Daily Times

Civil and military leadership in Pakistan are faced with challenges of climate disaster, a serious debate on the civil-military relationship and duties towards the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. On the home front, there is an emerging realisation that solutions have to be found in the constitution and rule of law. We need to learn from Justice Mathew Nicklin a judge in London court who refused adjournment to Shehbaz Sharif’s lawyers in the Daily Mail case to be able to consult their very busy client – the Prime Minister of Pakistan. The judge said that “in this court, the prime minister and the common man are equal.” The dust has started setting down in Pakistan and we shall have a new army chief by the end of November. The appointment would follow with a fresh election as appropriate under the constitution or as required in the best interests of the country.

The new civil and military relationship has an aggravated challenge on the Kashmir front. Indian action of 5 August 2019 has been discussed in several ways. It is generally agreed that the leadership in Pakistan failed to take appropriate and pointed actions, available to it. There have been street actions, closed-door debates and webinars, which could not be considered proportionate and pointed responses.

The role of military leadership in politics in Pakistan is a public debate and the army has come out with a detailed assurance of ironing its uniform for an all-time preparedness to defend the country and come to the aid of civil administration when asked under the constitution.

Pakistan has been giving political, diplomatic and moral support to the people’s struggle for self-determination.

While addressing the Kashmir front, the civil-military leadership, individually and combined have to check upon the work done and duties neglected under the UN template on Kashmir. There has been a neglect of the assumed duties in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, under the UNCIP Resolutions, the Karachi Agreement of April 1949 and the Azad Kashmir Constitution Act 1974.

Pakistan and India have a pending share of their duties under the UN template on Kashmir. Pakistan has created a regime of shared responsibilities with the Government of Azad Kashmir under the Karachi Agreement and Constitution Act 1974. Under this arrangement Government of Pakistan has taken upon to discharge responsibilities under UNCIP Resolutions, take care of the defence and security of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the current coin of the issue of any bills, notes or other paper currency and the external affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir including foreign trade and foreign aid.

This arrangement has been influencing the behaviour and make-up of the Governments in Azad Kashmir. Unfortunately, this arrangement has not remained transparent and its efficiency to advance the case of Kashmir has never been debated in the Azad Kashmir Assembly, the National Assembly of Pakistan or the Senate. As in Pakistan, Azad Kashmir does not have a vocal press. Therefore, the people’s grievances or any quid pro quos could not be brought into public discussion.

The judiciary in Azad Kashmir may have done some rudimentary good work, but its role in the interpretation of assumed relationship under UNCIP Resolutions or of a negotiated future relationship with Pakistan under article 257 of the constitution of Pakistan stands at zero. On the other hand, a division bench of the High Court at Srinagar has given a landmark judgement on the inherent sovereignty of the Jammu and Kashmir governments in May 1951. Indian authority in its administered part of Kashmir is explained in detail by CJ Janki Nath Wazir and J Shahmiri of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the Maghar Singh Case of May 1953.

Pakistan has been giving political, diplomatic and moral support to the people’s struggle for self-determination. We have supported the authors of the militancy and All Parties Hurriyat Conference (a collective of various organisations). Be it so. But at the same time, Pakistan ignored to check upon and enforce the constitutional duties of the Government of Azad Kashmir towards self-determination. Under the Act 1970 Government of Azad Kashmir had to appoint a Plebiscite Advisor to institutionalise and advance the work on Plebiscite. This Act required consultation with the Government of Pakistan. However, under the 1974 Act, the appointment of a Plebiscite Advisor became an exclusive duty of the Government of Azad Kashmir.

In December 1992 Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) filed a petition in this regard. A detailed full court judgement was given after seven years in April 1999. It stands as a guide in the appointment of a Plebiscite Advisor. Unfortunately, the Government of Azad Kashmir has failed to carry out its constitutional duty towards Plebiscite for the last 52 years since 1970 and has remained in contempt of court for the last 23 years since 1999. All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was a new experiment in collective leadership. It failed to observe its constitutional discipline adopted on 31 July 1993 to:”make peaceful struggle to secure the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir the exercise of the right of self-determination in accordance with the UN Charter and the resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council” and “make endeavours for an alternative negotiated settlement of the Kashmir dispute…under the auspices of UN or any other friendly countries”.

The new civil and military leadership in Pakistan has to assess, the merits of its moral, political and diplomatic support given to APHC and the failure of the experiment. The experiment of militancy should have been the last resort, after exhausting the many other options available under the UN template on Kashmir. As a consequence, Indian security forces used it as an excuse to kill a generation in Kashmir and hurt the people. Our politics (APHC) and our guns (Militancy) have fallen silent in Kashmir. We are left with a UN template. India has been able to enforce its “will” which it could not dare to impose for 71 years from January 1948 to 5 August 2019. The reasons for this failure are fully discussed by Adrian Levy and Cathy Scot-Clark in their book “The Meadow” and by Owen Bennett Jones in his book “Pakistan eye of the storm.” President Musharraf in his memoirs “In the Line of Fire” has admitted how support for militancy was switched off. Authors of APHC and Militancy have accrued civil and criminal liability.

Hurriyat does not have the capacity, expertise or confidence to address the situation caused by the Indian action of 5 August 2019. The amalgam had 26 years from 31 July 1993 to 5 August 2019 when the Government of India took an action which is averse to the habitat and the people. Azad Kashmir has also failed to establish a credible institutional framework, which could advance the work on the UN template on Kashmir. The new civil-military leadership shall have to return to a full audit of the successes and failures from January 1990 in particular. November 2000 event held in Delhi on “Give Peace A Chance” jointly organised by the International Centre for Peace Initiatives, India and the Institute of Regional Studies, Pakistan, had its problems. It did not have an expert and independent input. There is a need to learn and perfect the art of storytelling.

The writer is President Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights.