OIC Has No Locus Standi on Kashmir, But India Needs a More Aggressive Response

Comment
India must rise above its standard response to the insinuations and unwarranted references to Jammu and Kashmir at international forums, whether by Pakistan or by groupings like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which actively peddle Pakistan’s narrative about the Himalayan territory. Hardly a week passes without India having to issue a diplomatic rebuttal to such references, yet these responses remain identical to what they were years ago.
Realistically speaking, responses to diplomatic and political questions regarding Jammu and Kashmir focus heavily on the Kashmir Valley—a Muslim-majority region where Pakistan and a few others believe they can still play their geopolitical games to the fullest. The historical fact is that, to a large extent, Pakistan was previously able to exploit the situation, channelizing embedded local frustrations to its advantage to embarrass India internationally.
Now, however, things have fundamentally changed. This shift is not just in constitutionally technical terms following the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A, and the reorganization of the erstwhile state into the two Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. A perceptible change has also taken place in the public mood and the ground situation. Most of the volatile disruptions—from shootouts and bomb explosions to street clashes and the erosion of institutional authority—have disappeared. A new culture is shaping Kashmir.
This transformation is deeply frustrating for Pakistan and its allies within the OIC. Consequently, the time has come for New Delhi to firmly call Pakistan’s bluff. While asserting that J&K and Ladakh are integral parts of India is a given, that standard statement was originally designed to remind the world of the region’s constitutional and legal status when it was being bled by cross-border terrorism and internal challenges to Indian sovereignty. Back then, it functioned more like a defensive statement rather than a real-time assertion because the situation was fragile; it was a reassurance to an agitated population that India would not allow secession.
Today, the past has been buried, and Kashmir is parting ways with its history of terrorism. The Government of India should be much more aggressive, attempting to silence these adversarial elements with powerful, updated presentations rather than relying on the same old vocabulary. While the traditional response reflects a fundamental reality, it fails to adequately project the vastly changed situation in the Valley. New Delhi must empower narrators from within Jammu and Kashmir itself to deliver this message and make its diplomatic statements highly proactive. The signature tune must change to encompass all modern realities combined.
Granted, India recently gave a sharp reality check to the OIC regarding Jammu and Kashmir. New Delhi categorically rejected the grouping’s references and unsolicited advice on the state of affairs in the Himalayan territory. The Ministry of External Affairs ( MEA) based its response on three major points:

1. Categorical Rejection: India completely rejected the unwarranted and factually incorrect references to the country in the Joint Communiqué of the so-called OIC Contact Group on Jammu & Kashmir.
2. No Locus Standi: The OIC has absolutely no locus standi to pronounce on matters that are strictly internal to India. The entire Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are an integral and inalienable part of India. No amount of repeated, politically motivated propaganda can change this reality, and endorsing such narratives only raises serious questions about the OIC’s credibility.
3. Counselling Pakistan: Instead of offering a platform for fabricated propaganda, the OIC would be better advised to counsel Pakistan—which has a well-documented record of supporting and sponsoring cross-border terrorism—to look inwards and address the continuing threat of terrorism emanating from territories under its control.
   While this rebuttal is grounded in truth, it remains the standard MEA response issued to all insinuations by such groupings and countries, particularly Pakistan and Turkey. It serves as a necessary reminder of today’s geopolitical reality, shutting down speculations that run contrary to the facts. Given that India now exercises complete sovereignty over J&K and Ladakh—having largely decimated the internal challenges driven by Pakistan’s cross-border agenda—this assertion carries far greater weight today than it did a decade ago.
   However, a much bigger question remains: Will these standard answers suffice to put things into the right perspective, and will they actually stop these elements from raking up the Kashmir issue? The simple answer is no.
   These factions will continue to raise the very issues that the OIC Ministerial Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir sought to flag during its recent meeting on the side lines of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly ( UNGA) in New York. . The OIC Contact Group—which comprises Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Niger—did not merely repeat its historical stance; it made a deliberate attempt to internationalize Kashmir and question the measures India has taken to foster greater integration of the region into the national mainstream.
   In a statement issued following the meeting, the OIC reaffirmed its support for what it termed the Kashmiri people’s “inalienable right to self-determination.” The statement noted:
   “His Excellency OIC Secretary-General Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed reaffirmed the Organization’s commitment to supporting the inalienable right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination as the foundation for a just and lasting peace in South Asia, in accordance with Security Council resolutions and the principles of international law. The Secretary-General expressed concern over the humanitarian, human rights, and security situation in the region. He reiterated the call for respect for its international status and the revocation of the unilateral and illegal measures taken since 2019, and welcomed the UN’s affirmation that the relevant Security Council resolutions adopted since 1949 remain in force. He also urged the intensification of international efforts to protect human rights, transparently document events, and keep the Kashmir issue on the international agenda.”
   The OIC is living in an illusion if it believes it can successfully internationalize the Kashmir issue again. It can continue to issue these formal statements, but the ground reality in Kashmir today is unrecognizable from what it was a decade ago.
   The strategy of the OIC, and Pakistan in particular, is clear : they seek to deny that India has successfully curbed violence and shifted the local focus away from historical UN self-determination resolutions. They believe that by internationalizing a perceived crisis, they can corner India. They are also fully aware that India will counter with its familiar, well-rehearsed diplomatic template.
   The time has come to upgrade India’s narrative and diplomatic response. The counter-narrative must be built squarely on the true reality as it exists on the ground today, while simultaneously highlighting the starkly contrasting turmoil happening in the neighbourhood. These selective, outdated narratives must be knocked down once and for all.