Daily Diary (DD) - Day 10 of 2025

1040hrs:

5 hours and 40 minutes later than intended. 

....

Dr Nazir Gilani is making most optimum use of his time and expertise for the nation of 'Kashmiris' in particular. It is one of the tragedies of this beautiful land that its people do not recognise merit among themselves. They seek unjustifiable strength from outside while repeatedly overlooking strength on the inside, between their own. In the case of the AJK Government, who needs a roadmap when its patrons and appeasers are content with swinging around a roundabout endlessly?

Actionable Roadmap on Kashmir

Honourable Prime Minister,

It is a surprise and a disappointment that, after 77 years, 2 months, and 17 days since the establishment of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), and 77 years and 10 days since the Kashmir issue was first raised at the United Nations (UN), we are still unable to produce a clear, actionable roadmap for the Kashmiri people's freedom.

This delay is not just an administrative failure; it is a profound injustice to those who have suffered for generations. Kashmir has lost a whole generation, and the impact of this deficit will have far-reaching consequences, particularly in the context of any future UN-supervised vote on self-determination. The region is not only dismembered but has also been stripped of its legislature, its special rights, and its dignity. India, a UN member, has blatantly violated its Charter obligations and the UN template on Kashmir.

On January 5, you called upon the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to deliver a  “clear” and “actionable” roadmap for Kashmir’s freedom. While your intent is commendable, this request raises a series of urgent and critical questions that must be addressed now, rather than later.

1. Why Start From Scratch?

The AJK Government was established in October 1947, and the APHC has adhered to a constitutional discipline since 1993—aligned with the UN’s framework on Kashmir. Given this history, why are we still asking the APHC to come up with something new? Why hasn’t the AJK Government already produced a clear roadmap based on these established principles and historical momentum? We have frameworks, principles, and international support already in place—why are we failing to act on them?

2. Leveraging Existing Legal Frameworks

The AJK Government operates under the 1970 and 1974 Acts, which provide a strong legal foundation to address the Kashmir issue. These acts, combined with the UN’s resolutions, lay out a clear path forward. Why is the AJK Government not using these frameworks to advance the Kashmir cause immediately? Instead of asking the APHC to reinvent the wheel, shouldn’t the existing legal and constitutional mechanisms be fully utilized to advance our case on the global stage?

3. The 9-Point Formula of 2019

In May 2019, the President of AJK presented a 9-point formula to the OIC Contact Group on Kashmir in Jeddah. If it was duly debated and approved, what happened to it? Why is the APHC being tasked with coming up with something new in 2025. APHC has a constitutional roadmap.

4. India’s Violations: What Has Changed?

India, as a UN member state, has blatantly violated its obligations by revoking Kashmir’s special status on August 5, 2019, in direct contradiction to the spirit and letter of UN resolutions. Given this violation, why is the AJK Government now calling for a new “roadmap”? Shouldn’t the international community, led by the “AJK Government”, be holding India accountable for its unlawful actions, rather than reimagining the Kashmir cause from scratch?

5. The AJK Government's Role:

It is profoundly concerning that, after all these years, the AJK Government is still waiting for the APHC to create a roadmap. The responsibility for action has long been with the AJK Government. Why, after 77 years, is the government still not prepared to lead the charge? A coherent, well-thought-out strategy should have been in place decades ago, yet here we are asking the APHC to step in and fill the void. What specific actions will the AJK Government take to lead the struggle, to bring Kashmir’s case to the international stage, and to hold India accountable for its actions?

Conclusion:

Prime Minister, while your call for a “clear” and “actionable” roadmap is necessary, the reality is that we are far beyond the point where such a request should have been made. The roadmap should already exist, based on the frameworks and agreements that have been in place for decades. The 9-point formula of 2019, the UN resolutions, and the AJK Government’s own constitutional frameworks already provide the groundwork for a comprehensive, actionable strategy.

It is time for leadership, not procrastination. Kashmir’s cause deserves a strategy that reflects its historical and legal rights. It deserves a plan that holds India accountable for its violations of international law and reasserts the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. We need a roadmap, but we already have the tools and frameworks to create it. The question is: when will we use them?

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani

President JKCHR

10.01.2025

 

One may comment directly on Dr Nazir Gilani's post on Facebook here

....

We continue with our daily vlog via Facebook Live:

Our people have always been in search of short cuts to resolve an increasingly complex and entangled problem viz. restoring the people's #Right2Rule in #AJK > #JKA 

They will have to follow the right sequence viz. 

1) Securing a public mandate from over 95% of the voting population. 

2) Identify political representatives from each political constituency, while ensuring each constituency has an equally proportionate population. 

3) Fulfilling all technical (legal, constitutional, social, economic, security etc.) requirements. 

4) Operate a genuinely free government in AJK that can increase the economic livelihood opportunities of the people 100x over. 

Making or joining a political party are not sufficient to fulfill the above process, though their role in the second part of the sequence is crucial. 

#Conflict2Peace

#PublicPolicy

#PopularSovereignty

#1To100Economy

JKA PUBLIC AGENCY Note: #E235510012025

....

Daily Diary (DD) - Day 9 of 2025

1130hrs:

6 and a half hours later than intended. It's the beginning part of the sleep cycle that needs addressing, as last night it began at c. 0230hrs.

The lower part of my back is also experiencing acute pain since yesterday morning. 

.... 

We continue to mirror Dr Nazir Gilani's analysis on this platform, making the most of his presence in the neighbourhood:

Special status of Azad Kashmir

Azad Kashmir's Special Status and the Need for Understanding and Enforcement

The status of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) remains a complex and highly debated issue within the broader Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. However, there is no question that Azad Kashmir has a special status, and this status needs to be understood, respected, and enforced, both in terms of its unique historical context and its legal and political framework, as prescribed by Pakistan's constitution and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP).

1. Historical and Legal Context of Azad Kashmir’s Special Status

The Standstill Agreement of 15 August 1947 between Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan marks the beginning of the dispute over Kashmir, setting the stage for what has become a prolonged political conflict between India and Pakistan. While India has integrated its portion of Jammu and Kashmir into its political and constitutional framework, Pakistan assumed a different approach toward the territory under its control, leading to the creation of Azad Kashmir.

Azad Kashmir was never intended to be a fully integrated province of Pakistan. Instead, it was envisioned as a temporary administrative set-up that would function as a provisional government until the ultimate political status of the region could be determined through a UN-supervised plebiscite. This arrangement was solidified by the UNCIP (United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan), which monitored the situation in Kashmir following the 1947 partition.

The UNCIP’s role in this context is crucial because it was explicitly tasked with overseeing the governance and political situation in Azad Kashmir, which was deemed a local authority under its supervision, rather than a fully recognized international entity. This unique status underscores the fact that Azad Kashmir is distinct from other regions and is not a fully sovereign or integrated part of Pakistan. It remains in a state of administrative limbo, with a provisional status awaiting a final decision by the people of the region.

2. Legal Foundation of Azad Kashmir’s Special Status in the Constitution of Pakistan

The Constitution of Pakistan, particularly Article 257, reinforces the special status of Azad Kashmir by explicitly stating that the region’s future relationship with Pakistan should be decided by the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, in accordance with the results of a UN-supervised plebiscite. This article acknowledges that the region's relationship with Pakistan is provisional and must ultimately be determined by a free expression of the Kashmiri people's wishes.

Article 257 reflects the commitment of the Pakistani government to respecting the principle of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, a right that was guaranteed under international law, particularly as outlined in UN resolutions. The special status of Azad Kashmir, as reflected in Article 257, provides a legal framework under which the region's governance and political alignment are inherently subject to change based on the outcome of this plebiscite.

3. Azad Kashmir as a "Local Authority" Under UNCIP Supervision

The UNCIP framework further emphasizes the transitory and provisional nature of Azad Kashmir’s governance. The region is described as a local authority, and its governance is subject to oversight, not through military or direct intervention, but through diplomatic and supervisory channels under the Commission’s guidance. This means that while Azad Kashmir is allowed to govern its internal affairs, its status as a fully autonomous or permanently integrated part of Pakistan has never been settled.

It is vital to clarify that this “local authority” status does not mean Azad Kashmir is without recognition or sovereignty. Rather, it indicates that Azad Kashmir’s autonomy and self-governance exist within a temporary framework until the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is resolved through the plebiscite process, which was initially proposed in UN resolutions and remains the basis for international law in the region.

4. The 1974 Act and the Special Role of Azad Kashmir

The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974 further entrenches the idea of Azad Kashmir as a provisional government with a distinct special status. This act establishes a self-governing framework for Azad Kashmir, creating the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and the Prime Minister's office, which exercise powers over the region’s day-to-day governance, while maintaining the relationship with Pakistan based on the principle of UN-supervised plebiscite.

It is important to note that the Act of 1974 explicitly recognizes that the primary objective of the region's governance is to provide good governance and better administration until the final determination of Jammu and Kashmir’s political status through a free and fair plebiscite. The recognition of this temporary governance structure emphasizes that Azad Kashmir’s governance is based on a framework of special administrative autonomy that must be understood as a stepping stone toward a final, democratic resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

5. Pakistan’s Role and Responsibilities

Pakistan itself acknowledges that it has assumed the responsibility of overseeing Azad Kashmir's governance, in line with its role in the larger Kashmir issue. This responsibility is defined within the UNCIP framework, which, while not military in nature, underscores the fact that Azad Kashmir's political future is subject to international oversight until the plebiscite takes place. Pakistan also affirms that the relationship between Azad Kashmir and the rest of Pakistan should ultimately be determined by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, in line with the provisions of Article 257 of Pakistan’s constitution.

Thus, Pakistan's role is not one of direct control or annexation but of facilitation and oversight in the region’s transition toward a final political settlement, as determined by the principle of self-determination. This highlights the special and provisional status of Azad Kashmir within the larger context of the Kashmir dispute.

6. The Need for Enforcement and Understanding of Azad Kashmir’s Special Status

Given the historical, political, and legal context outlined above, it is crucial to understand and enforce the special status of Azad Kashmir, which is defined by both its legal framework and the internationally recognized process of determining the region’s future through a UN-supervised plebiscite. The region is not a fully integrated part of Pakistan, nor is it an independent entity; it exists in a unique and special status that acknowledges the temporary nature of its governance.

To ensure that Azad Kashmir's special status is respected, it is essential that Pakistan, India, and the international community continue to adhere to the principle of self-determination and uphold the UN’s role in facilitating a final resolution through a fair and impartial plebiscite. Any attempt to change this status unilaterally or to ignore the will of the Kashmiri people, as expressed through the plebiscite, would be a violation of the principle of international law and the rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Conclusion

Azad Kashmir’s special status is firmly embedded in both historical agreements and the legal framework of Pakistan. It is a provisional, autonomous, and self-governing entity with a temporary role until the final political status of the region is determined. The relationship between Azad Kashmir and Pakistan, and its future integration or independence, must ultimately be decided by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, as per the principle of self-determination enshrined in international law. Enforcing and respecting this special status is not only a matter of legal necessity but also of moral and political integrity in the pursuit of peace and justice for the people of Kashmir.

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani

President JKCHR

09.01.2025

One may comment directly on Dr Nazir Gilani's post on Facebook here

I have pointed out that - ultimately - the people of AJK themselves have to find a way out of this limbo, which doesn't favour them at a practical level.

....

This evening's vlog on Facebook Live:

It is important that I - Tanveer Ahmed - do not just praise the public of #AJK for all its virtues and good deeds but that I point out its inherent weaknesses too. 

Without addressing these weaknesses, we will not be able to restore the people's #Right2Rule in this territory. 

A fundamental weakness in our people's thinking is their general attitude to public finance. They will publicly fund activity on a spontaneous, incidental, emotional or temporary basis but they will rarely even consider funding a prolonged institutional mechanism to address the ailments in #Governance , that they so often curse and criticise. 

Our people usually rely on miracles in this regard. 

#Conflict2Peace

#PublicPolicy

#PopularSovereignty

#1To100Economy

JKA PUBLIC AGENCY Note: #E234209012025

....

Daily Diary (DD) - Day 8 of 2025

1024hrs:

5 hours and 24 minutes later than intended but at least there is marked improvement on yesterday despite sleeping beyond 0300hrs.

....

This evening's pre-midnight vlog on Facebook Live:

JKA PUBLIC AGENCY is a unique public institution in that it is exclusively owned by the public of AJK, while it has absolutely no affiliation or commitment to or with any country or other public institution, anywhere in the world. 

From its origins of almost 2 decades, it has always upheld 4 non-negotiables with all its own people (the public of AJK & its diaspora), with all its co-citizens in the rest of JKA, with all its neighbouring countries and with the rest of the world - all powers large and small. 

1) Geopolitical neutrality

2) The 'Riyasati' (People's) Reference

3) Ideological harmony & co-existence (of whatever nature: religious, political, philosophical etc.) 

4) Ecological concerns of the territory of JKA 

These have been the poles that have evolved and matured as our compass since the outset of this un-anticipated journey in April 2005. This forms the roots of a contemporary Citizen-State contract from AJK to JKA.

JKA PUBLIC AGENCY Note: #E004308012025

....

Daily Diary (DD) - Day 7 of 2025

1202hrs:

About 7 hours later than intended, even though I got to sleep by c. 0100hrs. However, I couldn't wake before 1100hrs.

It took a further hour for me to remember that a diary input is waiting. 

A day waking up in Dadyaal, which is likely to be the final day of such an event, as a renter of accommodation, as I have been since 2017.

I have never wanted to leave this tehsil and city but obviously Sharda awaits me. 

....

Many have noticed the AJK PM's 'Jihad' speech in Muzaffarabad on the 5th of January 2024 (2 days ago). Dr Nazir Gilani also provides his take:

PM Azad Kashmiri’s call for Jihad – its merits

The Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir (AJK) faces a critical juncture where a shift in approach is not just necessary, but urgent for the future of Kashmir and its people. While the PM's invocation of rhetoric surrounding the ousting of Indian forces and the use of "Jihad" to achieve a free and impartial plebiscite resonates with historical and emotional sentiment, it risks misdirecting resources, alienating key international stakeholders, and undermining the very cause of self-determination for Kashmiris. 

A more prudent and effective approach would be to redirect resources towards the revival of the implementation of the United Nations (UN) template on Kashmir—an approach grounded in international law, historical resolution frameworks, and the preservation of life and democracy.

1. The Dangers of Misusing the Concept of Jihad

The PM's call to invoke "Jihad" in Kashmir is a sentiment rooted in resistance against occupation, yet it risks being distorted in contemporary geopolitics. The term "Jihad" has been co-opted by various actors over the years to justify terrorism, a label that has deeply hurt the legitimate struggle of Kashmiris for self-determination. Today, the environment around Kashmir is one where the term "Jihad" has become associated with violence and extremism in the eyes of the international community. It is critical to recognize that such rhetoric can delegitimize the Kashmiris' legitimate struggle for autonomy, undermining their cause rather than advancing it.

Furthermore, Kashmir has already lost a generation in its quest for freedom. With decades of conflict, the death toll in Kashmir has been staggeringly high, a reality that should not be ignored. The loss of life, alongside the resulting psychological and social scars, means that Kashmir’s very future is at risk. The death of a generation is tantamount to the death of self-determination. In this context, the PM should prioritize saving lives, preserving the region’s future, and ensuring that Kashmiris live to see the realization of their right to self-determination, not through further loss but through diplomatic and legal avenues.

2. The Need for a Return to the UN Template

The PM's rhetoric on Jihad diverts attention away from the legal and political pathways already in place to address the Kashmir dispute. Since the inception of the Kashmir issue in 1947, the UN has laid out a framework—embodied in the resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949—that provides a clear path for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, specifically through a free and impartial plebiscite under UN supervision. These resolutions have been endorsed by multiple international parties, including France, which has reaffirmed the necessity for both parties to return to these resolutions, and in cases of failure, to submit the issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for arbitration.

The UN template on Kashmir provides a legitimate, peaceful, and internationally recognized path to self-determination. For the PM of Azad Kashmir, this template offers a foundation on which to build a future of peace, stability, and justice. Rather than pursuing futile and potentially destructive actions, the PM should focus on reviving and aligning with the UN framework, which already provides a diplomatic path for resolution. This is not only the legal framework but the one that the international community is most likely to support, including Pakistan, which is a member of the UN and a party to the Kashmir dispute.

