When India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar made the statement at Chatham House in London that the “stolen part of Kashmir” must be returned to India, it was not only factually wrong but also an alarming example of how history can be distorted to serve political narratives. To understand why this statement is misleading, one must look at the history of Kashmir, the realities on the ground, and the legal status of the region as recognized by the international community.
The story of Kashmir did not begin in 2019 when India revoked Article 370, nor did it begin in 1947 when British India was partitioned. It is a much older tale of princely states, treaties, promises, and betrayals. When the partition happened in 1947, the princely states were given the right to choose whether to join India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu king, became a point of dispute immediately. The people of Kashmir, most of whom shared religious, cultural, and economic ties with the newly formed Pakistan, naturally leaned towards joining Pakistan. However, after tribal fighters from the region entered Kashmir to support the local population’s desire for independence from the oppressive Maharaja, the king chose to seek India’s help. India agreed, but with the condition that Kashmir would accede temporarily, until the people of Kashmir could themselves decide their future through a UN-supervised plebiscite. This was not a casual promise — it was formalized through United Nations resolutions.
What Jaishankar calls the “stolen part of Kashmir” is in fact a region where the people chose to resist Indian control and maintain their identity. After the first Indo-Pak war in 1948, a ceasefire line was drawn — this line became the Line of Control (LoC) we know today. The area to the west of the line, often referred to as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan, is what India claims is “stolen.” But the reality is far more complex. This is not stolen land; it is a region that has repeatedly shown through protests, uprisings, and political movements that it rejects Indian occupation and suppression.
If one looks at the demographic and economic realities of the region, the narrative becomes even clearer. According to the 2023 census data, the population of Azad Jammu and Kashmir stands at around 4.5 million. In numerous surveys conducted by independent organizations, including some Western think tanks, a majority of the population has repeatedly expressed their desire for self-determination. The people of Gilgit-Baltistan, with its population of approximately 2 million, have also historically resisted Indian claims over their land, instead preferring closer ties with Pakistan due to shared cultural, religious, and economic interests.
If this land was truly “stolen,” why has India consistently resisted calls for a plebiscite, as promised in multiple UN resolutions? A stolen property case is usually resolved by allowing the rightful owner to prove their claim. In the case of Kashmir, the people are the rightful owners. Yet, instead of giving them the right to decide their future, India has turned Kashmir into one of the most militarized zones in the world. There are close to 700,000 Indian troops stationed in Jammu and Kashmir — a ratio of about one soldier for every 10 civilians. Such heavy militarization does not reflect confidence in one’s moral or legal claim. It reflects fear — fear of the voice of the people.
After the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir has deteriorated further. Reports by credible organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) have documented widespread human rights abuses — including illegal detentions, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. Internet shutdowns have become routine, and freedom of speech and assembly has been brutally curtailed. This paints a starkly different picture from the rosy image Jaishankar tried to portray when he talked about “restoring economic growth and social justice.”
If India truly believes that Kashmir, including the areas under Pakistani administration, is “stolen” territory, then it must ask itself why so many Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control do not see themselves as Indian. The answer lies in the lived reality of Kashmiris, who have endured decades of broken promises, state violence, and cultural erasure. Even the recent elections that Jaishankar boasted about, where there was a so-called “high turnout,” must be examined critically. Turnout in elections, especially under military occupation, does not automatically translate to endorsement of occupation. Many people vote out of necessity, not ideological alignment. In many conflict zones around the world, people vote to access basic services, or simply because not voting can invite harassment from state forces.
It is also important to note the legal absurdity in Jaishankar’s claim. International law does not recognize Indian sovereignty over the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir. The United Nations still considers Kashmir a disputed territory, and its resolutions clearly outline the process for resolving this dispute — a process that India has consistently obstructed. If the world’s highest international body recognizes Kashmir as disputed territory, how can any part of it be labeled “stolen” by one party?
The economic argument Jaishankar presented is also misleading. While Indian-administered Kashmir has seen some infrastructural development, the region’s economy is heavily dependent on security spending and government handouts. Tourism, once a thriving industry, has been repeatedly devastated by military crackdowns, curfews, and violence. Meanwhile, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, despite its smaller size and limited resources, has maintained a relatively stable economic and social environment, with better literacy rates and social development indicators than many parts of India.
Jaishankar’s statement is not just historically inaccurate, it is dangerous because it tries to rewrite history through propaganda. By calling parts of Kashmir “stolen,” India is not just insulting the people of Kashmir — it is insulting the very process of self-determination, the legal principles agreed upon at the United Nations, and the decades of struggle and sacrifice made by Kashmiris themselves.
The reality is simple: Kashmir was never India’s to begin with. The story of Kashmir is the story of a people who have been denied their voice, their identity, and their right to choose their future. No amount of speeches at Chatham House or grand statements by Indian ministers can change the facts. History cannot be rewritten through press conferences and foreign visits. It can only be honored by respecting the wishes of the people who live that history every day.
The claim that Kashmir has been stolen from India is not just a lie — it is a cruel joke played at the expense of millions of Kashmiris who have suffered, resisted, and survived under military occupation. If there is any theft that the world needs to recognize, it is the theft of Kashmiris’ right to choose their destiny — a theft that continues to this day under Indian occupation. Until that right is restored, no speech, no election, and no economic project can solve the Kashmir issue. Real peace will only come when history is respected, facts are acknowledged, and the people of Kashmir are given back their stolen voice.
Author’s Bio:
Hamnah Maryam holds an MPhil in Defence and Strategic Studies and focuses her research on security dynamics, strategic affairs, and regional geopolitics. Her academic work explores contemporary defence policies, conflict resolution, and the evolving security landscape in South Asia. She actively contributes to research publications and policy discussions, offering critical insights into defence strategies and geopolitical trends.
