The freedom movement of Kashmir started in 1931. In spite of the fact that 500000 people have sacrificed their lives, thousands have become homeless and suffered heavy losses of their property; this movement still continues with zeal and zest. Seventy years have passed now. It is a national freedom movement and a large part of the population is taking part in it.

It is a public and democratic movement. India is trying to crush it with the merciless use of power and violence. But the poor and helpless people have refused to surrender before Indian forces. Old, young, men, women and even students are participating in this movement fearlessly. We should understand completely that the use of terrorism for political purposes is a kind of militancy in which common citizens are harmed. On the contrary, the freedom movement is a political struggle for the right of self-determination of a wretched or miserable nation. Generally, the occupying forces try to suppress it by state violence and power. During this struggle, people who are the victims, have to resist and strike in response. This struggle for the right of self-determination and freedom is a political process. If we have to use force against military forces of the occupying state, even then this struggle will remain a movement of resistance. It cannot be called terrorism. This legal and natural right is admitted in the charter of the UN and various resolutions of the General Assembly. Especially the resolution no, 1514(15) of 1960, which is regarded as the “Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and People”. Not only a country but the people of a specific region are also given the right of struggle against colonial or occupying forces. Similarly, there is another important resolution no, 2625(25) of General Assembly of 1970, with the title of “Declaration on Principles of International Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States”. These resolutions are an admitted part of international law. Similarly, in “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and “International Covenant on Economic”, people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue economic, social and cultural development.

If the occupying force uses power against them during this struggle, then the authority changes into belligerent occupation. In this situation, civil disobedience and use of legitimate force is a right of the movement of resistance and it is recognized as a right to self defence in law. From the American freedom movement, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson (1826-1743), up to Ireland, Aljazire, Kenya, South Africa, there are more than one hundred countries that are included in this list. South Sudan, Eastern Timor, Kosovo, Bosnia, Palestine and Kashmir are the recent examples of it. That’s why every use of force is not regarded as violence or terrorism in international law. The legitimate war that is based on positive struggle for rights, defence and freedom is an admitted fact. The use of force collectively in the war of self-defense and freedom in the charter of the UN is a clear example of it. The UNO supported the wars that were fought for the right of self-determination. When the nations achieved freedom, it acknowledged them as free and legitimate states. Christopher O Quaye, an expert of international law, has mentioned this rule in these words “Almost in all freedom movements an essential element is use of power. The UN has encouraged the freedom movements in its resolutions continuously and regarded some of them as courageous, it shows that the UN accepts the use of force as legal.” (Liberation Struggle in International Law. Philadelphia, Temple University Press 1991. Page-282). He again writes, “Terrorism and the struggle for freedom are not the same activities. All institutions of the UN has a consensus that every struggle for the right of self-determination is lawful and genuine.” The experts of international affairs who do not accept this position or stance so openly, they are also compelled to say that every use of force is not terrorism.

In the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations this concept is expressed in these words, “No agreement could be prepared on the issue of terrorism to prevent it. The basic reason is that there are some problems to define it according to the political priorities. A man is a terrorist for someone and freedom fighter for the other. That’s why international law is unable to explain it.” (Graham Evans, Richard Ninham. Page-177).

However, he acknowledges that the political right of self-determination has been recognised now. It has a relation with the right of the people of a region, that they should decide their future by themselves.

“According to the rules of the political right of self- determination, people have a right to decide without any pressure. This concept is found in the (American) declaration of independence in 1776 and in the human rights declaration of France. The UN has tried on different occasions to relate this concept with the abolition of the colonial period and in this way it could be regarded as legal right and a positive duty instead of a desire only.”(Page477-478).

In the light of this debate, we can analyze that the freedom movement of Kashmir has no relation with terrorism. America has violated the international law openly by declaring Syed Salahuddin as a global terrorist. There is a logical consequence of this action. America has included Syed Salahuddin in a caravan of freedom fighters which has 1st American president Jefferson, Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Mugabe, Abdul Qadir Aljaziree, Sabhash Chandar Boss and Bhagat Singh as its members.