Chinese visa and Libyan stand on Kashmir

Chinese visa and Libyan stand on Kashmir

Qadhafi on Kashmir and the visa policy of China remain embedded in the jurisprudence of Kashmir case

Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani

The stand taken by Muammar al-Qadhafi, Leader of the Revolution of Libya and of the African Union on the Rights Movement of the people of Kashmir at the UN and the decision of Chinese embassy in Delhi to grant visa on a separate

paper, extraneous to the pages of Indian passport, to the citizens of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are two very significant developments. They are significant because the two decisions do not have any input or influence of Pakistan, OIC or the ‘reversible face’ politics of Kashmir.

Why has Libya taken a pro people stand which is at variance with the routine lip service rendered by OIC and the latter failing to keep any regard for the pledge made in item 10 and 11 of Kashmir resolution adopted at the Islamic Summit held in Morocco in December 1994?  The answer in part is that an 8 year old British Kashmiri girl studying at Singlegate Primary School in South London reacted sharply against American air raid in May 1986 on President Qadhafi’s tent killing among others his adopted daughter Hanna. She wrote to Qadafi, “I am sorry your adopted daughter Hanna died in the air raid”.

The British Kashmiri school girl wrote to President Reagan and told him that he had “got Britain into it” and “should not fight with Libya”. She wrote “What if that [attack] happened to your family? You would not like it. We should all be friends”.

Washington and London were just adjusting their response to the peace bid made by a school girl that President Qadafi wrote a long letter to the Kashmiri girl and invited her to Libya. President Qadafi concluded his letter saying “Thanks for your stand with us, which means stand with peace and freedom of peoples”. In view of the anti Libya climate and hatred expressed by people in Europe and America the Kashmiri family did not accept the Libyan invitation. The school girl had to be removed from London and was sent to Pakistan to avoid the beaming TV lenses and inquisitive media persons which had landed at the family door step and at the school in London.

Libyan leader has a firsthand knowledge of the noble character of the people of Kashmir and their just cause. He knows that the peace girl of 1986 is now a barrister and at the United Nations in Geneva. This single act of sympathy and solidarity shown by a Kashmiri girl in May 1986 may not be the only cause of Libyan support at UN General Assembly in September 2009 but its impact would remain eternally etched in the mind of a father who lost his daughter in American air raid in 1986.

Libyan stand on Kashmir at the UN General Assembly has exposed the duplicity and insignificant administrative interest of OIC in the cause of Kashmir. It has put the Government of Pakistan in a very difficult position and has exposed the Kashmiri leaders for fooling the people of Kashmir.

The issuance of Chinese visa on a separate paper, extraneous to the Indian passport does seem to have raved some interest in Kashmir politics. It would be unfair if Kashmiri leaders drum up the cosmetics of the Chinese decision to cause a headline in the news paper and fail to work towards the cumulative jurisprudence of the Chinese decision.  Chinese decision does not carry any good news for Pakistan either. The tactical decision to issue Chinese visas to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir on a separate paper embeds a serious thought.

China has played a lead role during the discussion of Kashmir at the UN Security Council. At the 241st meeting of UN SC held on 5 February 1948 China made a serious case for ‘pacification’. The representative of China expressed the view that the Security Council might well recommend to the Government of Pakistan that it’s legal and moral influence should be thrown in the direction of pacification and that the tribesmen should be stopped from further fighting. In addition, he recommended that the Council should appeal to the Government of India to withdraw its troops gradually from Kashmir. He suggested that, after the fundamental principles had been determined by the Council, large discretionary powers should be left to the Commission.

China which shares a border with Kashmir came up with articles of settlement. On 18 March 1948 at the 269th meeting of the Council, the President speaking as the representative of China introduced a draft resolution S/699. It asked the Security Council to recommend to the parties that:

(a)    To secure the withdrawal from Jammu and Kashmir of intruding tribesmen and Pakistan nationals

(b)  To prevent any further intrusion into the State by denying transit through and bases in Pakistan territory, and by forbidding the furnishing of military and other supplies to all elements engaged in hostility or violence against the State

(c)   To persuade all intruders that the present Articles of Settlement, accepted by India and Pakistan, provided full freedom to all inhabitants of the State, regardless of creed, caste or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of accession of the State, and that therefore, they should cease fighting and co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

The Government of India for its part was to withdraw its troops from Jammu and Kashmir progressively, but if, for the purposes of defense and security, a certain portion was left, those troops should be stationed at such points as not to afford any intimidation, or appearance of intimidation, to the inhabitants of the State. The Government of India was to establish in Jammu and Kashmir a plebiscite administration with the sole and full authority to administer a plebiscite on the question of accession of the State. The top officers of the plebiscite administration were to be neutral international personalities nominated by the Secretary General of UN, but would consider themselves, for the time being as officers of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

It would be very unwise and unhelpful if India continues to avoid its contractual obligations and international commitments due towards the people of Kashmir. It would be wrong and unwise of Pakistan to nudge pass the urgent need to clarify between ‘accession’, ‘self-determination’ and ‘aspirations’ on the one hand and unfairly hope to manipulate ‘wishes and aspirations’ through an interchange of political culture on either side of LOC. There would be many more countries in the future that would in pursuance of their Charter obligations revise their policy on Kashmir and support the right of self determination. The Stand of Libya on Kashmir and the Visa policy of China remain embedded in the jurisprudence of Kashmir case.

Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations.  Email dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com