3. Preserving Life, Preserving Self-Determination

The idea of "preserving number through preserving life" is paramount in the Kashmir context. Every life lost in Kashmir reduces the region's ability to advocate for a future of peace and self-determination. The right to self-determination, as recognized by the UN, must be pursued in ways that protect and value the lives of those involved. The PM’s focus should be on building a constitutional framework within Azad Kashmir that supports the aspirations of the Kashmiri people for self-determination through peaceful means. This framework should work in close collaboration with civil society and the international community to ensure the full implementation of the UN’s template for Kashmir.

4. The Legal and Constitutional Imperative

The PM must also address the fact that the AJK government has historically fallen short in terms of its legal and constitutional obligations to uphold the UN's resolutions. Notably, sections 8 and 11 of the 1970 Act and the 1974 Constitutional Act of AJK, as well as a 1999 judgment by the AJK High Court, emphasize the importance of the UN resolutions as the guiding framework for Kashmir’s future. However, there has been little indication that the AJK government has made any substantial effort to implement these resolutions or to advocate for the lawful entry and exit of its citizens as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 47.

The PM must now direct the government’s resources toward ensuring full compliance with these international legal frameworks. This could include seeking legal expertise, pushing for more effective diplomacy, and working with Pakistan to ensure that AJK adheres to its international obligations. It could also involve creating a constitutional framework that not only supports the aspirations of the people of Kashmir but also works in concert with international law, helping the region to regain its credibility on the global stage.

5. Collaboration with Pakistan and the International Community

Pakistan, as a key party to the Kashmir dispute, should be mobilized to assist the AJK government in ensuring that international legal frameworks and UN resolutions are honoured. Given Pakistan's position as a UN member state, it has the political leverage and international standing to facilitate a resolution that is in the best interests of the Kashmiri people. However, this requires a shift in focus from militant rhetoric to diplomatic engagement. By reorienting efforts to revive the UN framework, the PM can work with Pakistan and the international community to ensure that Kashmir’s future is shaped through legal and diplomatic means, not through violence or political grandstanding.

Conclusion

The PM of Azad Kashmir must redirect the government’s resources and efforts from militant rhetoric and forceful calls to action towards the practical implementation of the UN template for Kashmir. The international community, including Pakistan, stands ready to assist, but only if the cause is pursued within the legal and peaceful frameworks already established by the UN. Preserving life in Kashmir, ensuring the dignity of its people, and revitalizing the pursuit of self-determination under the UN’s framework are the most viable paths forward. Only through such efforts can Kashmir hope to see a peaceful, just, and lasting resolution to its long-standing plight.

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani

President JKCHR

07.01.2025

One may comment directly on Dr Nazir Gilani's post on Facebook here

....

Today's vlog on Facebook Live:

The people of #AJK are very warm, kind, hospitable & attentive. Though this trait is common & abundant, it is primarily found in accidental, coincidental, occasional or temporary conditions. 

This behaviour is not constant, choreographed, long-term or institutionally minded. 

This is not how a country or government can successfully operate. 

We need to cultivate a new approach in our people for better resource allocation and systematic efficiency. 

What we need and what our public is struggling to understand and even identify:

1) Population Census > Public Opinion 

By clarifying the people's 'Right to Rule. 

2) Political representation 

Marking out constituencies with roughly equal weightage of voter population, with political representatives who can abide by the will of the people as clarified in 1).

3) Citizen-State Contract

Technical & constitutional requirements for governance & statecraft to ensure transparency, inclusivity, meritocracy & accountability. 

4) A functioning government in AJK

It will immediately change its initials from AJK to JKA, which poses no threat to anybody and improves the economic well-being of its people 100 x over.

#Conflict2Peace

#PopularSovereignty

#PublicPolicy

#1To100Economy

JKA PUBLIC AGENCY Note: #E233207012025

....

Daily Diary (DD) - Day 6 of 2025

1100hrs:

6 hours later than I would have wanted but again - like yesterday - sleep evaded me until c. 0600hrs. I suppose I could've logged an entry before falling asleep but that condition is one where the mind and soul are neither awake nor asleep. 

This is also the second day that we've not had any sun, just chilly winds.

.... 

We continue to give reference to the words of Dr Nazir Gilani, as he is writing not too far from us in Rawalpindi, Pakistan:

Unique Kashmiri Identity

People of legend, song, and story

The people of Kashmir, as vividly described by Dr. P. Graham – UN Representative for India and Pakistan, represent a people of immense cultural, historical, and spiritual depth—“a people of legend, song, and story, associated with snow-capped mountains, beautiful valleys, and life-giving waters.” 

These words capture not just the geographical beauty of the region, but the very essence of the Kashmiri identity, which has been shaped by centuries of rich heritage, diverse cultural traditions, and a deep connection to the land. The people of Kashmir—comprising Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians—have long lived as artisans, farmers, craftsmen, small traders, boatmen, and other labourers, contributing significantly to both the local economy and the broader cultural fabric of the region.

However, despite their historical contributions and the beauty of their land, the Kashmiri people have also endured great suffering. For centuries, they have been subjected to exploitation, conflict, and the imposition of foreign and often divisive political systems. The tragic irony is that the very land that has provided sustenance and livelihood has also been a battleground, where the hopes, dreams, and security of its people have been repeatedly undermined.

To understand the compelling argument for the rights and dignity of the Kashmiri people, it is important to consider the principles of self-determination, security, and dignity—core tenets of human rights enshrined in international law. The Kashmir dispute, at its heart, revolves around the right of the people of Kashmir to determine their own future free from external coercion or political imposition. Dr. Graham's description is a powerful reminder that the Kashmiri people are not a mere footnote in the broader geopolitics of the region but are, in fact, central to the discussion on self-determination.

