Time for the British Government to Press for a Multi-lateral Path to Justice for the People of Kashmir.
Over the course of this week, protests and discussions have continued about the crisis in Jammu and Kashmir, which is now suffering from a month-long lockdown. Many MP’s, including myself, are supporting constituents desperate to hear news of loved ones suffering under the curfew.
But many, are rightly asking: why is the British government doing so little, and continuing to insist, on very questionable legal grounds, that the crisis is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, when it is clear that the bilateral approach to resolving this dispute has failed?
First, let’s look at the legal question. When Britain introduced the Indian Independence Act, in 1947, it restored sovereignty to the 580 or so princely states that had signed subsidiary alliances with the British. Each was given the choice of joining the Dominion of India, or joining the Dominion of Pakistan, through an Instrument of Accession.
As such these Instruments of Accession were like a treaty between two sovereign countries. What’s more, when the Maharaja in Jammu and Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, he appended a Schedule which made it clear that the Indian Parliament could only pass laws for Jammu and Kashmir on defence, external affairs and communications. Clause 7 of the agreement says that:
“Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution.”
The Indian Government’s Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, however means the state of Jammu and Kashmir will now cease to exist and be replaced by two new Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, the first time a state has been converted into a Union Territory. Kashmir will no longer have a Governor, rather a Lieutenant Governor like in Delhi or Puducherry.
Given this very clear breach of the Instrument of Accession to which Britain was a party, it is simply not clear how our Government can claim this is simply a bilateral issue. So I have tabled parliamentary questions today, to flush this out.
A second key part of the argument is that India’s suspension of Jammu & Kashmir’s special status is a clear breach of the Simla Agreement signed in the wake of the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 – and therefore an admission that the bilateral approach has broken down.
The Simla Agreement was very clear that that
“(1) the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them […]” and that “(2) pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation.
It is quite clear that the situation has been unilaterally altered, yet the British government has not yet admitted this.
We cannot go on like this.
The alleged breaches of human rights in Kashmir are now multiplying. Both India and Pakistan are still to admit the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and his team to investigate alleged human rights abuses on both sides of the Line of Control.
In September 2018 Michele Bachelet noted
“In Kashmir, our recent report on the human rights situation has not been followed up with meaningful improvements, or even open and serious discussions on how the grave issues raised could be addressed”.
This is now a critical issue because what the British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab did admit to the House of Commons on 3 September 2019, that
“The issue of human rights is not just a bilateral, or domestic issue for India and Pakistan – it is an international issue”.
Crucially, if human rights abuses can be proven, then there is a case for the international community to invoke the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P). Set out at the 2005 World Summit, world leaders agreed that states had a responsibility to protect their own citizens, but that if they failed to do so the international community should take action. This action/intervention may be military or non-military, with military force being the last resort, when authorised by the Security Council.
After all, the former Foreign Office minister, Mark Field made a promise to the House of Commons. In February 2019, he said:
“we note the findings of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reports, which are deeply concerning. We will make sure that these are brought up in international committee, both in New York and in Geneva”.
So, we are asking the British Government this week, to publish their assessment of human rights abuses in Kashmir, and to bring a debate to the Security Council for consideration. Ultimately, a multi-lateral approach will be the only way that we can broker a path to delivering on the UN Security Council Resolutions made in 1948, promising self-determination to the citizens of Kashmir – and there are plenty of examples of international disputes being settled in this way.
Indeed, there have been some 295 international disputes between 1945 and 1995 involving at least two states where significant force was deployed. Some 171 of these resulted in some kind of negotiation. Think of President Carter’s role in bringing Egypt and Israel together at Camp David in 1978, leading to the Camp David Accords. Or Senator George Mitchell’s role in brokering the Good Friday Agreement. Or Richard Holbrooke’s shuttle diplomacy in the Balkans that created the Dayton Accords.
Over the weeks, to come we will in parliament continue to press for an urgent discussion of the crisis at the UN General Assembly in September and immediate access for humanitarian organisations, medics and media plus an end to the curfew and communications shutdown. But, along side the immediate demands, its time we radically stepped up the work to broker a proper, decent path to justice.
