|
 Many of those who are critical of Musharraf, benefited in one way or another when the General was in power. Shouldn't then the trial of one person turn out to be that of an entire institution. The Supreme Court's July 31, 2009 verdict declaring the proclamation of emergency by the then President and Army Chief Pervez Musharraf unconstitutional has provided a fair chance to the politicians, lawmakers and the common man in Pakistan to have their share of say in what some call “ a revolutionary step” taken again by the judiciary in the country.
What comes as more surprising is the chanting of Article 6 of the Constitution everywhere, be it the media or the common man. It also stresses the need for a follow up to distinguish as to what number of people actually understand the Article with all its clauses from those who base their judgements on mere hearsay. Coming to Article 6, it consists of three clauses. Clause (1) states: 'Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.' Clause (2) expands the definition of high treason by stating that 'Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in Clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.' Clause (3) enjoins upon parliament to make a law to provide for punishment of a person found guilty of high treason.
Viewing the entire episode in light of the Article, there are a few queries which need to be addressed for common understanding. For one if and when high treason proceedings are instituted against Musharraf, it is almost certain that those who abetted him, which definitely would be a fairly long list, in his unconstitutional acts would also find themselves in the dock. Isn't then trial of one person unfair? Shouldn't the trial of one person turn out to be that of an entire institution?
Second when the third clause of the Article gives the parliament an authority to make a law for punishment of a person found guilty of high treason, it is expected that the parliament will pass a unanimous decision based on mutual agreement which in the present scenario, does not seem to be the case. There is not only resistance from the opposing Musharraf's stalwart party PML (Q), but also from the parties in coalition, including the MQM which is strongly advocating the Former President. Moreover, the rift between PML (N) and the PPP on the issue seems to be getting wider where the former is stressing on bringing Musharraf to trial while the latter stated that government is ready to try Musharraf under Article 6 of the Constitution “if Parliament approved a unanimous resolution in this regard.” Knowing the procedural differences of the Parliament, experts believe that this statement by the Prime Minister is nothing but a clear indication that the government wants to derail the process lest it takes some decision which might put its standing in the establishment at stake.
Also, with regards to the move to bring Pervez Musharraf to “justice,” one must do well to remember that when the governments in Pakistan want to take action, they do not go through Parliament. The Parliament to us is where we take things we need to procrastinate about, debate and discard. The question which now arises is whether the government really wants to bring Musharraf to book. The chances of this happening are dim.
Supporters of Pervez Musharraf question the need to drag the former president through this exercise. Others also say that the allegations are not without substance. Some argue that it is not just Musharraf whose reputation would be tarnished - Pakistan would be made a laughing stock. In this, like the case of the UN inquiry into the murder of Benazir Bhutto, we will achieve little. There is so much hype and little to account for. It seems as if the public is once again being duped with non-issues.
The trial of Pervez Musharraf will yield little despite the high expectations we have from it. A lot has been said and allegations made. Much of this may or may not be true. But the point is that such an exercise without the right kind of homework yields little. If such a trial does take place - and hopefully it will not - it will be a circus in all manners. But the main accused in all probability will not be there, with the result that not much will be achieved. As people who believe in democratic institutions, in fair play and in justice for all, we should be looking for something deeper.
Our high should not come from finding Musharraf guilty. It should come from proving details of the wrongdoings and bringing to justice all involved in the martial law days. Why just examine the martial law of Gen Musharraf? What about the other martial law administrators? It would be a good idea to put into place a national institution or commission that examines the martial laws and military rules that the country has suffered.
We can also have a debate on those people and organisations that benefited most from these unelected governments. Who suffered and who gained? Who got the licenses and contracts and whose business was closed down. It is unfair to put one person in the dock. Instead we should put the whole system on trial. We must ask the hard questions. What were the circumstances that brought the martial laws and military rules in Pakistan? Who instigated those circumstances and who paved the way for what happened? Who guided and who misguided? Why, for example, did Gen Zia come to power despite the fact that the outstanding issues between Prime Minister Bhutto and his political opponents had almost all been settled
It would be educative to see what role our religious parties played in bringing about martial laws in the country. How many religious parties stood up against unelected dictators in Pakistan, and when? We should examine the role of our bureaucracy. These are the people whose toast is buttered on both sides. Heads they win, tails we lose. Bureaucrats have been in and out of favour, but by and large the community as a whole has benefited from the absence of elected leaders and institutions of public accountability.
But we cannot stop there. Who gave the military rulers the legal sanction. It must be made clear which institution failed us and where. We should name names. What role was played by our media. That is an important question - given that the sacking of almost all political governments was met by a media trial. White papers were produced, the farce of accountability took place time and again.
While the country suffered, a section of the people gained from the military rulers. We need to ask the question as to who gained and how. Who was given which plot and under what quota?
We seem to have short memories and are always happy to blame the incumbent for everything. These days it is in fashion for us to blame Former President Musharraf. But Musharraf is one man - who else benefited from his rule? Many of those who are critical of Musharraf benefited in one way or another when the General was in power. Why do we choose to ignore this fact?
It is easy for some to talk about illegal military actions that go against them. What about those which went in favour? The same people were beneficiaries of the largesse of the past dictator. Why should we let them be selective?
And most importantly why don't we talk about consequential subjects like crime, health, poverty and education-matters that affect our country and should be more important to us. There is a need to share ideas and information within the Pakistani society lest we fall prey to further chaos.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
