Trying once again to make ground on time.
....
We continue to try and make full use of Dr Nazir Gilani's presence in the vicinity by cross referencing his note on the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) today:
احتیاط
عوامی ایکشن کمیٹی بمقابلہ حکومت آزاد کشمیر
The Joint Action Committee (JAC) VS the Government of Azad Kashmir
Be careful in responding to a genuine grassroots struggle for socio-economic rights
The Joint Action Committee (JAC) movement in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), which seeks affordable electricity tariffs, subsidized flour, and other essential provisions, represents a genuine grassroots struggle for socio-economic rights. The criticism levelled against it for neglecting broader political issues, such as India's actions on 5 August 2019, and the baseless allegation of being "India-sponsored," reflects a historical pattern of discrediting dissent in AJK. However, both historical and international precedents substantiate the legitimacy of the JAC’s demands and counter these criticisms.
Historical Context and Pakistan’s Precedents
Pakistan’s approach during critical historical moments provides a strong foundation to defend the JAC's focus on socio-economic concerns. In response to India's complaint to the UN Security Council (UNSC) on 1 January 1948, Pakistan submitted three documents on 15 January 1948 outlining six demands. These demands addressed a spectrum of issues beyond Kashmir, including:
1. Allegations of Genocide: Pakistan raised concerns about atrocities against Muslims in East Punjab and Delhi.
2. Occupation of Junagadh: Pakistan opposed India's annexation of Junagadh, advocating for the self-determination of its people.
3. Military Threats: Pakistan highlighted India's alleged threats of military aggression.
4. Interference in Hyderabad: Concerns about India’s stance toward the princely state of Hyderabad were also emphasized.
5. Economic Coercion: Pakistan addressed the economic pressures stemming from the partition, including disputes over resources.
6. Kashmir Dispute: While significant, Kashmir was one of many issues presented to the UNSC.
This multifaceted approach demonstrated Pakistan’s recognition of diverse challenges and the need to address them collectively, rather than focusing singularly on one issue. Criticizing the JAC for prioritizing socio-economic grievances over Kashmir mirrors the narrow thinking that Pakistan itself rejected in 1948.
Defence of the JAC Movement
1. Legitimacy of Popular Movements: The JAC’s demands align with fundamental human rights, such as access to affordable resources and economic stability, enshrined in international law through instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Labelling such a movement as “India-sponsored” disregards the genuine hardships faced by the people and echoes a discrediting tactic historically used in AJK since 1948.
2. UN Perspective on Constituencies: Accusations of being “India-sponsored” inadvertently validate the existence of an Indian constituency in AJK, akin to the recognized Pakistani constituency in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. Under UN frameworks, this symmetry necessitates equal legitimacy and protection for all constituencies advocating for their rights in contested territories.
3. Relevance of Socio-Economic Rights: Addressing immediate socio-economic issues does not diminish the importance of larger political contexts like the Kashmir dispute. On the contrary, alleviating basic hardships strengthens the foundation for political engagement and ensures that the population is empowered to advocate for their broader rights effectively.
4. Historical Symmetry: Pakistan has historically championed the cause of Kashmiri self-determination in Indian-administered territories, framing such movements as legitimate expressions of popular will. Applying a double standard to similar expressions of dissent in AJK undermines Pakistan’s principled stance on human rights and self-determination.
Conclusion
The JAC movement’s focus on socio-economic rights is consistent with Pakistan’s own historical strategy of addressing multiple issues simultaneously. Discrediting the movement with baseless allegations of foreign sponsorship ignores its genuine grievances and the precedent set by Pakistan at the UN in 1948. Recognizing and addressing these demands aligns with international principles, enhances the legitimacy of governance in AJK, and strengthens the moral and political foundation for addressing the broader Kashmir dispute.
Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
President JKCHR
25 December 2024
_the note above can also be accessed via the following hyperlink
....
No comments:
Post a Comment