RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Lawyers’ Movement’

Open Letter to Hamid Mir

30 May

Islamabad,

May 30, 2010


Dear Mr. Hamid Mir,


Much has been said and written about your audio tape since last two weeks. I have also read your rebuttal, your email, a message that got "leaked" – as is claimed by one of the blogs, in which you're (claimed to be) clarifying your position and Asian Tigers' position, and a recent letter to an international newspaper. I do understand how this whole business of terror-network is run in Pakistan, how many state or non-state actors and interlocutors are involved in umpteenth levels of negotiations and contact building, but still this is matter of grave concern for an ordinary citizen of Pakistan.


Let me reiterate Hamid sahib, that as a citizen of Pakistan, I'm the primary stakeholder of terror business. Its me (as in the citizen) who has greatest threat from the terrorist attacks at personal level, as well as at a collective level. Its us – common citizens – who have to face embarrassment and humiliation in foreign lands as green passport holders, when it comes to Pakistan's terror-craft. My country, its eroding honor, its international credibility and life of millions of its citizens are under direct threat. It is, thus, a matter of gravest concern for us to see into details of who is responsible and / or is accomplice in all this business, and who is benefitting from killing my country's people and axing its honor among the nations of the world. I hope you do understand and appreciate this point.


It makes me, moreover, absolutely shocked at and skeptical of the role of entire media or at least a section of media, when I see you – the man who does not mince his words while telling us how bad and corrupt is the government, how immoral it is on the part of Jamshed Dasti to present fake (although unproven by any court of law) educational degrees, and how incompetent it is on the part of Interior Ministry for not having been able to control terrorism. This loud voice against the ills of the society & the government, brokering with the terror network is definitely not a pleasant episode for most of the people of Pakistan, who trust all of the TVenngelists (you inclusive) for identifying weaknesses of politicians (it is understandable why you do not touch upon the corruption of many other institutions which are holy cow in our country).


Hamid sahib, we know each other at least as acquaintance since past few years and keep meeting and exchanging greetings in Islamabad's drawing rooms and parties. Based on your apparent verbal frequent assurances of being committed to democracy, citizens' rights and upholding of journalistic standards, we supported you throughout the movement for citizens' right to information and freedom of speech, in the wake of a ban on your program during Musharraf's regime. Although that ban won you and many other TVengelists much of the credibility and legitimacy as "principled" journalists who "did not bow before a dictator". But we somehow knew you had very close contacts with most of the terrorist outfits, not that you ever tried to hide it. Interviewing Osama Ben Laden is not an evidence against you, but being Taliban apologist throughout and promoting their agenda subtly in your program, definitely is. We knew you are a journalist, quite active so, and quite in the limelight so, and that by the token of being a "frontline" journalist, you need to keep contact with everybody especially those who can make news. But we never knew the extent to which you are / have been part of these networks. I'm still ready to give you concession of being an ambitious "investigative" reporter, if you kindly clarify yourself of all the charges – too heinous, grave and ugly to be kept yourself stuck with. Here go my questions Mir sahib:


