A fundamental aspect of the Kashmiri right to self-determination has been overlooked. Prolonged occupation does not confer ownership, and despite decades of illegal occupation, India does not own Kashmir’s natural resources. These resources belong to the Kashmiri people and cannot be used or exploited without their consent. Once this principle is properly understood, the entire debate surrounding India’s water aggression against Pakistan takes on a different meaning.
So far, discussion on India’s water policies has largely focused on treaty obligations. The central argument has been that India cannot violate the Indus Waters Treaty, cannot unilaterally suspend or terminate it, and cannot deprive Pakistan of its share of water. It is also correctly argued that even in the absence of a bilateral treaty, India would still be bound by international law. Under the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Stockholm and Dublin Declarations, Agenda 21, the Mar del Plata Action Plan, the Helsinki Rules, the UNECE Water Convention, and customary international law, India has no right to block or divert Pakistan’s waters. Yet within this extensive legal debate, the most basic issue has remained largely ignored.
At the heart of the dispute lies ownership of Kashmir’s natural resources. The rivers that flow to Pakistan through occupied Kashmir do not belong to India at all. The rivers, their waters, and all associated natural resources are the property of the Kashmiri people. India is not a sovereign authority in Kashmir. It is an occupying power.
Any interference with the natural flow directly affects Azad Kashmir, depriving its people of their rightful share. This is a clear violation of the Kashmiri right to self-determination and a breach of international law, which explicitly denies ownership or permanent control of resources to an occupying state.
As an occupying state, India is engaged in the systematic exploitation of water resources in occupied Kashmir. In effect, it has weaponised water and is using it as a tool against Pakistan. After the revocation of Kashmir’s special status, India’s illegal grip over the Jhelum, Chenab, Neelum, Kunhar, and numerous lakes has become even more dangerous. Hydropower projects such as Baglihar, Dulhasti, and Uri are not only harmful to Pakistan but also deeply damaging for the local Kashmiri population. Most of the water is diverted for industrial, commercial, and energy projects, while the basic needs and rights of the local population are sidelined.
The Kishanganga project is a clear example. Water has been diverted from its natural course towards India, directly affecting the lives and livelihoods of Kashmiris. Agriculture in Kashmir has been placed at risk as water is redirected from centuries-old routes to serve India’s industrial and power generation needs. Vast forest areas spread over thousands of acres have been cut down. These actions are not merely environmental or administrative violations. They constitute serious breaches of international law and, in many cases, fall within the category of war crimes.
The rivers that flow to Pakistan through occupied Kashmir do not belong to India at all.
These illegal measures are directed not only against Pakistan but also against Kashmir itself. They are a direct assault on the Kashmiri right to self-determination. After the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019, India assumed direct and coercive control over Kashmir’s natural resources as an occupying power. Authority over forests, mining and mineral licenses, land acquisition, and decisions regarding rivers and lakes was transferred from local institutions to the central government of the occupying state. The result has been the systematic dispossession of the Kashmiri people. They have lost control over their land, water, and mineral wealth. Employment opportunities have declined, the local economy has suffered, and exploitation through industrial, commercial, and hydropower projects has intensified.
Occupation, no matter how prolonged, does not transform into ownership. An illegal occupation remains illegal and can never acquire legal legitimacy. This is a settled principle of international law. On this basis, the United Nations Security Council declared Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait unlawful. On the same principle, the United Nations General Assembly refused to recognise the occupation of Azerbaijani territory. Similar reasoning has applied to other cases of prolonged occupation across the world.
International law goes further. When an occupation cannot immediately be brought to an end, strict rules are imposed to protect the interests of the occupied population during the interim period. These rules are designed to prevent an occupying power from plundering resources and to make it clear that it is not the owner. Its authority is temporary, limited, and subject to precise legal constraints.
Article 55 of the Hague Regulations clearly establishes that an occupying power cannot be the owner of occupied territory. Its status is that of an administrator, and even this role comes with narrow limits. Natural resources may be used temporarily only to prevent their deterioration, but permanent benefit cannot be extracted. The Hague Regulations explicitly prohibit the use of minerals, water, forests, and other resources for the commercial benefit of the occupying power or any alteration in their fundamental character.
The Fourth Geneva Convention reinforces this framework. Article 47 prohibits an occupying power from depriving the local population of its rights through legislative or administrative measures. Article 53 bars the use of resources from an occupied territory for the occupier’s economic or development projects. The United Nations General Assembly affirmed the same principle in Resolution 1803 of 1962, declaring that ownership of natural resources rests with the people of the territory, not with the occupying power. Resolution 3175 of 1973 further declared that the exploitation of natural resources in occupied territories by an occupying power is illegal. The International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights also recognise the right of all peoples to freely use their natural resources and prohibit their deprivation.
India’s constitutional arguments have no relevance in this context. Whether Article 370 remained in force or was abolished does not alter the legal status of occupied Kashmir. Kashmir was not, is not, and cannot become a part of India through domestic legal measures. Its future remains undecided and must be determined in accordance with United Nations resolutions through a free and impartial plebiscite conducted by the Kashmiri people. India’s internal laws cannot override international law. The United Nations Security Council has made it unequivocally clear that no internal arrangement, no election, and no administrative restructuring can serve as a substitute for the Kashmiri right to self-determination.
The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood