Restrictions in Srinagar to prevent Eidgah march
Srinagar, May 21 : In occupied Kashmir, the authorities have placed the All Parties Hurriyet Conference Chairman, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and other Hurriyet leaders under house arrest to prevent them from leading a rally at Mazar-e-Shuhada in Eidgah area of Srinagar, today.
The APHC had announced to hold the rally to commemorate the martyrdom anniversaries of prominent liberation leaders, Mirwaiz Moulvi Muhammad Farooq and Khawaja Abdul Ghani Lone. It had also planned to lay foundation stone of the ‘Martyrs’ Wall’ at the Mazar-e-Shuhada.
Besides the APHC Chairman, those who put under house arrest included Maulana Abbas Ansari, Shabbir Ahmed Shah, Bilal Ghani Lone, Nayeem Ahmed Khan, Mukhtar Ahmed Waza, Zafar Akbar Butt, Masroor Abbas and Yasmeen Raja. Indian police also arrested APHC leader Mohammad Yousuf Naqash from his residence and shifted him to Safa Kadal police station in Srinagar.
Meanwhile, the occupation authorities have imposed strict restrictions in most parts of the Srinagar city to prevent people from taking out the rally. They have also sealed all roads leading to the Eidgah.
It was on 21st May in 1990 when unidentified gunmen killed Mirwaiz Moulvi Muhammad Farooq at his residence in Srinagar. More than 60 mourners were later martyred in Hawal area of the city when Indian troops fired upon his funeral procession.
On the same day, in 2002, Khawaja Abdul Ghani Lone, was assassinated by unknown assailants when he was returning from Eidgah after addressing a public gathering.
Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat
There is no dispute over the fact that Kashmir is an unresolved issue between India and Pakistan. In this regard, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement during his recent visit to Pakistan is highly significant.
He said: “Britain is responsible for many of the world’s historic problems, including the conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan.” This was indeed a bold statement, a reflection of the wrongs done to Pakistan.
Cameron, according to reports, also said that it was not his place to intervene in the dispute. ‘’I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.’’
So what happened at the time of partition, which Mr Cameron is pointing to?
The Indian Independence Act of 1947, which was in fact the partition plan of Sub-Continent, provided that the valley was free to accede either to India or Pakistan. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, dithered on the subject, as he probably wanted an independent Kashmir. He signed “Standstill Agreements” over the status of the valley with Pakistan while India refused to do so. The agreement was a step towards Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan as it provided Pakistan an automatic authority over Kashmir’s foreign policy.
But India, denying the basic principle of partition i.e. contiguous areas with Muslim majorities in both west and east India would go to Pakistan, started putting pressure on the Hindu ruler. Then Indian troops invaded the Muslim dominated state of Jammu & Kashmir and occupied it forcibly on the pretext that Pathan tribes from Pakistan had invaded the valley. Therefore, October 27 is marked as a “Black Day” in the annals of Kashmir history.
Under pressure, the Maharajah of Kashmir acceded to Indian union. Meanwhile, the first governor-general of India, Lord Mountbatten, and the first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, repeatedly pledged that the issue of Kashmir would be decided in accordance with the wishes of Kashmiris.
The Indian pledge was incorporated in the UN resolutions of August 13 1948 and January 5, 1949. But the free and impartial plebiscite was subsequently never held and unfortunately the Indian pledge was never honoured.
Now some 64 years down the line, the British prime minister’s statement acknowledges and confirms the universal truth that Kashmir is an issue between India and Pakistan. In fact, it is the most important issue that has seen at least three wars between the two neighbours.
The Indian establishment and some political parties cannot reject the issue out handedly and deny its existence. Indeed, the problem has been that some sections in India have tried to minimise the existence of the perennial problem between the two countries and that has exacerbated the problem.
In the backdrop of prime minister level talks in Mohali, it is time for the two countries to move forward and resolve the issue, to which the future of South Asia is linked, in a just and equitable manner.