1. The Right to Self-Determination

The right to self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law, codified in various United Nations resolutions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The people of Kashmir, as Graham notes, have a unique identity shaped by centuries of distinct culture, language, and tradition. This cultural and historical uniqueness provides a strong argument for their right to decide their political future in accordance with their own will. Kashmiris, having endured a long history of external impositions, have been denied the opportunity to freely exercise this right.

The promise of a plebiscite—first envisioned by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 1948—was meant to give the Kashmiri people the chance to determine their own destiny. Yet, despite the passing of more than seven decades, this promise remains unfulfilled. Holding a free and impartial plebiscite under international supervision would allow the Kashmiri people to express their collective will in a fair, democratic process. The failure to implement this long-awaited measure only further entrenches the suffering of the people of Kashmir and denies them the basic dignity that comes with being able to shape their own future.

2. Security and Dignity

The issues of security and dignity are intimately connected. The people of Kashmir have lived through decades of violence, displacement, and disruption. Whether due to armed conflict, state repression, or military occupation, the Kashmiris have often found themselves caught in a struggle for survival, facing daily threats to their personal security, their cultural heritage, and their ability to live in peace. This reality has caused immense physical, psychological, and social trauma to generations of Kashmiris.

A solution to the Kashmir issue that genuinely addresses the aspirations of its people must prioritize their security—ensuring that they can live in peace without fear of violence, persecution, or displacement. In tandem with this, their dignity must be respected. As Graham’s description suggests, Kashmiris have long been victims of exploitation, both economically and politically. They deserve to live in an environment where their voices are heard, where their rights are protected, and where they are not marginalized or exploited for the political and economic gains of others.

3. International Recognition and Responsibility

The international community, particularly through the United Nations, has a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that the rights of the Kashmiri people are upheld. The United Nations itself recognized the need for a fair plebiscite, one that would allow the people of Kashmir to determine their political future in a manner consistent with their aspirations. As Dr. Graham suggests, this could become “a challenging example of the progressive values of self-determination to the dependent peoples of the earth.”

By fulfilling its commitment to holding a free and impartial plebiscite in Kashmir, the international community would send a powerful message to all peoples struggling for self-determination around the world. It would also demonstrate a commitment to human rights and justice, values that transcend national borders and serve as the bedrock of the international order.

4. A Future of Peace and Prosperity

The future of Kashmir, and the future of the people who call it home, should not be defined by the perpetual cycle of violence and exploitation. The only way forward is to create a path that recognizes the people of Kashmir as the central agents in determining their own fate. A free, secure, and impartial plebiscite offers the potential to break the chains of conflict and begin the process of healing, reconciliation, and rebuilding.

Should the people of Kashmir be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination, they would have the opportunity to create a future in which all communities—Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and Christian—can live together in harmony, with mutual respect and shared prosperity. The region’s natural beauty, its rich cultural heritage, and its entrepreneurial spirit would become the foundation for a peaceful and vibrant society. This is not just a vision of hope but a practical reality that can be realized through the exercise of the Kashmiri people’s fundamental right to determine their own political future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the argument for the rights, dignity, security, and self-determination of the Kashmiri people is grounded in both ethical imperatives and international law. The recognition of their right to determine their own future, through a free and impartial plebiscite, would honour the spirit of justice and human rights that the United Nations was created to uphold. The people of Kashmir have suffered too long under the weight of exploitation and conflict. It is time for the international community to help them reclaim their dignity, their security, and their right to a future defined by their own choices.

DR. Syed Nazir Gilani

President JKCHR

06.01.2025

One may comment directly on Dr Nazir Gilani's post on Facebook here

....

This evening's pre-midnight vlog on Facebook Live:

What we need and what our public is struggling to understand and even identify:

1) Population Census > Public Opinion 

By clarifying the people's 'Right to Rule. 

2) Political representation 

Marking out constituencies with roughly equal weightage of voter population, with political representatives who can abide by the will of the people as clarified in 1).

3) Citizen-State Contract

Technical & constitutional requirements for governance & statecraft to ensure transparency, inclusivity, meritocracy & accountability. 

4) A functioning government in AJK

It will immediately change its initials from AJK to JKA, which poses no threat to anybody and improves the economic well-being of its people 100 x over.

#Conflict2Peace

#PopularSovereignty

#PublicPolicy

#1To100Economy

JKA PUBLIC AGENCY Note: #E234206012025

....

Daily Diary (DD) - Day 5 of 2025

1037hrs:

About 5 hours and 37 minutes later than I had intended. 

It is the sleeping routine that I need to address first and foremost. I couldn't get to sleep till 0400hrs and got up at 1000hrs. It is not the quantum of sleep that is troubling me but the timing of it. Let's see how it is addressed in the following days & weeks.

....

We hope that those of our co-citizens and southerly neighbours who have some how contrived from UNCIP Resolution II (5 January 1949) that self-determination can be restricted, may take the time to read the following post and get themselves duly educated:

Hello Kashmiris

Self-Determination Day

The argument about which date — April 21, 1948 (UN Security Council Resolution 47) or January 5, 1949 (UNCIP Resolution) — could be more suitably treated as Self-Determination Day for Kashmir is interesting. The following explanation remains in the field for those who follow the UN template on Kashmir:

Key Principles:

1. Article 1(2) of the UN Charter – Equality of Peoples and Self-Determination: Article 1(2) of the UN Charter states that the purpose of the United Nations is to promote international cooperation and to develop friendly relations among nations, based on the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. This means that all peoples, regardless of their political status, have the right to freely choose their political status without coercion. For Kashmir, this principle of equality of peoples and the right to self-determination is central in any UN-backed solution.

