Throughout the November 23rd a ticker kept running on some Pakistani TV channels saying that the Azad Kashmir government is contemplating revocation of Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotheham’s Kashmiri citizenship. While the petty quarrels and qualms between Kashmiri leaders working under and for Pakistani rulers in the name of Islam and public and what not is a common practice and has become cause and part of amusement for the majority of the Kashmiri population across the Kashmiri transnational space spanning across South Asia, Middle East, Europe, UK, USA and Canada, the dragging of Kashmiri citizenship by the Pakistani media in relation to murder case of a Pakistani politician murdered in UK allegedly with the involvement of other Pakistani politicians appeared a little intriguing to me. Although in Britain officially Kashmiris from Pakistani Occupied Kashmir or blanketed under the Pakistani and from the Indian Occupied Kashmir under Indian identities, we Kashmiris know that we have a Kashmiri citizenship as well embedded in the State Subject of 1920. The situation made me think of an amusing tale from childhood about the legendary Mughal Empires courtier comic character Mullah Naseer Uddin who according to the tale was in bed with his wife when heard some noise outside and went with the sole Kamblel; blanket of the house wrapped around his naked body to see what was happening. Hearing him back the wife asked with eyes closed. What was the noise about? Oh! It was about my blanket. Mullah replied while standing beside her naked. In response to the noise caused by Lord Ahmed and Dr Mirza in Britain the AJK cabinet met on 24th November with the Prime Minsiter Chaudhary Abdul Majeed in chair and declared the British Lord of Kashmiri origin ‘a persona non grata’ for being involved in ‘negative activities’ against Pakistan in foreign lands. It is now emerged that initially the news was officially broken to the Pakistani media by the Pakistani government that Azad Kashmir government was considering revoking Lord Nazir Ahmed’s Kashmiri citizenship. However, when informed by legal experts of not being authorised to make any such decision the cabinet the cabinet could not go beyond denouncing Lord Ahmed of Rotherham in the Azad Kashmiri assembly. It seems appropriate to note here that this assembly is elected through an election process which is open only to those Kashmiri citizens who are ‘constitutionally’ required to declare their allegiance with the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan as a precondition for participation. It is also reported in the Pakistani media that the AJK government was directed from Islamabad to ‘speak’ against Lord Ahmed. Why the AJK government would listen to something like that that? What did Mr Ahmed has done against the interests of this Pakistani occupied/administered/controlled or Azad Kashmir – depending on one’s political viewpoint? Apparently he supported Dr Zulfiqar Mirza, the ex-Home Minister of Sindh who recently has become Pakistani Anna Hazarey , Pakistani style of course, and has made thundering statements against corruption especially of Muthahida Qomi Movement (MQM) originally Muhajar; Immigrants (not necessarily diaspora) Qomi Movement primarily for Urdu speaking Pakistanis of Karachi and later for displaced people anywhere including ‘Azad’ Kashmir. Just over a week ago Mr Mirza came to Britain amidst great hype to present some highly crucial documentary evidence against MQM leadership especially its iconic head Altaf Hussain or Altaf Bahee as he is commonly known in the murder case of Dr Imran Farooq, a senior leader of MQM who was killed in Britain a few months ago. Dr Mirza himself is accused of several crimes during his reign including killing of hundreds of people in Karachi. After receiving the documents and having an hour long meeting with Mirza, Scotland Yard, the top British investigation agency described the evidence as ‘unimportant and unconvincing in any regard’. Pakistani electronic media reported all this on 17th of November. What is the problem and what this has to do with Lord Nazir Ahmed and the Azad Kashmir government? The problem is with the politics of the Mirza phenomena and providing him access to the public space of ‘Pakistani community’ that actually consists mainly of the Kashmiris from ‘Azad’ Kashmir. Access to this community for Pakistani politicians depends largely on politicians, religious leaders and clan heads of whom Lord Nazir is one of the most influential. Indeed not only the Pakistani politicians but also the Pakistani consulate and leaders of Pakistani origin in Britain patronize such leaders as Lord Ahmed to gain access to the British Kashmiri constituency. The Azad Kashmiri politicians also rely heavily on their diaspora in Britain but most of them are not dependent on Lord Ahmed for access to this political and financial constituency. However, to get a reception at House of Lord they need to be in his good books. For wider community access they have their own links. Indeed some are the part of transnational baradaries and political and economic network. For example Barrister Sultan Chaudhary, the Ex- Prime Minister of AJK or Chaudhary, Ch. Abdul Majeed, the current PM of AJK and Ch. Yasin etc. The other question is why Chaudhary Majeed will take such an action against Lord Ahemd as both are from same clan? Here the reason is in party and not in clan or baradari. Chaudhary Majeed is serving Prime Minister of Peoples Party Azad Kashmir that is a branch of Peoples Party Pakistan. For all practical purposes it is like another provincial branch of PPP. However, Azad Kashmir being a site of large diaspora has gained greater significance for the