The Ghost of Justice Munir is Still Alive

Majumdar, Zeemax,

It is the two offices bill which came into force on 31st December 2004 that the government uses to justify Musharraf's government....

Using article 63 D which states:

he holds an office of profit in the service of Pakistan other than an office declared by law not to disqualify its holder; or

they passed this bill:

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/2004/actVIIof2004.html





President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004
Act No. VII of 2004
Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Islamabad, Part I, 2004, p177-178
November 30, 2004

An Act to enable the President of Pakistan to hold another office

WHEREAS paragraph (d) of clause (1) of Article 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan provides for holding another office of profit in the service of Pakistan if declared by law as such;

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to make declaratory provision enabling the President to hold another office of profit in the service of Pakistan;

It is hereby enacted as follows:-
1. Short title, extent and commencement
(1) This Act my be called the President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004

(2) It extends to the whole of Pakistan.

(3) It shall come into force on the 31st December, 2004.

2 Holder of another office
The holder of the office of the President of Pakistan may, in addition to his office, hold the office of the Chief of the Army Staff which is hereby declared not to disqualify its holder as provided under paragraph (d) of clause (1) of Article 63 read with proviso to paragraph (b) of clause (7) of Article 41 of the Consitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or any other law for the time being in force or any judgement of any court or tribunal:

Provided that this provision shall be valid only of the present holder of the office of the President.]]


Now the only problem is that 63 has been declared as not applicable to the President of Pakistan and 41 still is... 41 makes an office of profit illegal period.

So one can safely say that President cannot hold two offices at the moment... but thats just my opinion.

Jayp,

You still haven't told me why the Indian government honors the Gandhi-inspired Moplahs of South India who perfected the art of burning hindus like youself as freedom fighters?

The people who bombed the statue and failed to destroy it are none other than your old buddies...

Let me remind you of a history lesson you keep forgetting...

Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.

and

’Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ’unbelievers’ has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by’.

and

A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: ’GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?’ Dr Anne Besant declared: ’The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything’. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.

http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm

Mahatma Gandhi’s attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.



Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them


The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.


And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi’s right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options "JEHAD" or "HIJRAT".

The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo’tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.


The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.


The Khilafat Movement


In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.


In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”

Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.


Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.

In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.

According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.


The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.


Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH’s note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a "Wahabi"... note "Ahle-Hadith)

Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.


And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi’s encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.

Pakistanis are crazy, they are demo-crazy. Let us ask the question, why ahould any sensible pakistani wants democracy. According to romair the economy is booming, according to YLH a few gandhi followers in waziristan have thrown the military out and hence no more of teh soldiers are going to be killed, according to tahmed the pakistanis are the most ohysically beautiful people.

It is the americans who wants democracy and they have arranged for the return of benzir. Why all this talk about the laws. There is total freedom in pakistan, the criminals are running scot free, all the idlols are being destryed per the rules of TNT, pakistan is emerging as teh true islamic republic, with no idols left behind by the terrible budhists who lived in teh erstwhile pakistan a few millinia ago.

It is good to talk about pakistan as a democratic country, as hamidm would say, lipstick on the camel. Take it easy, dont spend too much time in constitutional nuances.

The dream of jinnah is slowly becoming a reality, mushy is as close to a khalifa you can get in this day and age, rejoice the creation of jinnah.

#5 Posted by majumdar,

One technicality for the dismissal was that the petitioner was not an aggrieved party. Since now musharraf's nomination papers have been accepted illegally by the election commission, Justice Wajeehuddin being a contender has become the aggrieved party and can approach the SC. I believe this was to be done today.

Zeemax sahib,

What is this latest development? If you can elucidate, please?

Regards

#3 Posted by majumdar,

Actually, there was no way the petition could have been dismissed on merit because it is crystal clear. Resorting to the technicality appears to be a compromise for now since it left the door open for a later judgment on merits if/when SC was approached again, which has been done today by Justice Wajeehuddin.

Zeemax sahib,

Thanks for correcting me. I am not fully versed with Pakistani laws and if indeed the Laws permitting dual offices lapsed on Dec 2004, this is clearly a bad judgement. Would luv to hear from YLH and the rest on their views on the matter.

Regards

#1 Posted by majumdar,

Correction ... the main complaint is that the judges did not interpret the law at all. It would have been fine if they had, but instead they dismissed the case on a technicality.

Besides the permission to president to hold two offices lapsed in Dec 2004 and he is an illegal president even now, let alone eligible to run for another term.

Ghori sahib,

How can you blame the judges for it. The Judges job is to interpret the law, not make it. It is hardly the judges fault that the Paki MPs have made a law which allows armymen to get elected in uniform.

Regards