Pakistan observed January 5 as the day of the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. The country’s president, prime minister, and other political figures called on the international community to support the implementation of UN resolutions on Kashmir by holding a plebiscite in J&K. Public rallies were also held to bring this issue to the attention of the world, but as usual, this yearly cliche failed to impress the international community. This begs the relevant question: why does no one take Pakistan’s Kashmir narrative seriously, even when it invokes UN resolutions on the subject?
According to Islamabad, J&K is “disputed territory” since it is under India’s “illegal occupation.” As such, it wants a plebiscite, as outlined in UNSC Resolution 47, to be held to determine whether the people of J&K want to stay with India or join Pakistan. Although Islamabad’s argument might seem compelling at first, it soon becomes evident that it is based on a distortion of the facts. Islamabad has also undermined its own Kashmir narrative by doing things it shouldn’t have done and failing to take necessary action.
There is absolutely no legal foundation for Pakistan’s accusation that India unlawfully occupied J&K. The Government of India Act 1935 is the legal document that serves as the instrument of accession, which allows rulers of princely states that existed at the time of India’s independence and partition to join either India or Pakistan. Since monarchs signed these accession documents in the exercise of their “sovereignty in and over” their separate realms, their choice was final and enforceable.
On October 26, 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh, the monarch of J&K, signed the instrument of accession. The next day, India’s Governor General Lord Mountbatten formally acknowledged the State’s accession to India. Pakistan’s claim that India is illegally occupying J&K is therefore just rhetoric. However, just to further this argument and highlight Pakistan’s hypocrisy, let’s pretend for a moment that J&K is “disputed territory.” If this is true, Islamabad must respond to two inquiries in order to support its assertion.
First, why hasn’t the UNSC designated J&K as being under “illegal occupation” by India or even mentioned it in passing? Second, why hasn’t Islamabad brought a case against India in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for over 75 years if the UNSC has done nothing to address Pakistan’s alleged wrongdoing? The solution is straightforward, even if Islamabad has never provided an explanation for why it hasn’t done so. Islamabad has cleverly restricted its protests about Kashmir to loud rhetoric, knowing full well that the ICJ will dismiss this baseless appeal.
Islamabad made accusations of genocide in J&K following the 370 abrogation. Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the foreign minister at the time, blusterily stated that “An in-principle decision has been taken to take the issue of Kashmir to the ICJ,” but this never materialized. Islamabad’s ICJ attorney Khawar Qureshi acknowledged that “In absence of these evidences (of genocide), it is extremely difficult for Pakistan to take this case to the ICJ,” but he did not provide the grounds.
Additionally, it is well known that anyone claiming a contested asset has no ownership rights whatsoever until the matter is settled by the appropriate legal body. Therefore, Islamabad must clarify how it unilaterally gave China the 5,180 square kilometer Shaksgam Tract, which is a part of J&K under Pakistan’s illegal control, in 1963 under the Sino-Pakistan Agreement if J&K is “disputed territory.” Hasn’t Pakistan destroyed its own “disputed territory” narrative in the process?
Next is Islamabad’s constant insistence on having a plebiscite in J&K at every possible opportunity. Although plebiscite is mentioned in UNSC resolution 47, it also outlines the necessary conditions that must be met before a plebiscite may take place. Pakistan must “ensure the removal of all Pakistani nationals from the “State of J&K” and “give complete freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to voice their opinions and to vote on the question of the accession,” according to this UNSC resolution.
Even though it is the first mandatory criterion set by the UNSC, Pakistan has failed to remove its citizens from the areas of Pakistan-occupied J&K (PoJK) that are illegally under its control. Furthermore, “No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan,” according to Paragraph 7(3) of the constitution. How can an unbiased referendum, as envisioned by the UNSC, be held when PoJK citizens are lawfully prohibited from exercising their free will?
In September 2016, during the 33rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, India emphasized this while exercising its right to reply to a statement made by Pakistan under Agenda Item 3. India’s spokesperson skillfully exposed Islamabad’s deceit by emphasizing that “Pakistan keeps referring to UN Security Council Resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir.” Nevertheless, it conveniently overlooks its own responsibility under these resolutions to initially withdraw from the unlawful occupation of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. Regretfully, New Delhi isn’t applying the energy it so richly deserves to this matter-of-fact argument that deflates Pakistan.
Islamabad might think about reexamining its hopelessly flawed Kashmir narrative and coming up with a better solution before commemorating what it calls “Kashmir solidarity day” on February 6th, since its attempt to internationalize the Kashmir issue through its January 6th “right to self determination day” has been a pathetic failure. Furthermore, Islamabad would benefit greatly by paying attention to Abraham Lincoln’s wise remark that “you can fool some people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time”!
A retired Indian Army officer, Nilesh Kunwar served in Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, and Jammu & Kashmir. After retiring, he is continuing his favorite pastime of writing for newspapers, journals, and think tanks. He is an avid “Kashmir-Watcher.” The opinions stated above are those of the author.
