Ambassador (Retd) Tajammul ALTAF
India and Pakistan faced a precarious stand-off on February 14, 2019, when a Kashmiri Muslim Adil Dar attacked India’s Central Reserve Police Force contingent near Pulwama in Jammu & Kashmir, killing more than 40 personnel and himself. Earlier, Dar was arrested six times and tortured by the Indian police between 2016 and 2018. Each time he was released without any charges.1 India immediately blamed Pakistan for the Pulwama attack.2 Islamabad denied any involvement and offered a joint investigation; New Delhi didn’t accept the offer.
On February 26, Indian jets violated Pakistan’s air space and bombed territory ‘about 80 kilometres from the Line of Control’3 near Balakot and claimed destroying a training camp killing around ‘300 terrorists’4. The Indian foreign secretary stated that ‘India struck the biggest training camp of JeM in Balakot. In this operation, a very large number of JeM terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and groups of jihadis who were being trained for fidayeen action were eliminated’5. Pakistan denied the Indian claims and took ambassadors, defence attachés and journalists to Balakot. They ‘were shown bomb craters in barren open spaces with no loss of human life or infrastructure’6. The visitors ‘were allowed to interact freely with students and teachers of the religious madrassah situated in the area’7.
On February 27, Pakistan Air Force shot down two Indian jets that were once again violating Pakistani air space. An Indian pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan was captured, however he was released on March 1 as a goodwill gesture. This prudent step by Pakistan helped in de-escalation of the precarious situation and a looming war between two nuclear states was averted.
A few questions have to be understood and addressed for clarity.
Was it the first time that India and Pakistan faced a potentially precarious stand-off and a war-like situation; will a similar situation not happen again? The answer in both cases is unfortunately in negative. India and Pakistan have faced similar stand-offs and war-like situations many times in the past. Chandan Mitra argues8 that the attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 was ‘a stage-managed affair directed by intelligence agencies’ to kill Indians or ‘plot a massive stand-off with their nuclear-armed western neighbour’. Not only the so-called attack that led to mobilisation of around half a million troops to the India – Pakistan border by India9, the Mumbai incidents in 2008 that greatly deteriorated relations between the two countries10, is another in many such examples. There is now enough literature available which attests that while on both these occasions India immediately put the blame on Pakistan and exploited the attacks to put pressure on it, the attacks were planned and manipulated inside India.11
In view of the track record, it is very likely that similar attacks will recur in the future because relations between the two countries are intrinsically connected with the long outstanding Kashmir (J&K) dispute.12 Indian journalist Arundhati Roy has rightly commented that the Pulwama ‘attack was yet another hideous chapter in the unfolding tragedy of Kashmir’13. It is therefore necessary to examine the genesis and the nature of the J&K dispute.
THE GENESIS OF THE DISPUTE
The perceptions in this regard vary to extremely contradictory positions of the parties. Islamabad insists that the root cause of the dispute is the denial of the right to self-determination to the people of Kashmir as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, specific UN resolutions and international law. New Delhi claims that Kashmir is an integral part of India, accession of J&K to India is final and cannot be disputed; J&K is not a disputed territory; and the will of the people of the State of Kashmir does not need to be ascertained now through a plebiscite as their will has been repeatedly ascertained through elections. India also maintains that what happens in Kashmir is an internal affair and the international community has no business in it. New Delhi insists that the problem of Kashmir is one of cross-border terrorism from Pakistan and what happens in Kashmir is a terrorist movement stoked by Pakistan.14
For a better understanding of the issue, a look at history is essential.
The most significant point is related to the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947 as a result of the partition of India. The State of J&K was one of the 564 quasi-autonomous princely states of India that signed agreements with Great Britain in 1857 and afterwards to exercise a certain level of internal autonomy. According to the instruments of partition of India, the rulers of the princely states were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. They were, however, advised to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into consideration the geographical and ethnic issues. All the three conditions were never fulfilled in case of the State of J&K.
In accordance with the above principles of the partition, on August 15, 1947, when India became independent, Kashmir being a princely state, was not a part of India. On August 14, the State of J&K had signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan to handle its affairs related to transit, communication, postal service, electricity etc. which were earlier managed by the British government. Subsequently, when Maharaja Hari Singh, the then ruler of Kashmir, lost writ and control over J&K owing to a popular uprising that was going on since decades, wrote a letter enclosing proforma Instrument of Accession and sought the help of the Indian government. Legally, the letter and proforma cannot be considered a substitute for accession.15
Nonetheless, on October 27, Viceroy Lord Mountbatten conditionally accepted the Maharaja’s offer of accession and stated that ‘it is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir, the question of the state’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people’16. At the same time, Indian Prime Minister Nehru wrote to Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaquat Ali Khan: ‘I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people and we adhere to this view’17.
There was yet another substantial issue related to the chronology of the events, which contradicts the Indian claims. Prof. Alastair Lamb, a renowned British scholar, has brought undeniable arguments in his two scholarly books18 and contested that Indian troops had entered Srinagar on October 26, 1947, i.e. before Mountbatten’s acceptance of the Maharaja’s offer. In fact, he argues that Hari Singh had already left Srinagar for Jammu under pressure of public revolt. He further argues that it was not possible to get the Instrument of Accession signed before October 27. He also maintains that the signed copy of the Instrument of Accession had not been presented at any international forum. Lamb’s research nullifies the legal validity of the Instrument of Accession. Legally, Kashmir has a sui generis status. India’s occupation of Kashmir is transitional and temporary because Kashmir has not been legally integrated with the Indian Union. India does have de facto control over Kashmir but does not have a de jure control.
Irrespective of the controversy of the date of the so-called Instrument of Accession, the Government of Pakistan (on October 30) refused to accept the accession of Kashmir to India which was against the will of the people of Kashmir19 and could not be justified on constitutional, geographical, cultural or religious grounds. The conflict turned into the first war between India and Pakistan in 1947.20 The war ended in a stalemate. Kashmiris, with the help of Pakistan, liberated one-third of the area and declared it as Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK). The rest of the area remained under Indian occupation. Meanwhile, India took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on January 1, 1948.21 It assured the UNSC that: ‘Once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions were restored, the people would be free to decide their future by the democratic method of plebiscite or referendum… under international auspices.’
J&K DISPUTE AT THE UNITED NATIONS
On January 1, 1949, the UN mediators brokered ceasefire line, which was eventually declared as the Line of Control. It was an outcome of mutual consent by India and Pakistan under the UN auspices. Later, in the resolution of April 21, 1948, UNSC noted with satisfaction that “both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”. The UNSC instructed the UNCIP in the same resolution to proceed to the Indian subcontinent and ensure “the holding of a plebiscite”22.
The UNCIP adopted two further resolutions on August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, which were accepted by India and Pakistan. The UNCIP noted that the governments of India and Pakistan ‘reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people of Kashmir’23. The UNSC and the UNCIP continued to work with the two countries and passed 15 resolutions from 1948 to 1998. Unfortunately, the settlement of the dispute is still pending.24
This makes it clear that J&K is a disputed territory pending its final settlement through a plebiscite under the auspices of the UN. It also authenticates that the dispute is not a border or territorial conflict between India and Pakistan nor an internal affair of India. It is rather an unfinished agenda of the partition of India and is a question of right to self-determination. Thus, the dispute has four parties: ‘Pakistan, India, the UN and the people of Kashmir, who have to decide their future. The future of J&K dispute, therefore, lies in the resolution of the dispute in accordance with the UN resolutions and wishes of the people of Kashmir’.25
The question of elections vs referendum: As regards the claim that elections are the substitute for the plebiscite, the UNSC has rejected this oft repeated Indian contention that the people of Kashmir have exercised their right to self-determination by participating in the elections. It has clarified that no electoral exercise conducted by Indian authorities in J&K could be accepted as a substitute to a plebiscite. ‘When India tried to seek a constitutional declaration from an unconstitutional “Constituent Assembly” declaring Kashmir an integral part of India, the UNSC in a resolution on January 24,1957, rejected that declaration and reaffirmed that the future of Jammu and Kashmir is yet to be decided in accordance with the earlier UN resolutions.’26
Moreover, the history of elections held in J&K is full of recorded evidence of irregularities, large-scale centre-supported rigging, fraud, coercion and out-right brutality in the early years and use of gunpoint to drag the helpless Kashmiris out of their homes to cast votes, in the later years. The Congress governments controlled the ruling parties in the state with handpicked nominees running the government.27 1989 turn out to be a watershed in the Kashmir dispute. ‘The 0.2% turnout during the rigged elections was a clear repudiation of the Indian claim’.28 In a nutshell, farcical and sham elections can never be treated as a substitute for plebiscite.
