Kuala lumpur: The International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia hosted Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Chairman of the World Forum for Peace and Justice, for a wide-ranging podcast discussion on the Kashmir dispute, its international dimensions, the parallels between Kashmir and Palestine, and the urgent need for a peaceful and just settlement.The podcast was conducted by two seasoned media experts, Dr. Ahmad Elmuhammadi, an academic and intellectual, and Wan Naim Wan Mansor, Fellow at IAIS. The discussion formed part of IAIS's broader commitment to leading public discourse on global Muslim issues, foreign relations and social cohesion through research, strategic communication and dialogue.Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai described Kashmir as one of the oldest unresolved international problems in the world, emphasizing that the dispute is not confined to the people of Kashmir but has profound implications for peace and stability throughout South Asia. He noted that India and Pakistan are nuclear-weapon sta tes, making the unresolved dispute a matter of international concern.Responding to a question about what distinguishes Kashmir from other conflicts, Dr. Fai emphasized that Kashmir has a distinctive status under international law and in the framework of United Nations deliberations. He argued that agreements between India and Pakistan, negotiated through the United Nations and endorsed by the Security Council, provided for the future status of the territory to be determined according to the wishes of its people under UN supervision.He further argued that describing the Kashmiri movement simply as a separatist movement overlooks the historical and international dimensions of the dispute. In his view, the question concerns the political future of a territory whose status was to be determined through an internationally recognized process.Addressing the similarities between Kashmir and Palestine, Dr. Fai pointed to the fact that both conflicts emerged prominently on the international agenda around the same period. He referred to UN Security Council Resolutions 43, 46 and 48 concerning Palestine and Resolution 47 concerning Kashmir, adopted in April 1948.He also drew attention to what he described as demographic changes associated with settler-colonial projects in both territories, arguing that the international community should examine such developments through the framework of international law and the rights of affected populations.Dr. Fai stressed that the Kashmir dispute cannot be treated merely as a bilateral disagreement between India and Pakistan. With both countries possessing nuclear weapons, he said, the dispute has the potential to develop into a catastrophic conflict, making prevention and peaceful settlement a major concern for the international community.He expressed concern that international efforts have often emphasized the 'reduction of tensions' rather than addressing what he considers the core issue-the unresolved Kashmir dispute. Temporary measures, he argued, cannot substitute for a durable political settlement that addresses the concerns and aspirations of the people most directly affected.Dr. Fai also challenged the notion that the Line of Control should be treated as a permanent solution. He recalled that it was originally conceived as a temporary cease-fire line pending further steps toward demilitarization and a determination of the territory's future.He argued that treating the Line of Control as a permanent international border would risk transforming a temporary arrangement into a substitute for the political settlement envisaged in the international framework. For him, a lasting peace requires addressing the underlying dispute rather than simply managing its symptoms.Asked about the impact of the unresolved conflict on South Asia, Dr. Fai said that the central problem was not necessarily the absence of a possible solution but the lack of political will to implement a solution. He said the continuing deadlock has brought enormous suffering to the people of Kashmir while als o imposing significant political and economic costs on both India and Pakistan.He also pointed to voices within Indian civil society that have questioned the wisdom and long-term consequences of continuing the Kashmir deadlock, citing commentators like Vir Sanghvi of Hindustan Times, Swaminathan Aiyer of Times of India, Arundhati Roy who have advocated allowing Kashmiris to determine their own political future.On the role of world powers, Dr. Fai recalled that the United States played an important role during the early stages of the Kashmir dispute and supported the principle that the future status of Kashmir should reflect the wishes and aspirations of its people. He referred particularly to UN Security Council Resolution 47 of April 21, 1948, and subsequent UN Commission resolutions concerning India and Pakistan.He also recalled statements by U.S. President Donald Trump expressing willingness to facilitate dialogue between India and Pakistan, including his characterization of Kashmir as a highly volat ile dispute requiring serious attention.Asked what Malaysia and other Muslim-majority countries could do beyond expressing solidarity with Kashmir, Dr. Fai said countries maintaining friendly relations with both India and Pakistan could encourage the two countries to pursue a settlement in the interests of regional peace and stability.He suggested strengthening the role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Kashmir Contact Group and encouraging greater diplomatic engagement on the issue.Dr. Fai also urged Malaysia and other countries to support renewed international human-rights scrutiny of Kashmir. Referring to recommendations concerning a commission of inquiry and fact-finding mission, he said countries could raise the issue at the UN Human Rights Council and advocate for access to both Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.Responding to the argument that UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir are outdated, Dr. Fai maintained that the passage of time does not by itself invalidate international commitments.He argued that the continued non-implementation of a UN-endorsed principle cannot be treated as evidence that the principle itself has disappeared. In his view, the right of self-determination remains central to the question and cannot simply be extinguished by the passage of decades.Regarding Pakistan's role, Dr. Fai acknowledged that Pakistan has consistently raised Kashmir at international forums, including the United Nations and the OIC, but argued that the issue requires a more sustained and proactive diplomatic strategy.He suggested consideration of appointing a seasoned special envoy on Kashmir by the Priem Minister of Pakistan and reviving international debate on the political and legal dimensions of the dispute.One of the central themes of the interview was the gap between international recognition of Kashmir's unresolved status and concrete international action.Dr. Fai referred to developments following India's August 5, 2019 constitutional changes and cited the August 8, 2019 statement of the UN Secretary-General that the Kashmir issue was to be resolved in accordance with the UN Charter and applicable Security Council resolutions. He argued that this demonstrates the continuing international character of the Kashmir question and provides grounds for hope among Kashmiris.Concluding the discussion, Dr. Fai emphasized that there is no military solution to the Kashmir conflict. He called instead for peaceful, tripartite negotiations involving India, Pakistan and the genuine leadership of the people of Kashmir.He stressed that meaningful negotiations require an environment free from violence and urged a ceasefire from all sides as a necessary step toward creating conditions for dialogue.'The Kashmir issue,' he emphasized in substance, cannot be resolved through force; it requires a peaceful political process that addresses the aspirations of the people and contributes to lasting peace and stability in South Asia.The IAIS podcast thus provided a signifi cant platform for examining Kashmir not merely as a regional dispute but as an issue with wider implications for international law, human rights, nuclear security, regional stability and the credibility of the international system.