The rulers of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan often present the justification of ’’establishing the writ of the state‘‘ to crush protest movements. The same argument is repeated against the public rights movement in Azad Kashmir as well. Certain politicians, journalists, and analysts constantly harp on the chant that ’’the Action Committee has challenged the writ of the state.‘‘ But the fundamental question is: do those who exercise state authority themselves abide by the law of the state?
The writ of the state does not merely mean that the government’s command runs over the public. It also means that the command of the law runs over the government, the administration, and powerful institutions. If the public is bound by the law, yet the rulers and their functionaries consider themselves above it, how can this be called the rule of law?
Those who ’’pick up‘‘ citizens instead of formally arresting them, deny their custody, and do not present them before the courts—whose state writ are they establishing? There is a difference between an arrest under the law and taking someone to an undisclosed location. State authority cannot become a license to erase this difference.
The rulers ask the Action Committee to end the sit-ins and approach the courts to defend cases and seek redress for damages. In response, the committee’s leaders raise the objection that instead of providing justice, the courts are being used to provide legal cover to the decisions of the ruling elite and the establishment. This objection of theirs is also turned into evidence of challenging the state’s writ.
But trust in the courts is not created merely by issuing orders. Trust is created when a citizen appearing before the court sees that the law demands accountability even from the powerful, and that state institutions are also bound by judicial orders. If state institutions do not even present a detained person in court, how can the affected family obtain justice from the court? What kind of governance is it to first block the path to justice and then advise following that very path?
Power may secure obedience, but justice and accountability are essential for trust and moral legitimacy.
According to an estimate, the number of people arrested or picked up is said to be around one thousand. The question is, how many of these individuals were presented in courts? Against how many people were the charges made clear? How many families were informed about the detention and whereabouts of their loved ones? And how many lawyers were given the opportunity to meet their clients and pursue their cases?
Shaukat Nawaz Mir was arrested publicly, and videos of his arrest went viral on social media. Despite this, upon his family approaching the court, he was not brought before the court at any hearing. The police, on the contrary, claimed that he was not in their custody but was an absconder and in hiding. When videos of the arrest are present before the public, yet custody is not acknowledged and the arrested person is not produced in court, the question becomes not just about the freedom of a citizen, but about the credibility, accountability, and adherence to the law of the state institutions themselves. Does this conduct not challenge the writ of the state itself?
Respect for the state arises from its own conduct. On what basis do rulers who do not respect the law themselves demand trust in the law from the public? How can credibility be established in the claims of institutions that do not accept responsibility for their actions? Power may secure obedience, but justice and accountability are essential for trust and moral legitimacy.
If the rulers want to establish the writ of the state, they should begin by making their institutions bound by the law. Present all detained individuals in courts. Bring the charges forward. Allow lawyers to meet and pursue the cases. Provide families with information about their loved ones and comply with the orders of the courts.
Otherwise, the constant mantra of the ’’writ of the state‘‘ will continue to widen the distance between the public and the state. When the law is used to suppress the public and the powerful themselves continue to evade adherence to it, the state weakens its own credibility with its own hands.
The writ of the state will be credible when the rule of law applies to the rulers as well
Comments (0)