The question of Freedom struggle being a terrorist movement: Another contention that what happens in Kashmir is not a freedom struggle but a terrorist movement stoked by Pakistan is also a clearly fabricated contention. The oppressed but valiant people of Kashmir have waged freedom struggle with numerous sacrifices and around 400,000 Kashmiris have embraced martyrdom since 1947. This includes the massacre of 237,000 people by Maharaja Hari Singh.
India has tried unsuccessfully to quell mass resistance through the use of brute force. Objective reports in international media testify that the Kashmiri agitation is funda-mentally indigenous and public movement. Moreover, India has now fenced the entire LoC with landmines, motion sensors, thermal imaging and electronic surveillance, which have made crossings impossible.29 In fact, India’s insistence on cross-border terrorism from Pakistan is a false narrative to divert the attention of the world from its own state-sponsored terrorism, use of brute force and atrocities against the people of Kashmir.
Special status of J&K in Indian Constitution: There is yet another dimension to the whole issue i.e. as to why J&K has been given a special status in the Indian Constitution? J&K is the only state in India that enjoys special autonomy and status under Article 370 of the Constitution, according to which no laws enacted by the Parliament, except for those in the fields of defence, communication and foreign policy, will be extendable in J&K unless ratified by the state legislature. India has given this special status because J&K has not yet been integrated into the Indian Union. Similarly, Article 35A of the Constitution gives J&K legislature a carte blanche to decide who are the permanent residents of the state and confer upon them special rights and privileges. Presence and continuity of the two articles, in spite of attempts by some extremist political groups in India, including the BJP regime, to repeal them is yet another proof of the disputed nature of the state.
Demographic changes in J&K: Other than attempts to amend the Constitution, the Indian government is trying to gradually change demography in J&K by settling Hindu and Sikh refugees, who migrated from Azad Kashmir to Jammu in 1947, building a separate settlement for Kashmiri Pundits, allocating land for retired army officials who have served in J&K, and settling down non-Kashmiri Hindu businessmen and industrialists. This is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court that prohibit such transfers and equate them with war crimes.30
Freedom movement is not a secessionist movement: The Kashmiris’ move-ment is sometimes confused with the separatist movements in India. There are more than 36 secessionist movements and over 130 secessionist parties in Punjab and in the Northeast including Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur and Assam in addition to Maoist and Naxalite insurgencies. These secession-nist movements drive strength from ethnic conflicts, abject poverty, social and economic injustices, caste system, and cultural-cum-linguistic differences. Secessionist movements are aimed at seeking the status of separate states or autonomy. On the other hand, the freedom movement in J&K was and is primarily driven by the right to self-determination; it was never a struggle for a piece of land. While India can handle the secessionist move–ments internally, it cannot do so in the case of J&K because of the original arrangement made in the partition principle of the princely states and the UN resolutions.
From 1949 to 1989 Kashmiris continued with peaceful political movement demanding freedom. They also took part in elections to find a way out and possibilities for some negotiated settlement towards their right to self-determination.31 Nevertheless, such peaceful moves remained practically unacknowledged. Rather the elections were grossly manipulated and on occasion the peaceful demonstrations were fired upon by the Indian army and police. Kashmiris, while suffering from heavy-handed repression in 1989, were forced to launch an armed struggle. This is as per interna-tionally recognised legal right against combatant Indian security forces in accordance with UNGA Resolution A/RES/37/43 of December 3, 1982, for their self-determination and liberation. Unfortunately, successive Indian governments have resorted to the use of force, which has led to a spiral of violence.
According to well-documented reports,32 from 1989 till 2016, the Indian security forces killed 94,495 Kashmiris, including 7,062 who were killed in custody. They have kidnapped more than 10,000 people, mostly young men, while 136,436 civilians have been arrested. The documented number of widows has reached 22,884, while 10,433 women have been gang raped. There are now 107,586 orphaned children. Along with that 106,261 houses and buildings have been demolished. While the referendum under the UN auspices is still pending, the Kashmiris are continuously expressing their will through various means. Hundreds of thousands participate in the funerals processions, where bodies are wrapped in Pakistani flags. By all means, it is a mass resistance. Yet, in sheer panic, India is continuing with draconian laws33 to quell the resistance, which is gaining further momentum and intensity.
Human rights violations have been documented by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNOHCHR) as well. On June 14, 2018, it released it’s first-ever report34 in this regard. The report has documented unlawful killings and incidents of injuring, blinding by pellet guns, sexual violence, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, torture, excessive use of force, lack of access to justice and a culture of impunity for the LEAs. The report notes that protests against Indian brutalities now have participation from ‘more young, middle-class Kashmiris, including females who do not appear to have been participating in the past’35. The UNOHCHR has also proposed to the UN Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry to conduct an independent investigation into allegations of human rights violations.
Similarly, in October 2018, the All Parties Parliamentary Group on Kashmir in the British Parliament called upon India for an immediate cessation of human rights violations, ending the impunity enjoyed by Indian security forces, repealing draconian laws and enabling prosecution of its armed forces and security personnel. Members of the European Parliament also wrote an open letter to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in March 2019 and called upon him to repeal draconian laws and demanded independent and impartial investigations into the use of pellet-firing shotguns. Three members of the UN Human Rights Council, on March 18, 2019, sent a letter to Modi listing 76 cases of torture and killings of civilians.36 The Indian government has recently decided to prevent Amnesty International from presenting its report on the atrocities and draconian laws, which are lawless laws.
Unfortunately, New Delhi is continuing with the state of denial. It has bluntly rejected recommendations given in the above-mentioned reports. The argument stands that had India been logical, it would have accepted the recommendations of international organisations. The mere rejection of recommendations clearly concedes that India is observing a belligerent and uncompromising stance.
The J&K dispute is the main issue, irritant and cause of deadlock in relations between India and Pakistan. Incidents like Pulwama cannot and should not be seen in isolation. These are part of a bigger problem and a response to Indian policies in J&K. In all likelihood such incidents may happen again and at any point of time. The self-defeating approach of the Indian government of using hard power, changing demography in Kashmir and trying to withdraw the special status of the State of J&K will keep the entire region in crisis and turmoil. The study establishes that if this main dispute is not resolved then peripheral issues – standoffs, conflicts, wars and war-like situations – will keep recurring and marring bilateral relations.
The study also maintains that the J&K dispute is neither a territorial dispute nor a border conflict or cross-border terrorism stoked by Pakistan or a separatist movement. The study shows that since 1947 the people of Kashmir have consistently been struggling for their legal and legitimate right to self-determination. The harshest reality is that India has denied this right and used brute force and atrocities against the innocent Kashmiris to quell their freedom movement. The continued resistance makes it absolutely clear that the overwhelming majority of the people of Kashmir does not want to live with India. Horrendous human rights situation is prevalent in J&K, which is evident from well-documented reports.
India has now two options. (1) To admit ground realities and agree to resolve the J&K dispute in accordance with the UN resolutions and wishes of the people of Kashmir. It will bring peace, prosperity and development in the Subcontinent and the risk of nuclear flashpoint will be averted. There are some sane voices coming from the Indian intelligentsia, writers and scholars favouring this option. (2) The Indian government intensifies hard power and muscular policy, which is evident from the recent attack on Balakot in wake of the Pulwama attack. It is likely that as a result of this policy there will be more Pulwama-like incidents. This self-defeating approach will keep the entire region in crisis and turmoil.
