Has said General Musharraf. And ethically it should be his choice too, after all disrobing at own will is supposed to be a basic human right, but in our free & liberal (civil & political) society, it seems the public is at liberty to demand anyone to perform a full monty for their pleasure, and refusal ironically leads to widespread commotion. Should the General file reports with UNHCR, HRCP and ask Asma Jehangir to rescue him?
After all demanding removal of his wardi is akin to asking one to parade naked through downtown Saturday evening; he’d be as emotionally, psychologically, religiously, politically, legally and physically naked and vulnerable without his khaki.
But then again, ‘jis hamaam mein sab nange hain’, there could be numerous concerns on both sides, how could the *naked *let one stay clothed and why would the one dressed individual unclothe? So perhaps the General can shed his *khaki *uniform in one more way, technically remaining in wardi, but not khaki, and not consisting of trousers either; how about the COAS’ transfer to FC or Rangers? He’d still be entitled to wear his SSG jackets, wings, belt, beret & baton, and yet be in Pakistani national dress and not in the traditional Army uniform. The only other method to cling to the *wardi *ensuring (slightly better) silence from the opponents and thus his sanity, sanctity, dignity and safety of course was what Brigadier retd A. R. Siddqi once suggested.
Anyway, that’s all on the fun side and uncertain at the moment. The following Cowasjee column from this Sunday inspired this thread. Interesting observations and comments as always.
http://dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm
** ‘I will not remove the uniform’**
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
A HEADLINE in the press yesterday, quoting President General Pervez Musharraf in his interview with the TV channel Al-Arabia tells us that he clearly stated, “I will not remove the uniform till the election because I have been constitutionally allowed to remain as president and chief of the army staff till the end of the year.”
Wearing this same uniform of a proud army he and, reportedly, a few of his brother generals on March 9 deprived the chief justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, of the honour they themselves had bestowed upon him not so very long ago.
** As far as many of the likes of me are concerned, the general may wear what he likes (even the garb of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi). But he must rule over the country, as he virtually does, maintaining, after enforcing, law and order, which, according to the founder of the country, is the first requisite of any government. For a start, we do not want dissidents ‘eliminated’ nor do we want citizens ‘lost’.**
As for uniforms, the Emperor Marshal of France, Napoleon Bonaparte, imposed strict rules and regulations. As soon as he spotted a fellow marshal’s stomach sagging over his trousers (or spotted a painted head of hair) the man was immediately sent home to farm. Heeding Napoleon’s stomach-sagging regulation, Marshal Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, aware of his growing girth, designed for seven different uniforms he wore a type of Sam Browne contraption which held up and levelled his belt.
And in Britain, in the days of pomp and glory when Queen Victoria ruled, her son, Prince Edward (later Edward VII) once had a fraught uniform incident when, on a visit to a cousin ruling over one of the European countries, he had ascertained what uniform the host prince would be wearing to receive him and kept ready a compatible British uniform to wear when he alighted from his train. As the train steamed into the station, Edward was donning a uniform which he had not recently worn. Good living had put much flesh around his waist and the trousers refused to button up. While Edward’s valet wrestled with a borrowed pair of braces with which to hold up the gaping trousers (which could be hidden under his tunic) the band on the station platform had to play God Save the King seven times over before the prince, breathing in deeply, appeared at the door of his compartment.
** Back to the present and lawless Pakistan, to bolster the law and order situation, the ruling party member of the National Assembly, Minoo Bhandara, had a notice inserted in Dawn yesterday (page 10) which reads :
“Quaid-i-Azam’s Speech of 11th August 1947. A Constitutional (Amendment) Bill has been moved in the National Assembly, which purports to include the famous speech of the Quaid or its salient features, as a substantive part of Article 2 of the Constitution. Details of this can be seen at www.quaidvision11august1947.info Click your support or e-mail same to Post Box 13, Rawalpindi. M P Bhandara, Member, National Assembly of Pakistan, E-mail : [email protected]”**
** May I suggest to friend Minoo that while this is done (hopefully, it will be done), he may add to it two other most relevant sentences. From Jinnah’s speech to the people of Australia on February 19, 1948 : “But make no mistake, Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it,” and from his speech a few days later to the people of the United States of America : “In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.”
**
** On to a current and most serious matter. Our men of law and letters are for once united in that they all want law and order and justice to prevail. But should they demean Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and all the good he has done and stood for, by parading him around the country like a political ‘mascot’? Should he be stood up to face politically motivated crowds? Should he not be allowed to be at peace while he faces the presidential reference? Our legal fraternity is mistaken if it thinks that its parades and strikes and ‘token hunger strikes’ (whatever nonsense they may be) will make one iota of difference to Acting Chief Justice Baghwandas’s sense of duty, his adherence to the law, or to his conscience.**
** How many of our marchers and strikers have been to jail and seen how the under-trial prisoners, many of them innocent, suffer? Dates are fixed for the hearing of their cases in the district and high courts usually after long delays. Many detainees have to appear in person. They are ordered to be ready at 0600 hours to wait for a van to take them to court, a van that too often does not arrive.**
** Now, should the diligent lawyers not spare a thought for all those detainees who may have been summoned to appear in court on the many days they have been on strike and intend to on further strike – for instance, on April 24? Their cases have been postponed and will further be postponed for up to three weeks or to a date in office which may take months to arrive and, if innocent, they have remained and will remain in jail for these indeterminate periods. Is it fair? Should all those lawyers involved in their clients’ cases, and paid to appear for them, not resolved to duly appear on the dates fixed and mitigate the distress caused by our prevalent laws and procedures.**
** A ‘core’ issue pertains to the mock ‘hunger strikes’, referred to as ‘token hunger strikes’. What do the participants do? Do they announce that they have just finished eating a hearty lunch and intend to plonk themselves down on a pavement, and support the cause by not eating or drinking until their mid-afternoon biscuit and cup of tea is due? They should grow up.
**
The pity of it all is that General Musharraf has lost his ability to sound the retreat, which precludes us from echoing Winston Spencer Churchill’s famous words spoken after Dunkerque : “It was a glorious retreat.”
** May sense prevail.**
