Both China and Pakistan mutually but principally rejected the Modi government’s move to divide the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IoK). China on last Thursday opposed the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories as “unlawful and void”, saying India’s decision to “include” some of China’s territory into its administrative jurisdiction “challenged” Beijing’s sovereignty. China had earlier objected to the Indian government’s August 5 order of the revocation of Article 370 and the formation of Ladakh as Union Territory, saying that some of the area involved Chinese territory. India’s reinventing of new boundaries is unacceptable to both Beijing and Islamabad. Factually examining, the Indian division of Kashmir clearly shows New-Delhi’s ultra vires and mala fides in terms of India’s domestic and UN’s international law perspectives. The New Delhi government on Saturday released the maps of newly created Union Territories (UTs) of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh– thereby reinventing the new units in these UTs. Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) is part of the newly created Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, while Gilgit-Baltistan is in the UT of Ladakh in the fresh maps released following the current bifurcation. By revoking the special status of India-administered Kashmir and splitting it into two union territories– Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh–New Delhi has undermined international law. India’s unilateral move to fundamentally change the administrative division of the region and seize Pakistani and Chinese territories has annoyed its two neighbours and justifiably invited strong reactions from Beijing and Islamabad. China has systematically rejected the Shimla Accord signed between representatives of China, Tibet and British India in 1914. According to this accord, Ladakh is part of Jammu and Kashmir. China does not recognise this agreement saying that it was signed by a government that did not represent the people of China because the current communist regime of China came to power in the country in 1949. In Beijing, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said “China deplores and firmly opposes” the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir. India unilaterally changes its domestic law and administrative divisions, challenging China’s sovereignty and interests. This is unlawful and void and this is not effective in any way and will not change the fact that the area is under Chinese actual control,” Geng said, urging India to “earnestly respect Chinese territorial sovereignty” and “uphold peace and tranquillity in the border areas”. China also accuses India of violating the ‘1890 border agreement’ between China and Britain, which once controlled India’s affairs, by having troops in the disputed area. The New Delhi government on Saturday released the maps of newly created Union Territories (UTs) of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh– thereby reinventing the new units in these UTs. Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) is part of the newly created Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, while Gilgit-Baltistan is in the UT of Ladakh in the fresh maps released following the current bifurcation Traditionally, China continues to administer the Kashmiri region of Aksai Chin – a part in east of India-administered Ladakh– an area in northwestern India that –will come under New Delhi’s direct rule as a result of the current changes to be imposed by the Modi government. India’s consolidation of autonomy over Ladakh – and by extension Aksai Chin – seems to trigger a new border dispute between Beijing and New Delhi. In 1962, troops from the People’s Republic of China and India had clashed in territory claimed by both. Aksai Chin, part of which was under Chinese jurisdiction before the war, remained under Chinese control since ever then. In terms of foreign law or law of international jurisdiction, Beijing is totally justified in framing its objections to India’s decision to change the state of Jammu and Kashmir, accusing New Delhi of undermining its territorial sovereignty, particularly with reference to Ladakh – an area of strategic importance between Tibet and Pakistan. Consequently, Beijing rejects Indian claims as a ‘vestigial echo of colonialism’. For Pakistan, the Modi government’s revocation of article 370/35a is fundamentally illegal since the move is in direct friction with Indian domestic law and international law on Kashmir, as well. India’s any self-claimed sovereignty over the disputed region via geographic or demographic changes in Kashmir holds no validity. For Pakistan, UNSC resolutions in 1948-9 are the only viable means to settle the old dispute. Recalling that Article 35A of the Constitution of India, introduced through a constitutional order in 1954, authorised the state legislature to define ‘permanent residents’. Those defined as permanent residents were entitled to property rights, employment, scholarships and other social benefits in the state. Indian authorities also changed the name of the state-run radio station Radio Kashmir Srinagar to All India Radio Srinagar. The radio started broadcasting even before India gained independence in 1947. The most glaring change is the very ‘absence’ of Kashmir’s own flag and constitution, which were eliminated as part of the disputed region’s new status. And yet the most contentious point for many people is the threat of land grabs by Indians outside the region with the formal abrogation of a clause in the Indian Constitution that protected Kashmiris’ exclusive right to ‘land ownership’. Retrospectively, the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir– remained in force until August 2019– made it mandatory to hoist the state flag alongside the Flag of India. … Deputy Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Nirmal Kumar Singh said that no flag could be hoisted at an equal level of the national flag of India. Historically, the State of Jammu & Kashmir has intrinsically remained an associate state of India and not one of its constituent units. The Indian territory that exists today remains an embodiment of the former British Indian territories– ruled by the British and, the princely states– over which the British acted as the suzerain power. While the princely states merged into India via multilateral instruments and covenants in favour of the Indian Union, the State of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), through an Instrument of Accession (IoA), only transferred law-making powers in respect of three subjects to the contemplated Union of India. As elaborated in the White Paper on the Indian States issued by the Government of India in 1950, this procedure was a halfway house between complete ‘separation and full integration’. This arrangement ensured that the sovereign nature of J&K would continue since the accession only transferred public functions and ‘not sovereignty’. The former Jammu & Kashmir’s interim PM Sheikh Abdullah’s statement in the Kashmir Constituent Assembly in 1954 carries logical leverage: “The Constitution does not mean that it [Article 370] is capable of being abrogated, modified or replaced unilaterally. In actual effect, the temporary nature of this Article arises merely from the fact that the power to finalize the constitutional relationship between the State and the Union of India has been specifically vested in the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. It follows that whatever modifications, amendments or exceptions that may become necessary either to Article 370 or any other Article in the Constitution of India in their application to Jammu and Kashmir are subject to decisions of this sovereign body.” Arguably, Article 370(1)(d) requires that the Indian President secure the concurrence of the J&K government before issuing such an order. Finally, Article 370(3) states that the President can issue a notification making the whole of Article 370 inoperative if such a recommendation is made to the President by the Constituent Assembly of J&K. Yet in the current situation, the Indian President’s order is void of any such compliance. Prima facie, the President has exceeded the confines of the power delegated to him under Article 370(1) (d). The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan