Earlier this week, China and Pakistan, in a joint statement, labelled J&K as a dispute that is “left over from history”. Dated May 26, 2026, the Joint Statement between the People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan read:
“Both sides reiterated opposition to any unilateral actions and reaffirmed the significance of maintaining peace and stability in South Asia, and resolving all outstanding disputes through dialogue and diplomacy. The Pakistani side briefed the Chinese side on the latest developments in the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The Chinese side reiterated that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute is left over from history, and should be properly and peacefully resolved in accordance with the U.N. Charter, relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and bilateral agreements.”
The disputes and issues here are twofold: 1. Is “the situation in Jammu and Kashmir” for China to bring up for discussion with Pakistan? 2. What is really “left over from history”, when it comes to J&K?
The first, of course, ever since China stole control of eastern Ladakh, and Pakistan’s strategic importance for the country, it goes without saying why it was even up for discussion. Another element flagged in the joint statement in this context was by experts like Dr Brahma Chellaney, who pointed out the mention of trans-boundary water resources cooperation. The statement read: “The two sides expressed readiness to conduct trans-boundary water resources cooperation under the principle of equality and mutual benefit. The significance of the maintenance of international and regional security and stability was reiterated.”
But fact of the matter as Dr Chellaney addressed, is that waters flowing directly from Chinese-held territory into Pakistan-held territory constitute only minor rivers and glacial streams at best. The Chenab, Jhelum and the Indus flow from India into Pakistan. The MEA response addressed this: “As the two countries do not share any boundary, the question of so-called ‘trans-boundary water resources cooperation’ does not arise. India has never recognized the so-called 1963 boundary agreement between Pakistan and China.”
A little about this agreement: Pakistan is in illegal and forcible occupation of approximately 78,000 sq. kms of Indian Territory in Jammu and Kashmir. Under the so-called Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement signed in 1963, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,180 sq. kms in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, to China.
The date of the joint statement May 26, 2026, is important again, for three reasons: 1. The day it was issued, Pakistan’s Minister for Climate Change and Environmental Coordination Musadik Malik while addressing a high-level international water conference in Dushanbe, accused India of trying to politicise shared water resources, saying unilateral actions affecting transboundary rivers could create serious global challenges related to water security, food production and climate resilience. The minister urged India to respect the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty which India has been ‘holding in abeyance’ since the Pahalgam tragedy last year.
2. One year after Operation Sindoor, the Indus Waters Treaty remains in abeyance. The arrangement under the IWT gave Pakistan access to about 80% of the Indus waters. 23% of Pakistan’s GDP comes from agriculture, 90% of which is dependent on the Indus water system. Especially after the West Asia crisis, Pakistan’s GDP growth forecast for FY27 is down to a mere 2.5 to 3%, and the industrial sector remains at high risk with potential growth collapsing to just 1%.
Needless to say, the walls of its dams have started closing in. However, even after Pahalgam and despite the smear campaigns India has alerted Pakistan to Chenab flooding at least twice.
3. It falls two days before Pakistan marked Youm-e-Takbeer: the commemoration of the day that put the country on the nuclear map. On this day last year, marking Youm-e-Takbeer celebrations, Pakistan’s Food Minister Malik Rasheed Ahmad Khan and Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan were seen seated alongside Lashkar-e-Taiba-linked figures: Saifullah Kasuri – the alleged mastermind behind the Pahalgam attacks, designated terrorist and 2001 Indian Parliament attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed’s son Talha, and founding Lashkar member Amir Hamza.
Additionally, what is really “left over”, when it comes to J&K, is this.
Firstly, Pakistan got the UN Security Council, whose resolutions have been referenced in the joint statement, to drop the mention of LeT offshoot TRF – The Resistance Front – from its statement condemning the Pahalgam attack, despite the group initially claiming responsibility. The National Investigation Agency chargesheet has identified Pakistan-based Sajid Jatt of the LeT as the handler of the Pahalgam attack, while accusing the TRF of planning and executing the attack. Will the UN correct its stance before India begins to consider any of its resolution?
Secondly, the 1948 UN resolution explicitly requires Pakistan to withdraw its troops from Jammu & Kashmir to positions before its invasion in 1947 as the first step before any kind of a plebiscite can be conducted. So, does this mean it is willing to now relinquish PoK, so the matter can be “properly and peacefully resolved”?
While maintaining that Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh have been, are and will always remain integral and inalienable parts of India, we have also said that the issue is bilateral. But what Pakistan forgets is it is still squatting on illegally occupied territory, and the last time India acted on its resolve to take back its land, there were 93,000 Pakistani troops surrendering in disgrace.
And what is left over? It is the legacy, an ongoing one, of proxy war by Pakistan, with China’s blessings, being waged against India – a proxy war that has included the campaign of ethnic cleansing of Hindus in the Kashmir Valley.
The Indian tricolour now sits atop Lal Chowk with pride. The only country with any locus standi regarding what has to be done about J&K, is India. Only thing for China and Pakistan to do is to take note of the rise of Naya Kashmir.