Kashmir: The Other Palestine the World Ignores

As the international tide turns in favor of Palestinian statehood — with the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, and even the traditionally cautious Germany signaling recognition — a sobering question emerges from another corner of contested history: Will Kashmir ever receive the same global awakening?

For decades, Kashmir and Palestine have mirrored each other in eerie parallels — both torn apart by partition, caught in protracted military occupations, and trapped between powerful nationalisms that refuse to yield. Both peoples have been denied the right of self-determination, promised in solemn resolutions, only to watch those promises dissolve in the fog of geopolitics.

And yet, today, the world increasingly dares to utter the word “Palestine” with moral urgency. Kashmir remains cloaked in silence, its suffering muffled by diplomacy, double standards, and denial.

In August 2019, India unilaterally abrogated Article 370, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status and further integrating the disputed region into the Indian Union. The move was celebrated by Hindu nationalist politicians in New Delhi but decried by Kashmiris on the ground as a final erasure of their identity. In the weeks that followed, Kashmir became a ghost valley — phone lines cut, the internet blacked out, dissent criminalized. More than five years later, the region remains under heavy militarization, with thousands of civilians subjected to arbitrary detentions, curfews, and crackdowns.

Yet global outrage has been muted.

Why is it that the same voices demanding justice for Gaza hesitate to even acknowledge the pain of Kashmir? Part of the answer lies in global realpolitik. India, unlike Israel, is often viewed as a rising democratic power, a vital counterweight to China. Western capitals prefer to look the other way when New Delhi represses dissent — whether in Kashmir, Manipur, or among its own minorities — because India is too big to criticize, too important to alienate.

But moral consistency must not be sacrificed at the altar of strategic convenience.

The recognition of Palestine is not merely about borders — it’s about acknowledging a people’s right to exist, to live with dignity, and to determine their future. The same principle applies to Kashmir. If self-determination is not universal, it is meaningless.

Some may argue that the Kashmir conflict is bilateral — a matter between India and Pakistan — and therefore not comparable to the occupation of Palestinian territories. But that is a narrow reading of international law. The United Nations passed multiple resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir — resolutions India once championed and now rejects. That makes Kashmir, like Palestine, a matter of global concern, not just regional rivalry.

In the past year, the world has seen a growing chorus of civil society actors, international human rights organizations, and even some lawmakers in the West begin to break the silence around Kashmir. But it’s not enough. Recognizing the issue does not mean taking sides in a war — it means upholding the principles that international institutions claim to stand for.

The people of Kashmir, like the Palestinians, are not seeking global charity. They are demanding justice, recognition, and the right to choose their future. Their resistance — peaceful or otherwise — is not born out of hatred, but out of decades of humiliation, exclusion, and broken promises.

Recognition matters. It opens doors to accountability. It validates suffering. It reaffirms humanity. If the world has found the courage to speak for Palestine, it must find the moral clarity to speak for Kashmir, too.

The world must understand: Kashmir is not merely a humanitarian issue. It is a nuclear flashpoint. Pakistan and India — both nuclear-armed rivals — have fought multiple wars over Kashmir. Recent military operations, such as Operation Sindoor and Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos, underscore the volatility that lies just beneath the surface. Each skirmish, each infiltration, each provocation carries the weight of escalation.

Injustice does not become less unjust because it is inconvenient to confront. The time has come to end selective empathy. For the world to be truly just, it must extend its conscience to every forgotten valley — including Kashmir.