Daily Diary (DD) - Day 228 of 2019

1956hrs:

This morning I was rudely awakened by an email alert that informed me that my online petition to the UK parliament, submitted on the 11th of August had been rejected!

Details of email:

Dear Tanveer Ahmed,

We rejected the petition you created – “Take your share of responsibility for the avoidable dispute over Jammu & Kashmir”.

It’s not clear what the petition is asking the UK Government or Parliament to do.

Petitions need to call on the Government or Parliament to take a specific action. We're not sure exactly what you'd like the UK Government or Parliament to do. You could start a new petition explaining clearly what you would like the Government or Parliament to do.

Click this link to see your rejected petition: View your rejected petition

End of email....

Here's the text of the petition:

Take your share of responsibility for the avoidable dispute over Jammu & Kashmir

(Title of Petition is limited to 80 letters)

At least 5 reasons: 

-Words 'for ever' used n Article 1 of AmritsarTreaty 1846

-Maharaja's bid to avoid accession dilemma foiled by Brits pre1947

-BhutanBurmaNepalSikkimSriLanka avoided such, why not J&K?

-IIA 05/07/1947 still makes UK liable authority

-Mountbatten's proviso on J&K's accession.

(Background is limited to 300 letters)

We appreciate that J & K is coveted for its geography & water resources. We also understand that the issue of water was raised in British parliamentary debates pre 1947. However, dividing the region on the basis of religious identity was always going to be a recipe for war & existential claims on water. As the UK oversaw all that happened & didn't directly suffer from the decisions it made, it has a moral responsibility as well as technical grounding to take its share of responsibility to avert.

(More information is limited to 500 letters)

This reminded me of the difficulties I had in trying to obtain details of their communication with the Dogra rulers pre 1947, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Reference is linked here:

I have written the following to the petitions committee: 

I've given reasons for why the UK are at least partly responsible for the J & K issue and as the petition title suggests, specifically ask the UK government to take a share of that responsibility. Defining what those responsibilities are should be a matter for debate in parliament, based on interaction with appropriate stakeholders in the J & K dispute. Forgive the cliche but this is a process and not an event. One could provide a longer detailed specific plan on request. Given that we are given only 80 letters to draft our initial petition, is there any scope for us to challenge the original decision to reject the petition?

........

While I wait for a response to my possibility of challenging the rejection of the petition, I will be writing to my local MP in Luton, Kelvin Hopkins on the possibility of moving an EDM (Early Day Motion) in the parliament on this very subject.

Meanwhile, here's a freshly worded petition. I wonder if this passes the parliamentary radar:

Support democracy in an internal J & K political process, not Indo-Pak hegemony.

Our forbears in J & K pre 1947 were transitioning from autocracy to democracy. Post 1947, we feel even more disenfranchised for becoming victims of an imposed land dispute that consequently nullified indigenous voices & divided our State. This transition was effected by the British Parliament. 

Having adhered to a long deliberated sequence of independent research in AJK since 2005, an internal political process has been created here. Link: http://bit.ly/2ZbUxIR Since 1947, many a MP in the UK has reiterated that J & K belongs to its people & only they can determine their future. What was lacking was an internal resolution process & the UK's disinclination to share responsibility in this avoidable dispute. Our geography & water resources should be a blessing for humanity, not a curse.

End of petition...

For some contextual background, one could also read this article I wrote for Rising Kashmir in Srinagar on February the 9th, 2011 entitled, Britain's responsibilities in Kashmir 

.....

I don't think I need to add anything on the UN Security Council deliberations in New York today:

@Biiiyaa This happened. pic.twitter.com/cQ9u54P9Vu

— Sharjeel Khan (@SharjeeelTweets) August 16, 2019

.......

This too:

But, Pakistan can say that we internationalized Kashmir. That's the biggest bullshit I have ever seen. South China Sea is internationalized, ICJ has a damn verdict about it. Has it changed the status quo? It did NOT, despite all ASEAN and shit. International bodies can't do shit.

— Sharjeel Khan (@SharjeeelTweets) August 16, 2019

..........

Apologies...this too:

Hey @Natsecjeff
I seriously think China put UNSC meeting just to satisfy Pakistan.
That too a closed door meeting.
Moreover China is concerned about CPEC on one side and it can't speak more as it has Hong Kong issue.
So it tried it's best to make Pakistan happy.

— Akki (@Akki63434363) August 16, 2019

......

I'm always keen to receive academic critique on my work and in this respect I'm equally keen on taking questions from experts, academics, think-tanks and political scientists in general.

Here's an example of part of an exchange today:

Me:

Their (Pakistan's) internal contradictions have reached a nadir. They are now at the most difficult crossroads of their 72 year history.

Academic/Expert:

What kind of internal contradictions are these in your opinion?

Me:

- To support self determination for the Valley of Kashmir and deny it to AJK and GB.

- To change demographics of AJK and GB and protest such changes in Indian-controlled J & K.

- To insist that it is an advocate of J & K at the cost of drowning the internal narrative and then seek to find more powerful advocates than itself to support its point of view on J & K.

- To insist that it is a stakeholder on the basis of UN security resolutions which made it a respondent to India's complaint that it was an invader. To dance around steps suggested to it to demilitarise and use its presence in UN deliberations as a means to control AJK and GB, repress their citizens and loot their resources. To cry 'UN resolutions' and 'Our Principled Stand' yet engage in bilateral negotiations with India to divide the territory. To launch militancy across the LOC in parallel to such negotiations and lofty rhetoric.

- To describe yourself as a fortress of Islam yet unable to muster any practical support from the Muslim World.

- To base your economy on conflict, chicanery, magnificent delusions and naked self-interest, gradually hollowing out your economy for 80% of your citizens.

- To indulge in geographic expansion when your economy and standard of governance is in the pits of hell.

End of discussion.....

There are of course many more contradictions that can be cited.

........

I would add the following to the tweet below. Hypocrisy has no religion or nationality either:

All liquor stores in Pakistan are registered under a Hindu or a Christian name but mostly owned by Muslims. Money has no religion. https://t.co/gwJ9ssbBr6

— Puffin Man (@junaidakram83) August 16, 2019

.....

Its difficult enough for a public rights activist to gain the attention of the powers-that-be in a conflict zone, even the world's premier institution for human rights is having trouble communicating too:

“According to the UN records, more than 20 such visit requests, including to Kashmir, are pending at present. UN sources also said that between 2016-2018, the OHCHR Special Rapporteurs had sent as many as 58 communications, and had received no response” https://t.co/5sprwgg1Y5

— Hannah Barry (@h_barh) August 15, 2019

.......