With a bipartisan, near-unanimous resolution passed by the US House of Representatives seeking a probe into Pakistan general elections, I find myself grappling with some troubling questions with “Will there be an American resolution on the elections of Occupied Kashmir?”, being the ultimate conundrum. Pakistan has been an arena of proxy war but never before has it been that evident. This is disconcerting, and worst still, there is no escaping its reverberations. To put it gently, this resolution is a precursor to political concerns rather than an indication of US strength and dedication to democracy. Had this not been the case, the grim situation of Kashmir would not have been met by silence from the US. Now that the Pakistani parliament has promptly denounced this resolution, let’s hope it will not drive a wedge between the US and Pakistan and if what sources are saying is correct, it will not, for sure. An International law perspective of Kashmir is quite evident. It can be summarized as follows: Kashmir is a disputed territory. It is not the part of Indian Union Territory. Kashmiris have a right to self-determination. The fate of Kashmir is to be decided by the people of Kashmir through the UN-held plebiscite. Any election under Indian supervision cannot be a substitute for the right to self-determination. The major question at hand is this: How might Lok Sabha elections be held in Kashmir if the region is not a part of India? Isn’t it a flagrant disregard for the UN Security Council’s resolutions and the UN Charter? Pakistan has been an arena of proxy war but never before has it been that evident. Indian authorities are targeting Kashmir’s entire socio-political fabric. The Muslim community lacks empowerment. The demographic scene has been completely destroyed. The treatment of Kashmir is akin to that of the Palestinians by Israel. Occupational Constitutionalism has taken more ugly shape of settler colonialism. Human Rights are being denied. The oppressed Kashmiris wait with bated breath if any resolution of the House of Representatives would eventually address their plight. Kashmir is not part of India. It is an occupied territory. Annexation of an occupied territory is prohibited under Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. Additionally, the UN Security Council has stated in a resolution that annexing land is prohibited. The ICJ adopted the same stance in its advisory opinion regarding Israel’s Wall. Now, India has effectively annexed Kashmir to its union by force through the revocation of Article 370 of its Constitution. It has also held Indian general elections in the occupied territory, completely disregarding and disrespecting UN resolutions and international law. Shouldn’t a resolution be passed declaring that these elections are unlawful and calling for an investigation into this illicit activity? There are certain issues that the international community should address. Can an occupied territory be annexed? Can an occupied force hold a general election in occupied territory? Can an occupied territory be included in the electoral college of the occupied force? Will such an election be legal? Does it need any probe or not? Does the occupying power have the absolute freedom to do as it wants in complete disregard of International law? Although forceful population displacement is explicitly forbidden under Geneva Convention IV, India is freely changing Kashmir’s demographic balance. According to the Hague Convention, no private property may be seized. (Section 56). Nonetheless, the reality is that the Indian military is occupying almost 6 lakh kanals of land in Jammu and Kashmir. Individuals are losing access to their personal belongings. Just in Srinagar, 175329 kanals of land have been taken from their rightful owners by Indian officials. The Hague Convention further stipulates that even state property shall be treated as private property and shall not be confiscated. On the contrary, India has grabbed 178005 acres in Kashmir and 25159 acres in Jammu on the pretext that it is state land and it belongs to the Indian government. Don’t take my word for it, reality speaks volumes of the fact that the concept of Human Rights and Democracy has actually been “weaponized” and is regularly employed to manipulate the policies of certain nations. The fact that tyrants can be nice and trustworthy at times and democracies can be dubious and unpredictable at other times is a peculiar paradox of the US foreign policy. Even if Mursi is taken out of his office and hung, the US won’t lose its cool. The US doesn’t care if India defies international law; nevertheless, when its interests require it to pull Pakistan apart, it begins to criticize and raise doubts about the general elections under various pretexts. Here’s where the crucial question comes in: What is the ultimate goal, the weaponization of democracy or democracy itself? The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood.