WHAT IS A REFERENDUM?
Referendum is the process of direct voting to get the decision of a community on a single political question. Through referendum several nations have achieved independence. Most recently, South Sudan was created as an independent country through referendum. Scotland and Quebec both held referenda on the question of independence from UK and Canada, respectively.
WHAT IS PUNJAB REFERENDUM 2020?
Punjab Referendum 2020 is a campaign to liberate Punjab, currently occupied by India. The campaign aims to gage the will of the Punjabi people with regards to reestablishing Punjab as a nation state. Once we establish consensus on the question of independence, we will then present the case to the United Nations for reestablishing the country of Punjab.
WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PUNJAB REFERENDUM 2020 CAMPAIGN?
The objective of the Punjab Referendum 2020 campaign is to give the people of Punjab an opportunity to vote on their future political status. Once there is a consensus within the Punjabi people that independence from India is desired, we will then approach the UN and other international forms and bodies with the goal of reestablishing Punjab as a nation state.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUNJAB REFERENDUM 2020 AND AN OFFICIAL REFERENDUM?
An official referendum has an outcome that is legally binding on all parties involved. In Sudan, the United Nations administered a referendum authorized by the Sudanese government. Once conducted the South Sudanese people opted for independence. This decision was accepted by the United Nations and all major powers.
However, Punjab Referendum 2020 is an unofficial referendum where the outcome is not legally binding on India. Yet with an over whelming yes vote this unofficial referendum will start the process through which we will eventually conduct an official legally binding referendum in Punjab thereby peacefully establishing Khalistan.
HOW IS AN OFFICIAL REFERENDUM THAT CREATES AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY CONDUCTED?
The official referendums that grant independence and create separate countries are conducted by:
WHAT IS THE LAW REGARDING OFFICIAL REFERENDUMS AND PEOPLES RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION?
Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations grants the right to self-determination to all peoples. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights also guarantee right to self-determination for all peoples. Under UN laws, nations with a separate religion or language have the right to self-determination and can seek a referendum to gain independence from the country occupying their territory. India has signed and ratified all the UN laws that guarantee right to self-determination to the people on the basis of separate religion and language.
HOW CAN SIKHS CONVINCE THE UN TO FORCE INDIA TO HOLD A REFERENDUM IN PUNJAB?
As a primary body to protect and promote human rights of all people, the United Nations listens and acts when a community approaches them in a large number.
The aim is to get 5 million votes in support of independence for Punjab through the Punjab Referendum 2020. The result of the Punjab Referendum 2020 will then be presented to the United Nations with a request for them to intervene and negotiate an agreement between the Punjabi peoples and India for holding an independence referendum in Punjab.
DOES THE UN LAW REQUIRE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF VOTES IN SUPPORT OF INDEPENDENCE TO QUALIFY FOR UNITED NATION’S INTERVENTION?
No, UN laws do not specify any number of votes to qualify for intervention. UN law only guarantees right to self-determination to all peoples on the basis of religion and language. The target of five (5) million votes was set to show the UN the will amongst the Sikh community for independence of Punjab justifying UN intervention.
WHERE WILL THE VOTING FOR THE PUNJAB REFERENDUM 2020 BE CONDUCTED?
The voting in this unofficial referendum will be conducted in 20 countries. The countries will include the state of Punjab currently occupied by India, USA, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and other countries of Europe and Asia.
WHAT IS THE VALUE OF PUNJAB REFERENDUM 2020 CAMPAIGN IN THE WESTERN WORLD?
Since 1984 western countries have granted refugee status to hundreds of thousands of Sikhs on the grounds that Sikhs are persecuted in India because of their religion and for supporting the reestablishment of an independent Punjab, Khalistan.
However, the Indians have consistently portrayed those who advocate for Khalistan as a small fringe group of extremists, radicals and even terrorists. Yet this narrative is anything but the truth. Those who advocate for the reestablishment of Punjab as an independent country want to do so in a peaceful and legal way. It is India that resorts to violence and terrorism against those who peacefully advocate for this cause.
An unofficial referendum will dispel the Indian propaganda that only a small number of Sikhs want independence and those that do are violent extremists and possibly even terrorists. Furthermore, it will expose India's commitment to democracy, or lack thereof, by their actions of refusing to recognize the results of the unofficial referendum or conducting an official one to resolve the question of Khalistan.
In addition, it will allow us to engage in dialogue with UN, Western nations and other countries that are interested in supporting the will of the indigenous people of Punjab. This dialogue will be a starting point to reestablishing an independent Punjab.
-Sikhs For Justice
RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
In 1918, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson prophetically proclaimed "self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril”.
In the last 100 years, new states have emerged either through decolonization, secession, dissolution, merger and peace treaties. Most of these methods are noncontroversial and states employing them are welcomed onto the world stage.
For the people of Punjab two methods are available for independence the first being secession, unilaterally declaring independence from India, and the second being the solution, dissolution of India as a nation state resulting in the creation of several smaller states. Below we will examine secession then dissolution as a means of liberating Punjab from Indian occupation. But first we need to understand different doctrines of international law governing self-determination.
