UN Chalo or Shopian Chalo Hurriyat has continued to misdirect its wisdom and its understanding has been taken over by non-Kashmiri narrative. It has locked itself into a theoretical opposition of the elected Government at Srinagar and has been opposing the holding of elections. There is a context to whatever is happening in the Valley. Be it a German Embassy organised concert, or one by the civil society, UN Chalo call by Hurriyat (G) or a Shopian Chalo call by Hurriyat (M) or a simple decision to steer clear of all this and address the daily affairs of life, by interacting with those, voted into to discharge a public trust during the elections. There is no doubt that in theory India and Pakistan continue to reiterate that there is an issue of Kashmir (among many other issues) which has to be addressed during any future dialogue between the two countries. Life and nerves in the Valley are tense. Diaspora living outside Kashmir remains on pins in regard to their families, friends and neighbours back home. However, life in India, Pakistan AJK and Gilgit and Baltistan today and after would remain as normal as ever. Last week, Sindh Assembly speaker Agha Siraj Durrani summed up the usefulness of any ‘strikes’ or ‘bandhs’ in the Valley by stating that if ‘strikes’ were a solution, Kashmir would have been “Azad”. Durrani may have a point but it does not sit well with the thought process of Islamabad, which authored a militancy, a choice of politics and a proxy in Kashmir and left it half way. The people of the Valley are wandering in the wilderness and don’t know which voice to follow in the confusion. Hurriyat has failed to remain as the one on 31 July 1993. The fragmentation is not on any substantive difference. Both seem to follow the Constitution adopted on 31 July 1993 and could not abandon it, because a generation was lead to death on this political programme. The fracture is alleged to have been engineered by General Musharraf (Islamabad) and of course Delhi would have trimmed the rough edges of the resultant. We have a confused leadership and to the extent that it refuses to revisit its failings. As a start the Constitution obliges Hurriyat [Chapter II Section 2 (i) to (v)] “to make peaceful struggle to secure for 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”. As a start Hurriyat Constitution does not subscribe to a militant component. Therefore, inscribing a support to militancy and causing the loss of a generation, has been a consideration, extraneous to the political agenda adopted on 31 July 1993. It could have consequences of a civil and criminal liability for the leadership. We have passed the sell by date in regard to militant component of the struggle and the abandoned youth is faced with an uncertain future. If Hurriyat Constitution has any merit, it can’t avoid to address the fact that the State Government at Srinagar has been accorded a role under UN Resolutions. In addition to a role expressly designated under the UNCIP Resolutions, the Government validates its local representative role through the vote at an election. There may have been and rightly so, many questions on the free transfer of will during these elections, but there could be no denying the fact that Jammu and Kashmir has to have a Government and participation in these elections is a basic human right. UN General Assembly has passed a resolution on the right to participate in elections to elect representatives. Hurriyat as required under the Constitution and the people of the Valley in particular as required of a vigilant people failed to develop a ‘Kashmiri narrative’ of politics. In fact we don’t have any narrative even at this point. Hurriyat has continued to misdirect its wisdom and its understanding has been taken over by non- Kashmiri narrative. It has locked itself into a theoretical opposition of the elected Government at Srinagar and has been opposing the holding of elections. There is no political or juridical merit in opposing pro India parties or the elections. Hurriyat under its Constitution has to allow the pro India opinion. Even the pro India political parties accept the expression of pro Pakistan and pro Independence views by expressly stating that the future of the State is to be settled according to the wishes of the people and the local elections are not a part of any process to settle the issue. Even the UN Security Council Resolution of 30 March 1951 {S/2017/Rev.1} has cautioned the National Conference and other parties that elections in Jammu and Kashmir would not be a substitute to the UN mechanism on Kashmir. Hurriyat should have been engaging the State Government and in particular National Conference in regard to its obligations under UN Resolutions on Kashmir. It is important to point out that NC qualifies the test of “Principality” set by the UNCIP Resolutions for a political party in Kashmir. It may be that many of the Hurriyat constituents fail this test, at the time when UN mechanism on Kashmir is put in place. Hurriyat and the opinions in its constituency have failed to understand that it has a role beyond giving the calls of ‘Chalo’ or calls of a ‘Bandh’. Not engaging the Government of the State is the root cause of the violation of all rights. It is the Government of Jammu and Kashmir which has entered into a provisional bilateral agreement (Accession) with the Government of India. The agreement has been placed for future adjudication at the UN SC through the Indian petition of 1 January 1948. It binds the Government of India to “defend the territories” and protect ‘lives’, ‘property’ and ‘honour’ of the people. Hurriyat should put the State Government to a rigorous test in regard to its part in the agreement. Unfortunately, Hurriyat and all others have failed to understand the relief and obligation embedded in various agreements for the people of Kashmir. We need to have a reliable understanding of the Kashmir case. If Hurriyat were to abide by its own Constitution, it should have engaged the J & K Government and the other two Governments at Delhi and Islamabad in regard to the behaviour (presence), number and location of Indian security forces as provided in para 2 (b) (i) to (iii) of the UN Security Council Resolution [S/726] of 21 April 1948. There has been no reference made or any step taken to enforce the human rights detailed in para 12 of the UN Security Council Resolution [S/726] of 21 April 1948. Hurriyat could have resolved the issue of Security Forces and Human Rights by engaging the Srinagar, Muzaffarabad, Gilgit, Delhi and Islamabad Governments in accordance with the UN mechanism on Kashmir. Hurriyat does not seem clear in its political narrative either. If it stands for the equality of people and the right of self-determination, then it has to address the international behaviour of the dispute as provided in the UN Resolutions or UN Charter. A continuous demand by Hurriyat to India and Pakistan to include the ‘real’ representativesin their dialogue on the one hand reduces the case to a bilateral dispute and on the other raises the dispute of being ‘real’ and ‘unreal’. If there is a variation of this kind, the matter has to be settled by a third party. Even an ‘unreal’ person is a ‘legal person’. He can’t be disenfranchised. A demand for a tri-lateral dialogue pronounces the death of Hurriyat Constitution and a violation of UNCIP Resolutions. A trilateral dialogue could not override the principle laid down in the UN SC Resolution of 30 March 1951. Reliance on the advocacy of Pakistan required some clarifications.Pakistan is a party to the dispute and has its own sovereign interests. The boundaries between Pakistan’s sovereign interest and the borders from where it allows the support of ‘equality’ of people and right of self-determination is mixed up. It is not clear as to whether Hurriyat is conducting itself for an accession to Pakistan or for self-determination on the principle of equality of Kashmiri People. It seems Hurriyat does not believe or even understand the principle of equality of people under UNCIP Resolutions or as envisaged in article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Kashmiri politics is so much consumed in Chalos and Bandhs that it has no regard for what is happening around it. For example it should have examined and considered the statement made by the Ministry of Interior Government of Pakistan on 2 November 2012 in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Balochistan Unrest Case, on behalf of the Federation. On 2 November 2012 Ministry of Interior in para 5 of the report submitted as follows: “…We would take a leaf from Indian experience where in the States like Kashmir, East Punjab, Nagaland, Asam and Mizoram, armed insurgency and partial breakdown of government machinery took place for a number of years, still democracy and successive elections afforded the people and the government a good chance to overcome their difficulties and defeat the militants with political process which was allowed to continue unhindered, undisturbed, compromised or violated”. There has been a criticism from some quarters and Ministry of Interior ran to add a clarification stating that “in para five of a report submitted in the Supreme Court on Friday, the word ‘disputed’ was omitted due to an oversight.” The Statement further adds “that occupied Kashmir is disputed territory till such time that right of self-determination and plebiscite is conceded to the Kashmiris to exercise their free will to live according to their wishes”. This clarification has added more to the admission than helping the Government of Pakistan to fool the people on the substantive merits of the statement made in para 5 as a whole. It is for the first time at the national level that State Machinery in Pakistan has made a statement on Kashmir accepting it as Indian State. It has further observed on, Insurgency, Elections, Defeat of Kashmiri Militants and the benefits of democracy and successive elections to the people. The opportunism of the State machinery in Pakistan should not surprise a Kashmir watcher at all. In fact the agenda item “Jammu and Kashmir Question” was renamed as “India-PakistanQuestion” at the request of the Government of Pakistan. India opposed the change but Pakistan maintained that Jammu and Kashmir was one of the many issues pending with India. Hurriyat should give up the politics of chastisement and follow the political discipline set out in its Constitution adopted on 31 July 1993. It should facilitate a process as much as it has taken upon in its Constitution and leave the choice to the people. There is a difference between pre-determination and self-determination. It is fully explained in the UN Security Council Resolution of 30 March 1951. Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. He is on UN register as an expert in Peace Keeping, Humanitarian Operations and Election Monitoring Missions. He could be reached on email dr- nazirgilani@jkc hr
Posted on: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:27:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015