  1. You have been telling us ever since this tape was released, that Daily Times has done a damage to you by unilaterally publishing a story about it. Then you said that the tape is concocted and President Zardari's PPP is behind it. Then you said its ISI doing it with you. Then you said you've met with the President and all doubts have been cleared and that PPP is not behind this tape. And then you said that the voice on the tape is not yours, it is machine produced. Well, if it is produced / manufactured by the machine, then there exists machines that can be used to detect if the voice is original or not. I don't think you need to worry about it much. And then you started a silence because the case is "sub judice". Well, there have been many other issues that have been sub judice but we kept on having the privilege of hearing you on all those issues. But still, respecting your decision not to speak on the tape issue, we wouldn't ask about it. But what we'd like to ask is, whether you spoke to a Punjabi Talib ever?
  2. Did you ever share the information about the upcoming military operation against North Wazirastan with one of these networks?
  3. Didn't you propagate religiosity among masses through your program?
  4. What do you think of Ahmadis / Qadiyanis? Do you really think they are worse than "Kaafirs"? And what do you mean by this? Are they, who're worse than kaafirs, liable to be killed?
  5. What do you now say, was Khalid Khwaja a CIA agent? How do you think a CIA agent should be dealt with? Should s/he be killed?
  6. Do you support the kind of jehad Taliban and other militant groups are waging? If no, why do you eel obliged to respect them like a revered soldier should be?
  7. Do you think those who wage war against the federation / state of Pakistan are punishable with treason? If yes, why do you support Maulvi Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid? Why do you call Rasheed Ghazi a shaheed knowingly that he was killed during his war with Pakistan army? Do you consider Pakistan Army, which is fighting these criminals terrorists, as "Baatil force" against which jehad is normally waged?
  8. You were among those TVangelists who pressurized the then government to start operation on Lal Masjid / Jamia Hafsa duo, but immediately after the operation, you started molding people's opinion against that action, in favour of the criminals who challenged the writ of the state. What do you say to explain it?
  9. You recorded a program immediately after the Lal Masjid operation was completed. You arranged the whole drama of a girl crying and ranting out emotional speech to emotionally charge the people against military operation on Jamia Hafsa, who in the beginning wanted the operation. Do you really think this kind of journalistic dishonesty is allowed when it comes to your cause?
  10. What exactly is your cause? Does it sync with the 'cause' of those militants you keep talking to?
  11. After months of this first program, you recorded another program with around a dozen more students of different Madrassas. During the recording you kept on influencing the participating students to get as angry as they can, against the operation on Jamia Hafsa / Lal Masjid. On whose orders / suggestions did you do so? If you did it on your own, what was your inspiration? Do you think the culprits of public violence were actually crusaders of Islam? And that they are / were worthy of respect?
  12. We heard you saying on the tape (for us – the citizens of Pakistan – the voice was yours unless proven otherwise) that Taliban could explode as many NATO trucks as they can. What is your personal belief? Should the terrorists explode / bombard NATO trucks to push them out of Afghanistan? Are you with terrorists for human killings whether or not they are of Pakistanis?
  13. We heard you listening on tape from that TTP representative that there would be more of suicide blasts in the country. You were neither shocked nor agitated. Do you think they're doing a right thing by bombing innocent Pakistanis to death? If not, why didn't you inform the authorities responsible for security? If you did, whom did you talk / write?
  14. Why do you think ISI is your enemy? What exactly have you done to invite ISI's wrath?


There are many such questions that emerge after hearing your tape. Can you please address them for the sake of record and reference so that your audience could not be led astray by those who want to malign you? Since you have an image at South Asia level, and keep portraying yourself as 'Amn ki Fakhta' when you're in India and in SAARC countries generally (unlike obviously your stance on Indo-Pak relations which you keep reiterating for local audience), I'm copying this email to senior journalists as well as prominent civil society activists, media houses and senior columnists from the region.


Awaiting your reply,

Marvi Sirmed

Islamabad

 
3 Comments

Posted in Writings

 

Folly, not clash of institutions

30 Jan

By Ayaz Amir for The News, appeared on Friday Jan 29, 2010

Clash of institutions has a grand ring to it, suggestive of Cromwell's Roundheads battling the monarchy; or the children of the French Revolution slaughtering the French nobility; or Lenin's Bolsheviks storming the Winter Palace. 

 

Would that this were the state of affairs in Pakistan. We could then expect something creative, a higher synthesis, to emerge from all this disorder. But we are not that lucky. This is less clash of institutions than elephants on parade: large egos on the march, the vanity of mediocrity on display — dressed up, as Pakistani mediocrity mostly is, in the colours of national salvation. 

 

If Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is refusing to put a pistol to his head, if he is refusing to become another Farooq Leghari, and if the National Assembly (including the PML-N) is with him on the matter of not committing collective suicide, media samurais — of whom there are not a few and who deserve the title of Ustad-e-Fidayeen better than any Taliban — are dismayed, and almost on the verge of hysteria, because the triumph of prudence is the last thing they wish to celebrate. 

 

For six months and more these laptop warriors have been spreading confusion and alarm, conning a public which they take to be gullible into thinking that political change is around the corner. But their deadlines having not been met, not once but repeatedly, it is not surprising if there is an air of increasing desperation about their battle-cries, which they expect the public to take as serious analysis. If their frantic outpourings are serious analysis, comic relief acquires a different meaning. 

 

Two slogans have proved the most enduring in our history: Islam and corruption. Every humbug in authority, especially when besieged and short of real answers to our many problems, has raised the banner of Islam, none more loudly than Gen Ziaul Haq, who would be prince if ever there was a kingdom dedicated wholesale to the worship of hypocrisy. The more of a mess we have made of our Constitution the greater the reliance on Islamic references — not for acting upon them, perish the thought, as for the sacred rites of lip-service and window-dressing. 

 

To much the same use has been put the slogan of corruption. In every military coup, from Ayub to Musharraf, in every civilian coup, whether carried out by Ghulam Ishaq Khan or Farooq Leghari, the eradication of corruption has figured as the foremost priority. Ironic, then, is it not, that after every forced transition, every turn of the screw, the one thing to explode was corruption? So much for the good intentions, and so much for the heaven they led to. 

 

At present too the idea of change — that change is necessary if Pakistan is to survive — has been hyped up relentlessly around the theme of corruption. Foremost in this campaign, although keeping themselves well hidden in the shadows, have been the self-appointed guardians of our ideological frontiers. They may have been less than adept at guarding our geographical frontiers — the ones visible on a map — but the ramparts of ideology, in their own definition of this term, they continue to guard jealously.

 

. . . .  it is salutary to remember that the judges did not restore democracy. It was democracy which restored them. 

 

The laptop warriors may be doing their own thing, for in their ranks are to be found the odd knight of good faith genuinely taken in by all the talk about corruption, but the wrecking game they are embarked upon fits in neatly with the agenda of the ideological warriors who are just not comfortable with a civilian dispensation. 

 

Angels from heaven can descend tomorrow and minister to the needs of the Islamic Republic, but the ideological warriors and the definers of strategic depth — one and the same thing — won't be satisfied. Why do they suffer the Constitution? Why do they endure civilian trappings? If they are so impatient with democracy they should make Myanmar their model and once and for all have done with the charade of democracy. 

 

It is a measure of the success of the forces out to alter the political landscape that in just two years since the revival of democracy, they have managed to instil into the minds of the middle class — which for all its presumed sophistication is the first to fall for such gambits — that Pakistan's number one problem is corruption. If this bull is caught by the horns salvation is at hand. If not, the Republic faces ruin and destruction. 

 

The lawyers' movement did much good in that it helped weaken the foundations of dictatorship, although I must hasten to add that by itself it wasn't strong enough to defeat that dictatorship. That outcome had to await the fruition of the political process as signified by the holding of elections and the assumption of office by a political government. Even so, the lawyers' movement was an inspiring sight while it lasted. To a nation caught in the throes of depression it gave a glimpse of what resolve and sustained commitment could achieve. 

 

But there have been some negative effects too. One is the outbreak of a species of arrogance amongst lawyers finding vent in violent and yahoo behaviour. The frequency of such outbursts is serving to dim the shine of the lawyers' movement, the heroes of yesterday allowing themselves to be seen in a poor light. The second is the rise of a strange kind of innocence which seems to be divorced from any understanding of Pakistan's tempestuous past. 

 

This innocence finds expression in the belief that the movement and the subsequent restoration of the judges were turning points in our history. In this somewhat exalted view of things, the restored judges have been cast in heroic colours, indeed likened to prophets of a new dawn in which justice and the rule of law will always prevail. It was no doubt in a like spirit of exaltation that Justice Jawwad Khawaja in his added note to the detailed judgement of My Lord the Chief Justice in the NRO case stated that the last three years in their momentousness "… can be accorded the same historical significance as the events of 1947… and those of 1971…" 

 

Jinnah was the hero of 1947 and Yahya the anti-hero of 1971. While Musharraf can be made to run a close parallel to Yahya, whom should we take as the Jinnah of the last three years? In any event, this rendering of history can be faulted on another count. On our side of the divide, Jinnah was the sole architect of 1947. Lawyers and judges have not been the sole shapers of the outcome of the last three years. They played a part and often a heroic part in those events but not the sole part. 

 

And it is salutary to remember that the judges did not restore democracy. It was democracy which restored them. As we go on about a new dawn this sequence of events should not be forgotten. 

 

Furthermore, as laptop warriors foam at the mouth and serve up their beliefs and desires as news and analysis, faith that a new dawn is really at hand will be immeasurably strengthened if the guardians of justice take up two pressing challenges: (1) apologise in the clearest of terms, with a due sense of contrition, for the oath taken by them at the altar of Musharraf's PCO in 2000, and if some amongst their present lordships validated Musharraf's coup in the Zafar Ali Shah judgment, an apology for that too; and (2) take up instantly Air Marshal Asghar Khan's petition about the Mehran Bank scandal and the money distributed by the ISI in the 1990 elections. 

 

If there is any hesitation on both or either of these counts — and there can be very understandable reasons for exercising caution — would it be too much to ask that discretion be the better part of valour in other things as well? 

 

The inadequacy of the political class may be great and may be enough to drive one to despair. But if there is one lesson of our history it is that there is no alternative to democracy. It is within its fold and bosom that we must seek its reform and correction, and the salvation of the Pakistani nation. 

 
1 Comment

Posted in Readings

 

The Freely Political Judiciary and the NRO Fiasco

26 Dec

 

This article has been contributed for Baaghi, by Ahmad Nadeem Gehla. Baaghi is grateful to him for a brilliant analysis.

A dictator in military uniform does not become ‘constitutional head of state’ even after getting a verdict of ‘constitutionality’ from a handpicked judiciary and approval from a rubber stamp parliament. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, clearly states that a dictator who abrogates constitution along with judges and the parliamentarians who assist him are all guilty of high treason. The institutions which assisted a dictator as well as acts carried, by default remains unconstitutional unless approved by a duly elected parliament. Even after approval from a legitimate parliament, these acts might not satisfy the constitutional demands and remain as ‘political arrangements’.

Present Chief Justice was the member of Bench which validated the unconstitutional martial of General Pervez Musharaf in judgment of Supreme Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah case. He subsequently was appointed as a Chief Justice by the same dictator.  Many of us participated in movement for restoration of Chief Justice and his reinstatement was a great landmark achieved by newborn civil society of Pakistan. Apart from the political success with his restoration as Chief Justice, his appointment as a judge of supreme Court when 11 judges refused to take oath under ‘Legal Frame Work Order (LFO)’ and subsequent oath as Chief Justice was and still remains unconstitutional, as he has yet not taken oath under constitution of Pakistan. His reinstatement at the best can be a ‘political arrangement’; it cannot be constitutional by any stretch of constitutional interpretation.

Liberal and left wing politicians in Pakistan have never been able to get justice from judiciary in Pakistan, especially when powerful military establishment remains on the opposite side. ‘Jihad Enterprise’ of notorious ‘mullah-military alliance’ closed doors for ousting dictator through political movement which  face the danger of being hijacked by religious extremist groups and turned in to civil war. We have witnessed that a dictator can stage a 12th May and suicide blasts as counter measures. The options available to politicians are of negotiations with dictators to finds a workable middle path for transition to democracy, end up in prisons without conclusion of trial by puppet judiciary or get deported and exiled.

Mian Nawaz Sharif’s return after eight years of exile from Saudi Arabia can serve as the best example of choices available to politicians. On his arrival, not a single of his supporters was able to break the security arrangements of police and reach airport to welcome their leader. His party leadership rushed to Supreme Court to get a ‘restraint order’ to prevent him being illegally deported.  He is the head of second biggest political party in country, even if he was an ordinary citizen, his detention and threat of deportation was an ‘urgent matter’ in legal terms, to be taken up by court.

Constitutional courts suspend procedures to take up such matters and there are precedents where judges passed orders on such issues in middle of night. Unfortunately the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftakhar Muhammad Chaudhary after being restored first time, gave it a deaf ear. Mian Nawaz Sharif remained under detention at airport for several hours and was illegally deported from his own country by a dictator. What was the remedy available to Mian Nawaz Sharif to come back once again?

National Reconciliation Ordinance was issued by dictator Pervez Musharaf and was purely a political arrangement to withdraw politically motivated cases and facilitate the return of exile leaders. Withdrawal of cases is a recognized practice around the world where any state transforms from dictatorship to democracy. However, such arrangements are recognized being the ‘middle path’ for transition towards democracy and conflict resolution. There can be nothing more absurd than judging the ‘constitutionality’ of a law signed and issued by a dictator in uniform. As the dictator, being a party in such arrangements himself does not enjoy any legitimacy, these arrangements could not satisfy the constitutional criteria.

The NRO expired month before Supreme Court took it up for a judicial review and was not available as a law, the actions taken under that law became covered by doctrine of ‘past and closed transactions’. Only in case, President had promulgated it again after first expiry of 120 days, or Parliament has passed it in to a law, it would have been open for a judicial review. However Supreme Court decided to give it a new life for another 120 days in disregard of constitution, through the order passed in the petitions on PCO of 2007 and sent it to parliament for considering and vote. The order of SC was a clear violation of constitution as no court including SC has power to extend the time for a law which has already been expired.

During lawyer’s movement, we did not grant the power of legislation to ‘Chief Justice’ otherwise we would have follower the appeal of lawyer leaders and boycotted the election. The voluntary and unconstitutional legislation by SC and later striking down its own created law is the only precedent in legal and constitutional history of civilized world. While doing so, judiciary acted as ‘Judicial Messiah’ giving life to dead laws and later judged its constitutionality. This violation is nothing short than any dictator’s violation of constitution.

We have witnessed the extreme of ‘judicial biases’ in present formation of the ‘Bench’ of Supreme Court. This is important to remember that a decision by full court of Supreme Court in cases directly filed under constitutional jurisdiction closes every door of appeal. Those aggrieved can only file their appeals before ‘divine court’ even if the judgment doesn’t meet the standards of law and constitution and is biased. If it was a case decided by a larger bench of a High Court or minority view of a bench of SC, it does make sense. Composing such a bench in order to close all doors for those who are aggrieved, especially when President of the country is focus of proceedings leaves little doubt about Supreme Court playing a ‘political game’.

More than 200 lawyers, political workers and civil society activists gave their blood in lawyer’s movement. Off course, we did not struggle for a ‘Messiah’ but an institution. Although an overwhelming majority supported the restoration of Chief Justice, they participated in elections in much greater number despite the appeal of ‘lawyer leaders’ to boycott the elections of 2007. The record turnout in elections is a clear verdict of people that they are not looking for a messiah but wanted to judge and choose their leaders.

Although judiciary around the world observes a self imposed restrain in interfering into ‘political issues’, the situation in Pakistan had been opposite. We are witnessing same thing happening once again while judiciary is busy interfering in to ‘political questions’, its own functioning has changed little even after so many sacrifices. Public perception about judiciary in ‘Transparency International’ report for 2009 has put judiciary at the seventh most corrupt institution of the country. The head of lawyer’s movement and former President of SC Bar Association has expressed his appointment stating that ‘this is not the judiciary for which we struggled’.

When judiciary or military interferes in to political issues, it puts the institution against the will of people and people do react when their will is not respected. There can be nothing more shameful for institution of judiciary that whoever it convicts by them become qualified for highest offices of the country. When a handpicked judge of Pervez Musharaf convicted Yousaf Raza Gillani, the former Speaker of National Assembly, Asif Ali Zardari, present in court told the judge, “You have made him qualify for President of Pakistan”. When Gillani, who served five years in prison while judges were dancing on tunes of Pervez Musharaf, became Prime Minister, he released these judges from detention of the same dictator.  

Let us take case of Mian Nawaz Sharif who was removed and put in prison by General Pervez Musharaf. Supreme Court, including Justice Iftakhar Muhammad Chaudhary, not only validated the Martial Law but gave dictator the powers to amend the constitution. The same judiciary convicted Mian Nawaz Sharif for hijacking and corruption. On his return, people gave their verdict by giving government of biggest province of country to the party of that ‘hijacker’ and he is one of most popular leader of the country. On his initiative parliament is set to remove the changes from constitution which were introduced by Pervez Musharaf with ‘permission’ of judges.

Judiciary partnered in murder of ZA Bhutto and one of the judges who signed the verdict has confessed that it was a ‘judicial murder’. The people turned the grave of a ‘murder convict’ Bhutto, in to a shrine. Million visit his grave every year giving him a verdict of innocence and add in to shame for judges and generals. Benazir Bhutto was charged of corruption and made to rush from one court to other for years while millions marched for her chanting ‘Ya Allah Ya Rasool – Benazir Bekasoor’. People turned her death in to their own loss and even his worst rivals cried on her death, her party secured the highest vote in next elections.

Almost every provision of criminal laws was used against Asif Ali Zardari from corruption to terrorism and murderer charges. He was dragged from one court to other for eleven years while ‘judges of dictator’ sat over the trials for over a decade keeping him in a continuous imprisonment. In the first free election people put the same corrupt, terrorist and murderer in Presidential Palace with a two third majority. Even in bye elections his ticket holders won from Gilgat to Quetta. Dr. Ayesha Siddiqua, one of the supporter of restoration movement has expressed that ‘judgment will strengthen the military establishment and undermine democracy and weaken President’.

 Despite observing the restraint from interfering in to a political arrangement, while declaring NRO as unconstitutional, judiciary has once again decided to reopen these cases even after same exercise in futility for a decade. Each of such interference has historically proved another blow to already deteriorating institution.  Amazingly, Supreme Court ignored to pass any order against the ‘judges’ who did not conclud cases against President Zardari for a decade just to please a dictator and got favors in return. Asima Jahangir, UN Reporter for Human Rights and top supporter of judiciary restoration movement has declared the judgment to be delivered by a ‘jirga’ rather than a court of law.

Judicial activism can be a blessing and every sane person will support if courts take up issues of public interest. Unfortunately in Pakistan the trend is reverse; courts interfere in to popular and political issues while matters of public interest are pushed under the carpet. The politicians have been always a soft target for ‘dispensation of justice’ while mighty generals and judges all remain holy cows. While politicians get ‘speedy justice’, the case filed by Air Marshal Asghar Khan against the generals for misuses of public funds to form notorious right wing alliance IJI is pending in Supreme Court for twelve year without a verdict. In Asima Jahangir’s words, the order is ‘targeted justice’.

Supreme Court also announced in it short order to ‘judge’ all politicians under controversial Article 227 of Constitution which was inserted by a dictator to disqualify the liberal politicians. The law requires all politicians to be ‘righteous’ and is under review of parliamentary committee for striking down the constitutional classes inserted by a dictator. The dangerous power acquired by Supreme Court will give it a right to disqualify political leaders who does not offer five time prayers regularly and does not fast. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, head of Pro Taliban JI has announced to ‘implement’ SC judgments through street power and SC has not taken any action on his statement.

Every dictatorship in Pakistan was imposed in name of ‘accountability’ and ‘good governance’ and proved to be another disaster.  People do react when someone pretending to be a ‘Messiah’, disregards their mandate and rejects their political decision. When people had a chance, they brought back the same leaders who were ousted by ‘Messiah’. This behavior is not limited to Pakistani society alone, people in India, Philippine, Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh has reacted in similar manner. Judiciary lead government grilled politicians for two years while people voted same politicians back in government.

Corruption is a reality in developing world and particularly in Pakistani society. It can never be eradicated in one day or by once again inviting a ‘Messiah for a quick fix’. The continuation of democratic process strengthens institution and as process takes course, it eradicates corruption. Whenever an institution or a person has crossed the constitutional boundaries, it has weakened the institutions and paved ways for dictatorship.  While Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, liberal and democratic forces are strongly criticizing the judgment, ‘Pro-Taliban’ religious groups are celebrating the verdict.

The top lawyer leader and head of ‘lawyer’s movement has declared the judgment as been delivered after watching the ‘Talk Shows’ of pro Taliban private media. Many legal experts, civil society activists and human rights advocates are terming the Supreme Court’s intervention in to political decisions as revival of notorious ‘mullah-military-judges alliance’, to undermine democracy. IA Rehman, the Director of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan wrote, “The people of Pakistan have every right to ask whether Ziaul Haq’s agenda has been revived”.

Apart from some revolutionary verses of Habib Jalib sung by ‘Lal Band’ during lawyer’s movement, the role of Supreme Court remains limited to constitutional boundaries. In democracy, only people can ‘judge’ their representative, any unconstitutional exercise will again fail. The Supreme Court was restored with sacrifices and is built on ‘people’s blood’ and bound to respect ‘people’s will’. If Supreme Court sides with establishment and derails democratic process in dreams of acquiring the powers of ‘Judicial Messiahs’, people who struggled for its restoration will surely hold it accountable.

 

 
3 Comments

Posted in Readings

 

You’re Being Watched Mushy Baby!

06 Dec



This article was published in The Post in October, 2007 after the NRO promulgation. I've posted it here just as a record of history.

BB 4

As Pakistan treads through most dangerous decade of its political history, people keep witnessing densely shaded political kaleidoscope. Things have been especially precarious during past one week. Amid an intense public desire for the judiciary to play its independent role in country’s political well being, the apex court passed a judgment not very popular. Nothing could have been a surer recipe for political chaos than an adamant soldier to get re-elected as president, somersaulting politicians, a rubber-stamp parliament, a puppet executive, a divided judiciary and confused public.

 

Life has never been bed of roses for Pakistan’s uniformed president, General Pervez Musharraf after March 9, 2007 when top judge refused to succumb to the pressure exerted by the government to leave office. Invigorated by people’s support, judiciary risked going against the will of the government and first time in Pakistan’s history, people got an inkling of judiciary’s independence. Under the hang-over of a successful campaign for the restoration of Chief Justice of Pakistan, lawyers’ community announced to launch a campaign for the restoration of “true democracy” and for a president without uniform. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the aged leader of extreme right winged orthodox religio-political party, Jamaat-e-Islami, joined hands with Imran Khan the only MP from Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf, for filing a petition against the election of president in uniform in the apex court. mush

 

Once again, people’s heightened expectations from recently got “independence” of judiciary bucked up the lawyers to make the petition a rallying point. On September 29, 2007 however, the Supreme Court saved the day for Musharraf by dismissing both the petitions on “technical grounds” for not being maintainable.  Lawyers and civil society, intrigued but not disappointed by this judicial drama stretched through the past two weeks, vowed to fight the battle through the Election Commission of Pakistan. “The decision of the apex court that the petitions challenging General Pervez Musharraf’s taking part in presidential election in uniform is not maintainable, might be on the grounds that it was premature as at the time of filing the petition General Musharraf had not filed his nomination papers as presidential candidate before the Election Commission,” Justice (Retd) Fakhruddin G Ibrahim said and added “In fact, nothing has been decided still and all issues raised in different petitions will be challenged again in a more effective manner now”.

 

The lawyers, now immersed in political game, announced their candidate for presidential race. Justice (Retd.) Wajihuddin Ahmad, a respected former judge who had to leave office when he refused to take oath under notorious Provisional Constitutional Order introduced by Musharraf immediately after his taking office of the Chief Executive of Pakistan. Proposed and seconded by religious parties’ alliance Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), Wajihuddin filed his nomination papers on September 27. Things went more baffling when Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) nominated Makhdoom Ameen Faheem as its Presidential candidate.

 

All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM), an alliance of opposition parties minus PPP, went on with their decision of resigning from the National Assembly and dissolution of NWFP Provincial Assembly, where MMA, a prominent member of APDM, was in power. The decision has not been an easier one for Jamiat-e-Ulamai Islam Fazlur Rehman group (JUI-F), a coalescing unit of MMA. Posed with potent threats of internal rifts that might amount to its ultimate breakage, MMA parleys took just too long to decide about the resignations issue. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the JUI Chief, popularly dubbed as ‘soft opposition’ and ‘the king of double talk’, went head over heals to convince party mates not to resign. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the Jamat-e-Islami (JI) leader, however, took it as a threat to his party’s credibility and insisted on resignations as decided by the All Parties Conference convened in early July by Mian Nawaz Sharif.

