JEDDAH: After almost four months of Indian lockdown in Kashmir, is there anything the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has done for the Kashmiris on the other side of the Line of Control? How should the international community act? Arab News asks Masood Khan, the president of AJK.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir prefer a political solution, not a military one. They do not want a war between India and Pakistan “because it would be devastating for the entire region,” Khan said, adding that his efforts have been focused on advocacy at the UN, among US and UK lawmakers, members of the European Parliament, and especially among the leaders of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
“I have come to the Gulf region many times, particularly to Jeddah where we have been working with the OIC to put pressure on India to lift the curfew and lockdown, to stop molesting women, stop treating them as spoils of war, stop harassing and prosecuting people. As you know, there are 13,000 boys who have been abducted and they have been put in jails in India, and their mothers do not know where the boys have gone,” he said.
According to Khan, Kashmir’s economy has also been ruined, as this year’s apple and saffron crops have not been sold, and the region has incurred losses of billions of dollars.
The situation in Kashmir has strained Pakistan-India relations and there is no chance for normalization, according to Khan, until India “reverses the illegal steps that it took Aug. 5 and Oct. 31” and “stops besieging the entire territory of Jammu and Kashmir.”
On Aug. 5, the government of India revoked the special status granted under Article 370 of the Indian constitution to Jammu and Kashmir. The move was followed by a swift annexation of Kashmir, with tens of thousands of Indian troops deployed, phone and Internet networks shut down, and the state’s public figures detained. On Oct. 31, Kashmir was formally taken under direct federal control and split into two federal territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh – bringing an end to its semi-autonomous rule since 1947.
Calling the Kashmir situation “an unfinished agenda of the UN Security Council,” Khan argued “the dispute is an international, not a bilateral matter.”
“There are four parties to the dispute – Pakistan, India, the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and the UN, the guarantor for the implementation of the Security Council’s resolutions that had given the people of Jammu and Kashmir the right to decide and determine their political future,” he said, adding that the council passed resolutions, but has not implemented them.
While he said there is a need to explore new avenues for negotiation, arbitration, regional initiatives and making good use of the UN secretary general’s office by appointing a special envoy, he also suggested that additional measures can be taken under Article 6 of the UN charter, if there is no cooperation from the Indian side.
Article 6 says that a member of the United Nations who has persistently violated the charter’s principles may be expelled from the organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
Commenting on responses from the Muslim world, Khan said there are “still some expectations.”
“The OIC has several times expressed full solidarity with the people of Jammu and Kashmir, condemning India, asking it to reverse all the steps it had taken. We are satisfied with the OIC stance. We also understand that many powerful nations with the OIC have strong economic ties with India. These countries have also given generous help to Pakistan and Azad Kashmir in times of difficulty,” he said.
The expectations toward these powerful nations, he explained, are related to their influence in India, as “India would probably not listen to some of the western countries, but they would definitely listen to the leadership of the Gulf region.”