Pakistan Foreign Office said that the changes India was trying to bring about in Kashmir by abrogating Article 35-A of the Indian Constitution was not ‘the first time’.
FO Spokesman Dr Muhammad Faisal said, “They (Indian leaders) have been trying to do it for the last 70 years. This is a direct violation of the UNSC Resolutions. We have consistently been raising this issue on all international forums and shall continue to do so.”
He stated that India could not crush the legitimate, indigenous Kashmiri struggle by such nefarious, underhanded means.
“All such Indian efforts have failed in the past and they will continue to fail in future also,” he added.
“The only solution to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute is through the realisation of the right to self-determination of the people of Kashmir through an impartial UN-administered plebiscite in accordance with UNSC Resolutions,” the spokesman said.
ALSO READ: From Resettlement Act to Article 35-A: The tale of two women campaigners
Meanwhile, the spokesman affirmed Pakistan’s stance with Saudi Arabia in its current ongoing diplomatic spat with Canada. “Pakistan stands by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in protecting its sovereignty as a matter of principle and based on the historic and brotherly relations between our two countries,” the spokesman said.
The spat sparked after Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland tweeted to demand release of women’s rights activist Samar Badawi. The Canadian government also called for immediate release of the jailed activists.
In response, the monarchy expelled Canada’s ambassador and recalled its own ambassador from Ottawa. A diplomatic source revealed that the stance taken by the office was driven by its uneasy relationship with Canada.
Upon being inquired about re-imposition of US sanctions on Iran, Faisal said, “We are examining the implications of the US re-imposition of sanctions on Iran. However, Pakistan, being a sovereign state, reserves the right to pursue legitimate economic and commercial interests while respecting the international legal regime.”
