Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Justice Chaudhry says he was detained at Army House — Intelligence chiefs were present during his visit
Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday that President General Pervez Musharraf told him on March 9 that he would be “accommodated” if he resigned.
In the affidavit, Justice Chaudhry revealed the inside story of his March 9 ‘forced stay’ at Army House in Rawalpindi, where he was left with intelligence chiefs for five hours after he refused to resign. He said that he was allowed to go home unceremoniously only after he was stripped of his judicial powers and his official vehicle was stripped of the national flag and official insignia.
In the affidavit under oath, filed in the Supreme Court through his counsel Aitzaz Ahsan, the CJP gives details of events he faced from March 9 to 13. He gives details about his visit to Army House, the pressure he was put under to resign, forced detention, verbal suspension orders, his being prevented from visiting the Supreme Court, forced diversion of his car towards his residence, takeover of his residence by intelligence personnel, his incommunicado detention at home and mental, physical and emotional agony and embarrassment he and his family faced.
In the affidavit, which has been submitted to the SC to supplement his constitutional petition against the presidential reference against him, the CJP said that his chamber was sealed by intelligence agencies and that the newly appointed SC registrar gave some important files to the ISI.
The CJP said that he reached Army House at 11:30 am on March 9 with his protocol staff. Five minutes later, President Musharraf came into the room in his military uniform along with his military secretary and ADC. A number of TV cameramen and photographers were also called in. The president told him about a complaint against him by a Peshawar High Court judge and some other complaints. Then he directed his staff to call other persons including his chief of staff (COS), the prime minister, chiefs of the Military Intelligence (MI), Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and Intelligence Bureau (IB) and another official. All officials, except the IB chief and the COS, were in uniform, the CJP said.
Justice Chaudhry said that the president read out the allegations against him from small pieces of paper, as there was no consolidated document, and the allegations were based on a “notorious letter” written by lawyer Naeem Bukhari. He said that he strongly denied the allegations, including misuse of official cars by his family. The CJP was accused of being driven in a Mercedes, to which he replied: “Here is the prime minister, ask him, he has sent the car himself.” On this, the PM did not reply even by gesture, the CJP said.
MAY 29, 2007
ISLAMABAD: Following is the text of affidavit filed by the Chief Justice Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Text begins:
“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Original Jurisdiction)
In Re: Constitutional Original Petition No: __________ /2007
Chief Justice of Pakistan,
Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry,
Chief Justice House,
Islamabad
——————————————————————Petitioner
VERSUS
The President of Pakistan,
The Referring Authority,
Presidency,
Islamabad.
AND OTHERS
————————————————————-Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER,
MR Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry,
Chief Justice of Pakistan,
I, Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, The Chief Justice of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the “deponent”) do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
That the deponent has filed the titled petition in this Hon’ble Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, inter alia, assailing the Reference No.43/2007 dated March 09, 2007;Notification No F.1 (2)/2005.A.II dated 09-03-2007, whereby the deponent was illegally and unlawfully restrained to perform his constitutional functions as a judge of this Hon’ble Court and as Chief Justice of Pakistan; Order dated March 09, 2007 passed by the Supreme Judicial Council; Notification No F.1(2)2005.A.II dated 15-03-2007 whereby the deponent was sent on compulsory leave with retrospective effect and the constitution and competence of the Supreme Judicial Council as well as the mode and manner of the proceedings before the Council.
This affidavit is being filed in support of the contentions, assertions and pleas raised in the above titled petition. The deponent verifies that the contents of the titled affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief and nothing has been concealed. In addition to the facts narrated in the titled petition; the deponent states that:
On March 09, 2007, the deponent headed Bench No 1 of this Hon’ble Court as Chief Justice of Pakistan and heard several cases till about 10.30 a.m. The Bench rose briefly and had to reassemble for the day except the deponent who left for the Army House, Rawalpindi to meet the President of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”)
The deponent arrived at Army House, Rawalpindi at about 11-30 a.m. along with his staff/protocol staff. The deponent was shown to a waiting room/visitors room. After five minutes of his arrival, the Respondent, wearing his Military Uniform came into the room along with his MS and ADC. As soon as the Respondent took his seat, a number of TV cameramen and photographers were also ushered into the room. They took several pictures and made movie footage.
