Mr. Gilani also pointed out that Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan were not included in the definition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as given in the Indian Constitution. Under the First Schedule of the Indian Constitution, the territories of Jammu and Kashmir are defined as “the territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir.” Since AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan were not included in the Indian-occupied state on the commencement day of the Indian constitution (26 January 1950), these territories stood excluded from the definition of the State.

In addition, the Indian Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 modifies Article 81 of the Constitution regarding the composition of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) in its application to the State. Under this Order, “the constituencies into which the State is divided shall not comprise that area under the occupation of Pakistan”.

In the light of these provision, Mr. Gilani said, the resolution passed by the Indian Parliament in February 1994 demanding that Pakistan “vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression” was not only in violation of the UN Security Council resolutions and international law, but also of the Indian constitution.

Mr. Inam ul Haque delivered the concluding remarks. He agreed that further in-depth discussion was needed in future sessions to have a full exchange of views on the many issues that had been raised. He emphasized the importance of fully involving the people of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan in this discussion and soliciting their views.

The Association had two objectives: Internal (i.e. constitutional arrangements to give full rights and powers to the people of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan) and external (i.e. support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their struggle for self-determination).

Mr. Inum ul Haque said that the Chairman had proposed one possible solution to the internal problem, i.e. the sense of deprivation and disenfranchisement of the people. But there could also be other ways and the forum of the Association should be used to discuss also all other possible approaches.

Mr. Inam ul Haque said that some of the concerns and apprehensions expressed in this connection were understandable. If AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan were given provincial status, it could be seen by some as the first step to the partition of the State and the international community might treat it as the final settlement of the dispute. The Association was against such a partition. Its aim was that AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan should get their full democratic rights without further delay and without having to wait for a final settlement.

He said that the second objective of the Association, which related to the achievement of the right of self-determination in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions, was the paramount aim. Human rights violations were rampant in the occupied state and the situation had worsened in recent months. The biggest human rights violation was the denial of the right to self-determination. This was an inalienable right under the UN Charter and had been retreated in the Security Council resolutions.

Mr. Inam ul Haque said that more than 100 Kashmiris had been martyred in the recent Intifada. This was clear evidence that the new generation of Kashmiris completely rejected the so-called accession to India. It wanted azadi. We should not at this stage go into the question whether that means full independence as sovereign state or virtual independence under the Constitution of Pakistan.

Mr. Inam ul Haque said that some Indian commentators had been propagating the view that Jammu and Kashmir could not be an independent state because it is surrounded by big powers. This was an untenable argument. The population of Kashmiri is more than that of many countries which are members of the UN. If the people of Jammu and Kashmir wanted independence, we would have to give consideration to their views.

Mr. Inam ul Haque further said that as Mirwaiz Umar Farooq had said, no one could claim that the Intifada had been instigated from outside the State during the height of the militancy; the Indians had alleged that the guns had come from the Pakistan side. But they could hardly say now that the stones with which the Kashmiris were reacting to the Indian bullets had also come from outside. It was important to draw international attention to the Intifada, the human rights violations and the genocide being committed by the occupation forces.

Mr. Inam ul Haque said that the so-called “accession” by the Maharajah to India was invalid. It had not been accepted by the international community and the UN Security Council. The Security Council resolutions had accepted that Pakistan is party to the dispute. President Musharrf had made a serious blunder by expressing a readiness to set aside these resolutions. If the resolutions are set aside, Pakistan would not be regarded as a party to the dispute.

Mr. Inam ul Haque said it had been claimed that only five persons from Pakistan knew about the “out-of-box” solution that Musharraf was pursuing. This was totally unacceptable. The dispute concerned the future of 13 million people. Their fate could only be decided by them and not through secret negotiations held behind their backs in some hotels of Dubai and Bangkok.

He said that the Kashmiri leadership at that time was under pressure to accept the solution being sought through back channel negotiations. The Hurriyat leaders had come to relies that back channel negotiations without their participation would lead to an outcome that did not meet their aspirations for self-determination. They had therefore taken the stand that any such agreement would be only the first step towards self-determination.

Mr. Inam ul haque said that we must be very careful not to compromise our position on Kashmir, which is based on the UN Security Council resolutions and the UN Charter. Pakistan had no right to take away the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination. Any solution must be accepted by the Kashmiris before being accepted by Pakistan.

Mr. Inam ul Haque concluded by saying that before the upcoming visit of Obama to India, Pakistan should make it clear to the US that there could be no compromise on the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination. Pakistan should also continue to raise the issue in the Human Rights Council and in other humanitarian organizations.

 

Pages: 1 2