2. U.S. Statement (1948) on the Kashmir Dispute: In 1948, the United States expressed a clear stance regarding the resolution of the Kashmir issue: if India and Pakistan were to reach a resolution, it should be consistent with the UN Charter and the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination. The U.S. emphasized that any agreement between the two countries should not violate the rights of the Kashmiri people to choose their own future through a free and fair plebiscite. If India and Pakistan could not agree on a resolution, then the UN's plan — which included a plebiscite — should prevail. This reinforces the international community's endorsement of the right of self-determination for the Kashmiri people, suggesting that the UN framework remained the default solution.

________________________________________

Analysis of the Two Resolutions:

1. UN Security Council Resolution 47 of April 21, 1948:

o Historical Context: Resolution 47 was the first significant UN Security Council resolution addressing the Kashmir dispute. It came after India brought the matter to the UN in the wake of the 1947-48 war with Pakistan. The resolution called for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Pakistani forces, and most importantly, it called for the establishment of a free and fair plebiscite to allow the Kashmiri people to decide their political future.

o Self-Determination Under the UN Charter: Resolution 47 directly tied the Kashmir issue to the right of self-determination, as stated in Article 1(2) of the UN Charter, which guarantees that all peoples have the right to determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. The resolution suggested that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be able to freely decide whether they wished to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent — a decision that reflects the principle of equality of peoples and self-determination.

o Political Significance: The Resolution of April 21, 1948, was a pivotal moment for Kashmiri political groups, especially those advocating for self-determination, as it was the UN's first formal acknowledgment of the Kashmiri people's right to decide their future. This resolution set the stage for the plebiscite process, which would give the people of Kashmir the power to determine their political destiny in a manner consistent with the UN Charter's provisions for self-determination.

o Self-Determination Day Argument: For those advocating for self-determination, Resolution 47 (April 21, 1948) could be the most appropriate "Self-Determination Day" because it was the moment when the UN explicitly connected the Kashmir issue to the international principle of self-determination. This was the first official statement that endorsed the right of the Kashmiri people to choose their political future, making it a key date for those seeking to preserve and uphold this principle.

2. UNCIP Resolution of January 5, 1949:

o Historical Context: On January 5, 1949, the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) issued a resolution that focused on establishing the Ceasefire Line (later known as the Line of Control, or LoC) and laid out the conditions necessary for a plebiscite to take place. The resolution reaffirmed the necessity of a free and fair plebiscite but primarily focused on the administrative and security conditions required to hold such a plebiscite.

o Self-Determination Under the UN Charter: The January 5 resolution reaffirmed the principle of self-determination in the sense that it provided a pathway for Kashmiris to express their will through the plebiscite, but it was more procedural. It did not bring forward any new principles related to the right of self-determination beyond what had already been outlined in Resolution 47.

o Political Significance: The Resolution of January 5, 1949 represented a step toward practical implementation of the UN plan for a plebiscite, but it didn’t change the fundamental international recognition of Kashmir’s right to self-determination as outlined in the earlier resolutions. The political significance of this date lies more in institutionalizing the framework for holding the plebiscite than in affirming new principles of self-determination.

o Self-Determination Day Argument: While the January 5, 1949 resolution was important for its administrative decisions regarding the plebiscite, it did not carry the same weight as Resolution 47 in terms of reaffirming the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their future. Therefore, from the perspective of self-determination, it is less significant in terms of marking a moment of international recognition of this right.

________________________________________

Integrating U.S. Statement and the Principle of Self-Determination:

• The U.S. statement from 1948 explicitly aligned itself with the right of self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter. The statement indicated that any resolution of the Kashmir dispute, whether reached through bilateral negotiations or otherwise, must be consistent with the principles of the UN Charter, including the right of the Kashmiri people to choose their political future. This reaffirmed the view that self-determination was non-negotiable and that any attempt to resolve the dispute must respect the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their future through a plebiscite.

• In this context, Resolution 47 (April 21, 1948) stands out because it was the first international recognition of Kashmir's self-determination, echoing the principle of equality of peoples under Article 1(2) of the UN Charter. The U.S. statement aligns with this resolution, emphasizing that if India and Pakistan could not resolve the issue bilaterally, the UN's framework, including the plebiscite, should prevail. This underscores the continuing legitimacy of the self-determination process envisioned by the UN.

________________________________________

Conclusion:

• April 21, 1948 (UN Security Council Resolution 47) is the more appropriate "Self-Determination Day" for Kashmir, as it marks the first formal recognition of the Kashmiri people's right to self-determination under the UN Charter. It is consistent with the principle of equality of peoples in Article 1(2) and was endorsed by the U.S. statement emphasizing that any solution must respect this right. This resolution directly linked the Kashmir issue to the right of the people of Kashmir to determine their own future through a plebiscite, thus making it a foundational date in the pursuit of self-determination.

• The January 5, 1949 UNCIP resolution, while important for the implementation details of the plebiscite, does not carry the same foundational significance in affirming the right of self-determination as Resolution 47. Therefore, April 21, 1948, aligns more closely with the principles of self-determination and would be the preferred date for those advocating for Kashmir's right to self-determination as outlined in the UN Charter.

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani

President JKCHR

 

05.01.2025

One may comment directly on Dr Nazir Gilani's post on Facebook here

....

A great furore has emerged over the AJK 'prime minister' Choudhary Anwaar ul Haque's public statement about facilitating 'Jihad' in Kashmir (Valley) once again, earlier today in Muzaffarabad:

I'm posting the video clip here directly for reference:

Perhaps the best riposte came from Raja Amjad Ali Khan (prominent advocate of Muzaffarabad) who wrote the following:

Translated thus: (I have added words in brackets for clarity and context, especially for those people not so aware of the machinations of the AJK 'Government')  

The real (actual) announcement is this:

If the creation's largest (ministerial) cabinet in proportion to its (territory's) population.....The (world's) largest bureaucracy...An army of government employees (whose employment has been) facilitated by bribes and (political) 'recommendations'...Conducting 'pleasure trips' throughout the world despite the territory's responsibility for foreign affairs (policy) being handed over (surrendered) to the Government of Pakistan...If this "State" (continues) to exist despite (the above-mentioned) enjoying themselves in all manner from the public exchequer (purse), then we must retain these "facilities" for our children, even if - instead of half - 90% of our population have to migrate for the purpose of seeking livelihood....Even if the natural resources of this territory are completely destroyed....Even if those who can't flee (from here) continue dying a painful death in the absence of (medical) treatment.....we will continue to stand by our mission (motto to exploit)...  

End of translation....

....

  

This evening's statement on Facebook Live:

I repeat from yesterday, a day before that, a day before that and a day before that:

We need to design, agree and implement a #CitizenStateContract as the people of #AJK . 

Otherwise, we have no grounds to negotiate or seek authenticity from the rest of #JKA , our neighbours #Afghanistan #China #India & #Pakistan or the rest of the world. 

I have also announced today, that if at least 1,000 of my co-citizens do not financially co-operate with me (provide a 10 year fixed deposit of the equivalent of £1,000 UK pounds, payable in installments over a period of one year) then on the 31st of December 2025, I will resign from all my public interest activities in AJK. 

#Conflict2Peace

#PopularSovereignty

#PublicPolicy

#1To100Economy

JKA PUBLIC AGENCY Note: #E230005012025

....

Daily Diary (DD) - Day 4 of 2025

0544hrs:

0500hrs appears to be the right target every morning to log into a new day - every day - for as long as I live. 

....

Today's pre-midnight Facebook Live vlog is presented to the people thus:

I repeat from yesterday, a day before that and a day before that:

We need to design, agree and implement a #CitizenStateContract as the people of #AJK . 

Otherwise, we have no grounds to negotiate or seek authenticity from the rest of #JKA , our neighbours #Afghanistan #China #India & #Pakistan or the rest of the world. 

I have also announced today that if at least 1,000 of my co-citizens do not financially co-operate with me (provide a 10 year fixed deposit of the equivalent of £1,000 UK pounds, payable in installments over a period of one year) then on the 31st of December 2025 I will resign from all my public interest activities in AJK. 

#Conflict2Peace

#PopularSovereignty

#PublicPolicy

#1To100Economy

JKA PUBLIC AGENCY Note: #E233004012025    

....

The year 2025 will be a year of intense communication with our co-citizens, duly logged and statistically represented in due course. 

It will be a make or break year in many senses for the citizen's 'Right to Rule' their own territory viz. #AJK . 

We will try and clarify who has sacrificed (personal interest for public interest) and who has benefited (by choosing personal interest over public interest). 

Developing the right balance of reward and punishment is the key to success in any society and we in AJK have much to address in this regard ref. #CitizenStateContract . 

It is quite apt that we begin this critical year by interviewing Quayyum Raja.

 

JKA PUBLIC AGENCY Note: #E152004012025 

....

Daily Diary (DD) - Day 3 of 2025

1202hrs:

If not for connectivity issues, I would and could have posted today's entry even earlier than the times at which I have been posting at over the past few days. 

....

Dr Nazir Gilani describes the following as the elementary variables of the jurisprudence of Kashmir case:

The Strength of Kashmir's Case

The Kashmir dispute is not merely a territorial issue but a multifaceted legal, political, and human rights matter that has remained unresolved due to a series of complex commitments, international resolutions, and unfulfilled promises. India’s control over Kashmir, especially since the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, has increasingly come to resemble an occupation, rather than the legitimate governance of a fully integrated region. The following argument presents the key reasons why India's control over Kashmir lacks a solid legal foundation, and why Kashmir’s case for self-determination remains strong and supported by international law.

1. Historical and Bilateral Commitments: The Sovereignty of Kashmir

India's legal and historical relationship with Kashmir is based on commitments made at various stages, beginning with the bilateral understanding between India, Pakistan, and the British authorities in the wake of Partition. On 26 October 1947, India made a commitment to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, and, subsequently, to Pakistan (31 October 1947) and the United Nations (15 January 1948), that the political future of Kashmir would be decided by the will of its people, in a manner that would respect their right to self-determination.

This promise was reinforced in India's 1948 statement to the UN, which emphasized the need for a peaceful plebiscite under international supervision once order and peace were restored in Kashmir. This established the framework for a future plebiscite, which would allow the Kashmiri people to determine their own future, independent of external influence. India’s actions since then, particularly the imposition of unilateral constitutional changes such as the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, violate this foundational commitment. By refusing to honour the pledge made in 1947 to let the people of Kashmir decide their future, India is undermining its own legal obligations, both to the Kashmiri people and to the international community.

2. Kashmir’s Sovereignty: The Significance of Visa Restrictions (1947-1959)

A critical piece of evidence demonstrating Kashmir’s sovereignty, and its separate status during the early post-Partition period, is the imposition of visa restrictions for Indian citizens wishing to visit Kashmir from October 1947 to March 1959. This period of restrictions was a significant assertion of Kashmir's autonomy and its governance separate from that of India. The restriction was only lifted on 31 March 1959 by the then Prime Minister of Kashmir, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, at the direct request of India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. This unilateral decision to lift the visa restrictions on Indian citizens was made only after a period of more than a decade, during which Kashmir maintained a level of autonomy consistent with its unique political status.

The fact that visa restrictions were in place for over a decade after the alleged accession of Kashmir to India serves as a clear proof that Kashmir was not simply an integral part of India in the immediate aftermath of Partition. The imposition of such restrictions from October 1947 to March 1959 suggests that Kashmir operated under a de facto sovereign status during that period, and that India had not yet assumed full control over the region. India’s own actions acknowledged Kashmir’s autonomy at that time, further supporting the argument that Kashmir was a distinct political entity with its own set of governance norms and rules.

3. UN Resolutions and Article 103 of the UN Charter

The Kashmir dispute is not merely a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan; it is an internationally recognized conflict with implications for international peace and security. Following India’s request for UN intervention in 1948, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions that laid out a framework for the peaceful resolution of the dispute. UNSC Resolutions 47 (1948), 51 (1948), and others clearly called for a plebiscite in Kashmir to allow its people to decide their future once peace was restored. These resolutions have never been fully implemented, and India’s actions, such as the revocation of Article 370 and continued military occupation, are seen as violations of the terms set by the UN.

Under Article 103 of the UN Charter, India's obligations under international law take precedence over any conflicting national laws. India’s unilateral actions in Kashmir, including constitutional amendments and changes to its governance structure, directly violate its obligations under UN resolutions. By disregarding these international commitments, India not only fails to honour its legal duties but also undermines the principles of self-determination that have been central to the Kashmir dispute since its inception.

4. The Kashmir Resistance: A Strong Case for Self-Determination

Kashmiris, both within India-administered Kashmir and in the diaspora, have consistently resisted India's control over the region. Resistance movements in Kashmir, including peaceful protests, armed struggles, and international advocacy, have underscored the region’s desire for self-determination. This resistance has been met with severe repression, including the imposition of martial law, curfews, and restrictions on civil liberties. Despite these measures, the Kashmiri people's aspirations for autonomy, self-rule, and an end to external occupation remain unwavering.

The State Autonomy Committee Report of June 2000, which challenged the legitimacy of India’s claim of Kashmir’s accession, and the Gupkar Declaration of August 2018, which called for the restoration of Kashmir's autonomy, further highlight the Kashmiri people’s ongoing struggle for the right to self-determination. This resistance, combined with the legal principles enshrined in international law, strengthens the case for Kashmir’s sovereignty and its right to determine its own future.

5. The Role of Pakistan and International Support for Kashmir's Case

Pakistan, as a direct party to the Kashmir dispute, has consistently advocated for Kashmir’s self-determination in line with international law and the resolutions passed by the United Nations. The region’s Kashmiri Muslim diaspora, particularly the 2.5 million Kashmiri Muslim refugees residing in Pakistan, further reinforces the transnational nature of the dispute. The displacement of Kashmiris has created a global movement calling for justice and the recognition of Kashmir's status as a disputed territory.

The UNCIP Resolutions (United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan), which mandate the withdrawal of military forces from Kashmir, the demilitarization of the region, and the holding of a plebiscite under international supervision, remain key international documents. India’s continued military presence, its unlawful changes to the region's demographic makeup, and its disregard for these resolutions only serve to underscore the fact that Kashmir is not a fully integrated part of India but is instead under military occupation.

6. India’s Occupation of Kashmir: Legal and Moral Implications

The current situation in Kashmir, following India’s revocation of Article 370 in 2019, represents an unlawful occupation rather than legitimate governance. Under international law, an occupation occurs when a foreign power asserts control over a territory without the consent of its people, especially if such control is maintained by force. India’s military presence in Kashmir, along with its imposition of laws that alter the region’s political and demographic structure, fits the definition of occupation under international law.

By disregarding the will of the Kashmiri people, rejecting the principle of self-determination, and violating its international commitments, India’s control over Kashmir has moved from a legal claim based on the promise of a plebiscite to a de facto occupation. This not only violates Kashmir’s sovereign rights but also undermines the moral authority of India’s actions in the region.

Conclusion: The Strength of Kashmir's Case

India's legal case in Kashmir is fundamentally flawed. Kashmir's sovereignty and political status were not clearly resolved in 1947, and India's actions since then have been inconsistent with the commitments made to the people of Kashmir and the international community. The period from October 1947 to March 1959, when visa restrictions were imposed on Indian citizens visiting Kashmir, demonstrates that Kashmir operated with a high degree of autonomy, separate from India. The UN’s resolutions, India’s pledges to Pakistan, and the continuous resistance of the Kashmiri people all point to the fact that Kashmir remains a disputed territory.

India’s continued control over Kashmir constitutes an occupation, not a legitimate exercise of sovereignty. The international community, as well as the people of Kashmir, must continue to push for a peaceful, just resolution that respects Kashmir's right to self-determination. Until then, India’s actions in Kashmir remain in breach of international law and the foundational principles of self-determination and sovereignty.

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani

President JKCHR

03.01.2025

One may comment directly on Dr Nazir Gilani's post on Facebook here

I was compelled to leave the following comment on this post:

There is clearly a strong legal challenge awaiting India from the people of #JKA in lieu of the former's legal claim and equally clear (in my understanding) is the absence of a legal claim by Pakistan.

In such a scenario, should not Pakistan move out of the way and let us 

(the people of #JKA ) pursue our legal challenge of India's legal claim, already delayed by almost 8 decades?

....

Daily Diary (DD) - Day 2 of 2025

1205hrs:

Many days of improving our timing to post a daily entry has received a slight jolt today. 

We are trying to incorporate various other activities into our daily routine this calendar year. 

We are very hopeful that this year will deliver even bigger breakthroughs than last year. 

....

Daily Diary (DD) - Day 1 of 2025

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

....