Tuesday, 25 February 2014

Pakistan Administered Kashmir PM asking Islamabad at least allow him to choose his ruler (Lent Officers) from Islamabad. Mumtaz Khan

Pakistan Administered Kashmir PM asking Islamabad at least allow him to choose his ruler (Lent Officers) from Islamabad. Mumtaz Khan

The recently held by-elections on District Sudhnooti seat was important in many ways to expose different schools of opinions’ claims, positions, roles, and legal and political status of Pakistan’s administered Kashmir (PAK)as well. The PM of so-called Free Kashmir Choudhry Maujeed surprised everyone when he boasted to send back Chief secretary and IG Police to Islamabad for their alleged involvement in rigging to defeat PPP candidate on the instruction of the minister of Kashmir affairs. He was also critical over the deployment of Pakistani Rangers on polling stations without consulting him and called it unacceptable for his government. His announcement was more than a shock for every citizen of Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK) that’s history is replete with criminal silence, collaboration and compromises of these proxy politicians on the very rights, resources and political ownership of this part. It was further shocking to hear from a person who publicly feels pride in calling himself “majawar” of Larkana to please PPP leadership. Can anyone ask him that what is the difference between Larkana and Raiwind, except the land distance rest their policies about AJK are the same. 

The response of Minister for Kashmir affairs was further shocking that merits attention of sane political Kashmiris to note that with what a sheer contempt he addressed PAK PM, as animal, and his cabinet as a thieves. This The statement of Pakistan’s Minister unfolds the myth about the status of this Free Kashmir, and who actually rules this territory. The Minister for Kashmir Affairs Mr. Berjis Tahir further ridiculed so-called PM by stating that his statement had no legal effect except a paper statement. He further said that that so-called PM had no powers to decide about Pakistani national civil servants who are answerable only to Islamabad not Muzafarabad. His insulting language is informing that how Islamabad treats this territory and its own proxy politicians. The question arises that didn’t Choudhry Maajeed know about the legal, political constraints and limitations Muzafarabad suffers owing to the 1974 Interim Act? And didn’t he know that 1974 Act and Kashmir Council including Pakistani bureaucrats are the gift of his PPP founding leader Bhutto to this Free Kashmir? Can he dare to utter a single word of disagreement about the imposition of 1974 Act, and more appropriately the act of his leader Z.A. Bhutto who eroded what the minimal autonomy this territory had prior to his rule? Certainly, he cannot even think to commit such sin to invite the ire of Larkana and Islamabad. 

His boasting to return Chief Secretary and IG Police was taken in wrong context as media and our short sighted nationalist jump to laud his statement as if special status was granted to this impotent government or region. He simply asked Islamabad at least give choice to choose his coming ruler for Muzafarabad. But instead of considering his request, Kashmir for Kashmir Affairs ridiculed him by saying that region was not qualifying yet to choose lent officers sending from Islamabad to rule this region and this prerogative lies with Islamabad. 

The other lesson to be learnt from this by-election, is the decision of NAP to field a candidate in by-election just couple weeks before the elections and fielding such a person: who was not NAP member, he never resigned from his original party, had no political acumen or political base, zero percent work in that constituency. The people in that Constituency were not even familiar with his name prior to the nomination and results have reflected on public choice when he got only 50 votes. In such scenario, who is the responsible for such debacle, candidate, leadership, ideology, credibility or vision? Perhaps all needs to ponder on these questions beyond party biases to avoid future mistakes. 

No comments: