Day 189 at Maqbool Bhat Shaheed Square - Dadyaal.
 |
| 0800hrs |
Attendance = 100%
Punctuality = 66%
124 days on time or early of 189
Punctuality surplus = 33 minutes
Punctuality Consistency Status = 5 days
Note: Today's photo was taken inches away from the Square, to avoid any disruption to our punctuality. As intimated in earlier posts, for the past few weeks I have been meaning to walk to the Square from home, rather than hitch a pillion ride on a motorcycle or a lift in a car. In that I have succeeded, thereby improving the qualitative aspect of my punctuality at the Square.
....
The following report was published by Dr Nazir Gilani - renowned jurist of UN template on Jammu Kashmir & Allied (areas) - about a week ago. Such is my 18 hour day that I have just today pounced on the opportunity to reference it, despite its more immediate merit:
There are many relevant points for all those interested in JKA but the following extract is relevant for our Twitter Space today:
Set a reminder for my upcoming Space! https://t.co/9vqyF7I2YD
— Tanveer Ahmed (@sahaafi) December 11, 2022
Onto our 5th such weekly session on legal affairs of the State of #JKA We're still searching for legal experts from our #KP community, as well as from #GilgitBaltistan #Jammu & #Ladakh#PublicPolicy#JKASovereignty
Dr Nazir Gilani has referenced the Maghar Singh Case (J & K High Court May 1953) on Pages 24, 25 and 26 of his December 2022 Report 'Indian Action of 5 August 2019: Jurisprudence of Kashmir Case'
Here's the exact text he has written:
(Page 24 below)
Residuary Sovereignty of the State
Locally the leadership of Indian Administered (now occupied) Jammu and Kashmir (and even the leadership of Azad Kashmir and GB) could challenge the Indian action as a breach of the terms of ‘provisional accession’. These terms of accession have been fully examined in the Maghar Singh case by Janki Nath Wazir CJ and Shahmiri J of the J & K High Court in May 1953. Commenting on the status of the Accession the judgement reads:
[(c) While the Maharajah of Kashmir was under the Paramountcy of the British Crown before the partition of India from 15.8.1947 under Section 7, Indian Independence Act (10 & 11 Geo VI Ch.30) passed by the British Parliament suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapsed and all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to the State of
(Page 25 below)
Jammu and Kashmir, all obligations of His Majesty towards the Jammu and Kashmir State or the ruler thereof and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by treaty or otherwise lapsed and the State became an independent and sovereign State in the full sense of the International Law. Thus whatever limits to the sovereignty of His Highness in relation to matters coming within the sphere of paramountcy existed before 15.8.1947, these ceased to exist and His Highness became an uncontrolled and absolute sovereign even in relation to such spheres from that.
Now let us examine what was the effect of the execution of the Instrument of Accession by his Highness on 26.10.1947. This Instrument of Accession which was executed by the Ruler of the independent and sovereign State of Jammu and Kashmir was executed by him under Section 6, Government of India Act 1935, as adapted by the Indian (Provisional Constitution) Order 1947. By executing this Instrument of Accession the Ruler on behalf of the State acceded to the Dominion of India with the object that certain authorities specified in Section 6 (1) (a) shall by virtue of the Instrument of Accession, but subject always to the terms thereof; and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State such functions as would be vested in them by or under the Act.
It is clear that, even if the Instrument of Accession had not made any specific reservations therein, the Instrument read with Section 6, Government of India Act would leave the residuary sovereignty of the State entirely unaffected. But the Instrument of Accession does not leave this important matter to be determined by implication alone.
Clause 8 of the Instrument of Accession runs as follows:
“Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over the State, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority & rights, now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or validity of any law at present in force in this State.”
“In view of this clear and express reservation we see that no change whatsoever was affected in the residuary sovereignty of the State or the power of the Ruler so far as the succession of the State to the Dominion of India was concerned.”
The division bench in Magher Singh v Principal Secretary J&K Government case has examined the status of Article 370 and said “A careful examination of this article would show that it in no way altered the basis of relationship between the State and the Union of India. The residuary sovereignty of the State and the powers of its Ruler in matters other than those specified in the Instrument of Accession remained unaffected. The purpose for which Article 370 was incorporated in the Indian Constitution is clear from the language of the article itself. This is also apparent from the speeches made by the prominent members of the Government of India who were responsible for drafting this article and piloting it thorough the Constituent
(Page 26 below)
Assembly. On 12.10.1949 this is what the late Sardar Patel, Deputy Leader of the Congress Party, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for States said in the Constituent Assembly on this Subject:-
“In view of the special problem with which the Jammu and Kashmir Government is faced, we have made special provision for the continuance of the relationship of the State with the Union on the existing basis.”
The most recent examination of the terms of a relationship with India has been carried out in The State Autonomy Committee report published in July 2000. On 29 November 1996, the State Government had set up a Committee to examine the question of restoration of autonomy to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The 9-member Committee was chaired by Dr. Karan Singh. It has made clear that Jammu and Kashmir had agreed to a limited relationship on three subjects and the State has never merged with the union of India. This report was adopted by both houses of the J&K Assembly.
End of excerpts in relation to Maghar Singh Case (J & K High Court May 1953)
....
As an aspiring citizen of a neutral Jammu Kashmir & Allied (areas) - JKA I tend not to commentate on the internal affairs of any of my neighbouring countries, partly in a bid to set them an example to stop interfering in what are essentially our matters.
However, since I've been repeatedly invited to comment on this paper I would just highlight the following:
1) The whole idea of Pakistan's creation (to supposedly defend Global Islam in the shape of a fortress after the idea of defending Indian Muslims wasn't found appealing enough to Indian Muslim voters) was and continues to be a hoax.
2) The Pakistani State has almost carte blanche to do whatever it wants to its citizens and even its neighbours as long as it doesn't interfere with the larger scheme of global geopolitics, which Pakistan has been designed to be subservient to. Likewise, it can spend whatever it receives from foreign donors or benefactors in whatever way it likes, subject to any conditions set by these donors and benefactors.
The list of countries that Pakistan has been created and designed to benefit at the cost of all humanity living in its neighbourhood has increased over the decades. While the moral compass of all those of its citizens oblivious to all above factors, continues to sink.
The example that you have given in this paper is a mere symptom of this figment of British colonial imagination called Pakistan.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/s/2001de5628?source=link
....
We must never forget, even if we wish to forgive:
....
No comments:
Post a Comment