Under international law, occupied territory is territory that is effectively controlled by a state that does not have sovereign title over the territory.   Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (IAJK) is occupied territory because it is effectively controlled by India and India has never had, and does not have, sovereign title over the territory. Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir (PAJK) is also occupied territory for the same reason. While ideologically and/or geopolitically uncomfortable for many, the reality that Jammu and Kashmir (which is comprised of IAJK and PAJK) is occupied is (or was) widely recognized, including by the United Nations (the UN Security Council’s resolutions regarding Jammu and Kashmir presuppose that neither India nor Pakistan has sovereign title over the territory).   In fact, authorized representatives of the UN Security Council were explicit that India and Pakistan could only obtain legal title to Jammu and Kashmir at the conclusion of a UN-sanctioned democratic referendum to determine its political future.  

Occupied territory is, by definition, a place of armed conflict under international law.As such, international humanitarian law (or the law of war) applies to the situation in Jammu and Kashmir (in addition to international human rights law).  While occupation is not necessarily illegal, India’s occupation of IAJK is illegal because it was not consented to by a legitimate government (the remnant British colonial government of Hari Singh in IAJK was repressive,unrepresentative and illegitimate) or otherwise legally authorized (by the UN Security Council or otherwise).  Pakistan’s occupation of PAJK was consented to by what was likely a legitimate government in PAJK (that of the Provisional Free (Azad) Government).  While occupation is by definition temporary, India’s illegal occupation of IAJK began in October 1947 and continues to this day;Pakistan’s occupation of PAJK likely began in 1948 and continues to this day.

While India has also annexed and colonized IAJK, Pakistan has not annexed or colonized PAJK.  Unlike its occupation, India’s annexation and colonization of IAJK is not (and was never) widely recognized.

Annexation occurs when a state proclaims sovereignty over territory to which it does not have legal title or takes steps to make an occupation permanent.   India’s longstanding, official mantra regarding IAJK (and Jammu and Kashmir more broadly)—that the territory is an“integral part” of India—is a proclamation of annexation. Although annexation may have occurred earlier, we conservatively date India’s annexation of IAJK to October 31, 1951, when a constitutional assembly was convened in IAJK with a mandate (from and under India) to, among other things, validate IAJK’s accession to India and establish a constitution that defined India’s powers over IAJK.

Colonization is the “subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation” and occurs when a state actually or effectively denies an indigenous population its right to self-determination, including by actually or effectively annexing that population’s territory.   Like its annexation of IAJK, India’s colonization of IAJK occurred no later than October 31, 1951.

Annexation and colonization are grave violations of international law.  In support of its violative annexation,colonization and denial of the right to self-determination in IAJK, India has committed myriad other widespread, grave violations in IAJK over decades, which continue to this day.