Addressing a joint news conference during his current visit to Pakistan, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has urged for full respect to human and fundamental rights in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IoK) and implementation of the relevant UN resolutions on the issue. As for the BJP or the Modi’s regime, it could have made an adventure of annexing the Kashmir territory –albeit via some hoodwinking developments of revoking the Kashmir status-which holds no international recognition. Truly, under international law, the Modi regime’s move of August 5 is profoundly illegal in so far as India has long occupied J&K as its presence meets the definition under Article 42 of the Hague Regulations 1907. Both international human rights law and international humanitarian law are rightly applicable in India-held Kashmir. A visionary Henry Dunant, the true pioneer of contemporary international humanitarian law logically argued the role of the Governments while adopting a series of treaties governing the conduct of hostilities: the Declaration of St Petersburg of 1868, The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Protocol of 1925. While in 1977 with the adoption of the two Protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions has logically brought up to date the international law rules governing the conduct of hostilities and those protecting war victim. International humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war, applies when there is a situation of international and internal armed conflict. Clearly, the Human Rights Watch has maintained that the struggle in Kashmir surfacing since the 1990s meets this threshold. However, the fact that in Doda and in other border regions militant forces regularly engage Indian army troops, and the size of the armed forces deployed on both sides, suggests that international humanitarian law may still apply. The international humanitarian law’s applicability to the conflict in Kashmir is found in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949-known as “Common Article 3 which provides international law and standards governing the conduct of parties in an internal armed conflict, including government forces and insurgents. Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that if any part of the population in Occupied Territories is inadequately supplied, then the Occupying Power (India) is to agree to relief schemes on behalf of the population and facilitate them in any way it can. Like Netanyahu’s Israel, Modi’s India has tried to lower down the unalterable dynamics of international law via twisted and ultra vires domestic legislation thereby changing the erstwhile Kashmir status and redefining its administrative jurisdiction through malicious and mala fide means Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, a ‘territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army’. This definition applies to contested territory. The ICJ in its Wall Opinion upheld that Israel was bound by Geneva Convention IV and recognized that the Palestinian territories, whose prior status was contested, became occupied by Israel during the 1967 armed conflict. The ongoing analogy between Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 is identical to India’s occupation of Kashmir following the 1947 armed conflict. International human rights law prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life under any circumstances. While the government of India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and since Article 6 of the ICCPR expressly prohibits derogation from the right to life, the Modi government’s actions in Kashmir are highly deplorable as the Indian Premier Modi deliberately and unjustifiably ignored UN resolutions on the internationally recognized dispute with Pakistan over sovereign control of the Kashmir region-having had no authorization under the established norms and rules of international law. Even though the 1972 Simla agreement which stipulates that Kashmir’s final status is to be decided by peaceful means. Presently, the state of Kashmir–a subnational Indian constituency– with its own elected government and a limited right to frame its own laws. The governor– who is appointed by the President of India– serves as his or her representative in the state. Whereas the Union territories, in contrast, are ruled directly by the central government, they are hence administered by a lieutenant governor–representing the Indian president and the central government. Therefore, most union territories (except Delhi and Puducherry) do not have their own legislatures; however, they are represented in the lower house (Lok Sabha) but have no representation in the upper house (Rajya Sabha), with the exception of Delhi and Puducherry. Now, New Delhi’s central government both controls and administers union territories-thereby including the new administrative units of Ladakh and the Vale illegally. Like Netanyahu’s Israel, Modi’s India has tried to lower down the unalterable dynamics of international law via twisted and ultra vires domestic legislation thereby changing the erstwhile Kashmir status and redefining its administrative jurisdiction through malicious and mala fide means. In this regard, the very downgrading of Kashmir’s status from the previous state to the union territory ‘has caused some devious implications nonetheless. Consequently, via revoking Kashmir’s previous status, the Indian administrative powers are divided among central government and subnational units such as states and union territories-while completely ignoring the implication of international law. Critics argue that Modi’s attempt at redefining the Kashmir status is glaringly linked to the arrangement to the West Bank’s settlers (armed or civilian living in guarded compounds among disenfranchised locals). Undeniably, the change in Kashmir’s present status is not only unjust but also illegal. The applicability of the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir is highly inevitable. While chartering his genuine concern about the situation in India-held Kashmir, the visiting UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, “Diplomacy and dialogue remain the only tools that guarantee peace and stability with solutions in accordance with the Charter of United Nations and resolutions of the Security Council.” He also highlighted the importance to “de-escalate, both militarily and verbally”. But Modi’s recalcitrance on Kashmir is the main stumbling block in the way of regional peace and stability.Factually, the Modi’s attempt to undermine the spirit of international law via domestic legislation–fostering polycentric approach on Kashmir is a mixture of opposites. “The repeal of Article 370 is a big manifestation of Hindu nationalism, as it represents an effort to bring India’s only Muslim-majority region into the union of India so that the nation’s Hindu majority can invest, acquire land there, and so on” said Michael Kugelman, a South Asian expert at the Wilson Center in Washington. Needless to say, the Modi government’s plan– to annex the Kashmir territory by overlapping the implications of international law with that of India’s domestic law–is a mischievous game because, in this way, the Indian Government is basically hijacking the rights of the Kashmiris guaranteed under the UN’s Charter and protected by the established International Conventions on Human Rights. The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan