On 24 May 2007, Baroness Emma Nicholson's amended "Report on Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects" was passed by an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The Report criticizes Pakistan for human rights violation in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and, while appreciating India's position on Jammu and Kashmir, urges it to prevent custodial killings and fake encounters in the state. Why has Pakistan's response to the Report been negative? Is it because the Report weakens its image, or because it seems pro-Indian or pro-Kashmiri?

The EU Report highlights comprehensive differences on political, economic and human rights issues between the two parts of Kashmir and recommends that India and Pakistan deepen their dialogue. It is an unbiased survey. Hence, to categorize it as Pakistan or India bashing is excessive. First, it notes that India is the world's largest secular democracy (though with irregularities in practice), but is skeptical about democracy in PoK, saying that democratic structures do not exist in Gilgit and Baltistan. This view accords with the judgment of the Pakistan Supreme Court that, on 28 May 1999, asked the Government to ensure fundamental rights and provide access to justice to people in Gilgit and Baltistan. After the EU Report was passed, Sardar Attiq Khan, Prime Minister of 'Azad Kashmir,' repudiated its finding of democracy being absent in the region. However, the ongoing judicial crisis in Pakistan that has turned into a campaign for restoring democratic rule validates the Report's assertion.

Second, the Report expresses dissatisfaction with governance in PoK under the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas in Islamabad, which is dominated by the Chief Secretary, Inspector-General of Police, Accountant-General and Finance Secretary, all from Pakistan. There is limited representation from PoK in decision-making and there is a provision in the 1974 Interim Constitution, that forbids all political activity not in accordance with the thesis of Jammu and Kashmir being a part of Pakistan. The Report has underlined realities that need being addressed in PoK.

Third, the Report raises the issue of human rights violations. While opposing these violations in Gilgit and Baltistan and discrimination in other parts of PoK, it has also asked the Indian government to prevent extra-judicial killings, disappearances and arbitrary detentions that alienate the people. These recommendations need serious attention on both sides of Kashmir. On the Indian side, the State Human Rights Commission has limited powers and needs to reform its structure and become more vigilant. The Report suggests setting up an independent commission of inquiry to handle cases involving security forces. Elimination of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is suggested, which is a contested issue in India. While Indian Kashmiri political parties like the People's Democratic Party favour its repeal, the Congress, its ally in the present coalition government, opposes this demand by emphasizing that until militancy declines the armed forces need the immunity provided by special Acts.

The EU Parliament called on both governments to allow international human rights groups access to the region for investigations. This could prevent the two countries blaming each other for human rights violations. Currently, Pakistan criticizes the Indian government for human rights violations in Kashmir, but it needs to answer why the situation is worse off in the Northern Areas that cannot even access the Supreme Court.

Finally, Pakistan's claim that the Northern Areas are a permanent part of its territory has not been accepted. S Khalid, Pakistan's Ambassador to the EU, wrote to Nicholson claiming that they were never a part of J&K. However, she countered him stating that Gilgit and Baltistan were constituent parts of J&K by 1877, and under Maharaja Hari Singh until the State's accession to India in October 1947. Likewise, the British had only leased a small part of the territory from him in 1935 to provide for a defence against foreign invasion, which ended in August 1947, after which the ruler could decide which country to join.

The EU Report has been supported by Benzair Bhutto, exiled chief of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Imran Khan, chief of Tehrik-e-Insaf, and Shabir Chaudhry, a UK-based activist of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front that campaigns to support the people of Gilgit and Baltistan. The Musharraf regime is in denial mode, but yearns to sustain its image in the international community amidst the ongoing pro-democracy campaign and increasing radicalization of its society. Opposing the recommendations of the EU Report for an independent judiciary in PoK only adds to his contradictions.

The Nicholson Report must be commended for being neither pro- or anti-India nor Pakistan but for being pro-Kashmir. It rejects the plebiscite option in the current scenario, and recommends strengthening of economic relations, cross-border CBMs, and tackling rights violations to buttress the Kashmir peace process.