Address delivered by Maulana Mohammad Farooq at State Peoples Convention Srinagar on 10th to 16th October, 1968.
Mirwaiz Mohammed Farooq was a scion of the well-known family of Mirwaiz’s of Kashmir, which is reputed for learning and piety of its members and for the role they have played in the affairs of Kashmir. This has given it a prominent position in the state. The people of Kashmir including Mirwaiz Rasool Shah, Mirwaiz Ahmedullah and Mirwaiz Atikullah held his forbears in great veneration and esteem. His immediate predecessor Mirwaiz Moulana Mohd Yousuf Shah played a notable part in the affairs of the state. He was President of Muslim Conference when it was formed in 1931 and lived his life in exile for 21 years as he did not toe the line with Indian authorities but supported the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. Even before him Mirwaiz Ahmedullah was one of the signatories to the memorandum that was presented to the then Vice Roy of India against the misrule of the then Maharaja Pratap Singh. As a matter of fact the genesis of the Kashmir resistance can be directly traced to the memorandum which compelled one of the Ministers of State Sir Albian Benerjee to admit that Kashmir had been reduced to the position of “Dumb Driven Cattle.” Mirwaiz Ahmedulla and his cosignatories to that memorandum had to suffer great privations following the submission of that memorandum. Equally respected by the non Muslims, the Mirwaiz’s have had a reputation for scholarship and piety.
Mirwaiz Mohammed Farooq was born on 14th December 1941. After taking an honours degree in Arabic, he took over the religious leadership of his people as “Naib Mirwaiz” in 1962 following the death of his grand father Molvi Atiquilah. He continued to do so until the disappearance of the Holy Relic from the Hazratbal Shrine (December 1963) which brought him in to the fore of active politics. He soon became the head of the Action Committee – a united front, comprising of all political and religious organization of Jammu and Kashmir which guided the activities of people during those hectic days while other leaders, including Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, were in detention. The agitation in connection therewith soon became one for the vindication of the people’s right to the self determination. He spearheaded this movement and a historic resolution to this effect was passed on 17th March 1964 under his chairmanship. Following the 1965 Indo Pakistan conflict he found himself in detention having been arrested on the 10th of October 1665). He was held for more than two years without trial and had to face untold hardships and tribulation, being confined in interrogation cells and subjected to even 3rd degree methods. He came out of this ordeal on 20th December 1967, and immediately on regaining- his freedom he once again proclaimed his inalienable right to self-determination. He headed the Awami Action Committee, which is one of the leading political parties in Jammu & Kashmir State. He was elected Chairman of the 4th religious conference held on 6th April 1968. He was the Chairman of the Awqaf Committee appointed for the management of the famous Jamia Masjid in Srinagar. He also served as the President of the Anjuman Nusratul-Islam – a premier Muslim organization devoted to promotion of the cultural and educational interests of the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir.
On December 7th 1968 when Mirwaiz Mohammed Yousuf Shah passed away at the age of 75 in Rawalpindi, the 24 year old Naib Mirwaiz Mohammad Farooq, became the Mirwaiz of Kashmir and for the second time in six years the ceremony of Dastarbandi was confirmed at a mammoth gathering in Jamia Masjid Srinagar.
Farooq took a leading part in the State Peoples Convention and delivered an address, which in certain respects will go down as an important contribution to the deliberations there.
The English version of his address is published here and also the two scripts of his two speeches, one which he made at the convention and the other which he delivered at a public meeting in Jamia Masjid. It is hoped that these pronouncements emanating from him on this vexed question of Jammu & Kashmir will help to put the issue in the right perspective and will enlighten the people of the world as to what the people of the state stands for.
RAJA MOHAMMED AYUB
Awami Action Committee
TEXT OF SPEECH
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST BENEFICENT AND THE MOST MERCIFUL.
Mr. Chairman delegates ladies and gentlemen.
I have participated in this Convention not in the spirit of seeking to play a role of a preceptor but am animated by the desire to know more of other people’s views on our current problem. This was the main reason why I chose to be silent all these days listening to the addresses from others. But many of my colleagues had since been insisting that I should put forward my point of view and the view point of those whom I had the privilege to represent – the Awami Action Committee. I, therefore, decided to speak today not withstanding the fact that I had been hard pressed for time for sometime past and had therefore not been able to devote much thought to this matter.
