Opinion | A Kashmiri’s Response to the China-Pakistan Statement

So, my message to China and Pakistan is simple. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, both constitutionally and in terms of lived reality. The old politics of hartals, fear and instability do not any longer capture the aspirations of the majority of Kashmiris. We have tasted the bitter fruits of violence and we have known the glorious fruits of peace. “The future of Kashmir will be decided by the people who live here, not by declarations passed in Beijing or Islamabad, but by their hopes and decisions and actions.”

But I have to say something before I get into the matter of this article: The most authentic account of a place comes from the people who actually live there. If you want to understand Bengaluru, you talk to the people who live in it. “If you want to understand Kashmir, you have to listen to Kashmiris. Against this backdrop, I followed the four-day visit to China of the Pakistani Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif. It is common for sovereign countries to exchange visits and, in itself, this is hardly worth comment. The motivation for this article was the joint statement issued by China and Pakistan on 26 May 2026 describing Kashmir as a “leftover from history” and calling for its resolution according to the UN Charter and relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council. As a Kashmiri, I am often confused about how people who do not live our realities speak with such certainty about them. If someone asked me how life is in Kashmir today, I would tell them without hesitation that our region has gone through decades of violence, instability and uncertainty – much of it linked to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. But many of us have also experienced in recent years a growing sense of normality, more economic activity, better connectivity and the freedom to plan our daily lives without the constant fear of disruption. That change may be uncomfortable for those who have thrived for long on keeping the Kashmir issue alive for strategic reasons. The question worth examining is whether that discomfort now extends outside of Pakistan and to China. As both the countries have chosen to comment upon Kashmir, I think it is equally important for a Kashmiri to respond. In this article, I try to evaluate their claims and see how they align with the principles and international norms they cite so fervently.

Let me start with Pakistan, a country that has spent decades trying to internationalise Kashmir in every available diplomatic forum. But before Islamabad lectures the world on Kashmir, it has to answer some uncomfortable questions of its own.

Will Pakistan ever admit the part played by the tribal marauders who invaded Kashmir in 1947, leaving a trail of violence, plunder and misery? Will it ever honestly account for the atrocities committed against ordinary Kashmiris in that period? More importantly, will it reflect on the consequences of decades of policies that fuelled terrorism, radicalisation and cross-border terrorism in the region? Thousands of Kashmiri families have paid the price of terrorism, insurgency and instability. Whole generations grew up in fear and uncertainty, rather than building careers, pursuing education and contributing to society. The architects of such policies sat comfortably in power corridors far away; ordinary Kashmiris paid the price. Pakistan often claims to be the voice of Kashmiris. But representation requires accountability. The people of Kashmir have every right to ask whether those who speak in their name have ever been held accountable for the suffering caused by the terrorism sponsored, supported, tolerated or justified from across the border. A state claiming to be a champion of the rights of Kashmiris cannot turn a blind eye to the destruction wrought on them by decades of violence.

There is a glaring contradiction at the heart of Pakistan’s position as well. Islamabad often talks about self-determination and democratic rights on international fora, but is strikingly silent on the conditions in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. If the basis of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is democratic rights, self-governance and the welfare of the people, then why do the perennial issues of political representation, constitutional status, economic development, resource exploitation and local autonomy in these regions receive so little attention from the Pakistani establishment? The question becomes even more pointed when one looks at Pakistan’s own record. Why are voices that call for more rights and accountability in these territories often met with suppression, detention, killings and muzzle? What has kept so many communities there from achieving meaningful political empowerment? If Islamabad is truly committed to respecting the aspirations of Kashmiris, it should start by showing that commitment in the territories it controls.

There is another reality that further weakens Pakistan’s diplomatic position. It often refers to international resolutions but seldom refers to the Simla Agreement of 1972 under which both India and Pakistan were committed to resolve outstanding issues bilaterally. But successive Pakistani governments have continued to seek international intervention whenever convenient. This selective approach leads to an obvious question: Is Pakistan worried about Kashmir or it just want to keep Kashmir alive as an instrument of perpetual diplomacy? Kashmir has indeed seemed more a recurring plank in Pakistan’s foreign policy narrative. The issue raises its head whenever Islamabad suffers diplomatic setbacks, domestic political turbulence or international scrutiny across governments, military establishments and political parties.