The logical question then is how to deal with the status quo? Should it be left without any action? By doing so, we all will become complacent and reticent observers. The need of the hour is to remind the UN and its member states of all those commit ments that were made in the UN resolutions on holding a plebiscite in J&K. It is the collective responsibility of the UN and its member states to activate these resolutions for early implementation. This step will be the greatest service to the people of bleeding and burning Kashmir and serve as the harbinger of peace, prosperity and economic development in South Asia and contribute to international peace and security.
The following specific points need attention of the policy and opinion makers as well as scholars and intellectuals.
While the UNSC has been successful in implementing its resolutions for the right to self-determination to the people in cases like Northern Ireland, East Timor and South Sudan, on the principles of fair play and equal rights for all human beings, it has failed to implement resolutions on Kashmir mainly because of realpolitik in the backdrop of Cold War approach and 9/11 dynamics. The UN, P5 and the international community need to be reminded to implement resolutions on Kashmir as mandated in Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter. The settlement of the J&K dispute is a test for the credibility of the UN, in fact, for the global governance system as well.
It is encouraging to note that the UN, other international organisations, and NGO37 have documented a number of reports on unprecedented atrocities and horrendous human rights violations in J&K. Nevertheless, there is little attention to evolve a viable mechanism for the implementation of recommendations contained in these reports; especially on the establishment of inquiry commission for investigations, sending fact-finding missions for on-ground evaluation of atrocities, repealing of draconian laws, and stopping repression and human rights violations and demographic changes in J&K.
Pakistan, being a member of the UN and a party to the dispute, has both a right and responsibility to engage with governments through proactive and aggressive diplomacy for seeking a fair resolution of the J&K dispute. On the other hand, the international parliaments, inter-parliamentary unions, international civil societies, and international media networks need to play their role in creating awareness, drawing attention towards the atrocities of the Kashmiri people and resolving the dispute. In this regard, the Indian intellectuals, academicians, scholars, writers and thinkers are also expected to play their role. Those who question India’s policy of repression in Kashmir must give cogent recommendations to the Indian government to allow sanity to prevail for resolving the dispute for India’s long-term cohesion, unity and development.
There can be no better conclusion than borrowing from the statement of UNSC president, who rightly said in May 1964 that India and Pakistan “have everything to gain from re-establishing good relations with each other and whose present disputes, particularly that centring upon Jammu and Kashmir, should be settled amicably in the interest of world peace”.38
Senior Research Associate at the Institute of Policy Studies, Islamabad
1 Kashmir Attack: Tracing the Path that Led to Pulwama. BBC News. May 1, 2019; Tribune.com.pk. The Reality of Pulwama Incident. The Express Tribune. February 28, 2019.
2 Abi-Habib, Maria, Sameer Yasir, and Hari Kumar. India Blames Pakistan for Attack in Kashmir, Promising a Response. The New York Times. February 15, 2019.
3 Rfe/rl. India Launches ‘Preemptive’ Air Strike on Pakistan-Based Militants. RadioFreeEurope / RadioLiberty. February 26, 2019.
4 Indian Air Strike in Balakot Killed 300 Militants. The Economic Times. February 26, 2019.
5 MEA | Statements: “Speeches & Statements.” Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. February 26, 2019.
6 Dawn.com. Foreign Journalists given Access to Madressah near Site of Balakot Strike. Dawn. April 11, 2019.
8 Mitra, Chandan. ‘Book Review of Arundhati Roy’s New Release 13 December: A Reader’. India Today. September 3, 2011.
9 Dugger, Celia W. India and Pakistan Mobilizing Troops Along the Border. The New York Times. December 25, 2001.
10 Lalwani, Sameer, and Emily Tallo. India and Pakistan Aren’t Ready for Another Terrorist Crisis. Foreign Policy. November 30, 2018.
11 Davidsson, Elias, The Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence, Pharosmedia publisher, 2017; Roy, Arundhati. 13 December: A Reader, The Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament. (2006).
12 In January 2004, India and Pakistan agreed to hold 8-point Composite Dialogue to discuss the contentious issues including J&K dispute, peace and security, confidence building measures, Siachen, Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage / Tulbul project, economic and commercial cooperation, terrorism and drug trafficking, and promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields. There is so far no progress on these contentious issues.
13 Roy, Arundhati. Kashmir is Potentially the Flashpoint for a Future Nuclear War. Huffington Post. March 1, 2019.
14 Embassy of India in Washington, A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir, Indian Position, http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_files/Indian_Position.html.
15 Ahmad, Khurshid, Prof, Tehreek-e-Azadi-e-Kashmir: Badalte Halaat aur Pakistan ki Policy, First Edition 2016, p. 6, 8.
16 Mir, Tabish Rafiq, Despite Everything, Why Kashmir Should Be A Part Of India (But Only After A Plebiscite), March 6, 2017.
17 Sattar, Abdul. Pakistan’s Foreign Policy, 1947-2016: A Concise History. Oxford University Press, 2019. p. 27. Quoted in Chaudhri Muhammad Ali, op.cit., 288 from K. Sarwar Hasan, The Kashmir Question: Documents on the Foreign Relations of Pakistan, op.cit., 100.
18 Lamb, Alastair. Kashmir: a disputed legacy, 1846-1990. Vol. 150. Hertingfordbury: Roxford Books, 1991.
19 Sattar, Abdul. Pakistan’s Foreign Policy 1947-2016, A Concise History. Oxford University Press, 2019, 4th Edition. p. 28.
20 Britannica, ‘Kashmir’. Encyclopaedia Britannica.
21 ‘Pakistan Mission to United Nations.’ Kashmir – Pakistan Mission to UN. Accessed June 27, 2019. http:// www.pakun.org/kashmir/history.php.
22 UNSC Resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 at 286th meeting of UNSC.
23 UNCIP Resolution adopted for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
24 UNSC adopted Resolution 1172 on 6 June 1998 in the backdrop of the nuclear tests conducted by India on 11 and 13 May 1998 and by Pakistan on 28 and 30 May 1998 and urged India and Pakistan ‘to resume the dialogue on all outstanding issues’ and ‘find mutually acceptable solutions that address the root causes of those tensions, including Kashmir.’
25 Ahmad, Khurshid, ‘Tehreek-e-Azadi-e-Kashmir: Badalte Halaat aur Pakistan ki Policy’, First Edition, 2016, p. 6.
26 Prof. Ahmad, Khurshid, Foreword of book Mass Resistance in Kashmir by Tahir Amin. p. 4.
27 Kashmir: Nuclear Flashpoint. Kashmir Times. Accessed June 27, 2019.
28 Pakistan Mission to United Nations. http://www.pakun.org/kashmir/history.php.
29 Interactive Session and Conversation with President of Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Atlantic Council: ‘Kashmir: Sardar Masood Khan’s Perspective,’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7q1lSdlXgA&t=115s
30 Exclusive Interview with the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Sardar Masood Khan, Pakistan Politico, July 9, 2018, http://pakistanpolitico.com/exclusive-interview-with-the-president-azad-jammu-and-kashmir-sardar-masood-khan/
31 Many of the resistance leaders, including Syed Ali Gelani had participated in elections until 1989.
32 Amnesty International; Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, and the US Department of State reports.
33 Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA), Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) 1985, The Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special Powers Act, (AFSPA) 1990, Jammu & Kashmir Disturbed Area Act (J&KDAA) 1990, and Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).
34 UNOHCHR report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir from June 2016 to April 2018, and General Human Rights Concerns in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan 14 June 2018, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IN/Developments-InKashmir June2016 To April2018.pdf, Accessed on May 26, 2019. The UNOHCHR had asked Pakistan to give it access to AJK which was in principle accepted though Pakistan requested the UNOHCHR to ask India to simultaneously give access to J&K.
36 Letter and report available on the website: https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/ DownLoad PublicCommunicationFile?gId=24476 accessed on 9 June 2019.
37 The European Union, the Human Rights Council, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the British Parliament, the US State Department, Amnesty International and Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights.
38 Statement of the UNSC president, 18 May 1964, at the 1117th meeting of the Security Council.