Pakistan's interpretation of self-determination is strictly according to the narrow contextual version given in the (non-enforceable I repeat) UNCIP resolution of January the 5th 1949. So, their interpretation is against universally defined meanings of self-determination and contradictory to the UN Charter. From here, they develop another convenient assumption: That you can only vote for India or Pakistan in a plebiscite and that is the pre-eminent global forum, where this matter has been recognised as an 'international' dispute.
Well, assuming if we could just vote for India or Pakistan, then where is the public space for the Indian State narrative in AJK and GB?
In truth, the UN is not the only forum where this matter can be resolved.
India and Pakistan have always had an alternative bilateral channel in place ever since their birth as dominions of the British Commonwealth in August 1947, under the watchful and presiding eyes of their hitherto colonial masters. Indeed, there have been many bilateral agreements signed. Some even maintain that Musharraf-Manmohan were close to 'some sort of agreement' by February 2007, on a "non-territorial" solution to Kashmir.
It should be remembered that the UN resolutions were non-enforcable (I repeat for a third time) and neither is the UN keen to act as arbiter in a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, however many Kashmiris the Indian army guns down in the Kashmir Valley. This then becomes a blood-sport between India and Pakistan. The casualties are the citizens of Jammu & Kashmir who are 'forced' to comply with a binary narrative. They are usually caught in cross-fire on the streets of Srinagar or along the LOC.
What the Pakistanis don't tell you is that they have much more in common with India than they would lead you to believe. Both countries may fight for influence over the Valley and inflict casualties on us but it should be remembered, that they are also in agreement that the State should not be independent. They would rather share control (as bilateral talks indicate) than let it go to the people that inherited it as state subjects. So much for democracy and so much for Pakistan advocating for a solution according to the 'aspirations' of the Kashmiri people.
Pakistan is in solidarity with the Kashmiris as long as the Kashmiris want to join Pakistan. After all, these are the terms on which Pakistan forcibly controls AJK and GB. The 5th of February is conditional love and the conditions have proved very expensive so far.
...end of Musafir's reply.
The Pakistani State must develop solidarity with its own population and give it the functional governing institutions - it so desperately has been waiting for since 1947 - without success.
I would say, territorial expansionism in such conditions in the 21st century is suicidal.
Here's another angle on the drama of 5th February:
Five #GilgitBaltistan ministers announced to celebrate 5th February as GB rights day rather than observe #kashmir day.— jamil Nagri (@jamilnagri) February 2, 2019
GB people have been deprived from their rights in the name of Kashmir dispute and Kashmir leaders always opposed rights of the region, they told pressers.
A good suggestion you have given (dear) spiritual guide, it should be implemented.
I went to Gilgit (jail) to visit Baba Jaan (from AJK) but I felt disgraced (by the police) all day. They mocked that I had come from 'outside' so I couldn't meet him. "What is your relationship to Baba Jaan?" they quizzed. Despite facing further offensive questions from them (GB police) I remained adamant on meeting him (Baba Jaan). Later, the DC (deputy commissioner) explained that, "Dear friend, this matter is in the hands of the ISI and thus beyond our control. Why don't you understand the actual problem?"...
I met some youngsters there. I swear, the conditions in Gilgit Baltistan are worse than the Valley (of Kashmir).