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.
Malik M Ashraf
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon during his recent visit to India, dilating on the Kashmir dispute observed that it must be resolved according to the will of the people of Kashmir. He in fact reiterated what UN resolutions on the dispute stipulate. What he conveniently forgot was that it was actually the responsibility of the UN to get its resolutions implemented. The UN resolutions on Kashmir adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter remain legally binding on the parties. Article 25 also reiterates their obligatory nature. The Security Council under the UN Charter has the power to enforce its decisions and resolutions militarily or by any other means necessary; the powers that it has used during the Korean war in 1950, in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 and recently in East Timor. The matter, unfortunately has lingered on due to the Indian intransigence and backtracking on the UN resolutions and the apathy shown by the UN to have the resolutions on Kashmir implemented.
The on-going process of dialogue and resumption of trade ties with India will be welcomed by all those who believe in peace in the region and an end to the arms race between India and Pakistan that has consumed precious resources of both the countries which otherwise would have been spent on changing the economic situation of their teeming millions. We have seen such attempts in the past as well ending in a whimper. Unless the Kashmir issue is resolved these measures will not succeed in ending animosity between the two countries. The passage of 64 years has not changed the legal status of the dispute and as a matter of fact the first step should have been to negotiate on the settlement of the dispute on Kashmir; the rest would have followed automatically. But the process has been initiated the other way round.
Perhaps a cursory look at the legal perspective on the Kashmir conundrum will be in order here. According to the Indian Independence Act, the rulers of princely states were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. They were, however, advised to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into consideration the geographical and demographic realities. Lord Mountbatten in letter written to Maharaja in October 1947 accepted the accession provisionally and made it clear that the state would only be incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the people of Kashmir. It is thus quite evident that in the so-called instrument of accession as well as the partition plan, two elements were of paramount importance i.e. the will of the people and geographical contiguity.
In case of Kashmir both these elements were negated. Kashmir was contiguous to Pakistan and majority of its population was also Muslim. It had cultural and historic links with Pakistan and had remained under Muslim rule for centuries before Ranjit Singh annexed it. In regards to the UN resolution on Kashmir it is relevant to point out that in the wake of the war that broke out between the two countries after the landing of Indian forces in Kashmir, it was India who took the matter to the United Nations, which facilitated an immediate ceasefire. The UN during the course of its deliberations on the subject passed twenty three resolutions, including two UNICEP resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5th January 1949 calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir under the auspices of United Nations. It is also pertinent to mention that the UN through its resolutions 91 and 122 also repudiated Indian stance that the issue of accession of Kashmir had been resolved by the constituent assembly of Kashmir. These resolutions reiterated that the question of accession could not be resolved by any means other than enunciated in the UN resolutions on the subject. This proves beyond any doubt that the Indian claims of Kashmir being an integral part of India represent travesty of the facts and lack any legal basis.
In the wake of 1971 war between India and Pakistan, Simla Agreement was signed and clause 6 of the agreement emphasized the resolution of all disputes between the two countries including Kashmir through peaceful means, bilaterally. The very fact that India acknowledged Kashmir as a disputed territory in Simla Agreement,also negated its claims of Kashmir being its integral part. But unfortunately the Indians have never shown honesty of purpose in resolving this issue and have used varying tactics to suspend or scupper the process of dialogue. It has always remained evasive on the core issue of Kashmir. The Indians also claim that in view of the Simla Agreement, Pakistan cannot internationalize the Kashmir dispute. That stance is also devoid of any legality.
The bilateral agreement does not change the status of the dispute. It also does not preclude the possibility of raising it again at the UN in case the bilateral agreement fails to deliver. Article 103 of UN Charter says “ In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the UN under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present charter will prevail” What it means is that the UN resolutions on Kashmir will take precedence over all other international agreements on the same issue. So Pakistan is very much within its right to invoke UN resolutions, after having been frustrated to find solution through the bilateral arrangement.. It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the legal status and obligations of the parties to the dispute under UN resolutions and that of the Security Council to have its resolutions implemented, remain unaffected.
