For the good of democracy – By Farrukh Khan Pitafi

“Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.” — Gilbert K Chesterton

At a juncture when the propinquity of a truly democratic order was almost being taken for granted, Pakistan suffered the biggest disaster since the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. A three-member bench headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, who has vowed to protect democracy, sacked a democratically-elected prime minister on a matter of constitutional interpretation.

The sacked man, Yousaf Raza Gilani, and his party accepted the ruling with grace and nominated another candidate. But the day the prime ministerial nominee, Makhdum Shahabuddin, was to file his nomination papers, an anti-narcotics court issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest, on a case that had been pending for weeks. Imagine, a court waking up on that precise day. The powers that be in the Islamic republic do not seem to care much for democracy. I have previously expressed hope in the growth of democracy and the institution building process. With the prime minister removed through an undemocratic, albeit legal method, that optimism cannot be sustained. It is clear that this is not the case of institutions clashing over boundaries, but disputes concerning other matters. Of course, the ruling party, too, is responsible for this sorry tale.

In Islamabad’s drawing rooms, it is being speculated that a government of technocrats backed by the army will soon be installed through a soft coup. Those who make these claims, carry a list of candidates for each ministry. Another theory is that the judiciary-executive tussle will result in the announcement of early elections and when the assemblies are dismissed, names in the aforementioned list will be adjusted in the caretaker cabinet, which in time, will be granted two to three years of extension. As the sacking of a prime minister and embarrassing an elected government by asking it to write a letter against its own head of state can be considered akin to protecting democracy, there is little doubt that this would also strengthen democracy.

Change may come in any shape, but if it comes through any means other than fresh elections, it will be detrimental. And change will definitely come. But let us fix responsibility for any undemocratic development. It should be remembered that the current democratic dispensation was founded on an intricate masonry of checks and balances. One function of the independent judiciary was to protect democracy. While it might have protected it from a military takeover, it has not been able to protect it from its own wrath. You can foresee the entire system collapsing. Some would say that the protectors of the Constitution have plunged the nation into another crisis-ridden bog.

If any undemocratic change comes, our armchair theoreticians assure us, it will not be limited to the cabinet and parliament alone, but will affect the judiciary as well. Perhaps, our judicial custodians have forgotten that they are part of the very democratic order that their recent verdicts seem to have so negatively impacted.

Courtesy:  The Express Tribune, June 23^rd, 2012.

The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah —Yasser Latif Hamdani

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would

In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.

To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon. …

Read more : Daily Times

Could GHQ tell us what happened to the inquiry into the alleged firing squad and beating videos which are even now doing the rounds in emails and on the Internet and bringing our country a bad name?

A matter of shame – By Kamran Shafi

I WAS much ashamed as a former soldier to read what ensued when a sessions court in Karachi cancelled the pre-arrest bail applications of certain serving and retired officials of the National Highway Authority (NHA) in the case of the collapse of Karachi`s Sher Shah Bridge.

The former chairman, Major General Raja Farrukh Javed, during whose tenure the bridge was built and which collapsed within weeks of its opening by none other than the Commando himself, ran away from the City Courts premises!

In the words of Paul Drake, the fictional private detective who helps Perry Mason solve his cases in Erle Stanley Gardner`s thrillers of yesteryear, the great general variously “took to his heels; vamoosed; went on the lam; broke his bond” etcetera, and made his escape from the court. It is pertinent to note that the news report also said that the major general “managed to escape from the court premises very easily”. I ask you! What absolutely disgraceful behaviour. patwaris havaldars

One should have thought that and police and others of their ilk did this sort of dishonourable and cowardly thing and not full-blown generals of our great army that has lorded it over us for more years than I care to remember and which is even now baring its fangs at the `bloody civilians`. If he had done nothing wrong, Maj-Gen Javed should have stood his ground and argued his case in court.

Although the Sindh High Court did a couple of days later grant Maj-Gen Javed and another person named on the FIR pre-arrest interim bail, some immediate questions nevertheless present themselves: Was his getaway facilitated? Where is he now? And, most fundamentally, why did he do what he did?

Be which as it may, and because these questions are now being asked by citizens of this poor country who cannot escape from the law “very easily” themselves as evidenced by letters to the editor, even of this newspaper of record, it falls upon the army administration to make its position clear in terms of bad conduct by retired officers. The army has been abused enough by fortune-seekers and carpet-baggers and petty Napoleons; it is time that the high command sent the message that it will not tolerate un-soldier-like behaviour, even by retired personnel, any longer.

And while it is at it, could GHQ tell us what happened to the inquiry into the alleged firing squad and beating videos which are even now doing the rounds in emails and on the Internet and bringing our country a bad name? As one has said before, those alleged happenings could well be the handiwork of Pakistan`s enemies, but it would help if we knew the truth. ….

Read more : DAWN