Ghulam-Nabi Fai
\nIstanbul, Turkey
\n\u201cI 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\u2019s 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.
\nAny 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.
\nSuch an impression does great injury to the Kashmir cause,\u201d this was stated by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Chairman, \u2018World Forum for Peace & Justice\u2019 during a seminar organized by Istanbul-based \u2018Kashmir Monitoring Center & Asia-Pacific Workshop\u2019 on the topic of, \u201cAnalyzing the will of the Kashmiri people between independence and joining either India or Pakistan.\u2019 The seminar was moderated by a young and energetic researcher, Ms. Zahranur Ertek.
\nIn response to a question that the UN resolutions have given Kashmiris only two choices \u2013 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.
\nThough 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\u2019s claim to the State until that claim was accepted by the people through a vote taken under an impartial authority.
\nThey 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.
\nDr. Fai added: To put it in everyday language, it was entirely right for India and Pakistan to pledge to each other, as they did, \u201cHere is this large territory; let us not fight over it; let us make its people decide its status.\u201d But it would be wholly not legitimate for them to say, \u201cLet one of us get the territory. Let us go through the motions of a plebiscite to decide which one\u201d.
\nThat 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.
\nDr. 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 \u201c 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.\u201d The phrase \u201cfinal disposition\u201d is inclusive; it has a wider meaning than \u201caccession to India or Pakistan\u201d.
\nThe 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.
\nWhen 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.
\nMr. Vir Sanghvi, Editorial Director of Hindustan Times wrote in the New Delhi based \u2018Hindustan Times\u2019 on August 16, 2008, \u201cSo, here\u2019s my question: why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the Kashmiris don\u2019t want to have anything to do with us?\u201d \u201cI reckon we should hold a referendum in the Valley.
\nLet the Kashmiris determine their own destiny. If they want to stay in India, they are welcome. But if they don\u2019t, then we have no moral right to force them to remain.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s time to think the unthinkable.\u201d
\nColumnist Swaminathan Aiyar wrote in New Delhi based \u2018The Times of India\u2019 in 2008, \u201cWe 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.\u201d
\nIn 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 \u2018Outlook\u2019 magazine conducted a survey in Kashmir which was released by the \u2018United News of India (UNI)\u2019 on November 5, 2004, in which 78 % people wanted \u2018Azadi.\u2019
\nOne 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ghulam-Nabi Fai Istanbul, Turkey \u201cI 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\u2019s history with setting a stage […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":356658,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-414786","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-world"},"yoast_head":"\n