Military
Tribunal Courts in Gilgit Baltistan: A Suicide Attack on Local Autonomy
By Senge
Sering, President of Institute for Gilgit Baltistan Studies
Gilgit Baltistan is pressing for
autonomy as part of a larger push towards democracy.
The Gilgit Baltistan region of Pakistan, long under dispute with India,
operates without a constitutional framework.
This lack of rule of law has meant that all judicial matters have been
guided by political motives. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s recent establishment of military tribunal
courts in the region is a continuation of the policy to rule Gilgit Baltistan
as a modern day colony.
The military tribunals, which have a
two year term, have been established through an executive order. The use of
executive orders to extend and entrench the occupation into Gilgit Baltistan
has a long history. In the past Islamabad has used them to establish the
draconian Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), General Zia’s martial law, Sharia
courts as well as the anti-terrorism courts in Gilgit Baltistan.
It was through an executive order that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto violated the
State Subject Rule to promote illegal settlements in Gilgit Baltistan.
Executive orders are issued routinely to appropriate local resources without
due process or compensation. They are also used to station military garrisons
in the region in direct violation of the UN Resolutions on Kashmir and
Gilgit Baltistan.
If we are to judge from media
reports, there is overwhelming support among local politicians for the
tribunals. To better understand the lack of outcry, one must contextualize it
in relation to the upcoming assembly elections in the summer. Candidates are
keenly aware that in a disputed and strategically sensitive region like Gilgit
Baltistan, the military has a heavy footprint in local affairs including
elections. This consideration is a key factor in the response of those with an
eye to winning assembly seats.
Notable outcry, on the other hand, is heard from those concerned for the
rule of law. One such voice is that of Ms. Asma Jehangir, the former president of Pakistan’s Supreme
Court Bar Association, who states that the Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment and
Self Governance Order 2009, set forth by the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, does
not envisage military courts. She goes on to affirm that neither Article 1 of
the Pakistani constitution which defines boundaries nor the 21stAmendment,
which enables military courts, define Gilgit Baltistan as part of Pakistan.
According to advocate Ehsan Ali,
president of High Court Bar Association and chairperson of Gilgit Baltistan
Peoples Action Committee (AAC), the establishment of military courts is
designed to suppress political expression and freedom. He asserts that those
convicted are denied due process and the right to seek redress in appellate
courts. He further adds that military officers function as both judge and juror
and lack autonomy from the military apparatus.
In addition, he challenges Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s claim that the
tribunals strengthen the judicial system. He believes that given the lack of
accountability and transparency, such an ad hoc arrangement will rather
strengthen arbitrary control, curtail the authority of local judges and
represent a step towards martial law.
According to advocate Shehbaz, president of Gilgit Baltistan Bar
Association, Pakistan is using the Gilgit Baltistan Council, a political entity
with no constitutional mandate, to legitimize military courts in the region.
Since its inception five years ago, the council has consistently diminished
local control to the benefit of Islamabad. The Council claims to represent
Gilgit Baltistan despite the fact that the majority of its appointed members do
not originate from the region. Advocate Shehbaz maintains that such decisions
should stem from the Gilgit-based legislative assembly.
According to Abdul Hamid Khan, chairperson of Balawaristan National
Front, the tribunal courts will target political workers and activists. He
states that, despite expectations of the Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATC) to
prosecute terrorists, it has instead been used politically to prop up a
colonial system. He adds that the military first promoted extremists to counter
secular and nationalist groups and then used the specter of extremism to
justify increased military presence to maintain law and order. According to
Khan, it is a win-win situation for the military at the expense of locals.
In the aftermath of the attack on the Peshawar military school, the
military seized the opportunity to impose the tribunals, despite that the incidence was a
security and intelligence failure rather than a judicial one. As
Khan suggests, modern terrorism is a blowback of a policy to prop up violent,
pro-Sharia elements to destabilize India and Afghanistan. It is further fueled
by the military’s introduction of a practice of appointing madrassa and mosque
clerics who also promulgated violence against Shias and minorities.
As the symbiotic relationship of military and extremists serves the
national interest; terrorist apparatus including those representing Hafiz
Saeed, Syed Yusuf Salahuddin, Aurangzeb Faruqi, Asmatullah Muavia and Malik
Ishaq continue to function without challenge. Recently, an official of Jamat
Islami, a party that openly supports Al-Qaida, ISIS, Taliban, LeT and
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, was appointed Minister in Gilgit Baltistan. Such
machinations raise questions about Pakistan’s commitment to end extremism and
militancy. This insight suggests that the tribunals will not serve their
professed function but rather become yet another tool to serve national
interests which are tied with extremism.
While there is no doubt the local judicial system in Gilgit Baltistan is
weak; military courts do nothing to strengthen it. The judicial system has
failed due to a lack of constitutional provisions and ad hoc policies.
Currently judges are political appointees with limited terms who report to the Minister of Kashmir Affairs. Their contract renewals hinge
upon military and bureaucratic patronage.
Secondly, the intelligence agencies, including Military Intelligence
(MI) intervene on the behalf of militant groups to obstruct due process through
the extrajudicial release and transfer of terrorists to safe havens. Further,
the threat of retaliation and the lack of personal security hinders the ability
of judges to deliberate without concerns of repercussions. Therefore, the legal
system needs strengthening and capacity building to ensure rule of law. In this
light, the military must undergo an internal audit to establish policies and
prosecute those who step outside of established protocol to impede the judicial
system.
The political, judicial and economic institutions of Gilgit Baltistan
are steadily evolving and pressing for autonomy, international assistance and
capacity building as part of a larger push towards democracy. The hard earned
progress made in the region is therefore hindered rather than helped by the
establishment of the military courts which seek to suppress democratic processes
of governance, transparency, accountability and civil society strengthening.
Senge Sering is a researcher and human rights advocate. He was born in the UN
declared disputed region of Gilgit-Baltistan which remains in Pakistani control
since 1948. Currently, he is managing the Institute for Gilgit Baltistan
Studies, based in Washington, DC. He frequently visits the Geneva
based United Nations Human Rights Council, the European Parliament, the British
Parliament and the American Congress where he raises awareness about Gilgit
Baltistan. Senge has been instrumental in arranging conference on Gilgit
Baltistan in collaboration with several US and European think tanks and
disseminating information on related issues. Read other articles by Senge.
No comments:
Post a Comment