Kashmir at brink: Why Washington must act before the next crisis

Decades of U.S. crisis diplomacy have kept the peace but failed to resolve the core dispute. With regional tensions high and strategic conditions shifting, the time for a bold American initiative is now.

More than seven decades after independence, Pakistan and India are no closer to a resolution with each other on the dispute over Kashmir. India and Pakistan have fought three wars against each other since 1947, the first two of which were over Kashmir. In entirety, the two countries have been embroiled in seven military crises (May 2025 being the latest), which the U.S. has played an increasingly assertive role in managing and resolving. A chief component of recent U.S. administrations’ foreign policy goals in South Asia has been to avert any future war in the region. Attitudes in India and Pakistan are changing, and the internal situation in Kashmir is more fluid than it has been before. There can be no better time than now (after May 2025 conflict) for the resolution of the Kashmir issue where U.S – Pakistan relations are at their peak.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir occupies a strategic position in the extreme north western corner of the Indian Sub-Continent and at the southern limit of the Central Asia, where the borders of five powers; former USSR, China, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan meet.  The state areas are controlled by three countries; 78114 square kilometres with Pakistan, 37,555 square kilometres with china and remaining 101,000 square kilometres under Indian Occupation. The strategic location of the state and emanating of three major rivers which are the life lines for the economy of Pakistan greatly enhances its importance. Over the years, based on a well thought out policy, the Indians have changed the demographic structure of the state. As per the census report of 2011 issued by the Government of India, the Muslim population has decreased to 68.31% from 77% in 1947.

Pakistan’s Stand and Official view on Kashmir

Pakistan’s official position on Kashmir is based on the following premises:

• The former princely state of J&K is a disputed territory and warrants a final resolution.
• As parties to the dispute, Pakistan and India have equal status and the same rights and obligations in Kashmir.
• India is in unlawful occupation of J&K since the accession of the state to India was illegal and against the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
• In accordance with UN resolutions, Kashmiris have the right to determine their own future by acceding through a “free and impartial plebiscite” to either India or Pakistan.

Pakistan’s official position is that the Kashmir dispute should be resolved in the light of the UN resolutions. It continues to stress that the talks between India and Pakistan in the future should center on securing the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. Pakistan has officially welcomed any international mediation or a third-party role to facilitate talks. The Kashmir conflict is the root cause of tensions with India. All other bilateral problems are linked to it.

Indian Stand on Kashmir

For India, J&K is its only state with a Muslim majority, so Kashmir shows that India is a secular, multiethnic nation. According to the India, the state of Kashmir is an integral part of the union of India. The official Indian position argues that the future status of the state other wise is a domestic problem. At bilateral level, India has been avoiding any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan to gain more time to crush the resistance. She wishes to maintain status-quo implying the conversion of existing cease fire line in Kashmir into an international border. At the International level, India is pursuing a three pronged strategy. Firstly deflecting Pakistan’s campaign on human rights violations in Kashmir, secondly maintaining that Simla Agreement provides the frame work to settle all bilateral issues and lastly, branding the Kashmiri resistance movement as a terrorist, fundamentalist and secessionist movement with a potential to disintegrate India. And last but not the least, abrogation of article 370 in 2019 changed the status of Jammu and Kashmir.

United Nations and Kashmir Issue

UN passed 28 resolutions since 1947 to December 1971. The resolution of 21 April 1948 was of cardinal importance. It outlined the UNSC’s stand on the Kashmir conflict, recommended the method of its solution, and became the principal term of reference for final settlement of the problem; the right of self determination was recognized by the UNSC by its resolution adopted on April 21, 1948 and even more clearly, by its resolution on 30 March 1951 which affirmed that the final disposition of the State should be “made in accordance with the will of the people through the free and impartial plebiscite”.

The U.S. Engagement in the Kashmir Issue

The U.S. involvement with the Kashmir issue has been a constant.  What has varied is the intensity and this corresponded to the prevailing security environment and U.S.-India-Pakistan equations. Chronologically U.S. engagement can be summed up as follows:

16. S. made a significant attempt to solve the issue in the ’50s. The Eisenhower Administration was deeply involved in negotiations with India and Pakistan.
17. Later the Kennedy Administration made a major attempt to bring India and Pakistan together for dialogue on Kashmir.
18. By 1964-65, U.S. had really given up on Kashmir and since then there’s been no significant American initiative on Kashmir till 1990.
19. The 1990s witnessed an anti-Indian manifestation on the Kashmir question under the Clinton Administration.

What has crept in U.S. policies and being sustained by the U.S. administration is “the aspirations of Kashmiri people” and “the rising risk of nuclear flash point”.

