20 June2013
A Debate
on Azad Kashmir Act 1974 State Subjects Rules and UNCIP Resolutions
KASHMIR ONLY FOR KASHMIRIES — with Sardar Aashiq
Khan, Sardar Anayat Ullah Arif, Ishaq Sharif, Asad Khan, Javed Kashmiri, Sardar
Aftab Khan, Aslam Mirza, Krishan Dev Sethi, Ashfaq Ahmed Hashmi, Jahangir
Satti, Shams Rehman, Daalat Ali, Sardar M K Zia, Nayyar Niaz Khan, Ashique Hamdani,
Syed Ashique Hussain Hamdani, Ali Akhtar Al Qadir, Hussain Shaheed, Zahoor
Butt, Hassan Khawaja, Nisar Kayani, Raja Rashad Khan, Syed Khalid Gardazi,
Zahid Lone, Zulfiqar Malik, Saeed Asad, Manzoor Hussain Gilani, Shaukat Tamour,
Sadiq Subhani, Musabi Ur Rehman, Sajid Janjua, Haq Nawaz, Raja Farooq Haider
Khan, Asif Masood, Muhammad Yousuf Gilkar, Shujaat Tatari, Javed Inayat, Sajid
Shaheen Malik, Shaf Raja, Azad Raja, Jammu Kashmir, Faisal Jamil Kashmiri,
Nazir Gilani, Jay Iqbal, Ershad Mahmud, Taimoor Azam Lone and Talat Bhat.
Tag photoAdd locationEdit
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · Edit
Sardar Naveed
Ahmed Siddiq, Mohsin Shakil, Taimoor Azam Lone and 180 others like this.
198 shares
Manzoor Hussain Gilani
Welcome decision . This is the constitutional position .
Hope similar
decision on refugee seats shall be taken to restore the constitutional position
and sovereignty of ajk assembly and people of ajk
20 June at 18:50
via mobile · Unlike · 3
Nazir Gilani Why did AJK
judiciary fail to take a SUO MOTO action in this regard. They are custodians of
the Constitution and live in 2013.
20 June at 18:56 ·
Unlike · 3
Rizwan Rauf Baba · 197
mutual friends
AJK high court ko
kon manta hai .
20 June at 18:58 ·
Unlike · 4
Manzoor Hussain Gilani
Courts should decide matters which are taken to them rather to become a party
to issue
20 June at 19:00
via mobile · Unlike · 3
DrAftab Hussain A
Historical Decision from AJK High Court After 1994.Yes Justice is Justice.
20 June at 19:03 ·
Like · 3
Jammu Kashmir
Libration Zabardast Bohat Achay...
20 June at 19:03 ·
Like · 1
Israr Mughal good news
20 June at 19:03 ·
Like · 1
Jhangir Kashmiri Very
good news..
20 June at 19:09 ·
Like · 2
Mirza Babar laint ofcr
or minister kashmir affair ko kon kaladm kre ga ? judge sb
20 June at 19:16 ·
Like · 1
Nazir Gilani Courts
defend issues when brought to them but have a duty to defend Constitution on
their own as well.
20 June at 19:17 ·
Like · 3
Manzoor Hussain Gilani
No such law authorises , except when a matter is pending before the court and
it becomes collaterally unavoidable to take judicial notice
20 June at 19:20
via mobile · Like
Mirza Babar i dont
know which constitution is working in kashmir, Govt also have no jurisdiction
to amend is this a constitution or rubbish.
20 June at 19:21 ·
Like · 1
Mirza Babar mattere is
sub judice in u.n than why pak is violntng such laws like gilgt provnce and
water issues
20 June at 19:26 ·
Like · 1
Nazir Gilani Common
citizens and at times elected representatives in India and Pakistan have
publicly requested their respective Supreme Courts to take Suo Moto actions.
Supreme Courts in both countries have taken Suo Moto actions. Supreme Court of
Pakistan has taken notice of 1931 Tax Act and is finding it against the Human
Rights and Constitution in 2013.
20 June at 19:29 ·
Like · 2
Shaf Raja I hope this
decision is as interpreted in papers & will not be reversed under technical
constitutional, institutional or administrative excuses as it happened in 1994
AJK High Court`s decision regarding Gilgit Baltistan`s status.
20 June at 19:31 ·
Like · 2
Nazir Gilani UNCIP
Resolutions in AJK have the same force as Article 19 of the constitution of
Pakistan. Supreme Court of Pakistan is considering that Provisional Collection
of Taxes Act 1931 is in violation of the fundamental rights as the citizens
cannot be exploited under article 19 of the constitution. Laws violative of fundamental
rights can be stricken off. State Subject is a fundamental inherent right of a
Kashmiri and any violation of it should attract the Suo Moto action of the
Court.
20 June at 19:38 ·
Like · 3
Shaf Raja The Suo Moto
should have been taken in 1970s when State subject Rule had been suspended in
GB. In recent years there are too many rumors about fake/corrupted State
Subject certificate (State Nationality). By the way,which organisation comes
under AJK- Council keeping 52 subjects in mind under council`s legislation
according to Act-1974.
20 June at 19:51 ·
Like · 2
Sadiq Subhani If
that's the case, it should be chaired by a Kashmiri also. What about current
set up in which Prime Minister chairs Kashmir Council.
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Courts can exercise that jurisdiction which is
conferred upon them by constitution or law. Ajk sc does not have the
jurisdiction like scp
Sc pakistan exercises the duo Moto jurisdiction when a cause
is brought to its notice by any person involving F Rts or submitted by the
registrar
Courts interpret and enforce law not wishes of citizens
UNCIP resolutions are not enforceable by security council
itself what to speak of a court or govt
Ajk council must be done away with and except federal
subjects every power be transferred to ajk
For the purpose of federal subjects ajk representatives be
included in federal legislature and executive
I THINK I HAVE MET ALL THE POINTS RAISED BY THE FRIENDS
21 June at 02:34 via mobile · Like · 1
Nazir
Gilani It is against the jurisprudence of ‘equality of people’,
UN Resolutions on right of self-determination and AJK Constitution if we allow
or accept a ‘federated’ relationship with Pakistan prior to the time and manner
provided in article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Pakistan is in AJK as a member nation of UN and as a party
to the Kashmir dispute strictly under UNCIP Resolutions and not as a
“Federation”.
The basis of AJK Government are the UNCIP Resolutions and
the presence of Pakistan here is to discharge its duties under UNCIP
Resolutions. Therefore, the question of UNCIP Resolutions not being enforced by
UN is extraneous to this debate. That is a different subject.
The Government in AJK under UNCIP Resolutions has to be run
by judicial officers under the supervision of United Nations. Rule of Law and
Independence of Judiciary would be the common standard norm.
It is absurd to give up upon a UN Supervised Government in
AJK and ask for a seat in the “Federal Legislature and Executive”. It would be
a demand at war with our principal question of a title to self-determination
and encouraging Pakistan to promote further political corruption in AJK.
Panchayat Sarpanch’s in villages in Jammu and Kashmir on the
other side of cease fire line have enforceable authority. If AJK SC does not
have the authority like SC in Pakistan, we should be campaigning that AJK SC be
a judicial institution like its equivalent in Pakistan and not as a department
of a Government.
Accepting a second grade SC in AJK does not make any sense.
Remaining ignorant of the jurisprudence of UNCIP Resolutions
in AJK is a disservice to the people of Kashmir. Without respecting the assumed
duties under UNCIP Resolutions in AJK, Pakistan would be a ‘colonial’ power in
AJK.
21 June at 04:21 · Unlike · 4
DrAftab
Hussain Kashmir is not part of Indian federation and not part of
pakistani federation as well.
21 June at 04:55 · Like · 2
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani I am pleased and respectfully share the ideas. No
body is wrong as long as intention is good.people on ground in two parts of
state bear the brunt of circumstances and visualise the breakthrough from that
perspective as against cozy dewellers . Let us understand each other , improve
whatever and wherever we can without giving up the rest by shunning rage and
being pragmatic
21 June at 12:05 via mobile · Like · 1
Nazir
Gilani Supreme Court of Pakistan and Supreme Court of AJK
Pakistan
Supreme Court of Pakistan exercises its orginal jurisdiction
as custodian of Constitution and Defender of Fundamental Rights (Human Rights)
of the common man.
AJK
Supreme Couert of AJK is a second Grade Judiciary without
any desire to be like SC of Pakistan and judges act like employees of any other
Department in the Government. It does not have any regard of its higher burden
of responsibility under UNCIP Resolutions.
Following are the parts of decision in Suo Moto action taken
by the SC of Pakistan in the interests of justice and welfare of the common
citizen.
Constitution Petition No.33 & 34 of 2005
(Regarding sudden increase in petroleum products on
13.06.2013 due to increase in sales tax)
And Civil Misc. Application No.3821 of 2013
Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra
Senator Rukhsana Zuberi
…Petitioners
Versus
Federation of Pakistan and others
…Respondents
(ii) Under proviso to rule 20(2)(c) of the Sales Tax Special
Procedures Rules, 2007, 9% in addition to the Sales Tax Const.P.33-34/05 3
prescribed under section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 imposed or recovered from
the consumers on CNG is unconstitutional and contrary to Articles 3, 9, 24 and
77 of the Constitution as well as section 3 of the Sales Tax Act;
(iii) Section 4 of the Act, 1931 as a whole is declared
unconstitutional being contrary to Article 70 of the Constitution, which lays
down the procedure for legislation;
(iv) Section 5 of the Act, 1931 does not lay down parameters
for the purpose of refund of the recovered taxes to the consumers, as such, in
absence of any workable mechanism, it is not enforceable in its present form;
(v) As a consequence of above declaration, the Federal
Government has no lawful authority to levy, impose and recover Sales Tax @ 17%
from 13.06.2013 on the value of taxable supplies made in course or furtherance
of any taxable activity until passing of the Finance Bill (Money Bill) 2013-14,
which has already been tabled before the Majlis-e-Shoora;
(xi) The OGRA shall issue revised notification fixing prices
of CNG as per above observations forthwith recovering Sales Tax @16% on taxable
supplies till passing of Finance Bill (Money Bill) 2013-14 by the
Majlis-e-Shoora
The decision is spread over (XI) paragraphs.
21 June at 12:14 · Unlike · 3
Nazir
Gilani Judge Sahib "Cozy Dwellwers" is not a legal
argument. It is not even a lay persons manner of argument. In Kashmiri it is
called "Jhangur" or in Paharai "Dang Tapao". Juristic
argument is based on juristic wisdom and not on domicile. This approach is the
inherent problem of a Second Grade judiciary in AJK.
21 June at 12:31 · Unlike · 3
Shaf
Raja Very good discussion, specially limitations & jurisdiction
of AJK-SC & Status of AJK under UN.
21 June at 13:16 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja By the way the AJK-SC (Judges Oppointment) itself is dealt
by Kashmir Council & the jurisdiction of S.C or AJK Assembly or Govt is
still having a question mark.... ?
21 June at 15:20 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja The term Second Grade judiciary used by Nazir Gillani sb
for AJK-SC (or Judicial System of AJK as whole) is a new & important
addition in this chapter & to be discussed in depth & with all aspects.
Good Luck
21 June at 15:29 · Like · 2
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Fikar e har kus ba qadra Humata oo ast
21 June at 15:34 via mobile · Like
Wajdan
Alkhairi · 12 mutual friends
taub pasandi
21 June at 16:03 · Like
Nazir
Gilani Judge Sahib this Farsi induction remains extraneous to
the dignity of the debate on the "Role of Judiciary in AJK". We are
discussing "Juridical Fikar" and this "Fikar" has its own
measuring standards. We would like to profit from your "Juridical
Fikar" to enhance the debate in the interests of our Judiciary in AJK.
21 June at 16:10 · Like · 3
Comrade
Surakh Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb,Are more loyal to Pakistan then
having and enjoying a privilege of stste subject holder of Kashmir.Even they
fail to protect and honour to the state subject rule 1927.Their most recent
effort to declare Azad Kashmir as a sixth province of Pakistan.Please remember
they already had been celebrated GB as a fifth defecto province of Pakistan.
21 June at 17:16 · Edited · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=568786996505822&set=a.190786960972496.68364.100001235809671&type=1&theater
Photo
Mobile Uploads
AJK High Court Dicision
by: DrAftab Hussain
21 June at 20:00 · Like · Remove Preview
Nazir
Gilani Courts need not be bold. They need to be fair and
equitous in the administration of justice. It is a good judgement. It is again
a serious question that non State Subjects appoint judges in AJK.
21 June at 20:12 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Dear comrade , I am consciously with my full
address wedded to the ideolgy of Pakistan and don't withdraw the words after
posting them, but have never suggested ajk to be a province.i have suggested a
way out given my experience to make the position better nd wait till it becomes
best. Let us keep on exploring without being influenced by NGO interests
21 June at 20:16 via mobile · Like
Nazir
Gilani Judge Sahib there is no doubt about your integrity. But I
may have an issue with your understanding of law and jurisprudence of Kashmir
case. NGOs are a transparent semblance of civil society. Judiciary and judicial
officers too have interests. Your statement unfortunately lacks in duty to
fairness and is offensive. NGOs have played a lead role in fighting for the
Independence of Lawyers and Judges in Pakistan and AJK. Judges many a time have
agreed to be 'General's Judges' betraying the Constitution but NGOs have
challenged the Generals in the interests of Independence of Judiciary in
Pakistan and AJK.
21 June at 20:34 · Edited · Like
Comrade
Surakh Manzoor Hussain Gilani Sb,From your last interaction on
face book and media reports including your intellectual legal framework work
published on internet and social media as I understood "IT IS IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN TO GIVE AZAD KASHMIR A PROVINCIAL STATUS
IN THE CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN THEN THEY ARE ABLE TO CLAIM EQUAL STATUS LIKE
OTHER PAKISTANI PROVINCES INCLUDING IN THE COUNCIL OF CONMAN INTEREST ? Kindly
let me know the about my understanding on your position ? Due to your expert in
legal and constitutional matters and with the knowledge of UNCIP resolutions do
you have a courage to challenge the Pakistani military occupation of POK ,POGB
? At the retired age of your life if you speak the truth against Pakistani
occupation you will definitely gaining more respect and honour in Kashmiri
folds.Now its up you that you have a courage to stand on the right side ?
21 June at 21:30 · Edited · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Pl visit www. arjk.org
21 June at 21:51 via mobile · Like
Comrade
Surakh For what ?
21 June at 22:37 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Justice sab wants a setup in POK same as in IOK.
21 June at 22:42 · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Comrade sb it is what We propose about ajk and
gb. U wll find two books on it . One is about article wise amendments proposed
in arjk, gb and Pakistan constitutions and the other is my articles on
different pplitical and legal matters
21 June at 23:03 via mobile · Like
Comrade
Surakh Dr.Aftab sb,For that they have to oppose the role of
military establishment in Pakistan and are able to secure the weak feudal and
industrial democracy and to learn and get the democracy in Pakistan
first.Unfortunately Gilani sb is on the side of military establishment.They are
unable to oppose the military janta of Pakistan.
21 June at 23:05 · Edited · Like
Javed
Inayat It is very unfortunate that Manzoor Hussain Gilani's
caliber people are not able to say anything in favor of divided occupied
oppressed Kashmiri people. I do not know Manzoor Gilani sab what is behind your
logic of becoming part of Pakistani institutions? Do we need to bargain with
Pakistani state while becoming more subservient to their institutions instead
of strengthening our own institutions. I am really surprise that your being a
top Judge of our AJK Supreme court and once a head of our judiciary did not
stand for Judiciary but you have been on the media since a while now advocating
something which will take away our fake artificial status. Why do not we demand
what we deserve to have as citizen of Jammu Kashmir state. Our elites and top
state officials are behaving like worse kind of slaves, even though their
pension is coming from AJK Govt. not from Pakistani state. We need say more
rights, more democracy, more constitutional freedom, our local state Govt
should be givem more space to run local state affairs, it colonial region of
Pakistani general sitting in Murree. It really great surprise to us that you
people do not care about local population to have more rights and have our
region independence and more control over our resources. We need to demand more
separation from Pakistan, you want us to bec, why? there is no need to hide
truth.
21 June at 23:08 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Dr aftab sb with greater local authority without
making aljk and gb provinces of Pakistan
21 June at 23:09 via mobile · Like
Comrade
Surakh Gilani sb,The role of writers in history is to change
world and nation.From your articles the military establishment of Pakistan is
happy and that's why with that type of thoughts Pakistan is going to be a fail
state soon.Do pro establishment school of thought have any guts to save the
Pakistan
21 June at 23:10 · Like · 1
Javed
Inayat Pakistani state already has been occupied our region and
it being called '' Pakistani occupied Kashmir'' just like other side is Indian
occupied Kashmir, what else Pakistan needs after that, our slavery is already
legalized through act 74, Manzoor Gilani sab only want them to accept us as
salves and recognize this region as occupied region. I think easy way out is
that Pakistan let local POK govt handle its own local affairs as an independent
country, now any one has any doubt about Indian and Pakistani intentions, must get
awareness about history. Pakistan itself is failed sate and our top state
officials want us to jump in to this sinking boat.
21 June at 23:16 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain After withdrawl of Both Armies from JK it would be
possible for greater local authorities.
21 June at 23:17 · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain
https://www.facebook.com/draftab.hussain/media_set?set=a.482072948510561.131550.100001235809671&type=3
Photo
آئینی ترامیم۔تجزیاتی تجاویز مکمل 26
Pages
تحریر شفقت راجہ
by: DrAftab Hussain
Photos: 31
21 June at 23:17 · Like · Remove Preview
Wajdan
Alkhairi · 12 mutual friends
apan hec kb bnaou gy ?????? apan police ka mehkma ???? apan
dak system ??? apan state bank ??????? apnay matual fund ?????? apni insurance
companies ????????? apna stack exchange ???????????????? woh b apan bnaou na na
shukaoru ?????? apni ryasat alag kiu ni krtay ???????????????????? Pakistaniou
sy itni jalti hy tou ??????
22 June at 07:23 · Like
Comrade
Surakh Manzoor Hussain Gilani Sb,None of my questions answered
why ?
22 June at 09:19 · Like · 1
Comrade
Surakh Manzoor Hussain Gilani Sb,If your position is to stand on
Pakistan side then what is a difference between you and any other person from
Indian occupied Kashmir stand on the side of India.If you serve the interests
of Pakistan how come you represent Kashmiries wanted an independent united
Kashmir.
22 June at 09:23 · Like · 1
Comrade
Surakh Dr.Afatb sb,The 26 pages,constitutional amendments
written by Shafaqat Raja,1- What is your understanding regarding purposed
suggestions ? 2-Which section of the society endorse this and have a any comprehensive
debate or any counter productive or alternative argument have been raised in
any where ? 3- The flag shows that its only represent Azad Kashmir. 4- What is
the feed back form the Azad Kashmir legislative committee who took
responsibility to address the issue of amendments in Azad Kashmir Act 1974 ?
22 June at 09:35 · Like · 1
Nazir
Gilani Ideology of Pakistan
Justice Gilani’s NGO ARJK has taken upon a serious work. His
other written work is in public domain. It is appreciable.
However, the work has to be argued and tested against other
views and opinions. Without an independent audit these works remain one
person’s narrative and could not be accepted as a full circle of wisdom on the
subject.
I find that in his various posts on FB justice has
misdirected himself on a number of basic elements.
He is free to remain wedded to the ideology of Pakistan and
so would others express themselves in the same manner. This claim does not make
him a special State Subject.
This choice would be available to all State Subjects of all
faiths and non-faiths in the future in accordance with article 257 of the
Constitution of Pakistan or UN Mechanism on Kashmir.
Oath
All political Offices in AJK require one to “remain loyal to
the country and cause of accession of the State of J & K to Pakistan”.
The oath of a Judge in AJK (cj SC and cj HC) does not
require this declaration.
The oath is against the Provisional Declaration of AJK
Government of 24 October 1947. This Government has to be non-communal, include
Muslims as well as non-Muslims. It has expressed equivalent sentiments of the
utmost friendliness and good will towards its neighbouring Dominions of India
and Pakistan and has expressed equal hope of support.
We should be debating that if a Judge in AJK is finally
appointed by a non-State Subject (non-Kashmiri) from Pakistan, he is not an
independent Judge. The authority that appoints is capable to remove a Judge.
Therefore, AJK Judiciary is Second Grade judiciary, which is
neither Custodian of the Right of Self Determination and other Fundamental
Rights nor has remained loyal to the Provisional Declaration of October 1947.
Even in 2013 one could safely say that judges in AJK have a Master Servant
Relationship with the chairman AJK Council a non-State Subject. The Principle
of Equality of Kashmiri People is abused.
UNCIP Resolutions
Justice does not seem to regard UNCIP Resolution role in
AJK. He is prepared to accept the overwhelming role of Prime Minister of
Pakistan a non-State Subject in retaining bulk of the authority as chairman and
through his 5 members on the AJK Council.
His complaint that UN could not enforce UNCIP Resolutions
and therefore it does not matter if Pakistan or AJK Government do not honour
their duties in AJK under UNCIP Resolutions is unjustified.
30 years and 10 months
Pakistan failed to raise the Kashmir Question at UN for 30
years and 10 months from 5 November 1965 to 15 September 1996.
His NGO ARJK in its first objective at (a) has accepted the
jurisprudence of UNCIP Resolutions. Therefore, ARJK has to reconcile its wisdom
in regard to the failure of Pakistan at the UN for 30 years and 10 months and
for remaining silent on the 4 Point Formula of General Musharraf.
No Suo Moto action was considered by AJK Judiciary against
those who distanced away from UNCIP Resolutions and acted as sales agents to
sell Musharraf’s 4 Point Formula.
A desire to be incorporated in the Federal System in
Pakistan remains at war with article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan,
jurisprudence of UNCIP Resolutions and the caution given to Kashmir Governments
by UN SC in its Resolution of 30 March 1951.
22 June at 13:35 · Edited · Like · 3
Nazir
Gilani Please read "could not be"
22 June at 12:02 · Like
Sadiq
Subhani Since Nazir Gilani Sahib has precisely represented the
Nationalists' views, I need nothing to add, I simply adopt his views stated in
the above posts. WELL SAID NAZIR GILANI Sahib.
Comrad
Surkh@ However, I would also take this opportunity to thank CJ
(Retired) Manzoor Hussain Gilani for offering his recommendations with
intentions to empower the people of POK GB & JK, for a general
consultation.
His gesture was first of this kind. Since the nationalists
have been expressing grave concerns about 1974 Act (the Act 74) and without
amending or repealing it, the empowerment was unachievable, few of us in
general and Shaf Raja in particular took this opportunity to critically examine
CJ (Ret) Manzoor Gilani's recommendations. Although, we agreed with the
empowerment of our people, we disagreed with CJ Sahib's proposals. However, at
any point we had not doubted Manzoor Gilani Sahib's intentions or sincerity to
empower our people. Although, not agreed, he appreciated our views through Shaf
Raja's draft analysis and Proposals.
I understand, Shaf Raja's draft along with many proposals by
others including CJ (Ret) Manzoor Gilani Sahib and Justice (Ret) Majeed Malik's
proposals were submitted to the Constitutional Committee chaired by Ch Matloob
Inqlabi MLA,
Mian Waheed MLA and a Minister is also a committee member.
Shaf Raja in the presence of Dr Aftab and I presented his draft to Mian Waheed
Sahib, Senior Minister Ch Yasin, Sardar Ghulam Mustafa the Speaker, Abdul Slaam
Butt MLA and Minister, Sardar Amjid Yousaf. Shaf has posted the drafts to all
committee members. The post was confirmed received by Inqalabi Sahib. In
addition to this when Shaf visited Motherland Kashmir in April, he presented
his draft to many other politicians including the Opposition leader Raja Farooq
Haider.
Although, Shaf Raja's draft was an analysis of CJ Gilani
Sahib's proposals accompanied by his alternative proposals, he received some
feedback during his visit to Muzaffarabad in April. We all including CJ Gilani
Sahib understand, that all proposals go through scrutiny before holding them
adoptable or non adoptable. The process takes years or even decades.
I think all those who participated in the consulatation
believe, the empowerment will not be possible without either amending or
repealing Act 74 which in all meanings is neither a verse of Holy Quran nor a
Hadith. It ought to end onday. Let's not lose our hopes. The outcome will be
encouraging.
22 June at 14:00 via mobile · Like · 2
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Very right subhani SB. Keep up. It is the
realistic view
22 June at 14:21 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam It is my intention to learn and understand the ajk interim
act 1974. Does it comply with dimensions given by the fundamental charter of
human rights.how much independent is the judiciary have independent powers in
this act.Why its necessary to find relief within this act when its protect only
the intrests of Pakistan .its wiping out the demands and real struggle of
independent Kashmir.
22 June at 14:45 · Unlike · 2
Nadeem
Aslam Supporting Act 1974 means to support the occupation of
Pakistan in pok & pogb
22 June at 14:50 · Unlike · 2
Shaf
Raja 34. General provisions regarding Council, etc.- (1) The
validity of any proceedings in
the Council, the Assembly or a joint sitting shall not be
questioned in any court.
(2) An officer or member or an authority in whom powers are
vested for the regulation of proceedings, conduct of business, maintain order
in the Council, the
Assembly, or a joint sitting shall not, in relation to the
exercise by him of any of those powers, be subject to the jurisdiction of any
court. (AJK Act.1974)
22 June at 17:04 · Like
Shaf
Raja 35. Authentication of Bills passed by the Council.- A bill
passed by the Council shall
not require the assent of the President and shall, upon its
authentication by the
Chairman of the Council, become law and be called an Act of
the Council.
22 June at 17:06 · Like
Shaf
Raja 3
[42. Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.- (1) There
shall be constituted a Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to be the
highest Court of appeal,
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Supreme Court
of Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall have such jurisdiction as is or may be
conferred on it by this Act or by or under any law. (Act 1974)
22 June at 17:09 · Like
Shaf
Raja 42(4) The Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be
appointed by the
President on the advice of the Council and each of the other
Judges of the Supreme
Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be appointed by the
President on the advice
of the Council after consultation with the said Chief
Justice.
22 June at 17:10 · Like
Shaf
Raja 42A(4) Subject to this Act and Law, the Supreme Court may,
in consultation with the Council, make rules regulating the practice and
procedure of the Court;
22 June at 17:16 · Like
Shaf
Raja Section-43,
[(2-A) A Judge of the High Court shall be appointed by the
President on the advice of the Council and after consultation –
22 June at 17:19 · Like
Shaf
Raja 43-HC Jurisdiction; (2) Subject to this Act, the High Court
3[may] if it is satisfied that no other
adequate remedy is provided by law.-
(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an
order.-
i. directing a person performing function in connection with
the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or local authority to refrain from doing
that which he is not permitted by law to do, or to do that which he is required
by law to do; or
ii. declaring that any act done or proceedings taken 4
[-------] by a person performing functions in connection
with the affairs of the state or a local authority has been done or taken
without law full authority , and is of no legal effect;
22 June at 17:27 · Like
Shaf
Raja The most important section is 52 subjects under Council`s
list.
22 June at 17:42 · Like
Shaf
Raja Third Schedule
[see section 31 (2)]
Council Legislatie list
Shaf
Raja 4. Council public services and Council Public Service
commission.
22 June at 17:43 · Like
Shaf
Raja 48. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts with respect to
any of the matters enumerated in this list.
49. Offences against laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in the list.
50. Inquiries and statistics for the purpose of any of the
matters enumerated in this list.
22 June at 17:44 · Like
Shaf
Raja 51. Matters which under the Act are within the Legislative
competence of the Council or relates to the Council.
52. Matters incidental or ancillary to any of the matters
enumerated in this list.
22 June at 17:45 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam Wa ji wa Shafqat sb aap to sary sections zar e bahas le
aye.
22 June at 19:08 · Edited · Like
Shaf
Raja Nadeem Aslam sb, Yeh woh sections hein jou iss waqt
zer-e-behs hein, so inko act-1974 hi k context mein janchna hoga. Plz give ur
input. Thnx
22 June at 18:01 · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam I Will humbly request to Dr.Nazir Gilani sb pleas
elaborate their expert opinion regarding these sections mentioned by the Shaf
sb thanks,
22 June at 19:15 · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Raja sb reproduce the suggested amendments also for
debate pl
22 June at 20:02 via mobile · Like
Shaf
Raja Do you mean, ur suggested amendments sir?
22 June at 20:20 · Like
Comrade
Surakh My questions were to for Manzoor Hussain Gilani ,But
unable to have any logical response from them till now?
22 June at 20:25 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Janab Justice sab please your expert opinion regarding
above sections mentioned by Shaf Raja thanks.
22 June at 20:25 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam Shaf sb,it will be easy for everyone if you raise the
relevant questions related to these sections of the interim Act 1974.What are
the issues that you wanted to raise regarding to the sections which are you
mention above ?
22 June at 20:28 · Like
Shaf
Raja The whole discussion is relevent to the above sections sir.
The formulation & jurisdiction of AJK hiegher courts & the subjects for
legislations in two houses i.e Legislative Assembly & AJK Council headed by
PM of Pakistan.
22 June at 20:35 · Like
Comrade
Surakh @ Sadiq Subhani ,The detail reply to the thread is
appreciable but if we see the history of nations the jurisprudence develop them
towards a modern civilised society.A theocratic opportunist Islamic society of
Pakistan where military brass control everything.Europe and other parts of the
developed society done too much sacrifices to achieve their civil
liberties.Manzor Gilani always stood on the side status quo.It is not difficult
to judge and measure their credible work and valued their impact on the society
in POK and around their ? A society where a gentleman and women are not safe it
is a out come this work.As for as concern to Azad Kashmir the comments made by
Nazir Gilani are enough to judge it like second grade judiciary.Every sincere
and credible work must have the impact on the society and the members of that
civil society enjoy the benefits of that hard work and recognise it in good
manners.But the situation in Azad Kashmir is going bad to worse who will take
that burden of this negligence.Where people are suffered with the axe of Act
1974 and the work of judiciary together with military janta.I thought that on
the standing of ideological school of thought you and Manzoor Gilani sb are two
parts of the river but you prove me wrong .I categorically raised these
questions to them.Hope he will be able to provide the answers and not try to
hide himself behind Subhani sb
22 June at 20:56 · Edited · Like
Nazir
Gilani Serious Debate
The debate has been made serious and credible by further
contributions of Shaf Raja, Comrade Surakh and relevant questions raised by
Nadeem Aslam and DrAftab Hussain.
Justice Sahib has desired that his recommended amendments be
posted for our information and for a debate. I have not seen his amendments
except his comments and comments by Sadiq Subhani that Justice Sahib intends to
seek the empowerment of AJK People though these proposed amendments.
Basic Flaw in Understanding
One could only agree with Justice Gilani’s proposed
amendments if the following questions are settled first.
1. Act 1974 has been authored by Government of Pakistan and
Government of Pakistan has authorised the President of AJK to introduce the
Bill in the AJK Assembly for consideration and passage.
2. UNCIP Resolutions as claimed in the Preamble of Act 1974
don’t provide any authority to Government of Pakistan to author a Constitution
for the People of AJK.
3. UNCIP Resolutions provide a mechanism of Governance for
all the three administrations of Jammu and Kashmir.
4. President of AJK under Act 1970 is elected under article
3 and under Act 1974 under article 5. The question remains is the President of
AJK a sub-ordinate officer of the Government of Pakistan, that he is authorised
by the Government of Pakistan to present a document in the form of Act 1974
authored by it.
5. Act 1974 is authored by the Government of Pakistan and it
instructs and authorises the President of AJK. A reference to President of AJK
in this manner speaks volumes about the merits of President’s office. He has
been identified as a ‘ROUTER’ and as a sub-ordinate.
6. I have yet to read or find a President of this kind in
any part of the world.
7. Therefore, the first and most important step in seeking
the Empowerment of AJK People is to question the merits of Act 1974 and examine
if Government of Pakistan has any power under UNCIP Resolutions to author Act
1974 in the present manner and again if Government of Pakistan has any power to
designate the President of AJK as a sub ordinate officer to carry out their
instructions.
8. It is a serious matter. Under the Principle of “Equality”
and Title to “Self-Determination”, a State Subject as an aggrieved person could
revert back to UN to find out whether Government of Pakistan has any authority
under UNCIP Resolutions to conduct itself in the manner of Act 1974.
You can’t seek amendments to an Act if it is Ultra Vires and
extraneous to the Principles of jurisprudence. The Act 1974 has no merit in
Law, in particular under UNCIP Resolutions. It is a Colonial dictate.
Justice Gilani’s NGO ARJK in Objective (a) submits itself to
the jurisprudence of UNCIP Resolutions. He should challenge the Act at core.
Seeking any amendments is surrendering the Sovereignty that inheres in a State
Subject in respect of Self Determination.
22 June at 21:43 · Edited · Like · 2
Shaf
Raja Nazir Gillani sb has raised very important points in the
context of UN Resolutions where AJK to be regarded as "Local
Authority" as reffered in Act.74 itself but not in practice. Nazir Gillani
sb has presented the true picture for administrative role of the head (The AJK
President). However there are few common points for amendments in this Act as
suggested by Manzoor Gillani sb but that will still need consent by the Council
& its Chairman (Pks PM). Where the credebility of AJK Assembly (or Govt)
comes to Zero.
22 June at 22:19 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=569340039783851&set=a.189959727721886.68029.100001235809671&type=1&theater
Photo
Timeline Photos
Kashmir Link Exclusive
by: DrAftab Hussain
22 June at 23:21 · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Nadeem
Aslam Manzoor Hussain Gilani
Yesterday at 06:08 via Mobile ·
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani
Dear friends
I had the privilege of exposing the hoax ness of AJK
constitution system in Supreme Court of Pakistan and after retirement demanded
its abolition
AJK high court decision bears me out
Let us join hands for its abolition and empowerment of AJK
PEOPLE at local and central level
This demand is based on my experience
Share
Rizwan Rauf Baba, Shahid Mehmood Wani, Kh Kashif Mir and 26
others like this.
Javaid
H Khan I am reading (critically) your proposal now a days.
Yesterday at 09:41
Zubair
Awan Dear Sir,
Again your proposal is missing the crucial linking gene
causing what is known as muscular dystrophy in the Kashmiri political fabric.
Your proposal is to frog-leap the impending decision of Kashmiris as to their
political future TO BE DECIDED by them only.
Issue of more constitutional empowerment comes after a
society has voted on its political future as a state.
17 hours ago via mobile
Tanzeel
Meraj The deprived clause of the society will certainly support
whole and kindheartedly the efforts for the empowerment of people of this side
locally and in center but the agents and traitors may take a different line as
per their past habit to deprive the people even from their basic rights that has
made them the deprived species like many deprived people on earth.
15 hours ago
Zubair
Awan Can it be that the AJK constitution challenged in the
Supreme Court of Pakistan? One struggles to find any legal nexus from
jurisdiction point of view!!!
15 hours ago via mobile
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani The flaw rectified by the HC OF AJK is just a
scanty glimpse , the constitution of AJK as a whole requires review to make it
a powerful document
Friends may study the proposals of ARJK on the subject
Visit www. arjk.org and petition filed in the SC of Pakistan
by me
6 hours ago via mobile
Akram
Sohail we may disagree with some aspects of Gilanni sahib's
proposals but we all have a resposibility to ask for those rights on the parity
of other citizens of this world.Right which are recognized by the charter of
human rights of UN may not be denied or postpond in the waiting of a solution
of kashmir dispute.
5 hours ago · 3
Akram
Sohail If it is realy a 'Kashmir Council' a costitutional body
,no non state subject can become the member or head of this body.
5 hours ago · 3
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Yes that is why we have proposed to scrap it
5 hours ago via mobile
DrAftab
Hussain But why on the price of Division of Jammu Kashmir ?
5 hours ago
Raja
Muzaffar گیلانی صاحب اسلام و علیکم آپ سے ملاقات
نہ ہو سکنے کا افسوس ہے۔ ٢٠٠٨ میں صدر مشرف کی تجاویز کے جواب میں انڈیا کے اخبارات
میں میرا ایک انٹرویو چھپا تھا اس میں سیلف رول کے ضمن میں میں نے کچھ سوالات اٹھاے
تھے ۔۔۔ نیا آہین بنانا پڑے گا۔۔۔
http://www.newageislam.com/interview/interview-with-jklf-leader-raja-muzaffar,-head-of-the-foreign-relations-committee-of-jklf/d/22
5 hours ago · 1
DrAftab
Hussain If some one wants the answer of Justice Gilani Sab's
proposal please read Shaf Raja's prosal i am pasting here please read those.
4 hours ago ·
Raja
Muzaffar Raja Muzaffar.: I don’t quite understand what he means
by the term "self-rule." This is one thing Kashmiri leadership should
focus on. We should demand a precise definition of the words "self-rule’
and "self-governance" and ask if this formula will be ...See More
5 hours ago · 4
Javaid
H Khan very interesting debate. So far, what I understood that
proposal presented by Gillani sab is truly of constitutional nature (AJK vis a
vis Pakistan) and missing its historical, constitutional (Jammu kashmir
conflicting context) and its international di...See More
3 hours ago · 3
Javaid
H Khan I believe until and unless Gillani sab doesn't address
and give a satisfactory answer on the issues I mentioned earlier, I am afraid
his proposal will not get support from civil society, intellectuals and writers
that I believe important to make public opinion within AJK.
3 hours ago · 3
Javaid
H Khan Friends, now a days, I am reading Gillani sab proposal,
shafqat raja critics ( I agree with many of points of raja sab and raised
similar objections in my URDU article published in Daily JammuKashmir-However
Raja sab besides meaningful critics should a...See More
Javaid
H Khan Moreover, I am leaving you another question here.
Nationalist from AJK demand that a constituent assembly should be formed in AJK
taking basic spirit from the declaration provisional govt formed in October (no
matter October 4th or 24th) 1947. Do you think their demand is valid and it is
a workable and practicable?
3 hours ago · 1
Shaf
Raja Justice (R) Manzoor Hussain Gilani Sb deserves the credit
to be the first for practically presenting the proposed amendments in Act.1974.
His efforts paved the way to make constitutional affairs a public issue for
discussions.The question about jurisdiction of Pakistan Sup. Court is still to
be explained by Honourable Gillani sb about his case mentioned above which is
purely a legal matter of AJK. Secondly (with due respect) , challenging the AJK
Act. 1974 in Pk SC was constititional & for the sake of law ? or the way
its been practiced in Gillani Sb's own case? Thirdly did he get a chance to
deliver in this regard being the CJ of Sup. Court of AJK ?
about an hour ago via mobile
Tanzeel
Meraj Only few but great people make efforts to change the
vulnerable lives of common people.Only such people are remembered in history
always not every one. May be for next two centuries the Kashmir imbroglio is
not resolved does it mean the status co in AJ...See More
3 minutes ago
Interview with JKLF leader Raja Muzaffar, Head of the
foreign relations committee of J.K.L.F,...
www.newageislam.com
Interview with JKLF leader Raja Muzaffar, Head of the
foreign relations committe...See more
23 June at 11:24 · Like · Remove Preview
Nadeem
Aslam I paste this to further understand the myth design by the
Manzoor Hussain Gilani, Which claim to abolish the Act 1974.The statement above
made by him is ambiguous and without any mandate endorsed by any other section
of the society.I request to him answer the relevant questions raised by many
people on his tread for a better understanding of the issues related to the
fundamental rights and act 1974.
23 June at 12:37 · Edited · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Very interesting debate. I am happy and great ful
to all the friends for participating in it.this is what I wanted that national
issues must be attended by intellectuals and then left to the chosen
representatives to accomplish the job
As a student of law particularly constitutional law I
believe that what I am proposing it is purely temporary, provisional and ajk
and GB specific pending final determination of whole state
It will make the debate really fruitful if proposals listed
in the website are read clause wise along with statement of objects .
I wud again emphasis that we are proposing amendments in the
present constitution documents , a subject which was never attended by any body
in that perspective, except issuing statements condemning it by some as and
when they so deemed fit.
Let the proposals be attended clause wise by all friends to
proceed ahead in a systematic manner to make them viable
I am no authority on the subject. It is a humble effort to
words what every body wants without practical proposals. Even committee of the
govt has not proposed any practical amendments except outlining some
suggestions . Regards
23 June at 11:57 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam DrNazir Gilani sb,Well Explain the scope
,implications,relevance to the UNCIP resolutions,legal obligation under the
article 257 of the constitution of Pakistan and outcome of the whole legal
frame work.The Act 1974 design
23 June at 12:13 · Like · 1
Nazir
Gilani Nadeem Aslam Sahib - You have expanded the areas of
concern and taken the debate to next level. Seeking any amendments in the Act
is surrendering the Sovereignty that inheres in a State Subjects in respect of
Self Determination. For a Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 is an unlawful
document and Colonial in spirit.
23 June at 12:20 · Like · 2
Nadeem
Aslam @Shaf Raja sb,The clauses were you mention above are
indicate the superiority of the Kashmir council which is headed by the prime
minister of the Pakistan.The decision made by the high court of Azad Kashmir in
relation to the non state subject holders are not entitle to work for Kashmir
council.1-The judges of high court of AJK are bound to the oath of loyalty with
Pakistan.2-The prime minister of Pakistan (Now Nawaz Sharief) is the chairman
of Kashmir council and he is not come under the jurisdiction of AJK high court
even he has power to appoint and dismiss the AJK judge of high court.3- I think
AJK high court know that very well about his power and jurisdiction.4 It seems
that power shift in Islamabad and the demands of PML(n) Azad Kashmir chapter
are the reasons for that judgement which will address by the appeal in supreme
court .6-A decision made by the Justice(R) Majid Malik`s as a chief justice of
AJK high court (made a decision regrading GB is a part of Jammu Kashmir) was a
popular example for that, this decision was revoked by the supreme court of AJK
in an appeal in favour of MC govt led by Sardar Qayoom.
23 June at 13:06 · Edited · Like · 1
Sadiq
Subhani Guys, Manzoor Hussain Gilani Sahib is currently in the
USA and due to time difference i(almost a day) ts difficult for him to respond
our posts as soon as possible. However, he does not hide behind anyone especially
behind those who are like his grand children and are seeking education from
him. He himself is a mountain, capable of sheltering empires behind him. His
most recent post above shows he is amid debate and has joined it again with the
new dawn in the USA.
Last year when he presented his proposals we ganged upon
him. We thought Pro accession will come in his defence. However, he remained
alone in the debate, cool, calm and precise. Although, the proposals have been
submitted months ago, he remained in touch and is eager to ignite the
controversial issues for debates.
In that depate, the participants learned to listen to
eachother, be on the table and respect eachother and not be sarcastic. Believe
me CJ Sahib is not a runner, he will hold his trenches. Only be patient and
grow this very academic and important Constitutional debate to its best.
We are privileged to have in this debate CJ Manzoor Gilani
Sahib and Dr Nazir Gilani Sahib, each if whom has made quality contribution.
Please keep this debate, precise to the core question and alive.
23 June at 12:49 via mobile · Like · 1
Sadiq
Subhani What the High Court has ruled partly and what we are
debating upon has been in the lime light for decades. First example is the
campaign led by JK NLC for years against the leant officers and second is the
EU Commission's Report prepared by Baroness Emma Nikleson which simple
interpreted the ways in which Pakistan cripples the government in POK.
We must also give regard to the efforts been made previously
to make people aware of their birth rights. The expertise the High Court has
utilized also stems from such campaigns. Therefore, the campaigns.must remain
pure, sincere and skilled. There are various more issues which need to be
addressed. Let's be dutiful and work in conjunction to raise such issues both
at the local and the international forums.
23 June at 13:00 via mobile · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Subhani SB thanks . I wil never hide nor conceal
but will confine to subject not matters extrenious to it. I live in ajk and
have practical experience of goods and bads of ajk and Pakistan administration.
I wud again request to all the friends pl discuss clause
wise proposals keeping in view the apathy of the people who bear their bruntnot
not to detract from Issue or raise extrenious matters confusing the main
subject
I am in journey and will join the debate after a day. Pl
don't mind
23 June at 13:43 via mobile · Like · 1
Comrade
Surakh Wait and see the commitment to substantial delivery of
counter argument to the debate
Azad Jammu and Kashmir abbreviated AJK or, for short, Azad
Kashmir is the southernmost and the smaller of two political entities which
together constitute the Pakistani-controlled part of the former ... Wikipedia
Area: 13,297 km²
23 June at 18:45 · Like
Jammu
Kashmir its a Paki illegal occupied part of my beloving country
Jammu kashmir
23 June at 18:47 · Like · 1
Comrade
Surakh but its called AJK in abbreviation
23 June at 18:48 · Like
Jammu
Kashmir It should be called POK and who ever is calling it AJK
is a bloody evil enemy of the Kashmiri nation
23 June at 18:50 · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam copy& Paste:Nazir Gilani
Yesterday
UNCIP Resolutions in AJK have the same force as Article 19
of the constitution of Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan does not have any authority under
UNCIP Resolutions to author Interim Constitution Act 1974 and designate
President of AJK as a sub-ordinate of the Government of Pakistan for presenting
and passage of the Act 1974.
The Act is Ultra Vires and has no merits in Law. It should
be scrapped.
Seeking any amendments in the Act is surrendering the
Sovereignty that inheres in a State Subjects in respect of Self Determination.
2Unlike · · Share
You, DrAftab Hussain, Nazir Haq, Rizwan Rauf Baba and 10
others like this.
Nazir
Gilani The post is based on the recommendations of NGO ARJK and
other politicians in AJK who are seeking amendment in Interim Constitution Act
1974 and representation in various institutions of the Federation in Pakistan.
Yesterday at 10:40 · Like · 1
Javaid
H Khan OK then what is an alternate ? give me some basic points
how to resolve AJK's dilemma and its governance affairs in order to empower it.
Yesterday at 10:42 · Like
Nazir
Gilani Government of AJK is formed under UNCIP Resolutions and
these resolutions have designated the manner of Governance in Jammu and Kashmir
(Indian administered), Azad Kashmir (Pakistan administered) and Gilgit and
Baltistan.
Yesterday at 10:46 · Like · 2
Javaid
H Khan Thanks. would you plz give me precise link or paragraphs
from UNCIP resolutions of which you refereed?
Yesterday at 10:47 · Like
Nazir
Gilani Read the UNCIP Resolutions in Entirety and you will find
the manner of Government in Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit designated by UN.
Yesterday at 10:52 · Like · 1
Javaid
H Khan OK I will and will get back to you later. Meanwhile, I
want you to precisely explain relevant lines/clauses which addresses manner of
governance in different administrative parts of J & K . just give me a hint
!
Yesterday at 10:55 · Like
Javaid
H Khan of which particular UNCIP resolution as there are many !
Yesterday at 10:58 · Like
Nazir
Gilani In Srinagar it has to comprise of all Principal Elements
and Minorities. Has to make arrangements to conduct Plebiscite. It has to work
in close association with UN. At Muzaffarabad it would be headed by Judicial
Officers under the supervision of UN and in Gilgit the system would not be
disturbed but the Political Agent would be elected under the supervision of UN.
Yesterday at 10:59 · Like · 3
Nazir
Gilani Others are UN SC Resolutions
Yesterday at 11:00 · Like · 1
Nazir
Gilani Many others are UN SC Resolutions
Yesterday at 11:01 · Like · 1
Javaid
H Khan Yup.
Yesterday at 11:02 · Like
Abdul
Majeed it is right i agree with him
23 hours ago · Like
Nazir
Haq The next step to reclaim the usurped Sovereignty is for the
State Subject to call a Political Convention representative of only the
indigenous parties, from all parts of the State, (including Gilgit/Baltistan),
under Pakistan control to draw up a constitution with authority to establish a
Constituent Assembly exercising its full Sovereignty over the aforementioned
territories.
21 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Nazir
Gilani Someone has asked about a way forward during a debate on
this subject. Nazir Haq (Nazir Nazish Sahib) has very ably suggested the way
forward, that is, "reclaim the usurped Sovereignty for the State Subject,
call a Political Convention representative of only the indigenous parties, from
all parts of the State, (including Gilgit/Baltistan), under Pakistan control to
draw up a constitution with authority to establish a Constituent Assembly
exercising its full Sovereignty over the aforementioned territories." Very
little could be added to this wisdom.
24 June at 14:36 · Like
Shaf
Raja The above drawn picture could really be ideal but even then
the system will need a mechanism before or after the establishment of such
ideal situation which is possible through amendments in prevailing setup. This
wont just come from no where. We need to concentrate on practically possible
options. The full sovereignty is just possible by the restoration of 1947 state
first which itself is nearly impossible. So to start from divided entities, we
must pay attention to the available political & constitutional atmosphere
cz every step towards ideal situation will start from there any way. There is
no chance of drastic change by revolution & hardly any sign of
international intervention in our region. So we must realise where we stand.
The 1947 AJK govt declaration cant be favourite which ultimately ends up at
"Accession" by democratic means. IaK with internal autonomy has seen
"Governer Raj" & every govt spnsored by Dheli while PaK including
GB are in the same through Islamabad. I could be wrong but the UN Resolutions
never promised "self-determination" to Kashmir. So it could be our
demand not a given right. The discussion has gone too far rather than sticking
to the constitutional & political setup of AJK but its healthy debate. Good
Luck
24 June at 16:26 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Raja iss Tara Justice Sab ki baat hi maan lee jai itani
Bari Bari behsoo ka Kia matlab howa yeh bilkul clear baat hay k PAKISTAN ya
India ki ghulami qabool kar lee jai ya apni shanakht barqarar rakhi jai shakhsi
larai main nazariat ko qarban kar dena shaoori shakast howa karti hay agar koi
baat Possible nahi to wo anay Walay waqat main kesay possible ho gee yeh tou
wohi baat hoi k Azadi possible nahi tou jedojehd k Bar aks ghulami ko qabool
kar lia jai .........
24 June at 16:44 via mobile · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani I agree raja SB
Dogra state was not sovereign but run by Dora with the nexus
of British . See the declaration of British when pratap sing was restored to
power after removal by the British.
Last act in force in India was 1935 which had reserved 4
seats in central legislative and three in council of states for J&K . They
had a resident in kashmir whose assent was required for all imp matters. Still
sovereign state?
24 June at 16:47 via mobile · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Justice sab please aap unn sawaloo k jawab dain jou iss
debate main aap say pochay gay hain warna particepaint aap ko kissi k pichay
chupanay jesi batoo ko paka samjain gay please unn sawloo ka jawab hum aap say
sunanay k liay betaab hain debate ko pleas Divert na kia jai thanx
24 June at 16:52 · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain Justice sab aap nay 1996 main AJK k election main oath
ki pabandi uthanay wali writ pettetion per kia karwai ki thi ???
24 June at 16:55 · Like · 2
Nadeem
Aslam Manzoor Gilani sb ,I had an exchange of views with Shaf
Raja Sb,He stated that his proposals are opposite to your suggestions but you
are agree with his suggestions ?
24 June at 17:09 · Like
Shaf
Raja Gillani Sb; The restoration of JK state 1947 is a step to
that ideal sovereignity mentioned above by Nazir Haq sb. That doesnt mean JK
was fully sovereign state in 1947.The restoration of state as a geographical
& political entity first then the ideal sovereignty.
24 June at 17:13 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam Manzoor Gilani Sb running an NGO with many other people
are working with him.Is no one of from his NGO is capable to deliver any
credible substantiation contribution to move froward on this very important
constructive debate? My questions are 1- Why Manzoo Gilani sb and their fellows
in their NGO are unable or not capable to answer the legitimate questions
raised by the many participants see the names of their NGO in text
below:::::2-Are the members of their NGO are Kashmiries ?
COMMITTEE
MEMBERS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani , Chairman
Former Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
Afzal Ali Shigri, Vice Chairman
Former Inspector General of Police
Sheikh Muhammad Junaid, Secretary General
Former Federal Secretary
Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, Member of Executive Committee
Former Ambassador and former special representative of the
UN Secretary General
Ijaz Hussain , Member of executive committee
Former Head of the Department of International relations,
Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad
Asif Ezdi, Member of executive committee
Former Ambassador
24 June at 17:19 · Edited · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani India and Pakistan kept in tact -act1925 with
amendment till they enforced their constitution. Did it amount to surrendering
sovereign ity ?
Ajk under international law has no personality. It wll
become local authority when UNCIP resolutions are in the process of
implementation .
It's affairs were run under different acts from time to time
till act 1974 was enforced
Any reform in ajk or GB will have to be by its amendment or
repeal
I don't know even a single voice against the act or reforms
in ajk till the debate was triggered by my petition in sc Pakistan and then by
concrete proposals for reforms
Judiciary of Ajk has and is playing its role full blast
under constitution. It has struck down host of assembly acts which were
challenged nd found contrary to constitution
I alone have struck about nine legislative Acts and ordered
state subjects entering ajk after 1990 to be given state subject certificate,
ID CARDS, to be registered as voters , given quota in services and professional
colleges , those travelling from IHK to Ajk on Pasports permitted to settle in
Ajk etc despite severe opposition by ajk nd Pakistan govt's.
SHAUKAT Kashmiri and several others are classical examples
of cases given relief against powerful state agencies.
I may kindly be enlightened of any EUROPEON or American
courts , being the mothers of democratic institutions, having exercised suo
Moto jurisdiction as required from AJK judiciary !!
WHAT ELSE PEOPLE EXPECT FROM AJK JUDICIARY
WE HAVE TO PROCEED GRADUALY, constitutionally , wisely and
in tandem with ground realities
All the friends with divergent ideologies are well come to
pursue their view points on the soil of mother land with their compatriotes ,
not by sitting in democratic dispensations overseas with all comforts ,
collaboration and sources at their disposal
24 June at 17:20 via mobile · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Let us be confined to debate of clause wise
amendments instead of personel question answer session
24 June at 17:24 via mobile · Like
Comrade
Surakh Manzoor Gilani Sb,Can you separate the illustration of
Pakistani judiciary or the AJK.Is Shukat Kashmir got a relief from the AJK
judiciary ? Why you feel the need to mention Act 1925 ?
24 June at 17:31 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam The constitutions means to deliver their rights to the
people at the door step.With all its credible work that the Manzoor Gilani sb
mention is still not fulfill its obligations to protect and honour the basic
fundamental rights.No one in the whole world support discriminatory law the
oath of loyal to sate accession with Pakistan.The institutions stand on public
funding its peoples fundamental rights to claim their rights they are not
beggars that any state official who get payed for their money is not sincere
and honest to discharge his duties according to preventive law.The protest
against the act 1974 and its creater Z.A Bhutoo was on the record when they
people stated "BACHA BHACA KAT MREY GA KASHMIR SUBA NAHI BANEY GA.
24 June at 17:43 · Like · 2
Nadeem
Aslam As DrAfatb stated why the papers of the candidates of
Independent Kashmir were rejected.If anyone who is not loyal to Pakistan they
said TRAITOR . What Kashmiri call to someone if he/she is not loyal to Kashmir
and their own people ?
24 June at 17:48 · Edited · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam and be a part of occupied force.Pakistan had been declared
an aggressor and occupied force in the resolutions carried by UN on Kashmir.
24 June at 17:52 · Edited · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani A legal right as election can be had according to
that law and then change that law if one considers it against his ideology
Great freedom fighters of India fought election under govt
of India act 1935 with oath of loyalty to queen but fought against the rule
Follow the example or bring revolution back home
24 June at 17:54 via mobile · Like
Comrade
Surakh Dear all I think you all need three more day`s for a
proper response from huge NGO operatives ??????????
24 June at 18:02 · Edited · Like
Nadeem
Aslam What if that law contradict withe the fundamental human
rights and courts are their to address it .
24 June at 17:57 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Justice sab aap nay be hasiat CJ uss File per kia karwai
ki thee kio kay wo case aap k samnay tha ?
Nadeem
Aslam What is the justification for a law to crush its own state
subject holders and the courts of law making a joke on their equal citizens
where is the justice in the name of justice ? Because they are subservient of
Islamabad.Sar bi apna joota be apna .
24 June at 18:01 · Edited · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain jou sawalat Dr Nazir Gilani sab nay uthai thay wo
mutalka sawalat hain zati nahi wo court k mutalaqa hain hum unn per aap ki tarf
say LEAGAL response sunana chaitay hain ?
24 June at 17:59 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Dr sb I respect ur genius ness and request to
comment on proposed amendments than seek explanations
24 June at 18:00 via mobile · Like
Comrade
Surakh The matter is not for respect or disrespect .It is a
matter of Kashmir national interest
24 June at 18:03 · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam Manzoor Gilani Sb,Did you do any decision regrading to the
candidates wants to contest in the election ?
24 June at 18:06 · Like
Comrade
Surakh Have we got proper responses to my questions above and
the proposition made by Dr.Nazir Gilani
24 June at 18:09 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam No,Dear Comrade we just talking about cons and phrases of
the thread.
24 June at 18:12 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja DrAftab Hussain sb. Plz read it properly. The point is
based on the way forward presented by Nazir Haq sb & the available options
in context of Kashmir dispute & UN resolutions. Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb
requested to come clause-wise to challenge his proposed amendments to put ur
alternate for disagreement & plz pay attention to it. Good Luck
24 June at 19:06 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Meray khiayal main shakhsi mukhalftoo say hatt kar
debate ko wahan say shoro karna chaiy jahan per Dr Nazir Gilani Sab nay point
raise kiay thay hum educate hona chaitay hain harna ya jeetna debate ka mahasal
nahi haiy Dr Nazir Gilani k raise shuda sawalat ka direct Talak judiciary k
legal act k awalay say hain kitabay kiss hor jaga behs ki ja sakti hain please
come on the point please
24 June at 19:15 via mobile · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja Yes. So U can add ur view on it sir. Plz go ahead. By the
way nothing is personal in my views cz that is just an addition to the
way-forward by Nazir Haq sb proposed solution. Dats why I said the debate has
gone far from real topic if U can see properly. The proposed solution is
presented by Nazir Haq sb not by U or someone else. Good Luck
24 June at 19:24 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam We are still waiting for the response of Manzoor Gilani
sb.
24 June at 19:28 · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani I have stated the relevant points. I accept the
pravellent constitutional position and think time has come to strive for its
amendment. It is in the INTREST of people living on the soil . I am concerned
with ajk and GB .after their empowerment we can go ahead for whole of the state
Let relevant clauses be discussed rest of the discussion is
not relevant
More than hundred people joining the debate have liked it
and 5 people only repeat their version
Let us be to the point. If any friend has an alternate
proposal for any suggested amendment pl state
24 June at 19:41 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam Where can you copy and past here plz
24 June at 19:43 · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Pl visit www. arjk.org
24 June at 19:47 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam Dear Gilani sb ,For God sake why you are unable to deliver
your thoughts here.Could you please change the tape.
24 June at 19:50 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Justice Sab NGO ko chore kar please wo legal point behs
kiay Jain jou Nazir Gilani Sab nay shoro main uthai hain
24 June at 19:51 via mobile · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain Batoo ko under the carpet kar dain gay tou humaray elm
main azafa kesay ho gay please come to the point
24 June at 19:54 via mobile · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Justice Sab aap ki kitabchay main unn Batoo ka koi ziker hi
nahi jou Dr Nazir Gilani nay uthai hain issi liay unn point ko behs karna
zaroori hay
24 June at 19:55 via mobile · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam Simply Pakistan is in breach of UNCIP resolutions, AJK
authority and legal frame work which established by Pakistan in POK and
POGB.Not comply with the fundamental requirement of human rights and the needs
of the state subject holders of the Kashmir.Pakistan is the creator of Act 1974
and its design for to occupied the areas of Azad Kashmir.There is no one human
rights defender nor any constitutional expert support the document of slavery
deed.
24 June at 20:48 · Edited · Unlike · 3
Nazir
Haq My respected friend Dr.Nazir Gilani has raised an important
constitutional question within the mores of international law as well as in the
context of the Constitution of Pakistan. It reminds the parties concerned (the
Pakistani establishment and the State subjects under Pakistan controlled
territories) of their obligations and responsibilities under UNCIP. The
Pakistani establishment signed up to facilitate an establishment of 'responsible
administration' by the State Subjects to govern their affairs, until such time
the dispute over Kashmir is resolved with the expressed will of all the State
Subjects in all parts of the State. The state Subjects, in turn had
responsibilty to exercire
24 June at 20:37 · Unlike · 6
Nadeem
Aslam Well said Nazir Haq sb,very true
24 June at 20:47 · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Nazir Haq sb is very right to say
;"establishment of responsible administration .......,,....until such time
the dispute is resolved with the expressed will of all SS in all parts of
state"
This is wt we suggest that till resolution of dispute AJK
and gb be empowered so that they matter in policy, decision and execution at
all levels
24 June at 20:52 via mobile · Like · 1
Wahid
Kashir Very interesting exchange going on here and indeed it is
need of hour too,I will observe and participate too,Thanks for starting this
DrAftab Hussain Sb
24 June at 20:55 · Edited · Like · 2
Nazir
Haq (sorry) exercise their right to establish an independent
political authority to govern. Both have failed dismally. In violation of its
obligations, the successive governments in Pakistan have ruled these
territories as their colonies. The introduction of the 1974 Act not only
violated the spirit and letter of UNCIP resolution, it also disenfranchised a
body of political opinion striving for the restoration of the usurped
sovereignty of the State Subjects. The representatives of the State subjects,
in turn, have succumbed under pressures, bribes and sectional interests to
discharge their responsibility with honour to safeguard the rights of its
people.
24 June at 20:54 · Unlike · 3
Comrade
Surakh Act 1974 is a document of slavery to exploit the life
honour ,property , natural and human resources took away from the reach of poor
people of Pakistan occupied Kashmir
24 June at 20:59 · Unlike · 3
Comrade
Surakh like tax, revenue,Resources of Mangla Dam and various
other kind of Jim stone and gold etc.
24 June at 21:02 · Like · 2
Nazir
Haq Now, I do not want to repeat the detailed arguments of my
learned initiator of this debate. The central thesis of his submission, which
I, with many other libertarians fully endorse, is that the State Subjects had
liberated an area of the State from the Ruler and declared the establishment an
independent government, which was removed by the Pakistani establishment. Rest
is the history.
24 June at 21:02 · Like · 3
Javaid
H Khan I noticed and count me in !
24 June at 21:03 · Unlike · 2
Wahid
Kashir قابل قدر جسٹس گیلانی صاحب ،بڑی طویل مدت
کے بعد آج آپ شیروں کی اس کھچار میں آئے ہیں ، میں چاہوں گا کہ پہلے دیگر احباب کے
کمنٹس کو پڑھ لوں ،ان کے تجزئیے کے بعد آپ سے بہت سے سوالات کے جواب درکار ہوں گے ،ہم
چاہیں گے کہ اس حوالے سے ایک مفصل بحث ہو تاکہ ایک واضع ابہام کو مزید وضاحت ملے اور
لوگوں کے سامنے لایا جائے ۔۔۔۔۔۔ہم آگے تو گرمی بازار دیکھنا ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
24 June at 21:03 · Unlike · 3
Nadeem
Aslam Nazish Sb ,Respected JR,Manzoor Gilani agree with your
submission but standing on the other side of the river ?
24 June at 21:07 · Like · 1
Wahid
Kashir Interesting enough I was about to translate DrNazir
Gilani Sb's English article in Urdu for wider objective and masses to understand,however
this debate will open new arenas of knowledge for us.
24 June at 21:08 · Like · 3
Wahid
Kashir I am unable to take this that why Respected JR Manzoor
Gillani Sb still unable to understand a very basic and fundamental point with
regard to this subject?
24 June at 21:10 · Edited · Like
Nazir
Haq The challenge of the author, on behalf of the State Subject
is that Act 74 being 'Ultra virus' cannot be amended to meet the requirements
of a free people: the State Subjects. It is beyond repair. For it was not drawn
up by the collective political will of the State Subjects. It has to go, and
with it all the frills and nasties of Kashmir Council and the rest.
24 June at 21:12 · Like · 3
Nazir
Haq The way forward, as I suggested, is the only way to reclaim
the usurped Sovereignty of the State Subjects, by themselves. I'll attend the
question od the State being Sovereign or not, under British Raj, later on.
24 June at 21:16 · Like · 2
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani We all agree on objects through diverse means. Carry
on
Strange enough is that debate is attended by non residents
only,
While voters of AJK who really matter are silent
24 June at 21:19 via mobile · Like · 1
Comrade
Surakh As I understand the discussion of the thread is about to
suggest amendments in Act 1974.Which JR Manzoor Gilani sb and Shaf Raja sb
support.But I and others think that any Act which was imposed by the Pakistan
civil and military establishment in Azad Kashmir (POK or POGB) is a way to
deprive the state subject holders of Kashmir. Ithink the presence of Pakistan
military in Azad Kashmir if more then fourteen division approximately three
hundred thousands in a well populated areas with heavy weaponry.So in my point
of view the debate is pro Pakistan and pro Azadi Kashmir form Pakistan.That`s
fine if you agree to disagree .
24 June at 21:22 · Like · 1
Wahid
Kashir Ershad Mahmud Sb...your take on this?
24 June at 21:23 · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani The constitutions in all the colonies were
enforced by colonial powers which were kept in tact with amendments till they
were repealed by popularity elected representatives
24 June at 21:31 via mobile · Like · 2
Comrade
Surakh injustice in the name of justice
24 June at 21:32 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani History moves gradually
24 June at 21:34 via mobile · Like
Comrade
Surakh سچ بھت اچھا پر اس کے لیے کوی اور مرے تو
اور اچھا
24 June at 21:34 · Like · 1
Comrade
Surakh But slowly
24 June at 21:36 · Like
Comrade
Surakh When no one wants to change it
24 June at 21:36 · Like
Comrade
Surakh There are people who create history with the organise
force of people.
24 June at 21:38 · Like
Athar
Massood Wani Gain full powers of the govt, is ajk ready for it
by character ?
24 June at 21:41 via mobile · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja The points raised by Nazir Haq sb & Nazir Gilani sb are
really important. Specially the term sovereinty has come forward that is
directly related to a "state" rather than "subjects" or
citizens ( I could be wrong). So We need the state first to make it sovereign
as well. Coming to the rights of state subjects of J&K, they have been
violated in all disputed entities of J&K. The UN resolutions have been
violated by both countries & their credibility been weakened by bilateral
agreements. The position is bit misty when the resolutions are taken partially
cz either to be accepted or rejected as whole. So the points raised by most
have proved the need of restoration of state in 1947.
24 June at 21:42 · Unlike · 1
Comrade
Surakh @Athar Massood Wani How we gain full power sir
24 June at 21:43 · Like
Athar
Massood Wani Some people talk about it and some have a dream of
it
24 June at 21:45 via mobile · Like
DrAftab
Hussain what is your point of veiw Athar Massood Wani sab ?
24 June at 21:48 · Like
Comrade
Surakh The real problem is they wont let you do dream of Azadi
because they have armies on the ground to deal with us.
Athar
Massood Wani It is fundamentel right of kashmiries which not
ready to give them, some forcesComrade Surakh
24 June at 21:48 via mobile · Unlike · 2
Athar
Massood Wani About what dr sahib ?about Nazir Gilani sahib view
or Manzoor Hussain Gilani sahib advocacy?
24 June at 21:57 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam I should request to Dr.Gilani sb and Nazish sb, Kindly If
you can re-frame the issues related to debate which help everyone to focus on
it and to reach positive conclusion.It doesn't matter how long time it takes .
Anyone else can contribute in it for a wise argument.
24 June at 22:22 · Edited · Like
Sadiq
Subhani In light of the recent Global development it emerges,
there are usually two ways to pave the struggle for basic rights of state
subjects. It's either a path Palestinians have chosen or a path Scottish have
chosen. Palestinian have the advantages of International treaties/agreement or
promises and Scotts have none. One led an armed struggle other democratic. The
result is obvious.
Kashmiris yet have to build a consensus for an agreed method
to achieve their rights. It cannot be achieved "without first making a
nation (Barrister Qurban Ali)."
24 June at 21:59 via mobile · Like · 3
Comrade
Surakh Don`t come into the trap of occupied forces and their
tools. just learn how to liberate your slave people from the clutches of
occupied forces through the knowledge and courage of ideological hag-money.
24 June at 22:06 · Like · 4
Athar
Massood Wani Facts should realise as pakistan is a fact for
India(since some decayed)? same like azad kashmir is a recognised fact by all
world
24 June at 22:11 via mobile · Like
Athar
Massood Wani We r not responsible of bad characters
24 June at 22:13 via mobile · Like · 1
Comrade
Surakh The people (masses) are the real alternative force to
challenge the slavery of Pakistan.Knowledge is a power people of POK will have
a right to continue their struggle for independent united Kashmir
24 June at 22:16 · Like
Athar
Massood Wani But in ajk degration is going fast .in ajk people
can talk.walk and release a statement.nothing more
24 June at 22:25 via mobile · Like · 1
Jammu
Kashmir no one neither Pakis nor Indians have got right to keep
Kashmir for ever divided occupied with the help of traitors the paid ones and I
call these traitors stop committing the act of treason because you are worse
enemy than the enemy it self of our beloving nation of the fatherland Jammu
kashmir
24 June at 22:26 · Like · 1
Athar
Massood Wani They totally buddy in tribeism.dist ism.
24 June at 22:26 via mobile · Like
Athar
Massood Wani Busy
24 June at 22:27 via mobile · Like
Comrade
Surakh Wani sahab,The rule of law there in the shape Act 1974
24 June at 22:27 · Like
Jammu
Kashmir diversity in the garden of holy God,s heaven called
Jammu kashmir is a beauty and one can not use that as a tool of our division and
slavery
24 June at 22:28 · Like · 1
Athar
Massood Wani For gaining the objects we need start early steps
24 June at 22:28 via mobile · Like
Comrade
Surakh like what
24 June at 22:29 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain All particepaints please come to the point
24 June at 22:32 · Like
Athar
Massood Wani Fikat batein andheroo ki mehaz kissey ujaloo ke
Charag-a-arzoo leker na tum nikley na hum nikley
24 June at 22:33 via mobile · Like
Athar
Massood Wani Firstly we need to show our sincierity so other
persons can believe on us
24 June at 22:35 via mobile · Like
DrAftab
Hussain we can do many thing through possitive debate amoungst
ourselves and there are many intellectuals in the debate those are giving us
very meaningfull points please be possitive thanx very much
24 June at 22:36 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain I request to all particepaints please come to the point
thank you very much
24 June at 22:38 · Like
Athar
Massood Wani And we should realise/feel real situation and facts
which r faces us then we can address these worst problems in better way
24 June at 22:39 via mobile · Like
Athar
Massood Wani Obviously, people of kashmir have seperat
recognation .they proud their culture, identity as civilized society(should
realise that kashmir valley is a main face of the state)
24 June at 22:53 via mobile · Unlike · 2
Athar
Massood Wani Many people in ajk, like call and recognize as
Kashmiri in Pakistan and abroad but in ajk they dont like call as a kashmiri
24 June at 23:23 via mobile · Like · 1
Javed
Inayat JR Manzoor Gilani sab also raised the question of
sovereignty of Jammu Kashmir state before 1947 but that time India was also not
a sovereign state nor Pakistan ever existed on the face of earth. We cannot
justify that Kashmir was under the occupation of other powers pre-74 therefore
state should not have sovereignty after 1947 either. It should not be like that
but what has been done to our state by two neighboring countries both basically
fake creation of British, itself was a colonial power is most matters for our
people. Why we have to ask Pakistan first give us little relief by letting us
amending act 74 and later they may feel little more mercy and grant us more
rights. It too late and too lengthy way out for our people, after 66 long years
have gone, no option has been left for Kashmiri people, only Pakistan must
vacate its occupied regions of POK, PGB as per UN resolution and then let go
Indian forces too. It is the best solution and easy way out for all three
parties.
24 June at 23:25 · Unlike · 7
Athar
Massood Wani Ja apni hasratoo pe ansoo Baha ke so ja
24 June at 23:44 via mobile · Like · 1
Jammu
Kashmir NGO,s Pakis and Indians extended hands can not decide
our future as we know they have been working against the very will of the
people of Jammu kashmir from 22nd Oct 1947 till today
25 June at 00:08 · Like · 2
DrAftab
Hussain
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=570272729690582&set=a.189959727721886.68029.100001235809671&type=1&theater
Photo
Timeline Photos
AJK HIGH COURT DICISION
BY RAHAT FAROOQ
by: DrAftab Hussain
25 June at 01:16 · Like · Remove Preview
Musabi
Ur Rehman Baghdad ko jab neast-o-Nabood kia geya tou uss waqt
uskay intellectual, anday(egg) ko uski noke per kahra(stand up) kernay k
munazray main masroof thaay, hum Aaj 67saal ke istahsali aour Baddtareen ghullami
k doour say guzarnay k baawajood, 21ween sadi main munazaroun k zareay apni
illmeat k zareeay kashmir ke Azadi ka naara bulland ker rahay hain, wo be unn
tabqaat & afraad k saath jinhoun nay faqat apnay zaati & khandani
mufaad ke khatar apnay illm ko istamaal kia,,,,? Jo lamhaa lamhaa apni
khudgharzeoun main sarr say paayr tak Aalood {Lathray) hain, wo bunyadi insani
haqooq ka falsafa beyan kernay paysh paysh hain, inhoun nay apni Ghullam Qoum
ke Azadi ke khater kia qurbani dee,,, ? Jabkay na sirf inka Aung Aung, ballsy
inkay Khandan be guzashta 67salon say, sirf iswaja zindagi ke tamam saholeyat
say mustafeed hain k inhoun nay apni illmeat k zareay (bunyadi insani haqooq)
indo pak k hukamranou ko baywaqoof/black mail ker kay Apna ullou seedha kia aour
ker rahay hain, ,,,? Kashmir ke Haqeeqi Azadi k leay JKASHMIRIOUN Ko Jiski
laathi uski Bhance k Asool ko madday nazar rakhna ho gaa , wagrna ye baaillm
soudaay baaz her ghullam qoum ke ghullami ka touq(sayhra) sadeoun say apnay
sarr per sajana apni Qaableat samhajtay hain?
25 June at 02:58 via mobile · Unlike · 3
Muhammad
Yousuf Gilkar yeh Muluk hamara hai Iss ka faiSla ham karain gay
25 June at 06:05 · Unlike · 1
Nazir
Haq Full concur with Javed's point.
25 June at 07:27 · Like · 1
Shams
Rehman Very interesting and useful debate for which i paste the
link for a talk show i did on the amendment dimension of subject ... although
it seems that original parameters of the debate were on the status of Judiciary
and State Subject but think the talk has some relevance ...
http://www.jammukashmir.tv/player/Siyasat/Siyasat-By-Shams-Rehman--Azad-Kashmir-Act-74-Reforms-.html
Siyasat By Shams Rehman --- Azad Kashmir Act 74 Reforms
www.jammukashmir.tv
In the closing days of 2012 Pakistani minister of Kashmir
Affairs agreed to look...See more
25 June at 07:33 · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Baghe
Baghe proud to be a kashmiri
25 June at 08:13 · Like · 1
Nazir
Gilani I could not participate in the Debate yesterday due to
participation in an Evening with distinguished Urdu language columnist and poet
Ata ul Haq Qasmi at Daily Jang premises in London. It was a long drawn evening
and I apologise my friends for my absence from the debate.
It is encouraging to see that there has been a substantive
contribution and Justice Gilani sahib has been able to return to the debate. I
have seen three posts from Justice Sb and these don’t seem to add much to the
merits of the debate.
On the contrary Justice sahib has surprised me more than
assuring me that our concerns are ill placed and his proposed recommendations
pass the litmus test of juridical wisdom and public debate. I am not adding
anything new at this point except pointing out the surprise element in the
three posts. I would say these surprises are a rare characteristic of a person
who has headed any judiciary or has remained associated with judiciary in AJK.
Even a lay person or a commoner would be extremely
disappointed at these surprises, which do not add up to an argument. These are:
“Non-Residents only”
1. Justice does not seem to have any regard for a valid
independent input from the State Subjects currently resident abroad. He has
categorised them as “non-residents only”, and has further made a serious error
of judgement by separating out another category of State Subjects, describing
them as “While voters of AJK who really matter are silent”.
The proposed recommendations don’t state that they are only
for “Voters of AJK” and others living in any other part of the world don’t
matter. It is a siege mentality and does not represent the principles of a just
debate, irrespective of domicile.
Justice Gilani sb has recycled the same insulated
self-serving and undemocratic manner of wisdom, which his colleagues in
Muzaffarabad advocated against his appointment as Advocate General of AJK.
Lawyers in Muzaffarabad argued that he was a “Foreigner”. It seems Justice
Gilani sb has not moved from that point during all these years of his
association with judicial discipline and exposure.
He does not seem to have his hand on the handle of the
substantive argument. It may be because his recommendations have landed in
public domain and debates survive on the strength of argument and not on age,
race, colour or language.
Justice Sb’s argument that most of us are “Non-Resident” is
an argument flawed at source. We have a share in the AJK Assembly through our
Overseas Member of the Assembly. The manner of his election and our share in
the AJK assembly may not be democratic, just and fair but it does not make us
irrelevant as suggested in the post.
It is again a negation of the principle of right to
participate in the Self Determination of a State Subject domiciled anywhere in
the world. Justice sb should have read the right of return of Israelis and our
right of return under UN SC Resolutions.
I need to explain that the term “Non-Residents” is used by
Indian administration and it embeds a certain meaning for them. In AJK
Constitution we have used the term “State Subjects residing abroad”. We need to
be very careful and cautious in using such terms.
“who really matter are silent”
The admission that “While voters of AJK who really matter
are silent”, invalidates the whole exercise of proposed recommendations. It
means these have not found any favour with the “AJK Voter”. Justice Gilani sb
has made another error in this statement as well. Recommendations don’t affect
the present voters only but if agreed would impact the future generations (who
are not voters at this point and not able to comment). There are many tomorrows
and we can’t take all decisions on behalf of our future generations.
The concept on “Non Residents” is funny and poorly placed in
today’s global society. A bad governance in AJK would impact lives in all the
three administrations and lives of all State Subjects.
All Debates on Kashmir at the UN have been conducted by “Non
Resident Kashmiris” and by “Non State Subjects”. I am sure Justice Gilani sb
does not represent the people who once lived in a “Cave” in Muzaffarabad,
unless they have been shifted by the administration or the cave has been
destroyed during Earthquake.
The constitutions in all the colonies were enforced by
colonial powers
2. This post has disappointed me most. It is an offensive
parallel. AJK is not a Colony and Pakistan is not a Colonial authority. We have
trusted Pakistan on its word as taking over “Trust Obligations” under UNCIP
Resolutions. Pakistan can’t legislate against the basic jurisprudence of UNCIP
Resolutions and other resolutions in particular one of 30 March 1951. Article
257 of the Constitution of Pakistan is clear that AJK is not a Colony and we
are not Colonized but ‘equal people’ with a title to self-determination.
If we accept that Pakistan has Colonized AJK, it entitles us
under UN Charter to take up arms against this occupation. I am sure Justice Gilani
sb would opt for a soft revolution. Decolonization is a basic duty of UN and
its member nations.
History moves gradually
3. This is an encouraging and a positive note.
Unfortunately, this encouragement has its own flaws.
Kashmir history has moved from 1846-1877 when the first
Memorandum of Grievances was submitted to the Viceroy. It took Kashmiris
another 56 years in 1921 to find a political phrase – “State for the State’s
People”. The demand resulted into their recognition as preferables – “Mulki’s”
and other non-preferables – “Outsiders”.
It took them another 11 years in 1932 to make a third demand
for a “responsible government”.
However, their repression is documented in para 2 of the
letter dated 07 January 1848 written by Sir Hardinge, Secretary to the
Government of India to Maharaja Gulab Singh.
They graduated on 4 October 1947 and 24 October 1947. We
should be seen to have progressed from 1877.
Recommendations
Section 3 of the Proposed Recommendation finally makes it
“Heads I Win Tails You Lose” exercise. Out of 49 members in the AJK Assembly 20
Members (12 refugees, 5 women, 11 Ulema-e-Din or Mushaikh, 1 Overseas (Non
Resident) and 1 Technocrat) are in a vulnerable situation and the
administration in Pakistan has the ability to sway them to vote in any manner
they prefer.
Therefore, if the elements in the Government of Pakistan
find any interest in these recommendations, their approval is a foregone
conclusion. It is done.
And if these forces also regard Justice Gilani Sb as a “Foreigner”
like his colleagues in the discipline of Law, these recommendations have n
future.
The principal recommendation has to be requesting Pakistan
to live up to its assumed “Trust Obligations Under UNCIP Resolutions”. For any
doubt an opinion could be sought from International Court of Justice, which
gives opinions on such matters or from independent jurists of international
repute.
I am prepared to make my humble contribution.
25 June at 11:29 · Unlike · 6
Javaid
H Khan For the time being, i am a non-resident!! However, I am
eager to learn from you all and to contribute. Wahid Kashir, it would be great
if you could translate dr. Gilani's article into Urdu.
25 June at 12:19 · Like
Nazir
Gilani A valid observation about being Non Resident as a student.
25 June at 12:26 · Like · 1
Javed
Inayat Wow, Nazir Gilani Sab very nice points and also we non
residents are not less than 20 lakh or two million people out of 4 million
total population of ajk. I on this topic u r the only expert giving opinion,
our statements r political ones. ThAnk u .dr sab.
25 June at 12:35 via mobile · Unlike · 3
Javed
Inayat Yeah, more than a million non resident also lives in
Pakistani . Also dr. Nazir Gilani sab has pointed out very valid issue of being
entitle to pick arms against colonial power. It is legal for us if our regions
are treated as such. Very good point and nice direction for our ajk
youth.hahahaha geo dr. Sab.
25 June at 12:51 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam I would like to escalate the debate and move forward
without the waiting for time waster in this important legal ,constitutional and
political debate the legitimate questions are still there for the attention and
response of every one.I am not a supporter of colonial legal design which
deeply harm the integrity of the thousands years old entity of Kashmir.The Act
1974 and Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009
,deprive the state subject holders of Kashmir from their fundamental right of
Azadi.
25 June at 13:48 · Edited · Unlike · 1
Nadeem
Aslam Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order,
2009 (PDF)
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgbtribune.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F09%2Fself-governance-order-2009.pdf&ei=bITJUcmwDMWS0AWR74HQBA&usg=AFQjCNG0uG3MBms5WeWT4dbP3Vp-5ddFaQ&bvm=bv.48293060,d.d2k&cad=rja
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgbtr
www.google.co.uk
25 June at 13:16 · Like · Remove Preview
Nazir
Gilani Javed Inayat Sahib I highly appreciate your finer
observation that a million non residents live in Pakistan. Actually they are
1.5 million. We have held a Conference on their Rights in Islamabad. President
AJK and all heads of Political Parties participated. I have pointed out the
right to use force against Colonial Powers. It is an option and I have not
asked our youth to exercise that option. It is there for people of all ages. I
agree with you, that our youth may be tempted, if we categorise them as Colonized
people.
25 June at 13:22 · Like · 1
Sadiq
Subhani Since the AJK Constitution has been amended to cater for
an overseas legislative Assembly constituency, no distinction of residents or
non resident Kashmiris can be made. Since 80s the Overseas MLA's by nomination
fill this seat for the ruling parties.
25 June at 13:23 via mobile · Like · 2
Nazir
Gilani It explains that Justice Sb has to revisit the wisdom of
his arguments in this regard and other points even on the basis of Act 1974.
25 June at 13:53 · Edited · Unlike · 4
Nadeem
Aslam In 22nd September 2009 The article below written by
JR.Manzoor Gilani to support this GB act 2009 and they want a similar to that
in Azad Kashmir .Kindly read and give your best opinion . (PART-1). Authority
of GOP to govern AJK and GB
Kashmir Watch, Sep 22
By Justice Syed Manzoor H. Gilani
Gilgit-Baltistan Self Governance Order 2009, is a welcome
break through for further emancipation and empowerment of the valiant people of
the area and a wise political and diplomatic decision in reiterating the
historical reality that, the area is a part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
and its ultimate dispensation has to be in accordance with the UN resolutions
within the spirit of Art. 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan.But,providing for
appointment of governor by president of Pakistan and designating the elected
chief exective as chief minister like all other provinces of Pakistan and
India, and unlike AJK, creates misperceptions which militates against the
spirit of keeping it bracketed with Kashmir dispute.
The GB order is almost similar as the AJK Interim
Constitution Act 1974, with trifurcation of powers among the Gilgit-Baltistan
Assembly and Council; and Government of Pakista. The GB assembly is to elect
the chief minister who will exercise exective authority over the subjects on
which assembly has powers to make the law and the governor shall be bound to
act upon his advice.
Gilgit-Baltistan Council is composed on the pattern of AJK
council , which consists of the Prime Minister of Pakistan as its chairman,five
members of the national assembly to be nominated by PM Pakistan ,Federal
minister of state for Kashmir and northern affairs , six members to be elected
by the assembly of GB, Governor and chief Minister of GB. Executive authority
over 55 subjects on which Council has the authority to make laws, vests in the
Chairman of the Council. The balance of power is tilting towards the federal
government as the council subjects are executed through the indulgence of
federal government.
The responsibilities of government of Pakistan under UNCIP
resolotions;defence and security of the area; foreign affairs and foreign aid
and trade and;currency vest directly in the Government of Pakistan to the
exclusion of AJK and GB governments.
The territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under the
control of Pakistan resulting out of the war of liberation of the people of the
State, are neither a province nor part of federation of Pakistan. The
government of Pakistan is empowered to regulate these these territories under
UNCIP resolutions. Under the resolution dated 13th August 1948 detailed
measures are stipulated which have been undertaken by India and Pakistan to
observe. Part (I) of the resolution relates to ceasefire, Part (II) is truce
agreement and Part (III) relates to final determination of the status of the
State in accordance with the will of the people of the State.
To achieve the object of suspension of hostilities under
part I of the above resolution, an agreement was reached between the military
representative of India and Pakistan on 29th July, 1949, through which lines by
meats and bounds were drawn on ground in respect to the areas of the State
under the actual control of India and Pakistan. It is called “ceasefire agreement”.
Under clause A(3) part ii, it is stipulated that “pending final solution, the
territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local
authorities under the surveillance of the Commission”.
A clarification given in writing by the Commission on 3rd
September 1948, that “the evacuated territory refers to those territories in
the State of Jammu and Kashmir which are at present under the effective control
of Pakistan High Command, it being understood that the population of these territories
will have freedom to legitimate political activities.
In view of above , the authority to govern these territories
is basically vested in the government of Pakistan. This governance has to be
regulated and guaranteed through the constitution of Pakistan, in a manner that
it satisfies the parameters set up by the international standards of human
rights, accepted and recognized by the United Nations.
Being under the effective control of Pakistan high command,
the territories fall under clause 2 (d) of Art. 1 of Constitution of Pakistan
which states that the territories of Pakistan shall comprise;
(d) Such States and territories as are or may be included in
Pakistan either by accession or otherwise”.
This clause is comprehendible by two independent
connotations to be categorized as:
(i) such States and territories which are otherwise included
in Pakistan; and
(ii) such States and territories which acceded to Pakistan.
The territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir i.e.
Gilgit, Baltistan and Azad Kashmir fall in the first category of clause (d) of
Article 1(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as these are
“otherwise included in Pakistan”. It derives its legitimacy from the the UNCIP
resolutions and clarifications given by it in writing and orally, the ceasefire
agreement between India and Pakistan. It has received the judicial assent as
reported in PLJ 1999 AJK-1, PLD 2006 AJK-1; PLD 2006 Lah-465 and PLJ 1991
AJK-60.
25 June at 13:44 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam (PART-2) The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution
Act, 1974, is given by the Government of Pakistan to the President of Azad
Jammu and Kashmir in discharge of its responsibilities under UNCIP resolutions,
as provided by its preamble, for consideration and passage by the Legislative
Assembly of AJK. Under Sec 4(7) (2) of this Constitution the ideology of
state’s accession to Pakistan shall not be questioned by any person or
political party.
Besides many other, Section 56 of the Constitution of AJK
gives overriding authority to the Government of Pakistan to take any action
notwithstanding any provision of the constitution. Same is the position of GB.
The President, Prime Minister, Speaker, Minister etc. take oath under Schedule
first of the Constitution in the words that:
“I shall remain loyal to the country and the cause of
accession of the State of J&K to Pakistan”.
Under GB governance order and all earlier regulations, the
oath of office of all the political dignitaries contain the words, “ I WILL
BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO PAKISTAN AND UPHOLD THE SOVEREIGNTY AND
INTEGRITY OF PAKISTAN.”
The word “country” obviously refers to the country of
Pakistan.. The territories are defended by the Armed forces of Pakistan and key
positions in civil administration are filled by the bureaucracy belonging to
the civil service of Pakistan who are appointed by the Cabinet Division of
Government of Pakistan directly in both territories. Appointments in the
superior judiciary of AJK and GB are made by the prime minister of Pakistan in
his capacity as chairman of the council, processed through law division of GOP.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has already held in relation
to Northern Area that these areas are part of Pakistan and government of
Pakistan should take steps to give them fundamental rights which was
accordingly done. This authority applies equally to AJK as have similar status
under UN resolutions and constitution of Pakistan(see 1999scmr1379)
The above, besides innumerable other political and
administrative indulgences both in AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan, leave no doubt
that both are practically treated as parts of Pakistan territory as defined in
Art 1(2) (d) of the Constitution of Pakistan , short of being its province or
part of federation.
Article 258 of the constitution of Pakistan specifically
authorizes the government of Pakistan to make law for peace and good governance
of any part of Pakistan not forming part of a province. Till parliament makes
the law, president is empowered to make provision for good governance by order.
Although GB order or interim constitution of AJK do not
specifically refer to this article of the Constitution, but these shall be
deemed to have been made under it, because there is no other provision in the
constitution authorizing GOP to make any such arrangement.
It is basically the prerogative of the Parliament to make
law for good governance of such territories. The order of the President is an
executive legislation, subject to law made by the parliament. The legality must
coexist with legitimacy, propriety and credibility, which stems from the voice
of representatives of the country sitting in the parliament.
Legislation through parliament will involve the nation as a
whole, it will raise the status of the areas, affirm the confidence of the
people and bring into mainstream the territories whose executive authorities
are otherwise under oath of their governance order or constitution whatever it
is called, for remaining “loyal to the country and accession of the State to
Pakistan, bearing true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the
sovereignty and integrity of Pakistan.” while prime minister of Pakistan and
his nominees in the council are not under oath of AJK constitution or GB order.
Given the above international, constitutional and practical
ground realities, it is worth consideration for parliament that, keeping intact
the international status and geographical integrity of these territories and
given the commitment made under Art 257 of the Constitution that relationship
between Pakistan and state shall be determined when people of the state decide
to accede to Pakistan, a temporary provisional arrangement be made by adding a
proviso to Art. 257 of the constitution as;
“ Provided that till the people of the state decide to
accede to Pakistan, the territories of the state under the effective control of
Pakistan high command shall be treated as a province or part of federation(AS
THE CASE MAY BE)”
25 June at 13:45 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam (PART-3)It will simplify and legitimize the relationship
through which the parliament, instead of Council i.e. AJK Council or
Gilgit-Baltistan Council (which infact is government of Pakistan) can be
empowered to make laws or which are otherwise within the competence of Pakistan
i.e. UNCIP, Defence security, foreign affairs, foreign trade and aid (Reserved
Subjects). The Government of AJK and the government of Gilgit-Baltistan can
directly deal with the relevant ministries instead of going through the Council
or the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, and it is the spirit of Cabinet Division
Notifications No.D.O.8/9/70-Coord-I dated 11th May, 1971 and 6/7/88-GC dated
6th June 1988 directing to“treat AJK at par with the other Provinces of
Pakistan,” which is a reality in vogue. It has to be constitutionalized.
For achieving the object number of seats in the national
assembly and senate shall have to be increased by amendment of constitution so
that representatives of these territories directly participate in legislation
which is otherwise done by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and six other members
of the Parliament of Pakistan sitting in the AJK or GB Council, who either
extend or adopt the laws made by the Parliament of Pakistan within a blink of
eye. It will not affect the Kashmir issue at all as an act which is indirectly
done through council composed of members of Pakistan Parliament, shall be
directly done by entire Parliament with the participation of representatives of
these territories.
The representation in the parliament may be direct on the
basis of adult franchise against the seats allocated for these territories or
indirect by the nominees of the assemblies of these territories, to be notified
by ECOP.This arrangement remained in practice in Indian held Kashmir till 1967.
It is interesting to note that AJK Assembly and Council are
debarred from treading on the subjects of UNCIP and Foreign Affairs of AJK,
under section 31(3) of the Constitution which means that Kashmir issue is taken
out of their purview, although it is primarily concern of Kashmiris, who are
ousted from it. It will infuse life and spirit in the Kashmir issue by their
representatives at the national level. It will avoid anomalies and
manupolations,remove disparities and provide equal opportunities amongst equals
at official and political level, streamline relationship, bring good governance
and harmony throughout the territories of Pakistan. Giving direct
representation to the people of these territories, instead of indirect
induction in Council, by keeping intact the disputed nature of Kashmir under
the constitution, the cause of Kashmir will be further strengthened. It will
silence the voices that these areas are unrepresented at national level, though
they are govern by centre or federal government, directly as well as
indirectly.
I may refer to a paradox that the people of FATA and PATA
are given representation in the national and provincial assemblies, who make
laws for whole of Pakistan and the Province, as the case may be, but the laws
do not apply to their areas under Article 247 of the Constitution, unless
specially made applicable by President. As against it, laws made by the
parliament on the reserved subjects or the council composed of PM Pakistan and
his nominees from parliament , apply directly and instantly to AJK and GB.
Before parting with it, I may dispel an impression lurking
in some minds that India has made whole of the state of jammu and Kashmir as
its
The territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as defined
in entry 15 of the first schedule of the Indian constitution is:
“The territory which immediately before the commencement of
this constitution, was comprised in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Under Article 394, the Indian Constitution came into force
on 26th day of January 1950. The territories of Azad Kashmir and
Gilgit-Baltistan did not comprise in the Indian Sate of Jammu and Kashmir
“immediately before the commencement of Indian constitution”. Both the
territories stood liberated from the Dogra ruler of the Sate in 1947 and formed
independent politico-administrative units as a protectorate of Government of
Pakistan, which is legitimized by UN Resolutions. Thus, their being part of
Pakistan, is not disputed under the Indian Constitution at all. These were
subjected to dispute due to UNCIP Resolutions, that is why Pakistan has not
made them its Provinces.
Dispute infact is in relation to the occupied part of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir which is annexed by India contrary to the spirit of
the Indian Independence Act 1947, wishes of the people and UN resolutions. The
interim arrangement, subject to Art 257, in no way conflicts with the UN
resolutions, neither does it create any impediment or weaken the stand of
Pakistan for the resolution of Kashmir dispute at any level, by any stretch of
jurisprudence.
Definition of Pakistan under article 1 of its Constitution
is restricted to territories which are “otherwise included in it” or “accedes
to it”, while under Art. 1 of Indian constitution the territories of India
shall also include such territories as may be acquired by it. Its expansionist
designs are further manifested by Art 260 of its constitution which provides
for undertaking any exective, legeslativ or judicial functions of any territory
not being part of India.
We are shelving and sceptical to regulate our territories,
while India is aspiring to expand its sovereignty over the foreign territories.
Let us act according to wishes of people of these two parts of Kashmir in
Pakistan, the dictates of Constitution, law and accepted international
commitments, without being apologetic and hostage to the Indian obstinacy to
honour UN resolutions on Kashmir and, streamline the casual arrangement in a
constitutional form till the dispute is finaly settled under UN reolutions.
Author is Judge, Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. in
Muzaffarabad.
25 June at 13:46 · Like
Nazir
Gilani Nadeem Aslam Sahib Thanks for the continued supplement on
the Debate.
25 June at 13:54 · Like · 1
Nazir
Haq Thank you Gilani Sb, for another brilliant contribution,
within the juridical parameters, deconstructing the discourse of Justice Sb by
demonstrating its internal contradictions and flaws. I would like to cite a
passage in your submission and relate to the fundamental issue in this debate:
the question of sovereignty inherent in the category of "State
Subject". as you rightly hold that 'all debates on Kashmir at the UN have
been conducted by “Non Resident Kashmiris” and by “Non State Subjects”. yet
25 June at 15:54 · Unlike · 2
Nazir
Haq sorry for this dis-junction. I always encounter this problem
when using face book.
Nazir
Haq Anyway,to continue; Yet the UNCIP resolutions entitle the
'State Subjects' to exercise their right of self determination. Both India and
Pakistan undertook the responsibility to provide the 'State Subjects', residing
in the territories under their respective control, with the conditions to
exercise that right. Even in the interim period this right resides with the
'State Subjects'.
25 June at 16:10 · Unlike · 3
Nazir Haq
The question is, does the Act 74 lives up to the 'trust obligation' Pakistan
had signed up to? The substantive arguments so far lead to the conclusion that
it does not. Any attempt by Justice Sb to improve its status by recommendations
for reforms seem futile. For the basic question of the 'Sovereignty' is
violated by this act.
25 June at 16:18 · Unlike · 3
Nazir
Haq Let's explore the concept of 'Self Determination' and
'Sovereignty' further. The concept of 'Self determination' in political
philosophy and political theory, and also it has been practice by political
movements detonates the the rights of heterogeneous entities ( ethnic,
religious, linguistic and regional communities) to exercise in a 'Sovereign'
state as to whether they elect to live under that state sovereignty or to
accede to establish a state of their own. The struggle of Kashmiri people,
right up to 1947 was not for accession from their state, but for the transfer
of 'Sovereignty' from a monarchical rule to the popular citizenry. Both the
newly created dominions of India and Pakistan, by the British colonial
administration, did respect the 'Sovereignty' of the ruler of Kashmir and did
not intervene. Pakistan even signed up a 'Stand Still Agreement, with the
Ruler. Contrary to the claim of Justice Sb that JK was not a sovereign state
under British colonialism, my contention is that The 'Indian Independence Act'
passed by the British Parliament, in 1947, did deem the princely state
Sovereign on 14 August 1947, by withdrawing the Suzerainty of the British
Crown. JK
25 June at 16:54 · Like · 2
Nazir
Haq Secondly, a rebellion took place in the part of the State
and a section of Kashmiris liberated the part of the state and established a
provisional government. the rest is history.
25 June at 17:01 · Like · 1
Nazir
Haq The question needs to be addressed by the participants as to
how the 'State Subjects' can be empowered in the existing systems of
governance, under Act 74, to exercise their 'Sovereignty'. I submit that the
laborious efforts by the respected Justice Sb to reform the Act will not
deliver.
25 June at 17:06 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja Very important points been raised by all participants. As
been said the term Non Residents has been borrowed from India i.e NRI for non
resident indian & the objections & concerns came forward are valid to
challenge Manzoor Hussain Gilani sbs statement. Nazir Haq sb moved the debate
back to real point with his verdict as Manzoor Gillani sbs efforts for
amendments in Act 1974 to be "Failure" in the context to deliver the
required levels of governance in AJK. Now the question arise, what & where
is an alternative to fill that gap in the light of UN resolutions?
25 June at 17:29 · Like · 1
Nazir
Haq I suggest that We need to learn from the 66 years of
failures of all involved. It's time to stop tinkering under UN resolutions.
Radical approach to readdress the question of 'Sovereignty' of 'State Subject'
with re-positioning the political stance is required. I reserve my submission
on this aspect for later. Would like to hear from other contributors.
25 June at 17:49 · Unlike · 2
Nazir
Haq My apologies for misspelling the term denotes as 'detonate',
in the section dealing with the concepts of self determination. I have problems
to use the face book competently.
25 June at 17:56 · Like
Nazir
Gilani Nazir Haq (Nazish Sahib) don't worry, times may close in
to force us to spell it that way. Our Grandmothers would say "Hell With
It" in anger when faced with a dilemma and we may have to say
"Detonate It", when there is no exit ramp.
25 June at 18:11 · Like · 3
Shaf
Raja 66 Years are enough to learn the basics been discussed
above & if not yet then we can wait till next 66 years is not a bad
idea.The time demands an alternative to come forward after these 66 years if we
have any ....
25 June at 18:37 · Like · 2
Navid
Haq Asking the right questions often leads to right answers.
Finding a solution in UN resolutions is to accept that kashmir is a
"Territorial dispute", a narrative essentially anti-kashmir. In 1947
Kashmir's Sovereignity was violted by foreign invasion. when an army enter
someone else's territory it is accordingly violating international law. This
intervention in simple terms becomes an occupation. The solution therefore
necessitates deoccupation. Pak/India have no interest in going to UN to resolve
this issue. For all intent and purposes they both have defacto accepted the
division. Therefore there needs to be a paradigm shift in the way kashmiris are
to articulte this issue to find a solution. We cannot afford to continue with
the way politics has been carried out for the last 66 years. UN is a tool that
US and EU use to Propogate their Internatonal interests and hegemony. In that
equasion we are no where to be found. We must take the Bull by the horn
ourselves and strive for a solution. Imperialist attitude will remain unchanged
untill we get ourselves recognized as a "nation" in UN .
25 June at 18:57 · Unlike · 5
Nazir
Haq Thank you Shah Jee (Gilani Sb) for reassurance. Let's hope
that it can be avoided by collective wisdom', to use your serene term, of all
involved.
25 June at 19:15 · Like · 1
Nazir
Haq My dear Shaf, be patient. If we have waited for 66 years, a
little more time to invite the 'collective wisdom', to use the serene term
deployed by Gilani Sb in this debate,
25 June at 19:27 · Unlike · 4
Nazir
Haq for developing a broader view. What do you think of Navid
Haq's contribution. Just to acknowledge and inform, he is my elder son. I can
reassure you that their has not been a slightest soliciting as to what he
can/should say. He has been brought up in libertarian traditions to exercise
his 'self determination' without fear and favour.
25 June at 19:36 · Like · 3
Nazir
Haq I do not wish to dominate the debate, but will definitely
present my alternative, in good time, for which I have been striving for over
past 40 years.
25 June at 19:40 · Like · 3
Nazir
Haq Let's hear from others first. That's democratic. In't it?
25 June at 19:43 · Like · 3
Shaf
Raja True Nazir Haq sb.
25 June at 19:48 · Like
Nazir
Haq Thank you.
25 June at 19:52 · Like
Shaf
Raja Navid Haq sb has raised the real points & I have said
nearly same when I pointed the acceptance of UN resolutions partially with our
choices ....
25 June at 19:52 · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam At that time I responded to JR.M.G via e-mail so I
reproduce it for your attention Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 Dear Justice Syed
Manzoor H. Gilani Sb, Please find our point of view on the issue of GB.
Regards,
Nadeem
Aslam
Spokesperson IC JKNAP Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 :(PART-1)
Defacto Pakistani Province Gilgit Baltitan is a alarming
message for Unified,Secular, Independent Kashmir.
Recent Pakistani constitutional colonial aggression on
Gilgit Baltistan via Empowerment and Self-governance, 2009 passed by the prime
minister of Pakistan Yousaf Raza Gilani and his federal cabinet and his federal
minister Qumar Zaman Kiara be the first Adhock Governor of the new Pakistani
Defacto province of Gilgit Baltistan and the president of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari singed and endorsed it to their slave territory of
Pakistan Occupied Gilgit Baltistan (POGB).
That is a great colonial gift for the forcibly divided state
of Jammu Kashmir ,historically many Kashmiri groups believed that Pakistan is
their Allie and she is backing for the right of self determination of the
former princely state of Jammu Kashmir.
I don`t want to go into the past especially after 1988 when
thousands of innocent lives taken by the Pakistan sponsored proxy war but Kashmiries
suffered enough and lost their life ,property and honour.
In 21st century Defacto Pakistani Province Gilgit Baltistan
Empowerment and Self-governance, 2009 Act ,is passed over a dead body of right
of self determination of Jammu Kashmir.
Those groups who are working with Islamabad must show their
regret over the recent constitutional legal,and historical geopolitical decline
of the so-called democratic Govt.of Pakistan and its powerful military
establishment until the time is passe away.
Why the people of Gilgit Baltistan and so-called Azad
Kashmir (Free Kashmir) join Pakistani state which was prove a failed military
regime in 1971 and onward.
What`s happening with Pakistan in 2009,its not a better then
the past,there are no guarantee of fundamental rights,basic necessity of life
,(food,health ,justice ,sugar,etc) are far far away form the reach of any
common citizen.Where as their own nationalities, Balochi,Sindhi,Sariky,Pushtoon
are looking for their right of self determination which were denied by the
military and civil establishment since 1947?
In these circumstances the region of Gilgit Baltistan which
is a full of water and natural resources i.e Pakistan is a one of the larger
country exporting gem stones to the world apart from the Swat all other places
are in GB and Azad Kashmir.With this Geo-political position GB have large
number of rich natural water resources and Pakistan failed to build a Kala Bagh
dam but Govt.of Pakistan building a many Dames without the consent and wishes
of the people of POGB.There are many other examples of exploitation done by the
Pakistani state in these areas.
Either in Azad Kashmir a smiler story of colonial
exploitation of Pakistani state with their allies in POK working under the
shelter of Pakistani military.Mangle dam was built in 1966 in Mirpur Azad
Kahmir and recent years its upgrading through an agreement done by Govt. of
Pakistan, Chief Secretary of Azad Kashmir (Must be a Pakistani national
-Act-1974) and Pakistan WAPDA (Pakistan. Water and Power Development
Authority)It`s production of electricity is more then one thousand MW
(1000,Mega Watt) and the total requirement of electricity consumption in Azad
Kashmir is less then three hundred ( 300,MW) but electricity is unavailable in
Azad Kashmir and its prices are higher then in Pakistani province Punjab.
Even its full royalty was not paid by any POK Govt. and POK
authorities have not any control on it.
In context of some examples mention above we need to see the
hypocrisy of the Islamabad through historical documents,events.
1-
Historical Documents
Kashmir-Pak Standstill Agreement.
Telegram from Prime Minister, Kashmir State,
to Sardar Abdur Rob Nishtor,
States Relations Department, Karachi
12th August, 1947
Legal Document No 110
Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill
Agreements with Pakistan on all matters on which these exist at present moment
with outgoing British Indian Government. It is suggested that existing
arrangements should continue pending settlement of details and formal execution
of fresh agreement.
Telegram from Foreign Secretary,
Government of Pakistan, Karachi,
to Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir
15th August, 1947
Legal Document No 111
Your telegram of the 12th. The Government of Pakistan agree
to have a Standstill Agreement of Jammu and Kashmir for the continuance of the
existing arrangements pending settlement of details and formal execution of
fresh agreements.
Whats Pakistani ruling elite returns with the help of their
Kashmiri puppets.
(POGB) KARACHI PACT 28TH APRIL 1949 REFLECTION OF PAKISTANI
KASHMIR POLICY.
(Mustaq Goormani Minister without any portfolio (office),
POK Govt.(Sardar Ibriaham Khan President POK Govt). and the Muslim
Conference(Ch.Gulam Abbas President Muslim Conference)
Pakistan retained control of the following subjects :
Defense
Foreign policy’ of POK
Rehabilitation of refugees and
Control over all affairs of Gilgit and Ladakh.
The POK government was saddled with overseeing:
The policy with regard to administration
General supervision of administration, and
Publicity of its own activities. The charter of the Muslim
Conference was restricted to publicity on the plebiscite and ‘general guidance
of the POK government’. The Karachi Pact was a landmark in that it sought to
institutionalize Kashmiri subservience to Pakistan and put POK in its place.
25 June at 21:09 · Edited · Unlike · 2
Nadeem
Aslam :(PART-2) 2-Whats the Constitution of 1973 Islamic
Republic of Pakistan`s say on Kashmir?
Article-257. Provision relating to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir.
When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to
accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be
determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.
What the Govt. of Pakistan delivering to the people of GB as
defacto fifth province of Pakistan in
“GILGIT-BALTISTAN EMPOWERMENT AND SELF GOVERNANCE ORDER
-2009”.
Defacto province of Gilgit Baltistan ,
Shall be proposed under Article1- 2(f) described territory
of Pakistan which needs to be approved by Pakistani Parliament (Assembly and
Senate) with two third majority.
Articles
54. Summoning and prorogation of Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament).
55. Voting in Assembly and quorum.
56. Address by President of Pakistan
80. Annual Budget Statement.
81. Expenditure charged upon Federal Consolidated Fund.
82. Procedure relating to Annual Budget Statement.
83. Authentication of schedule of authorized expenditure.
87. Secretariats of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).
Defato province of Pakistan treated under the constitution
of Pakistan as other four provinces were treated.That`s why they pointed a
Adhoc Governor (A Punjabi King) to rigged coming elections on 12th November
2009 with the results of their own choice.
Does the Ad hock Governor of Gigit Baltistan Mr.Qumar Zaman
Kiara is qualify for such post under the State Subject Rule of the State of
Jammu Kashmir.The answer is NO.
Historical Documents
State Subject Definition Notification
20th April, 1927
Legal Document No 44
No. I-L/84. - The following definition of the term
"State Subject" has been sanctioned by his Highness the Maharaja
Bahadur (vice Private Secretary's letter No. 2354, dated the 31st January, 1927
to the Revenue Member of Council) and is hereby promulgated for general
information.
The term State Subject means and includes:
Class I. - All persons born and residing within the State
before the commencement of the reign of His Highness the late Maharaja Ghulab
Singh Sahib Bahadur, and also persons who settled the rein before the
commencement of samvat year 1942, and have since been permanently residing
therein.
Class II. - All persons other than those belonging to Class
I who settled within the State before the close of samvat year 1968, and have
since permanently resided and acquired immovable property therein.
Class III. - All persons, other than those belonging to
Classes I and II permanently residing within the State, who have acquired under
a rayatnama any immovable property therein or WIZO may hereafter acquire such
property under an ijazatnama and may execute a rayatnama after ten years
continuous residence therein.
Class IV. - Companies which have been registered as such
within the State and which, being companies in which the Government are
financially interested or as to the economic benefit to the State or to the
financial stability of which the Government are satisfied, have by a special
order of His Highness been declared to be State subjects.
Note I. - In matters of grants of the State scholarships
State lands for agricultural and house building purposes and recruitment to
State service, State subjects of Class 1 should receive preference over other
classes and those of Class 11, over Class III, subject, however, to the order
dated 31st January, 1927 of his Highness the Maharaja Bahadur regarding
employment of hereditary State Subjects in Government service.
Note II. - The descendants of the persons who have secured
the status of any class of the State Subjects will be entitled to. become the
State Subject of the same class. For example, if A is declared a State Subject
of Class II his sons and grand sons will ipso facto acquire the status of the
same Class (II) and not of Class I.
Note III. - The wife or a widow of a State Subject of any
class shall acquire the status of her husband as State Subject of the same
Class as her husband, so long as she resides in the State and does not leave
the State for permanent residence out-side the State.
Note IV. - For the purpose of the interpretation of the term
'State Subject' either with reference to any law for the time being in force or
otherwise, the definition given in this Notification as mended up to date shall
be read as if such amended definition existed in this Notification as
originally issued.
NOTIFICATION
(Issued by order of His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur dated
Srinagar, the 27th June 1932, (14th Har, 1989, published In Government Gazette
dated 24th Har, 1989).
No.13L/1989. - -Whereas it is necessary to determine the
status of Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects in foreign territories and to inform
the Government of Foreign States as to the position of their nationals in this
state, it is hereby commanded and notified for public information, as follows:
That all emigrants from the Jammu and Kashmir State to
foreign territories shall be considered State Subjects and also the descendants
of these emigrants born aboard for two generations. Provided that, these
nationals of the Jammu and Kashmir State shall not be entitled to claim the
internal rights granted to subjects of this State by the laws, unless they
fulfill the conditions laid down by those laws and rules for the specific
purposes mentioned therein.
The foreign nationals residing in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir shall not acquire the nationality of the Jammu and Kashmir State until
after the age of 18 on purchasing immovable property under permission of an
ijazatnama and on obtaining a rayatnama after ten years continuous residence in
the Jammu and Kashmir State as laid down in Notification No.-I-L. of 1984,
dated 20th April, 1927.
Certificates of nationality of the Jammu and Kashmir State
may, on application, be granted by the Minister-in Charge of the Political
Department in accordance with the provision of section I of this Notification.
3-The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on
13-8-1948.
Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of
India and Pakistan.
Members of the Commission: Argentina. Belgium, Columbia,
Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.
PART III
The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan
reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end,
upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations
with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such
free expression will be assured.
So through all these arguments means to the areas of Gilgit
Baltistan are belongs to its state subject holders of the entire forcibly divided
state of Jammu Kashmir and the Govt.of Pakistan can`t be unilaterally withdrawn
from those promises made by the Kashmiri people,India and in the UN.
Against the wishes and aspirations of the people of GB this
frame work order will be reject by people of Jammu Kashmir.
Its now up to the Kashmiri leadership to oppose and reject
this act of Pakistani occupation on GB in every possible way of protest every
where in the world.
We have to say no to the GB as a new Pakistani province and
take our struggle in our own hands and build an Independent,Seculer and Unified
state of Jammu Kashmi with the wishes of its own people.
Written By,
Nadeem
25 June at 21:06 · Edited · Unlike · 1
Shams
Rehman I agree with Navid that we should ask the right
questions. However, within the parameters of this debate that stems from the
AJK High court decision the primary question is IF the Kashmir Council a state
body/institution?
25 June at 20:12 · Like · 2
Nadeem
Aslam Dear All please remember historically 1- Kashmir never be
a part of Pakistan in her thousands of years of history and Pakistan only
emerge in 1947 with the laps of British paramountcy Indian independence Act
1947.Under the Article 1 of the constitution of Islamic republic of Pakistan
Azad Kashmir and GB are not their constitutional part. None of UN resolution
stated that Kashmir or any its part is a part of Pakistan.So JR M.G
misinterpret both(UN resolution's and Constitution of Pakistan .3-Acording to the
constitution of Pakistan supreme court of Pakistan only inter prate the
constitution only parliament (Majla-se-Shurah) can do the legislation so the
cited case related to superior courts of Pakistan can`t supersede the
constitution.4- Only Article 257 is related to whole state of Jammu Kashmir
which is a reflection of UN resolution of 13th August 1948 .
25 June at 20:40 · Edited · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja Welldone Shams Rehman sb to put the debate back on track.
25 June at 20:39 · Like
Shaf
Raja Kashmir Council is partially a state body while dominated
by Pk. The real question is the powers vested in the council, exercised by
non-state members including Chairman (PM of Pk) & the officials under this
body, those are not responsible to no one including AJK assembly or Govt.
25 June at 20:47 · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam Similarly when we come to see Acts imposed on Azad Kashmir
by the Pakistan government their legitimacy is full of malice to use their
powers by hook and crook and for the only interests of Pakistan.
25 June at 20:49 · Unlike · 2
Nazir
Gilani AJK Council is a creature of Interm Constitution Act 1974
and is created under Section 21 of the Act.It is a State Institution.We need to
address the participation and control of non State Subjects in it.
25 June at 21:13 via mobile · Unlike · 5
Nazir
Haq Dear respected friends, please revisit the entire question
of the role of the Pakistani establishment in relation to the imposition of the
Act 74 over the 'State Subjects'. How can you endorse an institution as 'a
state body', which has its origins in a legal instrument that was created by
'non-state body'. Shaf's submission is self contradictory, in terms of his
correctly pointing out the powers exercised by its incumbents, who are a)
non-state subjects, and b) are not accountable to anyone in the state.
25 June at 21:15 · Like · 2
Shaf
Raja The Act 74 in its text is not formulated or passed by
Pakistan parliament rather just aproved by Pk Govt. So the resposibilty goes to
the AJK assembly not Pk. Plz try to get the technicality in the political scam.
25 June at 21:26 · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain There are various sides of the debate 1 is political and
2nd is Constituatianal . Needs of hours to educate the ppl about our legal
stand and possition,this is first time we are learning direct Leagal stands
through direct debat from experts of the subects thank very much .
25 June at 21:38 · Edited · Like · 2
Faisal
Jamil Kashmiri Uff Dr sahb such a long debate. Hard to read
25 June at 21:40 · Unlike · 1
Nadeem
Aslam The author of the Act 1974 was the Mr.Pirzada who design
that act on the dictation of Mr.Z.a BHUTOO
25 June at 21:40 · Unlike · 1
Navid
Haq In so far as empowering state subjects goes, i believe that
we as nationalist have left this arena open to foreign influence for too long.
I think we can learn from IRA/SINN FEAIN struggle. We cannot afford to remain
outside the political process. If we beleive that power is a
"relationship", then we must become part of the process where we can
exert our ideology and make a difference, and in the process change that power
relation. At the present moment we are not even deemed as a pressure group.
Alex Salmond's political arguements are worth paying attention to in relation
to Scotish nationalism.
25 June at 21:50 · Edited · Unlike · 3
Shaf
Raja Well said Navid Haq sb. That political process remained a
"no go area" for nationalists & now the price is being payed. So
I agree with ur point of view.
25 June at 21:49 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja Paid
25 June at 21:49 · Like
Navid
Haq The solution is in "taking the oath of allegiance to
changing it democratically to an oath of allegiance to Kashmiri
constitution" . That may sound daft but please gentlemen, i am open to an
alternative strategy.
25 June at 22:07 · Edited · Like · 1
Tanveer
Ahmed Tanveer Ahmed The UNCIP Resolutions were a conflict
resolving mechanism devised by the UN and nothing more than that, as far as I
understand them. The basic flaw of the UN mechanism on Kashmir was that they
approached the problem as a land dispute between two countries, both of whom
used intrigue and subversion to gain physical access to the territory. In
essence, the U.N. contradicted (and continues to) defy it's own charter by
ignoring public opinion and indigenous public process throughout the erstwhile
State of J & K. I'm open to correction but Pakistan's persistent quotation
of UNCIP resolutions (viz. preamble of Act 74') is misplaced and an attempt to
disguise itself as a legitimate actor in Kashmir, when in fact it isn't. Of
course, neither Pakistan or India followed the UNCIP mechanism for conflict
resolution in any case.
25 June at 22:13 · Unlike · 5
Nazir
Haq The source of all legal authority (in liberal and
communitarian - including Marxist- moral and political theory) resides in
politically established legislator by a sovereign body, receiving its
legitimacy from the 'general will' of the (masses) citizens. In our case, from
the 'State Subjects'.
25 June at 22:25 · Unlike · 3
Nazir
Haq The alternative to your option, Navid, is for the 'State
Subjects', to mount a massive campaign to disrupt the electoral process with
the demands of removal of this subservient and subversive requirement of the
oath. Its a strategic consideration demanding accurate e
25 June at 22:34 · Like · 4
Nazir
Haq assessment and evaluation of the chances of success and
failure of the balance of power in favour of the strategy in question. However,
your point is valid in its essence calling for participation in the political
process.
25 June at 22:37 · Like · 2
Nazir
Haq Very Valid and pertinent contribution by Tanveer Ahmed.
25 June at 22:56 · Like · 4
Navid
Haq Yes the masses thus far have inadvertantly accepted without
much resistance the oppressors hegemony through the electoral process. The
masses have played a huge role in legitimizing the occupation. This is why
Pakistan was able to eradicate the option of "Independence" from the
resolutions in the 50s, hence convering the issue to a question of accession.
The logic of accession presupposes that its a territorial dispute. Those in
muzaffarabad have played on this immorally for too long. That's why it has
become imperative that we disrupt their strategy.
25 June at 23:24 · Edited · Like
Nadeem
Aslam Draft Resolutions on Gilgit Baltistan 13th September 2009
We the representatives of the British-Kashmiri political
Parties and Organisations (based in the UK) gathered here in Birmingham, UK on 13th
September 2009 under the name Campaign against Annexation of Gilgit Baltistan
agreed that
We:-
• Reaffirm the fact that Gilgit and Baltistan are Part of
the state Jammu and Kashmir the disputed nature of which is accepted by both
India and Pakistan, under United Nation Resolutions since 1948. That the
successive governments of Pakistan have since accepted the Trust obligations,
according to which Pakistan is to facilitate self governance of all the
territories under its control until such time the people of the state are given
the opportunity to decide its future through the expression of their free will.
Yet the people of Gilgit and Baltistan have hitherto been denied the basic
human rights of franchise and democratic governance.
• Support, in principle the empowerment attempt by the
present government of Pakistan with the financial package and recognition of
rights of people of Gilgit and Baltistan. However, we are totally opposed to
the forms and methods adopted by Pakistan for the Governance of these areas as
they are in breach of the Trust Obligations accepted by Pakistan. These latest
measures further Pakistani Control over the people of Gilgit and Baltistan
rather than facilitate self – governance.
• Categorically state that Pakistan has no right under
International Law as well /as in accordance with the 1973 Constitution of
Pakistan to directly govern, appoint a governor, or redesign the nature of
these parts of the State as a de-fecto province of Pakistan. The People of
Gilgit and Baltistan and Azad Kashmir together have the right to determine the
best way of Governance of this region either as part of the Azad Kashmir
constituent assembly/legislature or as a separate political, legal entity with
organic links with AJK under a plural democratic set up.
• Firmly reiterate that Gilgit Baltistan is legally,
historically and geographically part of Jammu and Kashmir and no external
power, including Government of Pakistan, has right to govern, divide or annexe
it.
• Urge the Government of Azad Kashmir to condemn, reject and
oppose the governance approach currently adopted by Pakistan to control these
areas as a de-facto province of Pakistan.
• Urge the Government of Pakistan to abandon the governance
approach currently adopted and give a genuine choice to the people of Gilgit
Baltistan to democratically find appropriate forms of self-governance through
consultations with the Kashmiris across the division line if they so wish.
• Strongly urge the government of Pakistan to reinstate the
State Subject Rule with immediate effect in Gilgit and Baltistan and call a
Political Convention of the representatives of the peoples from all the
territories of the State under its control, to agree upon the constitutional
and political forms of self-governance for these areas.
• Request all the democratic countries and powers of the
world to support the people in all parts of divided Kashmir State including
Gilgit and Baltistan to achieve the goal of political emancipation by acquiring
genuine substantive socio-political and economic rights deemed necessary for
free and independent people in modern times.
• Urge the United Nation organisations to support this
resolution and call on the government of Pakistan to abandon this approach.
• Urge all the Human Rights organisations and institutional
bodies for justice and fairness to support this resolution and write to
Pakistan Government to stop implementation of current governance approach
adopted for Gilgit and Baltistan.
25 June at 23:32 · Unlike · 2
Nazir
Haq Yes! that's what is required.
25 June at 23:32 · Unlike · 3
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani The debate basically relates to constitutional
reforms which was diverted to side issues by belittling AJK judiciary which has
played exemplary role particularly after 70's despite limited space.
If the Ajk judiciary is given role equal to its counter part
in Pakistan or even equal to GB supreme appellate court ,it can deliver more
than it has been . It need not be reiterated given an earlier post dilating
upon other matters as well and given to a discourse reproduced by Mr Nadeem
aslam in the post above.
Resident and non resident issue is misperceived and read out
of context.S.Sts wether residents or non residents are a part of the process nd
all of them matter in final disposition of the state, but currently brunt of
the maladministration is born directly by residents , so they are directly
concerned ,hence number of likes to the proposal has gone beyond 130 as against
dissension by a few only , that too in details of the process ,not in the
object.
Mr. Navid Haq has brought in a pragmatic thought which also
relates to constitutional reforms , it is right approch.
Credit is due to mr Nadeem aslam for reproducing my point of
view posted by KASHMIR WATCH . I honestly hold the views with due respect to
contrary views.
Dr NAZIR Gilani sb has very rightly concluded , despite my
reservations on details of his arguments I.e
""The principal recommendation has to be
requesting Pakistan to live upto its trust obligation under UNCIP
resolutions""
We are not to request but genuinely and vigorously demand
reforms in consonance with UN charter , if Govt of pakistan derives its
authority under UNCIP , besides sec 33 of the ajk constitution and sec 93 of GB
ORDER , similar , if not more, as introduced under 18th and 20th amendments in
the constitution of Pakistan .
Mr NAZIR Haq has adopted true and broader constitutional
approach in concluding that
" Question needs to be addressed by the participants as
to how the state subjects can be empowered in the EXISTING SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE
UNDER ACT 74 exercising their sovereignty"
THERE has to be a cut of point for achieving the object
visualised by the jurists above and , that is , vigorously demanding
constitutional reforms by amendment of act 1974.
Needless to say that act 74 is introduced as " Re
enactment of act 70" which had replaced acts 68, 64and 60 respectively.
Time is ripe now for reforms.
Pakistan constitution has undergone 20 amendments since 1973
and Indian 78 since 1950 introducing reforms and empowerment.
Let us put in debate every clause of the act 74 and suggest
amendments to facilitate our legislators to demand it from GOP
26 June at 00:13 via mobile · Like · 1
Sadiq
Subhani So many facebook friends from the UK who are reading the
notifications of this valuable debate on the AJK High Courts ruling, have asked
me to put it in layman's terms for their better understanding. I confess my
inability to do so. however, it is equally important to keep our Youth in
Diaspora informed. . 'trespass' is the words, the High Court perhaps intended
to interpret. Put simply, based on facts and the merits of the case before it,
the High Court ruled Pakistan has no jurisdiction over 'Azad Kashmir'. Azad
Kashmir is a separate state which hoist its national flag on all point of entry
such as Kohala, Mangla and Holhar. When travelling out of the state into
Pakistan, Pakistan also hoist its national flag at the entry points. Pakistan
and Jammu and Kashmir has their own prime Ministers and Presidents, own Supreme
Court and own National Legislative assembly. Since Kashmir Council supposed to
be the upper house, it too supposed to be governed by the state subjects and
not by leant officers from Pakistan or any other country including India. .The
state if JK was invaded by its two neighbours Pakistan and India. despite the
Unite Nations has asked the two to arrange for a plebiscite in all parts of
JKGB, they persist to be unlawful occupiers. In its resolutions ((13/08/1948)
the UN has asked Pakistan to withdraw its troops/groups immediately and India
gradually once the law and order is restored. Now both countries created unrest
in JK to find an excuse to be in JKGB. No law and order, no withdrawal. Both
have lit a fire and the Kashmiris are its fuel. . It is certain there is no
accession with Pakistan. Had there been an accession, India too would not have
been asked to withdraw its troops 'gradually' from JK. Therefore, there is no
accession with anyone. Moreover, neither National nor Muslim Conference had
authority to sign or call it accession with anyone. The only solution to be is
the UN Resolution via right of self-determination (UN Resolution
dated13/08/1948). . Now the questions are: (1) whether AJK Act 74 (interim
Constitution) lawful or unlawful? (2) Why interim Constitution? (3) Are there
any legal and international hurdles in making a permanent AJK Constitution (4)
What is the legal status of JKGB? . In above debate thread, all participants
agree that Kashmir is a separate entity and for the same reason in its
institutions foreign nationals such as Pakistani (and Indian) nationals cannot
be employed. . Next question is the empowerment of the State Subjects. His
Honourable CJ (ret) Manzoor Hussain Gilani sahib thinks the way to empowerment
is abolition of Kashmir Council and direct provincial status in Pakistani
Federation however, all other participants such as Dr Nazir Gilani, Nazir Haq
Nazish, Shaf Raja, Nadeem Aslam, Dr Aftab, Navid Haq, Javid Anayat, Tanvir
sahib, Comrade Surkh, Wahid Kashir, Shams Rehman, Talat Bhat and myself
(apologies if I have missed someone) think the way to everlasting empowerment
is complete freedom and independence. .The debate continues...
26 June at 00:22 · Unlike · 4
DrAftab
Hussain آزادی ملنا محال ہے تو غلامی قبول کر لی
جائے یا آزادی کے لیے جدوجہد کی جائے اگر ریفارمز ہی لانا ہیں تو جموں کشمیر کی اپنی
شناخت کے ساتھ انڈیا اور پاکستان کی پارلیمان میں جائے بغیر اپنے لیے ایک آئین بنانے
میں ہم قاصر کیوں ہیں ؟
26 June at 00:23 · Like · 3
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Subhani SB to the extent of abolition of AJK
COUCIL attributed to me is right , but not the provincial status out right .
What I suggest is
RIGHTS EQUAL TO THE PROVINCES OF PAKISTAN WITHOUT MAKING AJK
AND GB PROVINCES OF PAKISTAN
BY AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN , INSTEAD OF
TREATING THEM SO UNDER THE GOP NOTIFICATIONS OF 1971. And 1978.
26 June at 00:41 via mobile · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani ( Continued with first part)
Under which ajk is subjected to obligations of a province
not the rights
26 June at 00:44 via mobile · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain جب وزیر اعظم کی جگہ وزیر عالیٰ صدر کی
جگہ گورنر آجائے گا پاکستانی سینٹ کا دائرہ کار آزاد کشمیر گلگت تک پھیل جائے گا
پاکستان کی قومی اسمبلی آزاد کشمیر اور گلگت ک لوگوں کی قومی اسمبلی کہلائے گی تو
یہ سٹیٹس ’’صوبائی ‘‘ کیسے نہیں ہوگا ؟
Javed
Inayat Very good discussion, no doubt, every one is contributing
nicely but debate has gone legal to political. Lets divide it in two parts,
political debate and legal debate because we have two legal experts in the
debate. Dr. Nazir Gilani sab and JR Manzoor Gilani sab. lets ask them questions
about legal implications of Act 74 and what has been proposed by JR Manzoor
Gialni sab and its future impacts on state subjects/
26 June at 00:48 · Unlike · 4
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani You are welcome Javed SB
26 June at 00:51 via mobile · Like · 1
Rizwan
Rauf Baba · 197 mutual friends
AJK mein jo political leaderhip majood hai uski bi zarra
halat daikh lein azadi mangnay qabil kiya woh tou ghulami karnay mein hi khush
hai , upar sy haramay jo nationalist parties hain jo kai Azadi ki jung larh rai
hain but they also know kai inki yeh azadi shaid 100 saal badh bi na millay ,
now non resident kashmirs why they are against if AJK and GB people get more
rights in current setup .
26 June at 00:58 · Like · 2
DrAftab
Hussain Javed sahib nay bikul theek kaha hay bhot say aisay
point raised by DrNazir Gilani hain jin k legal jawabat janab Justice sahib ki
tarf say anay baqi jahan say debate shoro hoi thi UNO ki position, State
subject, right of Self determination act 1974 jou sawal Dr Nazir sab nay uthai
thay wo abhi tashnagi baqi hay umeed hay Justice sahaib unn ka response dain
gay
26 June at 00:58 · Like · 1
Jammu
Kashmir Javed Inayat which legal part and which legality should
be consumed here as far as you know these traitors have got no legal rights of
selling our innocent blood to their employers beside that both evil neighbor
are illegally occupying our country Jammu kashmir instead of condemning the
occupation these traitors are looking legal so called legal ways to earn their
daily bread yes we can have political debate but than again with in the
sovereignty of our country Jammu kashmir and at the cost of sovereignty of our
country Jammu Kashmir
26 June at 01:00 · Like · 1
Javed
Inayat My question no.-1 to Dr. Nazir Gilani sab is that What is
difference between '' State Subjects and state sovereignty'' some people here
are confused on these two topics. Are both same ? I mean State subject already
equal to declaration of Jammu Kashmir state a sovereign state or it is
different from state's sovereignty? No.2- question is that who is citizen of
Jammu Kashmir state according to state subject law of 1927? No.-3 : What is act
74? is it itself is a violation of UNCIP resolutions? What position of Kashmir
council? It is a creation of Act 74 or it has created act 47? Is there any
thing violating UNCIP resolutions by imposing non state subjects handling state
affairs against the will of state Subjects? Is it indicates that Kashmir
council and ministry of Kashmir affairs both institutions representing colonial
powers and look after that power's interests? What is colony according to UN
charter? Does AJK region a colony of Islamabad? thanks Both Gilani Sahabaan
please give your legal opinion. thanks.
26 June at 01:02 · Unlike · 3
DrAftab
Hussain My request to particepants please with respect and a
healthy meaningfull debate main aap sab say eltamaas kar raha hoo please yeh
pehli baar hum ko kuch sikhnay ko mil raha hay khuda raha iss debate ko mutalka
expert logoo k khialat sunanay do aor sikhnay do thanx
26 June at 01:07 · Like · 3
Javed
Inayat Yes, is good opportunity to know legal implications of
changing status of our region as proposed by JR Manzoor Gilani sab. We do
respect our honorable JR Manzoor Gilani sab, we differ with him as future
stakeholders of the state of Jammu Kashmir and Judge sab understand it very
well.
26 June at 01:19 · Edited · Unlike · 1
Jammu
Kashmir DrAftab Hussain brother, If peaceful conversation based
on legality could provide the freedom than today there were thousands of
countries independent in the world with out losing millions of lives but we
know what is legal for the killer it is illegal for the killed one anyhow my
message is very clear to those enemy traitors | go to hell and take your
employers along so the peace prosperity & independence can return to my
beloving nation country Jammu kashmir
26 June at 01:30 · Like
Wani
Gulwani Dr. Nazir Gilani sahib identifying efficient related to
personality
he is greater than other kashmiris how is working on kashmir
in united nation ?
26 June at 01:36 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja Javed Inayat sb; Generally sovereignty is the hub of
absolute power usually vested to the state (govt) as independent countries. In
democracy that delegated power lies with the state (govt) by popular vote or
general will, so it is considered as it belongs to the people.However it doesnt
mean the states without democracy are not sovereign & their sovereignty
lies to others. The state still possess the same sovereignty.
26 June at 01:52 · Like · 2
Shaf
Raja State Subject with reference to J&K is the inhabitant
permanently living within the geography of J&K during specific period. This
is said to be the category as citizenship or nationality under state subject
rule (1927).
26 June at 02:48 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja But the state subject (J&K) is not just confined to the
human beings rather extends to the other categories like established businesses
of that time as well.
26 June at 02:50 · Like · 1
Wani
Gulwani They believe only in their version of natural law, which
they call "common law. ... No freeman arguments have ever succeeded in
court; some have even ... who detailed how this was dangerous idiocy that would
send you directly to jail. ... If someone is selling a simple explanation of
why your life is messed up, the false hope .....other laws which they have to
keep ... Send an army which is supposed to represent you, into another country
to ... how much that harms you and does away with your natural rights and
freedom????/
26 June at 03:27 · Edited · Like
Musabi
Ur Rehman Falsafi ko bayhas k andar Khudda milta nahin, Doour ko
suljaa rahaa hay aour Sirra milta nahin.
26 June at 03:59 via mobile · Like
DrAftab
Hussain hum iss debate ko Legal point of veiw say agay chalana
chaitay hain aor unn experts explanation chaitay hain jou iss k mutalka Legal
position hum sab say behter bata saktay hain please iss debate ko Legal taqazoo
say dekha jai thanx
26 June at 04:03 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain iss debate k bahd siasi debate k liay thread creat
kartay hain uss per sab punja azmai kijiay ga yahan expert loggo ki Legal rai
aanay dia jai takay humaray elm main azafa ho sakay 66 saloo main pehli baar
Legal aor constituational behs aab bandoo main aai hay aam banday ko mustafeed
honay dia jai thanx
26 June at 04:07 · Like
Wani
Gulwani we must know about that.. what is on diplomatic
propaganda against kashmir by india or pakistan we face that switchvation in
the world...
26 June at 04:11 · Unlike · 1
Wani
Gulwani What is Self-Determination?
We understand self-determination to refer to a
characteristic of a person that leads them to make choices and decisions based
on their own preferences and interests, to monitor and regulate their own
actions and to be goal-oriented and self-directing. has the ability and
opportunity to make choices and decisions;
has the ability and opportunity to exercise control over
services, supports, and other assistance;
has the authority to control resources and obtain needed
services;
has the opportunity to participate in and contribute to
their communities;
has the support, including financial, to advocate, develop
leadership skills, become trained as a self-advocate, and participate in
coalitions and policy-making.
26 June at 04:17 · Edited · Unlike · 3
Wani
Gulwani free choice of one's own acts or states without external
compulsion
2
: determination by the people of a territorial unit of their
own future political status
26 June at 04:20 · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain hum baat phir Legal position ki apnay qabal e qadar
expert Gilani sahiban say pochain gay main javed inayat walay swalat phir paste
kar deta hoo please Legal jawab ......
Javed
Inayat My question no.-1 to Dr. Nazir Gilani sab is that What is
difference between '' State Subjects and state sovereignty'' some people here
are confused on these two topics. Are both same ? I mean State subject already
equal to declaration of Jammu Kashmir state a sovereign state or it is
different from state's sovereignty? No.2- question is that who is citizen of Jammu
Kashmir state according to state subject law of 1927? No.-3 : What is act 74?
is it itself is a violation of UNCIP resolutions? What position of Kashmir
council? It is a creation of Act 74 or it has created act 47? Is there any
thing violating UNCIP resolutions by imposing non state subjects handling state
affairs against the will of state Subjects? Is it indicates that Kashmir
council and ministry of Kashmir affairs both institutions representing colonial
powers and look after that power's interests? What is colony according to UN
charter? Does AJK region a colony of Islamabad? thanks Both Gilani Sahabaan
please give your legal opinion. thanks.
26 June at 04:21 · Like · 1
Wani
Gulwani if the people of ajk stands against occupation. then not
any pakistani law comply for us. because india pakistan has accepted our self
determination in united nation
but the govt of azad kashmir is created support to pakistan
ideology.
26 June at 04:41 · Like · 2
Shaf
Raja DrAftab Hussain sb; These terms have their political
character than legal. But they could be analysed with legal petspective as
well. This is an open debate & give Gillani Sahiban time to come at their
own convinient time.
26 June at 09:25 · Like
Sardar
Aftab Khan The Sovereignty of the state was restored by Maharaja
Gulab Singh on 16 March 1846 when he reclaimed the Sovereignty of the State of
Jammu Kashmir from the East India Company/British Raj who took it over from
Punjab Darbar in lieu of the indemnity money by virtue of Lahore Agreement 9
March 1846. However the Sovereignty of the citizens of Jammu Kashmir was
withheld under the Suzerainty of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir henceforth
they became the State Subject and they had limited Citizenship rights.
26 June at 09:51 · Like · 2
Sardar
Aftab Khan The people of Jammu and Kashmir proclaimed their
sovereignty through the declaration of the (Azad) Govt. of the State of Jammu
and Kashmir on 04 October 1947 and reclaimed their sovereignty which has been
withheld under the suzerainty of the Maharaj of Jammu and Kashmir since 16
March 1946 by establishing the (Azad) Govt. of State of Jammu and Kashmir under
the leadership of one of the democratically elected member of the Parja Sbah on
24 October 1947 at Jungahl Hill, Pallandri, and this Government officially
dethrone the Maharaja of Jammu Kashmir from his Suzerainty of the State. Once
the Maharaja suzerainty sized and people reclaimed their sovereignty in the
areas now commonly known as (Azad) Jammu Kashmir, Thereafter, on 1st November
1947 the people of Gilgit Baltistan relived the Maharaj's appointed Governor of
Gilgit Baltitan region from his administration authority and people of these
areas established their own local council which took over the administration of
Gilgit agency and other parts of the region under the leadership of Col. Hassan
and Others. Soon after reclaiming the sovereignty of the people the leadership
of Gilgit Baltistan contacted the revolutionary people Govt. of AJK and send
their troops to support the AJK Regular forces engaged in forceful rebellion
against the Maharaja to completely dethrone him from other parts of the State.
In desperation of losing the Suzerainty to rule over the people of Jammu and
Kashmir the Maharah entered into a temporary agreement with Govt. of India (the
exact date and timing of this temporary accession agreement is contested by
historians) and Indian forces landed in Kashmir on 27 October 1947 to fight
against the AKRF forces and the tribal Lashkar (Who entered into the State without
official request of AJK Government) in support of Maraja's forces to regain
suzerainty over people and control over the areas where the people and (Azad)
Government of Jammu Kashmir regained their sovereignty.
26 June at 10:51 · Edited · Like
Sardar
Aftab Khan The concepts of 'State Subject' and ' Citizenship'
and the rights and obligations of a person under both terminologies and
boundaries in differentiating them are little bit blurry. Particularly in
countries where Monarchies still exist in contrast with the countries where
constitutional democratic system of Governance are in place. However, in my
view the people of (Azad) Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan reclaimed
their full sovereign citizenship rights which were withheld under the the Suzerainty
of Maharaja of Jammu Kashmir through the proclamation of (Azad) Government of
Jammu and Kashmir on 4th October and asserted this right by establishing the
(Azad) Government of Jammu and Kashmir on 24th October through the declaration
setting out the aims of this Government "to restore law and order in the
State and enable the people to elect by their free vote a popular legislature
[constituent assembly] and a popular Government."
26 June at 11:24 · Like
Sardar
Aftab Khan In 1947 the members’ of Perja Saba (J&K People
Assembly) as well as the people of the state rebelled against the autocratic
rule of the Maharaj of Jammu and Kashmir and his system of the governance. It
means that they were not happy with the governance reforms introduced by the Maharaja
and with the powers of Perja Saba and they forcefully rebelled (predominantly
within the areas of current AJK and Gilgit Baltistan) against Maharaj to
establish a more democratic constituent assembly and a people’s representative
government. However, after coming under administration of Pakistan; courtesy of
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions, apathy of world
powers and legacy of cold war era, unfortunately, the people of Azad Jammu
Kashmir are still yearning to reach this milestone in their historical people
resistance movement for a democratic system of governance in Jammu Kashmir.
26 June at 11:25 · Like · 1
Sardar
Aftab Khan The current system of the governance in AJK under
Interim Act 74 is neither democratic nor empowered according to the spirit of
the first declaration of AJK Government. Today, the key questions are; how can
AJK Government regain its powers from Pakistan to fulfil the fundamental basis
of it formation and purpose of its existence? What course of action the members
of current AJK Assembly and the people of AJK should take in order to reach the
key milestone in their struggle for re-unification of their country. Our elders
have taken first steps in 1947 why we can’t take the second step in 2013.
26 June at 11:27 · Edited · Unlike · 2
Nazir
Gilani Many questions
Many questions have been raised by friends and we have been
invited to answer. Before addressing those questions, I would urge the
participants in this debate to remain mindful of the following:
Opportunity
The debate on Interim Constitution Act 1974 and the
recommendations made by ARJK have provided us a first time opportunity to
consider the whole issue and make our inputs.
We should bear in mind that the manner in which we have
challenged the merits of Act 1974 and are analysing the merits of
recommendations of ARJK, our inputs also remain subject to the same challenge
and analysis. We should not consider our inputs as inviolable and final circle
of wisdom. Therefore, let us not let go this opportunity available to us for
the first time since 1950 when Rules of Business were introduced and AJK
Declaration of 4 October 1947 and 24 October 1947 set aside.
Constitution
What is a Constitution and why should we generate a rigorous
campaign to rehabilitate/or have the Constitution in AJK rather than be
governed through notifications from the Government of a country, with which we
had a Stand Still Agreement in 1947 as a Sovereign People and a country which
has recognized the AJK Provisional Government of October 1947 at the UN.
If we are to have any legal relationship with Pakistan it
would be under article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan in the future.
People of Kashmir have to be sovereign first, to be legally
able to enter into relationship with Pakistan in accordance with article 257 of
the Constitution of Pakistan.
UNCIP Resolutions embed our Sovereignty even at this point.
We seem to have failed to understand it and defend this Sovereignty. We need to
blame ourselves for this.
Contributors
While considering the recommendation or seeking an overhaul
of Act 1974, we should bear in mind the following definition by the SC of India
made in A.K.Roy v Union of India and others (1982) 1SCC 271 case:
“Constitution of a country is paramount law of the nation
which regulates its governance. It symbolizes the prevalence of the Rule of
Law, universally acknowledged as the basic requirement of a civilised society.
Without a Constitution, in whatever form it may be, the basic tenets of the
humanity get wrecked. Such situation is just like a vessel in the ocean without
an engine or sails for direction and cart before the horse which immobilises
both.
It is a command of the People to the Rulers for regulating
the socio-political and economic set up in the country. It is the history of
the people which lends colour and meaning to its Constitution”.
Interim Constitution Act 1974 is authored by non-State
Subjects. It is not a command of the People to the Rulers for regulating the
socio-political and economic set up in the AJK and it does not represent the
history of the people. It has no message for other State Subjects living
outside AJK in other two administrations and abroad. That is why it is flawed
at core.
We may need to suggest to Justice Gilani Sb that ARJK
revisits its approach in its recommendations and engages Government of Pakistan
on the Question that Pakistan has entered into a Stand Still Agreement with the
Sovereign Government of Jammu and Kashmir in August 1947 and has recognised the
Provisional Government of AJK at the UN in January/February 1948. Pakistan has
recognised the Sovereign Status of Jammu and Kashmir and it remains embedded in
UNCIP Resolutions as well.
There should be no problem in honouring a commitment and
accepting the People of Kashmir as “Equal People”.
26 June at 12:24 · Unlike · 6
Wani
Gulwani if india pakistan control our resources. otherwise they
didn't, use us anyway.............who believe in dialogue and more resources to
the suburbs. ..They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and
our people, ... But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get
elected to public office. .... strangers and neighbors who came to give blood
and help in any way they could. India's neighbour, Pakistan, grabbed many of
these regions about 65 years ago. ... The people of this Valley are highly
evolved and have therefore dominated .... Why could not India hold a plebiscite
in the part of Jammu & Kashmir it controls?
26 June at 12:33 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam Question ?
On September 14, 1994, the Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir
ruled that "the Northern areas (Now GB) are a part of J&K State but
are not a part of Azad J&K as defined in the Interim Constitution Act
1974".
26 June at 12:57 · Unlike · 1
Nazir
Gilani Nadeem Aslam Sahib AJK Supreme Court has made a serious error
of judgment in the judicial history of Jammu and Kashmir. It may be down to its
exposure and understanding of the jurisprudence of Kashmir Case and UNCIP
Resolutions. If GB were part of Jammu and Kashmir, then AJK Government and
Muslim Conference operating in AJK could not sign away GB for administration to
the Government of Pakistan. It vitiates the Karachi Agreement of 1949. We
should have filed a Review Petition.
26 June at 13:04 · Unlike · 6
Sardar
Aftab Khan I think in our quest for a more equal, democratic and
empowered system of Governance in AJK and Gilgit Baltsitan alongside our
national struggle for independence, we must have a reference or starting point
and then a destination point i.e. an open society within all regions of a
re-unified state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Currently political classes in AJK apparently seem ignorant
of the reference point which is the first declaration of AJK Govt. A number of
people within our civil society and across political spectrum in AJK are trying
to engage and negotiate power-sharing mechanisms with Pakistan by proposing
amendments in the AJK interim Act 1974 and trying to make it their reference
point e.g recommendations made by ARJK.
26 June at 14:18 · Like · 4
Sardar
Aftab Khan I agree with Dr. Nazir Gilani sb that this is a
misguided approach because in my opinion it reinforces Pakistani control and
governance structures in AJK under guises of placebo empowerment feelings and
if we follow the suggested way forward and recommendation from Justice Manzoor
Hussain Gilani and ARJK that will lead AJK to a situation no different than
Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan.
26 June at 16:13 · Edited · Unlike · 4
DrAftab
Hussain Azad kashmir aor Gilgit Baltistan main ''INSANI HAQOOQ
KI KHILAF WARZION'' ko rokanay aor un per action karnay kay liay koi adara koi
authority hay ? jou aesay waqiat ka ehtasab karti ho jesay shehrio ko utha kar
ghaib kar dena ya uthanay k bahd qatal kar dena janab Dr Nazir Gilani sab kia
koi legal authority hay jou aesay case sunay investigation karay aor un per
fesalay sadar karay aor saza ka koi tareeqaykar ho ???
26 June at 19:39 · Like
DrAftab
Hussain سوال۔
کیا آزاد کشمیر اور گلگت بلتستان میں
’’انسانی حقوق کی خلاف ورزیوں ‘‘ کو روکنے اور ان پر کوئی ایکشن لینے کے لیے کوئی ادارہ
ہے ؟ جو ایسے واقعات کا احتساب کرتا ہو جیسے عام شہریوں کو اٹھا کر قتل کردیا جاتا
ہے یا غائب کر دیا جاتا ہےجسٹس گیلانی صاحب کیا عدلیہ اس حوالے کچھ کرتی آئی ہے ؟
اور جناب ڈاکٹر نذیر گیلانی صاحب آپ اس کےقانونی تقاضوں پر روشنی ڈالیے شکریہ
!
26 June at 19:50 · Edited · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja Mr Jutice (R) Majeed Malik had acknowledged the decision
made by SC of AJK has accepted GB as part of J&
26 June at 20:42 · Like
Shaf
Raja J&K but not AJK.
26 June at 20:42 · Like
Shaf
Raja The reason behind is the courts are working under Act 74
& in the preamble or introduction this Act, it state about the region
(jurisdiction) " where as a part of territories of state of jammu &
kashmir liberated already by the people known as for the time being as Azad
Jammu & Kashmir"
26 June at 20:54 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja So the burden still lies on act.74.
26 June at 21:09 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Let us forge unity in diversity.Thinking alike is no
thinking. It retards mental development whle diversity opens channels for
making a good choice
India, pakistan and kashmiri's interse have divergent views
on resolution of kashmir dispute which cannot be resolved at the cost of others
honour, dignity and interest
We have to be practical , pragmatic and tolerant in approach
.
We can achieve achievable only in the internitted world
where each corner of the world has blended intrest in other
26 June at 21:21 via mobile · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Justice sab please raise kiay gay sawaloo k qanooni
jawab humain aap ki mahirana rai aor Leagal point of veiw say educate kia jai
thanks
26 June at 21:32 · Edited · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Yes Aftab sb judiciary has played a vital role.
Reported and unreported cases stand testimony to it
Proper course is resort to higher judiciary in writ or
habeas corpus petition without scandalising and politicizing the issue
26 June at 21:54 via mobile · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Sir, Justice Gilani what is your ''LEGAL'' point of veiw
on Dr Nazir's points ...i am pasting here again .....
Nazir
Gilani It is against the jurisprudence of ‘equality of people’,
UN Resolutions on right of self-determination and AJK Constitution if we allow
or accept a ‘federated’ relationship with Pakistan prior to the time and manner
provided in article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Pakistan is in AJK as a member nation of UN and as a party
to the Kashmir dispute strictly under UNCIP Resolutions and not as a
“Federation”.
The basis of AJK Government are the UNCIP Resolutions and
the presence of Pakistan here is to discharge its duties under UNCIP
Resolutions. Therefore, the question of UNCIP Resolutions not being enforced by
UN is extraneous to this debate. That is a different subject.
The Government in AJK under UNCIP Resolutions has to be run
by judicial officers under the supervision of United Nations. Rule of Law and
Independence of Judiciary would be the common standard norm.
It is absurd to give up upon a UN Supervised Government in
AJK and ask for a seat in the “Federal Legislature and Executive”. It would be
a demand at war with our principal question of a title to self-determination
and encouraging Pakistan to promote further political corruption in AJK.
Panchayat Sarpanch’s in villages in Jammu and Kashmir on the
other side of cease fire line have enforceable authority. If AJK SC does not
have the authority like SC in Pakistan, we should be campaigning that AJK SC be
a judicial institution like its equivalent in Pakistan and not as a department of
a Government.
Accepting a second grade SC in AJK does not make any sense.
Remaining ignorant of the jurisprudence of UNCIP Resolutions
in AJK is a disservice to the people of Kashmir. Without respecting the assumed
duties under UNCIP Resolutions in AJK, Pakistan would be a ‘colonial’ power in
AJK.
26 June at 22:07 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani No comments. My point of view is very clearly
written in the book published by ARJK and available on its website besides the
article posted by perhaps Nadeem Aslam from kmr.watch.
The collection of my articles in the book. "ROZAN E
KHYAL SA" also elucidates my view point
I am open to accept any other practical , pragmatic and
achievable proposal given the ground realities
26 June at 22:30 via mobile · Like
Sardar
Aftab Khan ARJK proposals are based on a misguided approach
because it reinforces Pakistani control and governance structures in AJK under
guises of placebo empowerment feelings which will lead AJK to a situation no
different than Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan.
26 June at 22:45 · Unlike · 3
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Mr aftab u have every right to differ, present
and pursue your own course, that is the beauty of freedom of expression
26 June at 22:52 via mobile · Like
DrAftab
Hussain Sir Justice aap Jammu Kashmir per Legal points ko chore
kar ground realites ko base banatay howay india ki position370 ki tarah iss
region ko qanooni ghulami main dekailna chah rahay hain aik tarf aap qanooni
nuqaat say chashum poshi kar rahay hain aor dosari taraf q2anooni ghulami ki
bhi baat kar rahay hain .....?
26 June at 22:57 · Like · 2
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani U r open to form ur own judgement aftab sb. I
don't have authority but have right to pursue my course
26 June at 23:13 via mobile · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Don't have authority to impose.......
Shaf Raja The slavery already got a legal cover under Act 74
but its still temporary in shape & structure presented as AJK govt as
separate entity than Pk. But joining Pk within its constitution can lead us to
permanent slavery & pledging our state identity.
26 June at 23:27 · Unlike · 2
Nadeem
Aslam I COPY FROM YOUR WALL SIR PLEASE ELABORATE "
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani
19 June via Mobile
Mian sb's visit to AJK IS WELCOME
It would be nice if Mian SB includes AJK AND GB in the
electoral college of PM AND PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN
26 June at 23:30 · Edited · Unlike · 2
Nadeem
Aslam AND FROM THE THREAD ABOVE WHICH ONE IS CORRECT :Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Subhani SB to the extent of abolition of AJK COUCIL attributed
to me is right , but not the provincial status out right .
What I suggest is
RIGHTS EQUAL TO THE PROVINCES OF PAKISTAN WITHOUT MAKING AJK
AND GB PROVINCES OF PAKISTAN
BY AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN , INSTEAD OF
TREATING THEM SO UNDER THE GOP NOTIFICATIONS OF 1971. And 1978.
26 June at 23:43 · Unlike · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani I explain in plain language that PM of pakistan
controls the areas as chairman of ajk council and as head of GOP Without being
elected by us,
let members elected in the manner AJK and GB council are
elected, be elected for parliament of pakistan to constitute electoral college
, so that we matter in policy and decision making in pakistan without diluting
our disputed position by dispensing with the unaccountable council
26 June at 23:51 via mobile · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Notification referred above declares ajk to
treated as a province
26 June at 23:53 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam The Act 1974 is the creation of Z.A Bhutoo and the council
is created by the article 21 of this Act1974 .Where is article 257 of the
constitution of Pakistan 1973 stand including in conjunction of the UN
resolution 0f 13 August 1948 where Pakistan did aggression and she has to
withdraw completely its troops from the territory of Kashmir and the bulk of
Indian forces still remains in Kashmir to assist the free and fair plebiscite
in Kashmir .
27 June at 00:01 · Edited · Unlike · 5
Nadeem
Aslam The Act 1974 represents Pakistan colonial way of
occupation to occupied the territory of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.The
Past 66 years of the occupation of Pakistan prove that they don`t have any
interest with the people of Kashmir, they just want to grab their land and resources
with free of cost,like construct their Punjab with electricity and power of the
Mangla Dam.
27 June at 00:08 · Edited · Unlike · 4
Javed
Inayat JR Manzoor Gilaini sab, How your proposed status of this
region would help if our few slaves sitting in Pakistani parliament? our rights
of vote have not been honored by Pakistani state since last 6 decades, how it
will be possible for us to get counted in Islamabad? Do you really believe that
among our available slave leaders of Punjabi establishment will defend our
rights while sitting in Pakistani parliament? Even though they have chance to
do so having a separate set up but they have been behaving like obedience
slaves of Punjabi politicians since last 6 decades? We do trust any of these
obedience slaves they sit in Muzafrabad or in Islamabad, they will serve their
masters any way so there is no chance for common citizen of this occupied
region of Pakistan would get any relief after getting your proposed status. As
long as Pakistan is keeping our region's colonial status intact we have no
chance to get anything out any proposals.
27 June at 00:18 · Unlike · 4
Javed
Inayat JR Manzoor Gilani sab, you have disappointed all of us
because you have neither regarded our political opinion nor legal arguments put
forward by one of our great legal experts known internationally, Dr. Nazir
Gilani sab. You could have been come with more prepared position so that at
least one of POK section of society might have satisfied but you have attitude
just like our local puppet politicians who only love to serve Islamabad no
matter how it is harming interests of our POK citizen. You could have proposed
to take our citizen in much better position after changing the status of this
region but you want to see our citizen even worse conditions imposed by an
occupied country. Your proposals will also justify Indian occupation over
larger portion of our state and strengthen her position and it seems like
behind all this game Indian involvement cannot be ruled out. We know both
occupiers have same intentions against our independence but our National
liberation movement will oppose any attempt which colonizes our ancient
homeland. Thanks.
27 June at 00:31 · Unlike · 3
Javed
Inayat Justice sab is inviting us as state subjects to accept
ground realities. It means we have to accept Indian and Pakistani occupation
and it is good for our region as both occupiers have been teaching us since
their forced occupation. There is another reality that we as colonized people
of this region have a right to reject this imposed national slavery by our two
neighboring countries. It is also reality that people from this state have
rejected occupation of both India and Pakistan, it has to be accepted as
reality.
27 June at 00:54 · Unlike · 4
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Javed you are welcome to pursue ur course. I wud
never oppose it without subscribing to it. Our divergence will educate and make
us to think and , thinking mind is alive mind.
27 June at 01:06 via mobile · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam Dr. Nazir Gilani, Sahab`s credible response to on going
discussion in this thread. PART:(1) :::::::::::::::::::::HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Fifth session
Item 2 of the provisional agenda
IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251
OF 15 MARCH 2006 ENTITLED “HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL”
Written statement* submitted by the Jammu and Kashmir
Council for Human Rights
(JKCHR), a non-governmental organization in special
consultative status
The Secretary-General has received the following written
statement which is
circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council
resolution 1996/31.
[7 June 2007]
* This written statement is issued, unedited, in the
language(s) received from the
submitting non-governmental organization(s).
GE.07-12935
UNITED
NATIONS A
General Assembly Distr.
GENERAL
A/HRC/5/NGO/42
7 June 2007
ENGLISH ONLY
A/HRC/5/NGO/42
page 2
Independence of Judges and Lawyers
The mandate on the independence of judges and lawyers has
been established with a focus
to investigate allegations of interference in the judicial
process; establish a record of attacks
against judges, lawyers and court officers; catalogue the
positive measures taken by
governments to protect judges and lawyers and their
independence; and make proposals on
how to enhance the independence of judges and lawyers.
Consensus Resolution 1998/35 of the Commission states that
an independent and impartial
judiciary and legal profession are prerequisites for the
protection of human rights and the
prevention of discrimination in the administration of
justice. General Assembly resolution
40/32 has endorsed the Basic Principles on the Independence
of the Judiciary. The role of
Lawyers, Prosecutors and the important role of
non-governmental organizations, bar
associations and professional associations of judges in the
defence of the principles of the
independence of judges and lawyers have equally been
recognised and endorsed in various
resolutions.
It is the duty of a State that it works to secure and
promote the independence of the
judiciary. Independence of the judiciary has to be brought
to the attention of judges,
lawyers, members of the executive and the legislature and
the public in general.
The question of independence of judiciary and lawyers in
Pakistan has been debated during
the past sessions of Commission, in particular, in reference
to executive interference in
cases instituted against Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali
Zardari. We note with great concern
and anguish that the interference of the Executive in the
independence of judges, lawyers
and court officers in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir has hit a
new high in the recent months.
The manner in which a reference was filed by President
General Pervez Musharraf against
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and the treatment
meted out to the Chief
Justice have shocked everyone across the world.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in his affidavit
submitted to the Full Court of
the Supreme Court has maintained that he was ‘illegally and
unlawfully’ restrained to
perform his constitutional functions as a judge and as the
Chief Justice of Pakistan.
Giving details of the March 9 incidents, he said that
President of Pakistan General Pervez
Musharraf met him wearing army uniform in the Rawalpindi
Camp Office.
He has stated that Prime Minster of Pakistan Shaukat Aziz,
DG MI (Director General
Military Intelligence), DG ISI (Director General ISI), DG IB
(Director General Intelligence
Bureau), COS and another official were also present in the
Army House and all officials
(except DG, IB and COS) were in uniform.
According to the affidavit, the President General Pervez
Musharraf insisted that Chief
Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry should resign and if he
(Chief Justice) resigned, he
(the President) would ‘accommodate’ him (the Chief Justice).
However the President also
said that in case of refusal to resign, the Chief Justice
will have to face the reference which
could be a bigger embarrassment for him (Chief Justice).
A/HRC/5/NGO/42
27 June at 13:11 · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam PART:(2)::::::::::::page 3
The affidavit further states that the Chief Justice finally,
and more resolutely, said, ‘I
wouldn’t resign and would face any reference since I am
innocent; I have not violated any
code of conduct or any law, rule or regulation; I believe
that I am myself the guardian of
law. I strongly believe in God who will help me’.
One has reasons to suggest that the ‘judiciary in Pakistan’
has lost its case much before it
could advance its defence in the present case. The readiness
of Supreme Judicial Council
(SJC) to submit to a military discipline invoked by the
President under article 290 reveals a
chronic deficiency in the judicial character of Pakistan.
President can send a reference to
the SJC for an inquiry against any judge of the superior
courts but he has no powers to
precipitate suspension or removal of a judge of a superior
court until the SJC recommends
so.
The Executive decision to make Chief Justice
“non-functional” has put the Judicial
Character and Popular Will in Pakistan under Microscope.
Military discipline of a General
is at variance with the Constitutional wisdom of a 60 year
old nation state. SJC has a higher
burden of judicial wisdom to discharge while it sits to
judge the senior most member of
judiciary on the basis of a reference detailed by the
President, who holds two irreconcilable
offices.
Constitutional qualifications of a President stipulate that
“President of Pakistan shall
represent the unity of the Republic”. Constitution makes it
clear that “there is no inherent
power in the Executive, except what has been vested in it by
law and that law is the source
of power and duty”. Therefore, executive action would
necessarily have to be such that it
could not possibly violate a Fundamental Right.
The only power of the executive to take action would have to
be derived from law and the
law itself would not be able to confer upon the executive
any power to deal with a citizen
or other person in Pakistan in contravention of a
Fundamental Right.
The decision of the President to make the chief justice of
Pakistan non-functional
constitutes a punishment. It is extraneous to article 290.
He has conferred upon himself a
power which is inherent in the role of SJC, which has yet to
unfold its understanding after
hearing the two arguments in favour and against the
reference. The decision of the
President to make chief justice non functional violates the
principle of natural justice, that
is, the rule of audi alteram partem (no person should be
condemned without being afforded
an opportunity to be heard).
In making the chief justice non functional President has
acted as a judge in his own cause.
There is an age old judicial tradition that no man should be
a judge in his own cause (the
nemo judex in causa sua rule). The ‘judiciary in Pakistan’
has lost its case much before it
could advance its defence in the present case because it has
failed to take cognizance of the
fact that the principles of natural justice have been
violated in part by the President. Such
an aggressive overstretch of authority is a natural spill
over of an inherent contradiction of
two offices held by the President. The military man is
always at war with the constitutional
wisdom.
The reference has equally placed the President under
scrutiny of all sections of the civil
society at home and abroad. It needs to be seen as to how
far he remains conscious of his
A/HRC/5/NGO/42
page 4
“Loyalty to the State and obedience to Constitution and
law”. Loyalty to the State is the
basic duty of every citizen. Therefore, every conscientious
citizen of Pakistan has to keep a
vigil and assure that – SJC does not fail in its judicial
wisdom and that there is due process
and a duty to fairness duly discharged at all levels.
The easy weapon of ‘Pakistan first’ slogan is used to
advance personal interests and
dispossess the opposition of a freedom of expression. The
military ruler is treading a thin
wire a second time after he brought down an elected
Government of Mian Nawaz Sharif. If
things go wrong this time, he may suffer the attention of
article 6 of the Constitution. He
may very rightly be charged with an “attempt to subvert or
conspiracy to subvert the
Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other
unconstitutional means”. These
actions stipulate‘guilt of high treason’. It would be the
Parliament which would provide for
the ‘punishment of persons found guilty of high treason’.
It is not only the Supreme Court of Pakistan or Supreme
Judicial Council but it is the duty
of every conscientious citizen in Pakistan and world over to
remain watchful in regards to
the freedom of press and independence of lawyers, necessary
to increment the judicial
wisdom in Pakistan. A transparency of the arguments is
important feature to rehabilitate
the trust of the common man in the independence of Judiciary
and Lawyers.
The interference of the Government of Pakistan in the
appointment of the Chief Justice of
Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir in October last year is a
serious interference in the
independence of Judiciary. Azad Kashmir is a subject at the
UN Security Council and falls
under the protection envisaged in UNCIP resolution.
Therefore the matter should merit an urgent attention of the
Human Rights Council. This
Council and the representatives of participating
Governmental and non Governmental
Organizations have a duty to support the Lawyers of Azad
Kashmir in their Constitutional
Writ Petition seeking a correction of the executive
interference in the appointment of a
junior judge as the Chief Justice of Azad Kashmir.
The judiciary and the lawyers of Azad Kashmir should not be
allowed to vanish in
helplessness. They should benefit from the mandate on the
independence of judges and
lawyers. At the same time Executive in Pakistan has to be
reminded that as a member
nation of UN it has to see to it that “The independence of
the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the
Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and
other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the
judiciary.”
27 June at 13:12 · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam PART:(3)::::::::::::UNITED
NATIONS A
General Assembly Distr.
GENERAL
A/HRC/6/NGO/16
31 August 2007
ENGLISH ONLY
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Sixth session
Item 3 of the provisional agenda
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL,
POLITICAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS,
INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
Written statement∗submitted by the Jammu and Kashmir
Council for Human
Rights (JKCHR), a non-governmental organization in special
consultative status
The Secretary-General has received the following written
statement which is circulated
in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution
1996/31.
[30 August 2007]
∗ This written statement is issued, unedited, in the
language(s) received from the
submitting non-governmental organization(s).
GE.07-13909
A/HRC/6/NGO/16
Page 2
The World Conference on Human Rights under item
“Co-operation, development and
strengthening of human rights”, paragraph 67 laid a special
emphasis that assistance
should be given to “the strengthening of the rule of law,
the promotion of freedom of
expression and the administration of justice, and to the
real and effective participation
of the people in the decision making processes”.
JKCHR has continued to subscribe its interest in
strengthening the “Rule of Law” and
has supported the “administration of justice” as an
instrument of real change to
maximise the take up of the full regime of human rights,
more so to remain entitled to
equality and dignity. After its (JKCHR’s) election at the UN
World Conference on
Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993, on behalf of
Unrepresented Peoples and Nations,
JKCHR addressed the Plenary and the Main Committee on behalf
of Unrepresented
Peoples and Nations.
President United Nations Correspondents Association in
Vienna arranged a Press
Briefing for JKCHR Secretary General on Friday 18 June 1993.
JKCHR contribution to
the proceedings of the World Conference remains embedded in
the over-all wisdom of
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
JKCHR has submitted its written statement on The
Independence of Judges and
Lawyers to the 5th Session of Human Rights Council. It has
been circulated as document
A/HRC/5/NGO/42. We have discussed one specific territory,
Azad Kashmir, which is a
subject of UN Security Council resolutions and UNCIP
resolution of 13 August 1948.
It is important to point out that UN SC resolution of 21
April 1948 and UNCIP
resolution of 13 August 1948 have stipulated a special role
for the judiciary in regards
to “the strengthening of the rule of law, the promotion of
freedom of expression and the
administration of justice, and to the real and effective
participation of the people in the
decision making processes”, in Azad Kashmir.
On 14 June 2007 JKCHR has invited the attention of the
mandate of Special Rapporteur
on the independence of judges and lawyers in respect of rule
of law and independence
of judiciary in Azad Kashmir, which is one of the three
administrations of Kashmir
currently under the control of Government of Pakistan.
The areas of complaint made are in the following manner:
1. Azad Kashmir is one of the three administrations of the
disputed State of Jammu
and Kashmir. In the UNCIP resolutions it is described as
‘Local Authority’ and the
UNCIP resolutions have also suggested an administrative set
up for the ‘territory’.
2. According to UNCIP resolutions the administrative set up
of the territory was to
be supervised by the local judiciary and the UN.
3. The other two territories are Jammu and Kashmir and
Gilgit and Baltistan.
4. At this point in time the Government of Pakistan has
assumed control of the
territory, called Azad Kashmir, in accordance with its
responsibilities under UNCIP
resolutions. The jurisprudence of this claim is a separate
issue and may appropriately be
referred in respect of the complaint being made by JKCHR.
A/HRC/6/NGO/16
page 3
27 June at 13:16 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam PART:(4)::::::::::: 5. Government of Pakistan as a member
nation of UN has a higher burden of responsibility to show that it works to
secure and promote the independence of the judiciary in its territory and more
so in the disputed territory where it has sought a temporary control under
UNCIP resolutions. The duty of the State in respect of
judiciary is further incremented by the Consensus Resolution
1998/35 of the Commission and the General Assembly resolution 40/32 in respect
of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
6. On 21 October 2006 the President of Azad Kashmir
appointed a junior judge
Mr. Justice Muhammad Reaz Akhtar Chaudhary as Chief Justice
of Azad Kashmir,
victimising the most senior judge of the Supreme Court Mr.
Justice Manzoor Hussain
Gilani. Justice Chaudhary had only a month’s services in the
Supreme Court at the time
of his appointment as CJ.
7. The appointment of CJ has been challenged by 8 Senior
Lawyers namely, Sardar
Karam Dad Khan, Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, Syed Mumtaz Hussain
Naqvi, Abdul
Qadeer Awan, Syed Mushtaq Hussain Gilani, Waqar Hussain
Kazmi, Raja Iqbal
Rasheed Minhas and Muhammad Sabir Akbar Khan of Azad
Kashmir.
8. President of Azad Kashmir in this regard acts on the
advice of AJK Council, an
upper house of Azad Kashmir Legislature, which has an
inherent potential of being
manipulated by the Government of Pakistan. Prime Minister of
Pakistan is the
Chairman of the Council and has retained a right to nominate
five non Kashmiris on a
body of 14 members. A further advantage is retained by
inducting another Pakistani, the
minister for Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas (Gilgit and
Baltistan) as an ex officio
member of the Council. The balance of power is retained by
the Prime Minister of
Pakistan as Chairman of the Council and through a numerical
authority on the 14
member Council.
9. Lawyers of Azad Kashmir have filed a Writ Petition under
section 44 of the
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 against
a gross interference of
the two executives (Pakistani and Azad Kashmiri) in the
independence of judiciary in
Azad Kashmir. Article 42(8) of the constitution sets out the
qualifications for a CJ as
“The most senior judge of the other judges”. In this case
the seniority of the newly
appointed CJ in the Supreme Court is that of a month.
10. The Lawyers have maintained and I concur with their
prayer as an Advocate of
Supreme Court that the appointment of CJ on 21 October 2006
is at variance with
constitutional norms, judgements of the Supreme Court of
Pakistan, constitutional
conventions and the practice.
11. The situation has adversely affected the Independence of
Judiciary and the
confidence of the people in the rule of law and good
governance.
12. It has been reliably reported that the administration
has used police to intimidate
the lawyers and other unlawful means to remove the writ
petition from the offices of the
Registrar of the High Court at Muzaffarabad. Character and
credibility of the Supreme
A/HRC/6/NGO/16
page 4
Court has suffered a dip because High Court premises could
not be invaded to remove
the papers regarding the writ petition without a green
signal from the CJ of the Supreme
Court or without a green signal from the higher authorities
in the administration.
13. It is argued by the lawyers in their petition that the
junior judge prior to his
appointment in the Supreme Court, discharged his duties as
acting chief election
commissioner, to assist a ‘political party’ to return to
power. In this case the general
allegation in the writ petition is that Prime Minister of
Pakistan and Minister for
Kashmir Affairs, both citizens of Pakistan, were personally
involved to engineer the
election 2006 results in Azad Kashmir. This would not have
been possible if Justice
Manzoor Hussain Gilani had continued as chief election
commissioner. He is known for
his character, judicial wisdom and his duty to fairness.
Elections 2006 have been
condemned by various political parties and the press as
rigged.
14. The appointment of the new junior judge and then his
elevation in a month’s
time as CJ is pregnant with mala fides. It has impaired the
dignity and independence of
judiciary.
15. The people of the territory are State Subjects and
remain a subject of the Right
of Self Determination at the UN. An independent judiciary is
the first interest of every
citizen in the territory and of all citizens in this
civilised age. As a member of Bar in
Azad Kashmir, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legal Practioners
and Bar Council Rules
cause a duty for me to “add honour to the judiciary’ by
defending the independence and
integrity of the judiciary.
16. In the present case the judiciary of the territory has a
special significance
because it has to over seethe following :
(i) It is a territory which Pakistan has taken control of
under UNCIP resolutions
(ii) The people of the territory have a title to self
determination
(iii) Pakistan as a member nation of UN and under UNCIP
resolutions has a duty to
honour the right of these people to have an independent
judiciary and a free legislature
so that they could make an informed choice
(iv) Pakistan after assuming a control of this territory has
a duty to conform to UN
principles for the independence of judges and lawyers
17. Security of the 8 lawyers named above and of all others
is a matter of utmost
concern as well.
Human Rights Council is respectfully requested to take an
urgent notice of the situation
and as an interim measure send an urgent caution to the
Government of Pakistan and the
Government in the territory of Azad Kashmir that they remain
fully charged with a duty
to secure and assure the safety of the lawyers. Meanwhile, I
sincerely hope that the
Rapporteur shall treat this communication as a formal
complaint in respect of the
question of ‘independence of judges and lawyers’ in Azad
Kashmir.
27 June at 13:28 · Edited · Like · 2
Sardar
Aftab Khan I respect Justice Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb your
right to peruse your chosen course of action but I object your proposals
because if they are taken up seriously they would have direct negative impact
on me as a Citizen of (Azad) Jammu and Kashmir and on our future generation.
27 June at 18:03 · Edited · Like · 1
Sardar
Aftab Khan I have briefly assessed their potential impact and on
the basis of my initial appraisal of ARJK proposed direction of travel for
constitutional reforms in AJK. I found a number of inaccuracies and
inconsistencies in this document. For example on page 13, No. 3 statement
demonstrates a clear intellectually flawed understanding on AJK and a
deliberate misinterpretation of historical facts on Gilgit Baltistan.
27 June at 18:01 · Edited · Like · 2
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani U have every right to pursue Ur course. I wll be
happy to read Ur proposals ..
27 June at 18:01 via mobile · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Wn u differ on a point note the points of
difference with alternat
27 June at 18:03 via mobile · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani With alternate proposal .
27 June at 18:04 via mobile · Like · 1
Sardar
Aftab Khan Sure.
27 June at 18:08 · Like
Sardar
Aftab Khan In 1947 the members’ of Perja Saba (J&K People
Assembly) as well as the people of the state rebelled against the autocratic
rule of the Maharaj of Jammu and Kashmir and his system of the governance. This
was not a war of liberation against any foreign occupiers. This was a people
rebellion against an autocratic ruler to establish a more democratic system of
Governance.
27 June at 18:19 · Like · 1
Sardar
Aftab Khan The people of Jammu and Kashmir proclaimed their
sovereignty through the declaration of the (Azad) Govt. of the State of Jammu
and Kashmir on 04 October 1947 and reclaimed their sovereignty which has been
withheld under the suzerainty of the Maharaj of Jammu and Kashmir since 16
March 1946 by establishing the (Azad) Govt. of State of Jammu and Kashmir under
the leadership of one of the democratically elected member of the Parja Sbah on
24 October 1947 at Jungahl Hill, Pallandri, and this Government officially
dethrone the Maharaja of Jammu Kashmir from his Suzerainty of the State.
27 June at 18:20 · Like
Shaf
Raja Mr JR Gillani sb is very right on this point as we can
differ his proposals but must with alternatives if we got any. I personaly have
concerns on his proposals bcz of complex Kashmir dispute, identity crisis &
our future. The parallel proposals are really a demand of time & our
political, social & legal intellectuals must concentrate on it.
27 June at 18:20 · Like
Sardar
Aftab Khan There is no historical evidence to suggest that
accession of Gilgit and Baltistan with Pakistan ever happened as you have stated
on page 13 section 3.
27 June at 18:22 · Like
Sardar
Aftab Khan I appreciate Justice Manzoor Gilani sb. your
suggestions for alternate proposals.
27 June at 18:52 · Edited · Like · 1
Nazir
Gilani A critical appreciation of the recommendations is one thing
and being able or the condition of preferring an Alternative is quite
different. You can't hold valid dissent on substance hostage to a condition of
being able to provide an alternative.
27 June at 18:29 · Like · 1
Sardar
Aftab Khan However, my fundamental difference of opinion on
Justice Manzoor Gilani sb suggestion for alternative proposal is that any
sensible alternative course of action needs to be based on Transformation of
Constitutional system of Governance in AJK and Gilgit Baltistan. And for that
we have to develop a legislative framework for transformation of AJK and Gilgit
Baltistan Constitution.
27 June at 18:30 · Like · 3
Sardar
Aftab Khan The ARJK proposal are contrary to established
international norms of legislative framework for constitutional transformation.
27 June at 18:33 · Like · 2
Sardar
Aftab Khan Their point of reference is based on reforms in AJK
Interim Act 1974 to conform with Pakistan's power and control over AJK and
Gilgit Baltistan and their end product is re-packaging FATA regulations with a
new legal framework order in shape of a placebo constitutional reform package
for AJK and Gilgit Baltistan.
27 June at 18:39 · Like · 4
Sardar
Aftab Khan I am sure all the colleagues engaged in this debate
understand the meaning and difference between 'Reform' and 'Transform'
27 June at 18:53 · Edited · Like · 2
Sardar
Aftab Khan I would love to contribute in any effort for the
transformation of constitution in AJK and Gilgit Baltistan but do not feel
doing justice to my time and energy on any reforms for re-packaging or
re-branding of existing legal framework order of FATA for AJK and Gilgit
Baltistan.
27 June at 18:48 · Unlike · 4
Nazir
Gilani Sardar Aftab Khan Sahib has carried a valid argument.
Justice Sahib's point of reference starts with Act 1974. It carries an
overbearing interest in favour of Pakistan. We hold a faith in the elements of
Sovereignty embedded in State Subject and our principal right to consider a
Constitutional Framework.
27 June at 18:54 · Unlike · 6
Shaf
Raja Nazir Gilani sb, Sardar Aftab Khan sb, Nazir Haq sb,
Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb & others; Plz sum this debate up as we are nearly
there by calling AJK- Act 1974 as reference point in almost whole debate. Much
appreciated.
27 June at 20:08 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Yes Raja sb, reference point is only Act. 74
which is culmination of all earlier Acts and Rules of business
27 June at 20:31 via mobile · Like · 2
DrAftab
Hussain Please pasand o pasand say ejtanab..........
27 June at 20:33 via mobile · Like
Nazir
Haq Yes, I have send my final submission by email to those whose
email address I had. Could Justice Gilani Sb, Nadeem Aslam, and Dr. Aftab Sb,
text me their mail address on my mobile no: ++07853279466. Thanks.
27 June at 21:16 · Like · 1
Nazir
Haq Please, ignore my misspelling (correct is sent), I have an
handicap in using this medium.
27 June at 21:19 · Like
Sardar Aftab Khan Dear Shaf Raja the framework and spectrum
of public participation and engagement in any debate for constitutional
Transformation is a different ball game and I am not sure on what basis your
are advising concluding this debate with the suggestion to call AJK-Act 1974 as
a reference point. I am fundamentally challenging Justice Manzoor Hussain
Gilani sb wisdom on making it the "only reference point" and the
capacity of ARJK proposals.
27 June at 21:38 · Unlike · 5
Nazir
Gilani The reference point for Pakistan in AJK are the UNCIP
Resolutions. Therefore, seeking any other reference beyond UNCIP Resolutions
has no merit.
27 June at 21:48 · Unlike · 6
Sardar
Aftab Khan As I clearly stated earlier that giving any
alternative suggestions at this point is in fact retrospectively accepting
Justice Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb wisdom and his reference point which as Dr.
Nazir Gilani suggested is intellectually flawed at core. Furthermore, The ARJK
proposal are against a) the sovereignty of the people of Jammu Kashmir; b) the
fundamental basis of the existence of the Government of (Azad) Jammu Kashmir;
and God forbid if partially or fully implemented they will bring AJK and Gilgit
Baltistan in Perpetual control of Pakistan. Therefore, my critical appraisal
and impact assessment suggests that as an alternative we should work for the
development of a framework and spectrum of public participation and engagement
in an open, transparent and professionally facilitated debate for
constitutional Transformation in AJK and Gilgit Baltistan.
27 June at 21:57 · Edited · Unlike · 2
Nazir
Gilani Following is the full text of Professor Nazir Haq
(Naazish), Chair-Person, JKPNP contribution to the debate on Act 1974. It seems
he has encountered problems in posting it on FB and has emailed to us
individually:
Part I
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE AZAD JAMMU KASHMIR (AJK) ACT 1974
The primary question in present debate is A) the 'Status' of
AJK Act 1974 in relation to the 'State Subjects' residing in the territories
(including Gilgit and Baltistan, GB) 'occupied' by Pakistan. I used the term
'occupied' deliberately to question and categorise the correct status of the author
of this Act: The government of Pakistan; and the status of the Act 74, which I
categorise as an instrument of control/oppression, framed and imposed by an
outside authority on the 'State subjects' without participation of the people,
or apriori consent of the 'General Will', particularly in its design and
construction. A section of the people posteriorly consented at its
implementation stage, and have been doing so ever since.
It is important to remind ourselves that it is the terms of
the debate that set the parameters and determine the outcome. I'll, therefore,
justify my use of these terms in my submission.
I state my reasons for this position as follows:
1. The act 74 fails the criteria of a Constitution. By
endorsing the definition of constitution, stipulated by Dr Nazir Gilani Sb, in
his latest posting on the face book, I summarise it here, as a reminder, that a
constitution is a legal document designed and framed by a 'Sovereign People' ,
defining various institutions, outlining the principles and setting out the
guidelines for governance in a bounded territory, known as 'State'. By virtue
of its creation only through this process a Constitution, and all the
institutions, mechanisms stemming out from it, then, acquire its legitimacy.
2. The legitimacy of all legal authority (in liberal and
communitarian-including Marxist- political and moral theory) is, therefore,
derived from the 'General will' of a sovereign people. In other words, it is
the expression and exercise of the right to 'Self- Determination' by a people
without any obstacles, hindrances, or limitations imposed on them, which
entitled them as 'Sovereign'.
3. The concept of 'self' and 'Sovereignty' are intertwined
and are mutually embedded in the concept of 'free person'; therefore, are inseparable.
For the category of 'person' as a legal category has defined entitlements to
socio-economic and political rights as well as responsibilities in all
practicing democracies including historically existed and existing Socialist
States. (I'll try to elaborate this point further, time/space permitting,
though).
4. The State Jammu Kashmir became a Sovereign State on 14th
August 1947 under the Indian Independent Act promulgated by the British
Parliament. By virtue of withdrawal of The 'Suzerainty' of the British Crown
over the princely state 'all the treaties and agreements' between them were
deem null and void, on the 14th August, entitling the rulers as 'Sovereign'
from that date.
5. The newly created dominions of India and Pakistan were
negotiating with the ruler and tempting Him to join either of them, a
requirement not stipulated in the British Act, as a course of action to be
followed by the rulers. But, rather, a recommendation exercised as an advice to
the ruler by the then Viceroy, Lord Mount Batten.
6. Pakistan had entered a 'Standstill' Agreement' with the
ruler to seek the opinion of his 'Subjects'. India adopted 'wait and see'
tactics. Thus, endorsing and respecting the 'Sovereignty' of the State Jammu
Kashmir.
7. The populous of the State had acquired a status as 'State
Subject-Class one', under a legal instrument decreed by the ruler, in 1927,
entitling them to various rights including the right to property and
employment. They even had won the right of representation (under the demands for
'responsible government'), in the Assembly created by the ruler, through
selection, for consultation.
8. By the eve of the partition of India, there were two
political movements in Jammu Kashmir, with two different routes for transfer of
'Sovereignty' from dynastic monarchy to popular democracy. The 'National
Conference' was demanding the abdication of the Raja, under the slogan of 'Quit
Kashmir', and, therefore, establishment of a Republican Democracy ; whereas,
The Muslim Conference was in favour of a Constitutional Monarchy under a
Parliamentary Democracy.
9. As a result of an armed revolt by the indigenous people:
the 'State Subjects', in the Pooch region of the state, a Provisional
Government was set up, in the liberated territory, under a declaration made, on
4th October 1947. Under a similar revolt in Gilgit Baltistan the 'State
Subjects' had also liberated these area from the Raja's control.
10. The armed invaders, from the North West region of
Pakistan, were sent in the State( under the pretext of supporting the 'State
Subjects') on 22nd of October 1947, who embarked on indiscriminate pillage,
plunder and killing. The provisional government of 4th August was summarily
removed by the Pakistani establishment on 24th October, and a new
administration was established, not with the consent the 'State subjects', but
rather, by appointment of handpicked individuals.
27 June at 22:33 · Unlike · 4
Nazir
Gilani Following is the full text of Professor Nazir Haq
(Naazish), Chair-Person, JKPNP contribution to the debate on Act 1974. It seems
he has encountered problems in posting it on FB and has emailed to us
individually:
Part II
10. India follow the suit, under the pretext of the call for
help from the ruler(the Maharaja), the Indian establishment sent its armed
forces under the alleged 'Instrument of Accession', sign by the ruler, and
appointed an administration of its own choice.
11. The territories of Gilgit and Baltistan were annexed, in
1948, by the Pakistani establishment under a so called treaty signed by the
then president of AJK, appointed by Pakistan without the consent of the 'State
Subjects'. These parts of the State were then categorised and called as 'The
Northern Area of Pakistan' until 2009.
12. Pakistan continued ruling both the territories ( AJK and
Gilgit and Baltistan) under various 'Rules of Business', and 'Interim Acts'
until the Act 1974 was imposed on AJK, and the 'Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment
Package', implemented in 20009, rendering the parts of the State as de facto
5th region of Pakistan.
Now, let's evaluate the status of Pakistani establishment
and the Act 74 framed and imposed by it on the 'State Subjects' under its
occupations, in the light of International norms and conventions dealing with
the question of 'Sovereignty' and the 'Right of a Nation to Self-
Determination'.
The proclaimed status of Pakistani establishment as a
benefactor and supporter of the 'State Subject' under its jurisdiction cannot
be described other than a colonial power, in the light of afore stated
considerations, for violating the international norms and conventions, on the
following grounds:
1. By sending the armed invaders and then intervening with
force, violating the ' Integrity and Sovereignty' of a State and its Subjects;
2. by deposing a provisional government declared by an
indigenous populous, and appointing an administration of its own choice;
thereby diverting and subverting the course of democratic choice of a people to
self- governance. Here, I would like to clarify a confused and an erroneous
view espoused by some Kashmiri activists/writers. Contrary to their espousal
that 'normally governments are declared or formed under a pre- drawn up
constitution', and 'it is not clear as to whether the 4th October government
had a written constitution', the major events in the world history of revolts
refute this point of view. It was the spontaneous revolt of the masses which
overthrew the Dynastic rule of French monarchy in 1789 and established a
Provisional Assembly first, charged with the responsibility of framing a
Constitution for establishment a new government: the First Republic. A same
course of action was taken by American Colonial Subjects, a decade earlier, in
1777, in Their revolution against the British Empire.
3. by denying the 'State Subjects' to become a 'Sovereign
Nation', in contestation and collaboration with Indian ruler, it disfigured the
initial debate on 'Kashmir's National Question' at the UN, under the pretext of
representing the case of 'State Subjects. The Pakistani establishment remain
guilty, with that of the Indian one, for transforming the national issues of
Kashmiris, at the UN, into a geo-political conflict between the two, persistently
denying the 'State Subjects' to be even part of the debate.
Similarly, The Act 74 fails the criteria of a Constitution
in the aforementioned considerations on the following grounds:
A. it was not framed by the 'State Subjects', but, by the
'Non-State Subjects'.
B. it divides the territories of the State in different
domains and categories. Thus violating the integrity of the State as a single
entity.
C. it disenfranchises the sections of the 'State Subjects'
by virtue of restrictive and conditional clauses, violating the international
norms and convention on democratic rights of a free people.
D. all the institutions, bodies and mechanisms of
governance, under this Act, fail the test of democratic choice of 'Free
People', by virtue of executive powers of all these residing external to these
institutions.
THE WAY FORWARD
Any attempt to reform the Act 74 in order to meet the
aspirations and the rights of the 'State Subjects', as 'Sovereign' people would
require the 'State Subjects' to persuade the Pakistani establishment to change
its status from an occupying force to a facilitator one, as it claim to be one,
under the UN obligations it has signed up to. This would require of Pakistan
to:
A. abrogate the Act 74; empower the AJK Assembly with full
authority to call a Constituent Convention, represented by delegates from all
the indigenous political parties representative of all the territories
(including GB), to frame a Constitution, restoring the 'Sovereignty' of the
'State Subject', in these parts of the State. This would also, by implication,
abrogate the existing arrangements in GB and allow the 'State Subjects', to
exercise their right to 'self-determination', as the inhabitants of the
integral part of the State, having equal rights and status with the AJK. A new
Constituent Assembly should, then, be elected under the new Constitution with
its Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, with all the additional mechanism of
self- governance defined and stipulated by the Constitution;
27 June at 22:35 · Unlike · 4
Nazir
Gilani Following is the full text of Professor Nazir Haq
(Naazish), Chair-Person, JKPNP contribution to the debate on Act 1974. It seems
he has encountered problems in posting it on FB and has emailed to us
individually:
Part III
B. recognise the newly established Constituent Assembly,
under the new Constitution framed by the 'State Subjects', and negotiate the
mutual relationship and arrangements as two Sovereign Authorities;
C. support this New AJK (including GB) government for its candidature
of the UN as an equal member of this Club and assist the AJK government in
mobilising the world opinion to force the Indian establishment to do the same.
In my humble opinion Pakistan would not accept the above
option. The history supports my hunch. We all know that the Liberation League,
under the leadership of Late K.H. Khurshid, pursued this route all his life
without any success.
THE ALTERNATIVE, then, lies in the 'State Subjects' taking
up the option A, stated above, and lobbying themselves the permanent Five
members of the Security Council to achieve the above outlined objectives.
I rest my case with an apology for a long drawn submission.
I couldn't find any easy and short cut way. The road to freedom is never short
and easy, it is rather long and arduous one.
Professor
Nazir Haq (Naazish),
Chair-Person,
JKPNP.
27 June at 22:36 · Unlike · 5
Shaf
Raja Little explanation on reference point. I tried to take Mr
Sadar Sardar Aftab Khan previous point further by calling Act 74 as a base for
point of reference to ARJK or Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb. & the participants
should come up with their own view point or reference point to conclude it as a
healthy debate. Thnx
27 June at 22:48 · Like
Nazir
Haq Thank you Shah Jee (Dr. Gilani Sb) for your kind help in
putting this in three parts, for the benefit of the participants.
27 June at 23:06 · Like · 2
DrAftab
Hussain One side is still blind ..... constitutional and Legal
point of view , ground realities which mentioned is slavery Act 74 or ground
realities of 370 ..... ?
27 June at 23:18 via mobile · Like · 3
Nadeem
Aslam Just turn on FB good to see constructive progress on the
subject need some time to read it through for my understanding. @ Nazir Haq sb
actually FB space allow you around eight thousand words at once.If its more
then that then it won`t allow you to post it.So best way is to split into small
parts.That`s I did it in the different posts above.
27 June at 23:49 · Like · 3
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Professor Nazish has very clearly put up his point
of view or the point of view of nationalists , as commonly called, substance of
which is( as for I could understand, with due apology if I am wrong in
understanding) that ""
Pakistan Govt be PERSUADED to wind up and recognise AJK
INCLUDING GB as independent sovereign country who should then negotiate
relationship with Pakistan ..""
Of course I don't subscribe to the views given my ideology,
but I respect the contrary view point as a student of constitution.
The thrust of professor sb as a way forward is again on
""persuading Pakistan establishment" which I deem as GOP
If all that is to be done by persuading Pakistan govt, the
proper course in my estimation is having resort to Sec 33 of Act 74, with a
draft bill to be presented in assembly or council. It will be debated by the
elected members along with contrary views of accessionists and others and , if
passed,GOP will be persuaded to permit the abrogation of Act 74 and enforcement
of new constitution
This course is provided by GOP itself in sec 33 of Act 74.
Similar draft be presented in J&K assembly at srinagar
for abrogation of Act 57
The consensus of all the assemblies will be the sovereign
will of the state subjects
28 June at 00:10 via mobile · Like
Javed
Inayat Wow, professor Nazir Haq sab, Chairman Jammu Kashmir
Peoples National Party ( JK PNP) thank you very much, it has summed up by you
with best arguments on the topic. Eloquently and perfectly done work is
complete picture of entire issue. I would like to invite JR Manzoor Gialni sab
please do counter above Prof: Nazir Haq sab given arguments, description
because he is head of a political party which also represents and advocates
basics of our national question. We all must appreciate two of great brains from
diaspora Professor Nazir Haq sab Chairamn JK PNP and Dr. Nazir Gialni sab,
expert in constitutional law and international law and sec general of JKCHR for
contributing on this very important topic.
Javed Inayat I do not know why JR Manzoor Gilani sab wants
to provide more tightness and squeezing our necks to Pakistani establishment
even though we already have been denied breathing space by act 74.
28 June at 00:32 · Edited · Unlike · 4
Sadiq
Subhani My post is not a contribution, its only a question of a
school boy:
Q: whether the Ruling of the High Court and the debate above
means that State Subject Rule 1927 is yet enforceable in a sence that non state
subjects are neither permitted to buy land in Jk nor can be employed in state
institutions?
Q: is there an issue of sovereignity and conflict of
interest?
Q: Conflict lies between two separate entities?
Q: Pakistan and JK (AK) are two separate entities like
Pakistan and India are two separate entities?
Q: bearing in mind the examples of Central Asian States and
Kuwait the sovereignity usurped, returns to the owners eventually?
I would be grateful to receive responses which will enable
the students like me understand the legitimacy of Act 74.
28 June at 00:36 via mobile · Unlike · 5
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Subhani sb under Act 74 answer to Q 1 is yes and
4 no
Q 3 nd 4 require to be elucidated
Last question under INCIp resolutions The state is to acceed
to idia pot pakistan
28 June at 00:55 via mobile · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Acceed to India or pakistan depending on result
of plebiscite
28 June at 00:57 via mobile · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain Manzoor Hussain Gilani Sab please legality about 4 ?
28 June at 01:06 via mobile · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Because the act is given by GOP,sovereign
authority under act vests in GOP DIRECTLY AS WEL AS INDIRECTLY, state subjects
possess Pakistani passport and nic etc
28 June at 01:10 via mobile · Like
DrAftab
Hussain State subject also have Indian passport then ?
28 June at 01:28 via mobile · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Yes dr SB that is what the citizenship law is but
u don't lose the residential status of being SS for two successive generations
28 June at 01:35 via mobile · Like · 1
DrAftab
Hussain Table of '' Zero is equal to Zero ''
28 June at 01:54 via mobile · Like · 1
Musabi
Ur Rehman Falsafi ko, bayhis k Andar Khudda(RABBAY-ZUL JALAAL)
Milta nahien, Doaur ko Suljaa rahaa hay Aour Sirra Miltaa nahin,, ye Doaur hay
Jiski Laathi usski Bahance.
28 June at 03:06 via mobile · Like · 3
Sadiq
Subhani Thank you Manzoor Hussain Gilani sahib.
28 June at 07:36 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam IF WE ADOPT AND DIFFERENTIATE THE TERM IN OUR LEGAL AND
POLITICAL SPECTRUM AND VISION THEN WE ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE INTEREST OF
THE PEOPLE OF OCCUPIED STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR AND THE COLLABORATORS AND
SUBSERVIENT OF THE MILITARY AND CIVIL ESTABLISHMENT OF PAKISTAN. The
constitution of Pakistan stated in Article: 5 (1) LOYALTY TO THE STATE IS THE
BASIC DUTY OF EVERY CITIZEN.
But in AJK Act of Azad Jammu and Kashmir 1974 section 33 of
the of the Interim Constitution is opposite to that . in Pakistani Kashmir Is:
'I will Remain Loyal to the Country (Pakistan).
"WHY NOT EVERY STATE SUBJECT HOLDER OF KASHMIR SHOULD
BE LOYAL TO KASHMIR "
28 June at 10:10 · Edited · Unlike · 4
Nadeem
Aslam OBVIOUSLY THE ARTICLE SIX (6) is the next IN THE CONSTITUTION
OF PAKISTAN GEN r. MUSHARAF IS FACING THE TRIAL UNDER THIS ARTICLE " High
treason ".
28 June at 10:31 · Edited · Like · 2
Nazir
Gilani Two Successive Generations Rule & State Subject
State Subject
State Subject is defined in the State Subject Notification
NO. 1-L/84 dated 20 April 1927. It was first defined in vice Private
Secretary's letter No. 2354, dated the 31st January, 1927 to the Revenue Member
of Council.
State Subject Right is hereditary in character and would be
inherited by the descendants according to the category of their parents, that
is, Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV.
“In matters of grants of the State scholarships State lands
for agricultural and house building purposes and recruitment to State service,
State subjects of Class 1 should receive preference over other classes and
those of Class 11, over Class III, subject, however, to the order dated 31st
January, 1927 of his Highness the Maharaja Bahadur regarding employment of
hereditary State Subjects in Government service.”
Two Successive Generations Rule
We should not read much into the Order of His Highness the
Maharaja Bahadur dated Srinagar, the 27th June 1932, (14th Har, 1989, published
In Government Gazette dated 24th Har, 1989.
It states
No.13L/1989. - -Whereas it is necessary to determine the
status of Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects in foreign territories and to inform
the Government of Foreign States as to the position of their nationals in this
state, it is hereby commanded and notified for public information, as follows:
1. That all emigrants from the Jammu and Kashmir State to
foreign territories shall be considered State Subjects and also the descendants
of these emigrants born aboard for two generations. Provided that, these
nationals of the Jammu and Kashmir State shall not be entitled to claim the
internal rights granted to subjects of this State by the laws, unless they
fulfil the conditions laid down by those laws and rules for the specific
purposes mentioned therein.
The caveat of two generations born abroad is faced with the
change in the administration of territories of the State and the UN Resolutions
on Kashmir. It does not have the protection of the environment in which it was
decreed.
The caveat of two generations does not cause any threat to
the entitlement of a State Subject anymore. State Subjects are spread over in
three administrations, are residents in India and in Pakistan and live abroad.
Article 6 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution and the
fact that AJK Assembly shall have one member from the Jammu and Kashmir State
Subjects residing abroad, makes the two generation caveat obsolete.
Para 14 (a) and (b) of UN Resolution 47 (1948) dated 21
April 1948 protect all generations against the 2 Generations Caveat.
28 June at 10:17 · Unlike · 4
Nadeem
Aslam QUESTION ?: DOES PAKISTAN ENDORSED STAND STILL AGREEMENT
OF 1947 IN ARTICLE 257 OF ITS CONSTITUTION: Telegram from Foreign Secretary,
Government of Pakistan, Karachi,
to Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir
15th August, 1947
Legal Document No 111
Your telegram of the 12th. The Government of Pakistan agree
to have a Standstill Agreement of Jammu and Kashmir for the continuance of the
existing arrangements pending settlement of details and formal execution of
fresh agreements.
Part XII: Chapter 4: General Articles.
257 : Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to
accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and the State shall be
determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.
28 June at 10:42 · Edited · Unlike · 3
Nazir
Gilani Read "protects all generations".
28 June at 10:30 · Unlike · 1
Nazir
Gilani Justice Gilani Sahib has made some points which need
clarification.
State Subjects and 2 Generation Rule
I have given my views on State Subjects and second
generation rule.
Ideology
We are not debating any ideology. The debate is on the
jurisprudence of the “Equality of People” in the determination of
“Self-Determination”.
Ideology of Kashmiriat, that is Kashmir for Kashmiris,
predates the ideology of Pakistan. There is a debate whether a State has a
“Religious” or “Political” ideology. It is rigorously being debated in
Pakistan, which is a home for Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis,
Qadiyanis, Bahais and Buddhists.
The requirement of Justice Gilani Sahib’s “ideology” is met
even by non-Pakistani’s under article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan. One
does not need to be a Pakistani for subscribing to various requirements in this
article.
GOP (Government of Pakistan) as Sovereign Authority
We are not challenging the State of Pakistan as Provincial
subjects but are making efforts to define ourselves as a People referred to in
article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan
Government of Pakistan (GOP) is not a Sovereign Authority in
AJK. It acts under its responsibilities under UNCIP Resolutions and seems to
exercise a delegated responsibility.
Any action in any manner in AJK by GOP should not be at
variance with UNCIP Resolutions, in particular the “Principle of Equality of
People”. Act 1974 does not make Pakistan Sovereign.
In fact India and Pakistan under UNCIP Resolutions have
shared and common responsibilities towards all People on either side of the
UNMOGIP supervised cease fire line.
28 June at 11:38 · Edited · Unlike · 3
Comrade
Surakh Historically ,culturally and geophysically Kashmir is
entirety a separate identity in its own.Why they need to remain loyay and
faithful to Pakistan.Does Pakistan allow any Pakistani to remain faithful to
India ? We need to identify enemy within Kashmiri ranks,those are the proxies
of Pakistan and in the name of Kashmir.But I have say not in my name.
28 June at 22:45 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Dr sb , suggested interpretation should in fact
be the position , but express words of 13L/1989 -would require amendment by
appropriate legislature , interpretation cannot exclude the express words.
I have a caveat about state subject rules
These neither create nor confer nationality or citizenship.
The rules categorise the residents of the state in order of the date of their
residence in the state preferring or discriminating one category over / against
the other.
Nationality or citizenship legally and constitutionally
creates a common and indiscriminate status for all . The world citizenship laws
which I know, do not accept this discrimination
The rules are actually protective guarantees for category of
the residents for services and acquisition of property in the state to enforce
the writ of the ruler
Under the recent trend of regionalisation of interests, the
permanent residence certificate is their equalent through out India and
Pakistan
Nationality used to be indian through out India before
partition and now it is Indian or Pakistani as the case may be, but that does
not militate against state subject
28 June at 23:04 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam The state subject rule of 1927 only a document which is
define the identity and integrity of the Kashmiri with in a divided occupied
state of Jammu Kashmir .What had been done the judiciary in Azad Kashmir to
protect the state subject and the domicile ?
29 June at 00:01 · Edited · Unlike · 2
Comrade
Surakh It is a good argument between the Kashmiri point of view
and a Pakistani point of view.
29 June at 00:04 · Edited · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam Question:
Justice Gilani Sb in your case before the SC of Pakistan in
2009 you sought relief and described yourself as a "Law abiding citizen of
Pakistan". How can a Citizen of Pakistan be the chief justice of AJK
Supreme Court.
Was it not a false Statement under article 257 of the
Constitution of Pakistan. If you could dilute your State Subject identity for a
small relief, how would you defend the State Subject identity of others?
Your recommendations to Act 1974 are proposed by a "Law
abiding citizen of Pakistan" and there is a conflict of interest.
What is your position today?
29 June at 00:06 · Unlike · 3
DrAftab
Hussain Where is your caveat about state subject rules in POGB ?
What you have did for violation of SSR in POGB during your service in judiciary
?
Kindly inform us please sir Justice Gilani thanks
29 June at 00:10 via mobile · Like · 3
Comrade
Surakh It means JR.Gilani unilaterally withdraw from his state
subject ?
29 June at 00:19 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Dr aftab sb I have posted an hour before
Nadeem sb reconsider ur question after reading my last post
with an unbiased vision of a student of constitution in the background of Act
1935, Indian Pakistani and constitutions of two parts of state
29 June at 00:21 via mobile · Like · 1
Javed
Inayat Today Dr. Nazir Gilani sab again gave his best legal
interpretation of state subject and its legal basis and more importantly Pakistan
cannot have any relation with this region of Jammu Kashmir state which has not
been mentioned in article 257 of its constitution. I think there is nothing
left behind the surface and now is the time for every one to behave like state
subject and defend it.
29 June at 00:24 · Unlike · 3
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Dr sb , suggested interpretation should in fact
be the position , but express words of 13L/1989 -would require amendment by
appropriate legislature , interpretation cannot exclude the express words.
I have a caveat about state subject rules
These neither create nor confer nationality or citizenship.
The rules categorise the residents of the state in order of the date of their
residence in the state preferring or discriminating one category over / against
the other.
Nationality or citizenship legally and constitutionally
creates a common and indiscriminate status for all . The world citizenship laws
which I know, do not accept this discrimination
The rules are actually protective guarantees for category of
the residents for services and acquisition of property in the state to enforce
the writ of the ruler
Under the recent trend of regionalisation of interests, the
permanent residence certificate is their equalent through out India and
Pakistan
Nationality used to be indian through out India before
partition and now it is Indian or Pakistani as the case may be, but that does
not militate against state subject
29 June at 00:33 via mobile · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani I have resent my caveat .
Pl read it carefully with open constitutional mind
29 June at 00:35 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam @Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb,I am waiting for your detail
thought provoking response.
29 June at 00:37 · Unlike · 2
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Dr sb , suggested interpretation should in fact
be the position , but express words of 13L/1989 -would require amendment by
appropriate legislature , interpretation cannot exclude the express words.
I have a caveat about state subject rules
These neither create nor confer nationality or citizenship.
The rules categorise the residents of the state in order of the date of their
residence in the state preferring or discriminating one category over / against
the other.
Nationality or citizenship legally and constitutionally
creates a common and indiscriminate status for all . The world citizenship laws
which I know, do not accept this discrimination
The rules are actually protective guarantees for category of
the residents for services and acquisition of property in the state to enforce
the writ of the ruler
Under the recent trend of regionalisation of interests, the
permanent residence certificate is their equalent through out India and
Pakistan
Nationality used to be indian through out India before
partition and now it is Indian or Pakistani as the case may be, but that does
not militate against state subject
I AM REPOSTING PL READ
29 June at 00:43 via mobile · Like
Nadeem Aslam @Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb,Could you please
provide some sort of citation which support your narrative towards
understanding.
29 June at 00:47 · Like
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Dear Nadeem sb u pl read the rules quoted by dr
Gilani sb and then read my above narration
29 June at 00:52 via mobile · Like
Javed
Inayat JR Manzoor gilani sab, when a state subject is not a
citizen of Pakistani state as per article 257 of the constitution and non state
subject cannot hold any Govt. position, when you had declared that you were
citizen of Pakistan how you became Chief justice of AJK Judiciary? No =2 how
Pakistani PM becomes chairman of Kashmir council as non state subject? People
of this region cannot become Pakistani citizen as long as Pakistan is party to
this dispute. Please enlighten us about its legal implications.
29 June at 00:54 · Unlike · 2
Nadeem
Aslam @Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb,Where is a difference of that
you think is not comply with the preventive law.
29 June at 00:56 · Edited · Unlike · 3
Nadeem
Aslam @Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb, It`s not on you but your
answer to the question is a very ambiguous and unclear.
29 June at 01:04 · Edited · Unlike · 2
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Differing with a point of view is different than
not understanding or not trying to understand
When intellectuals interact they give reasons and logic and
differ patiently, respectfully and gracefully
Pl see the points of difference by dr Gilani, dr aftab, prof
nazish and others besides my humble effort
29 June at 01:11 via mobile · Like
Nadeem
Aslam I expecting a answers with full detail in depth which
comply with your ex designation,experience and wisdom.On the other side
Dr.Gilani sb willing to elaborate more wider context and in depth to make
reference to the constructive debate.The discussion is too slow because of your
less input in the argument which lacks the wisdom.If you think its too much to
answer then I will raise the question in a numerical order for your
convenience.I can reproduce of re-frame the questions as well.
29 June at 01:16 · Edited · Like · 2
Nadeem
Aslam I have full patience and dedication for the learning point
of view.But you should have to the respect consumption of time and facilitate
others too .
29 June at 01:18 · Like · 2
Nadeem
Aslam I reproduce my question above please elaborate in detail
which at least crystal clear your position in this regard. Q-1,Question:
Justice Gilani Sb in your case before the SC of Pakistan in
2009 you sought relief and described yourself as a "Law abiding citizen of
Pakistan". How can a Citizen of Pakistan be the chief justice of AJK
Supreme Court.
Was it not a false Statement under article 257 of the
Constitution of Pakistan. If you could dilute your State Subject identity for a
small relief, how would you defend the State Subject identity of others?
Your recommendations to Act 1974 are proposed by a "Law
abiding citizen of Pakistan" and there is a conflict of interest.
What is your position today?
29 June at 01:23 · Edited · Like · 3
Nazir
Gilani Citizen of Pakistan and a State Subject
Article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan lays down
conditions as a collective and not as an individual to accede to Pakistan and
be citizens of Pakistan.
It is a voluntary process and presupposes that the people
have to exercise their Right to Self Determination first. No individual
Kashmiri could claim to be a Pakistani Citizen prior to article 257 becoming
operational. It would be in near future or distant future.
The Statement made by Justice Gilani Sahib in his case
before the Supreme Court of Pakistan that he is “Law abiding citizen of
Pakistan”, has no merit in Law. It is rather an unfortunate compromise.
