Indo-Pak military escalation: Time for UN to act and let Kashmiris decide their fate
Instead of clinging to vague national egos, both India and Pakistan should respect the voices of the Kashmiri people and allow the United Nations to mediate in pursuit of a durable and lasting resolution. Peace demands humility, not hubris.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has expressed "deep concern" over Indian military operations across the international border with Pakistan, urging both the countries to exercise military restraint. The two nuclear-armed neighbours have been engaged in military conflicts over the disputed region of Kashmir for generations.
The UN chief's appeal to New Delhi and Islamabad comes in the wake of an Indian military strike on Pakistani soil and an immediate retaliatory response by Pakistan on May 7, which reportedly left nearly 50 people dead on both sides of the border. Pakistan claimed it shot down five Indian warplanes— an assertion on which India has so far remained silent. However, news agency Reuters, citing four local government sources, reported that three fighter jets crashed in India's Jammu and Kashmir territory.
This latest escalation follows the deadly April 22 attack in Pahalgam, located in India-administered Kashmir, which killed at least 26 tourists. India blamed Pakistan for orchestrating the terrorist attack—an allegation Islamabad rejected. Pakistan called for credible evidence and an impartial international investigation into the incident. India rejected that proposal, dismissing it as a deception meant to distract attention.
Earlier, the UN Security Council also urged India and Pakistan to ease tensions, avoid military confrontation, and engage in "dialogue and diplomacy to peacefully resolve issues."
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
However, a mere UN appeal will not resolve the 78-year-old conflict. Rather than offering symbolic gestures, the UN must take meaningful steps to facilitate a resolution—beginning with allowing the people of Kashmir to determine their own future. This is a living crisis that demands more than statements.
For generations, millions of Kashmiris have lived under a cloud of uncertainty, and repeated military crackdowns, with little hope for lasting peace or justice.
Clearly, if other superpowers do not support genuine peace efforts, the UN alone will not succeed in resolving the conflict unless India and Pakistan agree—and, most importantly, the Kashmiri people are empowered to reach their own solutions. Despite these challenges, the UN—as a global body committed to a rules-based world order—should at least make visible and concerted efforts to help settle such long-standing disputes.
The dispute over the Himalayan region has already forced the two neighbours to engage in two full-scale wars in 1947 and 1965 and a limited-scale conflict known as the Kargil War in 1999. If the Kashmir conflict is not resolved through an international arrangement acceptable to the Kashmiri people, it may continue indefinitely—much like the Palestinian conflict, which dates back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration during British rule over Palestine and the creation of Israel in 1948.
In one of its earliest efforts, the UN moved in 1948 to mediate and help resolve the conflict. The UN Security Council adopted resolutions recommending measures to "bring about a cessation of hostilities and to create the conditions necessary for a free and impartial plebiscite to determine whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir would accede to India or Pakistan". However, the resolutions did not include the option for Kashmir to remain independent—despite the fact that, as a princely state under British rule, Kashmir originally had the right to choose between joining India, joining Pakistan, or remaining independent.
India and Pakistan, who control two parts of Kashmir, must also respect the will of the local people. Let them express their preferences—it is long overdue. No justification can be made for the killing of tens of thousands of people in the conflict. What is the point of spending billions of dollars on warfare while tens of millions continue to live in poverty?
How the Kashmir conflict evolved
The Kashmir conflict began in 1947 when colonial British rulers agreed to give independence to India, leading to the creation of two separate nations: a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan. Referenda were held in several provinces of British India where the population was not overwhelmingly in favour of either side, allowing people to decide whether to join India or Pakistan.
However, the status of nearly 600 princely states remained unclear. These states, unlike British-administered provinces, were not fully conquered or annexed by the British and remained under indirect rule. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 granted these princely states the option to join India, join Pakistan, or remain independent.
Things moved rapidly after the partition. By the end of 1949, almost all princely states had acceded to either India or Pakistan; those that did not were forcibly integrated.
Kashmir was one such princely state, with around 75% of its population being Muslim, while it was ruled by a Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Hari Singh initially hoped to preserve Kashmir's independence by delaying his decision. However, a series of events—including a local uprising among his Muslim subjects along the state's western frontier and an incursion by Pashtun tribesmen— compelled him to make a decision. In October 1947, he signed the Instrument of Accession, formally aligning with India and inviting Indian military assistance. This move triggered responses from both Pakistan, which viewed Kashmir as a natural part of its territory, and India, which sought to legitimise the accession.
However, before this, Hari Singh had signed a temporary "standstill agreement" with Pakistan to maintain transport, communication, and essential services between Kashmir and Pakistan.
Conflicts only cause proliferation of weapons
Wars do not resolve crises, yet there is no end in sight to the spiralling global arms race. According to the latest annual report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), worldwide military spending in 2024 saw its steepest rise, reaching $2.7 trillion. This marks a 9.4% year-on-year increase, the highest annual rise since 1988.
SIPRI also identified the five largest arms exporters during 2020–2024—the United States, France, Russia, China, and Germany—which together accounted for 72% of total global arms exports.
With a population of 1.44 billion, India -- one of the top five countries dominating global military spending -- spent $86.1 billion on weapons in 2024, while Pakistan, with a population of 247.5 million, spent $10.2 billion.
Meanwhile, an estimated 234 million Indians and 93 million Pakistanis remain in acute poverty, according to the Multidimensional Poverty Index, which refers to people deprived in multiple essential aspects of life such as health, education, and living standards.
Yet, despite widespread poverty, cash-strapped Pakistan is set to increase its defence spending by 18% in the upcoming 2025–26 national budget, while India has just received approval from the United States for a potential $131 million military purchase.
Pakistan and India must realise that these military escalations and skirmishes serve only as testing grounds for showcasing the superiority of weapons—whether Chinese J-10C jets or French-made Rafale jets. Instead of clinging to vague national egos, both nations should respect the voices of the Kashmiri people and allow the United Nations to mediate in pursuit of a durable and lasting resolution. Peace demands humility, not hubris.
Shamim A Zahedy is a journalist. He can be reached at szahedy@yahoo.com
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