PPP Pakistani leadership due to lucrative money the Azad Kashmir People Party leaders can offer for securing official party ticket for contesting elections form over 40 constituencies. This means that each member interested to contest a seat on PPP ticket from any constituency has to bid for that and the high bidder will win. Same happens with the allocation of ministries and Premiership and Presidency of AJK. For many years Ch Majeed has been the strongest candidate for his constituency because of his deep roots in the locality and grassroots approach to politics. However, in terms of monetary bid he was the weakest of his opponents especially Ch Yasin who it has been widely believed in the Kashmiri community large sum to the top leaders of PPP but was not made Prime Minister because that would have perhaps cost party his staunch opponent Barister Sultan who recently came back in the party after leaving it many years ago resulting from a conflict with Benazir Butto over the Kashmir Council seat dispute between two British Kashmiri candidates. It must be noted that the practice is not confined to PPP exclusively. Other Pakistani party and establishment also enjoy their domination and hegemony over this small tract of land inhabited by over 4 million people with transnational connections. Lord Nazir who originates from Mirpur and share clan identity with Ch Majeed and Br Sultan and Ch Yasin etc. at present is seen aclose ally of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz Sharif group and claims personal friendship with Sharif brothers. Like the Pakistani politicians find access to Kashmiri diaspora in Britain the British Kashmiri also need the support of senior Pakistani politicians and civil and military officers to operate in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan to secure their business, family and political interests. Against this context such leaders as Lord Ahmed find themselves in better position to make friends with the top brass of Pakistan and gain an upper hand over Azad Kashmiri politicians who have a colonial like relation with the Pakistani politicians and civil and military bureaucracy. In this context both Kashmiris Lord Ahmed as well as Ch Majeed are caught in the stumbling Pakistani political web that spans from Larkana, the birth place of Buttos to Roywind, the headquarter of Sharifs to London, the headquarter of Altaf Bahee and beyond. When Dr Mirza was hosted by Lord Ahmed who also accompanied his guest to various public meetings including one in the House of Lords, the MQM became annoyed and since the Party of Altaf Bahee is a crucial component of the fragile Pakistani government alliance, the PPP leadership found it necessary to shoot at Lord Nazir. However, instead of doing it themselves by revoking Lord Ahmed’s Pakistani citizenship they decided to use their ‘subjects’. However, why using the Kashmiri citizenship bullet? Of course Lord Ahmed is a Lord of Rotterdam, and a British citizen of Kashmiri origin but also a Pakistani citizen on the basis of Pakistani passport which many British Kashmiris under the Pakistani administration use for travel. Why the Pakistani government has not directly warned Lord Ahmed of withdrawing his Pakistani citizenship? And why the Pakistani government not warned Dr. Mirza of cancelling his citizenship so that he too can seek political asylum in Britain and keep an eye on Altaf Bahee all the time? Why dragging Kashmiri citizenship through Azad Kashmiri government in a murder case of a senior MQM leader in London foot prints from where some would claim lead to the MQM leadership? Issuing such a warning without checking out first with the legal and constitutional experts is a reflection of our present PM’s political capacity? What is Kashmiri Nationality? Kashmiri nationality is based on the State Subject notification of Kashmir government headed by Maharaja Hari Singh issued on 20th April 1927. According to this rule anyone who was residing in the State before 16th Match 1846 when the state was officially formed through a Treaty between British East India Company and Jammu Raja Gulab Singh were the full permanent citizens of the state and those who settled there permanently soon after that entitled full citizenship and those acquired immovable property in the State under special permission will be given provisional citizen with the right to get full citizenship after ten years. Of course the AJK government or any other authority currently administering divided Kashmir State has no legal powers to deprive any Kashmiri of his/her right to Kashmiri citizenship or State Subject. However, as the latest reports from inside the Azad Kashmir assembly clearly show the order came ‘from the top’ by the ‘Barra Saab’, the Big Boss. It is said that several assembly members had serious reservations about the condemnation remarks about Lord Ahmed but the Prime Minister of AJK said we have no choice in this matter as we cannot afford the annoyance of the Big Boss. It is only ironic that when we invited Lord Ahmed to lead the campaign for Kashmiri inclusion and recognition in Britain in 1999, he not only declined the invitation but opposed it as anti-Islam and anti-Pakistan and an Indian ploy to divide Muslims. Responding to AJK assembly resolution branding him persona non grata Lord Ahmed amongst other things said they he would make Ch Majeed accountable for having friend with India and Ch Majeed directed similar allegation against Lord Ahmed as being helping India. Are both of them reading from the same script? I hope not and the actual issue is not that of the blanket.
Posted on: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:13:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015