0933hrs:
Twisting the tide of time yet further.
....
This following note by our foremost expert on the UN template on Jammu Kashmir namely Dr Nazir Gilani will be an important reference in the coming weeks, months and ultimately years:
ناکامی کے ذمہ دار
آئینی ذمہ داریوں سے انحراف!
Argument: The Failure of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan to Discharge Constitutional Duties and Its Impact on the Kashmiri Cause
__________________a______________________
1. The Constitutional Responsibility to Institutionalize Plebiscite Efforts
1. The Mandate of Section 8 of the AJK Act 1970 and Section 11 of the AJK Act 1974
o These constitutional provisions explicitly obligate the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Government to institute a framework for plebiscite advocacy, which is central to the Kashmir issue.
o Section 11 of the 1974 Act reinforces AJK’s role as a base camp for the Kashmiri struggle, specifically requiring the government to work toward facilitating a plebiscite under UN supervision.
2. The High Court’s 1999 Judgment
o The AJK High Court's ruling in April 1999 directed the government to appoint a Plebiscite Advisor (PA) and institutionalize efforts for a plebiscite. The judgment also set qualifications for the PA to ensure effective advocacy at national and international levels.
o This judgment was an opportunity for AJK to strengthen the Kashmiri narrative, fulfill its constitutional duties, and operationalize its role in the Kashmir dispute.
3. AJK Government’s Defiance and Lame Excuses
o The government’s failure to act on the judgment, citing budgetary constraints and Indian unpreparedness, reflects negligence and contempt of court.
o These excuses are laughable because:
Budgetary Constraints: The allocation of resources for the plebiscite framework is central to AJK’s constitutional role, and prioritizing it over other expenditures was necessary.
Indian Unpreparedness: The mandate of the plebiscite framework under Section 11 is independent of India’s actions. AJK assumed responsibilities under UNCIP (United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan), and its duties are not contingent on Indian readiness.
________________________________________
2. Impact of Neglecting the Plebiscite Framework on 5 August 2019
1. Institutional Framework Would Have Strengthened Kashmir’s Position
o If the AJK Government had acted promptly in 1999, the appointment of a Plebiscite Advisor and institutionalization of plebiscite advocacy would have:
Built International Support: The PA would have spearheaded global awareness campaigns, engaged with international bodies, and pressured India diplomatically.
Mobilized National and Diaspora Advocacy: The PA would have united the Kashmiri diaspora and galvanized public opinion, creating sustained pressure on both India and Pakistan to adhere to UN resolutions.
Blocked India’s Narrative: India’s unilateral action on 5 August 2019 to revoke J&K’s special status under Article 370 could have faced significant global resistance if a robust Kashmiri-led advocacy framework was in place.
2. Strengthened Kashmiri Agency
o The framework would have empowered the Kashmiri people to lead the discourse on their future. This could have prevented the reliance on Pakistan’s often self-interested representation of the Kashmiri cause.
3. Eroded India’s Justification for 5 August 2019
o India has consistently argued that the lack of organized Kashmiri advocacy justifies its unilateral actions. A robust institutional framework in AJK would have countered this narrative, making it harder for India to claim J&K’s integration into the Union.
________________________________________
3. Failure of AJK and Pakistan: Exploiting a Compliant Kashmiri Leadership
1. A Culture of Compliant Leadership
o By neglecting its constitutional duties and defying the High Court judgment, the AJK Government has created an environment where compliant leadership thrives.
o Both the AJK Government and Pakistan have exploited this compliant leadership to maintain control over the Kashmiri narrative, sidelining genuine Kashmiri voices advocating for self-determination.
2. Pakistan’s Role as a Party with Interests
o Pakistan’s approach often prioritizes its territorial claims over the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. By failing to support the institutionalization of plebiscite efforts, Pakistan has weakened its credibility as an advocate for Kashmiris.
________________________________________
4. The Merits of JKCHR’s Work on Section 11 of the AJK Act 1974
1. Visionary Leadership and Advocacy
o JKCHR’s petition in 1992 was a pioneering effort to compel the AJK Government to fulfill its constitutional obligations. By focusing on Section 11, JKCHR emphasized the importance of institutionalizing advocacy for the plebiscite as a cornerstone of the Kashmiri struggle.
2. Addressing Neglect and Accountability
o The petition highlighted the longstanding neglect of constitutional duties by the AJK Government and called for accountability. JKCHR’s work exposed the lack of political will and administrative initiative, forcing the issue into the judicial domain.
3. A Roadmap for the Future
o The High Court’s 1999 judgment, catalyzed by JKCHR’s efforts, provided a clear roadmap for plebiscite advocacy, including the appointment of a qualified Plebiscite Advisor.
o JKCHR’s emphasis on implementing this framework remains relevant today, as it is essential for reclaiming Kashmiri agency and countering India’s unilateralism.
________________________________________
5. Educating the Public: Raising Awareness of Neglect
1. Expose the AJK Government’s Failures
o Public campaigns should focus on educating Kashmiris about how the AJK Government’s neglect of the High Court judgment weakened their position internationally and allowed India to act unilaterally on 5 August 2019.
2. Highlight JKCHR’s Role
o Efforts like those of JKCHR must be celebrated and amplified as examples of visionary leadership. This will inspire others to hold the AJK Government and Pakistan accountable for their inaction.
3. Mobilize Civil Society and Grassroots Movements
o Civil society organizations and grassroots movements must be empowered to demand the implementation of the High Court’s judgment and advocate for Kashmiri-led initiatives.
________________________________________
6. Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity and the Path Forward
The failure of the AJK Government and Pakistan to act on the 1999 High Court judgment institutionalizing plebiscite advocacy is a grave dereliction of duty. This neglect not only undermined the Kashmiri cause but also enabled India’s unilateral actions on 5 August 2019.
JKCHR’s work on Section 11 of the AJK Act 1974 remains a blueprint for reclaiming Kashmiri agency. Moving forward, the Kashmiri people must demand accountability from both the AJK Government and Pakistan, reject compliant leadership, and establish a robust institutional framework that centers their aspirations and voices on the global stage. Only by reclaiming ownership of their cause can Kashmiris effectively counter the narratives imposed by both India and Pakistan.
Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
President JKCHR
23 December 2024
_the above note can also be accessed at the following hyperlink
....
