Kashmir: Self-determination

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) spoke with great passion, but it is a passion that I fear clouded his recollection of some of the history. Under the Indian Independence Act 1947, the rulers of each of the princely states had the responsibility to choose between the two emergent nations, and Kashmir’s ruler Maharaja Hari Singh had to decide whether to accede to India or to Pakistan. As he was doing so, Pakistan’s militia and troops invaded the part of Kashmir now known as Azad Kashmir. He then signed the legal instrument of accession to the dominion of India. That clarified the position of Kashmir in international law: Kashmir became a part of India.

It is also clear that Pakistan was the primary aggressor in the dispute. On 1 January 1948, India referred the situation to the UN Security Council. After much deliberation, the United Nations passed resolution 47, which my hon. Friend adverted to. However, again he showed a selective memory, because in fact the plebiscite had the precondition that Pakistan should secure the withdrawal of all its tribesmen and troops and Pakistani nationals from occupied Kashmir and put an end to the fighting in the state. That never happened, so the plebiscite that would have followed did not follow either.

The subject of this debate is the issue of self-determination, so I propose to examine the total lack of self-determination that the Kashmiri people actually have in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. As a constitutional entity, so-called Azad Kashmir, which is better known 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 of Pakistan.

Under section 56 of the AJK 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—no respect there, then, for self-determination. 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 whose politicians can be politicians only if they say they do not want to be a country.

It will therefore come as little surprise to hon. Members when I say that all the major civil and police administrative positions in AJK are held by Pakistani civil and military officers. It may also come as no surprise to find that the putative country has no representation in the Parliament of Pakistan. The territory’s local representatives are excluded from not just Pakistan’s Parliament but even those Pakistani bodies that negotiate inter-provincial resource allocation or federal taxes—so much for “no taxation without representation”.

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 also describe it as a prize of war. But then, of course, that is precisely what Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is: a territory taken by force, not permitted even the freedoms of other Pakistani citizens—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Mohamed, you have three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

As I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), we talk directly to both India and Pakistan. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows, there is strong disagreement between India and Pakistan about whether this issue should return to the United Nations. As my hon. Friends the Members for Brent West and for Bradford East noted, at different times India and Pakistan have respectively thought UN involvement was helpful or not helpful. I do not wish to take a view this morning about whether a further reference to the United Nations is useful at this time, but it is critical in 2025 and into 2026 that there is dialogue between India and Pakistan. We have seen the extent of the pressure when dialogue breaks down.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am very grateful to the Minister for taking all these interventions. Does he agree that the cross-border terrorism—most of the terrorist camps are based in Azad Kashmir—is specifically designed to engender a crackdown on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir and to foment tension? Therefore, one of the things that his Government could do is press the Government of Pakistan to close those terrorist camps. We know where they are: the South Asia Terrorism Portal records 42 identified terrorist training camps located in Pakistan, and 21 located in Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. That report was updated in September.

[Mr Falconer]

The House will appreciate that I will be moderately circumspect on security questions in relation to the region, but clearly there was an abominable terrorist attack in May, and there continue to be terrorist attacks in Pakistan week in, week out—not, we suspect, related to Kashmir, but related to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and ongoing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is clearly a blight on south Asia that so many countries in the region believe their neighbours are hosting terrorists who threaten them. The UK seeks to help on this issue. It is vital, and it has clearly been a cause of the most recent breakdown in relations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

I absolutely agree. That has been the central theme throughout this debate, and it continues to be the most pressing matter. I will come back to that point, but I first want to pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Those listening to the debate will at least know there continues to be hope, because there are Members of Parliament who have the moral conviction to stand on the right side and ensure voices of justice and of their constituents continue to be heard.

I am disappointed but also grateful to the Minister. He has given me the most time ever to sum up—10 whole minutes. But equally, that shows how little he said. That is not personal to the Minister, because he is following the Government line. As we heard from the Opposition as well, these lines are decades old. Frankly, just because lines are decades old does not make them right. We not only lack the moral courage required by the situation, but our silence continues to make us complicit.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Imran Hussain]

No. My hon. Friend said many completely baseless things and therefore I will not give him any more time.

At the heart of the issue is the fundamental right of a people—promised to them under international law and supported by the international community at that time—for which they have had to wait decade after decade. The Minister was asked how the Government could contribute to making India and Pakistan move towards dialogue. Tragically, that is not possible unless the Government first acknowledge that it is not a bilateral but an international issue. Without acknowledging that, we are unable to take the matter to the UN, because that is not our position.

Not once did the Minister even confirm our support for United Nations resolutions. It is a strange state of affairs when we cannot stand in this House and say, “Actually, we support United Nations resolutions.” It is not the first time; tragically, we see more and more situations where the international rules-based order is under serious threat. We cannot pick and choose where we say international law should apply. The double standards are now becoming so plain and bare, to be seen by all people. There may well have been a time when that could have been justified because people did not have social media and those truths were not exposed, and perhaps people and Governments could get away with it. That is simply not true now.