'Pak fails to bring Kashmir on UN agenda for 30 years'

Greater Kashmir

Islamabad, May 19: The veteran Human rights campaigner and the secretary General of Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR), Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani has said that the government of Pakistan has failed to bring Kashmir on UN Security Council agenda for 30 years and 9 months and the government of Pakistan-administered-Kashmir (PaK9 continues to fail to render its constitutional duty in respect of self determination for the last 38 years.
 Addressing a press conference here on Monday, Gilani said that the two failures in fact attracted the consideration of simplification procedure under rule 11 of the UNSC in September 1996 and caused the deletion of Kashmir as a subject on the council’s agenda.
 He said that self-determination of the people of Kashmir suffered serious erosion in its character on 15 September 1996 when it was hit by rule 11 of the provisional rules of procedure of the SC to review the list of matters which had not been considered by the Council in the proceedings for five years (1991-1995) and were to be automatically deleted from the list of matters of which the Council is seized.
 During this five-year term Gilani said that the SC in its formal meetings had not considered fifty such items. He pointed out that Kashmir under the title “India-Pakistan question” was last discussed at the 1251st meeting of the UN Security Council on Nov 5, 1965. “There has been a lapse of 30 years and 9 months since the last time when Kashmir was considered by the council”, he added.
 “Kashmir is no more on the UN Security council agenda in the shape and manner in which it had continued to be since 6 January 1948 till 15 September 1996”, he maintained.
 He said, “Loss suffered by Kashmir case at the UN points out the most serious failings of the government of Pak and the neglect of the presidency in not performing their constitutional duty to guard and increment the case of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
 Referring to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s speech at the UN, he said that it was one of the major diplomatic misjudgments that while addressing the 61st Session of the UN General Assembly on 19 Sep. 2006 skipped any reference to self-determination.
 “The diplomatic misjudgment was further incremented by Pakistan’s foreign secretary Riyaz Muhammad Khan, who did not make any reference regarding the Kashmiris’ self-determination in his address at the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly last year”, he added.
 He said, “In a tactical sense, Kashmir remained as a regular item on the UN agenda with substantive merit until 1996 but lost its substantive character and now the issue hinges on a very weak reminder procedure and if for any reason good or bad any member nation does not remind the SC at the end of 12 months it would be deleted then it has to be rehabilitated but it would be difficult process”.
 “Although Kashmiris had launched a patriotic defiance in one part of the divided state and the leadership also came up with mature judgment and gave the people a constitution but unfortunately the people who launched a political and resistance movement in Kashmir failed to understand the international component in case of Kashmir, which is in fact a great tragedy, so it is very easy to be politician or a militant, but very difficult be a matured politician having competence to understand political scenario and its diplomatic dynamics”, he said.
 “We are very upset on this question that there is a designed attempt to camouflage the realities surrounding this issue. The question arises why did the political leadership and the militant leadership fail to understand the international connection”, he asked.
 Castigating the Kashmiri leaders in general he noted regrettably that during last nine years, since October 1999 Kashmir case has turned into a super market of private interests’ on either sides of line of control.
 “Since the APHC visit of June 2005 to Pakistan, they seem to have changed horses mid stream and are supporting new proposals without reference to a free and fair debate by people”, he said.
 Appreciating Syed Ali Shah Gilani’s role, he said that he took a bold stand and remained stick to Kashmiris’ right to self-determination and did not distanced himself from the APHC’s constitution. However, he said that he does not subscribe his opinion broadly.
 With regard to the present status of J&K he said that the instrument of accession with India is a provisional and disputed one and the Jammu and Kashmir is the only state which unlike other states in the Indian Union has a separate constitution that amply demonstrates the fact that like other princely states who singed the instrument of accession following the instrument of merger, the J&K state did not sign the instrument of merger with India.
 Regarding the “argument of Indian occupation” he said that if Kashmiris had insisted or the government of Pakistan had allowed the UN jurisprudence to take its shape in ‘Azad’ Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan, the Indian refusal to accept the UN mechanism in J&K would have amounted to occupation and use of force by the UN and Kashmiris to undo the occupation would have become legitimate. The argument of occupation has thus failed because India and Pakistan had bilaterally accepted the respective positions of each other.
 Citing the example of East Timore and Kosovo he said the leadership of the respective territories allowed the UN to assume a role in these two areas whereas on the other hand Kashmiri leadership failed to allow UN to at least assume its role in Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan which were virtually under the control of Pakistan. “India would not have been able to sustain defiance for a long and would have ultimately yielded to UN role in Jammu and Kashmir”, he stated.
 About Pakistan’s support to Kashmir cause, he said “The government and the people of Pakistan should lend their support to the people of J&K in accordance with the article 257 of the constitution of Pakistan and other trust obligation assumed under UNCIP resolutions”.