Rights Movement in Azad Kashmir

Renegotiate the Framework of the Karachi Agreement
Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
The political landscape in AJK has evolved, since The Karachi Agreement of April 1949 was signed. The agreement established the framework of responsibilities between the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), and the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference (AJKMC). At that time, the Muslim Conference was the sole political party in AJK, and its role in the agreement reflected its unique position.
However, the political landscape in AJK has evolved significantly since then, with the emergence of other political parties like the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), and others. The Muslim Conference, once dominant, has seen its influence wane, as evidenced by its reduced representation in the assembly.
Azad Kashmir is faced with a new interpretation of public sentiment and there is an increased demand for accountability of the people elected. The current multi-party political system has found political patronage in Pakistan and in the establishment to gain power. It has abysmally ignored the role of government and political parties set out in the Karachi Agreement.
The results have been the Indian action of 5 August 2019 on the Indian side of Kashmir and a growing disaffection of people in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Kashmiri Diaspora has eagle-spread itself in anger. Political parties (other than Muslim Conference) have to assert themselves in the framework established by the Karachi Agreement, these other political parties could consider the following approaches:
- Advocacy for a Renegotiated Framework
- Inclusion of All Political Stakeholders: These parties could call for a review or amendment of the Karachi Agreement to reflect the current multi-party political reality in AJK. A renegotiated framework could include formal roles for all major political parties in decisions concerning AJK’s administration, development, and its stance on the Kashmir issue.
- Democratic Representation: They could argue that the agreement, signed in a different era, does not adequately represent the democratic will of the AJK population as it exists today.
- Public Mandate: Using their electoral mandate as a basis, these parties could press for recognition of their roles in decisions that were once monopolized by the Muslim Conference.
- Legislative and Policy Initiatives
- Constitutional Amendments: These parties could use their presence in the AJK Legislative Assembly to push for constitutional amendments that acknowledge and formalize their participation in matters stemming from the Karachi Agreement.
- Policy Proposals: They can introduce policies or resolutions in the assembly that address the governance and administrative issues outlined in the Karachi Agreement, thereby asserting their relevance in its framework.
- Engagement with Pakistan
- Dialogue with the Government of Pakistan: Since Pakistan is a party to the Karachi Agreement, these political parties can engage directly with Islamabad to advocate for their inclusion in the agreement’s operational aspects.
- Lobbying for Representation: These parties can argue for their inclusion in any committees or forums established to oversee the implementation of the Karachi Agreement’s provisions.
- Leveraging Public Support
- Mobilizing Public Opinion: These parties could use their political platforms to educate the public about the limitations of the Karachi Agreement in its original form and the need for broader representation.
- Grassroots Campaigns: By connecting with the public and highlighting their advocacy for a more inclusive governance model, they can strengthen their political legitimacy.
- Advocacy at National and International Forums
- National Advocacy: These parties could advocate within Pakistan’s political system for reforms that incorporate a broader spectrum of political voices from AJK in governance.
- International Advocacy: While maintaining adherence to Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir, they could raise the issue at relevant forums to emphasize the importance of democratic representation in the governance of AJK.
- Collaborative Platforms
- Cross-Party Alliances: These political parties could form alliances to collectively advocate for amendments to the Karachi Agreement, presenting a united front for change.
- Inclusion of Civil Society: By involving civil society organizations, these parties can emphasize the democratic and representative gaps in the original agreement and push for a more participatory governance structure.
- Reinterpreting the Karachi Agreement
- Legal and Political Interpretation: They could argue for a reinterpretation of the agreement to allow broader participation of all political entities in AJK’s governance, leveraging legal experts and constitutional scholars.
- Advisory Roles: These parties could seek roles in advisory capacities to influence policies directly related to the responsibilities outlined in the agreement.
Conclusion
The Karachi Agreement, while foundational, was a product of its time. The political evolution in AJK necessitates a rethinking of its implementation to accommodate the pluralistic and dynamic nature of AJK politics today. By adopting a multi-pronged strategy involving legislative initiatives, public advocacy, and engagement with the Government of Pakistan, these political parties can assert their roles and contribute to a more inclusive and representative governance structure for AJK. This approach would not only strengthen democracy within AJK but also enhance the legitimacy of its institutions in addressing the broader Kashmir issue.