Pakistan’s leaders frequently use the language of rights and international law, but principles have power only when they’re consistently applied. It is not credible that a government should advance the cause of some people and be indifferent to the complaints of others who live under its own system. Nor can it expect the world to forget its long and sorry history of association with terrorist groups that have repeatedly undermined peace and stability in the region.

The truth is that all Kashmiris today are more interested in peace, stability, education, jobs and economic opportunity than the geopolitical narratives pushed by distant capitals. The Pahalgam terror attack, in which large number of Kashmiris openly condemned terrorism and raised anti-Pakistan slogans, should have been a moment of introspection for Islamabad, the public reaction to which was quite the opposite. It was a reminder that the people Pakistan’s leaders claim to represent are turning away from the politics of violence that has brought them decades of suffering. Instead of asking why these sentiments have emerged, Pakistan keeps repeating old talking points that are increasingly out of sync with realities on the ground. So the basic question remains: Is Islamabad ready to honestly confront its own record in Kashmir, or will it continue to speak for Kashmiris for their own agenda?

Now let me speak about China. Beijing’s backing of Pakistan’s position on Kashmir presents serious questions about the consistency of its own foreign policy. China is one of the most aggressive supporters of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. It routinely bars foreign comment on what it sees as internal matters. But on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, China seems willing to abandon the very principles it insists on others following. Even more astonishingly, China went on to refer to Kashmir as a “leftover from history.” History is not the defining reality for the people living in Jammu and Kashmir today. The present is the real thing. Roads are being constructed, educational institutions are expanding, tourism has seen unprecedented growth, and an entire generation is increasingly looking for opportunities rather than unrest. The language of the joint statement seems to belong to a time that most Kashmiris have consciously moved on from. The strategic aspect behind Beijing’s stance cannot be ignored. Of course, China’s deep partnership with Pakistan and its investments under the CPEC have had an impact on its thinking. But strategic interests do not equal moral authority. If a country is always talking about respect for sovereignty in international affairs, it should be cautious when it comments on issues that India considers integral to its national territory. The truth is that there is nothing new in China’s statement. It does not foster peace, it does not improve the lives of Kashmiris, and it does not advance regional stability. It’s just a rerun of the same old diplomatic script that has been practiced for decades. As a Kashmiri, I find it difficult to understand why leaders thousands of kilometres away continue to define my homeland through outdated geopolitical narratives, ignoring the changes that have taken place on the ground. If Beijing really wants to understand Kashmir, it should spend less time making statements with Islamabad and more time listening to the people who really live here.

India has categorically rejected and described as “unwarranted” the references to Jammu and Kashmir in the China-Pakistan Joint Statement. In response to the statement, the Ministry of External Affairs reiterated that the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh “are, have been and always will be integral and inalienable parts of India.”” India also said that there is no foreign country that has locus standi to comment on the Jammu and Kashmir matters. India had also objected to references to China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), saying that parts of the project pass through Indian territory under Pakistan’s illegal occupation and any effort to legitimise such illegality impinges on India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

This was India’s official response, but my response as a Kashmiri is simple. “We have rejected Pakistan sponsored terrorism in the past and we will continue to reject it in future. It is difficult to understand how Pakistan can talk about Kashmir so much when it has so long supported policies that have brought violence, uncertainty and suffering to the very people it now claims to champion. The truth is that Jammu and Kashmir has changed a lot in the recent years. Better connectivity, increased tourism, growing economic opportunities, improved infrastructure and greater normalcy have reshaped the aspirations of an entire generation. Today the people of Kashmir are more committed to education, entrepreneurship, employment and progress than politics of disruption and unrest. So my message to China and Pakistan is simple. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, both constitutionally and in terms of lived reality. The old politics of hartals, fear and instability do not any longer capture the aspirations of the majority of Kashmiris. We have tasted the bitter fruits of violence and we have known the glorious fruits of peace. “The future of Kashmir will be decided by the people who live here, not by declarations passed in Beijing or Islamabad, but by their hopes and decisions and actions.” For those who still see Kashmir through the lens of old narratives, it would be a good idea to appreciate that a new generation has arrived that seeks opportunity over uncertainty, development over disruption and progress over conflict.

Email: soulofkashmir1@gmail.com