M M Khajooria
Here is a surprise. Pakistan conceded that final status of PoJK territory was yet to be decided. According to Article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Pakistan sovereignty to PoJK shall extend, “When the people of the state of J&K decide to accede to Pakistan, the Pakistan treated Occupied Kashmir as territory whose relationship between Pakistan and the state shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people.”
However, Article 1 (d) referred to such states and territories as are or may be included in Pakistan by accession or otherwise. Word ‘otherwise’ obviously sought to provide cover for both external ‘Aggression’ like Tribal invasion, cross border terrorism and Kargil intrusion and internal ‘subversion’ through over ground proxies and local terrorists operating under the garb of ‘freedom struggle’ .
This made the position of Pakistan on the issue of accession blatantly fraudulent.
Pakistan had taken numerous measures to ensure that ‘PoJK’ remains a colony of Pakistan. Under AK_ICA 1974, a person may contest elections and seek government employment only if he or she ‘believes in the ideology of Pakistan’ and the concept of the ‘States’ accession of Pakistan.’
This certainly not commensurate with the assertion that the PoJK’s status will be ‘determined in accordance with the wishes of people of the state.
Moreover, the Pak Ministry of Kashmir Affairs remained all powerful and treated PoJK and Gilgit-Baltitan as its fie. On top of it, you have a five member Supreme Council of which three members represent Government of Pakistan including the most powerful Minister of Kashmir Affairs.
The Council was chaired by Prime Minister of Pakistan. All important decisions are taken in this forum. The PAK facade is further demonstrably exposed when we refer to Article 31 (3) of the PoJK _ICA which ceded the many functions to the Government of Pakistan. These include:
1) The responsibilities of Pakistan under UNCIP Resolutions.
2) Defence and security of PoJK
3) Current coin, or the issue of notes, bills or other paper currency, and
4) External affairs of PoJK including foreign trade and foreign aid.
Additionally there were more than 52 matters under third schedule in conjunction with section 31.
This flip flop has neither served people of PoJK well nor served the cause of Pakistan. In fact, a prominent Pak journalist Aijaz Haider was of the opinion that this could become a trap for Pakistan, if ever the issues were to be referred to be a third party.
He claimed that Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, a top lawyer and political leader of eminence had told him, “Our position (on PoJK) under International law is different from our position under domestic law (view from Pakistan by Ajaz Haider-Friday Times). He had obviously toned down the comments of Aitzaz Ahsan.
The people of occupied territory, however have taken the constitutional provisions seriously.
For instance AK_ICA 1974, J&K interim constitution of 1974 mandated that a person may contest elections and seek Government employment only if he or she ‘believes in the ideology of Pakistan’ and the concept of the “States’ accession of Pakistan.
A huge chunk of population in ‘PoJK’ refuses to enroll as voters. The leaders struggling for casting away the yoke of PaK slavery do not contest elections as they can’t and would not in good conscience take the oath of allegiance to the idea of Pakistan. The hills in many parts of Occupied Kashmir were boldly painted with slogan, “Azadi Ya Shadat’. While looking into old files, I came across jottings regarding proceeding of one of International Seminars- ‘NIMRANA Initiative’ attended wherein delegates from PoJK and PoJK diaspora were present in strength.
I brought to their notice that in J&K prominent Muslim leaders like Ali Shah Geelani and his Jammat-e-Islami colleagues happily took oath in the name of Allah to preserve and protect the integrity of India’ and later claimed the oath was taken as part of political strategy. Why couldn’t’ you adopt the same strategy, I asked. They were scandalized and angrily shouted in one voice, ‘Such persons are Kafirs.
It is blasphemy to call them Muslims. No worldly possession can tempt a true Muslin to swear falsely by Allah.’ Now listen to this one.
I was named Chairman of Drafting Committee to record the proceedings of the Seminar.
While dictating proceedings, I had to refer to two parts of Jammu & Kashmir.
I thought it may be considered partisan on my part to describe the area of the state controlled by Pakistan as Occupied Territory.
So I opted for the international parlance that described PoJK as Pakistan administered area. As soon as I uttered the word ‘administered’ a young member from the so called ‘PoJK’ stood up and vehemently protested.
He said, “We are an occupied territory. There was no administration there. Sir, I insist that this be recorded as Pakistan Occupied Jammu & Kashmir.”
As no one contested his assertion, I was too happy to accommodate him. As I did not make any comment, he said, “You don’t’ believe me” and pulled up his shirt to show his back which was crisscrossed with deep healed wounds of brutal canning. Shocked, I hastily said, “Of course I believe you and have complied with your demand.” “Thank You”, he said and took his chair muttering. Many others have suffered worst fate” The survey by an independent agency based in England found that only about 20 per cent of the occupied territory supported Accession with Pakistan
We were guilty of abandoning our people trapped in PoJK. Let us at least now make amends and resolve to make it abundantly clear the we shall not stand idly and watch the violation of human rights and inflicting of brutalities on our brethren.
(The author is former DGP J&K Police).