While discussing the SAARC Law Conference, SAARC Chief Justices Conference and the concluding session of the Golden Jubilee ceremony of the Supreme Court, the Respondent said that a compliant against the deponent had been received by him (Respondent) from a Judge of the Peshawar High Court. The deponent replied that it was not based on true facts as his case had been decided by a two-member bench and that attempts were being made to maliciously involve the other member of the Bench as well. On this the Respondent said that there are a few more complaints against the deponent as well. After saying so, he directed his staff to call the other persons.
On the direction of the Respondent, the ‘other persons’ entered the room. They included the Prime Minster, DG MI, DG ISI, DG IB, COS and another official. All officials (except DG, IB and COS) were in uniform.
The Respondent started reading from small pieces of paper with notes on them which he had in his hand. There was no single consolidated document. The allegations, which were being put to the deponent had been taken from the contents of a notorious letter written by Mr Naeem Bukhari with absolutely no substance in them. The deponent strongly refuted these allegations as being baseless and engineered to defame him personally and the judiciary as a whole. The deponent promptly denied the veracity and credibility of these allegations as well.
On this the Respondent said that the deponent had obtained cars from the Supreme Court for his family. The allegation was vehemently denied by the deponent. The Respondent went on to say that the deponent was being driven in a Mercedes, to which the deponent promptly replied ‘here is the Prime Minister, ask him, he has sent the Car himself’. The PM did not reply to this answer even by gesture. Surprisingly the Respondent went on to say that the deponent had interfered in the affairs of Lahore High Court and had not accepted and taken heed of most of the recommendations of the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court.
The Respondent insisted that the deponent should resign. The Respondent also said that in case of deponent’s resignation, he (the Respondent) would ‘accommodate’ him (the deponent). He also said in case of refusal to resign, the deponent will have to face the reference which could be a bigger embarrassment for the deponent. The deponent finally and more resolutely said ‘I wouldn’t resign and would face any reference since I am innocent; I have not violated any code of conduct or any law, rule or regulation; I believe that I am myself the guardian of law. I strongly believe in God who will help me’. This ignited the fury of the Respondent; he stood up angrily and left the room along with his MS, COS and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, saying that others would show evidence to the deponent. (This has now been admitted by the Respondent in his interview given to Aaj TV). The meeting continued for not more than 30 minutes.
The DG MI, DG ISI and DG IB remained behind and continued to sit with the deponent. They did not show the deponent a single piece of evidence. In fact, no official except DG ISI had some documents with him but he also did not show any thing to the deponent. They, however, said that the deponent had secured a seat for his son in Bolan Medical College when the deponent was serving as a Judge of Balochistan High Court. They (except DG, IB) insisted that deponent resign while the deponent continued to assert strongly that the allegations were baseless and for a collateral purpose.
During the subsequent hours, the deponent was forced to stay in that room. Sometimes, all the persons would leave the deponent alone in that room but would not allow the deponent to leave it. It was obvious that the deponent was being watched by a close circuit camera because whenever he tried to open the door to go out, he was confronted by an officer who prevented the exit of the deponent; several times the deponent expressed the desire to leave but was told by military officials to stay/wait. Once the deponent was even told that respondent would be seeing him again. At one point, the deponent requested that at least his staff/protocol officer be called inside the room as the deponent wanted to talk to him but was told that he could not come inside. The deponent then requested that his staff/protocol officer be told to pass on the message to the deponent’s family that he was at Army House, Rawalpindi and that his programme to go to Lahore had been cancelled.
Despite several attempts to leave the room and the Army House, the deponent was made to stay there on one pretext or the other. His request to bring his car to the porch for departure was also denied. After the first meeting with the Respondent which lasted for not more than 30 minutes, the deponent was kept there ‘absolutely against his will’ till past 5p.m.
After 5pm, DG MI came in again and told the deponent that his car was outside to drive him ‘home’. DG MI came out of the room and once outside told the deponent, ‘this is a bad day, now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been “restrained to work as a judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of Pakistan”
When the deponent saw the car of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, he discovered that his car had been stripped of both the flag of Pakistan and the emblem flag. The staff officer of the deponent informed him that Mr Justice Javed Iqbal had taken oath as Acting Chief Justice and it had been shown on TV. The driver also informed the deponent that he had been instructed not to take the deponent to the Supreme Court while on way to the residence of the deponent.
While on the way, the deponent directed the driver to go to Supreme Court but an Army official prevented the deponent’s car near the Sports Complex from proceeding further. In the meanwhile, Mr Tariq Masood Yasin, SP, also appeared; He ordered the driver to come out of car so that he could drive the deponent and also asked the deponent’s gunman to come out of the car as well. The deponent said ‘okay, I will not go to the Supreme Court but my driver will drive my car and my gunman will escort me home’. Only then, did Mr Tariq Masood Yasin, SP agree to let the car be driven by deponent’s driver.
The deponent got home at about 5.45 p.m. and was shocked to see police officials and agencies personnel without uniform all over his residence. The deponent also discovered that landline phones had already been disconnected; Cell Phones, TV, Cables and DSL had been jammed or disconnected. The deponent and his family were completely cut off for several days from the outside world.
By 9 p.m., March 09, 2007, the vehicles which were in official use of the deponent including a Mercedes had been taken away by means of a lifter. Latter on, the same night, one vehicle was brought back but the key was not handed over to the deponent or someone on his behalf.
On March 10, 2007, the deponent received a ‘Notice’ from Supreme Judicial Council (“Council”) whereby the deponent came to know that a Reference (No 43/2007) had been filed by the Respondent before the Council. There was also a copy of the Order passed by the Council whereby deponent had been restrained to function as a Judge of the Supreme Court and or Chief Justice of Pakistan. The copy of the aforesaid Reference had also been appended with the Notice with without any annexure or supporting documents for perusal of the deponent.
It was also surprising for the deponent to note that the aforesaid reference came up for hearing on March 9, 2007 after 6 p.m. in indecent haste. Two members of the Council as was evident from news published in daily Nawa-i-Waqt dated March 10, 2007, had been flown to Islamabad in special flights, from Lahore and Karachi simply to participate in a meeting of the Council. In fact, no meeting had been called by the Secretary of the Council namely Mr Faqir Hussain. No one had issued either agenda for the meeting or notice thereof.
The Council, rather than merely scrutinising the material, if at all and serving notice on the deponent (without prejudice to the rights and interest of the deponent as averred in the titled petition), went ahead and passed an order very detrimental to the interests of the deponent as well as the interests of the institution. The deponent was restrained to perform his functions as a Judge of the Supreme Court Judge and or Chief Justice of Pakistan.
The deponent further states that he had been detained along with his family members including his infant child of seven years from the evening of March 9, 2007 till March 13, 2007. The personal and private life of the deponent and his family suffered a great shock and the concept of privacy appeared as if it was an impotent word. The deponent could not use any vehicle since there was none. The deponent had to walk till the other end of the road when the police officer confronted him and manhandled him as has now been established by a judicial enquiry.
The Supreme Court staff attached to the deponent was reportedly missing and had been kept at an unknown place. An attempt was being made to fabricate the evidence through them by coercive means against the deponent. Even other employees working at the residence of the deponent were taken and made to appear before some agency officials. They were released after 2/3 days. The grocery man was not allowed to go to collect grocery; he was made to wait till an agency official accompanied him to the market and back.
The chamber of the deponent was sealed and certain files lying therein were removed and some of them had been handed over to the ISI under the supervision of the newly appointed Registrar. Such an act was contrary to all norms and practices of judiciary. The deponent being the CJP was entitled to occupy his chamber along with his staff.
On account of deployment of heavy contingents, no one was allowed to meet the deponent freely, in as much as his colleagues were not allowed access to meet him. Even a retired judge of this Hon’ble Court Mr Justice (Retd) Munir A Sheikh was not allowed to meet the deponent.
The deponent was not all alone to suffer this agony. Even his children were not allowed to go to school, college and university. The deponent and his family members were deprived of basic amenities of life, i.e. medicines and doctors, etc.
Even when ordered by the Council, the deponent was deprived of the assistance of his counsels to seek legal assistance regarding legal and factual issues involved in the reference. The deponent and his family have been made to go through a lot of mental, physical and emotional agony, torture and embarrassment and words could never be enough to properly and adequately express that.
All these tactics were used to put pressure on the deponent so that he may tender his resignation from the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. But after March 13, 2007 when the deponent succeeded in establishing at least some contact with his lawyers team during a brief appearance before the Council and after March 16, 2007, the on going pressure to ‘resign the office’ was released to some extent.
The deponent now believes that his entire house has been bugged and at the Sindh House which is located right opposite the residence of the deponent, the officials of the agencies other than police have established a place therein to keep an eye on those who come and visit me, etc.
On account of the facts stated hereinabove, the children of the deponents are so scared that they could not go to school or university. As a result thereof, one of my daughters failed to appear in her exams (1st year, Federal Board) whereas my other daughter who is a student of Bahria university is not being allowed to take her examination (1st semester) due to lack of attendance in internal studies. My younger son is also not in a position to attend his school because of circumstances through which I am passing.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified on oath this ___________day of ______________2007 at Islamabad that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and nothing has been concealed therein from this Hon’ble Court.”
May 24th, 2007
Syed Farooq Hasnat -
Even the most well-versed pundits of Pakistani politics did not expect the turmoil currently plaguing the country.
General Pervez Musharraf, who has ruled Pakistan for nearly eight years without much resistance, has suddenly found himself in the middle of a crisis. The government mishandled an otherwise routine judicial matter right from the start. First, the chief justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was suspended. Next, the order was hurriedly withdrawn since it contradicted the spirit of Pakistan’s constitution. Then, the chief justice and his family were virtually put under house arrest, which provoked sharp condemnations from across the country.
Chaudhry has become a symbol of resistance against Musharraf’s dictatorial rule. A mass movement supporting Justice Chaudhry is spearheaded by lawyers and supported by opposition political parties and civil rights groups.
When the army staged a coup in October 1999, the major political parties led by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif had lost public support because of rampant corruption and misrule during their administrations. General Musharraf took advantage of public apathy and exiled both leaders – although for different reasons.
In recent months the high court under Chief Justice Chaudhry showed its strength when it dealt with habeas corpus issues and other matters that linked the government to corruption. In the past, the military governments easily intimidated Pakistan’s high courts. Notable among the court decisions that went against the regime was the issue of missing persons. At the time, it was feared that many Pakistani citizens were being handed over to the US intelligence agencies without providing valid evidence that they were involved in any unlawful acts. The second matter, which irked the military government, was the court’s nullification of the sale of the Pakistan Steel Mill, which was to be sold to a private party known to the Prime Minister, at a much cheaper price than its market value.
The Supreme Court’s new attitude is putting Musharraf on edge ahead of the 2007 elections, which are important for his survival as Pakistan’s leader. The court still has a number of contentious issues to decide that also make the military leadership nervous: Can the president be elected twice by the same assembly? Could the president remain in military uniform and still be president? Should the two exiled leaders Bhutto and Sharif be allowed to take part in the elections? There are also questions about the transparency of the elections and the dual nationality of the prime minister.
With the threat of an independent judiciary, Musharraf removed the chief justice, but he miscalculated the resilience of the judge who refused to resign. Musharraf also miscalculated the level of widespread public support for the opponent of his military rule. Street protests also exposed the vulnerability of his ruling Q League (the Pakistan Muslim League).
