Asif Mahmood
India’s systematic exploitation of natural resources in occupied Kashmir raises a fundamental question of international law. Who owns the resources of Kashmir? Does international law confer ownership rights upon an occupying power over the land, water, forests, and minerals of a territory it controls by force?
The extraction of Kashmiri resources did not begin in 2019. It had long been facilitated through a range of legal and administrative measures. However, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019 removed even the limited restraints that previously existed. Through this legislation, Indian laws were directly extended to the territory, enabling New Delhi to assume direct and coercive control over Kashmir’s natural resources. From forests and mineral licenses to land acquisition and decisions concerning rivers and lakes, authority now rests entirely with the Indian central government. Even the nominal powers once exercised by local institutions have been extinguished. Decision making is no longer local, not even in form.
The consequences have been severe. Kashmiris have been dispossessed of control over their land, water, and mineral wealth. Employment opportunities and the local economy have suffered, while large scale industrial, commercial, and hydropower projects have expanded resource extraction for external benefit. India is administering Kashmir as though it were sovereign property, a position fundamentally incompatible with established principles of international law.
A core legal principle must be stated clearly. An occupying power does not acquire ownership of an occupied territory. Occupation, particularly when unlawful, does not translate into sovereignty or title. Even where occupation exists as a matter of fact, international law treats it as temporary and strictly regulated. The Hague Regulations, especially Article 55, articulate this governing framework. An occupying power cannot claim ownership of public property. Its role is limited to that of an administrator and usufructuary. Even within this limited role, its authority is constrained. Resources may be used only on a temporary basis for administration and preservation. Permanent, commercial, or strategic exploitation is prohibited. Large scale or irreversible extraction of minerals, water, forests, land, or infrastructure for the occupier’s economic objectives is unlawful.
India’s attempt to consolidate control over Kashmir’s resources through domestic legislation does not alter this legal reality. Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits an occupying power from depriving the local population of their rights through legal or administrative measures. Article 53 further restricts the destruction, appropriation, or exploitation of property and resources in occupied territory for the occupier’s own economic or developmental purposes.
Although India exercises physical illegal control over Kashmir, international law is unambiguous on the issue of ownership. The natural resources of Kashmir belong exclusively to the Kashmiri people. This principle was firmly established by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 1803 of 1962, which affirmed the doctrine of permanent sovereignty of peoples over their natural resources. Occupation does not extinguish this right, nor can an occupying power lawfully deny it.
The General Assembly reaffirmed this position in Resolution 3175 of 1973, declaring that the exploitation of natural resources in occupied territories by an occupying power is illegal and constitutes a violation of the fundamental principles of international law. These resolutions leave no room for ambiguity regarding the illegitimacy of India’s actions in Kashmir.
Two core international treaties further reinforce this legal framework. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both recognize the right of all peoples to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. They categorically prohibit depriving any people of their means of subsistence. These obligations apply irrespective of occupation.
If India continues to extract and exploit Kashmir’s resources through force and in denial of the rights of the local population, the legal consequences are grave. Under Article 8, subsection 2(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, such conduct may amount to pillage. Pillage is recognized as a war crime under international humanitarian law.
India’s conduct with respect to Kashmir’s water resources is particularly alarming. As an occupying power, it is systematically exploiting and weaponizing water against both the local population and Pakistan. Following the revocation of Kashmir’s special status, India’s control over the Jhelum, Chenab, Neelum, Kunhar, and numerous lakes has become increasingly aggressive. Hydropower and dam projects such as Baglihar, Dul Hasti, and Uri have caused serious harm to local communities. Water is diverted toward industrial, commercial, and power generation projects, while the basic needs and rights of Kashmiris are marginalized.
The diversion of water from the Kishanganga toward India has directly undermined local livelihoods. Kashmir’s agricultural systems are under threat as traditional water routes, developed over centuries, are redirected to serve Indian industrial and commercial interests. Thousands of acres of forests have been cut down, accelerating environmental degradation and ecological imbalance.
These actions are not merely political disputes or administrative excesses. They constitute serious violations of international law. The systematic exploitation of resources in occupied Kashmir amounts to internationally wrongful acts and, in certain contexts, war crimes. International law is clear and unequivocal. Kashmir’s land, water, forests, and minerals do not belong to India. They belong to the people of Kashmir alone.