Daily Times

Indian and Pakistani interests in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are a consequence of Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. There would have been no problem today if demilitarization had been accomplished by the UN Representative on India and Pakistan and the UN-supervised vote conducted by the UN Plebiscite Administrator on Kashmir.

India has taken an action on 5 August 2019. It is a serious violation of India’s agreements with the People of Kashmir, with the Government of Pakistan and is a violation of India’s obligations under the UN template on Kashmir. There is an uproar on Indian unlawful action. The government of Azad Kashmir has surfaced as a poorly crafted spineless administration, unable to take or support or propose an action that challenges the Indian action.

The Azad Kashmir administration has no interest in its constitutional duties towards self-determination or interest in her duties apportioned in the Karachi Agreement with the Government of Pakistan. The overwhelming reflex of the Government in AJK and the parties in the AJK Assembly is an unconditional obeisance to keep the trust of the Party leader in Pakistan and to keep the intra-agency arrangement on Kashmir in good humour. It has encouraged a culture of domestic optics, political tourism and massive corruption in the name of Kashmir cause.

The leadership in the Indian administered Kashmir (now occupied) has moved swiftly against the Indian action. It has rejected the Indian action and has pledged to “protect and defend identity, autonomy and special status against all attacks and onslaughts whatsoever.” Gupkar Alliance has worked hard in publishing a White Paper on Indian action and on “Indian Betrayal.” We need to bear in mind that the leadership in the Indian administered Kashmir has its limitations, even then, it has been very brave in setting out the contours of the Kashmir cause and has indicted India.

There are currently 22 writ petitions pending in the Supreme Court of India and all have challenged the Indian action of August 5, 2019. The government of AJK has decided to remain unconcerned except to make an appearance at a political rally in the last week of February 2022. The optics of a truck-load of AJK leaders have been unimpressive and unconvincing.

The optics of a truck-load of AJK leaders have been unimpressive and unconvincing.

AJK Government has abandoned its duties or has outsourced it, lock, stock and barrel, to an intra-agency arrangement on Kashmir. There is no transparency and accountability in this arrangement. The only information available is the leaks in the form of gossip or the verifiable information contained in the 54-page affidavit of FBI agent Sarah Webb Linden filed in July 2011 in a Criminal Complaint filed against a Kashmiri and a Pakistani in the District Court of Virginia.

The government of Pakistan has been making some disjointed efforts but has not succeeded to make an impact of any kind. China has made an effort in the Security Council, and the Chinese interest has not cut much ice outside the Security Council chambers. Dubai has allowed India to discuss the August 5, 2019 action in Kashmir as an internal matter of India. OIC has decided to remain far remote from expressing any interest in Kashmir.

As a top-up to our disappointments, there is a move to embrace Gilgit-Baltistan as a Provisional Province of Pakistan. It has started a debate and people are accusing Pakistan Government of a “Betrayal.” It has given birth to a new debate and it would severely hurt the constituency of Pakistan. We should have full regard for the fact that Gilgit-Baltistan is a constituent part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. For confirmation, we need to refer to the 1901 Census and the judgements of AJK High Court and Supreme Court given in the GB case.

The Census Report of India volume XXIII Part I titled “KASHMIR,” has recoded that Jammu and Kashmir, generally known as the Riasat-i-Kashmir, comprised of Jammu Province, Kashmir Province and Frontier Districts. “The administration of the State was conducted through the instrumentality of Governors and Frontier Wazirs: Governors in the Provinces of Jammu and Kashmir and Wazirs in Frontier Districts. Formerly, the whole of the Frontier was under one Wazir only; necessity for parcelling it out, however, into divisions was perceived on the grounds of establishing improved machinery of administration, as well as owing to the emergency, realised in respect of maintenance of uninterrupted communication between the different parts of the Districts, which were sometimes closed for months together, on account of heavy snowfalls. On the 12th of April, 1901 orders were, therefore, passed to the effect that the Frontier should be split into the following divisions:”

According to the order of 12 April 1901, “The Ladakh Wazarat comprising the territory included within the Tehsils of Leh, Kargil and Skardu; and the tract known as Zanskar (formerly a part of Tehsil Kishtwar, Province Jammu), was also attached to Kargil.” In addition, “The Gilgit Wazarat, comprising the territory included in Gilgit Proper, the Astore Tehsil and the Niabat at Bunji; and the tract known as Haramush, which formerly constituted a portion of the Skardu Tehsil, was also added to the Niabat last named.”

Indian case at the UN Security Council is very simple. It is to find out through a UN-supervised vote, as to whether, the people of Jammu and Kashmir would endorse the provisional/conditional accession with it or would reject it and accede to Pakistan or whether they would wish to be an independent State, as a member of the United Nations.

In the case of accession with Pakistan, it has to be a “negotiated” accession and its shape would take place according to the wishes of the people. It could be in the shape of a province, or in the shape of the Stand Still Agreement accepted by Pakistan on August 15, 1947, or in any other form. Article 257 of the constitution of Pakistan clearly regards a negotiated settlement and according to the terms and conditions, agreed by the people.

It is clear that the people in the Government of AJK and acting under the instructions of Party heads of political parties in Pakistan or under the instructions of the Ministers in the Government of Pakistan stand disqualified to construct terms and conditions – and to negotiate an accession with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It has to be made clear that the Government of AJK is elected from only a part of the State and a reference to the quality of representation is made in the UN Security Council Resolution of March 30, 1951.

Although accepted as a lawful Government by the UN Security Council, the resolution has warned the Jammu and Kashmir Government at Srinagar that “a constituent assembly and that the area from which such a constituent assembly would be elected is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir.” Therefore, it could not take any decision on its own about the future of the State. This restraint would apply to all the three Governments at Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit.

India’s case is to find out whether Kashmiris endorse or reject the provisional and conditional accession. Pakistan’s case is a negotiated accession according to the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. An independent State of Jammu and Kashmir could emerge, only if the people of the State do not wish to endorse the provisional accession with India or do not wish to negotiate an accession with Pakistan. The State of Jammu and Kashmir includes all three administrations Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit. The wishes of the people would set the terms of negotiating the form of a relationship with Pakistan.

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