WAS THAT A JUDGE SPEAKING?

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2019/12/21/was-that-a-judge-speaking/

• Genneral Musharraf was guilty of taking over, but dragging his corpse to a public spot was going too far

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah addressed the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on the 11th of August 1947 and said: “…Remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order… …therefore make sure that the corpses of all convicted person, if found dead are dragged to a public spot in our capital city and hanged there for three days.”

With due apologies to the Quaid. Of course he never ended his speech that way. He had no such monstrous inclinations, he was an intelligent man and a dignified one to boot, so one can respect him and his opinions. Which is more than one can say about whoever added those lines in a grisly injunction at the end of the official verdict against General Musharraf, a verdict which is otherwise fairly good and should not come as a surprise. The idea of pretending Jinnah said that was to make the reader start in surprise since we all knew he was too principled a man to indulge in any such ideas, and also to show up the reality on the ground today.
The other persons who imposed martial law on this hapless country are beyond punishment, but Gen Musharraf is not, so he should suffer the consequences of his actions. The Quaid said it best in the same speech above: “We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.”

Which means that all citizens of the state– even if they breathe the rarified air of the armed forces– are equally answerable for their actions.

When in 1999 an elected government was sent packing the Army took over– as it has done several times in this supposedly democratic country. General Pervez Musharraf then became the Chief Executive, and when the then President of Pakistan left office wheb his tenure expired, he took over as President. Elections were held in 2002 and Pakistan got another Prime Minister, but there was a tacit understanding that decisions would be made by General sahib.

Five years later, General Musharraf declared a state of emergency, which is in effect a martial law. The constitution of Pakistan was suspended as a result of his actions, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the country was fired.

Whoever does such a thing is undermining the country and therefore committing treason, and he or she should then face the consequences. Quite contrary to what Maj. Gen Asif Ghafoor says, the judgement contains nothing objectionable, other than the grisly rider. Nor is it, as the inimitable Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan, suggests some kind of a sinister conspiracy by “anti-state elements” either internal or external, it is not a conspiracy that must be foiled.

The only thing that must be foiled is whatever it is that produces such a mindset, which allows such sentiments to take root in this country.

What is there about the legal system and education in Pakistan that allows such sentiments to arise among the legal fraternity in particular, sentiments that lead for example to lawyers marching on a hospital treating patients with heart disease, causing the death of three of those patients? Our lawyers and judges appear to be confusing justice with revenge of the most sordid kind. Also, instead of being taught that justice must be blind and dispassionate, our legal fraternity appears to imagine to the contrary. Is hanging the body of a convicted person for three days in a public spot dispassionate? Does it gel with anything we stand for as a country, as Muslims (seeing that this is supposed to be an Islamic Republic), or as human beings? Where in medieval times does the honorable judge imagine us to be?

Politics is rife with instances of diversions and convenient footholds. You cannot help wondering if these bloodthirsty lines were deliberately planted, inserted on purpose to give a handle to those who would like to condemn and overturn the entire judgement. It does not appear to be a commonly possessed skill to separate different aspects from the whole. In this case justice is in danger of being subverted by those who like to set certain segments of the country above the law, those who view this judgement as a dangerous precedent.