A Fenceless Border & Need to Unite Under Pakistan For Kashmir Cause

While both India and Pakistan hold opposing views on the Kashmir conflict, their respective approaches have differed dramatically over time. India’s handling of the issue has been marked by a series of actions and policies that have not only contravened international norms and human rights conventions but have also intensified the suffering of the Kashmiri people. Driven largely by political and territorial interests, India’s reluctance to address the legitimate grievances of Kashmiris has deepened the crisis and prolonged the conflict.

IIIOJK has become one of the most militarized regions in the world, with hundreds of thousands of troops deployed since 1947. This overwhelming military presence has led to numerous reports of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and excessive use of force against civilians and peaceful demonstrators. A particularly controversial element of India’s security policy is the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants sweeping powers to the military, including the authority to arrest or kill with near-total impunity. Enacted in the early 1990s, AFSPA has enabled systemic abuses, often without accountability or recourse for victims.

In contrast, Pakistan has maintained a principled and peaceful stance on the Kashmir issue, consistently advocating for diplomacy, dialogue, and adherence to international law. Pakistan’s position has centered on supporting the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination and calling for a peaceful, negotiated resolution that aligns with their aspirations.

Moreover, Pakistan has consistently drawn international attention to the ongoing human rights violations in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). It has urged organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others to investigate and report on the abuses committed in the region. By keeping the spotlight on these violations, Pakistan seeks to ensure that the suffering of Kashmiris is neither ignored nor forgotten by the global community.

The Line of Control (LoC), a key flashpoint in the Kashmir conflict, serves as the de facto boundary between Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). While it marks the military division between the two sides, it is not recognized as an international border. The LoC is a product of the unresolved status of Jammu and Kashmir and remains a symbol of the ongoing dispute.

One notable aspect of the LoC is Pakistan’s decision not to fortify it with fences or barriers, unlike India, which has heavily militarized and physically reinforced its side of the border. Pakistan’s choice to leave the LoC unfenced reflects not an absence of security concerns, but rather a principled stance rooted in international law, the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir, and its commitment to a peaceful and just resolution of the conflict.

The Line of Control was formally established following the 1972 Simla Agreement, signed by India and Pakistan after the 1971 war that led to the creation of Bangladesh. The agreement designated the LoC as a temporary arrangement pending the final resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Both parties agreed not to alter the status of the region unilaterally or by force, acknowledging that the issue remained unresolved. Since then, the LoC has served as the effective, though unofficial, line separating AJK and IIOJK, symbolizing both the enduring conflict and the continuing hope for a diplomatic settlement. Pakistan’s decision not to fence the Line of Control (LoC) distinctly contrasts with India’s approach, which involves extensive fortification and security measures along its side of the border. This difference reflects the core of Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir conflict—namely, the recognition that Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory whose status remains unresolved.

Pakistan’s stance is firmly grounded in the internationally recognized principle of self-determination, enshrined in the UN Charter and other global human rights instruments. According to this principle, all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Pakistan believes that, given their unique historical, cultural, and demographic identity, the Kashmiri people must be granted the opportunity to exercise this right free from coercion or external pressure.

In this context, Pakistan’s decision not to erect a fence along the Line of Control (LoC) carries symbolic and diplomatic weight. This policy aligns with its commitment to the Simla Agreement of 1972, which established the LoC as a temporary arrangement pending the final settlement of the Kashmir issue. Under the agreement, both India and Pakistan pledged not to alter the status of the region unilaterally or by force. By refraining from fortifying the LoC, Pakistan underscores its respect for the agreement and its broader commitment to diplomacy and peaceful coexistence.

Pakistan’s choice also reflects its consistent call for dialogue and peaceful resolution of the dispute. Unlike India’s heavily militarized approach—which includes constructing extensive fencing and security installations along the LoC—Pakistan’s approach leaves space for the potential of cross-border interaction, trade, and people-to-people exchanges. Such openness fosters trust, facilitates humanitarian cooperation, and keeps the door open for negotiations. In contrast, India’s fencing of the LoC has further entrenched divisions, restricted civilian movement, and contributed to a worsening humanitarian situation in border areas.

From a humanitarian perspective, Pakistan’s policy also seeks to minimize the impact on communities living along the LoC. Many families reside in these border regions, and the construction of a fence would disrupt their livelihoods and social fabric. Limited yet vital cross-border movement—whether for trade, communication, or family connections—helps to alleviate some of the hardships these communities face. Maintaining an unfenced LoC thus demonstrates Pakistan’s sensitivity to the humanitarian needs of the population on both sides of the divide.

By refusing to fortify the LoC, Pakistan sends a clear message that it does not accept the status quo as final or legitimate. It reaffirms its position that Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India, and that any lasting solution must come through a democratic process guided by international law and UN resolutions. Fencing the LoC, in contrast, would suggest an acceptance of a permanent division—something Pakistan fundamentally rejects in favor of a just and peaceful settlement rooted in the will of the Kashmiri people. The decision not to fence the LoC underscores Pakistan’s commitment to the belief that Kashmiris should have the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination in the future, as enshrined in international law. In contrast, India’s construction of a fence along the LoC clearly reflects its intentions to move towards the integration of Indian-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) into India, disregarding the will of the Kashmiri people and violating UN resolutions. This difference in approach highlights the contrasting positions of India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. While Pakistan does not recognize the LoC as a permanent border and remains steadfast in its support for the Kashmir cause and UN resolutions, India’s actions suggest a clear intent to solidify its control over the region. India’s approach stands in stark contrast, as evidenced by the reprehensible act of constructing a fence along the LoC.

This clear divergence in the approaches of Pakistan and India should serve as a wake-up call for those who claim to advocate for independence or harbor anti-Pakistan sentiments. Pakistan has consistently demonstrated unwavering support for the Kashmiri people and the Kashmir cause. It is now essential to put aside political differences and work together under the banner of Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue. The first and most critical step is to compel India to grant Kashmiris their right to self-determination. Only after this fundamental step should other options be considered. Until then, all other alternatives and their promotion should be paused, and the focus should solely be on uniting under Pakistan’s leadership to push India to the negotiating table and grant Kashmiris their right to choose their future. This approach is the key to resolving the Kashmir issue. All stakeholders must work together, setting aside differences, to achieve a resolution.