kanjwal, 2019). To end the debate, everyone should agree on which model is the best. The Cold War between the superpowers also played a role in how things are now. Talking about the situation in Kashmir right now is hard and sensitive for many reasons. There is no longer a war between the two countries. The situation in South Asia, and maybe all over the world, is getting worse and worse. So, the UN can't solve this problem all by itself. A peaceful resolution can be made possible by leaders on both sides of the conflict, civil society, international pressure, and, most importantly, action by the Great Powers that is good for everyone. Right now, we can say that India is a “rising” or “emerging” power. India's move toward progressivism is now being slowed down by the conflict in Kashmir. So, for India to solve the Kashmir problem in the twenty-first century, it will need a positive attitude and a foreign policy that looks ahead. 

References

• Adhikari, S., & Kamle, M. (2011). The Kashmir: an unresolved dispute between India and Pakistan.
• Akbar, M. J. (2018). Kashmir: Behind the Vale: Roli Books Private Limited
• Arif, K., & Waqar, S. M. (2019). Legitimacy of Right to Self-Determination Under International Law. Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(1), 15-30.
• Ashraf, T. (2018). The Antecedents of Pakistan-India Conflict: Challenges and Prospects for Solution. Journal of Pakistan Vision, 19(2), 16-31.
• Bhat, S. A. (2019). The Kashmir Conflict and Human Rights. Race & Class, 61(1), 77-86
• Bin Shamsuddin, M. N. (2014). The Role of the United Nations in the Kashmir Conflict: An Analysis. The Journal of Defence and Security, 5(1), 25
• Chatterji, A. (2010). Kashmir: A Time for Freedom. Until my freedom has come: The new intifada in Kashmir, 93-124.
• Cheema, M. J. (2015). Pakistan–India Conflict with Special Reference to Kashmir. South Asian Studies, 30(1).
• Cheema, P. I. (2019). Pakistan, India, and Kashmir: A Historical Review Perspectives on Kashmir (93-118): Routledge
• Choudhry, S. (2017). Kashmir Dispute, Pakistan and the UN Resolutions, Author House UK, 51-150.
• De Jong, K., Van De Kam, S., Ford, N., Lokuge, K., Fromm, S., van Galen, R., & Kleber, R. (2008). Conflict in the Indian Kashmir Valley II: psychosocial impact. Conflict and health, 2(1), 1-8.
• Dhall, D. (2018). Strategic Importance of Kashmir: A Conflict between India and Pakistan. Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education, XIV (2), 192-199
• Dixit, A. K. (2014). Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. International Journal in Management & Social Science, 2(2), 175-184
• Fai, G. N. (2019). The Plebiscite Solution for Kashmir: Why and How Perspectives on Kashmir (168-174): Routledge.
• Fayaz, S. (2016). Kashmir Dispute between Pakistan and India: The Way Out. Dialogue (Pakistan), 11(1).
• Gupta, R. D., & Arora, S. (2017). Characteristics of the soils of Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 16(3), 260-266
• Haq, I. (2017). Conflict and human rights violation: A study of Kashmir valley. Journal of South Asian Studies, 5(3), 117- 125.
• Haq, I. (2017b). Exploring the Concept of Torture: An Analysis of Kashmir Valley.
• Human Rights Watch (July 10, 2019). Kashmir: UN Reports Serious Abuses,
• Kanjwal, H. (2019). Kashmir: A Case for Self-Determination. Brown J. World Aff., 26, 253.
• Kaul, K. L., & Teng, M. (2019). Human Rights Violations of Kashmiri Hindus Perspectives on Kashmir (175-188): Routledge.