
By Justice Markandey Katju–
(Justice Markandey Katju is a former Judge, Supreme Court of India, and former Chairman, Press Council of India. The views expressed are his own)
Following the Indian Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict upholding the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, Mohammad Abdullah, a member of the Rajya Sabha (the upper House of the Indian Parliament), who belongs to DMK Party in Tamil Nadu, created a controversy while participating in the debate on the J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill and the J&K Reservation (Amendment) Bill.
In his speech, the MP quoted social activist EV Ramasamy (Periyar) who said that, “Every race has a right of self-determination.” According to Mr Abdullah, this right of self-determination belongs to Kashmiris too.
This was immediately objected to by the India’s Vice President and the Chairman of the House Jagdeep Dhankhar.

Ministers of the ruling BJP also strongly objected to the statement. Congress party MPs, too, dissociated themselves from Mr Abdullah’s statement.
The right of self-determination belongs to a nation, not constituent parts of a nation. India is a nation with several constituent people such as Bengalis, Tamilians, Punjabis, Odias, Nagas, Biharis, Rajasthanis, Gujaratis, Kashmiris, etc.
The principle of federalism, which is incorporated in the Indian Constitution, really means catering to the regional aspirations of these constituent people (by granting them a state legislative assembly, state government, etc). But to say that these constituent people have a right of self-determination would mean that they have the right to secede from the Indian Union.
This is unacceptable. It would lead to the Balkanisation and break up of India.
In America, the southern Confederate states claimed the right to secede, and so a civil war, from 1861 to 1865, had to be fought to establish the principle that no state can secede from the Union. In fact, no nation can survive if its constituent people are given the right of self-determination.
Therefore, Periyar, as quoted by Mr Abdullah, was rightly condemned by the House chairman and its several members.
In my view, Periyar was a British agent serving the colonial policy of divide and rule. He was opposed to Independence (he called August 15, 1947 a day of mourning). You can read more about it here, here, and here.
Kashmir was independent only till 1588, when its last ruler Yusuf Shah Chak was deposed by Mughal Emperor Akbar, who conquered Kashmir and incorporated it into the Mughal Empire. After short spells of Afghan, Sikh and Dogra rule, Kashmir came under British rule as a princely state, with a Maharaja as its formal head.
Those who say that Kashmir was always independent have not read history.