Iqbal Khan
RECENT global wave of phenomenal rise of far right thought to political power is fast stampeding universal norms of decency and fair play. Behaviour of states at international level is taking ugly trajectories. Space for diplomacy and reconciliation is shrinking, and mob mentality is emerging as a new normal. Rot is fast permeating at intra-national level at a far greater level than routine wrangling of national institutions, ostensibly leading to outright clash. This has induced unpredictability in institutions’ behaviour, leading to a pervasive aroma of chaos in institutional functioning. A commoner on the street is bewildered with regard to evolving façade of state. Relationship between the state and the society is on tenterhook, ready to unhinge on slightest pretext. Unfortunately, as a nation we, too, are living through a far right thought induced low patch; every institution appears provoking all other institutions.
Lawyer’s recent attack on a hospital facility in Lahore and the way Bar Councils and Bar Associations fell over each other to support lawyers’ rogue element depicted the collective mind-set of the community that serves as a pool of recruitment for our higher judiciary. Silver lining was a handful of honourable individuals who distanced from the wobbly attackers and even condemned them; however, they were exceptions; tribalism was the norm! Para 66 of the detailed judgement in the former President-General Pervez Musharraf’s high treason case, whose text is not worth reproduction, smacks of medieval mind-set, or Leninist-Marxist era bloody revolutions. It is the dictum commonly used by underworld lords and not by the lordships presiding a high profile court. Content of this para, in all probability, falls in the category of hate speech. Courts are bound to inflict the punishments specified by the law at the time of committal of crime, and they do not have the liberty to invent new penalties—be they logical or fictional.
Whatever the motivations, para 66 of the judgement did not reflect our national or religious norms. Fictional para 66, representing a villain’s wish in a typical cowboy style movie has proved to be a self-destruct switch for the entire judgement. This comical judgement is not likely to be taken seriously by anybody, what to talk of reaching the implementation stage. It is poised to die its own death in due course. Minus para 66, the judgement had the potential of enormous impact on our future Civil-Military relations—both positive and negative. However, due to para 66, in all probability, its destination is dustbin. Misadventure of para 66 has also proved something like a suicide jacket leading the author to the altar of Article 209 of the constitution; the process would more likely lead to professional death of author of this ghastly text.
Probably the contents of the judgement had leaked prematurely, hence there were panicky moves to delay its announcement so that a decent wording for rewriting and or omitting para 66 could be found. But Special Court was determined to sink together with the judgement, so it gate crashed to make the ‘golden words’ public. If it expected huge public rallies coming out with garlands shouting slogans in support of para 66, then it was an overestimation of our societal decay. Ours is not a Leninist-Marxist society and there is no shortage of sane people. Since the pronouncement of detailed judgement, everyone is distancing from it, and looking for safe havens. It is refreshing that everyone is now heads down for damage reduction. First dampening came from the Federal government by raising question about mental health of the author of judgement and asking him to account for his conduct before Supreme Judicial Council. Sanity seems prevailing.
This said and done, run-away profile of former President Pervez Musharraf did not benefit him. He should have attended the proceedings of the trials and put across his point of view squarely. He could have done it much better than his lawyers. And may be that could have resulted into a different verdict, at least para 66 could have been avoided. Unfortunately somewhere during the process the bond between Army–the institution—and one of his former head became strong to a fictional high. Had the distinction between the individual and the institution diligently maintained, then Army—the institution— could have influenced the proceedings by becoming a party to the case and providing information, during an in-camera sitting of the court, which had led to the action of November 03, 2007. Army—the institution— unnecessarily got embroiled by picking the political baggage of the former president. This, uncalled for, bear hug has damaged the public image of Army.
Judiciary and by extension, the lawyer’s community has been perceiving the 3 November action as its institutional humiliation, it has all along been making visible and invisible attempts to avenge, and it has finally done it. Anytime a verdict is passed to convict a person it is time for deep introspection. This time it is turn for national level introspection. Justice Khosa while putting down the gavel referred to ‘malicious campaign’ against judiciary. Earlier he had been recommending an inter-institution dialogue; proposal has its merits; the only pitfall it could have is opening up a Pandora’s Box that may be tricky to wrap-up. Nonetheless, all national institutions need to understand that conspiracy theory does not provide cover against everything, and that interference in sister institutions’ routine functioning is certainly bound to bounce back sooner or later. And later the bounce back, harder the impact. However, all is not lost, the issue must be handled in a prudent way and steered towards a judicious ending.
—The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.
