The Controversial Visit of the President of Azad Kashmir to the UK

By Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani

The upcoming visit of the President of Azad Kashmir to the United Kingdom on February 15 has sparked intense debate across social media platforms. Various factions within the Kashmir Diaspora, through podcasts, vlogs, social media posts, and public notices, have voiced their strong disapproval, urging the President not to visit. They accuse him of using the Kashmir cause and the sentiments of the Diaspora community to advance his political ambitions, without ever truly delivering on the promises made to the people of Azad Kashmir and the broader Kashmir movement. This growing resentment is based on a longstanding perception that the President has failed to fulfill his constitutional duties, particularly regarding the crucial issue of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The President’s visit is seen by many as yet another attempt to capitalize on the emotional and political leverage of the Kashmir issue, while ignoring the constitutional and legal mandates that he has long neglected. It is this dereliction of duty that has led to widespread criticism, and the recent outcry only adds urgency to the need for the President to reconsider his approach to leadership.
The Role of the President: Constitutional Obligation or Political Opportunism?
For over 55 years, the office of the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has failed to live up to its constitutional responsibilities, particularly in relation to self-determination and the plebiscite, key components of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) Resolutions. This prolonged failure has led to a loss of credibility and trust, both within the Kashmir Diaspora and among the people of Azad Kashmir. The President’s office is legally entrusted with certain powers under the Constitution of Azad Kashmir (1974), especially those related to self-determination. However, these powers have been systematically overlooked and underutilized, leading to a serious disconnection between the political leadership and the aspirations of the people.
The Constitution’s provisions, particularly Section 11, grant the President exclusive authority in matters related to self-determination, yet this power has been largely ignored. The failure to assert these constitutional duties undermines the legitimate cause of Kashmir’s selfdetermination, a cause that the President of Azad Kashmir claims to champion while simultaneously failing to uphold the rights of the people.
Legal Sovereignty vs. Political Sovereignty: A Constitutional Analysis
At the heart of this issue lies the tension between legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. Legal sovereignty is rooted in the belief that ultimate authority resides in the law, particularly the Constitution, which is the highest source of legal authority. Political sovereignty, on the other hand, often emerges from actual power dynamics, irrespective of the legal framework.
In the context of Azad Kashmir, this distinction is particularly relevant.
Section 11 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974 places the President in a pivotal position regarding the implementation of the UNCIP Resolutions, which call for a plebiscite to determine the future status of Jammu and Kashmir. However, instead of asserting this authority, the President’s office has repeatedly failed to exercise its powers, thereby perpetuating the political status quo at the expense of the people’s right to self-determination.
The Dereliction of Duty: A Failure to Act for 55 Years
For over five decades, successive Presidents of Azad Kashmir have neglected their constitutional duty under Section 11 of the 1974 Constitution. This provision is not a mere formality; it is a critical mechanism that ensures the people of Jammu and Kashmir have a chance to determine their own future through a UN-sponsored plebiscite. However, the office of the President has repeatedly failed to act in the best interests of the people, choosing instead to engage in political maneuvering that often aligns with personal or party interests, rather than the aspirations of the Kashmiris.
This dereliction of duty has not only damaged the credibility of the office but has also undermined the cause of self-determination that the Kashmir movement has long championed. The President’s failure to utilize his powers under Section 11 has meant that opportunities to move the Kashmir issue forward, both domestically and internationally, have been wasted. The continued neglect of this responsibility has created a political void, one that the Diaspora, especially in the UK, is increasingly frustrated with.
Consequences for the Kashmir Cause and the Diaspora
The failure of the President’s office to act in accordance with the Constitution has had serious implications for the Kashmir cause. The Kashmiri Diaspora, especially in countries like the UK, has long been a vocal advocate for the rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Yet, the President’s neglect of his constitutional duties has left many feeling that their political sentiments and struggles are being exploited for personal gain. This perception has eroded trust in the leadership of Azad Kashmir and created a growing sense of disillusionment among the Diaspora.
This growing discontent is evident in the strong opposition to the President’s upcoming visit to the UK. Many see it as yet another instance of the President using the Kashmir cause as a tool for self-promotion, rather than as a genuine effort to advance the people’s right to selfdetermination. The President’s visit, therefore, is not just about diplomacy or engagement; it is a focal point for the deep-seated frustration that has been building over decades of political mismanagement.
The Urgent Need for Accountability and Reform
The President must recognize that his role is not one of political opportunism but of constitutional leadership. The office of the President of Azad Kashmir has a sacred responsibility to uphold the legal and political sovereignty of the people, particularly with regard to self-determination and the plebiscite. The continued failure to do so represents not just a legal failure but a moral betrayal of the people’s trust.
In light of the criticism surrounding his visit and the ongoing dissatisfaction with his leadership, it is imperative that the President reassess his role and responsibilities. He must demonstrate a commitment to the constitutional framework that binds Azad Kashmir to the Kashmir cause, particularly by fulfilling the duties outlined in Section 11. Any further failure to act in accordance with these constitutional mandates will only serve to further alienate the Kashmiri people, both in Azad Kashmir and the Diaspora.
Conclusion: A Call for Constitutional Fidelity
The office of the President of Azad Kashmir stands at a crossroads. For over 55 years, it has failed to live up to its constitutional obligations, undermining the very cause it is supposed to champion. The current discontent within the Kashmiri Diaspora, particularly in the UK, is a reflection of this failure and a call for accountability. The President must not only recognize his constitutional powers but also exercise them to secure the future of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This is not merely a political responsibility—it is a moral one. The President’s visit to the UK should serve as an opportunity for self-reflection, a chance to reconsider his approach to leadership and his commitment to the principles of justice and self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
President, Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights (JKCHR) NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations
February 10, 2025.