In the 78 years, the U.S. has applied different labels to the Kashmir issue from ‘self- determination’ to ‘cross border terrorism’ to ‘aspiration of the Kashmiri people’ to being ‘a nuclear flash-point’ endangering international security’.  The constantly changing stand of the U.S. is reflective of the fact that the its stand on the Kashmir issue is flexible and can be said to be dependent on two factors at a given point in time:

• Drift of India-U.S. relations.
• The strategic relations with Pakistan for any intended U.S. strategic moves.
• The S. major goals in South Asia vis-à-vis Pakistan and India are to help enhance regional stability, because what happens in South Asia matters to the U.S., and it matters to the world as well. It is the region of the world with perhaps the highest level of untapped human and economic potential and if fully exploited, could change the international economic and social landscape in fundamental ways.
• With regard to Pakistan and India. The U.S. is today in the fortunate position of enjoying excellent and cooperative relations with Pakistan and bit tough stance on India which is very well justified due import of Russian oil by India. The U.S. hopes India and Pakistan will move forward with the implementation of the confidence-building measures that both nations have agreed over the passage of time, and to engage in serious discussions on various issues.
• With regard to the issue of Kashmir. S. desire that, the violence must be reduced; ending violence in Kashmir remains a key goal. U.S. will continue to look for ways to encourage peace in Kashmir and it has realized that the lasting solution to this difficult issue can only come through political dialogue and negotiation, not through violence or military use.

Realistically the U.S. has a strategic objective, of using Kashmir as a “pressure-point” in the conduct of its policies in the Indian sub-continent.  Comparatively, use of Kashmir as a pressure-point is more India-intended and more India-relevant. In the wake of the Kargil conflict in 1999, after the 2001-2002 near war crisis, standoff of 2008, conflicts of 2019 and recent Pak – India conflict in May 2025, the U.S. and other major powers were deeply concerned about the outbreak of a war that could escalate to the nuclear level. For this reason, the U.S. interceded to restore the peace and played a key role in diffusing the crisis of Indian mobilising on the international border and threatening punitive action. The U.S. government successfully pressurized to end the diplomatic and military standoff and initiate a process of normalisation. Thereby, the U.S. overcame India’s traditional reluctance to accept third party involvement in its disputes with Pakistan and playing an unprecedented role of facilitator.

The U.S. has various options in South Asian politics especially with regard to Kashmir:

• The Good Old Fashioned Policy.  It is the traditional policy of engaging and disengaging. U.S. left South Asia in 1965 after the Indo- Pak war. U.S. left in 1972 after it intervened briefly in the war of 1971. And it left it again in 1989 after the first Afghan war and finally in 2021 from Afghanistan.
• The India Biased Option. It is to remain engaged in the region but tilting towards India. U.S. may enforce or pursue a solution to the satisfaction of India due to its economical stature but, the strategic-partnership between U.S. and India started a decade back is at low due to de-stabilizing pursuits of India in the region & tariff war; it is envisaged that the tilted option may not prevail in the region for next couple of years / at least Trump is President.
• The “Ignore Kashmir” Option. Is to engage India and Pakistan but ignore Kashmir. As long as U.S. need Pakistan as an ally in the war against terrorism clearly there will be a military and political relationship with it. U.S. may decline to play any effective role in the resolution of the issue; however, it would continue chasing her national objectives in the region.
• The Desired Option. It is one that has been raised periodically and it’s been rejected by successive Indian governments, and that is to add Kashmir. To attempt to bring India and Pakistan if not to the bargaining table at least to a process by which they can deal with the Kashmir issue in one form or another.

U.S. as an ‘Invisible Third Party’ in Kashmir

Despite U.S. rhetorical stand that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, the U.S. discreetly seeks a mediatory role because:-

• It will not just raise its importance in the world community but will also confirm its status of “Sole Superpower”.
• S. interests lie in the fact that the confrontation, between the two hostile neighbours on this issue, should not lead to a catastrophic full-fledged war.
• Being the exponent of democracy and human freedom it realizes her responsibilities of resolving the issue at the earliest.
• The issue is one of the oldest issue on the agenda of UN, in order to maintain the esteem of the organisation, U.S. support is deemed necessary to all UN resolutions in general and resolutions on Kashmir in particular.
• If the threat of conflict between the two nations can be contained, the world and India and Pakistan will profit.

The reinforced U.S. interest in containing hostility between India and Pakistan could lead to progress on Kashmir. It can exploit these leverages to the full to promote goodwill between the two countries and decrease tensions. The challenge for the U.S. government will be to use a mixture of pressure, diplomacy and trade to pressurise India to have fruitful dialogue on the issues ensuring culmination on concrete out comes. The talks between Pakistan and India over Kashmir will be meaningless without some kind of U.S. involvement. Kashmir is probably of little concern to the U.S., but is an expedient strategic tool for the region. U.S can play the role of balancer by helping to ensure stability in the region as well as by urging the two sides to increase dialogue on Kashmir and on the issues that radiate from this conflict.

Kashmir is both a cause and the consequence of the India-Pakistan conundrum. It is primarily a dispute about justice and people, although its strategic and territorial dimensions are complicated enough. No solution to the Kashmir dispute has been possible in the last 78 years, yet if it is projected in a desired manner to the world community, there is a likelihood of increasing the diplomatic pressure on India to resolve the issue according to the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Kashmir is now at the most opportune moment of history. Of course main players in the solution of the problem remain Pakistan and India but the road map to peace in the region explicitly depends upon the amount of concern prevailing in the global powers and the U.S. It is high time for the international community to understand that without the just solution of this problem the tension in the region will not die down and they can not benefit from the political, human and economic resources of the region.