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:
Post a Comment