Deception to every rule

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Deception to every rule

  • By Anjum Niaz*

Uneasy must lie the head wearing the crown while a non-functioning chief justice has taken a shine to the people’s court.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s road show drew bumper crowds but in Karachi in company of Aitzaz Ahsan, currently closeting up as his attorney, chauffer, bodyguard, minder and spokesman. Forget the recent bloody brawls between MQM and the rest of the political parties. The disfranchised dictator, porous parliamentarians, politically-charged militants on a rampage, and corrupt bureaucracy speak with forked tongues. They lie to us with brazen faces. They hold rallies with our money and have the temerity to tell us how popular they are.

In their time, had honourable chief justices Muhammad Munir, A R Cornelius, Hamoodur Rehman, Yaqub Ali, Anwarul Haq outlawed martial law and tried the generals who abrogated the Constitution, General Musharraf today would be addressing the GHQ instead of rented rallies posing as a populist. Justice Kayani was different. He was a principled dissolute – unrestrained by convention: “Field Marshal, when you imposed martial law first there was silence, then we started to hear whispers and sir, when many people whisper it can turn into a whispering campaign,” M. Rustam Kayani had blurted out to Ayub Khan at the CSP Academy in Lahore 49 years ago. The latter’s face had turned red.

“Judges are a part of society in which they live and they cannot but be influenced by the pressures of public opinion,” Justice Kayani would argue. His conscience was swayed by popular sentiment and not the presidency. No wonder he never made it to the Supreme Court. Justice Dorab Patel too spurned the frills of the Supreme Court opting to resign in 1981 rather than taking the oath of allegiance to Ziaul Haq.

Justice Patel died leaving behind a deeply felt book Testament of a Liberal. In it, some brother judges are shown as “more political than legal.” He quotes C J Munir’s (1954-60) dictum which the CJ himself had violated: “When politics enters the portal of the Palace of Justice, democracy, its cherished inmate, walks out by the backdoor.”

Justice Munir validated not only the 1958 coup but “all future coups, provided they are successful”. Many years after his retirement, Justice Munir revealed that he was summoned by General Ayub Khan a day before the coup and shown a draft of “The Laws (Continuance of Force) Order which cancelled out the 1956 Constitution and the Fundamental Rights. Instead of dismissing it outright, the honourable judge became a party to it.

Cases questioning martial law and its critics were tried and convicted by a jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The Supreme Court lumped all such decisions under State v. Dosso and others (PLD 1958 SC 533). Justice Cornelius wrote a “lengthy hymn of praise of jirga trials…With respect, this was a function more appropriate for a politician than a Judge,” writes Justice Patel. Cornelius’s judgment in Dosso’s case was a “disaster for human rights of millions of people.”

Governments and public authorities are the worst enemies of rights of all types, continues Justice Patel, giving another example of Chief Justice Cornelius (1960-68) accepting Ayub Khan as the “Supreme Authority.” In Malik Ghulam Jilani v the Province of West Pakistan case, the appellants were held under the Defence of Pakistan Rules for criticising Ayub’s government. The CJ in his judgment wrote: “[the plea of the appellants] appears indeed to be a justification for politicians to play with fire in the hope that they will eventually be able to subdue the conflagration they cause. To bring about political changes by Constitutional means alone is legitimate.”

Kowtowing to the rulers, the judiciary in the past abhorred criticism. The Supreme Court didn’t even spare law secretary Sir Edward Snelson for his criticism of judges. Under contempt of court, a bench comprising Justice Shabbir Ahmed, Justice Yakub Ali and Justice Ortcheson fined Snelson Rs2,000 – the maximum fine permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. Ironically, Justice Shabbir Ahmed after retirement practised law and was convicted in a similar contempt of court case when he commented on a case under review by the SC in a newspaper interview.

Chief Justice Hamoodur Rehman(1968-75) followed his predecessors’ practice of not ruffling the rulers. Justice Patel says that the CJ set aside Government of West Pakistan v Begum Kashmiri case only after he noticed that “times were changing… it seemed that the tide had turned against Ayub.”

Chief Justice Yaqub Ali (1975-77) was no different. He dissented with his brother judges on providing relief to Ch Zahoor Elahi and his family whom Bhutto had victimised repeatedly. The CJ also caved in to Bhutto in Wali Khan’s case. Later his party, National Awami Party was dissolved for working against the “interests of the state.” Bhutto warned the judges that the “responsibility of the consequence will be of the Supreme Court” should they reject his reference against NAP. Rushing to Bhutto’s defence was the CJ: “The PM did not intend to show any disrespect to this court and to influence its decision in any way,” said the CJ. Such gratuitousness, writes Patel, “had a disastrous effect on the image of the judiciary.”

Thus ends the tale of opportunities missed or mis-chosen by our chief justices in the past.

“The path to criticism is a public way; justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respect, even though outspoken, of ordinary men,” remarked a British jurist Atkins on the law of contempt. As citizens we have every right to be interested in the verdict the CJ gets. Speculate on what will be a just verdict we should not but expect a just verdict we should.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/dmag23.htm

2

Re: Deception to every rule

The maker and the shakers

*** By Ardeshir Cowasjee

MOHAMMAD Ali Jinnah: Achieved his ambition, founded a country, which, he hoped (vainly, as it turned out), would be modern and democratic, a homeland in which they could live and prosper.

He enunciated his creed while addressing the first session of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, in which he clearly set forth the direction he intended his country to take. Law and order was to be the first duty of any government, and religion was not to be the business of the state. He later decreed that Pakistan would not be a theocracy to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.

He did good, he was fair, just and equitable, free of bigotry or hypocrisy, and scrupulously honest both morally and materially.

Jinnah was the first governor-general of the Dominion of Pakistan and died as such on September 11, 1948. He once told a friend that each successive government of Pakistan would be worse than its predecessor — a prediction which has sadly come to pass.

Now, to list just a few of the incompetent shakers who followed, mediocre at best, all shallow.

Khwaja Nazimuddin: Governor-general from September 14, 1948, to October 17, 1951, and prime minister from the latter date to April 17, 1953, when dismissed by Governor-General Ghulam Mohammed. A gentleman sportsman, he was never in tune with the politicians with whom he worked.

Malik Ghulam Mohammed: Jinnah chose him as his finance minister in which position he remained until intrigue and convenience made him the third governor-general ( October 19, 1951, to October 15, 1955). He set the trend by dissolving the first Constituent Assembly in October 1954.

Speaker Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan approached the Sindh High Court and his petition against the dissolution was upheld by Chief Justice Sir George Constantine. Ghulam Mohammad appealed against this decision to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mohammed Munir, who, in his infinite wisdom, accepted the appeal in March 1955.

From that moment onwards, the nation has looked upon the judiciary with suspicion and distrust. It became an accepted fact that the law can be read and interpreted as the men in power desire. Ghulam Mohammed fell ill, and was deposed.

Major General Iskander Mirza: Born November 13, 1899, died November 13, 1969. After partition he served, inter alia, as our defence secretary, minister of the interior, and governor of East Pakistan. When Ghulam Mohammad was deposed, the politicians in power appointed him as their fourth governor-general in which post he remained from October 16, 1955, to March 22, 1956, on which date he became the first president of Pakistan.

On October 27, 1958, he was deposed by his defence minister, army commander-in-chief General Mohammad Ayub Khan. Mirza was exiled and sent to London, where he worked for his living and died an honourable man. He is remembered with muted respect as a man to whom injustice was done.

Mohammad Ayub Khan: The first martial law administrator of the Republic of Pakistan which he declared himself to be on October 7, 1958, adding to it the title of president on October 27 of that year. He was the man under whom this country, for his first few years in power, was seen to be a country developing in the right direction, with the economy and industry booming.

He is remembered for his innovative system of Basic Democracy — a flop — for his ‘decade of development’ — a misnomer — and for his disastrous 1965 war with India. His decline thereafter was speedy, and sick and tired, protecting himself, he handed over power to his army chief on March 25 1969.

Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan: General Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan, Rangila Raja, a good soldier but a bad martial law administrator and head of state (March 25, 1969 — December 19, 1971). He is remembered for having saved the library at the Staff College, Quetta, when an instructor at that institution. He held the only relatively free and fair elections in the country. But he allowed himself to be manipulated by cunning politician Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and is blamed for having thrown away half the country. He died, as he had lived, within his meagre means — fiscally honest, but an exceedingly foolish man.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: The first ever civilian martial law administrator holding conjointly the post of president of the republic, which dual post he held from December 20, 1971, to August 14, 1973, on which date he promulgated a constitution at noon, which he effectively distorted some four hours later, and declared himself prime minister. He is remembered for all the wrong things, for the evil he did, and for being hanged. His younger son died in mysterious circumstances during the presidency of his successor and executor, his elder son was murdered during the prime ministership of his daughter Benazir.

Mohammad Ziaul Haq: Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, always afraid of the army, to replace the retiring army chief Tikka Khan in February 1976 chose a junior general, sixth down the line, Ziaul Haq. Zia was selected for the subservience he had exhibited while a corps commander. The fact that his confidential report declared him to be ambitious and not to be trusted was ignored.

In 1977, much to the delight of the people, he deposed Bhutto and took over the country as its third martial law administrator (July 5, 1977, to December 31, 1985) announcing immediately that he would march back to his barracks in 90 days’ time. In September 1978, he took over the presidency, remaining president of the Republic until blown up in the skies on August 17, 1988. He, likewise, is remembered for much wrong, most importantly for the misuse and abuse of religion to keep himself in power. His legacy haunts us, 19 years down the line.

Benazir Bhutto: Prime minister, twice elected, twice dismissed for corruption and misuse of power — December 2, 1988, to August 6, 1990, and October 19, 1993, to November 5, 1996. She is now desperately trying to get off the hook.

Nawaz Sharif: Prime minister, twice elected, twice dismissed for the same reasons, alternating with Benazir — November 6, 1990, to July 17, 1993, (with a short break between the dismissal of his government on April 18, 1993, and its restoration on May 26, 1993) and from February 17, 1997, to October 12, 1999. The only ‘democratic’ prime minister to have organised a storming of his Supreme Court by his partymen.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan: He took over the presidency on August 17, 1998. He manoeuvred and manipulated elections and the goings and comings of prime ministers until July 19, 1993, when he was forced by his chief of army staff, General Waheed Kakar, to resign, taking with him his prime minister Nawaz Sharif, largely responsible for his downfall. A man of strict financial probity, he allowed his sons-in-law to run riot in the corruption field.

He was intellectually dishonest, he bargained with and bowed to politicians he himself had booted out and discredited — Benazir and husband Asif Zardari — so that he could win himself a second presidential term. He finally went home, a tired old man.

Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari: Elected president on November 14, 1993, by his party chief Benazir and her men. He, as do all, succumbed to the heat from the seat of power and his good deeds as a civil servant and minister faded into oblivion. He bargained with Nawaz Sharif, a man he disliked and distrusted, so that he could gain a second term as president. He resigned his office on December 2, 1997, after the storming of the Supreme Court and the removal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Pervez Musharraf: General of the army, Chief of Army Staff. He had no alternative on October 12, 1999, but to take over the country from a most foolish prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. He operated under the title ‘chief executive’ until June 20, 2001, when he declared himself president of the republic before setting off on a much heralded trip to India. On November 16, 2002, following the general elections, he took his second oath as president of the republic.

