1140hrs:
We are still improving while we welcome a new year, after our best ever year for public interest in AJK.
Let's hope we achieve that elusive 100% diary entry record this year.
....
We continue to cross reference the work and words of Dr Nazir Gilani (foremost expert & jurist on the UN template on Jammu Kashmir). Here's his latest offering:
Azad Kashmir
Note on My Visit to Azad Kashmir (26 December – 31 December 2024)
I recently had the opportunity to visit Azad Kashmir after a gap of five years, spending my time in Muzaffarabad from 26 December to 31 December 2024. During my stay, I engaged with a broad cross-section of the local population, excluding government officials.
My interactions with the people were enlightening and have encouraged me to write the following, urging the attention of the Government, the Opposition, and the general public to some pressing concerns.
The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) government
The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) government, formed in 1947 and reconstituted in 1947, has a significant political and administrative role, shaped by historical agreements and legal provisions. However, several issues, including its failure to implement key legal requirements, its failure to respond to political developments in Indian-administered Kashmir, and its accountability to the public, have raised questions about its governance. The accountability of the AJK government, as well as the individual and collective liability of its members and elected representatives, can be examined through several lenses:
1. Legal and Constitutional Responsibility:
Legal and Constitutional Responsibility:
• Constitutional Framework of the Government: The AJK government currently operates under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act of 1975, having moved away from the Provisional Declaration of 24 October 1947. However, the failure to fully transition to a more permanent, robust constitutional framework raises questions about its governance. Despite this shift, there remains a lack of clarity or explanation regarding the reasons behind this transition, leaving a gap in accountability. The government must be held accountable for its failure to establish a more clearly defined constitutional structure, which impacts both its legitimacy and its responsibilities toward the people.
• Karachi Agreement and Shared Jurisprudence:
The AJK government is bound by the Karachi Agreement of 1949, which set the framework for governance between the Government of Pakistan (GOP), the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP). The lack of progress or reports on the outcomes of this agreement and the failure to fulfill the terms of the Karachi Agreement (which involved commitments to a plebiscite and UN-supervised vote) leave the government liable for its non-compliance with international agreements. The absence of periodic updates to the public on the status of this agreement raises issues of transparency and accountability.
• Failure to Implement Framework for Plebiscite (1970 and 1974 Acts):
Under Section 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act of 1970 and Section 11 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act of 1974, the government had a legal duty to establish a framework for a plebiscite. By failing to set up the necessary framework or to make any meaningful progress toward a UN-supervised plebiscite, the government has violated its obligations to the people of Azad Kashmir and the broader international community. This constitutes an important area of accountability, as the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination, as mandated by international resolutions and agreements, has been neglected.
2. Failure to Honor Court Judgments:
• Judgment on JKCHR Petition (1992): In 1992, the Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) filed a petition that led to a High Court judgment. If this judgment has not been honored, it raises concerns about the rule of law and the government's willingness to uphold judicial decisions. The failure to implement court orders directly undermines the credibility of the government and its legal institutions, leading to a breakdown in public trust and further accountability issues.
3. Political and Administrative Negligence:
• Indian Actions of 5 August 2019: On August 5, 2019, India revoked Article 370 of its constitution, which granted special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. This move has been seen by many as an unlawful and provocative action. The AJK government has failed to provide an effective and robust response to this significant change in the political status of the region. Its silence or inadequate response raises concerns about its role in safeguarding the rights and interests of the Kashmiri people, and it must be held accountable for this failure.
• Loss of Life in Indian-Occupied Kashmir: The AJK government has been criticized for not taking decisive action in response to the loss of life and the humanitarian crisis in Indian-occupied Kashmir. As an entity that claims to represent the people of Jammu and Kashmir, the AJK government must be held accountable for its lack of action or support for the victims of Indian aggression. This negligence calls into question the government’s duty to protect the interests and lives of its own citizens, as well as those across the LoC.
4. Government Structure and Accountability:
• Political and Administrative Structure: The AJK government boasts a large political and administrative structure, which, according to the UNCIP resolutions, is justified only in terms of its responsibility to the people of the region, its obligations under international agreements, and its role in preparing for the plebiscite. If this structure does not meet these requirements or fails to deliver on the promised responsibilities, then the legitimacy of this large administrative setup comes into question. The public must hold the government accountable for its use of resources and administrative power.
• Justification for Political and Administrative Luxury: The structure of AJK’s government, with its substantial political and administrative luxury, must be justified not only in terms of meeting the governance needs of the population but also by fulfilling its duties under UNCIP Resolutions. If it does not deliver on the promise of governance, the justification for such a large structure becomes untenable, and accountability for its existence, expenditures, and effectiveness must be demanded.
5. Individual and Collective Liability of Government Members and Elected Representatives:
• Collective Liability: The entire AJK government, including the President, Prime Minister, and the Legislative Assembly, shares collective responsibility for failing to meet the legal and constitutional obligations outlined in the Acts of 1970 and 1974. This includes the failure to initiate the plebiscite framework, provide transparent governance, and respond to Indian actions regarding Jammu and Kashmir. The government as a whole can be held accountable for inaction on these critical issues.
• Individual Liability: Individual members of the government, including elected representatives, ministers, and officials, are accountable for their personal roles in these failures. For example, the Prime Minister, President, or key ministers must be held liable for failing to make necessary political, legal, and administrative moves to fulfill the government's obligations. The public can demand answers for how these individuals have used their positions to either obstruct or neglect the implementation of necessary actions.
6. Accountability Mechanisms:
• Public Oversight: Public accountability is a cornerstone of democratic governance. The lack of a public report on the status of key agreements (such as the Karachi Agreement) or a framework for plebiscite undermines the transparency of the government. The public must have the right to question government actions, and there must be mechanisms for accountability, such as parliamentary inquiries, independent audits, and judiciary oversight.
• International Oversight: Given the involvement of the international community in the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, including the United Nations, international bodies should also play a role in overseeing whether the AJK government is fulfilling its obligations under international agreements and resolutions. The failure of the AJK government to take the necessary steps should be brought to the attention of international stakeholders.
Conclusion:
In summary, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir government is accountable for its prolonged reliance on a provisional status, its failure to implement key legal frameworks for governance, its neglect of responsibilities under international agreements, and its failure to respond to critical political developments. Individual members of the government, especially those holding key positions, bear personal responsibility for these shortcomings. Collective and individual accountability must be demanded from the elected representatives, who have a duty to fulfill their constitutional and legal obligations, provide transparent governance, and protect the interests of the people of Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir as a whole.
Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
President JKCHR
01/01/2025
_The note above can also be accessed at this hyperlink
....
No comments:
Post a Comment