Daily Times

United Nations Security Council has anticipated way back in December 1952, a situation like the one, we witnessed on 5 August and 31 October 2019 in Indian administered Kashmir (now re-occupied). Netherlands at the 611 Meeting of Security Council on 23 December 1952 said, “”The party that would dare to violate an agreement thus reached would load upon itself a very grave offence against the other party, against the United Nations, and against the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination.”

India has dared to sin against Pakistan, United Nations and the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination. Government of Pakistan and the people of Kashmir (Jammu and Kashmir) shall have to flag the Indian offence for the attention of the United Nations. In fact Netherlands would feel proud to be reminded of it’s prophesy made in December 1952. It would not hesitate to support us in regard to a possible action against “a very grave offence” committed by India. What has encouraged and emboldened India to take these extreme and unlawful measures in Kashmir? We need to examine the situation, that lead up to Indian actions.

India has always been uncomfortable in Kashmir, at the UN and at all international forums. Indian narrative of a Pakistan sponsored terrorism in Kashmir was trashed by JKCHR, when it was counter argued at the 46th Session of the Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in August 1994 in Geneva, that “What was a terrorist activity to an Indian soldier remained a “patriotic defiance” against an occupation to a Kashmiri.” UN Document HR/SC/94/29 of 19 August 1994 (P.M).

Jammu and Kashmir does not have an elected government at Srinagar. A part of the State currently occupied by the Indian forces, is run directly from Delhi. It is a serious violation of the terms of provisional accession

Resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.40 submitted by Pakistan. Bosnia and Herzegovina* and Saudi Arabia* against India on 28 February 1994 at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva on the human rights situation in Kashmir and Resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/L.21 submitted by UK Expert Mme. Palley at the 49th session of UN Sub Commission on Human Rights on 20 August 1997 on Gross and Systematic violation of Indian security forces in IHK, supported by JKCHR and a 6 member Kashmiri delegation at the UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993, brought down the Indian pride and exposed its lies. Unfortunately we could not keep the course. Time has awarded an advantage to India. However, the advantage is temporary and unsustainable on the ground and in international law.

The locked down people in the Kashmir Valley, Government of Azad Kashmir and Kashmiris in all disciplines, have been waiting for Pakistan to marshal an agenda, to seek the vacation of these two unlawful actions. After the General Assembly address by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, there has been very little except a few tweets and press statements by the Government of Pakistan. The hot talk about convening an emergency session of OIC in February or in April, that ministry of law was examining the case for a reference to International Court of Justice (ICJ) and talk about other actions, has sizzled down. There is nothing or very little happening on the national and international scene.

We see a flurry of activity, called “Virtual Conferences” organised by some political organizations and individuals, linking up half a dozen or a dozen web enthusiast, to talk amongst themselves. It may be shared on web groups but in actual fact it has no substantive value. Talking amongst ourselves and balancing these shows by putting up one or two non-Kashmiri faces, cannot be regarded as the right activity against Indian re-occupation.

We have a road map on Kashmir. India has a list of do’s and don’ts. India has not done what it is required to do. It has done, what it has been forbidden to do. Indian actions are a violation of UN Security Council Resolutions on Kashmir. India has violated the agreed template of the UN Security Council to have a UN supervised vote on the right of self-determination. The two OHCHR reports of June 1018 and July 2019 have endorsed the need to respect the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir.

Jammu and Kashmir does not have an elected government at Srinagar. A part of the State currently occupied by the Indian forces, is run directly from Delhi. It is a serious violation of the terms of provisional accession. The Delhi appointed Governor, is a proxy to help New Delhi to push through laws, to serve the interests of Delhi, which otherwise would have to be ratified or rejected by the elected State Assembly. The present administrative control is unconstitutional and unlawful.

India has surrendered her accession at the UN Security Council for a UN supervised vote on 15 January 1948. There is no accession at this point. The State Government has challenged the veracity of Srinagar-Delhi relations in its State Autonomy Committee Report published in July 2000. The report confirms a limited accession on three subjects but has categorically rejected, all impressions that State has ever merged into the union of India. The forced merged on 31 October 2019 has no merit.

Kashmiri leadership that owns up to a limited accession has to challenge, the dissolution of Assembly, imposition of Governors rule and then President’s Rule in a State described ‘sovereign’ by India itself at the UN Security Council. Kashmiris have to challenge the legitimacy of the presence of Indian forces and condemn it for acting extraneous to the four conditions set out at the time of their admission into the State and for violating the three UN Security Council restraints that define their behavior, number and location. India has to be challenged through proper forums and ‘virtual conferences’ are not the right counter. Our response has to have a method and should be proportionate to the ‘grave offence’.

Government of Azad Kashmir has to airborne itself and Government of Pakistan has to free itself of all ambiguities and pledge allegiance to the jurisprudence of UN SC Resolutions and UNCIP Resolutions on Kashmir. Kashmiri Diaspora and civil society institutions, in particular that have been working with and are known to UN for the last 30 years, would complement this effort.

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