A Senior member has raised a question on Martial law. By virtue of special powers vested in armed forces, there is virtually martial law in Kashmir and some other parts of country. Incidentally, there is no mention of Martial law in Indian constitution. Our neighboring country, Pakistan had Martial law many times but this is by way of coup and unconstitutionally removing a lawful govt. This virtually means that the elected govt. is forcibly removed from power and replaced by military junta. In appropriate circumstances, there is provision of proclaiming emergency- external aggression, internal disturbance, financial crisis.
AFSPA and Martial Law are one and the same ?. If so, before imposing Martial Law, has the Government obtained the approval of the president? I understand, without the approval of the President either Martial Law or AFSPA cannot be promulgated. Please clarify.
Martial law is not legal and cannot be imposed constitutionally. AFSPA gives special powers to armed forces but still they are under civil administration. Under martial law, civil authorities are subordinate to army unlike the current system. Martial law implies coup by military junta and forcible removal of govt. in power elected lawfully.
G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/
Going to war is not an option is a significant staement of intention. It clearly shows a weakness in our abilities. However what prevents India from paying back Pakistan in the same coin in say Baluchistan. For every terror act by Pakistan there should be a counter act from India. That is also a type of war. Let us ACT and not debate and debate and debate !!!g
Going to war is not an option is a significant staement of intention. It clearly shows a weakness in our abilities. However what prevents India from paying back Pakistan in the same coin in say Baluchistan. For every terror act by Pakistan there should be a counter act from India. That is also a type of war. Let us ACT and not debate and debate and debate !!!g
A sensible suggestion. There is nothing wrong in debating. Its through debate only a right way will surface.
Far too long Kashmir issue has been debated. It has only created more groups to debate. It is now time for concrete action. Otherwise Kashmir will bleed and bleed India also for a long time to come.
Anyhow, The main reason for Kashmir problem is Pakistan.First and foremost aspect to be taken care of is Pakistan's hostilities. India should show Pakistan what it is capable of.
I'm sure you did not understand my thread at all. What I said was, either martial Law or any such measure to bring peace to the Kashmir Valleu
No Martial law only governor rule.In martial law civil rights of citizen suspended for some time.
OK.Whatever it may be. The idea is to Keep the Kashmir valley peaceful.
Going to war with Pak is not an option because of the geo-political situation and China factor. Also the result cannot be forecast. The only option is for parliament to declare martial law in the valley and I am sure the seperatist leaders ( hurriet et all) will be tackled.Martial law based on the doctrine of necessity has been held as valid in many countries including the UK and by famous jurists as well. Maybe I will write sometime on the Doctrine of necessity.
If 'Martial Law based on the doctrine of necessity' has been held as valid, in many countries,including UK which is a Democratic Country like India, Why Martial Law should not be imposed in India? do you think the President of India is not aware of this fact ? If he is aware and understands the situation in Kashmir, then naturally the President should agree to impose Martial Law in the Kashmir Valley. I know, things are not as easy as they look to be. If India wants to end the Kashmir problem forever, it should think of a solid solution on an urgent basis. More delays, more disasters.
These are very relevant points, but the crucial factor is will power and that is sadly lacking. Even Modi supposedly a strong leader cannot execute this
I'm sure you did not understand my thread at all. What I said was, either martial Law or any such measure to bring peace to the Kashmir Valleu
No Martial law only governor rule.In martial law civil rights of citizen suspended for some time.
OK.Whatever it may be. The idea is to Keep the Kashmir valley peaceful.
Going to war with Pak is not an option because of the geo-political situation and China factor. Also the result cannot be forecast. The only option is for parliament to declare martial law in the valley and I am sure the seperatist leaders ( hurriet et all) will be tackled.Martial law based on the doctrine of necessity has been held as valid in many countries including the UK and by famous jurists as well. Maybe I will write sometime on the Doctrine of necessity.
If 'Martial Law based on the doctrine of necessity' has been held as valid, in many countries,including UK which is a Democratic Country like India, Why Martial Law should not be imposed in India? do you think the President of India is not aware of this fact ? If he is aware and understands the situation in Kashmir, then naturally the President should agree to impose Martial Law in the Kashmir Valley. I know, things are not as easy as they look to be. If India wants to end the Kashmir problem forever, it should think of a solid solution on an urgent basis. More delays, more disasters.
These are very relevant points, but the crucial factor is will power and that is sadly lacking. Even Modi supposedly a strong leader cannot execute this
I'm sure you did not understand my thread at all. What I said was, either martial Law or any such measure to bring peace to the Kashmir Valleu
No Martial law only governor rule.In martial law civil rights of citizen suspended for some time.
OK.Whatever it may be. The idea is to Keep the Kashmir valley peaceful.
Going to war with Pak is not an option because of the geo-political situation and China factor. Also the result cannot be forecast. The only option is for parliament to declare martial law in the valley and I am sure the seperatist leaders ( hurriet et all) will be tackled.Martial law based on the doctrine of necessity has been held as valid in many countries including the UK and by famous jurists as well. Maybe I will write sometime on the Doctrine of necessity.
If 'Martial Law based on the doctrine of necessity' has been held as valid, in many countries,including UK which is a Democratic Country like India, Why Martial Law should not be imposed in India? do you think the President of India is not aware of this fact ? If he is aware and understands the situation in Kashmir, then naturally the President should agree to impose Martial Law in the Kashmir Valley. I know, things are not as easy as they look to be. If India wants to end the Kashmir problem forever, it should think of a solid solution on an urgent basis. More delays, more disasters.
These are very relevant points, but the crucial factor is will power and that is sadly lacking. Even Modi supposedly a strong leader cannot execute this.
Modi has to devise a way out, whatever you call it Martial Law or an attack on Pakistan. Otherwise, nation's very existence and integrity will be at stake.Today I have seen a news item, after a brief lull, trouble started again in Kashmir valley.
some users are mixing the concept of martial law with war against Pakistan. We don't need martial law for a war. This is a strategic decision that the ministry of defence/ armed forces may take. We had war with Pakistan a number of times and still hostilities continue from time to time.
G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/