Doctrines
Montevideo Convection
In 1933 during the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States the Montevideo Convention articulated 4 features the state as a person of international law should possess. Those criteria being:
It is questionable how stringently a state must comply with this list. This is because today there exist states that do not possess all the attributes listed but are nevertheless recognized internationally. An example of this can be found in Israel. Israel is one example of an internationally recognized state that has yet to define its permanent border, thereby failing to satisfy the Montevideo Convention. While on the other hand, there are others that do meet the defined criteria but are nevertheless not considered states. Taiwan meets all four aspects of the Montevideo Convention but is not recognized as a state internationally.
In the case of Punjab, we do have a permanent population, defined border, a government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. When we reach the threshold of independence, we will be able to satisfy the Montevideo Convention.
Uti Possidetis Juris
When determining the borders of new states, the international community presumptively applies the doctrine of Uti Possidetis. Uti possidetis juris was primarily used during the period of decolonization in Latin America and Africa. It allowed for colonial borders, irrespective of how arbitrary they were, to be established as international borders. The reasoning behind applying uti possidetis when new states immerged is, firstly, it reduces the potential for violence because the borders of each state is predefined and not able to change through aggression. Secondly, it is believed that a “cosmopolitan democratic state” will have the capacity to function within any boundary thereby making pre-independence borders as acceptable as any other. However, this presumption can be rebutted especially where the occupying state maliciously abuses this principle.
Uti Possidetis Juris is a rebuttable presumption as was done in the case of Kosovo. Kosovo was a part of Serbia when Serbia declared independence. The doctrine of Uti Possidetis required Kosovo to remain a part of Serbia because the borders of Serbia could not be changed under this principle. However, the international community recognized the need to change Serbia's borders to better reflect the people's needs.
In the case of Punjab our initial borders will be the current state of Indian occupied Punjab. But, we will also rebut the principle of Uti Possidetis Juris due to the unauthorized carving up of Punjab. Once independent, we will use all means to re-integrate territories unjustly removed from Punjab.
Internal vs External Self-Determination
To limit independence movements in the immersion of new states, self-determination is viewed through two streams. External self-determination enjoys all rights and recognitions bestowed upon an independent nation state. Internal self-determination involves “a people’s pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state”, as was stated by the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of Quebec’s independence.
Peoples aspiring for independence our now encouraged, in some situations, to first explore the option for internal self-determination. However, those who have suffered human rights violations at the hands of the state they wish to secede from are exempt from internal self-determination and recognized as having the right to external self-determination.
The Punjab would be exempt from internal self-determination due to India's massive human rights violation against the Sikh peoples. This includes the 1984 Sikh Genocide in which over 30,000 Sikhs were systematically exterminated in the period of three days. This also includes the systematic campaign of terrorism unleashed by the Indian state through its paramilitary forces and police during the period of 1984 to 1996.
Secession
Secession involves a territory declaring itself unilaterally independent from a state without that states consent. In the case of Punjab, when we declare independence from India it may be a unilateral declaration due to the fact India will likely object.
Article 1(2) of the Charter provides that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. Furthermore, Article 55 provides that the United Nations shall promote a number of goals with a view “to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.
The word “peoples” is internationally accepted as encompassing those groups that have a common language, religion or ethnicity and not only to independent states. This is because while drafting the charter the representatives had the option of using the word “state” instead of peoples, but they nevertheless opted to pick “peoples” which includes those peoples without a state of their own.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 also reaffirm this interpretation of peoples. Article 1(1) provides: “All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” By once again using the term “peoples” and not states the international community acknowledged the right to self-determination was not a state monopoly but applicable to all peoples.
In the case of Punjab, Punjabi is the common language uniting all Punjabi people. Punjab is home to all major religions; however, it is the Sikhs that are predominant in Punjab. Thus, based on language and religion the Punjabi people are a “peoples”, as per the UN understanding of the word, and there for their right to self-determination is protected under the UN Charter.
Some have questioned if the right to self-determination for peoples, those groups without the state of their own, conflicts with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which states “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. The argument here is because the UN charter protects the territorial integrity of a state, non-state actors cannot unilaterally declare independence.
However, the International Court of Justice clarified this position when it ruled in the matter related to Kosovo. The International Court of Justice stated that states declaring themselves unilaterally independent are not bound to respect the territorial integrity of their parent state. Thus, under international law unilateral declarations of independence are not illegal even where the occupying state argues their constitution does not allow for succession.
This interpretation is also consistent with India's own beliefs. India did not respect Pakistan's territorial integrity with regards to Bangladesh, rather, India recognized Bangladesh's right to self-determination thereby violating Pakistan's territorial integrity.
Disintegration
Dissolution occurs when one state disintegrates into smaller states. The international community is generally more willing to accept the appearance of new independent states when dissolution occurs.
When Yugoslavia disintegrated, the international community was unsure as to what was happening. Some were arguing that the various dates claiming independence from Yugoslavia were secessionist movements. Those who made this claim were attempting to place obstacles in front of the various peoples attempting to gain independence by arguing they should only attain internal self-determination and not full external self-determination.
However, when the international community examined the situation in the former Yugoslavia they determined what the world was witnessing was not several secessionist movements, rather, this was the disintegration of Yugoslavia. By making this determination the path to independence for the Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and later Kosovo was cleared.
India today is itself facing several liberation movements. Viewed independently they may be labelled secessionists, however, viewed collectively it will reasonably be recognized as the dissolution of India. Today in India the following states, or peoples within these states, are opposing Indian occupation:
These states constitute a majority of India today and working collectively can legally declare the disintegration of India is underway there by clearing the path for independence and universal acceptance.