Dawood Ibrahim
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,475
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Ever since the ‘treasonous’ outburst of Altaf Hussain, everyone is wondering how to bring the ensued pandemonium to a logical end. The interior minister has said: “Islamabad will not demand the repatriation of Altaf Hussain as he possesses a British passport.” Understandable. The consequences could be grave. Trial on any count will make him a martyr, and the perception of victimisation always ends in political gains. Moreover, Britons may have a great deal of influence in the trial process that may begin with Hussain’s repatriation since he is a British subject.
However, there’s a view that the government can play a wild card by simply revoking Hussain’s citizenship on the grounds of his anti-state remarks and pleas to hostile states to attack Pakistan’s sovereignty. Can it be done constitutionally? Certainly. Section 16 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 says: “One may be deprived or stripped of citizenship if: (1) The person in question has acted disloyal to the country (2) One has been engaging with the enemy during times of war.”
This particular case merits both scenarios: threatening to wage war against the chief of army and the judiciary; seeking the end of Pakistan as a sovereign state; making pleas to India, Israel and Iran to help them fight the state of Pakistan; rendering apologies to India for the creation of Pakistan; and terming the very ideology of its existence a conspiracy. What more can amount to “disloyalty to the country” and “engaging with the enemy during the time of war?”
A similar precedent, although with much more extreme outcome, can be found in the British history about 70 years ago. William Joyce was an American-born Irishman who had obtained a British passport. Joyce used the passport to travel from London to Germany in August 1939, and within a few months he was broadcasting Nazi propaganda over British airwaves. His sneering, faux upper-class voice gave him a nickname: Lord Haw-Haw. While at first a figure of fun he became an irritant to British establishment. There were concerns that his broadcasts might damage the people’s morale.
Joyce was arrested and sent for trial for high treason on the count of having broadcast for the enemy. He was hanged in January 1946. He was a fascist, but unlike our very own Hussian inciting violence and seeking assistance from the enemy countries to attack on our sovereignty, Joyce neither killed nor threatened fellow Britons. Revoking the Pakistani citizenship of Altaf Hussain is the least we can do.
This year, Canada has also passed a law to revoke dual nationals’ Canadian citizenship if found in any questionable act against the state.
Since 2010, the then home secretary and current Prime Minister of the UK, Theresa May, has stripped 33 individuals of British nationality — most of them were of Pakistani origin — on the ground that it was “conducive to the public good” to do so. This usually means the person is suspected of a terror-related activity.
What is likely to happen if government decides to revoke Hussain’s Pakistani citizenship on the basis of being disloyal to the country as a provision given by the constitution? It will automatically strip off his rights, moral or legal, to run party affairs, hence strengthening Karachi leadership of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). British government would be on a weaker footing, and Pakistan could put substantial pressure on them to take concrete action on cases of “incitement to violence” registered against him in the UK. British parliamentarians are already getting uneasy about it. Recently, in a letter to the British Home Secretary Amber Rudd, MP Khalid Mehmood asked, “Can you please explain to me why the British government has taken no action to date against Mr Hussain?”
As far as Hussain’s alleged connection with the Indian RAW is concerned, he would gradually become redundant for them. His support base would dilute, and he would not be able to use his influence to upset the situation in Karachi. It would also release pressure from government to extradite Hussain and put him on trial under Article 6. We all know the implications and consequences of that action. By taking this decision government could use the popular wave against Hussain to work in its favour.
The situation with the MQM, at the moment, is neither benefiting the government nor is it detrimental to its interests. However, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz government could definitely kill two birds with one stone. Revoking Altaf Hussain’s nationality can work (a) as a deterrent to Tahir-ul-Qadri’s threats to create unrest on the streets in September; (b) It would give a ‘concrete’ outcome of the Karachi operation to General Raheel Sharif before his retirement, which can possiblly ensure smooth sailing for government during the crucial months of September and October.
The writer is a broadcast journalist, and can be reached on Twitter @zeekhan_
http://dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/06-Sep-16/dear-britain-you-can-keep-him
However, there’s a view that the government can play a wild card by simply revoking Hussain’s citizenship on the grounds of his anti-state remarks and pleas to hostile states to attack Pakistan’s sovereignty. Can it be done constitutionally? Certainly. Section 16 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 says: “One may be deprived or stripped of citizenship if: (1) The person in question has acted disloyal to the country (2) One has been engaging with the enemy during times of war.”
This particular case merits both scenarios: threatening to wage war against the chief of army and the judiciary; seeking the end of Pakistan as a sovereign state; making pleas to India, Israel and Iran to help them fight the state of Pakistan; rendering apologies to India for the creation of Pakistan; and terming the very ideology of its existence a conspiracy. What more can amount to “disloyalty to the country” and “engaging with the enemy during the time of war?”
A similar precedent, although with much more extreme outcome, can be found in the British history about 70 years ago. William Joyce was an American-born Irishman who had obtained a British passport. Joyce used the passport to travel from London to Germany in August 1939, and within a few months he was broadcasting Nazi propaganda over British airwaves. His sneering, faux upper-class voice gave him a nickname: Lord Haw-Haw. While at first a figure of fun he became an irritant to British establishment. There were concerns that his broadcasts might damage the people’s morale.
Joyce was arrested and sent for trial for high treason on the count of having broadcast for the enemy. He was hanged in January 1946. He was a fascist, but unlike our very own Hussian inciting violence and seeking assistance from the enemy countries to attack on our sovereignty, Joyce neither killed nor threatened fellow Britons. Revoking the Pakistani citizenship of Altaf Hussain is the least we can do.
This year, Canada has also passed a law to revoke dual nationals’ Canadian citizenship if found in any questionable act against the state.
Since 2010, the then home secretary and current Prime Minister of the UK, Theresa May, has stripped 33 individuals of British nationality — most of them were of Pakistani origin — on the ground that it was “conducive to the public good” to do so. This usually means the person is suspected of a terror-related activity.
What is likely to happen if government decides to revoke Hussain’s Pakistani citizenship on the basis of being disloyal to the country as a provision given by the constitution? It will automatically strip off his rights, moral or legal, to run party affairs, hence strengthening Karachi leadership of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). British government would be on a weaker footing, and Pakistan could put substantial pressure on them to take concrete action on cases of “incitement to violence” registered against him in the UK. British parliamentarians are already getting uneasy about it. Recently, in a letter to the British Home Secretary Amber Rudd, MP Khalid Mehmood asked, “Can you please explain to me why the British government has taken no action to date against Mr Hussain?”
As far as Hussain’s alleged connection with the Indian RAW is concerned, he would gradually become redundant for them. His support base would dilute, and he would not be able to use his influence to upset the situation in Karachi. It would also release pressure from government to extradite Hussain and put him on trial under Article 6. We all know the implications and consequences of that action. By taking this decision government could use the popular wave against Hussain to work in its favour.
The situation with the MQM, at the moment, is neither benefiting the government nor is it detrimental to its interests. However, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz government could definitely kill two birds with one stone. Revoking Altaf Hussain’s nationality can work (a) as a deterrent to Tahir-ul-Qadri’s threats to create unrest on the streets in September; (b) It would give a ‘concrete’ outcome of the Karachi operation to General Raheel Sharif before his retirement, which can possiblly ensure smooth sailing for government during the crucial months of September and October.
The writer is a broadcast journalist, and can be reached on Twitter @zeekhan_
http://dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/06-Sep-16/dear-britain-you-can-keep-him
