Pakistan and India are locked in a fierce political as well as legal battle over the Himalayan State of Kashmir for over seven decades now. Ever since India abrogated the special status of Kashmir on 5th of August, 2019 we haven’t heard a single word of condemnation from leading countries of the world. None has actually asked for the reversal of the special status that was accorded to Kashmir via the United Nations several resolutions that were passed in favor of Kashmir. Some of the resolutions basically placed limitations on the Indian as well as the Pakistani control over the disputed state but despite that India forcibly annexed that region. Hassan Aslam Shad who is a legal expert has a very keen observation on India-Pakistan affairs. Matrix asked him the basic question as to why has there been no real reaction on the annexation of Kashmir by India in 2019.
Matrix Mag (MM): Our first question to you is that despite the atrocities committed by the Indian occupied forces in the Indian held Kashmir, why haven’t we seen a “real” reaction from the world?
Hassan Aslam Shad (HAS): I am asked this question by a number of people. It’s a question that makes me deeply think about the options that Pakistan has and makes me wonder why the international community is not moving on Kashmir. Now the answer that I have been able to get after pondering is that the international law which we all invoke when it comes to any disputes, is in the end a law between equals. So sovereign states have made this law to govern their relationships with one another and the broad parameters of the law were created post 1945, when we saw the end of the Second World War.
Also, the countries that were behind the creation of international law were the allies- the victors- and obviously when you have a set of countries who have won a war and who are making a new set of laws; they will always make sure that they protect their own interests. And this is why we see the veto powers that are given to certain countries in the UN Security Council.
Why is the international law not an equal law and why it is implemented differently? I will just give you an example. The foundation of international law is based on the interests of some countries who wanted to preserve their own rights. The second reason, which I believe, has led to international law not having the force that we wanted to see especially in relation to India and Pakistan is because international law is largely hostage to geopolitics. Real politics plays a big role in countries relationship on a bilateral as well as a multi-lateral level. Any treaties and conventions that are negotiated between countries are all the result of the self-interest of various countries that are negotiating those treaties. When it comes to India and Pakistan let me say that what we see happening in India today at the hands of BJP and RSS, the world still holds a soft corner for India.
There are two reasons for that- one India has been able to make its story- a convincing narrative that it has told the world. Second, because India is a population of more than one billion people and the world has trade and economic interests in India. And third I think is partly Pakistan’s historic inability to argue its case more forcefully at international forums.
MATRIX MAG:
Would you say that all the talk of respect of sovereignty of other countries basically becomes secondary when it comes to intense global block politics?
No, I am not going to say that the international law is not relevant or does not apply. In certain circumstances, we have examples of international law being upheld also but there are clear violations of international law happening as well. There are situations where the international law becomes a secondary concern e.g., when it comes to geopolitical and geostrategic alignments, trade interests, investment related initiatives, it leads to international laws getting diluted. Therefore, in a way the international law is not as uniformly and consistently applied as domestic laws.
MM: So it’s basically applied in a typically exceptional way. Would you agree to that? And if laws get diluted or not applied forcefully. Then what chance does Kashmir have for any enforcement or implementation of the UN resolutions or international laws?
HAS: My argument on this is that law does not apply in isolation but applies in a certain environment. So in today’s world we see that the social media is used for creating stories and narratives and it is used to make people believe or disbelieve in certain things. Now Pakistan should use social media too. Pakistan’s state should use social media and that can be done by way of op-eds, international publications etc. And another thing that has been lacking in Pakistan unfortunately in the past has been that we have not made one-to-one outreach to different countries to tell our part of the story.
There is something that we must do, for example if we are to take the Kashmir issue as a question to the international court of justice (ICJ), that will require a United Nations general assembly resolution. If we are to get the advisory opinion of the international court of justice to do that, we will need 51 votes. We therefore, need to engage with the world at a broader level to make sure that we reach out to countries on an individual basis. We have to tell them the facts and prove that we have clean hands. We have to tell them that we are looking for self-determination of the Kashmiris as opposed to any territorial gains.
But, this will require a lot of hard work. It will require mapping out countries and regular follow-ups with them. It will require a proper flexing of your diplomatic muscle.
MM: What role can the European countries play because compared to the United States we observe a lot of adherence to fundamental human rights, UN charter of human rights, to the Geneva conventions, etc. Can they do something? Can they move India on this issue?
HAS: Outreach to countries means that you go to the major power centers in the world. Europe is a major power center. European countries like countries from other regions are parties to many international conventions. Europe has a past that is it does not want a repeat.
Now, in order to educate them or in order to tell them what’s happening in India and what it is doing to Kashmiris, we will have to make efforts. Since it is a formidable task, to do that Pakistan state will have to reach out to the EU countries and share evidence with them and convince them that we are having clean hands we are trying to get any political mileage out of this. This is actually something in relation to people who have been suffering for the past 75 years. And of course when it comes to negotiations and reaching out to countries, you also have to keep in mind that there is a give and take. So if, for example, the world tomorrow agrees -which is a big “if” – to hold a plebiscite in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, it will be all of Kashmir which means the Azad Kashmir also. So we have to really think this through. If we want a resolution of this dispute, we will have to go out of our way and we will have to do things differently than what we have done in the past. Indeed this is a formidable task for Pakistan to pursue an out of box approach.
MM: Thank you very much