Under the circumstances, many of us considered him to be the best of the worst available to lead the country. He has failed to deliver on all his promises. Whatever good he has done will be ‘interred with his bones’.

He was in a position to avoid the killings and mayhem which engulfed Karachi on May 12 and the responsibility for death and injury must ultimately rest on him, the buck stopping where it stops.

The advertisement inserted by his InfoMin in the press on May 16, portraying him and his prime minister, subject ‘Karachi belongs to all of us’, mocks the people of this city.

His interview with Aaj TV, broadcast on the night of May 18, clearly conveyed that he considers himself the best man to head Pakistan, come hell or high water.

There is little to look forward to. Blighted?

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm

Lessons on history seemed to be the agenda on Dawn this sunday. Very informative articles.

3

Re: Deception to every rule

^^ its problem with every dictator....

4

Re: Deception to every rule

yeah history of pakistan shows it.

5

Re: Deception to every rule

Thanks for sharing the Cowasjee article Flame. I was also thinking of posting it.

Another worth reading write-up in Dawn this Sunday was a letter by one Dr Amanullah Khan.

http://dawn.com/2007/05/20/letted.htm#7
**
Call spade a spade
**

RECENTLY I have found myself quite irritated after reading your newspaper. Your news reporters seem to twist and bend all news to their own liking.

Editorials have also been very biased. Please report the news as it happens and let the readers decide. I will mention two issues that cover most of the headlines.

Lawyers protest: During my recent visit to the US, people asked me: “What are the lawyers doing in Pakistan?” I had a difficult time explaining their actions.

It did not make sense to me that marches in the streets could help ensure the freedom of the judiciary. If they want to pressure the SJC in favour of the CJ, this action will be interpreted against the freedom of the judiciary.

They have also said that they want the president to withdraw the reference against the CJ. A big mistake. The action of the president has created several new questions: Can the president file a reference against the CJ? Who should investigate the CJ? Moreover, the CJ is not above the law.

These questions should be decided by the judiciary for any future reference. Some lawyers now claim that their protest is to have the president resign. They are unlikely to achieve it. So what do the lawyers want?

I believe that they want more political power for their profession without declaring themselves as a political party. Unfortunately, all the opposition parties have found a good excuse to shoot their guns on the shoulders of lawyers.

Karachi riots: The news media, politicians and the government were talking for a few weeks before May 12 that a confrontation between ARD parties and the MQM was likely to occur if both sides took out their rallies at the same time.

How quickly we forget that the expected outcome actually happened but everybody looked surprised.

Political parties are going around the country, agitating public and businesses, blocking traffic, purely for political gain. I think you should call spade a spade, focus on specifics: what do the political parties want and not allow them to fool public in disguise.

DR AMAN ULLAH KHAN
Lahore

6

Re: Deception to every rule

As well as this column by Anwar Syed;

http://dawn.com/2007/05/20/op.htm#1

Politicising the CJP affair

By Anwar Syed

**GOVERNMENT spokesmen have been saying all along that the lawyers and their supporters have unduly politicised a constitutional issue that should have been left to appropriate judicial forums to deliberate and settle. The lawyers’ movement started as a protest against General Musharraf’s thoughtless and arrogant encounter with the Chief Justice of Pakistan on March 9 and his administration’s rough and humiliating handling of him during the next three days.

Leaders of the bar associations and councils have declared repeatedly that they are striving not only to protect judicial independence but also to put an end to military rule and restore democracy, and that their movement will not stop until these goals are achieved. In other words, they are attempting to replace the present political system with one they regard as more desirable.

This part of their agenda is undoubtedly “political”. In an article in this newspaper (May 12), notable for its flowing and noble prose, Mr Munir A. Malik, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, argues that politics can be a fine calling. Relying on Aristotle, he views it as concern with the affairs of the state and its citizens.

Supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, and the maintenance of fundamental rights affect the lives and well-being of all citizens and are thus pre-eminently political issues. It is in this sense, he says, that the lawyers’ movement is “political to the core”. Its concerns cannot be protected except in a democracy.

The lawyers’ interest in these issues and their interest in the restoration of democracy are thus “inextricably” connected. In all of this they are acting of their own accord. But if political parties and other social forces choose to support their cause, it is not only their right but obligation to do so.

** There is more to the matter of judicial independence than the fact that the present government’s recent actions were calculated to subvert it. Judicial independence is lost not simply because an outsider is attempting to bend the judges to his will. It is lost only if and when judges become receptive to his promises of reward or amenable to his threats of penalties. In the present situation, it is not the presidential reference against the Chief Justice but the intimidation, indignity and attempted coercion to which he was subjected that posed the threat to judicial independence. The attempt failed.**

Government officials, including General Musharraf, have regretted and apologised for their high-handedness. They have relented on several of the moves they had initially made. Proceedings in the Supreme Judicial Council concerning the reference have been halted.

The “full court” is hearing the Chief Justice’s procedural and substantive objections to the government’s case. The protest against the government’s initial actions has been abundantly registered. In the resulting environment, the judges are likely to be free to speak and act as they deem fit. May we then say that the threat to judicial independence has passed, and that it is now time for the lawyers to take a break and stop their movement?

That, I suspect, is not going to happen. The lawyers may feel that while the threat has abated as a result of the popular protest, it may arise again with full force if things quiet down but military rule continues. Their struggle for the restoration of democracy may then continue even if its present scale and momentum decrease to a degree.

