Istanbul, Turkey. June 25, 2024.(TW) __ “I believe that peace and justice in Kashmir are achievable only if tangible and pragmatic strategy is established to help set a stage to put the Kashmir issue on the road to a just and durable settlement. Since we are concerned at this juncture in Kashmir’s history with setting a stage for settlement rather than the shape the settlement will take, I believe it is both untimely and harmful to indulge in, or encourage, controversaries about the most desirable solution, be it accession or independence. Any attempt to do so at this time amounts to playing into the hands of those who would prefer to maintain status quo that is intolerable to the people of Kashmir and also a continuing threat to peace in South Asia.
We deprecate raising of quasi-legal and pseudo legal questions during the preparatory phase about the final settlement. Such a discussion only serves to befog the issue and to convey the wrong impression that the Kashmir dispute is too complex to be resolved. Such an impression does great injury to the Kashmir cause,” this was stated by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Chairman, ‘World Forum for Peace & Justice’ during a seminar organized by Istanbul-based ‘Kashmir Monitoring Center & Asia-Pacific Workshop’ on the topic of, “Analyzing the will of the Kashmiri people between independence and joining either India or Pakistan.’ The seminar was moderated by a young and energetic researcher, Ms. Zahranur Ertek.
In response to a question that the UN resolutions have given Kashmiris only two choices – accession to India or Pakistan and not independence, Dr. Fai elaborated that it is commonly thought that the UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949, limited the choice of the people of the State regarding their future to accession to either India or Pakistan. Though understandable, the impression is erroneous because the right of self-determination, by definition, is an unrestricted right. By entering into the agreement, India and Pakistan excluded, and rendered inadmissible, each other’s claim to the State until that claim was accepted by the people through a vote taken under an impartial authority. They did not, as they could not, decide what options for the people would wish to consider. No agreement between two parties can affect the rights of a third: this is an elementary principle of law and justice, which no international agreement, if legitimate, can possibly flout.
Dr. Fai added: To put it in everyday language, it was entirely right for India and Pakistan to pledge to each other, as they did, “Here is this large territory; let us not fight over it; let us make its people decide its status.” But it would be wholly not legitimate for them to say, “Let one of us get the territory. Let us go through the motions of a plebiscite to decide which one”. That would not be a fair agreement; it would be a plot to deny the people of Kashmir the substance of self-determination while providing them its form. It would amount to telling the people of Kashmir that they can choose independently but they cannot choose independence. It would make a mockery of democratic norms.
Dr. Fai highlighted that the possibility of the third option is reflected in the wording of more than one resolution of the Security Council. Those adopted on March 14, 1950, and March 30, 1951, refer to ” the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (to be) made in accordance with the will of the people expressed by the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.” The phrase “final disposition” is inclusive; it has a wider meaning than “accession to India or Pakistan”. The Security Council used this expression not for convenience of drafting but because it would not be justified in foreclosing any option for the people of the State. These resolutions, which were adopted after the conclusion of the agreement between India and Pakistan, do not detract from the binding nature of that agreement as far as the obligations of these two parties are concerned. But they do imply a recognition of the inherent right of the people of Kashmir to decide their future independently of the contending claims of India and Pakistan.
When asked, what about the thinking in Indian public square about independence of Kashmir, Dr. Fai said that the idea of independence for Kashmir has in fact never been beyond the mental horizon of Indian leadership. When India first brought the issue to the United Nations, its representative, Sir Gopalaswami Ayyangar set out three options for Jammu and Kashmir on January 15, 1948: (a) accession to India, (b) accession to Pakistan and (c) independence.
Mr. Vir Sanghvi, Editorial Director of Hindustan Times wrote in the New Delhi based ‘Hindustan Times’ on August 16, 2008, “So, here’s my question: why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the Kashmiris don’t want to have anything to do with us?” “I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Valley. Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny. If they want to stay in India, they are welcome. But if they don’t, then we have no moral right to force them to remain.” “It’s time to think the unthinkable.”
Columnist Swaminathan Aiyar wrote in New Delhi based ‘The Times of India’ in 2008, “We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give them three choices: independence, union with Pakistan, and union with India. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan.”
In response to a question: if there has been any survey conducted in Kashmir to find out the preferences of the public, Dr. Fai quoted few surveys, like, New Delhi based ‘Outlook’ magazine conducted a survey in Kashmir which was released by the ‘United News of India (UNI)’ on November 5, 2004, in which 78 % people wanted ‘Azadi.’
One more survey was jointly conducted by Hindustan Times, CNN/IBN and Dawn newspaper on August 12, 2007, where in 87 % people want Azadi. And when a survey was conducted by a London-based think tank Chatham House, which was released by BBC on May 27, 2010, asking a simple question, what do you want? An overwhelming 90 to 95 percent of the people of the Valley of Kashmir demanded Aazadi.
‘First’ Kashmir survey produces ‘startling’ results
A survey described as the first attempt to establish the opinions of Kashmiris suggests nearly half want indepen…
(For those who do not know Urdu or Persian, Azadi means freedom from oppression and occupation of all forms.)
When Arundhati Roy, one of the internationally known novelists from India was asked on October 3, 2019, “What do the Kashmiris want?” She said, Kashmiris have been saying it for the last 70 years. They have been saying it with their blood. They demand right of self-determination.
In response to a question, Dr. Fai said that global Kashmir diaspora does realize its responsibilities, they are united in a common cause and their narrative is clear and concise: the right of self-determination of the people of the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
Dr. Fai concluded by saying that no solution of the Kashmir problem will be just or viable if it ignores the intense and popular sentiment of the people of all five zones of Kashmir – The Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Gilgat & Baltistan. Justice and pragmatism require that no one of the conceivable options for the people of Jammu & Kashmir should be excluded.
Dr. Fai is also the Secretary General, World Kashmir Awareness Forum.
He can be reached at: WhatsApp: 1-202-607-6435. Or. gnfai2003@yahoo.com
www.kashmirawareness.org