Talk:Military coups in Pakistan

Untitled

", a black day in the history of pakistan politics, " <--- this article needs a WP_NPOV review... and a proofread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.3.6 (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV and Judicial Coup?

@Zafargilani: The 2022 event has been repeatedly called "Successful judicial coup" instead of "Attempted constitutional coup". My edits reverting to "Attempted constitutional coup" have been repeatedly reversed or undone. In this relation, would you explain how this was a "judicial coup" (as, if anything, it was actually undone by the judiciary itself -- on the orders of the Supreme Court), and how was this successful as all the events (undertaken by Imran Khan to bypass the constitutional way) have been quashed, and the PM concerned has left office, and a new PM is there?

Regarding the source [1] cited, it is a statement of an aide of Imran Khan, and therefore is not WP:NPOV. Secondly, you have cited the Constitution of Pakistan vaguely, what article are you referring to, and what text are you citing it for? Lastly, "according to pro-western sources" also seems non-WP:NPOV. Refer to the edit: [2]. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Your edits have been correctly reverted. Firstly, how is this a constitutional coup where the Speaker of the National Assembly exercised his powers given to him by the Constitution to dismiss a motion? The Speaker used Article 5 to dismiss the no-confidence motion after reading the minutes of the National Security Council's meeting that acknowledged a blatant effort to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan. Speaker's decision was protected by Article 69 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the sitting government dissolved the assemblies and announced elections after the no-confidence motion, which makes it fictitious at best to call it a 'coup'.

Secondly, this is a judicial coup precisely because Article 69 is absolutely clear on separation of power under Pakistan's constitution. It does not allow the Supreme Court or any court to inquire into the proceedings of the parliament on grounds of irregularity of procedure. In fact, the Supreme Court's bench of five judges led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial have blatantly violated the Constitution, for which they can be tried under Article 6. Furthermore, this was a successful judicial coup because the judiciary of Pakistan announced a decision on a matter over which they had no jurisdiction, and ordered the sitting government to hold the no-confidence motion at a date and time of the Supreme Court's choosing. Please read Clause 9 of the decision.

As I left a comment in my edit, this is a developing situation and sources will report on events in the days to come. This regime change operation is the first of its kind in Pakistan and there is evidence in it being US-sponsored. This is the first time a majority party's govt has been dismissed by a coalition of all other parties (it is literally one vs all). Due to the Official Secrets Act the exact source cannot be disclosed by the Govt of Pakistan, but the ousted Prime Minister Imran Khan took steps the night he was ousted to have the cabinet approve for a limited declassification. The evidence (in the form of a letter) is in circulation with the Speaker of the National Assembly, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, the President and the Chairman of the Senate. As and when articles are released they will added. Please refrain from changing it. Zafar (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

While I understand and appreciate your reply, and perhaps you are right. However, to me it seems that it was a very simple of process of No-confidence motion being laid, and the PM losing his office. As far as the intervention of Supreme Court is concerned, I have very limited understanding of Pakistani polity, but here in India, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitutional and can give legally-binding decrees in enforcing constitution, even to the President. Nonetheless, as I said I am no expert on Pakistani polity, and as your reply seems convincing prima-facie legally, therefore I shall leave it you, as the final interpreter. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

However, I am not convinced of the "US-intervention" and certainly welcome some evidence on it. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said, information and facts regarding events that unfolded will be reported in the days to come. You may find this article illustrative, and this article informative. Zafar (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The Indian democracy has had no unconstitutional breaks in continuation, therefore it is much more mature and instills trust in the separation of power. The Supreme Court of India is therefore truly 'supreme'. In Pakistan the judiciary (Supreme Court) has a terrible record. They have legitimised all military coups (which completely subverts and violates the Constitution), and have committed what is known as a 'judicial murder' by passing the verdict of capital punishment by hanging of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The Constitution provides this supposed fail-safe in the form of Articles 69 and 6 to thwart a military-judiciary alliance to overthrow a legitimate government, but has had little affect to prevent such occurrences. Zafar (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is related to the Military coups in Pakistan, while there will be a debate on whether or not this was a judicial coup, however, it will remain, out of the scope of this article.

you may add this via consensus at the 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis, thank you. Elmisnter! (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elminster Aumar What about this constitutional coup listed. I would suggest that this page be rather be renamed to Coups in Pakistan, listing all types of coups under one page. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, article can be rename to include all instances where the elected government was removed in a coup, although when I read constitutional coup, I always wonder how can a coup be constitutional. In any case, we need neutral sources to call the current intervention by court as a judicial or constitutional or any other type of coup. Elmisnter! (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

There are some sources in my knowledge calling it a coup. Anyway, you may want to see constitutional coup. Regards,User4edits (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I just saw the 1953 article about the dismissal of the government, in that case the government had a majority and it was removed. In the current crisis, government had lost the majority and avoided the no-confidence motion. Court's intervention was very limited, and asked to carry on with the no-confidence vote. I currently do not have an opinion on whether or not is should be called a coup, there are several articles claiming this to be a historic good by the court because it did not follow the same pattern as original doctrine of necessity. Elmisnter! (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the above conclusion because the Supreme Court's intervention was not limited. Please read Para 9 of the decision where even the date and time of the vote is ordered by the Court, in conjunction with Article 69 of the Constitution which clearly defines the concept of separation of power. My detailed commentary is in the response above.

The Court and supporters of its decision are falsely claiming it did not follow the same pattern as original doctrine of necessity, when in fact it did. Please see Doctrine of necessity#Pakistan, 1954: First use.

I agree we should add this under the 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis. I'll happily extend it with the information here and above (minus the opinions of course).

On the question of whether this is a coup, yes it is because a coup is 'an illegal seizure of power from a government', which is exactly what happened. We can discuss the merits of the decision of the Deputy Speaker to dismiss and disallow the vote of no-confidence citing Article 5, but Article 69 provides cover to the parliament for an error or mistake in the way an assessment has been carried out. Zafar (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, I do not have an opinion, there are plenty of supporters for both views, our job is to cover all the views, both for and against.

This article is relevant to Military coups so we cannot cover it in this matter. Elmisnter! (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2022

The current article is not adhering to a neutral point of view.

As evident from the fact, millions of Pakistani's protested against an imposed prime minister on twitter. It is clear how editors are blatantly lying about these events without a neutral point of view. After a successful US intervention, Shehbaz Sharif was selected as the 23rd Prime Minister of Pakistan. The person in question has pending corruption cases worth 40+ billion rupees. This foreign intervention is not acceptable to Pakistani citizens. Mm subhan (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)