Notifications in regard to administration of AJK don’t have
the sanction of article 257 of the Constitution and are not recognised by UNCIP
Resolutions.
A Pakistani Citizen could not be a judicial officer or chief
justice of High Court or Supreme Court in AJK. A Pakistani Citizen or an Indian
Citizen can’t be a State Subject and can’t buy property in the State of Jammu
and Kashmir.
An elected member of AJK assembly was de-seated because it
was proved that he was not a State Subject but a Citizen of Pakistan.
Nor can Justice Gilani Sahib stand for an election as a
Member of National or Provincial assembly in Pakistan, unless he is a Kashmiri
refugee resident in Pakistan. Under present circumstances and at the time of
his office as Judge of Supreme Court in 2009 he could not be a “Citizen of
Pakistan’.
29 June at 01:25 · Like · 5
Javed
Inayat Very good legal interpretation by Dr. Nazir gilani sab,
thank you very much for enlightening us as state subjects. how PM Pakistan as
non state subject is holding chairmanship of Kashmir council is there any legal
standing for him?
29 June at 01:36 · Like · 2
Javed
Inayat If JR Manzoor Gialni sab , declared himself as law
abiding citizen of Pakistan and sought help from Pakistani supreme court as a
victim of injustice, does he not disqualify automatically as non state subject?
How come he later retired as a judge and getting pension from AJK Govt?
29 June at 02:18 · Like
Shaf
Raja State Subject Rule doesnt stop Kashmiris to migrate out of
state & their status as state subjects is protected for next two
generations as justified by all under SSR-1927. But when the state itself
became disputed (UN) then this SSRs two generations principle cant be followed
till the disputed status is removed & the state's sovereignty is restored.
The criteria of the UNCIP Resolutions demands the maximum participation of
state subjects in the democratic process of plebiscite to determine the future
status of J&K.
29 June at 03:53 · Like · 2
Shaf
Raja Taking the valid point raised by Manzoor Hussain Gilani sb
further about the Maharaja letter (13L/89) refered by Nazir Gilani sb regarding
the status of State Subjects & circumstancial change in political existence
of J&K. By pointing to the amendment through appropriate legislature, Mr
Manzoor Gillani sb should realise that the appropriate legislature is still to
be constituted in J&K & for that the whole debate is relying on the UN
Resolutions. So till these resolutions are not enforced practically, the status
of State Subjects remains same till the state sovereignty is restored in given
forms.
29 June at 06:22 · Like · 1
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani The SSR neither create nor confer nationality or
citizenship. The rules categorise the residents of the state in order of the
date of their residence in the state preferring or discriminating one category
over / against the other.
The rules are guarantee for service and acquisition of
property for the residents of state in order of their category .
The permanent resident certificate is their equalent through
out India and Pakistan
Nationality used to be indian through out India before
partition and now it is Indian or Pakistani as the case may be, but that does
not militate against state subject.
Every state subject can become the National of any state in
the world as about two million state subjects are citizens of EUROPEON and
North America , without losing their status for two generations , but vice
versa is not allowed.
Every state subject holding Pakistani or passport of any
other country of the world is citizen/ national of that country as is exhibited
by the nationality column of that passport.
Under J&K constitution only an Indian citizen possessing
SSR CAN BE THE STATE SUBJECT, that doesn't mean that they LOSE THE statuS of
SS.
Yes being state subject One can be citizen of India or
Pakistan only and I AM LAW ABIDING CITIZEN OF PAKISTAN
Under Art1(2)(d) of constitution of Pakistan ""
territories otherwise included in Pakistan "" are territories of
Pakistan .
AJK & GB ARE THE TERRITORIES OTHERWISE INCLUDE IN
PAKISTAN , hence they are territories of Pakistan
Unde sec 14 -b of Pakistan citizenship act state subjects
under the protection of Pakistan passport are Pakistan nationals
Art 257 relates to determination of relationship of state
with Pakistan if tt decides to acceded to Pakistan . it has nothing to do with
legal status of state subjects living in territories in the control of Pakistan
This is constitutional, legal and practical position , not
idealist or wishfull.
Judgements of AJK AND PAKISTANI COURTS ARE VERY CLEAR ON THE
POINT
29 June at 06:45 via mobile · Like
Nazir Haq
Thak you Javed for your comments with precision regarding JKNNP position on
national question.
29 June at 10:27 · Like · 2
Nadeem
Aslam @ Manzoor Hussain Gilani Sb, 1-As I understand the state
subject certificate is a legal nationality of the people of former princely
state Jammu Kashmir. 2- Indian is a general term for the people of sub
continent living in south east Asia and under the British rule it was called
British India.includes India,Pakistan,Bangladesh. 3- LAW BIDING CITIZEN OF
PAKISTAN ? Read article 257 in conjunction with "PAKISTAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
1951
14-B: Certain persons to be citizens of Pakistan.
A person who being a subject of the State of Jummu and
Kasbmir, "<has migrated to Pakistan with the intention of residing
therein"> until such time as the relationship between Pakistan and that
State is finally determined, shall, without prejudice to his status as such
subject, be a citizen of Pakistan.BUT YOU RESIDING IN THE TERRITORY OF STATE
JAMMU KASHMIR (Mazaffabad) 4-Kindly let us know "WHICH PASSPORT YOU WERE
HOLDING WHEN YOU TRAVEL FORM INDIAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR(IOK) TO PAKISTAN OCCUPIED
KASHMIR.IT MEANS YOU WERE INDIAN BEFORE ? Mr.Gandhi and Jinnah were British
passport holders.The passport using the people of POK categorically states
"THE NATIVE STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR". 5- Before and post 1947 Kashmir
never be a part of Pakistan. 6- What is your nationality and identity now because
if you are not standing with your Kashmir state subject you are not entitle to
hold credible posts within Kashmir.
7-What was the agreement between JR.Gilani VS JR.Riaz Akther
and who was the mediator for settling the case for to restore you as CJ of AJK
just for a month to secure your pension and other benefits for the state.But
acutely you both removed.My wish was that" could anyone have a courage in
Azad Kashmir like CJ. Iftakhar in Pakistan WHO STOOD UP AND SAID NO TO
GE.MUSHARAF.
30 June at 15:28 · Edited · Unlike · 4
Comrade
Surakh Fundamentally the issues are related to the liberation of
Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan form the brutal clutches of Pakistan military
establishment.But subservient of the Pakistan bend their knees and begging for the
amendments in the Act 1974.This is betrayal with the people of Pakistan
occupied Kashmir
29 June at 14:29 · Unlike · 2
Nadeem
Aslam FURTHER TO THE DISCUSSION: FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS<
VS> AJK ACT 1974. DOES THE ACT 1974 HAVE A CAPABILITY TO ENHANCE , ABSORB
AND PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR(
POK) what sort of fundamental rights available for the people of Pakistan in
their constitution. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Chapter 1: Fundamental Rights [Articles 8-28]
29 June at 21:05 · Edited · Unlike · 5
Nazir
Gilani Idealist and Wishful
We are engaged in the current debate as concerned State
Subjects and keep a due regard for a responsible debate. It is unfair for
Justice Gilani Sahib to address the opposition (other views) as “idealist and
wishful”. We are engaged in a debate on the substantive merits of the argument.
We are all bound by a duty to “due care” and duty to “fairness”.
Citizen of Pakistan
Section 14-B of PAKISTAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 1951 did not cover
Justice Gilani in 2009 when he sought intervention of the Supreme Court of
Pakistan as “Law abiding citizen of Pakistan” as Judge of the Supreme Court of
AJK. He had not migrated and settled in Pakistan to qualify for this provision.
He was domiciled in AJK. It was an incorrect statement and had no ownership in
Law.
Section 14-B has been quoted by Nadeem Aslam Sahib in his
response.
TERRITORIES OTHERWISE INCLUDED IN PAKISTAN
It is legally incorrect to state that “Under Art1 (2) (d) of
constitution of Pakistan "" territories otherwise included in
Pakistan "" are AJK & GB.
Article 1 (2) (d) does not make any reference to article
257. In fact these territories could mean the other territories, namely,
Junagadh, Manavadar and some other States in Karthiawar, which according to
Document II submitted to the UN by Pakistan had “acceded to Pakistan and form
part of Pakistan territory have been forcibly and unlawfully occupied by the
armed forces of the Indian Union”.
Justice Gilani Sahib has misdirected himself in the
understanding of “" territories otherwise included in Pakistan
"". UN Security Council had taken up “Hyderabad Question” for
consideration on the counter claim of Pakistan against India. “The Hyderabad
question” was last debated at the 426th Meeting of UN SC on 24 May 1949 and
“Jammu and Kashmir Question” (later renamed as “India Pakistan Question”) was
last debated by UN SC at 1251st meeting on 5 November 1965.
Debate on Kashmir was a consequence of Indian Claim and
Debate on Hyderabad was a consequence of Pakistani Claim.
Permanent resident certificate
There is a difference between State Subject (Class I) and a
Permanent resident certificate (Class III). The latter is achieved under a
rayatnama and executed after ten years of continuous residence.
Legal Person
State Subject Class I is a legal identification and confers
a Legal Personality on “- All persons born and residing within the State before
the commencement of the reign of His Highness the late Maharaja Ghulab Singh
Sahib Bahadur, and also persons who settled the rein before the commencement of
samvat year 1942, and have since been permanently residing therein.”
Passports
Passports do not necessarily confer a Citizenship. They are
issued to take you into a Sovereign Protection. Palestinians travel on
passports issued by Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudia, Jordan etc.
Passport could be impounded/revoked and not the nationality.
Judgements of AJK AND PAKISTANI COURTS
AJK Courts have a Second Grade record of Independence in the
administration of justice as compared to Courts in Pakistan. Judges in AJK are
land locked and less exposed to developments in jurisprudence around the world.
Failure of AJK judiciary to take suo moto notice of Section
4.4.7 in AJK Act 1974 which restrains the freedom of “association and
expression” and the performance of judicial discipline in AJK has remained
primitive.
If a senior judge of the calibre of Justice Manzoor Gilani
Sahib could not hesitate to stich up irreconcilable interpretations of State
Subject, Article 257, UNCIP Resolutions, Other Territories etc., what would be
the merit of those who have remained resigned to Daily Jang, Daily Nawa-i-Waqt
and propaganda pamphlets written in the name of Sardar Mohammad Abdul Qayyum
Khan from 24 October 1947.
Judiciary in AJK failed to take suo moto notice of the
unlawful deportation of Khawaja Sona Ullah Bhat and other 4 by secret agencies
and army on 7/8 March 1957 from Muzaffarabad back to Valley.
Shaf Raja Passport should be taken as available "Tvavelling
Document" to eather side of state subjects of J&K. Because of SS
status, its possible to switch one to the other citizenship of either country
to residents of J&K, So is the case with Manzoor Gillani sb himself &
many others who moved from IaK to PaK or vice-versa. If the passport had made
the state subjects as Pakistani then there wasn't a need of Article 257 in Pk
constitution. Let both India & Pk to have state subjects their
"own" or UN authorised travelling documents or passport, the state subjects
will happily be using them. So having any passport in not an excuse to take
state subject status away. When refering to the term "subject", we
should not forget its direct link with "Monarchy" & with
democracy the same permanent subjects become the citizens or nationals. So the
transformation in political system transforms the status of residents.lnfact
the "subject" itself is a category of Nationality before Citizen of
modern democracies. I hope this wont need any further explanation. Good Luck
29 June at 15:55 · Unlike · 2
Nadeem
Aslam Dr.Gilni sb,discharge superb piece of argument.Excellent
29 June at 21:13 · Edited · Unlike · 3
Comrade
Surakh To understand the various net to grab the Kashmir to give
them reasons and argument to remain slave of Pakistan.It was a huge spending
and investment in the name of Kashmir(late Kashmir centres)people of Azad
Kashmir should have to make them accountable.If the people of Kashmir stand
with ideology and strength of their own people with ideological hegemony and
organise them to stand in front of proxies.Then their destination of liberation
from Pakistan is not far away.The dream of united independent Kashmir will come
true.Long live revolution.Asia Surakh Ha
29 June at 21:40 · Edited · Like · 1
Javed
Inayat Today we can see very clearly that Dr. Nazir Gilani has
unveiled very important legal and constitutional issues related to AJK and GB
regions of Jammu Kashmir state. 1- AJK and GB regions are not constitutional
parts of Pakistani state and inhabitants these two regions are not citizens of
Pakistan what is legal position of these two regions of Jammu Kashmir state as
formerly known? How we can define these regions under Pakistani state? What is
relationship with Pakistani state in terms of legality? 2- If state Subject is
not equal to citizenship as JR Manzoor Gialni sab has told us in above comments
who are these people living in AJK and GB? 3- If we are neither citizen of AJK
nor Pakistan what is our legal status? 4- We have neither been treated
Pakistani citizens nor AJK citizens as per Pakistani constitution and Act 74 of
AJK, how we define our treatment since last 66 years by Pakistani state? 5- Has
Pakistani state been violating UNCIP resolutions and its own constitution while
treating our 6 million people of AJK and GB? We need our constitutional and
legal status define by Pakistani constitution or Act 74 or Indian constitution?
Are we legal citizen of Indian state? Why our identification changes after
travelling 25 miles from Indian side to Pakistani side even though it is same
territory as we call it Jammu Kashmir? 6- Why JR Manzoor gialani sab has no
regard to our state subject? is there any legal reason behind it or just
loyalty to one occupier? Lets have legal experts opinion on all these basic
things of us, who we are basically?
29 June at 22:02 · Like · 2
Javed
Inayat I think JR Manzoor Gilani has lost this case in the court
of AJK people as they have given clear verdict against his proposals of status
change of the region AJK. Now it depends on JR Manzoor Gilani sab as their
client has been proven guilty of committing crimes against inhabitants of above
said regions. Now I would like to invite AJK peoples lawyer Dr. Nazir Gilani
sab to make a list of crimes committed against our people by Pakistani state
since many decades. JR Manzoor Gilani sab himself as a Judge must know how his
client should be treated by victims after found guilty of crimes?
30 June at 00:34 · Edited · Unlike · 4
DrAftab
Hussain Iss historical Debate main participant karnay Walay
tamam ehl e Danash ka hum teh dil say shukar guzar hain Jin ki Elmi mahrtoon ki
badolat mehkoom Kashmiri qoum ko beshumar aesay sawaloo k jawabat milay jou 66
saloo say kabhi debate main nahi lai gay thay iss Awami Adalat main honay wali
iss debate k jumalah haqooq Mehfooz hain yeh intellectual debate aik qoumi
virsa hay lahaza koi bhi iss debate ko ya iss k kissi part ko shaya karnay say
pehlay hum say ijazat lenay ka paband hoga
Agar kissi bhi honourable participant ya kissi bhi aor Qari
k zehn main koi baat baqi ho tou wo express karkay iss debate main hisa dal
sakta hay time ki Munasbat ab conclude Kia jai SHUKERIA
(ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED TO THIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY)
29 June at 22:31 via mobile · Like · 4
Nadeem
Aslam AN ARTICLE PART (1): 4th OCTOBER 1947 IS THE BIRTHDAY OF
THE PROVISIONAL REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU KASHMIR
By,
M.A.Aseem
4th October 1947 is the true birthday of the provisional
Republican Government of Kashmir also known as Azad Kashmir Government. The
nearest past origin of Republican Government of Kashmir lies in the uprising in
Poonch during the year of 1947. the simmering revolt in Poonch erupted into an
open resistance in July - August 1947. it sparked of by a series of events and
exploded by the British announcement that the two new states. Bharat and
Pakistan, in British India were to be created and British imperialism was about
to leave India.
In January 1947, assembly elections were conducted in
Kashmir. In February, Atlee, the British Prime Minister, announced the British
Government's decision to quit India in the very near future. The people of
Kashmir suspected that something was going to happen, but no one knew where and
how. It happened in Poonch in the spring of 1947. The Raja of Poonch was a
tributary to the Maharaja of Kashmir. He was dispossessed of his estates during
the Second World War and Maharaja of Kashmir began to collect taxes in Poonch.
Both the rulers and the taxes were very harsh and exacting. The people of
Poonch defied the law of Maharaja by unleashing a no tax campaign in spring
1947,
Among the 7167 Kashmir! soldiers who served in the Second
World War 6402 were from Poonch. The people of Poonch complained against the
harsh taxes. There was a tax on every hearth, every window, every wife, every
cow, every sheep and every buffalo. Further more, The zaldari tax was imposed
to pay the cost of taxation, and Dogra troops were billeted on the people of Poonch
to enforce the collection. Maharaja Hari Sing had previously refused to accept
these soldiers in his military forces after their demobilization and had sent
them back to their farms. At the same time, he had strengthened his garrisons
in the areas of Poonch including Mirpur with the Sikhs and Hindu Dogras. The
people of Poonch including Mirpur did not take it laying down.
No sooner did the appointed day (15th August 1947) arrive
than they set themselves for combing the areas for the establishment of a free
zone in south-western part of the Kashmir State. On 15th August 1947, the
British Paramountcy ceased to exist and the sovereignty of the Kashmir State
was legally reverted to the people of Kashmir automatically. This reversion of
sovereignty to the people of Kashmir was in the consequence of the provision 7B
of the Indian Independent Act of 1947. Thus, the people of Kashmir had a legal
right of self-determination to shape their own destinies by forming their own
government.
As a result, the struggle for the liberation and
independence of Kashmir accelerated by the uprising in Jammu and Poonch around
September-October 1947. it was during this period of struggle that Provisional
Republican Government of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir Government) was formed on 4th
October 1947. On that day the patriotic members of the Muslim Conference
assembled at Paris Hotel in Rawalpindi to form a revolutionary government of
Kashmir. After several meetings and long deliberation the draft declaration was
eventually finalized. The cabinet of this government consisted of:
Khwaja Ghulam Nabi Gilkar (Anwar)-Presedent
Sardar Mohammad Ibrahim Khan - Prime Minister
Nazir Hussain Shah - Finance Minister
Mr Aleem - Education Minister
Mr. Karkhana - Industry Minister
Mr. Fahim - Agriculture Minister
Muzaffarabad was made as headquarters of the Provisional
Republican Government. In this connection another meeting was held at Persian
Hotel on 5th October. About 200 Kashmiris participated this meeting and all
agreed to the declaration and offered their full support and assistance to the
newly born Independent Republican Government of Kashmir.
29 June at 23:27 · Edited · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam PART (2) :On 4th and 5th October 1947, Radio Pakistan
broadcast the declaration of the Provisional Government repeatedly. The
declaration was also published in several newspapers.
The Civil and Military Gazette Lahore of 8th October 1947
writes:
Provisional Republican Government for Kashmir Muslim
Conference Leaders Announcement
"A provisional Republican Government has
been set up for Kashmir State with headquarters at
Muzaffarabad in Kashmir territory 20 miles from
Pakistan border, according to the telegram received from
Rawalpindi on Saturday night. The message which is
signed by Mr. Anwar who describes himself as the
President of Provisional Republican Government of
Kashmir state, with the termination of paramountcy of
the Biritsh Crown the ruling family of Kashmir have lost
whatever rights it claimed under the treaty of Amritsar
(1846) under which Kashmir was transferred by the
British to Maharaja Ghulab Singh a forefather of the
present ruler for a paltry sum of rupees 50 lakhs and that
the payment with headquarters at Muzaffarabad.
The people have set up a Provisional Republican
Government
message further states, if after one a.m. on 4th October
1947, Hari Sing the ...(deposed) Maharaja or any person acting under his orders
or instructions claims to rule over the state, he shall be punished according
to the laws of the Provisional Government Henceforth all laws, orders and
instructions promulgated or issued by the Provisional Republican Government of
Kashmir State to be respected and obeyed. Mr. Anvvar is a prominent member of
Kashmir Muslim Conference, the president of \\liich is Choudhary Ghulam Abbas and
the general secretary Agha Shuwkat Ali (who) have been imprisoned for about a
year by the (illegal) Kashmir government, (A.P.I)."
The opportunist politicians of Kashmir overthrew this
Provisional Republican Government of Kashmir on 24th October 1947, after 20
days of its birth, in the name of its ‘reconstitution’. They succeeded easily
because two days after the formation of the Provisional Republican Government,
its President Khwaja Ghulam Nabi Gilkar Anwar rushed to Srinagar. His purpose
was to form an underground resistance in the support of the Provisional
Government, to arrest deposed and illegal ruler Hari Sing, and to warn Shaikh
Muhammad Abdullah against the so-called Kashmir's accession to Bharat.
During the first two weeks of October the armed struggle
that started by the people from different areas of the state hindered the
return of the founder President back to Muzaffarabad. He was eventually
arrested in Srinagar and his absence from Muzaffarabad paved the way for the
opportunists to succeed in overthrowing Provisional Republican Government of
Kashmir and turning it into a puppet government. Today. The opportunist
Kashmir! politicians refuse to accept that the Azad Kashmir Government was set
up on 4th October 1947. they continue, shamefully, to celebrate 24th October as
the birthday of Azad Kashmir Government Where as the declaration issued with
the name of reconstitution of Azad Kashmir Government RECOGNISES the legitimacy
of the Provisional Republican Government and the formation of its cabinet. The
declaration issued in the name of the reconstitution of the Azad Kashmir
Government on 24th October 1947 itself cries out loudly about the true birthday
of the Provisional Government that can be seen in 'The Pakistan Times1 of
Saturday 25lh October 1947.
It states, 'The Provisional Azad Government which the people
of Kashmir had set up- a few weeks ago, with the object of ending intolerable
Dogra tyrannies and securing to the people of the state, including Muslims,
Hindus and Sikhs, the right of the free self-government has now established its
rule over a major portion of the state territory and hopes to liberate the
remaining pockets of Dogra rule very soon. In view of this circumstance it has
been RECONSTITUTED with Mr. Ibrahim Bar - at - law of Poonch as its provisional
head, and its headquarters had been moved to Plundri in Poonch. The
RECONSTITUTED government was formed on 24th OCTOBER 1947.
its cabinet consisted of Sardar Mohammad Ibrahim Khan - as
President, and other ministers Sayed Ali Ahmed, shah Chaudhary Abdullah Khan
Bhali, Khwaja Ghulam Din Vani, Sayed Nazir Hussain Shah and Sana Ullah
Shamim."
The declaration issued in the name of the 'reconstitution'
of the Provisional Azad Government itself admits the formation of Azad Kashmir
Government on 4th October 1947 by stating three factual indicators. The first
indicator, 'the Provisional Azad Government which the people of Kashmir set up
a few weeks ago' — shows the true birthday of Provisional Republican
Government. The term 'RECONSTITUTION' is itself an indicator to prove that the
Provisional Republican Government on 4th October 1947. Understandably, the
reason for not celebrating 4th October as the true birthday of Azad Kashmir
Government lies in the final paragraph of the declaration. It says, 'the
question of accession of the state Jammu and Kashmir to either DOMINION can
only be decided by free vote by the people in the form of referendum'. This,
without any doubt, can be regarded as no less than a historical raid against
the legitimacy of the Provisional Republican Government of Kashmir set up on
4"' October 1947 and the basis for changing its political programme.
Thus, the course of struggle from 24th October 1947 onward
has been diverted from National Independence to accession first to either
Dominion and then with the passage of time to Pakistan. After looking at the
declaration issued on 24lh October 1947, one should need no other authoritative
statement or material to certify that the Provisional Republican Government of
Kashmir or Azad Kashmir Government came into being on 4th October 1947.
29 June at 23:26 · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam PART (1):: Thursday, April 8, 2010
The proposed change of status of Pakistan Occupied Gilgit
Baltistan
By Nadeem on 7th April 2010 in a meeting at British House of
Lords London (UK)
The proposed change of status of Pakistan Occupied Gilgit
Baltistan and the wider implications for the region and internationally .
I would like to thank Baroness Emma Nicholson for providing
me with the opportunity to elaborate on the De-facto annexation of Gilgit
Baltistan done by the government of Pakistan on 29 August 2009,via
Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order 2009’ which replaced the
earlier ‘Northern Areas’ Legal Framework Order 1994’.
It is not the first time that the government of Pakistan has
imposed unilaterally self governance order 2009 ,and withdrawn from its
international, bilateral ,regional and national obligations which she made in
united nations security council (UNSC) and bilateral treaties between
India-Pakistan and her own constitution of 1973.
There is only one article 257 of constitution of 1973
Islamic Republic of Pakistan`s related to Jammu Kashmir.
Article 257 relating to the State of Jammu Kashmir provides
as follows:
“When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to
accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be
determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.”
The result of ceasefire between India and Pakistan on 1st
January 1949 .The 29' 814 square miles area of Gilgit Baltistan came under
control of Pakistan.
In October 1962 there was a war between India and China. The
peoples Republic of China occupied the area of 8' 616 square miles in the North
Eastern parts of Ladakh, and area of 5'55 square miles South Eastern area of
Dam Choke in Ladakh which are the integral parts of state of Jammu Kashmir.
On 3rd March 1963 Sino- Pakistan Frontier Agreement,The
Trans - Karakoram Tract is an area of nearly 2' 239 square miles that was
transferred by a border agreement from the (Ch.M.Aslam) Pakistani administered
Northern Areas to Peoples republic of China in 1963 with the proviso
(section-6) that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the state
of Jammu Kashmir dispute.
On 29 August 2009,Via ‘Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self
Governance Order 2009 ,the government of Pakistan unilaterally annexed Pakistan
occupied Gilgit Baltistan (POGB) as its de-facto fifth province. Pakistan has
withdrawn from her international and regional, obligations which she made to
comply with the free will of the people of the Pakistan occupied (POK) areas
and for the regional peace and security.
Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order 2009
only proved by the federal cabinet of government of Pakistan and announced by
the Prime minister and signed by the president of Pakistan as a final
authority.
Proposed de-facto Pakistani fifth province of Pakistan
occupied Gilgit Baltistan has no constitutional cover from its own constitution
of 1973 and neither does it comply with article 257.
GB legislative assembly and council have 55 subjects for
making laws out of 61.
The territory of (POGB) shall be proposed under Article1- (2-f)
described territory of Pakistan which is still not approved by Pakistani
Parliament (Assembly and Senate) with two third majority.
The rest of the articles are imposed on POGB are part of
1973 constitution of Pakistan and POGB is historically a part of Jammu Kashmir
.
These are the other articles of 1973 from constitution of
Pakistan which do not apply to POGB.
Article-
20-Governor shall be appointed by the President of Pakistan.
54. Summoning and prorogation of Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament).
55. Voting in Assembly and quorum.
56. Address by President of Pakistan
80. Annual Budget Statement.
81. Expenditure charged upon Federal Consolidated Fund.
82. Procedure relating to Annual Budget Statement.
83. Authentication of schedule of authorised expenditure.
87. Secretariats of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).
Mr Qumar Zaman Kaira a Punjabi MNA and KANA minister turned
into an ad hoc Governor of POGB with all authority and administrative powers
and recent appointment of a new Governor of Gilgit Baltistan ( POGB), Dr,Shama
Khalid ,both do not comply with the Jammu Kashmir state subject definition of
20th April 1927.
According to the self governance order 2009 Legislative
assembly have directly elected 24 members, besides six women and three technocrats
seats.
Under this so-called Self Governance Order 2009 a drama was
staged in the name of the Legislative Assembly election to misguide the
international community, whereas the indigenous political groups and state
subject holders are banned freely to move and participate in these elections.
All of Pakistani political parties show their strength to
the local population with the help of Pakistani military and civilian
administration and defeated them with their colonial attitude.
The only political alliance of Indigenous local people is
Gilgit Baltistan Democratic Alliance (GBDA) who were ousted from the election
by force,registered forge cases against its leadership,deported them and put
them behind the bars. Every ruling party in Islamabad is always the winner in
POGB, because of its control on all administrative and financial sources from
Islamabad Pakistan. The inter services intelligence ( ISI) and other secret
military agencies have a final authority on all state affairs, and their
authority is above the law in the name of national security.
To understand the massive rigging in the election
,Opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan while speaking on a point of order
said PPP had won but Pakistan and democracy had been defeated in
Gilgit-Baltistan polls. Government indulged in massive rigging in the
elections, Government made a mockery of charter of democracy and people of
Gilgit and Baltistan, he added. Baitul Mal was misused mercilessly during the
polls,he charged. Opposition has staged token walk out from National Assembly.
Marvi Memon a PML,MNA and election in-charge of POGB. Issued
a report on November 14, 2009 ,Title-GB elections rigging.
A- Pre-poll rigging, issued a 10 point pre-poll rigging
evidence.
B- Poll day rigging,issued a 23 point poll day rigging
evidence.
C- 23 observations of The Free and Fair Election Network
(FAFEN). Exposed the credibility of a free and fair election in 2009.
The areas of POGB are full of wealth and natural resources
and Pakistani military and civil authorities don't want to empower local people
because of its rich resources.
As an example Pakistan is one of the fourth largest gemstone
exporters in the world, apart from Swat valley the remaining areas of gemstone
mining are all in the POGB & POK.
Pakistan is building a Diameer Basha Dam to cover her
electricity shortfall in POGB even local people are opposing it and it has
capacity to generate electricity approximately 4,500 MW.
According to the Newspaper The Nation 22th October 1991,The
Pakistani federal minister of water and power Jam Yousaf stated on the floor of
the Pakistan national assembly that, apart from Basha Dam Government of
Pakistan will going to build 15 new Dams in the State of Jammu Kashmir, 9 of
them are in the Pakistan Occupied Gilgit Baltistan:
1-Bonji Dam ,
2-Rakhoot Dam,
3-yolorelbo Dam,
4-Sakrdoo Dam,
5-Yogo Dam,
6-Tungas Dam,
7-Kanch Dam,
8-Sherquila Dam,
9-Satpara Dam,
Six of the Dams are in the Azad Kashmir (Pakistan Occupied
Kashmir -POK).
29 June at 23:50 · Edited · Like · 2
Nadeem
Aslam PART(2)::The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on
13-August-1948.
Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of
India and Pakistan.
Members of the Commission: Argentina. Belgium, Columbia,
Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.
Part III of the above mentioned resolution.
The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan
reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu Kashmir shall
be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon
acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into
consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions
whereby such free expression will be assured.
On the basis of historical, legal and constitutional facts
we out-rightly reject Pakistani constitutional and colonial aggression on
Gilgit-Baltistan in the name of Empowerment and Self-governance Order, 2009.
We demand to the Government of Pakistan to fulfil its
obligations towards its occupied areas of POGB and POK. Which she signed in
UNCIP resolutions and bilateral treaties with India.
We demand that Pakistan must stop creating a new de-facto
fifth Pakistani province of GB because this creation of a new province is an
act of occupation of the part of Jammu Kashmir which Pakistan controls since
1947.
This creation of new province is against the wishes and free
will of masses and is against all political norms, moral values and legal
obligations.
Pakistan's act is contradictory for the Kashmiries and
International community. Pakistan fails to perform its trust obligations
towards the people of its occupied areas.
We believe that historically Gigit-Baltistan is an integral
part of the state of Jammu Kashmir.
We demand from Pakistan to withdraw her armed forces and civil
servants from parts of Jammu Kashmir under her occupation (POGB-POK ).
We urge the international community to stop Pakistan
exploiting our natural resources and stop building of new dams in the areas of
Kashmir because of its disputed nature.
We also demand the return of our million's of dollars
foreign exchange collected by Pakistan and handing over by the control of
Mangla Dam to the government of Pakistani Occupied Kashmir.
The people of Jammu Kashmir will not accept any forced
geographical division of their motherland Jammu Kashmir.
Both India and Pakistan are nuclear states and they have
fought wars (including proxy war) against each other in the past. They have
spent millions of dollars on military purposes which effects the daily life of
common people, those that are living below the poverty line and are millions in
number. It's good for the both countries to solve their conflicts through
peaceful means, and deliver basic needs of life to their own people rather than
spending huge money for military purposes.
Only a Secular, Unified and Independent Kashmir is the way
forward for the regional development, security and peace in South East Asia and
world at large.
Thank you,
Nadeem Aslam Advocate
29 June at 23:40 · Like · 2
Javed
Inayat Shaf Raja sab, Passport never was an issue and every one
knows it is a travelling document, it can be revoked by any given authority as
Dr. Nazir Gilani sab has said but those who have been calling Passport as our
nationality deliberately misguiding our people and making them to feel guilty
and justifying passport as Pakistani state's given extra favor to AJK people.
Passport has no value what so ever for us, Pakistan can take it back any time
and let us have our own AJK passport. It is only a piece of identification
which has been imposed on us, we have not accepted this passport voluntarily.
30 June at 00:06 · Edited · Like
Jammu
Kashmir Shall I apply immediately our Kashmiri passport before
its too late as you all should know that I have been waiting for this very
moment since a long time being a true son of the fatherland Jammu kashmir
30 June at 00:07 · Edited · Like · 1
Javed
Inayat Yes, JK brother, of course we all have been waiting for
it since so long.
30 June at 00:07 · Like · 1
Jammu
Kashmir Javed Inayat Brother | we still need to eliminate the
act of treason and the actor traitors otherwise the desired destination the
peaceful prosper united fatherland Jammu kashmir would remain deemed
30 June at 00:15 · Like · 2
Nazir
Haq Absolutely
on mark javed.
30 June at 08:55 · Like
Nadeem
Aslam @Nazir Haq sb,I should be oblige if you draw conclusion
regarding the tread.All others can do the same then we are able to see the
outcome of this constructive discussion.Many thanks to all for their
contribution.As DrAftab Hussain sb,stated earlier that " this intellectual
debate have all rights reserved for this thread and its belongs to the people
of Kashmir"please respect this copy right.
30 June at 09:11 · Edited · Like
Nadeem
Aslam The credit goes to DrAftab Hussain sb.Who created this
thread for the benefit of those are interested to understand the Pakistan`s
position on Kashmir and the stand of the indigenous Pro-Azadi (Liberation)
section. Those are struggling for Independent ,United Kashmir.Pakistan is a occupied
country of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan since 1947.Our struggle continue
till to the national liberation of Kashmir . THE FIGURES THOSE WROTE,SHARE ,AND
LIKE THE THREAD, DrAftab Hussain (CREATE THE THREAD)
KASHMIR ONLY FOR KASHMIRIES — with Sardar Aashiq Khan,
Sardar Anayat Ullah Arif, Ishaq Sharif, Javed Kashmiri, Sardar Aftab Khan,
Nayyar Niaz Khan, Daalat Ali, Aslam Mirza, Krishan Dev Sethi, Jahangir Satti,
Syed Ashique Hussain Hamdani, Ashique Hamdani, Ashfaq Ahmed Hashmi, Shams
Rehman, Sardar M K Zia, Ali Akhtar Al Qadir, Hussain Shaheed, Hassan Khawaja,
Syed Khalid Gardazi, Raja Rashad Khan, Nisar Kayani, Zulfiqar Malik, Zahoor
Butt, Zahid Lone, Faisal Jamil Kashmiri, Jammu Kashmir, Haq Nawaz, Sadiq
Subhani, Sajid Shaheen Malik, Sajid Janjua, Asif Masood, Saeed Asad, Jay Iqbal,
Javed Inayat, Shaukat Tamour, Shujaat Tatari, Talat Bhat, Taimoor Azam Lone,
Musabi Ur Rehman, Azad Raja, Raja Farooq Haider Khan, Shaf Raja, Ershad Mahmud,
Nazir Gilani, Manzoor Hussain Gilani and Muhammad Yousuf Gilkar.
Unlike · · Unfollow Post · Share · 20 June
Like Nadeem Aslam, Nazir Gilani, Asif Masood, Anwar Ul Haq
and 166 others like this.
176 :Shares on their own walls +
434 + :Written Comments. THANKS TO ALL
30 June at 09:48 · Edited · Unlike · 2
Nazir
Haq It seems Justice Maznoor Gilani Sb is impervious of the
valid arguments of the rest of the participants in this debate. In particular,
the latest submission by Dr Nazir Gilani Sb, where he raised drew distinctions
between the categories of 'State Subjects'( with its variants Class/1, and 111)
and Pakistani citizenship; between passport and citizenship and related issues
in context of historical claim by Pakistan government over territories during
and after the post partition periods
30 June at 09:25 · Unlike · 4
Nazir
Haq to continue...of India. These are substantive points, which
have overwhelming support of rest of us within the context of the debate: The
relevance of the Act 74 in relation to sovereignty of the 'State Subjects. In
this respect their have emerged, during this debate, a convergence between the
constitutional standpoint adopted by Dr Gilani Sb and Sfafqat sb, and the
political position taken by rest of us (includind Sardar Aftab Sb, Dr Aftab
Hussain Sb, Javed Ananyat Sb and Nadeem Aslam Sb, some of these contributors
also used the legal arguments). Whereas, Justice Gilani S, by abrogating his
right as a 'State Subject' is appear to be advocating the right of Pakistani
government, throughout his submissions. There seems to be no point of convergence
between the to divergent positions that have thus emerged in this
debate.emerged in this debate.
30 June at 09:47 · Unlike · 3
DrAftab
Hussain We are going to close this debate in 3 days if any one
concern to this thread have any question to our intellectual participants
please well come and experts are here to answer , and from our honourable
participants, if they have any thirst they have 3 days to deliver their point
of view thanks
30 June at 10:10 via mobile · Like
Nazir
Gilani Further to the argument advanced by Prof. Nazir Nazish
Sahib, that “Whereas, Justice Gilani S, by abrogating his right as a 'State
Subject' appear to be advocating the right of Pakistani government, throughout
his submissions”, I would add that the said abrogation of State Subject by
Justice Gilani Sahib is not owned by the Constitution of Pakistan and has not
remained compatible with his office as the Senior Judge of SC in 2009.
The Oath of a Politician in AJK is different from the Oath
of a Judge.
The Nationality Act of Pakistan adopts into its fold only
those Kashmiri refugees who have migrated and settled in Pakistan. However,
this protection does not disturb or prejudice the strengths as State Subject.
They remain dual nationals.
More so, you do not need to be Pakistani citizen to remain
law abiding. Under article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan it is the duty of
“every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being
within Pakistan”, to remain loyal to the Constitution and law in Pakistan.
We have no issue with article 257 and article 5 of the
Constitution of Pakistan. We would not moan much if, Government of Pakistan
conducts itself in accordance with article 257 and duties assumed under UNCIP
Resolutions. Any control through administrative NOTIFICATIONS referred to by
Justice Gilani Sahib have no force of law under article 257 and duties assumed
under UNCIP Resolutions. Officers in the Government of Pakistan are violating
article 257 and duties assumed under UNCIP Resolutions by subjecting us to a
Colonial subservience through these NOTIFICATIONS.
At one point EC of Muslim Conference had to be endorsed by
the Ministry of KA and Government of Pakistan. This manner of control has
passed its sell by date.
I think we have debated enough and in the interests of the
dignity of the argument need to conclude. Our positions are in the public
domain and open to critical evaluation.
I wish to express my thanks and sincere gratitude to all who
remained devoted to the debate and endured my views with patience and dignity.
30 June at 10:32 · Edited · Unlike · 4
Nazir Haq
I fully subscribe to the declarations made by Dr Aftab Hussain Sb and Nadeem
Aslam Sb, with regard to this thread being intellectual property of the
subscribers to this debate. I also request people to respect this position.
30 June at 12:02 · Unlike · 5
Nazir
Haq I share Nadeem Aslam Sb's acknowledgement of Dr Aftab Sb for
initiating this debate, and would comply with the dead line set forth by Dr
Aftab Sb for its conclusion. I would submit my concluding remarks in required
time..
30 June at 12:14 · Unlike · 5
Sadiq
Subhani Despite being a member of the working Committee of Jammu
and Kashmir National Awami Party UK Chapter (NAP UK), DrAftab Hussain raised
himself above the party affiliations and worked for the larger interrsts of
Jammu and Kashmir and its Citizens. He has taken uphill task of raising the
issues relating to the Jammu and Kashmir. I along with all of you solute
DrAftab Hussain for his valuable services which keep generation alive.
Thank you DrAftab Hussan.
Although, he has placed this question before the citizens of
JK, it would not have been so important without the participants' contribution
regardless of their political views and affiliations. Especially, Doctor Nazir
Gilani, CJ (ret) Manzoor Hussain Gilani, Nazir Haq Nazish, Sardar Aftab
Hussain, Shaf Raja, Nadeem Aslam, Javed Inayat, Athar Masood Wani, Comerad
Surkh and many others...
In my understanding, the people involved are from six
different political parties, three NGOs and journalists/academic groups. It's
marvelous. The debate has certainly provided education for hundereds of
students which can be guaged from the number if likes, shares ans comment.
I have personally gained a life time education from it.
During the debate, if I misunderstood any point, and called
Dr Nazir Gilani, he humbly returned my calls and benefited me with his wise
explanations. I thank him for educating the next generation of Kashmiris and
wish he will continue be the guard of our ideology.
Had Manzoor Gilani Sahib not been in his long journeys in
the US, I would perhaps called him many times during this debate. However, I
thank him for sparing his precious time to be with us and making constant
contribution. Although, his arguments have been from opposite side, it ignited
the debate.
Nazish Sahib has also made valuable contribution. I thank
him for his contribution and emails.
I thank everyone...
30 June at 13:16 via mobile · Unlike · 4
Sadiq
Subhani In conjunction with Nazir Haq Nazish Sahib, I think it
will be appropriate if at this moment all the participants specifically give
their consent to Dr Aftab DrAftab Hussain to arrange the thread in a format for
publication.
30 June at 13:21 via mobile · Unlike · 5
Javed
Inayat I fully endorse, Sadiq sab comments and fully agree with
Dr. Aftab sab, he can keep , publish this intellectual property for larger
interests of our enslave people. thanks every body.
30 June at 15:13 · Unlike · 5
Shaf
Raja I agree with Sadiq Subhani sb. The debate has been really
productive in terms of education & needs to be concluded now. Thnx to all
for their participation. Every notion in the above debate has its own
importance & can be argued & debated in depth separately. So at this
stage, the above chapter as first phase should come to a conclusion. Good Luck
30 June at 18:50 · Unlike · 3
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Divergent opinions on national issues lead to
better understanding and decision making. Opinions are never final and
inviolable
Very nicely concluded and recommended by Aftab sb, subhani
sb ,Nazish sb & other friends
I will be happy if the debate is documented
With best wishes for all participants and those who liked it
30 June at 19:02 via mobile · Unlike · 5
Comrade
Surakh Justifying the occupation in any shape wont led us to the
fruit of national liberation from Pakistan.Firm stand against the occupation of
Pakistan is only a way forward.There is big difference between the personal
gains and interests and joining hands together for unity to seeking liberation
from Pakistan.Pakistan destroying our resources like a looter.The popular way
to liberate Kashmir from the brutal net of Pakistan army and its agencies we
have to raise populer ristance agaist occupation. Pakistan army taking a
shelter behind the civilian population of Azad Kashmir and GB.Pakistan army
immediately remove its presence and heavy weapons from the civilian populated
areas of Azad Kashmir and GB.
1 July at 10:51 · Like · 3
Comrade
Surakh Those people don`t have a courage to help and support the
national liberation of Kashmir are the beneficiaries of the status quo and occupation.We
need to identify proxy enemies within and outside.This thing help us to emerge
unity and strength in our ranks .
1 July at 10:56 · Like · 2
Nazir
Gilani As the hosts of this debate have now concluded the debate
except that participants have (if they wish) an opportunity to conclude their
arguments. I shall be submitting my conclusions in next 2 days.
1 July at 21:43 · Like · 3
Sadiq
Subhani Excellent, it will certainly be superb if our lead
Counsel Dr Nazir Gilani Sahib concludes this debate i.e. deliver his closing
speech. Without any doubt he has delivered wonderful performance but in my
experience the lead Counsels' climax is their closing speech. I am anxiously
waiting for Dr Gilani's another masterpiece.
1 July at 22:55 · Like · 2
Nadeem
Aslam @ Dr.Nazir Gilani Sb,Awaiting for your wonderful
deliberations and conclusion to the debate.Thanks for your precious time and
commitment.
2 July at 00:25 · Edited · Like · 2
Javed
Inayat You all have contributed very well and now we all need to
stand on legal points. Q-No. 1. Why Pakistani state has been constantly
violating its own constitution when it comes our AJK and GB regions under its
brutal occupation? 2- What is our legal position under Pakistani state? If we
are not constitutional part of Pakistan, does it mean we are not legal citizen
of Pakistan? 3- Is AJK local Govt. represents our people or does it consider as
colonial extension of Pakistan? Why Pakistan has been colonized this region?
Does Pakistan allowed to treat AJK people as she has been treating them? if not
what is way out for our 4.5 million inhabitants of the region? 4- Is it
possible to get right of self determination separately for these two regions
under Pakistani occupation? What is real way out for our colonized people and
how can we link up our national liberation movement all divided parts of our
state? Why do not we demand more independence, more democracy, more rights from
Pakistani state which has bad intentions to keep our region as its colony? Is
it legally true that our local collaborators have been committing treason on
behalf of Pakistani state and in new future Kashmir they will be tried as
traitors of our homeland as many got tried in Bengladesh? what should be our
new legal strategy to get more rights for our local communities? Dr. Nazir
Gilani sab sole legal representative of our people can suggest legal way
forward as Prof: Nazir Nazish sab has suggested way forward for our region for
the time being. If we combine legal as well as political efforts we can win a
lot for our people because our people have been so suppressed by occupiers
since so long, our people must get rid of this imposed suppression. Thanks every
one. We are all waiting for Dr. Nazir gialni sab's conclusion.
2 July at 00:22 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja : The conclusion itself has become really hard in above
debate as the debate starting from a court decision regarding jobs in Kashmir
Council secretariat (offices) but extended to the political & legal history
of Jammu & Kashmir. The above history reveals that the Amritsar Treaty
(March 1846) is the foundation of modern state of J&K with Dogra
dynasty.Here the external sovereignty of state had been handed over to
(British) govt of India under British Paramountcy. Then the Indian Independence
Act (1947) restored the full sovereignty to the states (Article 7(1b) &
divided the British India into two dominions (Article 1) with an option of
accession (Article 2*4*) to the states to join either dominion (Indo-Pak).
Maharaja Hari Singh preferred Standstill Agreement over accession to remain
independent. The discussion reveals that foreign intervention (22 Oct 1947)
compelled him to make temporary accession to India only on three subjects
(Defense,Foreign Affairs, Communications) & kept the Autonomy, his State
Govt & Constitution intact. A parallel govt of kashmir been announced on
4th & 24th Oct 1947 in the areas no more under the control of Hari Singh troops.
1st January 1948,India took this case to the United nation & Kashmir
Dispute was born & the J&K state divided mainly into two entities i.e
PaK (AJK-GB) & IaK.
2 July at 01:47 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja Though Indian intentions were evident by not signing the
Standstill Agreement but the first plea India took in UN is as "... But,
in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilised the State's
immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made
it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and
normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by
the recognised democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order
to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international
auspices". Indian PM Nehru repeated the same version in the parliament
& in Lal chowk (Srinagar). But despite UNCIP Resolutions (discussed in
debate), that promise is still waiting to be fulfilled. Pakistan is still
demanding the enforcement of them resolutions but not ready to withdraw all
forces before India. So the mistrust between Indo-Pak left the dispute there
& the people of whole region & particularly the State Subjects to
suffer on daily basis.
2 July at 02:15 · Like
Shaf Raja
Coming to the political & constitutional sides of the disputed regions, The
central govts of Indo-Pak have the same role to make or break a political
set-up in these disputed regions. The structure of political set-up in terms of
legislature looks comparatively better in IaK but still not ideal or in
accordance with UNCIP resolutions. While in PaK (AJK-GB) set-up is discussed in
details above. Where Kashmir Council reflects as the main administrative,
constitutional & political authority.
2 July at 02:26 · Like · 1
Shaf
Raja The IaK constitutionally looks autonomous under Article 370
of Indian constitution & JKs own constitution to an extent where the
provisions of Indian constitution need consent by state legislature (JK,
Article 147) before implemented in state. But Presidential Order (Governor Raj)
had been enforced in J&K around 5 times under Article 352 of Indian
Constitution. While in AJK-GB the council`s role is dominant from legislation
to the powers (discussed above in debate). However the accession (Preamble,integral
part), oath of allegiance to India by candidates, members or ministers in IaK
(JK Constitution 1956) & same allegiance to Pakistan in PaK (AJK-Act1974)
is the common constitutional feature.The Chief justice HC (IaK) appointment is
dealt by the Indian President (Part5-JK Const.) while the Indian SC is the
highest unified court (the election commissioner & Auditor General etc
still related to Dheli). Similarly the appointments of Judges of Superior
courts in AJK-GB is the subject of Chairman Kashmir or GB council (PM-Pk).
3 July at 17:45 · Edited · Like
Shaf
Raja State Subject Rule (SSR-1927) is still in practice in IaK
& PaK (AJK) excluding GB (since 1970s- Bhutto Govt). The state subjects
constitutionally got priority in all affairs regarding "rights"
within the territories of state & the present decision by AJK High Court is
based on the SSR. The decision that initiated this debate.
2 July at 03:32 · Like
Shaf
Raja The participants input in above debate is really important
with different interpretations about Kashmir Dispute & the political,
Constitutional set-up in the disputed regions. The above concluding analysis
can lead us to the overall conclusion that (1) both Indo-Pak could not fulfill
their promises as per UNCIP resolutions (2) The Kashmir Dispute had been made a
bilateral border dispute (UCIP termination 1951, Tashkant declaration 1966,
Simla agreement 1972 etc are the examples) 3 - That the people of all disputed
regions are still deprived of their full rights. (4) The status of State Subjects
is protected till the dispute is resolved (JK-Cont.1956, UN Resolutions
etc),(5) the prevailing political or constitutional (including judiciary)
set-up can not meet the requirements of any region of disputed J&K (6) the
participation in any democratic process with common agenda could be considered
for reformation, transformation or abrogation of present set-up (7) The J&K
state is disputed as whole & non of the divided territory is an integral
part of any country.(8) The communications among people of disputed regions (of
J&K) is inevitable on common grounds. (9) The Local, Regional &
International forums could be consulted through mutual networks to highlight
Kashmir & related issues (problems of state subjects). (10) Similar debates
can help us all to clear the ambiguities on many primary interpretations.
(Thanks & Good Luck to all)
2 July at 05:10 · Edited · Like
Comrade
Surakh No to Pakistani occupation
3 July at 20:21 · Like · 1
Comrade
Surakh No occupation no suggestion
3 July at 20:22 · Like · 1
Nadeem
Aslam My submissions are as under: PART(1)In 2010 the 18th
Constitutional Amendment on Federation-Provinces Relations legislative and
administrative responsibilities of the provinces in Pakistan, enables civil
society of AJK to speak and proposed amendment’s in the AJK interim Act 0f
1974.Various NGO`S come forward and suggest their amendment’s to the AJK act
1974.
AJK interim Act 1974, is a Pakistan`s colonial design for
the people of Azad Kashmir (POK) to deprive them from the their fundamental
rights and resources. The scope and aim of the Act is to protect the defacto
occupational interests of military and civil establishment of Pakistan. The
main aim of this legal frame work is to well control to the indigenous thoughts
and struggle which represent the real interests of the people for their demand
of national independence from Pakistan.
The Kashmir council, ministry of Kashmir affairs to force
the people of Azad Kashmir to believing Kashmir state accession to Pakistan, It
is a crime if any Kashmir speaks, write against the occupied military of
Pakistan and its agencies. These agencies are so powerful and above the
preventive law in AJK.
There is very low chances that people will empower through
the amendments in AJK interim act 1974.Beacuse its design to support the
Pakistan military occupation in AJK.There is no way to make military
establishment accountable via this act AJKjudiciary and the legislature prove
that they are the subservient of the GCO Muree and Islamabad. If we check
progress of prosperity of life in AJK then its fail to prove that its progress
is improving in any field of daily life. Injustice, corruption, unemployment,
health, merit etc,its fail to achieve any substantial progress. The budget
amount of AJK (nearly 56 Arab in Pak Rupee) is les then the amount spending CDA
Islamabad Pakistan, the population of AJK is less than the Rawalpindi division
of Pakistan. So the indigenous people those are standing to liberate the AJK,GB
out rightly rejected the Act 1974.They want liberation (Azadi) and withdrawal
of Pakistan army (weapons) from the territory of Kashmir .So there is no chance
to enhance and propose any amendments which empower and protect the fundamental
rights of the state subject holders of Kashmir . Because Pakistan is an author
of this defacto document since 1966 to 2012.The various articles in Act 1974
are contrary to the fundamental human rights. As an estimate Government of
Pakistan (WAPDA) owes around 255 billion rupees of profit of Mangla Dam to AJK
since 1966.
3 July at 23:57 · Unlike · 7
Nadeem
Aslam PART(2): To understand the jurisprudence of the unlimited
freedom of civil liberties and how people defend and protect their indigenous
national and international fundamental rights.
LAWS ENACTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF AJ&K
1 1966 The AJ&K Grant of Khalsa Wastc Land as Shamlat
Deh Act, 1966. (Act I of 1966)
TO
2009 The AJ&K Mangla Dam Housing Authority Act, 2009
(Act I of 2009)
2-Kashmiris are not a part of any UN resolutions and any
bilateral Shimla Agreement which turn Kashmir a bilateral territorial dispute
between India and Pakistan. Around 28 UN resolutions including the Shimla
Agreement 2 July 1972 (between Z.A Bhutto and Indra Gandhi)and Elan-E-Lahore in
1992 (between A.B.Bajpi and Nwaz Sharief).India Pakistan are free to decide
regarding Kashmiris in the name of regional peace and security.
3--The amendments (1-20) in the constitution of Pakistan
were taken place during the struggle of the people of Pakistan past sixty years
many lost their precious life during this struggle for the rule of law.
Articles from 8-28 in the constitution of 1973 of Islamic republic of Pakistan
cover the human rights. Where is any safeguard in AJK for the protection of
fundamental rights?
4- Reaching up to the 18th - 20th amendments there was a
Charter of Democracy on February 21, 2010 The 36 points Charter of Democracy
signed by Benazir Bhutto(late) and Nawaz Sharif on May 14, 2006 in London UK.
Remember Gen. Musharaf forced exile both former Prime ministers of Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif (Now the prime minister of Pakistan)
5-Magna Carta also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The
Great Charter of the Liberties of England, originally issued in Latin on 15
June 1215.
6- THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROCLAIMS THIS UNIVERSAL
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
On 10 December 1948 as a common standard of achievement for
all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ
of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by
teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and
effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
7-The European Convention on Human Rights
The Governments signatory hereto, being Members of the
Council of Europe,
Considering the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE, the European Convention on Human Rights
ROME 4 November 1950
And its Five Protocols
PARIS 20 March 1952
STRASBOURG 6 May 1963
STRASBOURG 6 May 1963
STRASBOURG 16 September 1963
STRASBOURG 20 January 1966
To adopt and enhance a broader concept of human rights and
accepting the fundamental right of independence and Kashmiris control of their
own affairs and quash the status quo which maintain by the Pakistan and India
and their proxies , subservient in all parts of divided occupied Kashmir .To
accept the fundamental right to live as an independent country side by side
with their neighbors peacefully without the presences of military and nuclear
weapons .To subscribe broader approach is in a larger interest of Pakistan, India
, Kashmir and the world at large. People of the region need a food, shelter,
health and basic necessities of life. United, Independent, and socialist
Kashmir is a best alternative solution for Kashmiris.
4 July at 00:10 · Edited · Unlike · 7
Nazir
Gilani Conclusions
– Part I
On 20 June 2013, Azad Kashmir High Court set aside AJK
Council (chaired by Prime Minister of Pakistan) advertisement of November 11
and November 14, 2012, published in a national daily, inviting applications for
various posts from the citizens of Pakistan and directed that the condition of
(being a) ‘State Subject’ for the applicants should be incorporated in all
advertisements. The full member bench, headed by Chief Justice Ghulam Mustafa
Mughal, also directed the Council to amend the qualification entered in a
January 3, 2008 notification of the AJK Council, allowing citizens of Pakistan
along with the State Subjects of Jammu and Kashmir to apply for jobs in the
institution and restrict it for State Subjects only.
Supreme Court of Pakistan in its decision on 21 June 2013
declared that Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1931 (introduced by British)
is in violation of the fundamental rights as the citizens cannot be exploited
under article 19 of the constitution. It declared unconstitutional the one per
cent increase in general sales tax (GST) and has ordered immediate withdrawal
of the hike.
A debate ensued from these two decisions. Retired Justice
(CJ) Manzoor Hussain Gilani brought into this debate the usefulness of the
recommendations made by Association for the Rights of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir (ARJK) headed by him to amend the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim
Constitution Act 1974. According to ARJK seeking representation in the Federal
institution in Pakistan would empower the people living in the territories of
AJK.
A rigorous debate ensued. Justice Gilani advanced arguments
in support of the recommendations made by his NGO (Association) ARJK. The
details of this debate are available on the Wall of Dr. Aftab Hussain.
I argued that Justice Gilani’s NGO ARJK in Objective (a)
submits itself to the jurisprudence of UNCIP Resolutions. He and others should
challenge the Act at core. Seeking any amendments is surrendering the
Sovereignty that inheres in a State Subject in respect of Self Determination.
UNCIP Resolutions in AJK have the same force as Article 19 of the constitution
of Pakistan.
It has to be made clear that we don’t have any issue with
articles 5 and 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan. At the same time we don’t have
any issue with the Government of Pakistan, if it discharges its duties assumed
under UNCIP Resolutions in the affairs of AJK.
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974
The first and most important step in seeking the Empowerment
of AJK People is to question the merits of Act 1974 and examine if Government
of Pakistan has any power under UNCIP Resolutions to author Act 1974 in the
present manner and again if Government of Pakistan has any power to designate
the President of AJK as a sub ordinate officer to carry out their instructions.
The Act 1974 is an instruction and a direction from
Government of Pakistan which has assumed Trust Duties in the area. Assumed
powers don’t allow Government of Pakistan to give any instruction or direction,
which violates the jurisprudence of UNCIP Resolutions.
UNCIP Resolutions provide a mechanism for the
administrations of Jammu and Kashmir (Srinagar), Azad Jammu and Kashmir
(Muzaffarabad) and Gilgit and Baltistan (Gilgit).
Violations
1. Under UNCIP Resolutions the territories named as AJK are
to be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the UN.
Therefore, the introduction of Act 1974 in AJK is at variance with its
responsibilities under UNCIP Resolutions.
2. The election of the AJK President under Section 5 of the
Act 1974 as against his election under Section 3 of the Act 1970 has serious
demerits. Non-State Subjects (Pakistanis) in the AJK Council under Act 1974
take part in the election of the President and Non State Subjects have an
overbearing influence in the AJK Council. President AJK has lost his reference
to State Subjects living in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan provided under Section 3
of the Act 1970.
3. Freedom of association. Section 7 (2) placing a restraint
on the Freedom of association, is against Para 12 of UN SC resolution of 21
April 1948. Para 12 provides that, “there will be freedom of press, speech and
assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry
and exit”.
4.
The restraint does not provide for a relief from the Supreme
Court of AJK as available to a Pakistani under article 17 (2) in respect of
Freedom of association.
The restraint violates article 20 (1) (2) of UDHR, Article
XXXII of ADRD, Article 22 (1) (2) of ICPR, Article 11 (1) (2) of EHR, Article
16 (1) (2) of AMR and Article 10 (1) (2) of AFR.
[UDHR – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ADRD –
The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, ICPR – The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, HER – The European
Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, AMR – The American
Convention on Human Rights, AFR – The African Charter on Human and People’s
Rights.
The restraint violates the Principle of “Equality” under UN
Charter and remains at war with article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan and
Duties of the Government of Pakistan under UNCIP Resolutions.
Under the Principle of “Equality” and Title to
“Self-Determination”, a State Subject as an aggrieved person could revert back
to UN to find out whether Government of Pakistan has any authority under UNCIP
Resolutions to conduct itself in the manner of Act 1974. One can’t seek
amendments to an Act if it is Ultra Vires and extraneous to the Principles of
jurisprudence. The Act 1974 has no merit in Law, in particular under UNCIP
Resolutions.
It violates the right to take part in a free and fair
referendum to determine the 3 options set out in Indian application pending at
the UN.
5. Seeking amendments to find a representation in the
Federation would be considered a violation of UN SC Resolution of 30 March
1951. The caution given to National Conference in regard to Jammu and Kashmir
in this resolution is equally binding on the Assemblies of Muzaffarabad and
Gilgit. None of the three assemblies are elected by all people of the State
living in all territories as defined in Article 4 of the J & K
Constitution.
4 July at 16:58 · Unlike · 4
Nazir
Gilani Conclusions
– Part II
6. Over 1.5 million State Subjects resident in various parts
of Pakistan are duly represented in National and Provincial Assemblies. If they
could not play a role in empowering the State Subjects living in AJK, there is
no point to hope that any recommendation of ARJK is likely to make any
improvement. It would in fact be assisting the Non State Subject to interfere
and control.
7. Articles 7 (2), 19 (2), 21, 31 (3) and 56 in AJK Act 1974
are against Government of Pakistan’s duties under UNCIP Resolutions.
I would reiterate here that Judiciary in AJK (with few
exceptions) has partnered the politicians in AJK and the establishment in
Pakistan to disempower the common man and woman and the legislature of Azad
Kashmir. It has yet to assert itself under UNCIP Resolutions as the SC of
Pakistan has asserted in respect of article 19 and declared that Provisional
Collection of Taxes Act 1931 (introduced by British) is in violation of the
fundamental rights.
The recommendations of ARJK are phase two of a subterranean
effort to disable the Government of AJK of all its vestiges of authority,
rooted in the Provisional Declarations of 4 October 1947, 24 October 1947 and
the protection available under UNCIP Resolutions, under which Government of
Pakistan as ‘Trust Obligations’ in the area. It is an effort to accommodate
individuals at the cost of a collective choice for all people under article 257
of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Any further direct representation in the Federation would be
as ineffective as the 12 refugees members elected for AJK assembly from the
State Subjects settled in Pakistan.
The recommendations would create complication for other
State Subjects in particular pro India political parties who advocate that
Jammu and Kashmir State has provisionally acceded to India and it has not
merged in the Union like any other State. There is a difference between a
‘provisional accession’ and a ‘merger’.
Accession is a bilateral agreement and Government of Jammu
and Kashmir has a right to pull out. But after a merger, the door for any pull
out is closed.
I would suggest that the advocates of these recommendations,
in particular, the members of ARJK examine the wisdom provided in this regard
in the Decision of J & K High Court in the Case of Mahher Singh and other,
Appellants V Principal Secretary, J & K Government , Respondent decided by
Janki Nath Wazir CJ & Shahmiri J (AIR 1953 J & K 25 (Vol. 40, C. N. 17)
First Appeal No. 29 of 2008 and First Appeal No. 4 of 2009, D/-25.3.1953 and in
the Decision of AJK Supreme Court in the Case of Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan –
Appellant Versus Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary,
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, Muzaffarabad – Respondent decided by Raja
Muhammad Khurshid Khan CJ and Sardar Said Muhammad Khan Jon 7 January 1990.
The State Constitution Act is clearly saved under clause 8
of the Instrument of Accession and it remains materially unaffected by Article
370 of the Indian Constitution.
UNCIP Resolutions in AJK have the same force as Article 19
of the constitution of Pakistan.
For any clarification of an issue arising out of this
CONCLUSION, kindly email either privately or use the same thread of Dr. Aftab
Hussain or my Wall.
4 July at 16:58 · Unlike · 5
DrAftab
Hussain DrNazir Gilani sab can I publish the debate for our
national intrests to Educate to NATION the realities which they never know
before ?
4 July at 17:05 · Edited · Like · 2
Nazir
Gilani DrAftab Hussain Sahib, Your are most welcome to publish
it. I would strongly recommend that each contribution should be published under
the name of each author so that there is no confusion and each one of us
remains responsible to defend his views and available for clarification.
Otherwise political narrative would get mixed up with legal content.
4 July at 17:19 · Unlike · 5
Sadiq
Subhani Dr Nazir Gilani Sahib, at your conclusion I could not
find more suitable words to acknowledge your services then to say, MEIN NEEVAN
TE MURSHID UCHA (Mian Mohammad?) (meaning I am in my Guide's steps/feet). .
4 July at 23:26 · Unlike · 4
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Friends, being indisposed due to vertigo , it may
take me some time to conclude. I am advised by doctor to avoid reading and
writing , particularly using screen.
5 July at 03:58 via mobile · Unlike · 2
Javed
Inayat Dr. Nazir Gilani sab's conclusion should have been
removed all misconceptions among state subjects and non state subjects due to
political propaganda about legal status of AJK region. Hopefully it will help
every one who is concern about the future of this region and its legal and
constitutional position. Thank you Dr. Sab, your contribution is unique and
very much helpful for the AJK people. It might also open eyes of those loyal
servants of Pakistani state who want to please Islamabad at the expense of our
future. Any future step is taken in the direction of changing status of the
region popularly called AJK would be harmful and can create serious
consequences for Pakistani state if few individuals have been directing
Government of Pakistan at their own selfish desires. I would say there could be
serious cracks between AJK region and Pakistani state. I would like to
recommend Prof: Nazish sab's above suggestions that AJK region must be restored
as an independent sovereign state without any delaying tactics. thanks every
body.
5 July at 03:59 · Like · 1
Sadiq
Subhani I/we all pray for your good health Chief Justice (ret)
Manzoor Hussain Gilani Sahib The Doctors are correct Prevention is better than
cure. May Allah grant you good health and speedy recovery.
5 July at 06:30 · Like
Nazir
Gilani UNCIP Resolutions and their Abuse in Azad Kashmir
UNCIP Resolutions form the basis of AJK Act 1974, AJK
Government and remain the basis of Government of Pakistan’s role in the affairs
of AJK.
It goes without denying that Government of Pakistan
depending upon its elected character has continued to interpret its
responsibilities under UNCIP Resolutions accordingly. The manner and quantum of
this role has never been examined, questioned and resisted by politicians,
civil society or the courts in AJK. A routine kind of compliance has remained
available on the table.
Politicians and Courts have played a significant role in
weakening the overwhelming protection of UNCIP Resolutions to the AJK
Constitution Act 1974, Government, Civil Liberties and the Right of Self
Determination. Courts in AJK have not contributed in the areas of “Jurisdiction
and Judicial Powers”.
16 October 1978
On this day Government of Pakistan, through General Zia ul
Haq, as Chairman of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council used Act 1974 to remove
the President of Azad Kashmir from his office and abused the assumed
responsibilities under UNCIP Resolutions.
The Proclamation reads as follows:
“No 3620-22/SL/78” The following proclamation issued by the
Chairman of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council on the 16th Day of October 1978, is
hereby published for general information:-
Whereas section 56 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim
Constitution Act, 1974, provides that nothing in the said Act shall derogate
from the responsibilities of the Government of Pakistan under the UNCIP
Resolution or prevent the Government of Pakistan from taking such action as it
may consider necessary or expedient for the effective discharge of those
responsibilities.
And Whereas, the Government of Pakistan is satisfied that it
is necessary for the better government and administration of Azad Jammu and
Kashmir to relieve the person holding, immediately before the issue of this
proclamation, the office of President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir of his
responsibilities as such and to appoint another person in his place;
NOW, THEREFORE, in the discharge of the aforesaid
responsibilities of the Government of Pakistan, and in exercise of all powers
enabling him in that behalf, the Chairman of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council is
pleased to relieve Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan of his office of President of
Azad Jammu and Kashmir and appoint Brigadier Muhammad Hayat Khan, to be the
President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in addition to his duties as Chief
Executive of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
General (M. Zia-ul-Haq) Sd/
(Sardar Aftab Ahmad Khan)
Secretary Law
The proclamation was published in the Government Gazette on
31.10.1978 by (Sardar Aftab Ahmad Khan, the Law Secretary of the Azad
Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
There was very little or no resentment or resistance from
politicians, civil society and general public of AJK or Jammu and Kashmir or
Gilgit and Baltistan.
Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan impleaded General Zia ul Haq,
President of Pakistan and Chairman of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council as
well as Brigadier Muhammad Hayat Khan, President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir as
defendants. But while admitting the petition for regular hearing the Full Bench
of the High Court ordered the deletion of the names of General Muhammad Zia ul
Haq and Brigadier Muhammad Azeem Dutt Hayat Khan from the writ petition and
Azad Kashmir Government was ordered to be impleaded in their place.
It was also held by the judges that this would neither
affect the merits of the case nor the relief sought by the petitioner
The judges decided to walk the easy way and impleaded Azad
Kashmir Government in their place. Azad Kashmir Government was an innocent
party in the removal of AJK President. AJK Judiciary at that point accepted
that President of AJK (State Subject) was a sub-ordinate officer and Chairman
AJK Council a non-State Subject was his Employer.
UNCIP Resolutions make the people and institutions of AJK
Sovereign in their daily or future relations with India and Pakistan. Our
Courts have been caving in. They have failed to decide whether the source of
authority of AJK Act 1974 is the Government of Pakistan or the UNCIP
Resolutions?
5 July at 12:33 · Like · 4
Nadeem
Aslam
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=99WTTyxnkDYC&printsec=frontcover
Human Rights Watch: "With Friends Like These..."
books.google.co.uk
8 July at 11:04 · Unlike · 3 · Remove Preview
Manzoor
Hussain Gilani Dr Aftab sb , I am still indisposed and can't
work on screen or paper
Wish to conclude as early as possible
Regards
9 July at 21:32 via mobile · Unlike · 2
DrAftab
Hussain Dear All,
Due to dead line on the debate of this thread is closed with
its last comments .I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the
participants who write .read ,share, like or interested to educate themselves
in any means.The contribution and discussion level was well thought provoking
and many took advantage to learn it with keen interest.We will continue this
sort of debate in future.
Note If anyone wants to contribute more please send your
comment in a private message to others not on the thread.
Kind Regards,
Dr.Aftab Hussain
No comments:
Post a Comment