I had hoped that those persons from across the cease-fire line and others who had been invited to participate in the convention would be granted facilities by the Government of India to do so-notably among them being Hazrat Moulvi Mohammed Yousuf Shah and his other lieutenants but to our great sorrow and dismay the Government of India had thought it fit not to permit their entry into the state. This has been a most unfortunate development and is of a piece with similar decisions taken by the Government of India in tackling this problem of the state.
Aims & Objects of the Convention:
The members of the steering Committee had made it clear time and again that the object of convening this convention was that persons with diverse opinions and belonging to different schools of thought should be enabled to meet in a conclave where they may consider their problem with an objectivity and thus be able to evolve a solution to the problem which had so far baffled all attempts at a solution with very dire consequences to all concerned.
I am confident, that if we here in this convention bring to bear on our task a detached out -look and a dispassionate consideration and consider the problem in a calm, cool and calculated manner, rising above all pettiness. And narrow mindedness, then we shall be able to achieve success in our efforts and I do pray to God Almighty that He may grant us the strength and fortitude to do so.
With these preliminary remarks, I would like to place before you my views with regard to the problem of Kashmir.
Kashmir Dispute: The dispute over the accession of Kashmir, which had existed for the last 21 years had been causing deep agony and distress to the people of the state. Because of this dispute the people of the state Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and others had to live under most intolerable conditions of great suspense and uncertainty about their future which had reacted most unfavorably on their well – being and prosperity. As you all know, in 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned -and two new Dominions of India and Pakistan were carved out in consequence and the princely Indian states were given the option to accede to one or the other dominion. Most of these states exercised their option and some of them acceded to India and some to Pakistan, In doing so, the deterring factors were largely those connected with geographical compulsions and other affinities of the people living in those states. Unfortunately, however, Kashmir and Hyderabad were the two principal states, which did not take the decision in time in this regard. It is not necessary for me to go into the fate that befell Hyderabad. I am dealing here with the question of Kashmir. In Kashmir after 3rd June 1947 efforts were made to ensure that Kashmir might have good relations with both the countries. Most of you know what turn events then took. Because of my age, I belong to a generation that could not and had not taken any decisive part in shaping the events, which had then unfurled them, -selves. But I know, that an overwhelming majority of the people of the state desired then the accession of the state to Pakistan as against the state’s accession to India because of the natural affinities of the people of the state with the people of Pakistan, But there were some people who wanted to have friendly relations with both and were even desirous of maintaining their separate identity while acceding to one or the other. This is not only how the leaders of public opinion in the state felt but the Maharaja had also a similar feeling. But events moved fast. The two, great communities inhabiting the subcontinent found themselves at logger-heads with each other and communal frenzy reared its ugly head and in the holocaust that ensued there hardly was left any -time for any body to give a dispassionate thought to our problem. The erstwhile province of Punjab which almost surrounded the state was thus caught in this communal frenzy and the Eastern Punjab witnessed barbarism and savagery unparalleled in history which led to a large exodus of the Muslim from that state and this led to a chain reaction in the other separated part of the former Punjab, vitiating the entire atmosphere in the sub-continent. ‘ As a result, communal disturbances broke out in most towns of Jammu, Kathua and Mirpur. It was only the Valley of Kashmir which was spared this conflagration and this was due largely to the spirit of accommodation and tolerance that existed among the various communities inhabiting the state and because of the restraining influence exercised by the Muslim leaders in the state. Under these conditions the Maharaia’s authority collapsed as the ice melts before the sharp rays of the sun.
Involuntary Accession: These were the circumstances in which the accession to the Union of India was effected. The world knows that this was a provisional accession and was resorted to in very abnormal and trying circumstances. The correspondence that had ensued between the Government of India and the Maharaja had made it crystal clear that it was a provisional accession and was subject to the condition of its being ratified by a referendum of the people of the stare. Even if, such a condition had not been attached to this accession, the world would have never regarded it as a voluntary accession considering the circumstances in which it had been brought about.
The pronouncements made in the Indian Parliament and the declarations made in various communications addressed to Pakistan by India all reaffirm India’s stand that this accession was subject to ratification by the people of the state. The same principle was re -affirmed by India at various gatherings, at the United Nations Security Council, and if we had to collect these documents in which India had acknowledged the right of the people of the state to self-determination, they will form a bulky volume. And, therefore, our stand has been with due regard to these pronouncements and commitments that the issue of accession had not yet been finally decided by the people of the state and whatever had been done was purely provisional and temporary. It is, therefore our stand that the final disposition of the state will be what the people of the state decide in a free and impartial plebiscite held under International auspices and that would be the only just solution of this matter because the right of self determination of a people is wholly in accordance with International practice and usage and is, in the best traditions of mankind. This is also in keeping with the declarations by which India has sworn ceaselessly over the years. That stand would not only be in consonance with International norms of behavior but would also meet the just aspirations and rights of the people. Pakistan had also accepted this principle and the Security Council of the United Nations in its resolutions dated 13th. August 1948 had confirmed this right of self -determination to the people of the state calculated to ensure a #’sting settlement of this dispute. In these -circumstances, I fail to see how a new formula, in substitution for this universally accepted principle could be evolved to settle this question and if it were possible to do so, who would father it and secure its general acceptance. When all this is realized, the conclusion is irresistible that this principle of-self determination for the people of the state has been our objective for which we had striven and laboured so hard and had faced all privations and hardships and we hereby re – affirm our resolve that we shall not be deflected from our course no matter what the future may hold for us.
Why Pakistan is a party to this dispute:
One of the slogans raised in New Delhi as tending to prolong this dispute over the state is that Pakistan is no party to the dispute, Let me say at once, that this slogan is wholly misconceived, based as it is on an attempt made to hoodwink world opinion. By resorting to this wily diplomatic subterfuge. The object underlying such slogan – mongering is that among the three parties to the dispute namely – India, Pakistan and Kashmir, the first two are most powerful in view of their size, their resources both military and otherwise, whereas, the third party i.e. the people of Kashmir are the weakest and wholly unarmed. If therefore, India could succeed in its object of making Pakistan withdraw from the dispute then the way is clear for it to bring pressure on the third party and impose on it a decision against its will. It is for this reason that India sought to back out of its past pledges and commitments and contends that Pakistan is no party to this dispute although this position had been conceded by India to Pakistan ever since the inception of the dispute in June 1947 when the state of J&K became independent following the lapse of British Paramountcy over the Indian states and the people of the state regained their full sovereign rights.
According to all the geographical compulsion the state of J&K had a natural affinity with Pakistan, inspite of the infamous Redcliff Award which alone gave a foothold to India in this respect. All the natural boundaries of the state were encased by Pakistan whereas only a small strip of land connected it with India, but all its rivers and all its mountains and all its boundaries were so located that the state of J&K could only be regarded as a part and parcel of Pakistan. The few miles of Indian territory from Lakinpur which joined the state were cut into two by the river Ravi, but its frontiers which joined themselves which Pakistan extending right from Lakinpur to Chitral and right up to Afghanistan and Soviet Russia, these frontiers ran across plateaus,rivers and mountains, but every drop of water that flow from these rivers in Kashmir found their way into Pakistan. In short, from a geographical standpoint the state had innumerable affinities with Pakistan unlike India. In these circumstances, if there was a pause and the state had not acceded to either of the two Dominions following 15th August, 1947 then because of these geographical considerations, which 1 have pointed out above, Pakistan became naturally and vitally interested in the accession of the State to one of the two Dominions and therefore, if India had conceded this right to Pakistan of being a party to this whole matter, then we could not lay the blame at the door of India, be -cause by sheer dint of geography and history, Pakistan was a necessary party to this dispute and no expertise is needed to bring home this point.
Moreover, when it is a question of the accession of the state to either of these two countries. Then the obvious thing is that this accession to them is not accession between two strips of territory but between two people’s. And, therefore, the dominant quest’ ion
Arises which are the two people’s namely the people of I and Pakistan are those with whom the people of J&K gave greater affinities cultural, religious, linguistic, ethical, commercial, economic and other similarities. And therecan be no two opinions that judged by this standard the people of the state are naturally bound to the people of Pakistan and this alone is sufficient to invest Pakistan with the status of being a necessary party to this dispute and it is for these reasons that following the request made in October, 1947 by Maharaja Hari Singh for armed assistance by India, that Indian in her various letters, telegrams and in her broadcasts proclaimed to the world that this matter of the people of Kashmir was to be settled by a referendum or a plebiscite as to whether the people of the state would join India or Pakistan. This declaration made by India herself all furnish incontrovertible evidence that right from the very beginning India had treated Pakistan as a necessary party to this dispute. While expecting the decision in respect of accession to go in its favour it had also conceded a similar right to Pakistan and had gone a step further than that and had raised the matter before the United Nation Security Council, where a resolution was Passed, equating India and Pakistan in this matter, the resolution having being passed with the full consent of India and even today the United Nations is seized of this matter and when India goes over their, it finds Pakistan Pitied against it meting its own arguments with counter arguments recognizing it for all intents and purposes as a party to this dispute.
In the face of all these realities, if India turns a blind eye to all this and contend ostrich – like as some of the ministers of the state are also doing,
Tat Pakistan has no locus – stand in this matter, then I would say, that this is the height of folly and shows how purblind they are, and, therefore such of us as have been maintaining that the issue of the accession of the state is still unresolved, do not seek to make Pakistan a party to the dispute, but all the facts point to its being such a party and when we say so, we only cognizance of these facts as realists and practical men of the world and say that until Pakistanis a party to any negotiations over Kashrnir, the matter cannot be resolved.
Need for Indo-Pak Friendship
Whereas I wish from the bottom Of my heart that India and Pakistan should come closer to each other and their relations should be based on mutual concord and goodwill, I think that all sane persons should recognize this reality that the kind of relationship which would subsist between India and Pakistan would have its re recursions on us and if they both have peace and Prosperity than we shall share that peace and prosperity and that God forbid, if there relations are strained and as a result, they are involved in uncertainty and suspense, then we cannot escape from their ill effects and so long as good relations do not exist between these two countries. The question of Kashmir could not be settled in a calm and peaceful atmosphere, which is what we so ardently, desire. It is, therefore, my endeavor as well as that of the “Awami Action Committee” which I am heading that these two countries India and Pakistan may be able to settle their disputes peacefully. One of the major irritants between them is the question of Kashmir and there is therefore urgent need for settling this matter in a peaceful manner so that both countries may be able to progress and develop and that they may thus be relieved of a huge burden which confrontation between them is causing them, so that the resources thus released could be diverted for ameliorative purposes for the greater good and prosperity of their respective people’s.
I wish to say in passing that one of the major results of this estrangement between India and Pakistan is the deplorable effect it has on the Muslim minority in India where they have led an insecure life for the last 21 years and the fear complex under which the minorities in Pakistan are also labouring. This unhappy state of affairs between them provides a grist to the extremist elements in India who are exploiting the situation for their own ends and creating communal disturbances and it is a matter of great sorrow that the Indian Government had completely failed to keep these elements in check and to put down these disturbances which had given it such a bad name in the world. I am, however, confident that if India and Pakistan can succeed in sinking their differences, they will have no difficulty ‘in curbing the activities of these mischievous elements.
Elections: There is a deplorable tendency noticeable to interlink these elections held in the state with this problem of Kashmir. So far as the question of elections is concerned, I have made it clear from time to time that 1 ‘am not in principle opposed to taking part in such election. Because elections are the very breath of democracy. But when it is sought to invest these elections with a character which does not properly belong to them and an attempt is made to treat them as a substitute for the promised referendum or plebiscite, then these elections might well prove to be a snare and a delusion. More so, when you remember how these elections have been conducted in the past in the state when all the rules and regulations making for the purity of these elections had been thrown to the winds and a mockery had been made of these elections these were the dangers inherent in such a situation which had led us to boycott these elections. The most important reason which weighs with us in shunning these elections, is that they are by a strange logic sought to be regarded as a substitute for the promised plebiscite or referendum’ if we are assured that these elections would be free and fair and would not be treated as an alternative to the promised referendum, the ‘Awami Action Committee, will have no hesitation in taking part in them because we believe, in the democratic way of life and that is the reason why we are supporting this people’s right to self determination in regard to the dispute over the state.
Special Position of the State under the Indian Constitution: Sometimes the proposal is mooted that while the issue of Kashmir had not so far been settled, the solution lay in treating it as a constituent unit of the Indian Union with special powers and position assigned to it. Those who put forward such a suggestion fail to take note of the previous history of the case? I ask: is it not a fact that an assurance had been held out that barring three subjects viz.: Communications, Defence and External Affairs and certain other ancillary matters the state of J&K would have complete autonomy and independence but when the Central Government leaders decided to bypass these commitments they had no difficulty what so ever in so doing and the consequences there of are for all to see. In these circumstances, those who advocate this solution that Kashmir may enjoy full autonomy within the framework of the Indian Constitution, we may Enquire from them how this position can be ensured to be maintained? Once bitten twice shy is an old adage, besides this suggestion is beset with other difficulties and shortcomings into which it is not necessary to go at this stage. I, therefore, consider this proposal to be wholly unacceptable.
Conclusion and the reaffirmation of our stand: To sum up, I wish to affirm once again that we do not regard the question of accession to have been finally decided so far. Hold that when the sub-continent which was one political entity since the Mughal days was divided and the two new dominions of India and Pakistan were created following the withdrawal of the British from the sub-continent the states on the lapse of the British suzerainty over them were given the option to accede to one or other of these dominions. Kashmir did not accede either to India or Pakistan but soon there broke out communal disturbances outside the! State which had their repercussions in the state and there soon arose differences between the Maharaja and the people of the state. The people of Poonch, Mirpur and Muzzfarbad demanded the state’s accession to Pakistan but the people of Jammu advocated the accession of the state to India. The matter did not rest with the adducing of arguments and counter arguments but there soon erupted violence on a huge scale and the whole of Jammu was a flame and the people of Kashmir who wanted to settle this matter peacefully and amicably were affected by these developments A time came when the Maharaja’s authority collapsed and he fled the capital of Kashmir, Srinagar and on arriving in Jammu asked for India’s help but India laid down an unequivocal condition while accepting his request for armed assistance, that this accession would be purely provisional and had to be effected merely to get over a legal difficult but as soon as law and order was restored, the people of the state would be given a full and final opportunity to decide this matter themselves.
The face, of these historical realities it is our faith and d belief that the present relationship with the Union of India is purely temporary in character because, the -people of the state have had no opportunity to express their opinion so far in accordance with the promises made to them in October, 1947 and we, therefore, maintain that there must be a plebiscite held under the International auspices in accordance with the Security council resolutions, to which both India and Pakistan have assented. We have been struggling hard to achieve this objective. This is therefore, not merely a political demand but resting as it does, on the Security Council Resolutions dated 13th August, 1948 and 5th January 1949, this demand for, a plebiscite ‘is a constitutional right which has acquired the status of a Convenient and therefore there can be no substitute for it. Some people suggest that we might put forward any other solution as an alternative to a plebiscite which might not involve the difficulties real or imaginary which they consider are involved in holding a plebiscite. I think that it is the height of injustice to require us to suggest such an alternative solution. When the three parties to the dispute India, Pak; and Kashmir had agreed to the holding of a plebiscite and this decision had been ratified by the U. N. Organization, then if for any reason any of the ‘three parties thereto considers that this is not a practicable solution and some other solution IS must be found then the onus of finding such a solution does not lie on the two parties who still adhere to that decision but lies clearly on that party which has second thoughts on that question. It, therefore, lies heavily on India to suggest any such solution if it seeks to go back on the previous decisions and if India is in a position to put forward a suggestion which is more democratic, more just and more practicable thin the solution so far accepted by all concerned, then there is no reason why the other two parties will not give it the consideration which it deserves because by doing so, they would incur the odium of the world community. India had adopted a very queer position in this respect. It had accepted plebiscite as the best solution to this problem. It had stood by it for several long years and had acknowledged it to be the best solution in -the Security Council and today it was resoling from it and while doing so, it did not put forward any other solution to the problem but was calling upon others to do so. In these circumstances, we see no reason to change our stand in this respect but wish to assure all concerned that if India has anything up’ its sleeves which is better than what we stand for, we shall certainly consider it very carefully and if we find it worthy of acceptance, we shall not be found guilty of obduracy or intransigence.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I am very grateful to you for a patient hearing you have given me, May God bless you all. Thank you!
WHILE ADDRESSING IN SUPPORT OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 1
The Steering Committee of the State People’s Convention at their meeting held yesterday have after a very careful consideration formulated some draft resolutions one of which relates particularly to our political problem, I propose to read this draft resolution over to you in English. It is as fellows
Having heard the various papers and speeches delivered by the delegates presenting different view-points on the Issue of the State’s political future and reaffirming the principle that a solution, of the problem, acceptable to the people of the State keeping in view the interests of all regions, can alone resolve the dispute and restore normalcy and tranquillity in Jammu and Kashmir including the subcontinents
Instruct the Steering Committee of the State People’s Convention to properly tabulate the presented material for submission to and discussion in the second session of the Convention as early as possible in order to pave the way for finding a peaceful, democratic, just and, realistic and lasting solution of the issue.”
I wish to explain very briefly the gene. of this draft resolution. The draft resolution seeks highlight the fact that the delegates who came from every nook and corner of the State to attend this Convention had both in their written and oral speeches put forward their viewpoints with regard to the political aspects, the question and they one and all had reaffirmed the fact that the solution to this question of Kashmir is one which should command general acceptance from the various sections of the people inhabiting its various regions and which is conceived with due regard to the interest of the generality of the people. Such a solution alone can end this dispute and usher in an era of progress and prosperity in the entire subcontinent including the State. The Steering Committee had therefore, been directed by this draft resolution that it should tabulate the various proposals contained in the speeches of the delegates with utmost dispatch so that after such tabulation the. May be a general discussion thereof at the next session of the Convention so that the delegates may thereby be afforded an opportunity of presenting their viewpoints freely and unreservedly. I am glad to find that this Convention has fully established the fact that the people of the State to whatever school of thought they may belong I, have the will and the capacity to sit together and consider their common problems in a spirit of tolerance and accommodation. As you all know, the question of the future of the State has become somewhat complicated and whereas the holding of this Convention is an initial step in the direction of finding a solution to this vexed question, I am hopeful that its efforts will bear fruit so that a solution which is acceptable to 55 lakhs of its inhabitants emerges; from its deliberations. A grave responsibility rests on our shoulders. The draft resolution clearly states that only such solution of the question can be considered as is acceptable to the people of the state. We, therefore, proclaim ‘that this country belong to us and we shall decide its destiny” as has been aptly said by the poet. It is only through tears and the sweat of the brows that great causes can be accomplished. Shaikh Sahib too had re-affirmed this position time and again and therefore until the 55 lakhs of the inhabitants of the State do not support a solution to this question, it can never endure and last. If we all give a dispassionate thought to this question and act in concert with one another there is no reason for any despondency. The way in which we have conducted our business during the last eight days gives hope for future progress and establish the fact that this has been a historic gathering.
We have realised that a great lacuna in this Convention has been that persons from across the Cease-fire line who had been invited to attend this Convention had not been permitted to do so. At any event we shall strive hard to secure their participation at the next session of the Convention. May God bless our efforts and may the clouds of uncertainty and suspense, which over hung us, are quickly dissipated.
While addressing in Jamia Musjid on 25th October 1968 Moulvi Mohammed Farooq, President Awami Action Committee Jammu and Kashmir, while reviewing the present political situation in the state had observed as follows: –
The recent session of the State People’s Convention held in Srinagar had made it clear to the World that the PROBLEM OF KASHMIR was a living one, and it was of the utmost importance to find a solution to it so that the uncertainty which over-hung that State and the cold war which existed between India and Pakistan would end, so that the peace of the world Thereby be strengthened. The State people’s Convention Which was representative of all shades of opinion in the State and the other important personalities, had succeeded
In exposing machinations of a small clique, which in their own selfish interests reputed parrot – like that the State was an integral part of India and the issue of this accession was a settled fact.
In this connection, I had explained my stand and that of my party repeatedly and I wish once again to affirm that the question of the State’s accession is still unresolved and that so far the people of the State had not been given an opportunity to decide as to whether, they should accede to India or Pakistan, of their own free will and volition, although responsible Indian leaders and representatives of the Government of India had given a pledge to the people of Kashmir in 1947 and had since reaffirmed that pledge that the future of the State would be decided by a free and impartial plebiscite held under the United Nations auspices and Pakistan and the Security Council had ratified these assurances and pledges, they had not been implemented by India on one pretext or the other.
I, therefore, declare that the only way to settle this long-standing dispute is to hold the promised Plebiscite. That solution is a long just peaceful, democratic and in accordance with the realities of case. I had explained this aspect of the matter. While addressing the recent convention in Srinagar and I shall continue to press this with all the force at my command as and when an occasion presents itself.
We have so far been struggling hard for the vindication of our just rights and with God’s grace we shall continue to strive to do so hereafter, and we shall not consider any sacrifice too great for the realization of our inalienable right to self. Determination.
If India does not take advantage of the opportunity that has presented itself to it and continues to be intransigent, as before, then it will have entirely to blame itself.