This is the first time in Pakistan’s 60-year history that a mass movement has been launched without the leadership of political parties. Now it’s the politicians who are following the dictates of the public mood and the legal community. This is also the first time that the army as an institution has been the target of public resentment. Previously, it was individual military personalities who were singled out for criticism.
Pakistan is not, however, politically “fragmented” along the lines of moderates and fundamentalists, as Musharraf has claimed. Recent events illustrate that the real contention is between those pushing for democratic reforms and those who support continued military rule.
Initially, the Musharraf regime thought public resentment would fizzle, mainly because of the summer heat and the political apathy that has prevailed for the last eight years. Instead, with every passing day the situation has worsened for Musharraf. Unprecedented public support for the judge and opposition to the government was apparent on May 5 when Justice Chaudhry was showered with rose petals by supporters as he journeyed from Islamabad to Lahore. The trip, which usually takes about five hours, took more than 26 hours as he greeted supporters along the way. Many had waited overnight to greet their new “symbol of resistance.”
On May 12, when the Chief Justice visited Karachi at the invitation of Sindh High Court Bar Association, an ethnic group, MQM — a staunch supporter of General Musharraf — blocked the judge from addressing the lawyers gathered there. Karachi erupted. After three days of riots, 42 people had died and more than 150 were injured. On May 16, General Musharraf gave his full backing to the MQM and showed no sympathy for the killings. The Karachi carnage has further weakened his military rule.
The general is left with few options for survival. He and his ministers have hinted at imposing a state of emergency or even Martial Law. He specifically stated that he is ready for extra constitutional measures to enhance his stay in power. But the mood of the people shows that such tactics will face widespread and stiff public resistance.
The only option left for General Musharraf is to form a neutral interim government and to hold free and open parliamentary elections. It’s time for him to quit – the army and the presidency.
Khaleej Times
3 May 2007
BY IRFAN HUSAIN
THERE are times when one suspects our leaders inhabit a bubble that is completely insulated from the realities the rest of us contend with every day. Consider the recent assassination attempt on the Pakistani Interior Minister, Aftab Sherpao. This was the latest reminder of what a dangerous country Pakistan has become. But wherever they go, senior members of the government keep extolling the country’s ‘ideal investment climate’.
The prime minister repeated this mantra recently in Beijing, but fortunately for him, the Chinese are a polite people, especially towards guests. Had they been a more crass nation, somebody might have laughed in his face when he recently told his hosts in Beijing that Pakistan had – yes, you guessed it — the ideal investment climate. Considering that several Chinese engineers have been killed by terrorists while working on various projects in Pakistan, we can hardly blame their government for taking Shaukat Aziz’s words with a large pinch of salt. Surely by now somebody should have told him how ridiculous he sounds in view of what’s happening back home.
A fortnight ago, in its leading article on Pakistan, the Economist wrote:
“If sending the army into the tribal areas has failed, and if goading one bunch of Islamists into slaughtering another is hardly a long-term option, what should Pakistan do? First, it needs to own up to the real problem. Swathes of the tribal areas are largely ungoverned, constituting less a failed state than a place where the state, from British colonial days to the present, has hardly even tried…
“His [General Musharraf’s] difficulties are compounded because like military regimes throughout Pakistan’s history, he finds Islamic extremists easier to deal with than secular opposition parties. There are also suspicions that some elements in Pakistan still hope for a friendly regime in Kabul, and still think Pakistan’s best Afghan friends remain the Taliban…”
In the same issue of the weekly, the weekly’s correspondent writes in an article on Pakistan:
“…A less obscure struggle was launched in Islamabad on April 6th by a mullah named Abdul Aziz. He gave the government a month to close the capital’s brothels and music shops, and tear down advertisements depicting women. He also declared Sharia law within the high walls of his mosque and the adjoining madressah. If the government were to respond with force, he promised it suicide bombings…”
So apart from armed uprisings in Balochistan and the tribal areas, we have an insurrection in the capital itself. Given this complete disregard for the writ of the state that seems to be spreading across the country, Mr Shaukat Aziz should not be too disappointed if his appeal for foreign direct investment does not result in a flood of projects and funds. Being a banker himself, he should understand that the first thing investors look for is security for their staff and their capital.
The fear of creeping Talebanisation in Pakistan raised by the Economist was echoed in a TV programme called ‘Between the Military and Mullahs’ last week. Aired by Channel 4 in the UK and written and narrated by Ziauddin Sardar, it takes viewers on an extensive tour of Pakistan, and shows them how the army and the mullahs are tearing the country apart. Mr Sardar is a well-known writer and commentator, and the hour-long programme was shown at primetime.
One of the points the narrator makes is that after 9/11, the army has been forced by the Americans to take on the religious extremists, and this has created a rift in the traditional partnership between the military and the mullahs, posing a grave threat to the fabric of the state. He also explores the extent to which the army has exploited the country for the sake of its officer corps. In one sequence, he empties a shopping bag before the camera, itemising the objects he has bought. All of them were manufactured in factories tied in one way or another to the military. He also points to an army-run bank in the background. Had our army been capable of shame, it would have divested itself of these embarrassing clues to its greed.
We in Pakistan do not need foreigners to tell us what the military-mullah nexus has done to our country. However, it is true that we have gradually become so accustomed to the present dismal state of affairs that we often forget that it is not the norm for armies to colonise their own countries. Or, indeed, for the clergy to tell us how to live our lives.
In my book, perhaps the only justification for the army to intervene in the running of a state is the complete collapse of the rule of law. But if anything, our army has contributed to this breakdown by its policies and actions. When Musharraf seized power in 1999, Pakistan might not have been entirely peaceful, but things were certainly not as bad as they are today.
In 1964, Nelson Mandela and several other African National Congress members were put on trial for leading an underground campaign against the apartheid South African state. In one of the great speeches of the 20th century, Mandela admitted taking recourse to violence, saying: “… Each [government-inspired] disturbance pointed to the inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that violence was the only way out – it showed that a government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it.”
And this is the heart of the matter. When a government has no legitimacy – as Musharraf’s does not – it uses force to enforce its edict. But when people cannot get a hearing through the democratic process, they have no option but to take to the streets, and, when the state still refuses to pay heed, resort to violence. This is not a justification for taking up arms, only an explanation. Musharraf needs to understand that consensus-building, while often a slow and tedious process, works better in the long run than the gruff, gung-ho mannerisms of the sergeant-major in boot camp.
As the debate about Musharraf’s uniform continues, perhaps it is time he thought seriously about retirement from both politics and the army. For all his energy and enthusiasm, the fact is that he lacks the flexibility to make the compromises necessary in the political arena. This October, he will have spent eight years in the presidency. This is about equal to the combined stints Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto have served as prime minister. And he has been army chief for a decade now. High time fresh blood was inducted in both the positions he currently holds.
After all, nobody is indispensable. More and more, Musharraf is seen as a part of the problem, so he can’t be part of the solution.
Irfan Husain is an eminent Pakistani writer based in London.
Dawn
May 19, 2007
By
Irfan Husain
JUDGING from reports emanating from Islamabad and Karachi, there is no remorse or regret from those responsible for the bloody events in the Sindh capital over the weekend. On the contrary, all we can sense is obstinacy and truculence.
The day after the bloodbath in Karachi, I spoke to a senior member of the MQM, expecting some acknowledgment that his party had completely misjudged and mishandled the situation. Not a bit of it. He was adamant that the MQM had the right to hold a rally whenever it chose to, even if it was as plain as day that it would trigger a confrontation. I tried to explain that while we all have a number of rights, we often choose not to exercise them.
A bit later, I had a long chat with a close adviser to General Musharraf. When I asked him what had been achieved by holding the official rally in Islamabad the same day as the Karachi killings, he also spoke of the ruling party’s ‘right’ to hold it. So clearly, it’s all about rights, and not responsibilities. I put it to both that whatever their complaints about Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s insistence on addressing the Sindh High Court bar association on May 12 in the face of warning signals, surely law and order was the government’s responsibility. But both were adamant that the whole bloody mess was caused by the Chief Justice’s obdurate stance.
A couple of days later, General Musharraf repeated this message to a group of uneasy parliamentarians. He urged them to ‘close ranks’, reminding them that they were all on his team. He also directed the Muslim League members ‘not to isolate the MQM’, saying he would ‘see’ to the media that had held the MQM largely responsible for the fiasco.
But as the blame game goes on in the Presidency and in Parliament, we are in danger of losing sight of the bigger picture. Apart from the tragic and unnecessary loss of so many lives, what do the recent events in Karachi mean for the country? For clearly, it can no longer be business as usual for the government or the opposition.
For Musharraf, the options are limited, and he has been forced into a situation where he can only react to events. For a general, this is not a comfortable spot to be. Basically, he has to await the outcome of the reference against the Chief Justice currently being heard by a full bench of the Supreme Court. Should his nemesis, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, be reinstated, Musharraf will effectively lose his moral authority to rule. He may struggle on, but he will be a lame duck president. His crowd of opportunistic Muslim League supporters will desert the sinking ship in droves.
If the Supreme Court decides in the government’s favour, the agitation will continue, with the legal fraternity and the opposition claiming that official pressure was brought to bear on the judiciary. The recent murder of Hammad Raza, the additional registrar of the Supreme Court, is something that will give weight to their argument. In any case, with the Chief Justice acting as a lightning rod, the anti-Musharraf bandwagon will only gain strength over time. Musharraf will be beleaguered, depending on the isolated and discredited MQM and a shaky Muslim League for support.
The endgame might take longer, but the outcome would be the same: a politically wounded president clinging on for as long as he can.
There is (still) a third option, but one unlikely to be explored. When I suggested to Musharraf’s advisor that the only way out was for his boss to withdraw the mischievous reference to the Supreme Court, he was clear that this was not a route the government was prepared to take. Indeed, army generals in Pakistan are not in the habit of apologising for their mistakes, or indeed, learning from them.
And what of the MQM? Until recently, there had been signs that this ethnic party was reaching out to the rest of the country, and trying to achieve a bigger profile. By organising a huge rally against the rapid Talibanisation of Pakistan last month, it fell in line with the national mood.
On a number of issues, it seemed to strike an independent, secular position that was out of sync with the reactionary stance adopted by its coalition partner, the PML-Q. A number of us had come to hope that the MQM’s earlier violence was a thing of the past, and that a reformed party was poised to move beyond Karachi and Hyderabad. But its role in precipitating last Saturday’s mayhem has proved that nothing has changed, and that it is as ready to use force to further its short-term agenda as it was in the past. Anybody who heard Altaf Hussain’s bizarre address to the party faithful on May 12 will realise how out of touch with reality he is.
Another outcome of recent events is to forever close the door to the possibility of a deal between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. She is too canny a politician to throw a wounded President a lifeline, and inflicting irreparable harm to the PPP at the same time. There is thus a better chance for the opposition to unite than ever before during the Musharraf era. Indeed, by launching this ill-advised pre-emptive strike against the Chief Justice to ensure his re-election, Musharraf has given the opposition a perfect platform.
As he tries to douse the domestic fires he lit in the first place, he is facing threats on a number of other fronts. The rising tide of violence along the Afghan border is an indication of things to come. In Balochistan, despite his threats to crush the insurgency, lowlevel violence continues unabated. Clearly, his American supporters must be getting nervous as they see their favourite regional ally facing the toughest test of his long stint in power.
Probably the most crucial element in this complex equation is the role of the army. Thus far, it has stood solidly behind its chief. The corps commanders form the ruling junta’s sinews as well as its board of directors. Normally, the seniority gap between them and the chief can be measured in months. Now, due to Musharraf’s decade-long stint as chief of army staff, a wide gap has opened up.
These officers are too junior to talk to Musharraf as nearequals. But they might have to remind him that the national interest and his personal interest have diverged too much for him to stay. And that time might come if the troops have to be called out in Punjab to maintain law and order.
