Daily Times

Kashmir case hinges on the expression of a free will of the people under the United Nations supervision. Government of Azad Kashmir has been constituted to perform two well specified duties under UNCIP Resolutions. These include to provide “better Government and administration of Azad Jammu and Kashmir until such time as the status of Jammu and Kashmir is determined under the UNCIP Resolutions.” Government of Pakistan has also committed itself “in the discharge of its responsibilities under the UNCIP Resolutions.”

If there are no UNCIP Resolutions or if for any reason Pakistan decides to drift away from UN Resolutions on Kashmir, it would lose the legitimacy of its presence in Azad Kashmir. It would cause a reason for India to move to UN Security Council and International Court of Justice, to seek the vacation of Azad Kashmir territory by Pakistan. Distancing from UN Resolutions would also be a betrayal with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. They have sacrificed over 100000 people and have endured indignity, rape, torture, disappearance, custodial deaths, blinding by pellet guns and denial of a quality of life, hoping that Pakistan will help them through to a UN supervised vote.

A simple examination of Azad Kashmir Government structure shows that it has no clue in regard to the Declaration of the reconstituted Provisional Government on 24 October 1947, Karachi Agreement of 28 April 1949 and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974. Prime Minister and President in the past have continued to blame the Government of Pakistan, for not allowing them to represent their case outside Azad Kashmir. The excuse by the Government of Azad Kashmir has no merit. If there was a denial or encroachment, it could be cordially discussed and negotiated as provided under UNCIP Resolutions.

Government of Azad Kashmir has failed to structure a mechanism in the last 49 years to promote Kashmir case, as provided under article 8 of 1970 Act and article 11 of the 1974 Act. It is important to point out that the lack of authority embedded in article 8 of 1970 Act has been corrected in article 11 of 1974 Act. The High Court (full court) of Azad Kashmir has provided a guidance to Government of Azad Kashmir in its judgement given in JKCHR’s pro bono publico constitutional petition in April 1999.

Kashmiri resistance is fractured into pro Pakistan, pro India and pro Independence schools. Therefore it could not qualify like Palestinians under article 9 of UN Charter for any financial support to attend as observers the UN meetings

The visits of President and Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir outside Pakistan have no merit. These visits end up in meeting the Kashmiris and Pakistanis in the House of Commons, European Parliament or in a select public gathering in a community hall or a restaurant. Even our President did not do much when he was at the UN and Pakistan had the Presidency of UN Security Council. He is an able diplomat but as a Kashmiri he failed to prevail. He yielded to a tenure based interest, so much so, that reference to right of self-determination and UN Resolution was dropped from the Washington Kashmir Conference, held in July 2006. It would be asking for moon, if Prime Minister and President of Azad Kashmir, continue with their foreign tour and hope to match up to the spread of Indian narrative.

Indian Government has a stable constituency of Kashmiri Pandits living in UK and Europe. It has succeeded to cultivate support in many schools of opinions from Azad Kashmir living in United Kingdom, Europe and some other important capitals of the world. We have to accept that there is a pro India constituency and UN resolutions on Kashmir allow a difference of opinion. We do not need to label them as traitors or Indian agents (or vice versa) at this point. Our Prime Minister, President and others who advance the jurisprudence of Kashmir case, need to engage the pro India camp and debate with them.

In fact there is a need to challenge the pro India camp and urge them to consider whether their constituency has anything to say on the atrocities committed by Indian army and security forces in Kashmir. We should be questioning them on the legitimacy of Indian army and the Hard State Doctrine of New Delhi, put in place to use brute force and kill as many Kashmiris as possible. Pro India Kashmiris living in the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries would not risk, to share the burden of war crimes carried by Indian security forces.

Pro India constituency could not support a progressing culture of mob lynching of Muslims all over India. The latest mob lynching of 24 year old Tabrez Ansari in Jharkhand would have shaken the conscience of all Hindu gods carved in stone. Opposition leader in the Indian Parliament Ghulam Nabi Azad has described Jharkhand as the market of mob lynching of Muslims and Dalits. More so the questions that we have been asking of India at the UN Security Council, UN General Assembly, British and European Parliaments, OIC and Human Rights Council, could be addressed to the pro-India constituency for their answers.

Kashmiri resistance is fractured into pro Pakistan, pro India and pro Independence schools. Therefore it could not qualify like Palestinians under article 9 of UN Charter for any financial support to attend as observers the UN meetings. Pro Pakistan and Pro Independence schools are reliant for all manner of support on Pakistan and Pakistan has graciously accommodated both these schools for moral, political and diplomatic support. However, we have failed to flag one common element for all the three schools. It is keeping the adult Kashmiri alive, who would be able to vote in a UN supervised referendum.

The deficit in number caused by the death of over 100000 Kashmiris should be seen by the three camps in the context of Quebec Referendum of 1995. The “no” vote to independence was carried by about 54,228 vote difference. It was a photo finish for ‘no’ to independence vote. It is obvious that all the three camps in Kashmir need to challenge the war crimes and loss of life caused by Indian security forces.

Azad Kashmir Government could have interpreted article 11 of Act 1974 liberally, according to the spirits and circumstances of the present times. It has to enlarge the consensus on the ‘right to life’ of a Kashmiri.

Government of Azad Kashmir and Government of Pakistan, have assumed responsibilities under UNCIP Resolutions in Azad Kashmir. President has an advantage of experience of working at the UN and at other forums. However, his record on Kashmir during his long innings in the foreign office, is not encouraging. He has remained a conformist and would not be of any help to Kashmir case, unless he sheds off the old skin. Prime Minister has a strong political background and sans a reliable understanding of UNCIP Resolutions, he too is unhelpful. We need that both these offices do not remain the slaves of A4 size files. They have to negotiate with the Government of Pakistan and severally or collectively along with Pakistan, have to negotiate with the United Nations. Welfare and wellbeing of all those who have left their homes and have crossed into Azad Kashmir or are living in Pakistan, should be a priority.

Duties under UNCIP Resolutions demand that they do more than distributing the sewing machines and fight with Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and AJ&K Council for financial powers. It would be morally and politically lethal if Valley remains drenched in blood and President or Prime Minister squander time and budget on tours to address the Kashmiris or Pakistanis. A school of Kashmiri opinion has announced that they would challenge the President and Prime Minister when they visit United Kingdom. Engagement and argument is the key.

The author is President of London based Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations