emergency and martial law

[chharoonahmad]

Hi

Yesterday someone was discussing that in India no martial law has even been imposed. Indira Gandhi imposed emergency. Isn't emergency also a mild form of martial law. I think in emergency the government has more authority to exercise laws and they could put you in prison if they like it so. What is major difference between emergency and martial law? Musharraf also declared emergency when he was the president. Does martial law require the chief of army to function as the head of state? It would be nice of you if you could enlighten me on this issue. Thanks.

Regards
Haroon

 

[Alla hoo]

Did you know what happened to Indira gandhi after that?

She lost the election from her home constituency by a huge margin.

Indian people do not approve any form of totalitarianism.

 

[truthseeker2010]

Emergency rule is where the president seizes ultimate authority; the military is no more in control than before. In this case, the courts, the police, the bureaucracy and the parliament continue. The constitution is partially in abeyance; the president claims the authority to unilaterally rewrite bits of it and reinstate it. Much of the constitution remains in effect. A number of basic rights--assembly, press, speech, equality before the law (take that to mean "equal and due process"), plus some others--are suspended. Some aren't.

Martial law: The Constitution is scrapped. It can't be simply reinstated, presumably, although I imagine that few would disagree with taking it back if Musharraf said "oops, all a mistake, as you were" (except that in the case of Pakistan there are people arguing that the previous rewrites that Musharraf did in 1999 should be rejected, even though Parliament later approved the changes). Under martial law, Parliament and the courts are scrapped. The police answer to the military, which has ultimate control. They may implement the usual civilian laws, but it's soldiers that do so. The president isn't a president, he's a general, and functions in that capacity. There are no rights unless the military allows you. Typically you get a curfew.

 

[Leader]

Did you know what happened to Indira gandhi after that?

She lost the election from her home constituency by a huge margin.

Indian people do not approve any form of totalitarianism.

how silly of you or anyone to believe that !! there is a list of reasons why Indra lost elections.

 

[chharoonahmad]

I offer my thanks to everyone above. You guys are really nice and very helpful.

By the way, I wanted to ask one thing. Well, I'm happy to find so many members from India on these forums. Any particular reason(s) for their subscription to this Pakistani website?!

Regards
Haroon

 

[Mech]

I offer my thanks to everyone above. You guys are really nice and very helpful.

By the way, I wanted to ask one thing. Well, I'm happy to find so many members from India on these forums. Any particular reason(s) for their subscription to this Pakistani website?!

Regards
Haroon

Love affair bro.....fierce love....

 

[chharoonahmad]

Love affair bro.....fierce love....

That's good to hear, bro!

As it has been said above that the martial law is imposed by an army chief, not by the government. But there have been some civil martial law administrators. Take this case just for the sake of an example, please don't make anything else out of it!. Is this possible for Mr. Zardari to impose martial law? If it is, what would become of Mr. Kayani because he is the 'real' army chief? Would Mr. Kayani be delegated to some other title and Mr. Zardari be declared army chief? I'm confused now! Please help me to come out of this confusion.

Regards
Haroon

 

[Mutee]

Yes COAS usually changes the name and then become something like CE but a martial law is a martial law and always bad for the country

 

[chharoonahmad]

That's good to hear, bro!

As it has been said above that the martial law is imposed by an army chief, not by the government. But there have been some civil martial law administrators. Take this case just for the sake of an example, please don't make anything else out of it!. Is this possible for Mr. Zardari to impose martial law? If it is, what would become of Mr. Kayani because he is the 'real' army chief? Would Mr. Kayani be delegated to some other title and Mr. Zardari be declared army chief? I'm confused now! Please help me to come out of this confusion.

Regards
Haroon

Yes COAS usually changes the name and then become something like CE but a martial law is a martial law and always bad for the country

Hi Mutee

It would be really nice of you if you could explain it a bit more. Thanks.

 

[chharoonahmad]

Help, please!