ON the event of Kashmir Solidarity Day, Prime Minister Imran Khan said something that has drummed up some excitement and provoked his political adversaries to blame him for abusing Pakistan’s long-standing situation on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. In his discourse, the executive, while tending to individuals of Kashmir, said that whenever they had acquiesced to Pakistan through an UN plebiscite, they could, in the event that they needed, decide on a free state.
Pundits say that by referencing the supposed ‘third alternative’ of autonomy, the executive has wandered away from the two United Nations goals on the debate that say individuals of Jammu and Kashmir will have two choices: join Pakistan or join India. The debate got fanned when the Foreign Office gave an explanation saying there was no adjustment in Pakistan’s position and it remained secured in the UN goals.
The Foreign Office ought to have known better. This explanation was not needed. By giving it, the Foreign Office just added to the insight that the PM’s assertion needed to be explained, which suggested that maybe there was something not right with the assertion. Indeed, the leader said nothing incorrectly. Article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan states: “When individuals of the State of Jammu and Kashmir choose to consent to Pakistan, the connection among Pakistan and that State will be resolved as per the desires of individuals of that State.”
There is no contrast between what the Constitution states and what the PM said. In the event that the significant authorities of the Foreign Office had focused more on this article of the Constitution they would not have needed to give an assertion and unnecessarily mix a discussion. One anticipates better judgment on such touchy issue from the Foreign Office.
