Thetimely and sensitive comments in ''Back From the South Asian Brink'' {editorial, June 18} about the ''churning conflict in Kashmir'' need to be supplemented by some observations from the viewpoint of the people of Kashmir itself. These deserve to be borne in mind by all those who wish the conflict to be justly resolved once and for all.

First, the upheaval in Kashmir is the culminating point of a freedom movement that goes back to 1931, when the people first rose against the feudal ruler foisted on them under colonialism. As the annexation of Kashmir by India is based on an act of that feudal ruler, there were nonviolent uprisings against Indian occupation in 1953 and in 1964 to 1965, which were brutally crushed. The scale and intensity of revolt now are explained not by support from Pakistan but by the wave of freedom rolling across wide areas of the globe.

Second, it is unrealistic to expect India on its own to ''find ways to widen the realm of popular choices." That requires not merely friendly counsel from the United States and other powers but a sustained and focused multilateral effort. There is no possibility now to conciliate Kashmiris through political concessions. Their demand for the demilitarization of their land and for a free vote to decide their status stems from the intolerable position that, of all the territories now legally included in either India or Pakistan, theirs is the only one that has been treated as chattel. To regard the Kashmir question as a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan that can be resolved by some compromise between them or by making Indian rule less barbarous is to misunderstand it altogether.

Third, there does exist a practical plan to ensure Kashmiris the exercise of their inherent rights. It is contained in the resolutions of the United Nations, which were formulated after negotiations with both India and Pakistan and were accepted by them. The fact that India (or, as India would wish us to be believe, Pakistan) did not comply with those resolutions does not mean that they are unworkable. The recent case of Namibia has fully proved the capability of the United Nations to ascertain the wishes of a population under conditions of fairness and impartiality. There is no reason why what was achieved in Namibia should not be feasible in Kashmir.

Fourth, there is nothing in the United Nations plan that is incompatible with pluralism. We do not wish to foreclose any of the three possible options for the people: independence, accession to Pakistan or accession to India (despite all the atrocities committed by India). We refuse to believe that fairness is an impractical proposition. GHUALM NABI FAI Executive director Kashmiri-American Council Washington