What are the similarities and differences between Nagorno-Kaharabakh and Kashmir conflicts?

Introduction

UN Security Council resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 declared that "the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite." More than seven decades later, that plebiscite has not been held. Thousands of kilometres away, in the South Caucasus, another conflict born of the collapse of empire, over Nagorno-Karabakh, was finally decided by war in 2020 and 2023. The two disputes are often compared, especially in Pakistan, which supports both Azerbaijan and the Kashmiris. They share important similarities, but their legal basis, actors and outcomes differ in ways that hold lessons for Kashmir.

Overview of both conflicts

Nagorno-Karabakh was an Armenian-majority autonomous region inside Soviet Azerbaijan. In 1988 its assembly voted to join Armenia, leading to a war (1988–1994) in which about 30,000 people died and Armenian forces occupied Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani districts. The UN Security Council passed four resolutions in 1993 demanding the withdrawal of occupying forces, and the OSCE Minsk Group tried to mediate. In the 44-day war of 2020, Azerbaijan, backed by Turkey, recaptured much of the territory, and in September 2023 it took control of the rest; most Karabakh Armenians fled to Armenia. A peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan was initialled in Washington in August 2025.

Kashmir was a princely state with a Muslim majority ruled by a Hindu Maharaja. After his disputed accession to India in October 1947, war broke out, and the UN called for a plebiscite. India and Pakistan fought over Kashmir in 1947–48, 1965 and 1999 (Kargil), and the Simla Agreement (1972) turned the ceasefire line into the Line of Control. On 5 August 2019, India revoked Article 370, ending the region's special status, and the dispute remains unresolved between two nuclear-armed states.

Similarities

1. Legacies of imperial collapse.

Both disputes arose from the break-up of empires: Karabakh from the Soviet Union's administrative borders, Kashmir from the British partition of India. (Reference: Thomas de Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, 2003; Alastair Lamb, Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846–1990, 1991.)

2. Unimplemented UN resolutions.

The Security Council's resolutions on Kashmir (1948–1957) and on Karabakh (822, 853, 874 and 884 of 1993) were never implemented by the parties in control. (Reference: UN Security Council resolutions 47 (1948) and 822, 853, 874, 884 (1993).)

3. Ethnic and religious dimensions.

In both cases, communities of different faiths and ethnicities, Christian Armenians and Muslim Azerbaijanis; Muslim Kashmiris and a Hindu-majority Indian state, are divided by the conflict. (Reference: International Crisis Group reports on Nagorno-Karabakh and Kashmir.)

4. Involvement of regional powers.

Russia, Turkey and Iran have been involved in Karabakh; in Kashmir, India, Pakistan and China all control parts of the former princely state. (Reference: Trilateral statement of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, 10 November 2020; Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement, 1963.)

5. Human rights abuses and displacement.

Both conflicts produced massacres, refugees and abuses: hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis and Armenians were displaced, while Kashmir has seen killings, enforced disappearances and long lockdowns. (Reference: UNHCR on displacement in the South Caucasus; Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Reports on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir, 2018 and 2019.)

6. Failed mediation.

The OSCE Minsk Group's decades of talks and the UN's mediation efforts and observer mission in Kashmir (UNMOGIP) failed to produce a settlement. (Reference: OSCE Minsk Group documents; UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan.)

7. "Frozen" conflicts that turned hot.

Both were described as frozen, yet both erupted repeatedly: Karabakh in 2016, 2020 and 2023; Kashmir in 1999, 2016, 2019 and 2025. (Reference: SIPRI and International Crisis Group conflict trackers.)

8. Pakistan's principled support.

Pakistan supports Azerbaijan on Karabakh and the Kashmiris on self-determination, both on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions, and is the only country that does not recognise Armenia. (Reference: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan statements, October 2020.)

Differences

1. Legal basis.

Karabakh was internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan; the UN upheld Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Kashmir is recognised by the UN as a disputed territory whose future must be decided by its people through a plebiscite, the principle of self-determination. (Reference: UN Security Council resolution 822 (1993); UNCIP resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949.)

2. Nature of the parties.

Karabakh involved a separatist entity backed by Armenia against a recognised state; Kashmir is a dispute between two states, India and Pakistan, with the Kashmiri people as the principal party. (Reference: Simla Agreement, 1972; Charter of the United Nations, Article 1(2).)

3. The nuclear dimension.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are not nuclear powers, so Azerbaijan could use force to change the status quo; in Kashmir, both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, making a military solution extremely dangerous. (Reference: SIPRI Yearbook 2025.)

4. Resolution by force versus stalemate.

Karabakh was decided on the battlefield in 2020 and 2023; Kashmir remains in stalemate, with India's 2019 actions changing its legal status but not settling the dispute. (Reference: Trilateral ceasefire statement, 10 November 2020; Presidential Order C.O. 272, 5 August 2019.)

5. Role of mediators.

Karabakh had a formal international mediation mechanism and outside guarantors (Russia, later the US); India rejects third-party mediation on Kashmir, insisting on bilateralism under Simla. (Reference: OSCE Minsk Group mandate, 1992; Ministry of External Affairs of India statements on mediation.)

6. Demographic picture.

In Karabakh the majority (Armenians) sought union with a neighbouring state; in Kashmir the Muslim majority's wishes have never been tested in a plebiscite, and India's post-2019 domicile laws are feared to change the region's demography. (Reference: Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Domicile Certificate Rules, 2020; UN Special Rapporteurs' communications, 2021.)

7. International recognition and alignments.

No state, not even Armenia, recognised the Karabakh republic, whereas Kashmir's disputed status is reflected in UN records and the presence of UNMOGIP. (Reference: UN General Assembly resolution 62/243 (2008) on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan; UNMOGIP mandate.)

8. Current status.

Karabakh's separatist republic was dissolved on 1 January 2024, and Armenia and Azerbaijan moved towards a peace treaty in 2025. Kashmir remains divided, militarised and a flashpoint, as the May 2025 India-Pakistan conflict showed. (Reference: Decree of the de facto Karabakh authorities, 28 September 2023; Joint Declaration, Washington, 8 August 2025.)

Lessons for Kashmir

The Karabakh case shows that unresolved disputes do not stay frozen, that UN resolutions matter when backed by power and diplomacy, and that the world often accepts facts created on the ground. For Pakistan, the lesson is to keep Kashmir on the international agenda, strengthen its economy and diplomacy, build coalitions such as with Turkey and Azerbaijan, and pursue a peaceful settlement based on UN resolutions, since a nuclear environment rules out the military route Azerbaijan used.

Conclusion

US President Woodrow Wilson told Congress in February 1918: "Self-determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action." Nagorno-Karabakh and Kashmir share the legacy of imperial borders, unimplemented UN resolutions and human suffering, but they differ in law, in actors and above all in outcome. Karabakh was settled by force under the principle of territorial integrity; Kashmir still awaits the exercise of the right of self-determination promised by the UN. Its peaceful resolution remains essential for South Asia's stability.