Imtiaz Gul
Taking exception to the use of word “India’s Jammu & Kashmir” in a tweet by the US Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs on 10 February, the Jammu and Kashmir Council on Human Rights JKCHR has called on the State Department to correctly and cautiously describe Kashmir, still pending resolution at the UN.
While reiterating that India’s action of 5 August 2019 ( abrogation of Article 370) is an aggression against the people as well as unlawful and a violative of UN Resolutions on Kashmir,” the JKCHR reminds the Bureau,
“It is not “India’s Jammu & Kashmir” as described in the TWEET,” Dr.Nazir Gilani points out, reminding the Bureau the two UN “OHCHR reports of June 2018 and July 2019 on the Human Rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir, have described the fractured entities of the State as Indian Administered Kashmir and Pakistan Administered Kashmir,” according to a letter sent to the Bureau.
The letter emphatically out that Gupkar Alliance comprising seven political parties in the Indian administered Kashmir have called the military action of 5 August as an “aggression” against the State. The aggression has turned into a re-occupation, cultural invasion and political vandalism. People of the State have been disenfranchised and severely wronged.
It also reminds the Bureau of the US position on Kashmir and the role that it has played since 1950s for a resolution of the dispute; the United States of America had argued at the 768th meeting of the UN Security Council held on 15 February 1957 that the Security Council will, ‘always welcome any agreement which the parties themselves can reach on any basis which will settle the dispute, provided of course that, that basis is consistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,” the letter recalls.
It is worth recalling that in March 1950 the UN Security Council had in fact appointed a US national Admiral Nimitz (US national) as Plebiscite Administrator to conduct the UN supervised Plebiscite in Kashmir. He was scheduled to hold the Plebiscite by 01 November 1950. It would be a matter of interest to you to know that UN Plebiscite Administrator Admiral Nimitz was allotted a temporary office in the State Department and had the assistance of the South Asian Division Staff. Mr. Ray Thurston had been dealing with Kashmir Affairs in the State Department and had been assigned the task of briefing Admiral Nimitz. Mr. Ray Thurston and Mr. Joseph Sparks were the two people liaising with Admiral Nimitz.
On 27 August 1951, according to Dr.Nazir Gilani, President of the JKCHR a document by the Office of South Asian Affairs and Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs of United States had spoken of the possibility of requesting the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion regarding the legality of the act of the Maharaja of Kashmir in signing an instrument of accession to India. If the ICJ finds the accession was invalid, this would knock out one of the principal Indian arguments supporting their occupation of Kashmir.” US had taken United Kingdom Foreign Office on board but later decided to put the desire of going to ICJ on hold, fearing it might take considerable time.
The Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs and member nations of the UN shall have to hold India accountable against the principle of “noncompliance and offence” discussed at the 611th meeting of UN SC held on 23 December 1952. India without doubt has “loaded upon itself a very grave offence,” committed against three parties namely, “the other party (Pakistan), United Nations, and against the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination.”
Dr.Gilani, through the letter also urged the US Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs to formulate an urgent response to Indian action of 5 August 2019 and to make future references to Kashmir in a manner that is consistent with UN Jurisprudence on Kashmir as explained above.
As India increasingly internalizes Kashmir with reference to it as “India’s Jammu and Kashmir”, Pakistan, it appears, shall have to ramp up its position on the issue because it remains an inalienable party to the dispute at the UN, as pointed out in the letter to the US State Department.
