If you ask any Indian or Pakistani citizen, most would say that British rule was a cruel thing, and that freedom was inevitable.

Now, if you look at the Kashmir situation, even though India have "official documents" to prove that the whole of Kashmir should be part of India, a lot of people in Kashmir don't want to be part of India or Pakistan.

Some people claim that under India (or Pakistan), Kashmiri people won't face issues. Well, I can say that Britain also had somewhat similar views: for example, "Hindustan will be developed better under British rule". But freedom was the most important thing at that time and it was the right thing to struggle for freedom. So this reason is not good enough to justify ruling Kashmir.

So eventually, it's not about who should rule, it should be about freedom.

So how do people who want the whole of Kashmir to be part of India or Pakistan justify this belief?

Disclaimer: I have nothing against any country, people, or religion. No disrespect. I just want to know how this is justified.

  • Does Pakistan want the whole of Kashmir? India seems to, but Wikipedia suggests that Pakistan is more flexible about the status of Kashmir.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 12:24
  • 9
    An ideal answer to this question would present both the arguments of the Indian and the Pakistani governments for their claims on Kashmir in an equal manner, link to an official government source for each and refrain from making any personal commentary about whose claim is stronger.
    – Philipp
    Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 14:04
  • @Philipp that should help me.
    – Vikas
    Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 14:34

1 Answer 1


Accession to India by Maharaja Hari Singh, ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, on 26 October 1947

In the case of India, it seems the government references the procedures established prior to Independence by which the rulers of princely states would decide whether their state would accede to India, accede to Pakistan or become an independent state.

For example the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India says


Accession to India

  1. The Accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, signed by the Maharaja (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 26th October, 1947, was completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total and irrevocable. The Accession was also supported by the largest political party in the state, the National Conference. In the Indian Independence Act, there was no provision for any conditional accession. The Instrument of Accession executed by the Maharaja was the same as the ones executed by over 500 princely states in India. There has been no complication in any of the other cases. There would have been none in this case either, except for Pakistan's action in sending in tribal invaders first (in October 1947) and its own regular troops later (May 1948).

  2. Lord Mountbatten's acceptance of the Instrument of Accession was unconditional. He said: "I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession". The Instrument of Accession was complete with the offer and acceptance.

  3. There can, therefore, be no question of negotiating on the question of accession of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to India.

The right to self determination

In the case of Pakistan, it seems the government of Pakistan most often references the right of self determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. They also refer to oppression of the Muslim population by Hindu rulers both before and after the Independence of Pakistan and India.

For example



  • To monitor human rights violations and atrocities being committed by the Indian Forces in the occupied Jammu and Kashmir and raise these issues as they arise in all necessary forms;
  • To increase awareness within as well as outside the country about the Kashmir issues;
  • To mobilize world opinion in support of the cause of right of self-determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir as well as the principle stand of Pakistan;
  • To solicit and provide political, moral and diplomatic support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their just struggle for their right of self-determination in accordance with the United Nations resolutions;
  • To make efforts to monitor and improve the performance of the Organizations working on Kashmir and to provide guidance whenever required;
  • To consider and decide such other issues and matters relating to above which may be referred to it by the House from time to time; and
  • Matters ancillary to the above.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .