Burhan Wani is a symbol and not a legacy!
The legacy of the Kashmir struggle traces its origins to the slogan “Kashmir for Kashmiris” and the first sacrifice of 22 martyrs on 13 July 1931. This event marked the beginning of Kashmir’s resistance against oppressive rule and the people’s demand for self-determination, symbolizing the fight for justice, rights, and identity. Over time, the struggle has evolved and is now deeply rooted in the UN template on Kashmir, which calls for a peaceful and just resolution based on the right to self-determination, while upholding the principle of inclusiveness, representing all Kashmiris in their quest for freedom and dignity. While Burhan Wani is a prominent figure in the contemporary narrative, he does not constitute the foundation of Kashmir’s legacy. Instead, his life and death are more accurately described as a manifestation of frustration and the denial of political voice to the youth of Kashmir. His emergence as a symbol of resistance is a response to the lack of political space for the Kashmiri youth, who feel increasingly disenfranchised. However, Burhan Wani’s individual sacrifice cannot overshadow the broader suffering of an entire generation of Kashmiris, particularly since 1990, when thousands of young lives have been lost in the conflict. These collective sacrifices far outweigh the symbolic significance of any single individual. The struggle for Kashmir remains grounded in its historical and legal roots, and not in isolated acts of rebellion. Burhan Wani’s legacy, however, reflects the growing discontent among young Kashmiris, who feel trapped in a system that profiles, targets, and offers financial rewards for their elimination. His life is embedded as a symbol of one of the six frozen interest groups referred to by the UK’s Philip Noel-Baker during the UN Security Council meeting 241, held on 5 February 1948. In this meeting, Noel-Baker identified these six groups as Pakistan, insurgents, tribesmen, the Government of India, the inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir, and the outside world. As Noel-Baker stated: “What the Security Council does must seem fair to these two parties. It must also seem fair to the Government of Pakistan, to the insurgents, to the tribesmen, to the Government of India, to the other inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir, and to the outside world. That is why I arrived at the same conclusion as the other members of the Security Council who stated that impartial, interim administrative arrangements must be made.” The jurisprudence of the UN template on Kashmir requires careful and correct articulation. The Prime Minister has inadvertently made an error in not differentiating between legacy and symbol. The true legacy of the Kashmir struggle lies in its long-standing demand for justice and self-determination, beginning in 1931 and embedded in international law, while Burhan Wani remains a symbol of the frustration faced by Kashmiri youth, rather than the centralfigure of the struggle’s legacy. Dr Syed Nazir Gilani Dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com.
Azad Kashmir at UNGA – Missed Opportunity
I will be making a detailed response to the Prime Minister’s reference to Kashmir in his UNGA address. At this point, however, I wish to emphasize that his remarks on Azad Kashmir, particularly in response to Indian leaders’ threats to “cross the Line of Control” and “take over Azad Kashmir,” were weak and unpersuasive. What the Prime Minister’s Position Should Have Been: The Prime Minister should have introduced Azad Kashmir within the UN template on Kashmir. He could have leveraged its legal and political significance by drawing attention to Pakistan’s compliance with international law while contrasting it with India’s violations in Indian-administered Jammu & Kashmir. Unfortunately, several key opportunities to present a compelling argument were missed. Missed Opportunity: The Prime Minister did not emphasize how Pakistan has maintained Azad Kashmir’s governance in line with UN resolutions, preserving it as an autonomous entity awaiting a plebiscite, while India has blatantly defied the same framework by altering the status and demographics of Jammu & Kashmir. Missed Opportunity: The Prime Minister failed to present Azad Kashmir as a region ready for a plebiscite under UN supervision, missing the chance to press the international community to address India’s violations of the UN framework. The Government of Pakistan must also begin to see Azad Kashmir beyond the restrictive interpretation of Clause VIII of the Karachi Agreement. Dr Syed Nazir Gilani Dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com.
