US Ambassador to Israel Michael Dale Huckabee claimed that Pakistan is following India’s playbook—the same one India used in the parts of Jammu and Kashmir under its control. I believe the ambassador is only partly correct. Pakistan is following a mix of India’s and Israel’s playbooks.
"A.
(1) As the presence of Pakistani troops in the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation as previously represented by the Government of Pakistan to the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from the State.
(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavours to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
(3) Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.
B.
(1) When the Commission notifies the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II A (2) have withdrawn—thereby ending the situation that the Government of India cited to the Security Council as the reason for the presence of Indian forces in the State—and that Pakistani forces are being withdrawn, the Government of India agrees to begin withdrawing the bulk of its forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."
(1) As the presence of Pakistani troops in the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation as previously represented by the Government of Pakistan to the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from the State.
(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavours to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
(3) Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.
B.
(1) When the Commission notifies the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II A (2) have withdrawn—thereby ending the situation that the Government of India cited to the Security Council as the reason for the presence of Indian forces in the State—and that Pakistani forces are being withdrawn, the Government of India agrees to begin withdrawing the bulk of its forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."
India uses Pakistan’s non-compliance as an excuse. However, the provisional Instrument of Accession itself bound India to hold a referendum, and the Governor-General of India confirmed this commitment in writing. India’s obligation arises from that treaty between two sovereign entities; one party cannot unilaterally alter it. If Pakistan refuses to vacate the territory, India’s duty under the treaty is either to return to the UN or to compel Pakistan to withdraw. India’s unilateral position therefore has no firm legal foundation.
What Pakistan is doing draws partly from India’s approach and partly from Israel’s. Israel has no recognised legal right to occupy Palestinian territories or the Syrian Golan Heights, yet it seized them in war and continues to promote settler colonialism there. Pakistan is following a similar path.
In 1947, Azad Kashmir was known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and Gilgit-Baltistan represented an alternative free and sovereign option to the rule of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan first went to the UN and recognised the Maharaja’s legal position, thereby betraying Azad Jammu and Kashmir. AJK had its own army; Pakistan dismantled it and gradually assumed control through the use of religious slogans. Like Israel, Pakistan then detached Gilgit-Baltistan and planted the idea that its people are not Kashmiris. This ignores historical fact: the last ruling dynasty until 1947 was the Dogras of Jammu, while the last sovereign king of Kashmir whose army was defeated by the Mughals was from the Chak dynasty, which originated in Gilgit.
Despite these efforts, Azad Jammu and Kashmir has resisted Pakistan’s colonial advances. It retains its own anthem—“Watan Hamara Azad Kashmir” (“Our homeland is free Kashmir”)—its own flag, its own Supreme Court, and its own president. Yet it still lacks true sovereignty because of Pakistan’s deception. Pakistan has exploited people’s religious sentiments with slogans such as “Kashmiriyon se rishta kya? La ilaha illallah” (“What is the bond with Kashmiris? There is no god but Allah”). If religion were the decisive factor, why did the Arabs revolt against the Ottomans? Why were there wars between the Fatimids and the Ottomans, between Aisha and Ali, or between Ali and Muawiya? Freedom, politics, and law are grounded in observation, experience, and the laws of the physical world—not in metaphysical faith. Pakistan has used Islam as a political ideology with racist overtones; that approach is now fully exposed.
Qamar Cheema’s claim has no legs to stand on. Pakistan’s official position is that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have yet to exercise their right to self-determination. The Pakistani Constitution itself states that if the people of Jammu and Kashmir choose to join Pakistan after exercising that right, Pakistan will amend its constitution accordingly. What participatory democracy is Mr Cheema referring to? The people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir are, in real terms, disenfranchised.
The 1974 Act—imposed by Pakistan rather than enacted by any local assembly—prohibits anyone who does not support accession to Pakistan from contesting elections or holding government jobs. It is a crime to speak against the ideology of the State of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. In 1994, a case of high treason was registered against me following a television interview in which I spoke against the state’s accession to Pakistan.
It further requires citizens to uphold a particular belief system and declare it under oath. This is comparable to forcing Christian and Hindu children in schools in Pakistan to study Islam as their own religion and this surprise came to light only by Shehzad Roy. It is therefore dishonest for Qamar Cheema to make such a false statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment