Matrix Report
“Great Britain has failed to live up to her sense of duty and honor towards the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir, in the manner, in which Britain and US subscribed their interest in the plight of Jews in Russia in 1891 and the Christians in Morocco in 1909.”
Will this conclusion, drawn in an open letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Great Britain, by Dr. Nazir Gilani, head of the Jammu and Kashmir Council on Human Rights, make any difference to a world given to cold-blooded commercial considerations instead of concern for oppressed people in Kashmir?
This of course is a billion dollar question but has not deterred jurists like Dr.Gilani to keep reminding the world of the pledges it gave to the people of Kashmir in 1948 at the United Nations.
“I wish to point out that Great Britain has failed to live up to her sense of duty and honor towards the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir, in the manner, in which Britain and US subscribed their interest in the plight of Jews in Russia in 1891 and the Christians in Morocco in 1909. The first intervention by US in Russia was on the principle “sic utere tuo ut alteram non laedas” and the second intervention by Britain and France in Morocco was on the basis of “The Laws of Humanity,” says the letter to the British PM, reminding him of the events since the Kashmir issue was first raised at the United Nations.
Below are key elements of the letter the British PM Boris Johnson:
The jurisprudence of Kashmir case begins with a principal reference to the role of Great Britain. Prime Minister of Britain was the first person who was informed by the Prime Minister of India on 26 October 1947 that Government of India was sending it’s military to Kashmir to ‘help’ the ruler. The telegram assured the British Prime Minister that the decision was temporary, Indian army would be withdrawn as soon as the law and order were restored and the conditional agreement of accession would be put to a public vote.
British Prime Minister updated the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 27 October 1947 and pointed out the assurances given by the Prime Minister of India. Prime Minister of Pakistan also received the same assurances from the Prime Minister of India on 28 October and 31 October 1947. The intermediary role of Britain began much before Government of India decided to make a reference to UN in January 1948. On 15 January 1948 India surrendered the conditional accession at the UN Security Council for a UN supervised Plebiscite.
Britain has played a lead role in formatting a UN template on Kashmir and in the appointments of UN Representative on India and Pakistan and the UN Plebiscite Administrator in Kashmir. The first was to secure a demilitarization and the second to arrange a UN supervised vote. India has asked at the 608th meeting of the UN Security Council for a minimum number of 21,000 (twenty one thousand) military personnel and has emphasised that “this force will have no supporting arms such as armour or artillery”.
Unfortunately the ‘help’ of 27 October 1947, continued to degenerate into a repression. The Indian action of 5 August 2019 has changed the “trust duties” into an occupation and the life of the people of Jammu and Kashmir has been reduced to a ‘process”. The “quality” of life has disappeared. Muslims of Kashmir are facing a life that the Jews and Christians faced in Russia in 1891 and in Morocco in 1909.
Should Britain act differently in the case of Kashmiris, in particular the Kashmiri Muslims? The answer is probably not. Britain has maintained at the UN Security Council (606th Meeting of Security Council) that “The ultimate objective of a fair and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations….has been written into solemn agreements by the two Governments and endorsed by this Security Council. These agreements have been affirmed and reaffirmed by the two governments many times”.
Does Britain and member nations of the UN have any say in the Indian action of 5 August 2019? The answer is yes. UN Security Council has concluded that it has ‘a positive duty’ and “unless the parties are able to agree upon some other solution, the solution which was recommended by the Security Council should prevail”.
Mr. Prime Minister, we would respectfully like to urge you, to very kindly consider the Indian action of 5 August 2019 in reference to a conclusion drawn by the UN SC at the 611th Meeting. Netherlands has made it clear that “The party that would dare to violate an
agreement thus reached would load upon itself a very grave offence against the other party, against the United Nations, and against the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination”. Government of India without doubt has loaded upon itself a “very grave offence”.
We need to intervene to protect the people. United Kingdom has been one of the co-sponsors of a resolution to send a UN force as a neutral authority to protect the people in Jammu and Kashmir.
It is time to consider the protection of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The UNMOGIP is already in Kashmir. It needs a fresh supplement to act to monitor the human rights and serve as a credible protection. Indian security forces need to be non-arms bearing and they should be brought under the two disciplines of 27 October 1947 for their four duties and UN Security Council Resolution 47 for their behavior, number and location.
