RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Military dictatorship’

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Zardari!

11 Apr

Posting this to remind Pakistanis, what was being written about President Zardari (the then inmate of a jail) in 2005. Written by  a veteran journalist, a columnist par excellence, an inspiring rights / peace activist and a professional with unblemished credentials, Beena Sarwar, this post appeared on January 26, 2005 in The News, a paper of the same Jang Group currently at a well declared war with one person they seem to hate endlessly – Asif Ali Zardari.

It would be interesting for the readers to think and recall history of this media group, and how it has changed sides with every changing regime. May be then we're in better position to peep through their headlines and "breaking news", into the reality!

"Corruption," pronounces Asif Ali Zardari, "is a state of mind. A corrupt person wouldn’t have taken on the establishment, wouldn’t have sacrificed eight years of his life in prison. I could have accepted a deal and got out, and kept them happy — that’s what would have benefited me most."


No, no, no, there’s been no deal, he repeats. But he is confident that the government will have to call for early elections, and that BB (whom he refers to as his ’leader’) will be back, "INSHALLAH!" We’re at Bilawal House — or Bilawal Fortress, as some call it — in Karachi (the one in Lahore is a rented premise), a few days before his departure to Dubai. There is an air of expectancy about the place, which is buzzing with men, outside the gates, in the courtyards, under a shamiana, in the living room next to the book-lined study where we meet him.

Wondering if it’s always like this, one learns that yes, it was like this even when he was in prison — having an easy time of it, one heard, air-conditioned rooms, all kinds of visitors, nudge, nudge, wink, wink… And yet, it could not have been that easy. Even if he was given preferential treatment, he was still a prisoner, deprived of home and family. And yes, there were some pretty rough moments, including solitary confinement, denial bail, and worse (remember the tongue incident?). Any luxuries would have been countered by such moments — and rides in the back of rickety police vans charging along from Karachi to Lahore for court hearings. A reporter later mentions that he developed spondalitis because of this mode of transport — he could either sit on the hard wooden bench, or stand all the way. This is why he has to walk with a cane and undergo physiotherapy.

He comes into the room briskly, despite the cane. We’re expecting an informal meeting, but the seating arrangement — he sits behind the large wooden desk facing the four of us — implies an interview. During the ensuing discussion one thing becomes clear: Zardari isn’t going to complain about his prison stint or political and personal adversities. Instead, he repeats what appears to be his mantra: positive thinking (reflected in that wide, somewhat cheeky grin, flashed along with a V-sign in every newspaper photograph or television shot taken during his prison days) — "Convert weaknesses and adversity into strength."

"There is an unrepresentative, undemocratic government, and the West will eventually have to stand with the democratic forces. That process has started. Musharraf can’t step out of the umbrella of democracy. PPP is not in a rush to get into governance, and we believe that a martial thought process is not the answer — the strength it provides is temporary. We can’t wish away those who believe in a militant approach, but the real strength comes from the people, and we have to educate them against the prevalent defeatist attitude, we must be positive, we must assert our thought process. Civil liberties are never given voluntarily; we have to demand them. And we must each do what we can. I am doing what I can; I have chosen politics. I didn’t need to."

This was a ’considered decision’. The only regret is not being able to see his children grow up — the eldest, Bilawal, was just eight when Zardari was imprisoned by the Nawaz Sharif government. But this is not a complaint. "I did it for the sake of democracy, for the people, for all our children. I could have taken the easy way out, but I didn’t. I knew that one day I would win. I didn’t know how long it would take. I am fighting and I will continue to fight."

He dismisses the allegations of corruption. "They haven’t proved one case against me. You know how it started? It was Gen. Mujibur Rehman’s brainchild (information minister during Gen. Zia’s martial law), to use the old trick: give the dog a bad name and hang him. So they created this image of me, as an Achilles heel of PPP. I couldn’t counter it because I didn’t have a political image. I did have a personal political history, my family has always been in politics that people chose to ignore, but prison was a new experience for me."

And then, some unexpected philosophy — "History will redeem me. What am I? I am just a bleep in the universal picture. So I might as well try and shine."

There were times when no one would come to see him, but he never lost faith. "Nawaz Sharif left. My graph went up. The only people I’d see would be the court reporters, and the people who were looking after me — I learnt a lot from interacting with these downtrodden people. So I wasn’t entirely isolated. I’ve spent these eight years thinking, dreaming about how we can change Pakistan’s destiny for the better."

The answer, he believes, is utilising what is considered Pakistan’s weakness — its burgeoning population — and converting this into strength. "We must invest in manpower, instead of ’toys for boys’. Invest a billion dollars in our people instead of planes."

Then he makes a startling revelation: "We are working to export nurses; I believe that women are twice as hardworking as men. We will monitor everything with modern technology. The emancipation of women is the future of Pakistan. If we give land to anyone, we will ensure it is given only to women. The trouble is that we train our sons but not our girls." His own children are treated equally, he says. Bilawal and Bakhtawar are both karate black belts, and if Bilawal is learning to shoot, so does his younger sister.

What about Benazir Bhutto, will they (the establishment) let her return? "They? Who are they to stop her? She has chosen to stay away because the world has gone mad. She is working nine hours a day, to change world opinion about us, about Pakistan."

He disagrees that she is arrogant and unapproachable. "A person with an arrogant mindset wouldn’t work so hard. Look, people here are hypersensitive. She has a thousand things on her mind. But you know how people are — they’ll want to ask something, but the preamble is so long. So sometimes she may be a bit short, and that could be seen as arrogance."

What about the contention that the Peoples Party should have sat in Opposition in 1988, instead of coming into power with their hands tied? "The circumstances then were such that that seemed the only choice," he answers. "Perhaps it was not, but we are saying that with hindsight."

So if there were fresh elections and a similar situation developed, would his party accept power with similar compromises? Zardari refuses to say. "She’s the leader. Her wisdom is more than mine. Whatever decision she makes will be correct and we will abide by it."

But speaking for himself, what he would like to be if in power again, is environment minister. "That’s my passion. I can’t believe that the people responsible for that oil spill near Clifton beach are still around, that the environmentalists have not picketed KPT and so on. There is so much apathy. I’d like to change that."

But he has full faith in the people. "We are portrayed as a lawless society, but it’s not true. The average person is hardworking and honest and law abiding. Who are the people who indulge in crime? Who supports them?" He answers his own question: "From political parties like the MQM, from the jagirdars and the sardars, all crime stems from these roots!"

His minders finally prevail upon him to leave for his next appointment, and as he exits the room, that wide grin reminds one of the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, who every now and then would slowly vanish, its grin being the last thing to fade out. Asif Ali Zardari’s grin lingers on too. And you wonder who will have the last laugh…

 
No Comments

Posted in Looking Back

 

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

 

Pause, Sirs, and Ponder

24 Dec

This article was written by Pakistan's finest analyst, Mr. I. A. Rehman, for Dawn, published on December 24, 2009

 

The fact that in its response to the Supreme Court judgment of Dec 16 the nation is divided cannot be denied, and prudence demands that the causes of this division should not be brushed aside without careful scrutiny.

A large section of society believes that Pakistan has become a corruption-free entity and a judicially controlled democracy while a none-too-small section feels deeply hurt. Much can be said for and against both sides.

The hailers are largely guided by their desire to wipe off the shame of becoming one of the most corrupt states in the world. They appear full of zeal for righteousness. However, they will do their cause enormous harm if they fall for the universally repudiated view that the ends always justify the means. The people of Pakistan paid a heavy price for taking this route when they welcomed the usurpation of power by Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf.

The wailers are largely moved by the apparent setback to their group. They think the law has been used for a political purpose. They have strong memories of the Tamizuddin and Nusrat Bhutto cases and the judgment against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They could be wrong. However, they will do themselves enormous harm if they appear to be defending corrupt persons or practices.

Somewhere between the two extremes stand those who wish to make sure that good intentions do not lead to the dreaded hell. Some of them have a longer record of denouncing corrupt rulers and condemning the NRO than the born-yesterday anti-vice squad. They believe the NRO was a bad law, that it should not have been made, that no one claiming public support should have sought to benefit from it and that those who made this obnoxious law as well as its beneficiaries should pay for their lapses.

According to them the Supreme Court verdict has two parts: one dealing with the NRO, the other with broader themes. They have no quarrel with the first part. They only want to have their fears of the long-term implications of some of the assumptions underlying the court order duly and properly addressed.

The NRO was such an easy target that a single shot (Articles 4, 8 and 25 of the constitution) was enough to demolish it. A fusillade from heavy cannons (Articles 62 (f), 63 (i and p), 89, 175, and 227) has created problems.

The clauses of Articles 62 and 63 cited now constitute part of Ziaul Haq’s arbitrary amendments. They have never been debated by a representative assembly and have been consistently denounced by democratic opinion. It has often been said that the legislatures have not touched them. But this argument should be examined in the context of the circumstances in which the post-Zia assemblies have been elected and the conditions under which the democratic regimes have been allowed to function. Invoking Ziaul Haq’s interpolations in the 1973 constitution, whose revival in its original form is the battle cry of all democratic parties, is like quoting a PCO judge’s ruling before today’s independent judiciary.

Further, reference has again been made to the 'salient features of the constitution, i.e., independence of the judiciary, federalism, parliamentary form of government blended with Islamic provisions' and 'no change in the basic features of the constitution is possible through amendment'. The argument was last heard in May 2000 when 12 judges of the Supreme Court had not only upheld the Pervez Musharraf coup of October 1999 but also allowed him the power to amend the constitution.

Now, the debate over certain parts of a national constitution being outside parliament’s authority to amend them has been going on in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh for over 40 years (Indian Supreme Court verdicts of 1967, 1973 and 1975; Pakistan Supreme Court verdicts of 1963, 1997 and 2000). Professor Conrad, the German scholar who has done much to promote this principle, has succinctly put it thus: 'Any amending body organised within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority.'

An essential question is: are courts the sole forum for determining the basic or fundamental or salient features of a constitution? In many countries (including Canada, Germany and India) the provisions that cannot be routinely amended by parliament are identified in the constitution itself. This is an issue that calls for a thorough debate.

In any case the issue before the Supreme Court was not an amendment to the constitution that would have attracted the basic features theory. The issue before it was an ordinary presidential ordinance. And for laws and ordinances that conflict with the constitution clear remedies are available.

By invoking Article 227 in the present case the Supreme Court seems to have put Islamic injunctions in command of the whole constitution. Quite a few lawyers argue that this amounts to overruling the court’s judgments in the Hakim Khan (1992) and Kaneez Fatima (1993) cases.

The position as far as a lay writer can understand is this: the power to strike down a law for being repugnant to Islamic injunctions lies with the Federal Shariat Court and no other court. Article 227 only allows the Council of Islamic Ideology to recommend changes in laws on the ground of repugnancy to Islam. The article does not empower any forum to strike down any law. When 17 judges of the highest court invest Article 227 with the power to nullify a law it could amount to constitution-making. It is necessary to dispel the fears that the courts could start striking down any law they consider violative of Islamic injunctions.

Besides, the matter is not one of law alone, it is essentially political. The 'salient features of the constitution' theory has no answer for conflicts between these features — between a parliamentary form of government and Islamic injunctions, for instance. And what will happen to the independence of the judiciary if one accepts the view propounded by many Islamic scholars that in an Islamic order the ameer is the head of all state organs — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary?

One cannot forget the case started by Mr Kaikaus, a former Supreme Court judge, in a Shariat appellate bench but which was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court on a technical ground. He appealed to the bench but withdrew his plea because he did not think the judges on it were Muslims! Mr Kaikaus had branded the parliamentary form of government, the system of elections, and the existence of political parties as un-Islamic! Fears of many such cases coming up are not groundless. The people of Pakistan have every right to ask whether Ziaul Haq’s agenda has been revived.

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 

The Story of My Beloved

06 Oct

Published on March 14, 2007
The story of my beloved has taken many turns, pleasant and unpleasant, cheery and miserable, heartwarming and upsetting, pleasing and distressing. Some times it seems to be ‘child of lesser god’. And at others, it appears to be the victim of sheer credulity of those who gave birth to it and disregard of its guardians. Who is this ill-fated fellow? It’s none other than my beloved country.
Born out of wedlock, it showed the world one of the chain products of the end of colonial era. Those at the helm of affairs at that point in time, probably knew very well what unfortunate course of actions they’ve allowed to happen for superficial reasons. They wrote the history with a vision to push the posterity in unfathomable oblivion. And sons and daughters of my age and the younger fell prey to immeasurable degrees of historical and geo-political visionless-ness at the hands of raped history that was taught throughout the decades. All the voices of dissent were termed against the spirit of “patriotism” – a dubious airy term that did not have a definite shape, colour and intensity. It acquired whatever shape and colour “they” wanted it to have. And it was “they” who continued to determine the level of ‘Muslamaaniyat’ of fellow citizens thereby nationalizing the religion.
People, who historically had been against the territorial concept of state and restricting Musalmaans to the geographical boundaries as opposed to a more totalitarian concept of Pan-Islamism, suddenly started dictating the terms to govern the new born country. Who let that happen? Probably the ones who had, besides professing the greater ideals of humanism, equality of opportunities and political participation of the socially excluded Musalmaans – the values far greater than blind theocracy, carried on with permitting the pregnant slogans like, Pakistan Ka Matlab Kia: La Ilaha Illallah. As an insightful and astute statesman, Jinnah soon comprehended the gravity of the turn of events and tried to mend the error (deliberate or un-deliberate) in judgment of the popular sentiment on the part of the political coterie of the time that led the euphoria to an unprecedented hike. He delivered a marvelously drafted speech on August 11, 1947, refuting any likelihood of a theocratic state in the making. The speech, understandably, was put under the carpet after his death.
During his very short post-partition life time, he tried his best to mend the ways the politicians had chosen as the mean to perpetuate their consolidation of power. The unbridled political cronies of that period went berserk after the death of their Quaid. The problems of governance resulted in a political penumbra that was unmanageable and irrepressible by them on account of being under trained in the traditions of democracy and business of politics. The country being diversified ethnically, linguistically and culturally, posed various problems of governance. The most intoxicating one being the tribulation of keeping un-natural adherents united. The air of distress and feelings of downright disillusionment of people of these diverse federating units accelerated the centrifugal forces amid oft repeated Indian apprehensions about sustenance of the juvenile country. The situation compelled the leaders to create something that could gel the culturally and ethnically disparate people together.
In the backdrop of a campaign for Pakistan run mainly by the British-leaning Muslim feudal triggering religious sentiments in order to gain maximum popular support for a bizarre political solution, the best solution that appeared to those in control was to continue with religious question as the prime concern of country’s polity. And that’s the point where things started to take a turn for worst. The right refused to budge in for slightest of disagreement. Politicians, out of their vested interests, continued to bow before the Islamists throughout Pakistan’s history checkered with intermittent short periods of democratic respite as well as longer autocratic regimes run largely by the supreme ‘protectionist’ institution of the country.
On the other hand, the ‘Protectionist Inc.’ was allowed to claim its political role in early years of Pakistan. The young country failed to inherit politicians with a farsighted vision, experience of parliamentary democracy and acquaintance with political nuances of the time, necessary to lead the popular prophecy. The lot that was available was content finding easy answers to strategic questions. Appointments of political personages at public offices without elections and a lack of unified inspiration to run the business of country on a dialogue and consensus-based governance structure took it away from democratic norms and traditions. The scripture of country’s security was written overnight to shift the attention from failures to deal with brawling issues of ethnicity and socio-political hegemony of a political powerful group. The notion of security took the rulers on the gates of Protectionist Inc. that ended up in continually empowering this institution with almost no accountability and frequent opportunities for it to exercise power beyond its ambit of security.
On economic front, the early rulers, wrongly or rightly, decided to sell the balance-of-power theory of the world powers in a post World War II scenario. The one with an offer of larger ‘profit base’ as opposed to the one more just but politically closer to India – the enemy, won the game. It’s the same point in time when Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi warned to beware of the capitalist scheme but in vain. Pakistan succumbed to the glittering capitalist west and showed emerging communist neighborhood a thumb down in “larger interest” of the country. The shrewd capitalist used the religious euphoria of newly born nation that was in search of its identity after divorcing five thousand years of glorious history.
How much we gained and lost due to this policy, are questions the answer of which has now come to be known to all and sundry. But the story doesn’t end here. My beloved endured severest of blows in its face. It saw a nerve wrecking war within, it saw its daughters raped by those who were trusted for protecting it, it saw its own sons slaughtered in the name of internal security and saving federation. To the extent that its eastern arm was maimed. And when its shoulder was bleeding after the painful amputation, those who were responsible for the situation, started a high pitched drama to shift the focus from their failure to the alleged failure of the political parties. An excruciating defeat for which the people were not taken into confidence, they were not prepared for the results very well calculated by the army during the whole incidence. The scars were deep. The wounds were hemorrhagic.
The story still goes on. People were deceived, democracy was robbed, elected premier was hanged, a long black night prevailed. When my beloved saw a small ray of hope by comforting light of democracy, it turned out to be mirage. The same religious fanaticism was flourishing, political exclusion was at its peek, and lack of accountability had become a contagious epidemic, which had now infested politicians as well as other vital institutions. It was only then, that a strange thing happened. A good man of military came to the rescue. Beating the drums of equal opportunities, meritocracy, consensus-based governance, accountability for all, promises of probable economic boom, mixed slogans of eradicating poverty and hopes to become home of multinationals and what not? The civil society experienced a much desired political orgasm.
No, not a happy ending folks! It was only after that climax of excitement did the people find out that they were used as medieval concubines. Same era of sham democracy, exclusion, disregard of democratic institutions and now offense to the prime instrument of justice had returned with all its “pomp and glory”. My beloved is blubbering. My question from the most potent man of this country is: Is there any relief fro my beloved? When?
 
No Comments

Posted in Writings

 
 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes