Pragmatism has become an innuendo for opportunism and betrayal. The
Constitution can be torn up like a piece of toilet paper, but Ordinances in
whatever Legality they are Framed can neither help you look good nor keep the
backside cleanThere is nothing like the law if it is on your side. Justice (retd) Nasim Hassan Shah’s interview to GEO was revealing. I admire his courage to recount the conduct of a panel of Supreme Court Judges that adversely reflects on the conduct of Shah Sahib himself. Justice Shah was asked three questions by the interviewer. Shah Sahib had the courage — others might say temerity — to give three honest answers. I cannot exactly formulate the three questions and Shah Sahib’s replies but in their essence they were somewhat as follows.
Question One: Why is the Judiciary so favourably inclined towards army regimes and indifferent to civil governments? Justice Shah’s answer was simple and honest: “They have rifles and we have our jobs to protect.” Question Two: Was there any ‘advice’ from above in the Bhutto case? Answer: “I am not aware that any ‘advice’ was given, but I suppose the chief justice must have been ‘advised’ and if he was ‘advised’ then he must have passed on the ‘advice’ to the other judges on the bench. Question Three: Do you think that Bhutto was justly hanged? Answer: “I think Bhutto’s council Yahya Bukhtiar handled the case badly. When the panel of judges asked him what he thought should be Bhutto’s punishment, he retorted that Bhutto should not be punished at all and should be allowed to go free. This annoyed the judges and they hanged him.”
Like a Shakespearean character that has come to realise his tragic error, Shah Sahib confessed that whenever he thought of it he felt sorry for what had happened. A citizen of our country, who was also the prime minister, was hanged and the law feels sorry for it three decades later. Justice Shah has taken an honest step towards his personal redemption. May God give him the courage to pursue the matter to its logical end! Will the judiciary have the courage to take on Justice Shah for his revelations or have the will to review the heinous judgement in light of the malafide intent as revealed by Justice Shah, only time will tell. Certainly these are matters which a self-respecting nation and our honourable courts cannot ignore indefinitely. I am afraid that with a few exceptions, the silence of the PPP on the subject has baffled not only their supporters but also all those who believe in justice and the supremacy of law.
There is a saying that in order to speak one lie, one has to fabricate a hundred more. It is always best to acknowledge mistakes instead of reinforcing them. It is never too late, as they say, to start with a clean slate. Many such common sayings have become platitudes and we use them thoughtlessly, just to garnish our thoughts. They have been around since I don’t know when. There must be some wisdom in them if they have survived for so long. I wonder what our esteemed judiciary would have to say on the archaic subject of telling lies and accepting mistakes?
Pakistan started with a dream — faith in its honest hardworking people, trust in democracy and justice and firm hope in a bright future. What a mess we have made of that dream. Out of the 56 years of its existence, dictators have usurped half the time. Jinnah had very clearly stated — allow me to repeat it for those who suffer from amnesia — that Pakistan would be a federation and have a secular, parliamentary democracy. His views on theocracy, the role of the army, the judiciary, the executive, are as clearly stated as a television commercial. Distortions that have been incessantly made to the Quaid’s vision of Pakistan, to serve changing political interests of the ruling generals and religious fanatics, are common knowledge and need no comment.
Jesus Christ on the cross apparently appealed to God and said, “Lord forgive them for they know not what they are doing.” Can a nation and its people forgive those who know only too well what they have been doing? Quick fixes never work. There are no short cuts to the right solutions. Honest men don’t make deals. Pragmatism has become an innuendo for opportunism and betrayal. The Constitution can be torn up like a piece of toilet paper, but Ordinances in whatever legality they are framed can neither help you look good nor keep the backside clean. “Bharian gallan dey bharay nateejay” or in other words, bad deeds lead to a bad end. And yet one never learns.
The only real lesson of history has been that no one learns from it. It is said that the difference between a wise man and a fool is that while the wise man makes new mistakes, a fool continues to repeat the old ones. What category do we belong to? To avoid a misunderstanding, let me quickly add, nations are never made of fools; it is the individual who is foolish.
One of the great failings of our country has been rhetorical patriotism. Patriotism, in our case, has become an anachronism, insisting on preserving things as they are. It seems to have become the reserve of those who are in uniform — the greatest beneficiaries of patriotism. Most gentlemen in uniform consider citizens in civvies wanting in patriotism. How sad? Indeed how tragic that they should think so?
Quite frequently, civilian governments, which are ‘helped’ by the generals into government, also regard the opposition as unpatriotic and enemy agents. Patriotism is a convenient weapon in the hands of those who wield power to harass individuals and political parties. In the 1990s when elected governments were trying to normalise relations with India, it was regarded as unpatriotic. Ten years later — a decade wasted — it is now being accepted as something in our best national interest.
The generals genuinely feel that in order to protect national integrity and the sacred borders of the country, the unpatriotic people of the country must be made to surrender their constitutional rights. They are actually convinced that the people of our country are incapable of governing themselves. What is worse, most of them cannot get the PPP out of their mind and BB out of the PPP.
The people are illiterate and cannot distinguish right from wrong. Others, who are literate or educated, are persons of dubious loyalties. But what an interesting life for a trapeze artist. He could swing from pillar to post and then go and reside on a tree. He could then lead the peaceful life of a monkey. Alternatively he could learn to dance to martial notes and not anger the judges. Delete B’s and P’s from the political vocabulary and justice might then be done.
Prof Ijaz-ul-Hassan is a painter, author and a political activist