Human Rights: Kashmir

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I will endeavour not to be so passionate as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I declare my interest as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for India and, I believe, the last serving Member of this House to visit Srinagar and interact with the people of Jammu and Kashmir directly.

I begin with the simple premise that in 1947, the late Maharaja ceded the entirety of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, so the illegal occupation by Pakistan of part of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir should cease, its military operation should go home, the line of control should be removed, and all the terrorist bases that exist on the Pakistani line of control should be ceased and dismantled.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman please tell me who it was that went to the United Nations to ask for a resolution on the plebiscite for Kashmir?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that all the United Nations resolutions that date back from 1947 should be implemented, the first being that the illegal occupation by Pakistan of Jammu and Kashmir should cease. When that is done, we can talk about the other United Nations resolutions.

Before the abrogation of article 370, the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir existed under different laws from the rest of India. It is important that we look—particularly those opposed to the abrogation of article 370—at the civil liberties that have been restored to the citizens as a result of the abrogation. India has changed its constitution over the years, as a developing country with a progressive view, but of course the laws in Jammu and Kashmir were frozen because of article 370, which was always envisaged as a temporary measure. What happened? I think we should review this, because all those who complain about civil rights should remember what happened.

Under the law, prior to the abrogation of article 370, Kashmiri women were not entitled to ownership of property. If they married someone from out of the state, they lost their property rights. How is that acceptable? Indian women are protected against domestic violence under a comprehensive Act of the Indian Parliament. Until the abrogation of article 370, no such protection was provided to women in Kashmir. Under Indian law, Muslim women are protected against the triple talaq—a man saying, “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you” and that is the end of it, with no protection for women. Of course, now that article 370 has been abrogated, they now have that protection. Under Indian law, it is illegal for children under the age of 14 to be married. Prior to the abrogation of article 370, children under the age of 14 could be married. Under article 35A, the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit population was expelled at the point of a gun by Islamist forces. Now, they have the potential to return. Equally, local government has been restored to Jammu Kashmir under the revocation of article 370.

Kashmir Valley is a beautiful place to see. There is the opportunity for tourism, culture, trade, hydro-electric power and many other aspects. However, it has been tainted by multiple mass exoduses, terrorist attacks, killings, child marriages and forced conversions by radical Islamist terrorists. We should remember that while the Kashmir Valley may be predominantly Muslim, Jammu is predominantly Hindu and Ladakh predominantly Buddhist. The fact is that the historically persecuted religious minorities—Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, women and children—have, unfortunately, suffered in the valley.

The heavy military presence in civilian settlements is definitely a threat to a democratic ethos, but just imagine—we saw what happened in Afghanistan—if the troops were withdrawn and the protections were not there. The plight of Jammu Kashmir would be the same as Afghanistan, with Islamist forces coming in and eliminating democracy in the area. It is only the Indian army and the sound footing of the Indian military and democracy that has stopped the region of Jammu and Kashmir from resembling Taliban-occupied Afghanistan. It only makes sense for them to do so because the region is legally and rightfully an integral part of the Republic of India. The world must come to that, and colleagues must recognise that reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him. Does he not accept that the Kashmiri Pandits, in any type of vote or plebiscite, should have the right to be considered as part of Kashmir and, therefore, those refugees who live in Jammu and the rest of the world should also have that right? Who then determines who would participate in a plebiscite?

[Mr Mahmood]

The plebiscite would be determined by the United Nations. Every Kashmiri, whether a Pandit, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian member of the heritage of Kashmir, has a right to vote in that plebiscite. Every Kashmiri of any religion, faith or creed is a Kashmiri by nature. It is important for all of us to recognise that, which is why I wanted to make that point. That is why it was important to keep article 370 and 35A, because that is what the United Nations had pushed for. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned tourism in his speech. Fantastic! Can I go to Kashmir as a person of Kashmiri heritage? My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth tried but was not allowed.

Following the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), I think all of us should apply to the Indian High Commission for a visa to go to Kashmir. When all of us do not get a visa to do that, we should then put forward a motion to Mr Speaker and to the Lord Speaker to ensure that the Indian high commissioner is not allowed in this place at all. This is about people who continue to be subjugated by an armed force—more than half a million armoured people—in their land. Those forces subjugate the rights of women, using rape as a form of collective torture. That is not acceptable in any form of society and we should not accede to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed, it is. I will try to ensure that the connections are apparent.

Of course, it is no coincidence that the last hideout of Osama bin Laden was in Abbottabad, scarcely a mile away from—and, some would say, under the protective shield of—the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul. Abbottabad is just 20 miles as the crow flies from Muzaffarabad, the capital city of Azad Kashmir. As a constitutional entity—constitutional self-determination has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne)—the so-called Azad Kashmir, which is better known to the world as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, is not just strange, but unique. It has been given the trappings of a country, with a President, Prime Minister and even a legislative assembly, but it is neither a country with its own sovereignty nor a province with its own clearly-defined devolved authority from the national Government.

Under section 56 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim constitution of 1974, the Pakistan Government can dismiss any elected Government in AJK, irrespective of the support they might have in the legislative assembly. Strangely enough for an entity that purports to be a country, the constitution bars anyone from public office and prohibits them from participating in politics unless they publicly support the principle of Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. Imagine that: a country all of whose politicians can be politicians only if they say they do not want to be a country. It will therefore come as no surprise to colleagues when I say that the major civil and police administrators’ positions in AJK are held by Pakistani civil and military officers. It may also come as no surprise to them to find that the putative country has no representation in the Parliament of Pakistan. The territory’s local representatives are excluded not just from the Pakistan Parliament but from even those Pakistani bodies that negotiate intra-provincial resource allocation and federal taxes. So much for “No taxation without representation”.

[Bob Blackman]

Is it not worse than that, because the minority religions are also excluded from that Government?

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed; I was about to come on to that.

That there is no taxation without representation is not a principle observed in AJK. It is not a country; it is not a province; it is not a state: it is a satrapy. Were I not a British MP conscious of the fact that much of this mess is a legacy of our colonial past in the region, I might almost describe it as a prize of war—but then, of course, that is precisely what Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is. It was gained by the illegal invasion by Pakistan troops in 1947.

Stringent blasphemy laws mean that many religious groups face the death penalty if they are even accused of denigrating the Prophet. Sadly, the infamous case of Asia Bibi is not unique. The rights of women are governed by the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 penal provisions, which prevent women from exercising their marriage choices. The South Asia Terrorism Portal records that of the 42 identified terrorist training camps located in Pakistan, 21 were located in Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Those camps belong to three main terrorist groups: Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen. One of the key areas around which the camps are located is Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Pakistani Government repress democratic freedoms, muzzle the press and practise routine torture within Azad Jammu and Kashmir. According to the world press freedom index prepared by Reporters Without Borders, Pakistan ranks 145th out of the world’s countries, below India. The 2019 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report, “Human Rights and Democracy”, noted that the human rights situation continues to worsen and pointed out that freedom of expression—