EDITORIAL
May 13, 2007
Yesterday Karachi saw the worst political violence in Pakistan in many years; over thirty people were confirmed killed and scores injured in clashes and gunfights between pro-government and opposition groups. Was this unexpected? No.
The arrival in Karachi of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was not taken lightly by President General Pervez Musharraf after the great show of force of the anti-Musharraf forces in Lahore. Until that point the government was only uncomfortable with the CJP’s outings to Rawalpindi and the NWFP. But the Lahore show was unique. It indicated that the movement against General Musharraf was gathering momentum. The reaction of the PMLQ government in Punjab was low-profile, possibly because the Punjab chief minister wanted to avoid a confrontation. Not so, however, with the Mutahidda Qaumi Movement (MQM) which decided to show its muscle and announced counter rallies against the chief justice.
Some factors are easily discernible and they should inform us of where responsibility for the tragedy lies in Karachi. Reports were already circulating that General Musharraf was girding up to take on the CJP. This was confirmed when the MQM announced its rally on the same day and near the CJP’s venue before the Karachi bar. Up in Islamabad also the government announced to take out a “mammoth rally”. It was clear that the government was trying to counter the movement that has taken hold of the country following the action against the CJP on March 9. The fear of the government was that all the opposition parties would flock to the occasion and make it look like a massive no-confidence vote of the people against the president. The measure of its paranoia could be had from the fact that all approaches to the Sindh High Court were blocked with large containers, a red rag to the charged-up supporters of the CJP. But General Musharraf’s ally, the MQM, had other plans too. The commitment the MQM made to General Musharraf in his “hour of need” can be gauged from the fact that the MQM rally was to be addressed by Mr Altaf Hussain after its climax at Tibet Centre.
The plan of a counter rally by the government in Karachi was a recipe for disaster. The way things were planned could be seen from the way the government leaders, including the Sindh governor, tried to put the blame for the violence on the arrival in Karachi of the CJP. Governor Ishrat-ul Ibad told TV channels that the provincial government had clearly informed the CJP in writing that his arrival could create a law and order situation. “We thought he is a supposedly non-political person and would appreciate our concern.” This is interesting. Why was the provincial government “fearing” a law and order situation and simultaneously eager to go through the exercise of a counter rally? Governor Ibad also said, repeatedly, that the CJP’s legal advisors were politically aligned and were using the CJP to advance political objectives. He indicated that the government was planning to take strict action against those responsible for the current situation. The same line was used by Dr Farooq Sattar and various MQM leaders interviewed on camera. And the same line was taken by General Musharraf when he addressed his lacklustre rally in Islamabad.
But the problem with this line is that the potential for mischief was created by the government which first announced a “political” rally to counter the CJP’s address to the bar and then tried to put the blame on the CJP for having come to Karachi. Nothing happened during any of the CJP’s outings across the country. Why wasn’t he allowed to do the same in Karachi? Clearly, the message was that the government would not give him a free hand to rouse the masses after Lahore.
None of this bodes well for the country. In Islamabad, even as people were dying in Karachi, the government’s rally was being convened through a lot of fanfare and folk dances. As former premier Nawaz Sharif noted from exile correctly: the conflict is being given an ethnic colouring and that is poisonous for the solidarity of the country. It is ironic that the rally in Karachi was titled “In Defence of the Integrity and Honour of the Judiciary” and the one up in Islamabad was called “Istehkam-e Pakistan” rally. Both were in fact indicative of the vertical fault-line that now separates Pakistan and divides it between anti- and pro-Musharraf forces.
The question now is: what course of action is General Musharraf planning to take? The possibility of any compromise to correct the original mistake of removing the CJP has vanished now. The ante has been upped by the government.
Where does General Musharraf go from here? One thing is clear. General Musharraf must realise that his own fortune is linked intrinsically with the solidarity of the country he rules. It would be naïve to think that he could personally survive while the country slides into perdition. There are more cracks and fissures in it today than when he took power in 1999. *
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