 

The complex political horizon got thickened by PPP’s resolve to support democracy by negotiating with the General for a broader national reconciliation – a move completely un-understandable by Pakistan’s politicians whose politics revolve around trumpeting superficial political morality. Little can they sense that an all powerful military general cannot be pushed to give off power, unless is negotiated. While PML-N chief did not stop cooing the song of “threatened democracy” by Bhutto’s talking to the General, BB kept on playing table talk with the dictator’s front men for a national consensus formula that would include her three point agenda; ONE: repealing the constitutional amendment that includes bar on third term of the Prime Minister and 58-2(b); TWO: dismissal of all corruption cases on politicians, which were registered by successive political regimes against each other in their bid to eliminate opposing party from the political scene of the country, since 1985; and THREE: doffing off of the uniform by the president alongside bringing electoral reforms to ensure free and fair elections in transparent manner.

 

In an unexpected move from the presidency on October 2, withdrawal of all politically motivated cases against many politicians and thousands of non-political victims was announced. The announcement was also made nominating General Ishfaq Pervez Kiani, former spy chief, as Chief of Army Staff, which is being discussed in all drawing room discussions as being Bhutto’s recommendation, since Kiyani is said to have a “good working relationship” with Benzir Bhutto. The next day, Maulana Fazlur Rehman together with fellow clerics resigned from the National Assembly. His clever move of announcing dissolution of provincial Assembly on September 29, almost four days before the scheduled dissolution, gave government enough time to move a No-Confidence Motion against the MMA Chief Minister (According to the Constitution, a Chief Minister cannot dissolve the Assembly if a No-Confidence Motion comes against him). Exactly according to the expectations, the Provincial Assembly opposition members (the ruling party at federal level) filed a No-Confidence motion. To counter which, smart strategy should have been to take a vote of confidence next day and go for dissolution. On the contrary, the Chief Minister adjourned the session till Oct 8 – two days after the presidential polls.

 

Benazir Bhutto, meanwhile, successfully crossed all milestones of negotiations with the General and agreed on a “National Reconciliation” Formula in lieu of which, PPP would not resign from the parliament thus ensuring a legitimacy of presidential polls and giving the General a space to give off something as a gesture of reciprocating. A politically sagacious Bhutto has shown a farsightedness par excellence in that only this kind of give and take could make a long serving dictator give off maximum of his power to political actors.

 

A National Assembly Session was heard to be summoned on Oct 3, but was delayed due to ongoing parleys with Bhutto. As a successful breakthrough on these parleys could lead to hurried issuance of an Ordinance, which can only be done when Parliament is not in session, the National Assembly session was delayed for two more days. 

 

As a confident president calmly announces his resolve to contest presidential elections while in uniform, and working on post election business details with Bhutto, Justice ®Wajihuddin Ahmad, another presidential hopeful, moves a petition to the Supreme Court for a stay on presidential elections. After three days of rigorous debate, the court adjourned on Oct 5, a day prior to the elections, to Oct 17 refusing a stay on elections and barring any announcement of results till Oct 17. The decision makes both sides happy and hopeful. It seems that the newly freed judiciary is not yet ready to do away with doctrine of necessity. It has generated an unbearable disappointment among those sections of civil society, who were hoping the judiciary will now be able to play its long awaited role for strengthening democracy.

 

Maulana Fazlur Rehman is left alone by JI, its coalescing partner after a rift over resigning from the provincial Assembly of NWFP. While Maulana was facing sheer opposition from his own party members against resigning from NWFP Assembly,  he was consoled by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, the top leader of the ruling Muslim League who issued orders to his party men in the Provincial Assembly of NWFP to withdraw the No-Confidence motion. It has taken all the air from the Opposition balloon, leaving JI and Nawaz League as a shaky opponent.

 

As these lines are written and presidency has announced a National Reconciliation Ordinance, right wing politicians powered by a short sighted civil society and media are raising hue and cry on the Ordinance. People are being dragged to believe that the Ordinance is something which is going to give way to corruption in country. Little can we realize, had this move not been there, Musharraf would be keeping on with his unbridled power despite newly found alliance of media and civil society.

 

The life seems bed of roses for powers that be, which have traditionally been against the idea of a pro-people polity in the country. Bhutto being the only hope for people right now, is giving unflinching signs of returning back home. It is hoped that people of Pakistan would see the events with greater maturity, rather than being manipulated by the media hostage to the designs of establishment.

 
2 Comments

Posted in Writings

 
 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes