Doctrine of necessity — a portal to Martial Law?

We often hear about this term “Doctrine of Necessity”. I was just getting surpassingly curious to learn the nomenclature. What I found is something to learn how a martial law can be validated by Supreme Courts.

In 1954 – just seven years after the creation of Pakistan – Governor General Ghulam Mohammad dissolved the first constitutional assembly and the Government of Prime Minister Khawja Nazim Uddin. The President of the assembly, Moulvi Tamiz Uddin, challenged him in the Sindh High Court and won. Hence, the dissolution was held to be illegal and unconstitutional. On appeal to the Chief Court of Pakistan, which was later renamed as the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Chief Justice Munir gave a final verdict in favor of the Governor General. The basis for his decision was the “Doctrine of necessity”, meaning that – to preserve the country – the constitution had to be abandoned.

Ohh yes, Pakistan has a history of repeating the phenomena. This Doctrine of necessity was repeated again when in 1958, Field Marshal Ayub Khan imposed a Martial Law in Pakistan – dissolving all the assemblies (national and provincial) – and abrogated the 1953 constitution. This Martial Law was challenged in Supreme Court of Pakistan, but thanks to our Judges who made use of “Doctrine of Necessity” again and put the nation under another Martial Law by validating it. The dictator, Ayub Khan, ruled 11 years.

I’ve heard of a proverb “To stumble against the same rock twice is a proverbial disgrace”. This proverb was disgraced one again when in 1977 General Zia ul Haq imposed another Martial Law and abrogated the 1973 constitution which was unanimously approved by all Pakistani political parties of that time. Nusrat Bhutto (Mother of Benazir Bhutto) filed a suit against the coup – but obviously the doctrine of necessity sparked and Zia ul Haq’s coup was validated. Thanks to Supreme Court and the then Judges.

In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf also disgraced the same proverb by imposing Martial Law in Pakistan overthrowing Nawaz Sharif’s government – and abrogating 1973 constitution. Zafar Ali Shah (MP from PPP) challenged the coup in Supreme Court of Pakistan, but same doctrine of necessity twinkled hence validating the coup of General Pervez Musharraf.

It’s also said that whenever Pakistan’s top judges including the Chief Justices of Pakistan have been faced with such critical situation on the constitution or military rule, they have gone to the door of General Headquarters in order to be told what to iterate in the Supreme Court. The iteration always remained persistent, and its genesis has always been associated with this strange idea known as the “doctrine of necessity”.

A day before Supreme Court had to give a final verdict whether to sentence General Musharraf or validate it – Chief Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui went to GHQ for a briefing. The next day, yes of course, the same doctrine of necessity was used and the coup was upheld. Moreover, giving military dictator some extra powers along with the amendment of 1973 constitution.

It’s also reported by one of the retired judge of Supreme Court who also served as a Chief Justice of Sindh High Court – that when the Supreme Court judges went to take their oath of office under the new military government in 2000, they were presented with empty pieces of paper from which to read. The then CJ Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui was the one to boost the judges: Hey, hurry up – we’ve to save the country so take the Oath.

Since Chief Justice Munir sacrificed constitutional law, the judiciary of Pakistan has been forced into a role not as the arbiter of justice but as the defender of the armed forces – to welcome them as the custodian of President House rather than guarding the borders. Had CJ Munir not breached the responsibilities he was delegated to – on the name of “Doctrine of Necessity”, we would not have been facing any Martial Laws in all these 62 years after Independence.

Breaking The Traditions, The Customs And The Norms

Breaking the Traditions

Today, in the evening when I sat with my housemate having gossip with him — I found him depressed and stressed. I asked him what’s the matter? And he responded to me with the same old issues he has been going through. He actually wants to break the senile traditions and customs while marrying outside his caste. His parents aren’t agreed to it. But he’s adhere to his thoughts for long — trying to persuade his parents to brush aside the norms which conflicts with Islam itself.

I appreciate the sentiments of my friend of breaking the shabby traditions, in fact I endorsed him. But on the other side we also discussed the aftermaths and overwhelming consequences and specially for those families and brothers having sisters to get married in future, including few other relevant issues as well.

Ultimately, the inference we drew was that Allah is the best defender. The weighty thing is that Allah assess the intents of His creature. If His intents are good — he’s passed.

As I observed my friend since I’m living with him for last 2 years and I believe 2 years are enough to evaluate his conduct and views. With the person whom you live with, dine together, spend morning till night with him, you actually can understand him very well. To me, his only intents are to break the norms — the stupid assorted traditions being prevailing in our society for ages need to be lubricated.

I was wondering today, why we still follow such traditions which itself is contradicting with Islam? Do we not have any average knowledge to understand how it contradicts with Islam?

Today, when I see Pakistan from a larger perspective, I see that these senile traditions and customs are ruining our society very deplorably. Families are destroyed due to that. A Sindhi can’t marry a Punjabi and vice versa, a Urdu speaking can’t marry a Memon and vice versa, a Pakhtun can’t marry a Punjabi and vice versa — so on and so forth. Isn’t it ridiculous that we ourself are divided being a Muslim.

In Prophet Muhammad SAW era, there used to be inter-marriages for the very reason of advancing, encouraging and maintaining the political, racial, tribal, clan and family ties.

All of the Prophet’s marriages during 7 years in Madina, and also the marriages of his daughters, were either for establishing family ties with close friends or other tribal leaders for political purposes. For example, two of the Prophet’s closest friends, Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA who were the first two righteous Caliphs, were also the fathers of his two wives Aisha and Hafsa. Usman and Ali, the third and fourth righteous Caliphs, were married to the Prophet’s daughters. Usman married Ruqayyah and Zainab in succession, and Ali married Fatima. Ali, who was the Prophet’s first cousin, also became his son-in-law.

Hashim ibn Abd Manaf, the Prophet’s great-grandfather and the master of the Quraish, married Salma bint Amr of the clan of Al-Najjar, which belonged to the Khazraj. But the Quraish continued to give itself the most prominent position of all.

And that’s why Islam allows to marry a Ehl-e-Kitab to elevate Islam amongst.

We should emphasize the unity among all Muslims and should work to bring all Muslims closer.

The question still is beyond my understandings — why can’t a Memon marry with a Urdu speaking and vice versa? — so on and so forth.

Credit Crunch — and story of wafers

Today, I went for shopping with a friend. Had to buy some stuff, eatable and all which I usually graze as midnight snacks lol. I was looking for one of my favorite cappuccino cream wafers. But when I saw it in the shelf — I was quite surprised to see the size of the tiny box which once used to be a big box full of savory wafers — and now it comes in a small box which is almost half in size than the former one. The price was same. Gracious!! This credit crunch 😦

Kashmir — A broken Promise, or a negligence of Pakistan?

As usual in the morning after waking up, I was going through the newses. There was nothing unusual — same old news on Talibans, bad security condition of Pakistan and so forth. The other news caught my attention labeled “Troops martyred one innocent youth in IHK”. Once again I started mulling over the past events — the time of Independence of Pakistan and even before that.

In early 19th century, Kashmir — former name is Punjab Hill States — was ruled by barons of Rajput. At that time, Kashmir constituted of 22 small states. The barons of Rajput were loyal to Mughals. They had also fought many battles along with Mughals in against of Sikhs. The downfall of Mughal Empire also made Rajputs weak hence making Sikhs to attack on the princely state of Kashmir and take it over. Sikhs kept on crusading state by state and ultimately took over all the 22 states of Kashmir. The Kashmir was now belonged to the Sikhs leader Ranjit Singh.

From the Sikhs, Kashmir was taken back by British East India Trading Company who allowed Dogra ruler Gulab Sing to rule over Kashmir hence making Gulab Sing the first Maharaja of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

During the time of Partition when British were about to leave the sub-continent, each state was given a freewill either to join Pakistan or India. The same way Kashmir’s ruler were given the freewill. The then Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, wanted Kashmir to be an Independent state. However, on the other side, there was one another condition that the Muslim majority states will be given to Pakistan. It also included Feroz Pur, Gurdas Pur and Jalandhar Pur which are Muslim majority states. Gurdas Pur had a Muslim population of above 50% at that time. It was given to Pakistan, but later on it was given back to India again because of the factor that Amritsar was surrounded by Gurdas Pur and Amritsar has a vast population of Sikhs. The place Amritsar is also called the historic and religious place of Sikhs. Indians thought if Gurdas Pur would be given to Pakistan then Gurdas Pur would become a buffer zone to Amritsar where Pakistan could also stop the supply of river water to this Holy City of Sikhs. With that fear, and to please the Sikhs, it was taken back from Pakistan. However it was totally against the pattern of Partition which entailed that Muslim majority areas would be given to Pakistan. Absolutely unfair!!

The other reason was that Gurdas pur is an extremely strategic location and it is one of the three routes to enter Kashmir. Pakistan already had two of the routes under its boundary, whereas Gurdas Pur was also becoming the part of Pakistan due to its Muslim majority population — which India didn’t like at all. India didn’t have any other route to enter Kashmir and if it would loose Gurdas Pur, then it’ll loose Kashmir totally. Here again, a fraud was done with Pakistan and India kept Gurdas Pur. Had Gurdas Pur been a part of Pakistan today, Pakistan would never have lost Kashmir as well. In 1948 Kashmir war, Indian Army entered Kashmir through the route of Gurdas Pur.

Now come to Junagadh. Unlike Kashmir, Junagadh was ruled by a Muslim Nawab. He ruled over almost 80% of Hindus. The Nawab of Junagadh was a pro-Pakistani. He decided to joined Pakistan at the time of Partition — disregarding the sentiments of Hindus. He was guided by one of his Chief Minister Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto — father of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto — who also suggested the then Nawab to join Pakistan. However, if we go through the case of Kashmir, it was totally opposite. A Hindu Maha Raja ruling over a Muslim majority state ignoring the sentiments of majority of Kashmirs — decided to join India whereas Nawab of Junagadh ignoring the sentiments of majority of Hindus decided to join Pakistan. Junagadh was invaded by India then. New Delhi announced plebiscite there — which of course was a formality. Junagadh was then acceded in India. However, when Pakistanis — people from NWFP tried to infiltrate in Kashmir — Maha Raja called for the help of India and Indian Army approached there and invaded Kashmir. There was no plebiscite being announced in Kashmir. India again played a spoof here — a total fraud!! While Kashmir was and is a Muslim majority state — it should have been given to Pakistan. But India never did that. Instead, it invaded it and kept it along with Feroz Pur, Gurdas Pur and Jalandhar Pur — going against the rules and pattern of demarcation of boundaries at the time of partition of Pakistan and India.

Former Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had promised to the people of Kashmir that they would be given right of self-determination. The promise is yet to be fulfilled. When? No one knows. The brazen government of India is still sitting there controlling Kashmir from New Delhi. Stupid United Nation is sitting and watching the demonstration of Kashmir’s for last 62 years. No one has ever played a serious role in solving the Kashmir Issue so far. The attack over Georgia by Russians had called an immediate meeting in United Nations Security Council to resolve the dispute and the dispute was resolved on immediate basis. But for Kashmir — does the United Nation care? Does India care? And the bigger question is, does the puppet of Americans now, who are also called as the representatives of Pakistan — government of Pakistan — cares?