(By: Abdul Basit Alvi)
At the heart of ethical journalism is a commitment to truthfulness and precision. Journalists have a responsibility to meticulously verify facts, authenticate sources, and present information in an objective and transparent manner. Upholding the truth is paramount, even when it may be inconvenient or unpopular. Ethical journalism necessitates independence from undue influence or bias. Journalists must strive to maintain objectivity in their reporting, steering clear of conflicts of interest and refraining from advancing personal or organizational agendas.
While freedom of the press is a fundamental right, it must be tempered with the obligation to report truthfully and ethically. In an era rife with misinformation and disinformation, upholding these principles is more crucial than ever to preserve public trust in the media. Regrettably, in Pakistan, there’s a lack of stringent regulations and monitoring mechanisms to hold journalists legally accountable for disseminating negative information. As a nation, we also need to reject negativity, incorrect information, and false propaganda. Recently, Hamid Mir’s column came under scrutiny, demonstrating how he utilized his journalistic platform to propagate false propaganda and misinformation regarding AJK. He misinterpreted a statement made in a Pakistani court, casting doubt on AJK’s autonomy. According to Hamid Mir, in the course of the hearing for poet Ahmed Farhad’s case in the Islamabad High Court, the Additional Attorney General suggested that AJK should be considered a “foreign territory.” This misinterpretation was aimed at dismissing the case and has since stirred widespread controversy and discourse among legal experts, journalists, and on social media platforms. Attorney General Munawar Iqbal Duggal countered this argument by highlighting that AJK possesses its own constitution and judicial system, where rulings by Pakistani courts are regarded as foreign judgments. This wrong interpretation of the statement has elicited a range of reactions, with some questioning the government’s stance on AJK’s status. It’s noteworthy that AJK’s constitutional framework is rooted in a 1974 Act. Although the Pakistani constitution does not explicitly mention AJK or Gilgit-Baltistan, it does offer a mechanism for their potential inclusion within Pakistan, alongside other territories. The crux of the ongoing debate revolves around interpreting these legal frameworks and understanding the political and administrative relationship between Pakistan and AJK.
It is imperative to compare the special status of AJK and IIOJK to dispel such misconceptions. Azad Jammu and Kashmir holds a distinctive position within Pakistan’s constitutional framework, characterized by its unique governance structure and historical context. Situated in the northern region of Pakistan, AJK holds a distinctive significance in the country’s political landscape, boasting its own legislative assembly, president, and prime minister. To comprehend the unique status of AJK, one must delve into its historical backdrop, legal framework, and relationship with the rest of Pakistan. The status of AJK originates from the partition of British India in 1947 and the subsequent conflict over the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Following partition, the princely states were given the option to accede to either India or Pakistan. However, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, opted for India against the wishes of Kashmiris. In 1947, the populace of western Jammu and Kashmir, predominantly Muslims, rebelled against the Maharaja’s rule. The movement, initiated by Kashmiris and later joined by FATA Tribals, led to the establishment of the Azad Kashmir government.
The legal status of AJK is enshrined in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974. According to this act, AJK enjoys a significant degree of autonomy, with its own legislative assembly, president, and prime minister. However, certain areas such as defense, foreign affairs, and currency fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of Pakistan. The relationship between AJK and Pakistan is further regulated by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, which acts as a liaison between the two entities. Chaired by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the council comprises members from both the federal government and AJK. AJK’s governance structure closely resembles that of Pakistan, with a president serving as the ceremonial head of state and a prime minister heading the executive branch. The legislative assembly, consisting of elected representatives from various constituencies, is responsible for enacting laws and overseeing the region’s administration.
On the other hand, there’s IIOJK. Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) has long been plagued by conflict, political instability, and human rights issues. Despite its designation as a “special status” region within India, Kashmiris in IIOJK continue to face numerous restrictions that hinder their rights, freedoms, and aspirations. Understanding these limitations is crucial for comprehending the intricate dynamics in one of the world’s most enduring territorial disputes. One of the key issues concerning the special status of Kashmiris in IIOJK is the erosion of special status. In August 2019, the Government of India unilaterally revoked Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. This action effectively nullified the region’s special status and subjected it to direct control by the central government. Following the annulment of Article 370, the Indian government imposed rigorous and brutal security measures in IIOJK, encompassing curfews, communication blockades, and widespread detentions. These actions have drawn condemnation from human rights organizations due to their disproportionate impact on civilians and their encroachment upon fundamental freedoms like freedom of movement and expression. Kashmiris in IIOJK have endured longstanding human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and arbitrary incarcerations. The presence of security personnel in the region has fostered an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, marked by reports of extensive surveillance, harassment, and mistreatment. Nonetheless, the actions of the Indian government have prompted apprehensions regarding the legitimacy and inclusiveness of electoral procedures in the region. Critics argue that the suppression of dissent and the restriction of political liberties undermine the democratic entitlements of Kashmiris and impede efforts to address the underlying grievances fueling the conflict. Despite being blessed with natural beauty and resources, IIOJK lags behind in terms of economic development and opportunities. The ongoing conflict, coupled with constraints on movement and commerce, has hindered investment and stifled growth in vital sectors such as tourism and agriculture. The dearth of economic prospects exacerbates socio-economic disparities and perpetuates cycles of poverty and marginalization among Kashmiris.
AJK boasts its own justice system, with even Pakistan’s FIA lacking authority to intervene in its affairs. Occupying a unique position within Pakistan, AJK is distinguished by its distinct governance structure and special status. Over time, various judicial pronouncements have played a pivotal role in shaping the legal framework and elucidating the constitutional status of AJK within the broader context of Pakistan. An examination of these judicial rulings yields valuable insights into the intricacies and subtleties of AJK’s special status.
AJK’s special status is enshrined in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974, which affords the region a significant degree of autonomy and self-governance. However, the relationship between AJK and Pakistan is governed by a interplay of constitutional provisions, legislative acts, and judicial interpretations. Notably, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Jurisdiction Case (1993) set a precedent. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court over matters relating to AJK’s governance and legal framework. This ruling underscored the importance of respecting AJK’s autonomy and upholding the principles of federalism within Pakistan’s constitutional framework.
Another significant decision came in 2018 when the AJK Supreme Court deliberated on the powers and composition of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council. The court elucidated the respective roles of the federal government and AJK in matters of governance and administration, reasserting the special status of AJK while acknowledging the overarching authority of the federal government.
Several court cases have addressed the disqualification of members of the AJK Legislative Assembly on various grounds, including allegations of corruption, electoral malpractice, and violation of constitutional provisions. These cases underscore the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability within AJK’s political system. The comparison starkly highlights the autonomy granted by Pakistan to AJK while also emphasizing the failure of autonomy afforded by India to IIOJK.
This is not the first instance of Hamid Mir’s involvement in such anti-state activities. His stance on missing persons is also highly contentious, as he lends support to all anti-state factions and conflates them with innocent individuals, disregarding the sacrifices of innocent martyrs and the soldiers of our armed forces and law enforcement agencies who lost their lives in combating terrorism. His track record is further shrouded in suspicion, as evidenced by receiving an award in India on behalf of his father and his stance against Pakistan and its military during the incidents and conflicts of 1971, documented on record. When someone garners accolades from the soil of our adversaries, their credibility within our nation warrants serious scrutiny. His past actions indicate a pattern of leveraging his popularity for nefarious ends, aligning with an anti-state agenda and disseminating false information, propaganda, and negativity. He has made statements aimed at pleasing India and our adversaries, thereby tarnishing Pakistan’s reputation. AJK is not foreign territory; it is an autonomous state within Pakistan, and its people cherish the special status and amenities provided by Pakistan. The matter concerning Ahmad Farhad and individuals akin to him falls under the jurisdiction of AJK courts, which operate independently and are not subject to the authority of Pakistani courts. The endorsement of anti-state elements and their dissemination of false and anti-state propaganda raises significant doubts about Hamid Mir’s loyalty.
AJK exhibits exemplary autonomy, unmistakably reflecting its integral connection with Pakistan rather than resembling a foreign territory. While India moves towards integrating IIOJK into its territory, Pakistan has demonstrated sensible and responsible behavior by granting autonomy to AJK. In fact, through this misguided endeavor, Hamid Mir has attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to question the competence and integrity of AJK court judges. The jubilation expressed by India and its media over Hamid Mir’s statement also raises suspicions regarding the underlying motives behind this ill-conceived action.
Hamid Mir’s background is characterized by ambiguity. He appears to be aligned with an agenda that is anti-state, often emphasizing issues to gain favor abroad while potentially undermining Pakistan and its institutions. His documented anti-state positions on matters such as the missing persons’ problem and the Awami Action Committee’s protests are well-known. Moreover, his unfounded and unsubstantiated criticisms of our intelligence agencies and military leadership have been widely publicized. There have been reports suggesting his connections with hostile entities. He has deliberately distorted the statement made by the Additional Advocate General of Pakistan regarding AJK, seemingly to sow discord, mistrust, and misconceptions among the people of AJK and Pakistan. Several months prior, at the literature festival in Muzaffarabad, he also attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to stir up misguided sentiments. Such actions, pursued in pursuit of personal popularity at the expense of national interests, should be strongly discouraged and dealt with firmly. It is imperative for the people of Pakistan and AJK to be vigilant against individuals like Hamid Mir who seek to propagate misunderstanding and animosity as part of foreign agendas.
Read more: AJK Accountability Chief Vows to hold everyone accountable, including PM, ministers
The people of Pakistan and AJK vehemently denounce such statements and contentions against Pakistan and AJK. There is a call for action to be taken against those who propagate hatred, negativity, misinformation, falsehoods, and false propaganda.
