‘Dunya’ TV Program ‘Ilm o Hikmat — Ghamidi Excerpted’ from a conversation with Javed Ahmed Ghamidi.
In order to adopt the correct course of action regarding the Kashmir issue, it is essential to understand the change that has occurred in the political thinking of the world. Until some time ago, the notion prevailed that political order comes into being through force and operates in the form of a ruler-subject relationship. States and governments are established on this principle and utilize it for their continuity and stability. That is, people rise up, gather force, and subjugate others through the power of the sword or gun. The great empires of the world have come into existence under this concept; European governments have been established in this manner, Muslims have governed many regions by this method, and in India, the reigns of the Mughals and the British are also the result of this principle.
This concept has now changed. The notions of self-determination and democracy have taken its place. Two principles have been accepted: that nations have the right to self-determination, and that political disputes will be resolved democratically. The right to self-determination means that if the people of a certain territory demand a unique national identity based on language, race, region, culture, religion, or any other shared factor, they will be accepted as a nation. It will be acknowledged that they have sovereignty in their political decisions. Thus, if they wish, they will be able to separate from their state, affiliate with another state, or establish their own state. By democratic means, it is implied that all political matters, both at the national and international levels, will be decided by the opinion of the people.
These principles are now recognized as global norms. Although there hasn’t been much practical progress, it is intellectually accepted that the relationship between the ruler and the ruled has ended. The governments that will now be established will operate on democratic principles, and if any nation demands the right to self-determination, its will shall be implemented through a referendum.
In this context, when we look at the issue of Kashmir, it becomes clear that there is no longer a need to view this issue against the historical backdrop of the partition of India. Instead, it should be seen in the light of the changes that have taken place in the world today. The basis for decision-making is no longer historical evidence but rather the question of whether the people of Kashmir see themselves as a separate nation and whether they wish to exercise their right to self-determination in this capacity. If the answer to this question is affirmative, then it is their right to be given the opportunity to make their political decision democratically.
After seventy years of struggle and immense sacrifices by the Kashmiri people, there is now no doubt in this matter that a vast majority of them do not wish to remain with India. In the past seven decades, they have shown the world that they are not ready to accept the accession. Therefore, the debate is now completely meaningless whether Maharaja Hari Singh was authorized to accede or not, whether the document of accession was valid or invalid, whether the role of the British rulers was biased or impartial. All these matters are irrelevant because, even if hypothetically it is accepted that the affairs of accession were as claimed by India, it cannot annul the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. When a nation has been demanding separation for seventy years, then there remains no room for any historical argument or documentary evidence. Their right to self-determination is an innate right, and their struggle for this has become an evident reality. In such a situation, the conscience of the world should awaken, the conscience of India should awaken, and Pakistan should also raise the voice of its conscience.
The world should view this not as a bilateral dispute between two countries, namely India and Pakistan, but as a global issue. It should be acknowledged that the right to self-determination is a fundamental right of the Kashmiri people. This is a right that humans are endowed with at birth. The collective conscience of humanity has now recognized this right. There should be no violation of this right, and if any violation occurs, it should be protested against at all levels. The nations of the world must realize that in the matter of the right to self-determination, the global conscience is caught in the conflict of two values. On one hand, it advocates for the right to self-determination of nations, and on the other hand, it acknowledges the principle of non-interference in their internal affairs. These two values are mutually contradictory. Accepting them simultaneously leads to intellectual inconsistency, and vigorous support for the right to self-determination becomes impossible. Therefore, there is a need for the United Nations to devise a procedure whereby no nation encounters any hindrance in claiming its right, and the international community faces no hesitation in supporting it. This means that if a nation that fulfills the criteria of nationhood demands separation from a country, accession to a country, or its own independence and sovereignty, there should be a formal system in place to implement it. From the demand to the plebiscite, and from the plebiscite to the implementation of results, there should be a known and definite course of action. For example, in American law, it has been decided that if a determined number of people from any state demand secession from the federation, the decision will be made through a specific procedure by holding a plebiscite.
India should understand that this is not the era of rulers and subjects. Not recognizing a nation’s right to self-determination is not a matter of pride but of condemnation. The time has passed when it was considered a great achievement for one nation to subjugate another. The seventy-year struggle of the Kashmiris cannot be hidden from the world’s view. Thus, it is mere self-deception to give the world the impression that this is not a national struggle of the Kashmiris, but rather confined to a few specific groups. If this claim is true, then what is the meaning of deploying seven hundred thousand troops in a country with a population of five million? It should be understood that in this era, governments cannot be sustained for long by wielding guns, firing bullets, placing bayonets upon chests, and depriving people of their sight. If it is correct to form a government for Congress and BJP based on people’s opinion, then how can it be wrong to decide the Kashmir issue on the basis of Kashmiri opinion? The conscience of India’s writers, poets, journalists, scholars, and pundits should also awaken. Instead of following the erroneous ways of their leaders, they should inform them that the era of claiming Kashmir as an integral part has passed. Now is the era of self-determination and democracy. They should be explained that if the separation of Pakistan from India is justified and the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan is a reality, then the demand of the Kashmiris is equally legitimate. The use of force is not the solution to such a problem; rather, it breeds terrorism. Therefore, the issue should be resolved through democratic means, and whatever the outcome, it should be sincerely accepted.
Pakistan should also adopt the right of self-determination as a principle. This principle applies to Pakistan just as it does to India. Therefore, if any nation within Pakistan fulfills the elements of nationality and makes such a demand, it should also be provided the opportunity for a referendum in good spirit. In the case of Kashmir, its stance should be that the issue of Kashmir should be resolved according to the will of the Kashmiris. It should not perceive this matter as merely a border dispute between Pakistan and India that needs to be resolved by the two countries themselves. This principle of division is not correct in any way. The issue of Kashmir is a matter of fundamental human rights, and neither India, Pakistan, nor any decision by Maharaja Hari Singh or any document of accession holds decisive authority. The decisive authority belongs to the people of Kashmir. If they wish to maintain accession with India, Pakistan should not object. If they want to accede to Pakistan, India should accept it, and if they wish to establish an independent state, both India and Pakistan should recognize it. In this matter, negotiations between Pakistan and India should focus solely on the point of determining what method should be adopted to ascertain the opinion of the Kashmiris.
As far as the people of Kashmir are concerned, it is their natural right to decide their political future according to their wishes. They should have been granted this right at the time of the partition of India, but unfortunately, this did not happen. Since this was not achieved, they had only two paths ahead of them: one, to accept the compulsion of circumstances and integrate into India’s national mainstream, and the other, to begin the struggle for the right of self-determination. Each of these paths had its own demands, challenges, and outcomes. The Kashmiris chose the latter path and continue on it to this day. Despite seventy years of continuous struggle, since the goal has not yet become clear, even today they face the same two paths. They should choose the path that aligns exactly with their national interest. If their preference is the first path, then they should positively accept accession and become a part of India’s national existence, in the same way that the Sikhs, Tamils, or some other nations have had to do. If they choose this path, they should focus all their attention on the education, training, and economic welfare of their future generations and limit their struggle to achieving those rights that can be obtained according to the Constitution and law of India. However, if they decide to continue the struggle for the right to self-determination, then they should pause and review their shortcomings and weaknesses, and in light of this, restructure their strategy. In this regard, three points are of fundamental importance:
First, they should create their own leadership and eliminate all group differences by organizing themselves in the form of a representative political party. When they gather under one leadership, unity will be established in their ranks, and they will be able to present their position to the world more effectively with one voice. If this idea is expressed in a single word, it is that they should produce their own Quaid-e-Azam (Great Leader) and adopt the same strategy that the Muslim League adopted under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. After this, the prospects for success can become very bright.
The second point is that they should adopt the method of peaceful struggle based on the right to self-determination. The destinies of nations are determined not through provocation, but through peaceful political struggle. They should remain limited to pure political struggle on the basis of non-violence. They should not give their struggle a religious color nor adopt extremist methods. They should approach every forum in the world and seek the moral support of the international community. They should turn their paradise-like land into a cradle of peace so that tourists from all over the world are drawn to it and return filled with a sense of support for the Kashmiri nation. If they adopt this method, then very soon the majority of the world will stand with them, and even within India, sympathizers will emerge. Ultimately, if Allah wills, their struggle will be fruitful.
The third point is that they should concentrate all their efforts on just one demand: the right to self-determination. Regardless of what the world says, no matter the commotion India causes, and irrespective of the offers made by Pakistan, they should never back down from this demand.