In the most recent development, following some clashes on the Line of Contact on September 27th, 2020, Azerbaijan mobilized its troops against the Armenian forces in the disputed Karabakh region, with Armenia too responding with a partial mobilization and both the countries declaring martial law. The conflict ultimately ended with a ceasefire agreement signed on November 20th, 2020 in Moscow, Russia with Azerbaijan gaining control of a majority of the disputed region. This prompted some to say that the Nagorno Karabakh dispute is similar to that of Kashmir, and that perhaps Pakistan should take similar steps as Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh and Kashmir dispute are in reality two very different issues having very few similarities. Nagorno-Karabakh is ethnically a majority Christian Armenian region lying between Azerbaijan and Armenia while Kashmir is a majority Muslim region split up between India and Pakistan. The former issue started with the decline of the USSR while the latter began with the end of colonial rule in the Sub-continent. In the first case, Armenian locals with the departure of the USSR initiated an uprising against Azerbaijan for autonomy and association with Armenia; but in the case of Kashmir, Raja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession with India against the will of the majority Kashmiris. It is thought that the two issues due to similar contexts can be resolved by holding a UN referendum. But both the cases are treated very differently when it comes to International Law. Firstly, the entire international community including Armenia recognizes the region of Nagorno-Karabakh as an Azeri territory, with several resolutions from UNSC demanding the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the region. But the Kashmir region is recognized as a disputed territory between India and Pakistan by the UN. According to resolution no. 47 of UNSC, “the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite” has to be used in Kashmir for providing right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Secondly, Azerbaijan has a right to exercise its territorial jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh under International law and can take this issue to ICJ with a much stronger position. But India cannot justify atrocities and demographic changes done by it recently through abrogating article 370 and 35(A). From Article 47 of the Geneva Convention IV, an occupying power (India) has no right to annex the territory and has to keep the territorial boundaries and institution of the region intact, before holding a plebiscite under UN resolution of 1948. In the light of the above stated arguments it is concluded that the Nagorno Karabakh dispute is very different to the Kashmir issue, with regards to history, demography and geo-strategic realities of these regions. The recognition of territorial sovereignty of Azerbaijan in the Karabakh region by the United Nations and the international community makes it very different to the Kashmir issue. Other than that, the fact that both India and Pakistan are nuclear armed countries makes the potential global implications of a war over Kashmir much larger than that of the Nagorno Karabakh dispute. Therefore it is totally unfair to claim that the two issues are similar and have similar implications.