Verdict on Asghar Khan case has stirred storm in a
tea cup. Apparently, PPP is sensing a kill, PML (N) is on the defensive and a
few anchor-persons known for their anti-establishment stance, for different
reasons, are considering it an opportunity to further their agenda. In my
reckoning, there is too much excitement, too soon as little is going to come
out of the decision which will only be used for gaining political mileage,
resulting into greater acrimony among the political parties.
For many, it’s a landmark decision as for the
first time in the history of this country, the former chiefs of the Army and
ISI have been directly implicated for distributing public money amongst certain
politicians. The missing link, however, is why did they do it? Had they some
personal agenda or was it an institutional undertaking? If the amount was
distributed among the anti-BB politicians, what were the reasons for stopping
BB from reaching the corridors of power.
In this regard, Lieutenant General (R) Hamid Gul
has often admitted that he was instrumental in making IJI and has been
challenging the judiciary to summon him for explaining his reasons for doing
so. The bench dealing with the Asghar Khan case did not summon him but in case
of trial of the former chiefs of Army and ISI, I am sure Lieutenant General (R)
Hamid Gul would be called as the first witness and, going by the confidence he
displays, I am sure he would have many revelations to make, which may not only
hurt PPP badly but also spoil its relations with the military establishment.
So, to me, trial of the generals would do more harm than good for the country.
Another aspect of the verdict that may cause
uncertainty is that while the confessions of those who distributed money were
considered good enough to implicate them, their same testimony is not good
enough to implicate those who took the money. If tomorrow it is not proved that
the supposed receivers took the money, what would happen to those who admit
distributing the money. It is just as if a person confesses to committing a
murder but would we declare him a murderer if the victim is still alive.
The third aspect of the verdict relates to the
president's political activities. In all likelihood, President Zardari is not
going to shun his political activities, will continue to be the de-facto head
and lead the party, especially in view of the forthcoming elections. As such,
we may be heading for yet another tussle between the President and Judiciary.
Thus, I see fewer chances of any convictions, but
greater polarization.
The timing of the announcement of short order is
yet another aspect which, I feel, could have been deliberated. We know that
these days a consensus was being developed successfully against the militants
after the Malala incident and the verdict has totally diverted public
attention, indirectly benefiting the militants. Could it have been delayed for
a few days for a better cause?
The outcome also raises an important question; is
it a pre-cursor to opening other such cases? Pakistan’s history is full of
betrayals, treachery and unconstitutional undertakings by the military
establishment, Judiciary and the politicians. As a practice, whenever the
military took-over power, the Judiciary mostly validated the act and the
politicians in the opposition welcomed it. Was not the last military take-over
by Musharraf validated by Judiciary, with the present CJ as part of the bench,
and BB supported the coup? He was even given unprecedented powers to amend the
constitution by the court. Can the country, already in the doldrums, afford to
dig all the previous such cases and punish the perpetrators?
Already, NRO case has wasted over four years with
no meaningful outcome from public perspective, now we are embroiled in
controversy over Asghar Khan case verdict and more cases are in the offing,
starting with proceedings on the memo-gate commission.
While the judicial process may take its course,
can we afford the polarization unnecessarily generated as an outcome of decisions,
especially when already facing existential threat from militancy and extremism
– a point for our Judiciary, politicians and anchor-persons to ponder? To put
it simply; do we want to live in the past or ready to move on?
No comments:
Post a Comment