It is time that we discover the basic human right that each person in Kashmir has the power to deliberate freely and autonomously about what he or she wants to be. It involves equality among the three peoples, namely, India, Pakistan and Kashmir. This right is guaranteed in the Constitution of J & K, Constitution of AJK, Constitution of India and the Constitution of Pakistan. However, the ceiling of this right has been raised by the UN resolutions on Kashmir, which enshrine a principle of Plebiscite, to determine future character of his/her person within the territories of Jammu and Kashmir.

Unfortunately our leaders, in particular over the last 22 years conducted themselves in accordance with a prepared script which has caused  loss of faith at home and loss of support abroad.  Outside Kashmir the future of Kashmir has been entrusted to three directors employed to run the three Kashmir Centres in London, Brussels and Washington. Dr. Fai employed to run the Washington Centre has been taken out of circulation by the FBI and we have to wait to see as to in what manner FBI is going to prosecute its case. It would be interesting to see the true face of CW’s (Confidential Witnesses) interviewed by FBI and listed in the FBI affidavit submitted in the criminal complaint.

It would be a tragedy if all these CW’s turn out to be Kashmiri or Pakistani and close associates of Dr. G. N. Fai. The most worrying and intriguing fact is the individual referred to as “John” in para 125 of the affidavit and the transcript of his phone call made to Dr. Fai. John “while complaining against Nazir Shawl has threatened to expose everything and everybody. He ended by saying that he was prepared to go to Indian Embassy to beg forgiveness for his previous activities, even if doing so displeased his Pakistani bosses”. Nazir Shawl has been referred to in the FBI affidavit as “Fai’s Government of Pakistan controlled counterpart in the UK).

There is no denying the fact that we have difficult times ahead. Kashmiri leaders, who have remained part of this nexus and have enjoyed the hospitality of these Centres, shall have to make a hard choice of either coming out in full support of these Centres or plead innocence and betray a person/s who have crafted their political and other benefits. At least the manner in which the members of the nexus have been supplementing each other do not favour the collective interests of the people of Kashmir.

There is a question mark on the merits of the statement made by Mirwaiz that world is concerned about Kashmir. In fact the short sightedness of our leaders in the last 22 years has turned the world away from the just cause of the people of Kashmir.  We have seen that during the 66th Session of UN General Assembly Pakistan was on its own in its reference of Kashmir. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Niger, members of the Kashmir contact group, with whom Mirwaiz held a meeting on the side lines did not make any reference to Kashmir during their address to the General Assembly. On 10 October 2011 Pakistan was again seen alone on Kashmir during the meeting of the Fourth Committee ON Inalienable Right to Self-Determination and Independence.

Twenty two countries namely, Bahrain, Timor‑Leste,  Pakistan, Paraguay, New Zealand,  Gabon,  Ecuador, Guinea, Central African Republic,  Bolivia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uruguay, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Costa Rica, Namibia,  South Africa, Equatorial Guinea, Morocco, Algeria, Argentina and United Kingdom  spoke in the fourth committee. Pakistan was on its own to make a statement on Jammu and Kashmir. The only merit in the statement made by RAZA BASHIR TARAR of Pakistan was that he addressed the jurisprudence of Kashmir case properly. Unlike the Foreign Minister’s statement made at the UN General Assembly RAZA BASHIR TARAR had a better script and the right phrase. He said “Decolonization was an objective of such importance that it could not be limited to the Non‑Self‑Governing Territories alone. The negation of the right to self‑determination often ignited regional conflicts. In South Asia, the inalienable right to self‑determination of the People of Jammu and Kashmir had been recognized by a number of Security Council resolutions. Pakistan was committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, which would lead to durable peace and stability in South Asia. Indeed, the United Nations decolonization agenda would be incomplete without resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.”

The Indian representative was at his heels and in his right of reply he said “that the representative of Pakistan had made comments that were unwarranted and completely irrelevant to the Committee. He wished to remind that representative that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India and that the people of Jammu and Kashmir had expressed their free will by participating in free and fair elections.”

One could see that the representative of India was far remote from the jurisprudence of Kashmir case. He was at variance with the UN Security Council resolution caution that J & K assembly represented only part of the territory and no election held here or decision made by this assembly could be a substitute for the right of self-determination to be ascertained through a free Plebiscite under the supervision of United Nations.

All the twenty two countries that spoke in the fourth committee are member nations of UN and party to UN resolutions on Kashmir. One could see that there was no country ready to support Pakistan in regard to its statement on Kashmir. If there were any merit in Mirwaiz’s statement that the world was concerned about Kashmir, there would have been a concern shown by one or two other countries in the fourth committee of UN GA. So much so even the Muslim countries that spoke in the committee did not make any reference to Kashmir.

Pakistan of course has its own problems and the state apparatus seems to be at war with its own people. State has failed to take care of its people and does not seem to have done its duty to build institutions. It should not surprise us if those in actual control of Kashmir component in Pakistan decide to take a back seat or make a decision to betray the common man and woman in Kashmir. Prevailing circumstances also warrant that the establishment puts its bet on Mirwaiz and two other employees (third taken out of circulation) to prosecute its tactical interests. It has no interest that the inalienable right of self-determination should not be stripped of its universal character and that the establishment should not seek its foothold in Kashmir through people hired on a monthly stipend.

At the same time it is a test of character and a test of political maturity of our leaders as to whether they would continue to prosecute a status quo and earn the blame of acting as employees of a department or rise above their petty interests and summon courage to say no to a ‘political script’ which has killed a generation in Kashmir and has left the people of Kashmir without any reliable friend at the UN. It does not mean that they should disregard the role of Pakistan as a party to the Kashmir dispute with India. However, it does not mean that Pakistan is the only party to UN resolutions on Kashmir. Going solo with Pakistani establishment, without a full approbation of the people and leadership of Pakistan is fatal in all respects.

Pakistan may have a dispute with India on Kashmir. The people of Kashmir don’t have any dispute with either of these two countries except that their right of self-determination has to be adjudicated in accordance with a mechanism endorsed by 194 countries of the world.

Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations and can be mailed at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it