Kashmir Affairs - Security & Conflict Analysis of Kashmir

Self-Determination Day another Opportunity Lost
Nazir Gilani
14 January 2009

Once again our leaders got it woefully wrong on Monday 5th January 2009. The seminar on the 'Applicability of Right to Self-Determination in 21st Century and Kashmir Issue' organized by Hurriyat Conference exposed that the knowledge of our leaders of Kashmir case is unreliable. They continue to lack in political phrase and have no understanding of a political etiquette. The tragedy remains that some of the leaders have been caused into politics by unfortunate events of violence, some continue to recycle their badly worn out political linen and others remain appended to an apron for day to day survival.

To begin with, the proposition of the seminar organised by APHC embeds a doubt in respect of the 'Right of Self Determination'. This is a discreet way to camouflage a betrayal of the jurisprudence of the Rights Movement and a move to test public alertness whether they could react to a running away from the constitutional discipline which Hurriyat gave to the people on 31 July 1993. It was a consequence of this political agenda that Kashmir lost a generation and braved an unprecedented violation of human rights. Although Musharraf is out, lock, stock and barrel yet a faction of Hurriyat still continues with a hangover of Musharraf's out of the box solution and wishes to create a doubt.

Hurriyat seminar on the 'Applicability of Right to Self-Determination' is an attempt to sow the seeds of doubt in the inalienableness of the right and the attempt to remind the UN of 5 January 1949 resolution is a shameful departure from the inclusiveness of the principle agreed in the Hurriyat Constitution. A selective quote of 5 January 1949 resolution, restrains a Kashmiri to accession and not to self-determination. Union of India on the contrary has argued its complaint of 1 January 1948 in a more honourable and just manner. A well informed and mature Kashmiri leadership should have quoted the following for the attention of the UN Secretary General.

The basics of Kashmir case at the UN are laid down in the Indian complaint of 1 January 1948 and in the detailed Indian argument on 15 January 1948. India has maintained that - "It is with a heavy sense of responsibility that India invokes the good offices of the Security Council in finding a solution. The report under Article 35 of the Charter has been made to the Council after a great deal of hesitation and with the deepest regret." India has further committed during the defence of her complaint at the UN that - "The question of the future status of Kashmir vis a vis her neighbours and the world at large, and a future question, namely, whether she should withdraw from her accession to India, and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a Member of the United nations - all this we have recognised to be a matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir, after normal life is restored to them."

The particulars of the case envisage that the people of Kashmir have an 'unfettered decision' to withdraw from accession to India and could either accede to Pakistan or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a Member of the United Nations. The 'unfettered decision' is reflected in the Hurriyat Constitution adopted on 31 July 1993. The seminar and the memorandum is a violation of the Constitution.

Hurriyat memorandum is ill thought in substance and the political wisdom is misdirected. The banner reading "Wake Up Ban Ki-moon Wake Up" lacks in political etiquette. The political phrase is drenched in the June 2008 slogan psychology. As a start the wisdom of the memorandum is misdirected. It should have been addressed to the President of the Security Council. Even the Prime Minister of Pakistan who on 3 January 1948 had addressed his request to UN Secretary General Mr. Trygve Lie <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trygve_Lie> to stay the proceedings on Indian complaint to enable his foreign minister to reach in New York was advised by the UN Secretary General that "Your Communication will be put before the Council and your representative, ambassador Ispahani, may request the necessary delay for preparing the case. Only the Security Council may grant this request".

The seminar has been addressed in the mundane manner and does not seem to have risen a milli above the mediocrity that has gripped such occasions. Same and familiar faces were recycled once again and one more opportunity has been lost. They have failed to understand the difference between a common discussion and the jurisprudence of Kashmir case and whether or not the seven proposals (a to g), were in any manner addressed to the right person or were a misdirected wisdom.

UN Secretary General falls under articles 97, 98 and 99 of the UN Charter. The proposals listed in the memorandum from a to g do not warrant his attention or engagement. He could bring Kashmir to the attention of Security Council only if, the people of Kashmir through their efforts or the memorandum could make out a case that Kashmir situation embeds a threat to 'international peace and security' or merits an attention under the principles of UN Charter. The particulars of the Rights Movement should have been hued in a meritorious manner which could have caused the engagement of UN Secretary General under the provisions of his defined Charter role.

There is no mention of the loss of a generation in the memorandum. This loss should have been linked to the failure of the two member nations of UN, namely India and Pakistan. It would have been in the fitness of Kashmir case to remind the UN Secretary General that India has failed to protect 'life', 'honour' and 'property' as envisaged in the provisional instrument of accession and has failed to live up to the particulars of her case argued on 15 January 1948 before the UN Security Council.

The memorandum does not point out that Pakistan has failed to keep to the terms of Stand Still Agreement and failed to discharge its duty at the UN SC from 5 November 1965 to August 1996 for 30 years and 9 months. Pakistan has not allowed the UN mechanism to take a foothold in Azad Kashmir and its control of Gilgit and Baltistan was at variance with its responsibilities under UNCIP resolutions. Therefore, UN SC needed to revisit the Kashmir case and the universality embedded in UN resolutions on Kashmir needed to be brought to the fore.

The memorandum is trite and has trivialised the scope of the Kashmir case. It should have taken an issue with UN SG for not including Kashmir in his first Annual Report for the General Assembly. It should have addressed the threat to environment, use of natural resources embedded in the habitat of the State, their respect as trust properties, poverty, unemployment, rehabilitation of families of those who died as a consequence of a political agenda, plight of women, good governance, respect for human rights, behaviour and number of the two armies in accordance with UN resolutions and the constitution of three UN supervised governments at Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit as envisaged in UN mechanism on Kashmir.

The memorandum does not address the geography of the State and the role of three Kashmiri administrations, towards common welfare of their distributed people. The recycled familiar faces at the seminar have narrowed down the geography of all manner in their interest and seem to have sealed the circle of wisdom amongst themselves.

There are no takers for Mirwaizi's statement that "There are some black sheep who are hampering the movement. However, despite all the hindrances we pledge to continue our struggle till the dispute is resolved." One may confidently point out that all 'constituent sheep' in APHC are not alike and more so not all are 'white'. All may not agree with the political understanding of Mirwaiz and he can't seek an amnesty from the unavoidable need of a personal accountability in the discharge of a public religio-political trust. In fact Hurriyat has to summon courage to purge its ranks of visible or easily spottable black sheep in its ranks in Srinagar and accept responsibility for the enormous bad being done by many of its appointees in Islamabad. Hurriyat team B in Islamabad is not all 'white' and they are painted black or white according to the needs of the shepherd of the habitat.

All constituents of 31 July 1993 who took a Constitutional oath for a peaceful struggle and later sold out interchangeably to Delhi and Pakistan, in more than one manner and on more than one occasion have accrued a criminal liability for betraying the trust of the people. Hurriyat refused to talk to Delhi when sky was the limit and agreed to talk when ceiling of the meeting room became the limit. It failed to cause the recognition of Kashmiri militancy, when militants proposed a cease fire. It would have created a jurisprudence of recognition of Kashmiri resistance by a sovereign State. On the contrary Hurriyat chair without any debate or reference to people went solo and proposed his own cease fire for reasons best known to him. The alliance continued with ease with a process of elimination of a dissent or a discomfort in its political and militant camps.

Once again we have lost the opportunity to use Monday 5 January 2009 to increment the credentials of Kashmir case. Leaders and others at Ahdoos hotel failed in equity and good faith to reiterate Kashmir case. We played casual with our political discipline, remained careless with our military engagement, were luxuriously self-centred in our defence of sex scandal, unwise with our duty in defending the Kashmiri land and now feel no remorse to hold UN responsible, when we were the first to suggest that a non UN resolution 'would be in our interest' because Musharraf had written the script. Kashmiri leaders and their 'small bleepers' accepted pay and reward to sell Musharraf formula for more than 8 years. When politics turns like any other department of employment, leaders fail to revise their political phrase and care less to keep to a political etiquette.

It is encouraging to note that leadership has vowed to take the struggle to its logical conclusion. Leadership can be trusted in its pledge if it and its 'bleepers' surrender the ill gotten benefits accrued in the last 8 years in return of selling a non UN proposal. Otherwise as during the 2008 elections, the common man and woman would have no choice but to use his/her best judgement and cause for itself a system which is approachable and accountable. Life hereafter may not be a bad idea but life here and now is also a good idea.