INDIAN COURT: SHARIA LAW CARRIES NO LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Supreme Court in India has ruled that individuals cannot be legally subjected to any parallel religious authority. Muslim citizens may choose to abide by Shariah law on arbitrary personal matters, but cannot be forced to observe its laws in any way that might jeopardize their fundamental rights. India’s court system is inherited from the British system, but with India’s Muslim population around 150 million, Islamic courts in predominantly Muslim areas have wielded considerable influence. Islamic leaders are denouncing the ruling and encouraging Muslims to continue abiding by Shariah law. Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised during his election to bring Indian under a common legal code. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has also supported common law as a means to help gender equality, particularly regarding marriage, property and divorce, where Shariah law gives women very few rights. (Voice of America, July 7, 2014;Associated Press, July 7, 2014)
INDIA ASKS UN KASHMIR TEAM
Following a visit to Kashmir by Prime Minister Modi, the Indian government has asked the UN mission to Kashmir to abandon its rent-free headquarters in Delhi, where it has been since 1947 when a UN Security Council resolution was passed to supervise the Indo-Pakistan ceasefire in Kashmir. The BJP government argues that the UN mission largely lost its purpose after the 1972 Simla Accord, even though Pakistan has consistently pressed for third-party intervention to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Major Nicolas Diaz, head of the UN Delhi office, said no reasons were given for vacating the office, but that the group would continue to operate in line with the UN mission while looking for alternative accommodations in Delhi. While in Kashmir, Prime Minister Modi launched a new hydro-power project and chaired a security meeting. (BBC, July 4, 2014; Reuters, July 9, 2014)
PAKISTAN CLAIMS HEADWAY IN GROUND OFFENSIVE
A spokesman from Pakistan’s Army says that the military’s long-awaited offensive in North Waziristan has severely disrupted militant activity in area, including seizing a large bomb-making factory in the town of Miranshah. The ground offensive began almost two weeks ago, and the army claims to have killed 370 militants, although the numbers have not been independently confirmed. North Waziristan has long been a safe haven for al Qaeda, Taliban, and Haqqani Network militants. The Pakistan Army has for years rejected calls from the U.S. to launch an offensive there, only capitulating after a series of deadly attacks by the Pakistani Taliban and the collapse of peace talks with the militant group. Officials say about 750,000 people have fled their homes since the start of the offensive three weeks ago, sending a stream of refugees into Afghanistan. While counterterrorism officials have praised the launch of an offensive in North Waziristan, many are convinced that the vast majority of militants have simply fled to nearby tribal agencies or across the border into Afghanistan; an outcome that seems likely given Pakistan’s public announcement of the offensive weeks and even months in advance. (BBC, July 1, 2014)
PRELIM AFGHAN ELECTION RESULTS SHOW GHANI WINNER
Preliminary results from the June 14 Afghan elections indicate former finance minister Ashraf Gahni has a substantial lead with 56% of the vote. The results were supposed to be announced on July 2 but recounts are being done at 2,000 polling stations targeted with fraud allegations. The chief election commissioner has cautioned against drawing any conclusions until final election results are announced, acknowledging that fraud did take place and “some governors and government officials” were involved. He has asked for more time for investigations before final results are announced on July 22. Ghani’s opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, who won a plurality of votes in the first round of balloting, has deemed the balloting illegitimate and his supporters have staged nationwide protests. Washington has cautioned both sides not to resort to extra-judicial violence, insisting that U.S. aid would be suspended if either candidate sought to annul the elections by force. (Voice of America, July 7, 2014)