** An intriguing change has come about in the temper of the times and the nation’s attitudes. Not only lawyers and politicians but other professionals, including poets, writers, and creative artists are making an appearance in the anti-government rallies.**

I saw Ahmad Faraz and Kishwar Naheed (poets) and Bushra Rehman (novelist and pro-government MNA) on a television talk show the other day. Bushra Rehman said Ghalib, Dagh and Iqbal had never gone out on the streets carrying placards and shouting slogans, and that it was unbecoming of writers to participate in political rallies and demonstrations. Kishwar Naheed recalled that Hasrat Mohani, and, more recently Habib Jalib, had done so and even gone to jail for their political opinions and activism. She and Ahmad Faraz argued also that they were first and foremost citizens of Pakistan and as such it was both their right and duty to defend the cause of liberty and democracy.

The opposition to the present regime had lately been in disarray and running out of steam. Seeing that the judicial crisis had aroused the people at large, they decided to make common cause with the lawyers and other protesters.

To the best of my remembrance, none of the major political parties in the country has ever before been agitated about judicial independence. PML and the PPP each tried to seduce, intimidate, and harass members of the higher judiciary when it was in power. The three Islamic parties, ANP and Tehrik-i-Istaqlal have never had the chance to manipulate judges.

But I have never found any of them perturbed over the Supreme Court’s invocation of the doctrine of necessity to legitimise military coups. They have jumped on to the anti-Musharraf, pro-judiciary bandwagon not because they are zealously devoted to judicial independence, but because they see it as the rising tide and they have chosen to swim with it.

Before March 9 their own marches and demonstrations were fizzling out. They have gained greater visibility by associating with the pro-CJP movement.

They are synchronising their own rallies and demonstrations with the Chief Justice’s travel plans as he goes to various cities in the country to address bar associations. Dr Farooq Sattar of the MQM has recently “accused” them of exploiting the pro-judiciary protest for their own purpose of destabilising the present government.

This is true, but it need not be stated as an allegation. The opposition parties are unequivocally committed to the removal of Gen Musharraf’s government, and in pursuing that goal, which is generally regarded as worthy, they are entitled to make use of the opportunities that come their way.

Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry says his objective in travelling to places to address lawyers is entirely non-political. That may be true. But he must know also that regardless of his own inclination he has become the focal point of a tumultuous anti-Musharraf movement.

The opposition political parties are able to put up a good show in various cities because he is visiting there. Their meetings and rallies would not amount to much if they did not coincide with his presence in those places at the time. His partisans will argue that he is entitled to accept speaking engagements and travel to keep them, and that he is not responsible for what opposition political parties and others do where he goes.

This, again, is undoubtedly true. But there is another aspect of the matter, which might also be considered. A few weeks ago, when I was in Lahore, I came across quite a few people who maintained that even if the Chief Justice had used his official position to advance his son’s career, that was no big deal, for others in high places did the same.

Kunwar Idris, on the other hand, wrote in this newspaper that, yes, many others did use their official power and prestige to promote the personal interests of their friends and relatives, but that which was acceptable on the part of ministers, generals and politicians would not do for a judge.

That is true also. In pre-independence India, judges, especially members of the higher judiciary, remained aloof from public gatherings, limited their social interaction to close relatives and friends, refrained from expressing their opinions on social or political issues except possibly in the course of hearings in the courtroom or their judgments in the cases they settled.

This tradition of restraint changed to some extent after independence. Judges began to appear in public places and some of them addressed gatherings. But none of them addressed any kind of rallies, processions or demonstrations.

Justice Chaudhry has been addressing groups of lawyers. His message on all of these occasions has been essentially the same: supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, fundamental rights and judicial independence, and the caveat that none of these can be secure except in a democracy.

Insofar as the lawyers insist that their judicial and political agendas are inter-connected, Justice Chaudhry’s appearance and participation in their rallies had already been taking on a political colouring. But the gun battles between his supporters and the pro-government forces, including the MQM cadres, and the large number of the resulting deaths and casualties, have doubtless made him a political person. He did not want this to happen, but it did.

His message to the lawyers is well known to them and all of us by now. If their movement continues, then the next time they invite him to address their meetings he might consider faxing the text of his speech to them, instead of travelling to the venue to deliver it in person. That would take the fanfare out of this exercise and make it appropriately sedate in the old judicial tradition.

If and when the Supreme Judicial Council gets down to real business, it may find that the allegations against Justice Chaudhry are frivolous or unfounded, in which case he will be reinstated.

In that event, having been vindicated, but in the meantime having become a political person, even if against his own wishes, he may wish to resign his office. Following the developments of the last several weeks, it may not be appropriate for him to serve as the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

**The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, US.
Email: [email protected]

7

Re: Deception to every rule

I was hoping to maintain a balanced view in this thread and that is why neither of my articles were hopelessly one sided. But since Haris has taken it upon himself to collect and present articles emphasizing the govt. point, and going an extra mile to high lite the portions that suit that side of the opinion, allow me the liberty to have a go too.

It'll be a useless exercise, much as it has been to show the other side of the picture to the mush-gang here and I've tried avoiding it but when u try to hijack a perfectly innocent thread, I snap.

I have to run now, but I'll be back. With articles.

:)

8

Re: Deception to every rule

on second thought…its too easy and not worth the time. :chai:

~SMS~
9

Re: Deception to every rule

Flame,

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize before posting,
that truth always hurts in one way or another…:rolleyes:

BTW,
If you had a particular direction/theme in mind for this thread you should have stated so. Here is a forum and this a thread, not a blog and a pvt journal, so every one has a right to express and take part according to will and significance and you can’t accuse anyone of *hijacking *a thread.

And,
neither are the two articles I posted hopelessly one sided, but if the highlighting is an issue for you, know that it doesn’t mean you’re not supposed to read the non-highlighted parts.
I had been planning to share all of these 4 articles (plus 1 more) from Dawn Sunday 20 May 2007, since you did so first, I appreciated your having done so, and shared valuable write-ups from other analysts concerning present issues. I could have opened another thread, or could split it now, but there is a connection and no big reason why my posts shouldn’t be here.

Lastly I agree, this is all a useless exercise…not worth the time…

cheers on the chai :slight_smile:

GADHO Per Research Karna
10

Re: Deception to every rule

better than making a seperate thread, I am going to dump most articles here from now on. going back on my word, ala the Emperor. And yes, **now **I feel so proud:)

Haris, this is one day’s work. I am going to toy with u. far too easy a job this. :smiley:

Must we now learn how to skin?

  • By Ayaz Amir

“UNIFORM is part of my skin,” is the latest pronouncement of Pakistan’s ageing Commander-in-Chief. “How can I take it off?” Which almost sounds like an invitation to the nation to learn the art of skinning before this wretched thing can be taken off his back.

Never famous for reticence or brevity, the C-in-C, even by his own standards, has begun to outdo himself in terms of speaking at great length and often, alas, to little purpose. The wisdom of experience or new-born panic? Make your choice.

De Gaulle’s dictum, “Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence,” has been turned on its head. The current rule in Pakistan seems to be, “Nothing strengthens authority so much as incessant volubility.”

Pakistan’s soldier-president is not the only one who loves to talk. So does his closest ally, the Don of Edgeware Road. At the time of the earthquake in October 2005 I wrote, no doubt in a moment of weakness, that I was impressed by the MQM’s relief camp in Muzaffarabad. Soon after that I got a call from the Don which lasted a modest 25 minutes. A few days later I got another call which lasted a prize-winning 45 minutes. The soldier-president and the undisputed king of long-distance talk, birds of a feather, I suppose.

As Pakistanis we are no strangers to naked ambition; and from our experience with military rule, no strangers to military folly. But this uniform refrain is beginning to sound tiresome and downright embarrassing.

Ageing chiefs are not exactly an asset for any fighting force. It becomes worse when lame and specious excuses are trotted out to justify their desperation to cling to the top. A pity that the Pakistan army, once so proud of itself – and justly so, I may add – should be reduced to this.

Yahya versus Manekshaw in 1971 was patently unfair to Yahya because after three years of merry roistering at the top he was fit only to joust, and give a good account of himself, with the fair companions brought to him by ‘General’ Rani, high masseuse to his relaxation-needing limbs.

** A good thing that the Pakistan army is no longer in the business of war, at least not in the eastern theatre, because I shudder to think of the outcome if our ageing military leadership was ever pushed into any kind of serious fighting in that direction.**

Who are we dealing with? Napoleon, General Giap, Che Guevara or the masterminds of two of the worst operations in the annals of the Pakistan army, Kargil and Wana? But I suppose we shouldn’t expect modesty or becoming silence in today’s Pakistan.

The waters are rising and everyone can see that this ship if not sinking is not making much of a voyage, but the soldier-president, like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, is transfixed by only one image: his re-anointing as president by the present soon-to-expire assemblies.

This is an election the mechanics or outlines of which only he seems to understand. The rest of Pakistan, save of course for the King of Edgeware Road and the Daughter of the East (still keen on a deal with this sinking ship) sees it as a joke, or a mirage shimmering in the distance.

A presidential election before general elections, and from these assemblies, amounts to fixing the electoral terrain. This would have been possible before but not after March 9 when the judicial crisis erupted and certainly not after May 12 when Karachi was abandoned by the authorities and given over to MQM-directed mayhem. Matters have gone far beyond that. This is plain to everyone except our mariners on deck. Even the Q League is sensing the end. Its march into the next elections was predicated on the C-in-C holding the fort and ensuring his ‘election’ first. But with the lawyers’ movement and the Karachi killings everything has been thrown into doubt. That is why the growing glumness and unease in Q League ranks.

Nor is the MQM happy because its ascendancy in Karachi is tied to the C-in-C’s fortunes. Anything that happens to Musharraf rubs off on the MQM.

Karachi politics is now more like gang warfare than normal politics. The MQM cannot afford to slip because if it does the Haqiqis, who have reason to feel betrayed by the authorities, will be tempted to stage a comeback. In Karachi’s milieu that can only mean street warfare and more bloodshed.

The MQM has badly miscalculated. It should not have flexed its muscles so openly on May 12, an act of folly which has rekindled memories of what it used to be like in Karachi during the early nineties when the MQM’s word was law.

Those were the days when any statement faxed from Azizabad, MQM headquarters, had to be prominently displayed by every newspaper – including, I might add, supposedly the very best – without a word being changed or edited.

That golden period of undisputed mastery came to an end only with Naseerullah Babar, Benazir Bhutto’s interior minister, whose police operation broke the MQM’s back. Babar was the MQM’s true nemesis. Even now cheeks blanch when his name is taken.

But if the MQM was down and out then, its return to power was facilitated when Musharraf took over. The Haqiqis, comprising a breakaway faction, were patronised by the intelligence agencies. But not after Musharraf’s coming when they were ousted from their strongholds in Landhi and Korangi. Almost like a ‘qabza’ changing hands, those areas were then handed over, so to speak, to the MQM. The MQM thus has ample reason to be beholden to the C-in-C. Small wonder they have stood by him as he is now standing by them, even when no one else is willing to do so. More than a marriage of convenience, this is a marriage of conviction.

But when the C-in-C starts applying the skin metaphor to his uniform, it is a sign from on high that the sun has crossed the meridian and evening is close at hand. **Consider also that in the Supreme Court he has to fall back upon the likes of Justice (rtd) Malik Qayyum for his defence. Qayyum was a judge of the Lahore High Court and had to leave under a cloud when secret tapes revealed that he had been taking instructions from Nawaz Sharif’s government on how to expedite Benazir Bhutto’s trial which he was conducting.

To be reduced to Malik Qayyum: a sad enough commentary on the C-in-C’s troubled fortunes. Truly, when it rains it pours. It seems to be pouring time for this dispensation.
**
Musharraf can still extricate himself from his troubles if only he can bring himself to say that he is quitting as army chief. Trawl through all the world’s military almanacs, no safer successor can be found than the army vice-chief, Gen Ahsan Hayat who would have a hard time striking terror into the heart of a dormouse. But don’t expect Musharraf to do this because he is just not programmed this way. He wants all even though in the process he risks being left with nothing.

This wouldn’t matter if only his future was involved. But the country’s interest is at stake too. What Pakistan needs above all is an orderly transition from Musharraf to a democratic order underpinned by the will of the people. If Musharraf has his way we can forget about an orderly transition.

But let us not despair. The bench headed by My Lord Ramday (more power to his wisdom and judgment) has important decisions to take, which will have a profound bearing on the country’s future. The present movement gives the nation hope. Let us hope from its turmoil something good emerges.

Tailpiece One: As if we didn’t have enough on our plates already, we must contend with another phenomenon: Casanova Shaukat. :omg: :rotfl: A newly-minted biography of Dr Rice, the US Secretary of State, tells us that on her first visit to Pakistan in 2005 Shaukat (Shortcut to his fans) tried to bowl her over with his “gigolo” charm. When she stared him down he collapsed into confusion and started “blabbing”. Some ladies’ man and he fancies himself next president of Pakistan.
**
Tailpiece Two: And we hear Chaudhry Shujaat is thinking of writing a book. Miracles, I suppose, will never cease.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

:chai:
**

11

Re: Deception to every rule

**A way out of the crisis
**Reality check

*By Shafqat Mahmood

The writer is a former member of parliament and a freelance columnist based in Lahore *

A week’s pause in street protests and the General has started to talk in bellicose terms. He has hinted at using extra constitutional measures and declared that the uniform is his second skin which presumably cannot be removed. The common impression is that this statement was meant to warn the judiciary to behave or else. It is also a clear message that come what may Musharraf is not inclined to give up his army office.

Instead of making moves to diffuse the crisis, the General is drawing battle lines and throwing an open challenge to pro democratic forces. Besides mobilising his political allies, he has even claimed God’s grace by declaring that the door of the holy Kaaba was opened for him six times while Nawaz Sharif had this privilege only twice. Whoa, clap, clap. :hehe: :clap:

We know that power and the circle of sycophants does strange things but this is getting bizarre. He has an answer for everything but very little of it makes sense. And none more so than his statement that the MQM had a political right to do what it did because Karachi is its domain. Forgive me but we all thought this city belonged to the state of Pakistan and no one, least of all a political party, had the right to declare it to be its exclusive preserve.
Nasim Zehra has correctly pointed out that the man just does not get it. It is the responsibility of the state to maintain law and order, whatever the circumstances. The state cannot abdicate this responsibility because one party or the other is allied to it. What happened in Karachi was an abdication of state responsibility and there is no other way to describe it.

There is mounting evidence that the police and rangers were directed not to intervene or try to stop the bloodshed. The poor citizens of Karachi were left to fend for themselves and more than forty perished. This is criminal and if we were living in a democratic society it would be considered an impeachable offence. But, we don’t have this privilege. Instead of being contrite and apologising to the nation, the General has used hollow arguments to justify the mayhem which amounts to insulting the citizens of Karachi and degrading the dead.

And more than a week later, no one has been held to account. Neither the managers nor the criminals. The administration of the province has been given a clean bill of health by our ‘lady killer’ prime minister. (How shameful, these disclosures in a biography of Condoleezza Rice. What was Shaukat Aziz thinking? We have had many crosses to bear over the last sixty years, some serious, some trivial, but this is positively revolting.)

**Not far behind in this hall of shame are some other luminaries of this government, including the Punjab chief minister, who are reportedly being investigated by the FBI for insider trading. Let us assume that these stories are false but then why is no one coming out to positively deny them. And if this was not enough, we now hear that our peacekeepers in Congo are under investigation for being involved in gold smuggling. Since the Oval test last summer, we are being subjected to one indignity after another and there is no end in sight. **

The nation has been held hostage to the personal ambitions of one man and to the antics of his cohorts. **Already, stories have begun to emerge that foreign investors and technical personnel are refusing to come to Pakistan. And, those already here are heading straight for the airport. Even, the Chilean foreign minister has cancelled his trip because of security fears. This is not good. **

If there is a permanent establishment of this state which goes beyond politics and individual interests and thinks about the nation’s well being, why is it not taking a stand and putting an end to steps that divide this nation? Why is it not pushing for an early resolution of the conflicts and advising that an individual cannot be greater than the nation?

The fault lines are obvious and so are the solutions. Why is the judicial crisis not being defused by withdrawing the reference against the Chief Justice? Why is the General still adamant to get himself elected as president from the current assemblies? Why is he strongly asserting that the uniform is a part of his being? And why is he threatening extra constitutional steps to get his way. Will any of this make the situation better?

This dogged insistence by the General to fulfil a personal agenda through a game plan that was devised before March 9, is going to create more and more difficulties. I was under the impression that a military mind is trained to be flexible and to change course if the situation demands it. There is not one shred of evidence that this has happened. Musharraf is still talking the same language that he was before the country erupted because of his miscalculations. If he can’t see the difference, then those who have the burden of the nation on their shoulders must tell him.

There is only one decent and honourable way out of this crisis. It will be good for the General and a huge balm on the festering wound of the nation. The reference against the Chief Justice must be withdrawn. The General should acknowledge this was a mistake and pin the blame on bad advice.

Secondly, an early election should be called, that is before the presidential election becomes due. This will defuse the entire controversy regarding election from current assemblies and also give legitimacy to the process. A date in August or early September can be given. Summer is no hindrance to an election campaign.

Third, he must unequivocally announce that he will not be a candidate for the presidential office in uniform. Some who understand the law better than me think that he cannot be a candidate even if he sheds his uniform for two years but let us leave this aside for the moment. If he announces quitting the army post, the high moral ground that he will gain will allow him to become a candidate.

Fourth, to ensure that the election has credibility, he must allow Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif to come back and fully participate in them. Without their participation, the election will be controversial and undemocratic and the purpose of seeking legitimacy for the process will be lost. The idea is to heal the wounds of the nation and this will not happen if major political leaders of the country are forcibly kept out.

The election of course must be totally free and fair and under a neutral caretaker arrangement. To ensure this, the opposition must be taken into confidence and whether it is the appointment of a chief election commissioner or of members of the caretaker set up, everything must be done in consultation with the stakeholders.

This is the only process which would defuse the national crisis and make us begin to pick up the pieces again and work towards building a civilised nation. In this route, there is no guarantee that Pervez Musharraf will have enough votes to win the presidential election but that should not worry him. If he cannot get elected, he will at least quit the office honourably and live to fight another day.

12

Re: Deception to every rule

I knew you’d post the Ayaz Amir article from today! :slight_smile:

that may kill the impact that can usually be achieved by quoting articles where relevant.

Swimming with the stream aint never tough. :smiley:

13

Re: Deception to every rule

interesting article, they get a little too personal though, and as they get personal, they come off as cheap. the whole focusing on shaukat aziz was not necessary, but was seems to be thrown in just to add to teh number of points the writer wants to score.

14

Re: Deception to every rule

**Khaki legitimacy Legal eye

**By Babar Sattar

The general educated the heretics in a recent interview in an interview with a local news channel by revealing that national consensus meant majority support which he enjoyed in the country, and that his regime was neither afflicted by a crisis of legitimacy nor did he wish to give up public service to enjoy the virtues of superannuated life anytime soon. The general further reiterated that he had a constitutional right to (i) double-hat the office of the army chief and the president, and (ii) get re-elected by the present assemblies. The interviewer’s suggestion that his power and influence might spring from his khaki and not his personal stature almost broke his heart. But then we all know that the general is a strong man.

In ignoring the abating patience and excoriating cries of Pakistan’s ordinary folk, is the Musharraf regime guilty of incompetence, bad judgment, a disconnect from reality or simply pursuing a deliberate self-serving agenda? There are many reasons why the general should contain his zeal to serve the people of Pakistan and actually call it quits. First of all, can the Constitution of Pakistan really allow the army chief to be the head of the state? Would such permission not annihilate the elementary principles of common sense and justice that underwrite the constitutional scheme of checks and balances between state institutions in any democracy?

Further, does it not defy logic that a parliament elected for five years should be able to impose a president on the entire country for ten years? Would that not enable one parliament to bind a successor parliament in an impermissible manner? After all a president cannot simply be replaced if he loses a vote of confidence in the successor parliament. He can only be impeached for mental incapacity, violating the constitution or gross misconduct. Yet, if the constitution allows one parliament to choose a president for two terms, is such law not fundamentally flawed?

The Musharraf regime coerced the Supreme Court into authorising him to change the constitution single-handedly. And the Supreme Court obliged by giving the general an absolute power to rewrite the constitution that wasn’t the court’s to give in the first place. The apex court is a creature of the constitution and only has the authority to interpret the fundamental law. The allowance to molest the constitution at will and the general’s abuse of such extra-constitutional right with impunity has created this anomalous situation where the general can site clauses from the constitution that seem to suggest that it is only right for him to be re-elected by our current debating house. Such a strict textual interpretation of the constitution can only be undertaken in total disregard of its elementary principles as well as our mangled constitutional history that has brought us to this sorry state.

Second, the general introduced a controversial amendment to Pakistani law barring a prime minister from serving a third term in office. The law was allegedly focused on excluding Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif from returning to the office of prime minister. The Musharraf regime however argued that this was a good law for it would encourage the evolution of new leadership and bring in energetic people with fresh ideas. This is sound logic. Pakistan lacks an institutional mechanism to discover and groom leaders. Thus legal reform that forces political parties and political processes to disengage from idol-worship and indulge in succession planning is certainly welcome.

But why does this principle and philosophy not apply to the general? What moral authority does he have to force out other hackneyed politicians when his political agenda is no larger than perpetuating himself in power? The general had set out in 1999 to bless Pakistan with ‘true democracy’. Has he not failed by his own standards when after eight long years of his revolutionary democracy, a free and fair election threatens to return the conventional democracy of PPP and PML-N? And now when the general appeals to the masses for yet another term in office to complete his ‘mission’, is one blameworthy for cynically assuming that his assimilation of most reviled political traits is almost complete?

Third, (and at the peril of venturing further into the cuckoo land) whatever happened to the concept of self-accountability? Can the general seriously not hear the chorus of grumble all around Pakistan and realise that those coarsely lionising his rule are actually his political dependents? Is the glitter and clatter of power really so blinding and deafening that nothing short of grinding social upheaval will indicate the need for an exit strategy? It is clear that since March 9th the Musharraf regime has been consumed by efforts aimed on self-preservation. And unfortunately in view of current public sentiment it can safely be prophesised that the general will remain a liability for any regime that he heads.

Why should this state of national disarray and discontent be regarded as a personal challenge by the general to be fought valiantly as a soldier? Are there no lessons in the example of Tony Blair? By the general’s logic, Blair could continue to enjoy the ‘national consensus’ in his favour as he actually had two more years of elected mandate. But he had become an embattled prime minister due to popular discontent over the Iraq war and a liability for his Labour party. Thus Blair decided to bow out prematurely in recognition of public opinion and to prevent his party from being wrecked in the next general election. Will such rational or charitable thought remain alien to Pakistan’s political culture? Will no one ever give up public office of his/her own free as a measure of self-reprisal?

The social and political movement being witnessed today in Pakistan is not due to the charisma of our political leaders, but despite them. It is as much in support of independence of judiciary as it is against the omnipotent khaki rule. Success of the lawyer movement has the potential of diminishing the gulf between the theory and practice of the rule of law in Pakistan. If taken to its logical end with mass public support it would not only free the judiciary from the shackles of the executive but also consign military’s role in Pakistani politics to history. It would be a serious disservice to the principle underlying this movement as well as the public confidence reposed in it, if it is used to contrive new deals and bale-out plans that will bring more of the same political culture that stands rejected by the people.

Pakistan does not need any more bale-out plans authored by the logic of expediency. The end of the Musharraf regime will not be a harbinger of hope if it is not in accordance with the law and the constitution. If the eagerness for change results in extra-constitutional arrangements between the military and political elites, we will have learnt nothing from history. The question of who will replace the Musharraf regime need not be answered by citing a name. Let us live in the world of ideas for a bit. Let this military regime be replaced with a tolerant democratic government, which comprises people who have a vision, integrity and a belief in practicing principles. This popular social movement will not have served its cause if it doesn’t also end the political careers of people who are responsible for making the concept of politics synonymous with unscrupulousness, sycophancy and corruption.

*The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes Scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School. Email: [email protected]

*

15

Re: Deception to every rule

Delusion no end!

  • Raoof Hasan

In an interview with BBC, General Pervez Musharraf has said that the uniform was like ‘my second skin’ adding ‘how can I even think of taking it off’.
During the same interview, he also defiantly justified the Army’s role in politics saying: “When politicians do not know how to run the country’s affairs, the Army has no choice but to step in and put things right.”
By terming his uniform as ‘my second skin’ and expressing his inability to take it off, General Musharraf has given a different dimension to the way issues concerning retirement of servants of the state should be handled. If he, in his capacity as President of Pakistan and custodian of the rules governing the tenure and conduct of the officers of the state, finds it impossible to submit before the same, how can he expect other officers to do likewise? How can he, for example, ask his Vice Chief to retire when his tenure is up? He can simply turn around and quote the General at his own game and insist on carrying on nevertheless!
For that matter, why should the Judges take off their robes once their terms expire? Why should the bureaucrats go home once they attain the age of retirement? Why should the chairmen and managing directors of various government organisations retire? Why should the heads of institutions be convinced that their time is up? Why should any one, for that matter, who is engaged in doing any job with the state of Pakistan, be expected to pack up and go? They can all take recourse to the same argument and say that their job is like their ‘second skin’ and they cannot ever think of letting go!
The question really is not about a person’s intentions, but his unconditional subservience to the rules that govern the tenure of his service with the state of Pakistan. General Musharraf is also a servant of the state of Pakistan. His tenure has been twice up: first when his services were terminated by the then democratically elected Prime Minister of Pakistan and, second, when he completed his normal tenure as Chief of the Army Staff. The first time around, he resorted to the power of the gun to dismiss an elected government and hoisted himself as the ‘Chief Executive’ of the country, a position that was later conveniently transited to that of the “President’. The second time around when his tenure was up as Chief of the Army Staff, he exercise his authority as President to grant himself an extension, a process that has since become a perpetual phenomenon: a sitting Chief of the Army Staff refusing to submit before the rules that govern his appointment and granting himself a procession of extensions so that he could continue in his position in violation of the governing rules and regulations.
This is what makes the current struggle for safeguarding the independence of judiciary and upholding the rule of law even more relevant. Without both being in place, there seems no way for a systematic and orderly conduct by the servants of the state. Following the ungainly precedence set by the one proclaiming love for his uniform, every one can turn around and question the writ of the state concerning his or her tenure. Consequently, those selected by the state will be there for life, and those left out will rue their fate no end!
If those in authority do not let an opportunity pass by to criticise the politicians for their unprincipled rule, how is it that they are guilty of the same gross conduct? And why is it that they are using the most corrupt coterie of politicians as their political mask? The contradiction is too glaring to sink in as it makes the President guilty twice over yet again: first, for refusing to submit before the rules that govern his appointment as Chief of the Army Staff and, second, by using the politicians as his ‘democratic front’ to prolong his rule. There is no law that can enable him to have the better of every thing. On the contrary, by consistently refusing to submit before the appropriate rules to extend his tenure, he is opening up frontiers that may render the state totally ungovernable.
The indications of such an eventuality are already taking shape in no unmistakable manner. This government has failed to address the blatant affront to the writ of the state right in the heart of the federal capital. The impotence of the ruling clique is patently reflected in its inability to bring to an end the drama that has been raging for over three months now in the Lal Masjid and the adjoining Masjid-e-Hafsa. The clerics in control there have thrown up innumerable challenges including the kidnapping of personnel of the law enforcement agencies, but the government has been unable to address the issue. The siege is pregnant with insinuations that the government’s much-touted proclamations to fight extremism are a mere hogwash. In addition to defying the government’s writ, the episode continues to agitate members of the civil society who feel genuinely threatened in the pursuit of their daily routines. It also strengthens the belief that, in actual effect, extremism is being nurtured by the state to justify the Army rule.
When disorder trickles down from the top, there are hardly any means at the disposal of the government to impose the rule of law for the common citizens of the state. The effect is contagious. It catches on with indescribable suddenness as things tend to go totally out of control, bringing in a state of unhindered chaos. This is exactly what we are witnessing in the country today. It would require nothing short of a miracle to change the disastrous course Pakistan is currently traversing!
E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/may-2007/26/columns4.php