وقتِ اشاعت: Sunday, 25 November, 2007, 06:33 GMT 11:33 PST

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2007/11/071125_nawaz_return_analysis_zs.shtml
یہ صفحہ دوست کو ای میل کیجیئے پرِنٹ کریں
شریف خاندان مشرف کو کیا دے رہا ہے؟

علی سلمان
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لاہور

مسلم لیگ کے حمایتی
اس دس سالہ معاہدے کا کیا ہوا جس پر دونوں فریق اس حد متفق ہیں کہ اس پر نواز شریف کے دستخط موجود ہیں؟

میاں نواز شریف کی واپسی اگر ڈیل کا نتیجہ نہیں ہے تو پھر اس بار حکومت کارویہ اتنا مختلف کیوں ہے؟

آخر سعودی فرماں روا عبداللہ بن عبدالعزیز نے وہ کونسا احسان کیا جسے نواز شریف اور ان کے اہلخانہ ساری زندگی نہیں بھلاسکتے؟ اس احسان کا اعتراف میاں نواز شریف بار بار کر رہے ہیں حالانکہ جب اب سے صرف سوا دو مہینے پہلے جب اسلام آباد ائرپورٹ سے انہیں دوبارہ جلاوطن کیا گیا تھا تو مسلم لیگی رہنما سعودی عرب کے خلاف اس قدر برانگیختہ ہوئے تھے کہ پاکستان کی تاریخ میں پہلی بار سعودی عرب کے خلاف عوامی اجتماعات میں تقریریں ہوئی تھیں۔

’نواز شریف اتوار کولاہورپہنچیں گے‘
نواز شریف ایک بار پھر جلاوطن، جدہ منتقل
جلا وطنی کے معاہدے کا عکس
حلف سے جلاوطنی: ٹائم لائن

یہ بھی ایک حقیقت ہے کہ دوسری جلاوطنی میں سعودی حکومت مشرف کا ساتھ نہ دیتی تو نواز شریف کو کسی دوسرے ملک بھجوایا جانا صدر مشرف کے لیے بہت مشکل یا شاید ناممکن ہی ہوتا۔ یہ سوال یقیناً بہت سے پاکستانیوں کے ذہن میں کلبلا رہا ہوگا کہ اب اچانک سعودی بادشاہ نے کیا احسان کر دیا ہے؟

سوال حکومت پاکستان سے بھی ہے کہ وہ اچانک میاں نواز شریف پر اتنی مہربان کیوں ہوگئی ہےکہ نہ صرف انہیں آنے کی اجازت مل رہی ہے بلکہ اس سعودی شاہی طیارے کو لاہور کے ائرپورٹ پر خوشدلی سے اترنے دیا جا رہا ہے جو سعودی بادشاہ نے سابق پاکستانی وزیراعظم کو اس خصوصی سفر کے لیے دیا ہے۔

سعودی فرماں روا اور نواز شریف کی ملاقات

نواز شریف کی وطن واپسی کی صورت میں ان کے استقبال میں اس کی طرح کی رکاوٹ نہیں ڈالی جا رہی جیسا کہ ماضی میں ہوتا رہا ہے۔ پولیس کا رویہ مسلم لیگ (ن) کے ساتھ اچانک نرم ہوگیا ہے۔ لاہور میں ساری رات اجتماعات ہوئے، پوسٹر،بینر لگے لیکن اکا دکا کے سوا کوئی گرفتاری ہوئی نہ آخری اطلاعات آنے تک نواز شریف کے خیر مقدمی پوسٹر یا بینراتارے گئے۔

مسلم لیگ کے صدر شہباز شریف کہتےہیں کہ نواز شریف اور ڈیل دو متضاد چیزیں ہیں، ایوان صدر سے ترجمان کہتےہیں کہ نواز شریف کی واپسی کسی ڈیل کا نتیجہ نہیں ہےتو پھر اس دس سالہ معاہدے کا کیا ہوا جس پر دونوں فریق اس حد متفق ہیں کہ اس پر نواز شریف کے دستخط موجود ہیں۔

یہ معاہدہ کب اور کیسے ختم ہوا اور اسے کس نے کالعدم قراردیا۔

پیپلز پارٹی کے چیئر پرسن بے نظیر بھٹو نے تو پاکستان آنے سے پہلے برملا حکومت سے بات چیت کا اعتراف کیاتھا اسی بات چیت کی کوکھ سے ایک مفاہمتی آرڈیننس نے جنم لیا جو اچھا یا برا تھا لیکن ایک آئینی اقدام تھا اور عوام سے کوئی بات چھپائی نہیں گئی تھی۔

اب سیاسی مبصرین بجا طور پر یہ سوال اٹھا سکتےہیں کہ شہباز شریف کے خلاف لاہور کی انسداد دہشت گردی کی عدالت نے قتل کے مقدمے میں گرفتاری کے ناقابل ضمانت دائمی وارنٹ جاری کر رکھے ہیں اس کا کیا بنے گا۔ کیا شہباز شریف کو ائرپورٹ پر ہتھکڑیاں لگ جائیں گی؟اگر نہیں تو کیا یہ پھر بھی ڈیل نہیں کہلائے گی۔

نواز شریف سمیت شریف خاندان کے مقدمات نیب میں زیر سماعت ہیں اور خود نواز شریف کو ایک ایسے معاہدے کےتحت جلاوطن کیا گیا جس میں انہوں نے جلاوطنی قبول کی اور بدلے میں میں ان کی سزا معاف کی گئی۔ سوچنے کی بات یہ بھی ہے کہ اگر نواز شریف وہ معاہدہ توڑ کر واپس آرہے ہیں تو کیا ان کی سزائیں بھی دوبارہ بحال کی جارہی ہیں؟ اگر نہیں تو کیا پھر بھی یہ ڈیل نہیں ہے؟

نواز شریف کے حوالے سے یہ بیان آیا تھا کہ’ وہ صدر مشرف سے نہیں ملنا نہیں چاہتے سعودی فرماں روا شاہ عبداللہ خود ان سے بات کریں‘۔ کیا وہ انہیں یہ کہہ رہے تھے کہ وہ ان کی طرف سے صدر مشرف سے معاملات طے کریں اورکیا انہیں اپنی غیر اعلانیہ قید میں رکھنے والے سعودی حکام کا شریف خاندان پر یہی احسان ہے کہ انہوں نے جہاں ماضی میں انہیں جیل سے نکلوا کر اپنی سرزمین پر پناہ دی وہیں اب وہ انہیں دس کی بجائے سات برس میں وطن واپسی کی اجازت لے کر دے رہے ہیں۔

آخر کچھ تو ایسے معاملات ہوئے ہونگے جس نے سو دو مہینے کی قلیل مدت میں صدر مشرف کے رویے کو اس حد تک تبدیل کیا کہ وہ انہیں تیسری بار جلاوطن نہیں کر رہے۔

کیا پاکستان کا عام شہری نواز شریف اور صدر مشرف سے یہ پوچھنے میں حق بجانب نہیں کہ آٹھ برس پہلے جلاوطنی کا معاہدہ اور اب وطن واپسی کے اقدامات ڈیل، مفاہمت، مذاکرات، کچھ لو کچھ دو نہیں ہے تو پھر کیا ہیں؟

ہر ڈیل میں ادلے کا بدلہ ہوتاہے شریف خاندان کو تو اس مبینہ ڈیل کے نتیجےمیں وطن واپسی کی اجازت مل رہی ہے اور وہ بھی ایسی کہ ایک فوجی حکومت اور اس کے تمام آئینی اور ماورائے آئین اقدامات کے باوجود شریف خاندان کو عام انتخابات میں اپنے کاغذات نامزدگی جمع کرانے کا سیدھا موقع مل رہا ہے۔ سوچنے کی بات یہ ہے کہ جواباً شریف خاندان صدر مشرف کو کیا دے رہا ہے؟

Way back in 1999 Kamran Khan had written

Ambitious Ziauddin steered Nawaz to political disaster News Intelligence Unit By Kamran Khan Fears of a Military Coup in Pakistan Chowk P Room October 12, 1999 http://www.chowk.com/site/articles/index.php?id=4644
http://www.chowk.com/interacts/4644/1/0/16

ISLAMABAD: Within half an hour of his surreptitious climb to the post of the Chief of Army Staff on Tuesday afternoon, the former Inter-Services Intelligence chief, General Khawaja Ziauddin knew that the Army he was supposed to lead was not prepared to accept his command. The News Intelligence Unit (NIU) has gathered that all of Ziauddin`s phone calls to the Corps Commanders and the Chief of General Staff — placed from the Prime Minister`s House in Islamabad on Tuesday — drew a blank, a reaction that almost instantly drew down the curtains on former prime minister Nawaz Sharif`s second term in office. Debriefing sessions with detained aides of the Nawaz Sharif administration by security officials here have disclosed that the former ISI chief-led operation to stage an in-house coup in the Army was driven by his personal ambitions ignoring the actual situation on the ground. “Even a layman in Pakistan is aware that any operation of this sort can never be completed without the active support of the troops and commanders posted in the cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi,“ an Army official commented. “It was foolish of the former prime minister not to be aware that his nominee for the Army chief didn`t have the key support of the 10 Corps and more specifically the 111 brigade,“ he added. It has now become clear that Lt. Gen. Ziauddin was the architect of the secret operation that envisioned the official announcement of his promotion to the post of COAS once Gen Pervez Musharraf boarded PIA Flight PK 805 in Colombo for a journey that severed his contact with the GHQ for a good 200 minutes. It was also Lt. Gen. Ziauddin who, along with the former principal secretary Saeed Mehdi, had suggested to Nawaz Sharif that General Pervez Musharraf`s plane must not be allowed to land at Karachi so that he could be arrested at any other less busy airports in Sindh.

Sources said that Ziauddin had assured Sharif that he would gain the full command of the Army much before the landing of General Pervez Musharraf`s plane at Karachi airport, a dream that suddenly transformed itself into Sharif and Ziauddin`s worst nightmare. Officials here believe that because of his family and, more particularly, his father`s old ties with Khawaja Ziauddin`s family, Sharif always wanted to appoint him to the coveted post of the COAS, but he couldn`t do that since he had ignored a senior-most three star general as General Jehangir Karamat`s replacement. Several close aides to Sharif had often conceded in the past that Gen Kuli Khan Khattak was ignored because Sharif was not comfortable with a Pathan general.

Ziauddin, an officer from the Army`s Corps of Engineers, was one course junior to Gen. Ali Kuli Khan and Gen. Pervez Musharraf at the Pakistan Military Academy, but even before Karamat`s dramatic exit from the Army, Ziauddin had told his friends about the likelihood of his replacing Gen. Jehangir Karamat. Sources said that General Karamat had posted him as the Corps Commander, Gujranwala in response to a personal request from Sharif, who wanted to give him a fair chance at the time of Karamat`s retirement. Those who had close access to Sharif always contended that his decision to appoint Gen Musharraf was a stopgap arrangement between Gen. Karamat`s abrupt resignation and Ziauddin`s eventual appointment as the COAS. Ziauddin`s appointment as the ISI chief, minutes after Musharraf`s posting as the COAS, spoke volumes of Sharif`s bent of mind at the time. With the knowledge that doubts deliberately created about Musharraf`s tenure as the COAS would further deteriorate worsening relations between the Army and the former prime minister, Ziauddin using his position as the ISI chief nonetheless invented an intriguing conspiracy theory on the Kargil crisis and helped fuel misinformation that the Army leadership got Sharif trapped by launching the Kargil operation.

During the Kargil crisis, Gen. Ziauddin`s exclusive briefing to the former prime minister almost always contradicted the GHQ`s version. “He was responsible for planting the seeds of intrigue on the Kargil issue in Sharif`s mind,“ according to a reliable official source. In his rash drive to convince Sharif that Musharraf`s removal as the COAS would ease tension with the Army, Ziauddin is believed to have also encouraged the former Intelligence Bureau chief Colonel (retd) Iqbal Niazi, to invent a variety of Army-backed threatening scenarios for Sharif, who apparently had an unlimited appetite for stories that painted a highly negative picture of Musharraf and the corps commanders considered close to the COAS. Khawaja Ziauddin`s desperation to please Nawaz Sharif became evident on the first day of his appointment as the ISI chief when he readily confirmed a police-doctored version about the culprits allegedly involved in the ghastly murder of Hakim Mohammad Said. On Ziauddin`s report, submitted without any independent verification, Sharif got an excuse to knock out the democratic set-up in Sindh, an act that later emerged as part of a well-engineered plot to make way for the installation of an exclusive PML-run unelected administration in Sindh. An independent Army probe later discovered that the Sindh Police`s version of the Hakim Said case, with a stamp of ISI confirmation from Gen. Ziauddin, was nothing but “a pack of lies.“ Neither Sharif nor Ziauddin, however, ever acknowledged the blunder.

In another desperate attempt to please the former prime minister, Ziauddin ordered the illegal detention of Najam Sethi, the editor Friday Times, for more than two weeks. Despite the Army`s blunt refusal to initiate sedition or treason charges against Sethi, Ziauddin obliged Sharif and Saifur Rahman by keeping Sethi locked up for about 20 days. Sethi had been handed to Ziauddin`s ISI after being abducted by IB goons from his Lahore residence. Sources said Ziauddin agreed to hold Sethi in illegal detention in response to a single phone call from Saifur Rahman, who later also made Sharif speak to him on the subject. Reliable sources said that Ziauddin was also behind severe criticism of the Kargil crisis by at least two corps commanders, who later met Sharif in Ziauddin`s presence. These meetings were never reported to the COAS, who later reacted by removing both corps commanders from their posts. For Sharif, sources said, Ziauddin`s mission was to divide the corps commanders on ethnic and professional lines and to create an anti-Musharraf lobby amongst the corps commanders. “Since his appointment as the DG ISI, Ziauddin was playing a dangerous game that pitched his boss against the Army,“ observed a senior official. “His operation ultimately turned out to be hara kari (suicide).“

Nawaz favourites also being obliged By Ansar Abbasi Sunday, November 28, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/28-11-2010/Top-Story/2340.htm

ISLAMABAD: If President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani are generously offering key government positions to their favourites, the PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif is no exception. Those who have been loyal to Mian Nawaz Sharif in the past are being adjusted against key provincial government positions one by one but slowly and surely. A lot has appeared in the media about the appointment of the president’s and prime minister’s friends, jail mates, acquaintances and cronies, including corrupt and convicts, against key government positions, not much noise has been raised regarding the appointments of Sharifs’ favourites in the provincial government. The apparent reasons for this are believed to be the small number of such appointees as well as the fewer controversies surrounding the Punjab rulers’ favourites. However, now the PML-N’s list has also started growing.

Of late, a retired secretary, known loyal of Nawaz Sharif and his principal secretary during his second term as the Prime Minister, A Z K Sherdil has been appointed by Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif as the chairman of the Bank of Punjab. Sherdil has been privately assisting Nawaz Sharif on different matters after his return from Jeddah. General Ziauddin Butt, the former ISI Chief and the man who was appointed on October 12, 1999, as army chief but could not take the military’s command because of General Musharraf’s coup, has also been appointed recently as chairman of the Chief Minister’s Inspection Commission. Butt has been enjoying good reputation in Army, but he was retired without any benefit. Rana Maqbool Ahmad—Mian Nawaz Sharif’s co-accused in the plane high jacking case, which was falsely framed by Musharraf to fix the former prime minister and others—is serving the Punjab government as secretary prosecution. Maqbool is a former inspector general of Sindh police. His appointment is also controversial for the reason that he is a declared absconder of the Sindh High Court in a case in which President Asif Ali Zardari had claimed that he was tortured by Maqbool in Karachi jail during his prison days.

Jehanzeb Burki, a former police inspector general, who served as IG Punjab and Islamabad under Nawaz Sharif, is presently serving as adviser to the Punjab chief minister. Pervez Rathore, former Capital Police Chief, Lahore, has also been close to Nawaz Sharif since his first term as Prime Minister when he was appointed as SSP, Islamabad. Rathore, who has retired recently, has been appointed as member Punjab Public Service Commission. Lt Gen (R) Syed Sabahat Hussain is serving as chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission. Sabahat has served Nawaz Sharif as his military secretary during his second tenure. Sabahat got retired in 2009. According to one source, he has been given this position on the recommendation of the GHQ. Mian Nawaz Sharif’s personal secretary Dr Kirmani is on the pay roll of the Punjab government, where he is reflected as media consultant. Nawaz Sharif’s old media friend Zulfikar Balti, who mostly covers Nawaz Sharif and the PML-N even today, is also reflected as official photographer in the department of director general public relations.

Former principal secretary to the Prime Minister (Nawaz Sharif) and his long time associate, Saeed Mehdi, was also serving as adviser to the Punjab chief minister. However, after the NRO judgment handed down by the Supreme Court, Mehdi, whose name was reflected in the list of NRO beneficiaries, opted to resign. Another retired Additional Secretary Farogh Navid, who served Nawaz Sharif in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat during his second term, was appointed chairman of the Task Force on Transparency and Government, but he too lost the job after the task force was abolished several months back by the Punjab government. Two PML-N activists, including Ejaz Gul, representative of PML-N, UK, and Ms Niva Usman, were also made chairpersons of task forces, but they too were shown the door after the recent abolition of all paid task forces following the recent floods. Unlike President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani’s favourites, generally the appointees of Sharifs have clean reputation. None of these appointees have been found in any scandal of corruption, which see no end in the federal government.

MQM shifts blame for 1992 operation from military to Nawaz Wednesday, September 02, 2009 News Analysis By Amir Mir http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24255

LAHORE: The much trumpeted 1992 operation clean-up in Sindh had actually been launched against the backdrop of the infamous ‘Major Kaleem kidnapping case’, when a serving Army major was abducted and tortured, allegedly by a group of activists belonging to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (which was then known as the Muhajir Qaumi Movement).

While the MQM leadership has recently blamed former prime minister Nawaz Sharif for the 1992 operation and asked him to apologise for the atrocities committed during his tenure, it remains a fact that the MQM high command had held at that time the military leadership responsible for the action, saying it actually wanted to avenge the honour of Major Kaleemuddin.

As a matter of fact, Major Kaleemuddin of the Field Investigation Unit (FIU) of the Army had been tasked to restore peace in the trouble-stricken Landhi area of Karachi. He was abducted on June 20, 1991, along with a few subordinates, while in civvies ñ the night when the MQM-Haqiqi led by Afaq Ahmed made an abortive attempt to take over Landhi offices of the Altaf-led MQM, called Muhajir Khel. This led to a bloody gun battle between the two MQM factions, killing many from both sides.

However, the Haqiqi group was forced to flee after the Altaf group unleashed all its fire power in the gun battle. A few hours after the abortive attempt by the Haqiqi group, Major Kaleemuddin was abducted from the Landhi area by armed activists of the MQM, who allegedly took him to a torture cell and subjected him to ‘mistreatment’. The Major Kaleemuddin kidnapping case is still described by many in the establishment as the bedrock of the subsequent military operations carried out against the MQM under the Sharif and the Bhutto governments. Altaf Hussain and several other MQM leaders and workers were subsequently accused of being involved in the kidnapping episode and named in the FIR registered on June 24, 1991. Altaf left Pakistan in December 1992.

But there are different versions of what exactly happened to Major Kaleemuddin. Some of the MQM leaders had claimed after the incident that the abductors were under the impression that MQM-Haqiqi leaders ñ Afaq Ahmed and Amir Khan – had returned to the port city at the behest of the agencies and that the major was present in Landhi to supervise the establishment-sponsored operation against them. During the court trial, many of the accused had claimed that since the major was in plain clothes, he was mistaken by them for a Haqiqi activist and subsequently roughed up. But as soon he had revealed his identity, the major was allowed to go.

However, according to the prosecution, Major Kaleemuddin, along with three other Army officers, was patrolling the Landhi area in an Army jeep when 20 armed youths took them hostage after seizing their weapons. The Army men were taken to a place called Muhajir Khel in Landhi where they were allegedly tortured and kept for seven hours and rescued when the police reached the place. The accused charged with kidnapping the Army officers and torturing them included Altaf Hussain, Saleem Shahzad, Dr Imran Farooq, Safdar Baqri, Nadeem Ayubi, Ayub Shah, Aftab Ahmed, Ismail alias Sitara, Ashraf Zaidi, Sajid Azad, Ashfaq Chief, Javed Kazmi, Haji Jalal Asghar Chacha, Rehan Zaidi and Mohammad Yousuf.

Whatever the truth might be, the then-Army high command’s keen interest in the prosecution of the accused gave an impression as if the traditional martial pride of the Khakis – that nobody gets away with bashing up an Army officer ñ was at work. Gen Asif Nawaz had been the Corps Commander Karachi at that time who got promoted as the Army Chief in August 1991, right before the start of the military operation.

A special court for suppression of terrorist activities (STA), led by Justice Rafiq Awan, began hearing of the Kaleemuddin kidnapping case in March 1993 and delivered judgment on June 9, 1994. The court had convicted Ashfaq Chief, Javed Kazmi and Haji Jalal and sentenced them to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment, besides imposing a fine of Rs 20,000 each under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Hudood Ordinance. All other accused, including Altaf Hussain, were declared absconders and sentenced to 27 years jail and a fine of Rs 30,000 each in absentia.

Almost three years later, following the 1997 general elections and the subsequent decision by Altaf Hussain to join hands with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, all the convicted MQM leaders and activists challenged afresh their conviction and sentences before the Sindh High Court. Their appeal was heard by a division bench, which found the case as one ‘of almost no legal evidence’. Relying on the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1976, the bench upheld on trial in absentia as well as the right of the absentee accused to file an appeal. Dealing with evidence, the bench observed that the eyewitnesses’ account did not inspire confidence and the evidence of the complainant was, in particular, full of contradictions.

The bench, comprising Justice Nizam Hussain Siddiqui and Justice Abdul Hameed, noted that it is difficult to believe, a group of 15 or 20 boys could disarm four trained soldiers. Therefore, all the accused were acquitted and three convicts serving their term were ordered to be released immediately. But it is interesting to point out that after AQ Halepota, one of the counsels for the MQM leaders, concluded his arguments before the court, the then-advocate-general Sindh Shaukat Zuberi submitted that numerous omissions and contradictions had been made during the trial of Major Kaleemuddin’s kidnapping and torture case and that he would not support the convictions of the accused by the STA court. The verdict came hardly a week after the then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif had travelled to London to meet Altaf Hussain.

To recall, the MQM and the PML-N had been coalition partners at that time, before finally falling apart following the assassination of Hakim Mohammad Saeed in Karachi. Major Kaleemuddin had subsequently challenged the acquittal of the MQM leaders and activists by the Sindh High Court. But the petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the apex court on August 13, 2007, mainly due to non-prosecution, as neither the petitioner nor his counsel had turned up.

A Riposte to Ansar Abbasi By Mustafa Azizabadi Member – Central Rabita Committee & In charge Central Media cell. MQM http://www.mqm.org/English-News/feb-2009/azizabadi-article07-02-09.htm

On Thursday, February 05, 2009; 2:44 AM….In the Urdu daily Jang of February 2, 2009 there was a column titled “Would Altaf Hussain participate in long march ?”, by the famous journalist Mr. Ansar Abbasi known for his research and investigative journalism. This column was a direct response to MQM’s Quaid Mr. Altaf Hussain’s address to MQM’s rabita committee in London on Jan 27, 2009. During the address Mr. Altaf Hussain put a simple question to Mr. Nawaz Shareef vis-à-vis PCO judges. that “what does the Charter of democracy’s article 3, clause (a) & (b) says about those judges who took oath under the PCO and if Mian sahib can answer this question then MQM too would diligently work with them towards the enforcement of Charter of Democracy.”. But in case Mian Nawaz fails to answer the question then it will be morally binding on him and an obligation to reconsider his decision to participate in long march. Principally & professionally speaking the answer should have come from Mian Nawaz Shareef. Alas it never came; nevertheless Mr. Ansar Abbasi took upon himself to issue a rejoinder. Peoples Party’s Shaheed Chairperson Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Shareef put their signatures on the Charter of Democracy (COD) comprising of 7 pages, 4 important topics and 36 articles in London on May, 14, 2006. But here we will only talk about the relevant points brought up by Mr. Ansar Abbasi, explained and deliberated upon in the aforementioned column. Mr. Abbasi says that COD’s article 3(a) explains the procedure for appointment of new judges and that Article 3(b) addresses the already appointed judges of higher courts with relevance to their oath taken under PCO.

Indeed this is true that Article 3 (b) addresses the oath taken by superior courts judges under the PCO and this is exactly said in the COD that “No judge shall take oath under PCO and nor shall he take any oath whose language stands at odds with the 1973 constitution’s defined language for oath of judges”.

Let’s read the exact text of the relevant Article from the COD. Under Article 3(a) it says “The recommendations for appointment of judges to superior judiciary shall be formulated through a commission, which shall comprise of the following: (i). The chairman shall be a chief justice, who has never previously taken oath under the PCO.”

Ansar Abbasi in his column translates it as “The recommendations for the appointment of judges for the superior courts shall be undertaken through a Commission. This commission will comprise of following individuals.

1) The Commission’s chairman shall be a Chief Justice, who has never previously taken oath under PCO”. Mr. Ansar Abbasi himself mentions that “according to this Article Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) Chief Justice cannot become the chairman of this commission which has been entrusted with the task of making recommendations for the appointment of new judges. And for this any chief justice who in past did not take oath under PCO stands eligible to become chairman of this commission”. Our question to Mr. Ansar Abbasi when he openly admits that according to COD’s Article 3(a) Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) CJ cannot become chairman of the commission that will make recommendations for the appointment of judges to superior courts and is not eligible for the task then how can he according to Article 3(a) be eligible to hold the highest and honorable office of the superior court? Knowing this reality in its totality and fully well would it be right and legal to demand his restoration?

A very amusing point that MR Ansar Abbasi brings forth with regards to Article 3(a) in his column; it says “this sub-article has nothing to do with the current judges and that few people according to a well thought of plan are interpreting Article 3(a) in such a way so as to make the restoration of Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial and create confusion in common people”. But after explaining Article 3(a) he says “the authors of COD after much thought did not use the word “The Chief Justice” of Pakistan but used “a chief justice” since they knew that the chief justice of that time and those who will follow as chief justice will be those who took oath under the 2001 PCO”.

Quite strikingly Mr. Abbasi accepted the fact that in May 2006 this particular Article in the COD was specially included for the chief justice in office at that time and his brother justices who had taken oath under PCO so that Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry and other justices who took oath under General Pervez Musharraf’s PCO will stand disqualified for appointment as superior court judges. Moreover this is absolutely true that on May 14, 2006 when Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed and Mian Nawaz Shareef signed the COD, both the leaders had no clue and nor did the senior leadership of two parties knew anything or for that matter the leaders of lawyers movement had any idea that on march 9 a reference would be filed against Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry the sitting chief justice of Pakistan, that on November 3 General Musharraf would again impose emergency in the country and that judges would again be required by him to take new oaths under the PCO. As for making Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial, it is those parties who are dragging him into political rallies and processions that are to be blamed. As a justice Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry deserves the respect and protocol that comes with the office. Sadly & with due respect the chief justices and judges of superior courts are not only and strictly prohibited from public appearances, attending or endorsing political rallies and agendas, but even barred from attending private functions of such nature. But the honorable justice thought it right to go ahead with attending political rallies and processions and let the exalted office of chief justice go to the street and let himself become a spectacle on top of being controversial.

PML (N) leadership came up with the ludicrous argument that PCO’s mention in the COD is with reference to those judges who took oath on November 3, 2007. The question is that when the signatures were being put on charter of democracy on May 14, 2006 it was way before November 3, 2007, then whether PML (N) leadership got the premonition that on November 3, 2007 judges will take oath under the PCO? As per Ansar Abbasi if Article 3(a) of COD has no relevance with current judges or of any consequence to them then who are these particular PCO judges mentioned in the COD, since before January 2000 the PCO came in General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law in 1977 and none of those PCO judges from General Zia’s time were present in the judiciary of 2007. Accordingly it proves that in the COD announced on May 14, 2006 the very mention of PCO refers to the PCO of General Musharraf introduced in January 2000 and those who took oath on it.

The fact is that in the COD the issue of judges taking oath under PCO has been dealt with utmost seriousness and in Article 3(a) clause (2) with reference to procedure for appointment of judges in superior courts that it clearly says commission that makes recommendations for the appointment of judges, its members shall be Provincial High Court Chief Justices who have never taken oath under PCO. In case the criteria are not met then it will be senior most judges who will be members of the commission and those who have never taken oath under PCO. If in January 2000 there had been no PCO by General Musharraf and Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and his brother justices not taken oath under the PCO and provided constitutional protection to General Musharraf’s dictatorship, then it is our firm belief that in COD the mention of judges who took oath under PCO and their appointment would not have been mentioned as an Article in order to disqualify them. But on the contrary this would not have been an issue at all.

Mian Nawaz Shareef, Qazi Husaain Ahmed, Imran Khan and their like minded political leaders, lawyers, Ansar Abbasi and others of same thought look down on the current Supreme Court Chief Justice Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar and judges appointed under the PCO after the emergency of November 3, 2007 and don’t spare a moment in maligning them and consider them unconstitutional. Mian Nawaz Sharif has taken the extreme position of not recognizing them and has not hesitated in using derogatory and uncouth language such as “anti-state elements”, “traitors” and ”anti-Pakistan” and keeps using it in public. We have one question to all the above mentioned personalities and with all due respect we ask if Mr. Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and other judges taking oath under PCO on November 3, 2007 in their eyes was a serious and punishable crime then Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s oath on January 4, 2000 under General Musharraf’s first PCO too falls in the category of a serious and punishable crime. Then why do they present this one judge who committed the same unconstitutional act as a hero and the other as a traitor? Was General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 was correct and in accordance with the constitution of Pakistan? If this is true then the Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman would not have said no to taking oath under PCO and would not have said that we have already taken oath under the constitution of Pakistan and therefore we will not take a second oath under the PCO. These were the true heroes of judiciary those who demonstrated strength of character and were brave enough to not to take oath under PCO and instead submitted their resignations. This most important chapter in Pakistan’s legal history went unnoticed by Mian Nawaz Shareef and by the leadership of PML (N) who are always at the forefront of all kinds of foul and malicious attacks on Supreme Court. Rather they never came out on streets at that time, nor protested or bothered to become champions of judiciary. Nor did the lawyers who are ardently campaigning for restoration of deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and equate it with freedom of judiciary ever bothered to come out at that time and launch protests. Neither did Mr. Ansar Abbasi custodian of the pen and freedom of expression bothered to come out and lodge angry protests and columns. The sad irony is that lawyers and those political leaders who are at the forefront of long marches, waving angry fists and raging in fury never bothered to come out for Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman. Not even a mild protest or statement from these lawyers was registered or launched in favor of these true heroes of judiciary. Why this dual approach and where was the civil society then? And what were the prominent members of ex-servicemen’s society doing at that time or were they hiding in some hole? Where was their sense of democracy at that time? Had Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry taken the honorable and brave step of siding with the judges who refused to take oath under General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 then MQM too would have been at his side, as MQM’s demand and stand is principled, MQM questions as to why is only the restoration of the Nov 2 2007 judges being demanded & why not the judges who refused to take oath under PCO in 2000 and are true heroes who stood up like true men and should all be restored.

MQM strictly adheres to the principled stand that if Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s taking oath in 2000 under General Musharraf’s PCO is acceptable and correct according to Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like-minded then how is that judges who took oath on November 3, 2007 under General Musharraf’s second PCO could be illegal ? If one judge who took oath under one PCO is judiciary’s hero, protector and flag bearer of the constitution and considered champion of law then how is it so that another judge who took oath under second PCO can be declared as the villain of judiciary ? and one who abrogated constitution ? If the oath taken on November 3, 2007 by judges was wrong then how is that oath taken earlier in 2000 under the first PCO by General Musharraf by justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was legit and right in the eyes of law ? Asking to restore judges appointed under the first PCO and taking out long marches in their support and when it comes to judges who took oath under second PCO showing utter and abject disregard , calling them as unconstitutional and demanding for them to be removed is nothing short of blatant dichotomy in the character and logic of those who are espousing Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration. If the PCO of January 2000 was right and legit then how that is the PCO of November 3 2007 was wrong and illegal? If the second PCO was wrong and illegal then how can the first PCO be declared as right and legit?

Ansar Abbasi and his like minded political and religious leadership, members of legal community curse and accuse General Musharraf for breaking the constitution, twice introducing PCO, keeping both President & Army Chief offices, fighting elections in uniform and distorting the constitution of the country. Alongside they also demand the restoration of the judiciary of November 2, 2007. Basically they want the restoration of the judiciary whose Chief Justice was Iftikhar Chaudhry. For those with short memories let me remind them with great respect that General Musharraf’s takeover on October 12 1999 and his non-democratic step and his chief executive’s position was validated under doctrine of necessity by whom? In 2000 General Musharraf was allowed to postpone elections for two years by whom? Again in 2002 and in 2005 General Musharraf had both the offices of Chief of Army Staff as well as President and a constitutional writ that was filed against it in Supreme Court was rejected by whom?

Yet again on September 28th 2007 who gave permission to General Musharraf to fight elections in uniform? Was it the Dogar Judiciary as cynically put by Nawaz Shareef or was it the judiciary of November 2, 2007 that rejected the constitutional writs against General Musharraf regarding his Chief of Army Staff uniform, these writs according to Article 184(3) were declared as non maintainable and rejected by whom?

If Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his like minded friends and cronies call General Musharraf a dictator and usurper then who gave sanctuary and constitutional protection to this dictator’s extra-constitutional steps?

In due consideration and full acknowledgement of these facts and in light of this evidence Mr. Ansar Abbasi should sincerely ponder and seriously reflect as to whom is the true violator of the Charter of Democracy? Whether it is MQM or was it Nawaz Shareef and his political allies and confidantes who in demanding the restoration of PCO judges are standing accused of violating their own charter of democracy? If Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded political friends think and view the COD as that sacrosanct document that if its is not practiced then the entire judiciary, parliamentary system and democracy can be declared as non constitutional and can lead to the turning of tables on democracy and its lynching then principled approach and scruples tell us that if one has faith in COD then one should not talk of restoration of an individual who took oath under a dictator’s PCO, someone who provided full protection to the dictators extra constitutional transgressions. And if one only wants to talk out loud on the COD and not to practice it in spirit , then those who talk out the loudest on the COD should instead of long march go to the Constitution Avenue in Islamabad and burn this COD in the presence of public and in their court and to stop fooling people and pray for their forgiveness.

Would Mr. Ansar Abbasi exhibit moral courage to seek nation’s forgiveness for supporting Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry a person who took oath under General Musharraf’s PCO, a person who provided constitutional protection on many occasions to General Musharraf’s extra-constitutional steps? MQM’s leader Mr. Altaf Hussain sacrificed his party’s interest in lieu of the sensitive national security situation, the perils that democracy is facing today and for its survival in Pakistan. But is that what Mr. Ansar Abbasi would like to see that we put the entire country at stake for one person’s ego arrogance and his employment? Would MR Ansar Abbasi like to sacrifice the entire country, throw democracy in tailspin and put it to the torment of long marches, shutter-down strikes, chaos and lawlessness in these perilous times? Is MR Ansar Abbasi ready to back a long march and sit-downs that aims to destabilize the elected parliaments and to rock democracy’s boat and only to lead to have it trampled under some new dictator’s boots? Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded friends will for the sake of democracy have to select between an individual and our country’s democratic system. Is Mr. Abbasi he ready to do it?

Speech of Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM) Rebuttal to Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the Parliament 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYV4CIPrMiU

Speech of Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM) Rebuttal to Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the Parliament 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-EoNo-DKn8&feature=related

Speech of Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM) Rebuttal to Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the Parliament 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8T0ykqmPiI&feature=related

Speech of Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM) Rebuttal to Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the Parliament 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AjxCGJLeB0&feature=related

Sharifs lose 80pc of assets, says Qureshi Ansar Abbasi DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 16 December 2000 Issue : 06/48 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/dec1600.html#shar

ISLAMABAD, Dec 10: The exile of the Sharif family to Saudi Arabia following the pardon announcement by the government, has deprived the Raiwind dwellers of their 15 assets, worth billions of rupees. A spokesman for the government, Maj-Gen Rashid Qureshi, told Dawn on Monday that almost 80 per cent of the Sharifs’ property had been “taken over” by the government. According to Mr Qureshi, the 15 assets that have been taken over by
the government in return for providing a safe “exit” to the Sharif family include Rs300 million in cash; industrial assets including Brother Steel Mills; Ilyas Enterprises; Hudaybia Paper Mill; Hudaybia Engineering Company; Hamza Spinning Mills; residential property including the Model Town bungalow; three houses at Mall
Road Murree; property at 135 Upper Mall Lahore; a plot at Model Town Lahore; a plot at Upper Mall, Lahore; agricultural property including 10.2 kanals of land at Khanpur Sheikhupura Road Lahore; 41 acres and 7 kanals of land at Sheikhupura; 14.2 kanals of land and another 35 kanals at Bhaipharu in Chunnian and 88 kanals of land at Raiwind.

The Raiwind palace of the Sharif family, which ruled the country for almost 15 years, has however not been Confiscated by the government. Mr Qureshi dispelled the impression that there had been any underhand deal between the government and the Sharif family. He said the government had simply responded to the repeated mercy petitions filed by the Sharifs. Contrary to what the Sharifs were pretending before the public and
in their statements to the media, Mr Qureshi said they had been writing to the government including the chief executive and the president, appealing for pardon.

“We were receiving their requests for mercy in the past three to four months particularly after the courts handed over decisions against Nawaz Sharif,” he said.
These requests were renewed recently following Nawaz Sharif’s reported ailment. Mr Qureshi stated that since the chief executive had repeatedly said that he was not vindictive so he recommended to President Tarar that the imprisonment of the Sharifs be pardoned and turned into exile while the rest of the punishments including fines, forfeiture of property and disqualification should stay.

When told that the people in streets felt as if they had been betrayed by the government for allowing a safe exit to the Sharifs, the government spokesman said, “the Government has actually taken a compassionate view of the situation and converted the imprisonment into exile.”
Qureshi dispelled the impression that a “deal” was ‘brokered’ either by a Saudi prince or was the exit the consequence of Saudi Arabia’s pressure.

35 journalists on govt’s ‘hit list’

Exclusively for Jang Group [under Nawaz Sharif DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 05 June 1999 Issue : 05/23 Government] http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/05jun99.html#35jo
35 journalists on govt’s ‘hit list’

WASHINGTON, June 1: The Committee to Protect journalists, a New York-based press freedom organization, is conducting an investigation into a “hit list” prepared allegedly by the Pakistan government. “We are looking into it,” a CPJ spokesperson said, confirming that the list contains the names of 35 prominent journalists. According to the CPJ, the names were: Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, Rehmat Ali Razi, Anjum Rasheed, Suhail Warraich, Sohaib Marghoob and Roman Ehsan, (Jang Lahore), M. Ziauddin and Ansar Abbasi (Dawn Islamabad), Dr Maleeha Lodhi, Javed Jaidi, Nusrat Javed and Mariana Babar (The News Islamabad), Rehana Hakeem and Zahid Hussain (Newsline), Ejaz Haider, Khalid Ahmed, Jugnu Mohsin and Adnan Adil (The Friday Times), Mahmood Sham (Jang Karachi), Rashed Rehman (The Nation Lahore), Amir Ahmed Khan (Herald), Imtiaz Alam, Beena Sarwar, Shafiq Awan, Kamila Hyat and Amir Mir (The News Lahore),
Abbas Athar (Nawa-i-Waqat Lahore), Kamran Khan and Shehzad Amjad (The News Karachi), Azam Khalil (Pulse), Mohammad Malik (Tribune), Imtiaz Ahmed (The Frontier Post Peshawar), Ilyas Chaudhry (Jang Rawalpindi), Naveed Meraj (The Frontier Post Islamabad) and Syed Talat Hussain (The Nation Islamabad).

According to reports received by the CPJ, the federal government had decided to establish a special media cell comprising officials from the police, Intelligence Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency to punish the journalists who have been writing against the government. Ehtesab Bureau Chairman Senator Saifur Rehman Khan would head this cell which would function simultaneously at Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi and Peshawar with its head office at Islamabad.

Shahbaz Sharif talks of intelligence report; flat denial by FO Ansar Abbasi DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 09 October 1999 Issue : 05/41 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/09oct99.html#shah

ISLAMABAD, Oct 6: The reported statement of the Punjab Chief Minister, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, in which he had accused the Taliban of backing sectarian violence in Pakistan, has stunned the high authorities here.
The Foreign Office has formally regretted what it termed “the baseless speculation and incorrect reporting in some sections of the media, claiming that the Taliban government of Afghanistan is allegedly involved in recent incidents of terrorist violence in the
country.” Sources in the relevant agencies of the federal government have expressed complete ignorance about the availability of any intelligence report that could support what the Punjab CM was reported to have said in his talk with newsmen at Lahore on Tuesday.

They said the Punjab delegation which had attended an inter-provincial meeting on Monday, a day before the CM’s reported statement, did not mention a word about the Taliban backing the sectarian violence in Pakistan.
“There was absolutely no mention of the Taliban in the meeting which was called merely to discuss sectarianism,” a source who attended the meeting said.

The Punjab Chief Secretary, A.Z.K. Sherdil, however, told Dawn by telephone from his Lahore residence that some intelligence reports did suggest that religious extremists from Pakistan got training in Afghanistan and before joining sectarian violence in the country.

He said these intelligence reports maintained that such elements received training in camps inside Afghanistan, had fought along with the Taliban against the Afghan opposition, and had infiltrated into Pakistan and were involved in sectarian violence. “We are quite concerned about this situation and want a comprehensive policy to check this movement across the Pakistan-Afghan border,”
Mr Sherdil said. He, however, denied that there was any mention, in these intelligence reports, about Riaz Basra’s protection by the Taliban.

The chief secretary said there was massive gun-running from Afghanistan to the tribal areas in Pakistan from where the weapons came to the NWFP and then supplied to other provinces. He said since the Pakistan-Afghan border was not properly manned, this practice continues.

However, official sources in the federal government totally deny having seen any such intelligence report. But some sources believe that the Punjab chief minister who has recently returned from an “important US trip” had taken an initiative to dissociate Pakistan from the Taliban and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile the Foreign Office, in a press statement issued here on Wednesday evening, regretted “the baseless speculation and incorrect reporting in some sections of the media, claiming that the Taliban government of Afghanistan is allegedly involved in
recent incidents of terrorist violence in the country.”

PML leaders being excluded from Ehtesab process Ansar Abbasi DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 26 April 1997 Issue : 03/17 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/26Apr97.html#pmll

ISLAMABAD, April 25: Government agencies involved in the accountability exercise are said to be avoiding the processing of cases of alleged corruption or misuse of authority against members of the ruling PML, it is
learnt. Investigations into the working of the Ehtesab commission and the interior ministry which are directly concerned with the accountability process under
a statute, show that neither of them has been processing the references against PML leaders. According to sources, the two agencies have even been told to lay off certain cases.

The sources claimed that some of the top PML leaders against whom references had been pending were Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Sindh Chief Minister Liaquat Jatoi, Punjab Assembly speaker Pervez Elahi, former chief minister of the NWFP Pir Syed Sabir Shah, former Balochistan chief minister Zulfiqar Magsi, and former Punjab minister Raja Ishfaq Sarwar. Besides, a case against the NA deputy speaker, Jaffar Iqbal, was referred by an advocate from Multan to the Ehtesab Commissioner. But the commission has denied having received any formal reference in this regard.

A commission source, however, told this correspondent that the reference had actually been sent to the commission and it had been redirected to the provincial anti-corruption department for verification of the allegations. The Ehtesab Commission has so far referred a total of 54 cases to special benches of the high courts for trial. These include only two references
against the PML leaders Chaudhry Sher Ali (MNA) and Jam Mashooq Ali (MNA). But both had been sent to the high courts much before the present government came to power.

It is learnt that the agencies concerned have been told to keep a low profile in some cases involving bureaucrats and other top officials. The case of Raana Sheikh, former MD, PTV, for instance, has been pending with the interior division but they have been asked not to send it to the Ehtesab Commission, interior ministry sources told dawn. Later, the Accountability Cell of the PMs Secretariat suspended all these officers except the two Ahmad Riaz Shiekh and Chaudhry Sharif. The FIA
administration, the sources said, wanted to move against these two officials but they had not only been saved but the authorities had also been asked to process the case of promotion of one of them.

According to one source, these officers have set the condition that they will only go to FIA if the incumbent director general is removed.

Haroon Rasheed agrees with Ansar Abbasi and Aitzaz Ahsan. There’s no lotacracy in Punjab, all legitimate.

کون سا میثاق؟کون سی خلاف ورزی؟
ناتمام…ہارون الرشید

جس چیز کی سب سے زیادہ ضرورت ہے، وہی نایاب، النادر کالمعدوم! خود احتسابی!… سیاسی لیڈر اپنے گریبانوں میں نہیں جھانکتے۔ دوسروں کی آنکھوں کے تنکے تو وہ دیکھتے ہیں، اپنے شہتیر نظر نہیں آتے… افسوس، افسوس کہ کسی کی نظر اقبال #کی طرف نہیں جاتی:
دستِ قضا میں صورتِ شمشیر ہے وہ قوم
کرتی ہے ہر زماں جو اپنے عمل کا حساب

ایک سادہ سی بات بیرسٹر اعتزاز احسن نے کہی ہے۔ ان سے اختلاف کیا جاسکتا ہے، مگر اس قدر برہم ہونے کی ضرورت کیا ہے؟ ان کی رائے میں اگر کوئی پارلیمانی پارٹی اکثریت سے فیصلہ کرلے تو وہ نافذ ہوجائے گا۔ قاف لیگ کو اعتراض ہے تو وہ عدالت سے رجوع کرسکتی ہے۔ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے چیف جسٹس کا ریکارڈ ہمارے سامنے ہے۔ ان سے نا انصافی کا اندیشہ کسی کو نہیں۔ گاہے قانون کی ایک سے زیادہ تعبیرات ہواکرتی ہیں اور ایسے میں عدالت کا فیصلہ حتمی ہوتا ہے جو دلائل سنا کرتی ہے، اشتعال نہیں۔

سامنے کی سچائی یہ بھی ہے کہ مسلم لیگ اصل میں ایک ہے کہ اس کاووٹر ایک ہے۔ قاف لیگ فوجی دباؤ کے ساتھ تخلیق کی گئی تھی۔ مفروضہ یہ تھا کہ نواز شریف کو وطن واپسی کی اجازت نہ دی جائے گی۔ وہ آئے تو ظاہر ہے کہ ووٹر کو ان کی طرف پلٹ جانا تھا۔ قاف لیگ کو بہرحال تحلیل ہونا ہے۔ پھر یہ کہ اچھی یا بری، پیپلزپارٹی اور نون لیگ ہی سیاسی جماعتیں ہیں، قاف لیگ نہیں۔ اس کے پاس لیڈر تو بہت ہیں، کارکن مگر برائے نام بھی نہیں۔ اگر یہ ایک سیاسی جماعت ہوتی تو اس کی قیادت صدر زرداری سے خفیہ سمجھوتہ کرکے زندہ رہنے کی کوشش کیوں کرتی؟

بالکل اسی طرح، موجودہ کشمکش میں میثاق جمہوریت کاحوالہ بالکل بے معنی ہے۔ یہ معاہدہ اسی دن باطل ہو گیا تھا، جب محترمہ بینظیر بھٹو اور فوجی حکمران کے درمیان این آر او نامی سمجھوتہ طے پایا تھا۔ ان اندیشوں اور مصلحتوں کی بنا پر، جن کا سبھی کو ادراک ہے، اسے دفن کرنے سے البتہ گریز کیاگیا۔ کتنی عجیب بات، معاہدے میں لکھا ہے ہے کہ کوئی سیاسی جماعت فوجی حکومت سے مذاکرات نہ کرے گی۔ ایک پارٹی نے نہ صرف مذاکرات کئے اور سمجھوتہ کرلیا بلکہ کھلے عام اس کا د فاع بھی کرتی رہی۔ اسی کے تحت اقتدار حاصل کیا اور اب احتجاج ہے کہ میثاق جمہوریت کی خلاف ورزی ہوئی۔ کون سا میثاق اور کون سی خلاف ورزی؟

میثاق جمہوریت کے پیچھے کار فرما ، بنیادی مفروضہ ہی غلط تھا۔ یہ کہ سیای جماعتوں کی باہمی مفاہمت سے فوج کا راستہ روکا جاسکتا ہے۔ معاملے کا یہ صرف ایک رخ ہے۔ فوج کا راستہ روکنے کے لئے آزاد میڈیا، طاقتور عدالت، حکومت کی اخلاقی ساکھ اور عام آدمی کی اس درجہ بہبود ضروری ہے، جو اسے ناراض ہونے سے روکے رکھے۔ اگر باقی تمام شرائط نظرانداز کردی جائیں تومحض سیاسی جماعتوں کی مفاہمت فوج کو کیسے روکے گی؟ اللہ کا شکر ہے کہ صحافت آزاد ہے اور عدالت بھی۔ مزید یہ کہ فعال طبقات مارشل لا کے حق میں نہیں بلکہ بدترین حالات کے باوجود، سخت خلاف۔ رہی اچھی حکمرانی اور اخلاقی ساکھ تو کچھ عرض کرنے کی ضرورت ہی نہیں۔ ملک کی پوری تاریخ میں اس سے زیادہ بری حکمرانی اور اس سے زیادہ کرپشن کبھی نہ تھی… اوربھی زیادہ افسوسناک یہ کہ جنہیں اس کی پرواہ ہونی چاہئے، انہیں احساس اور ادراک ہی نہیں۔

حکومت کس چڑیا کا نام ہے؟ امن و امان کا قیام، ٹیکسوں کی وصولی، معیشت کی تعمیر اور ملک کا دفاع، آزاد خارجہ پالیسی جس کی بنیاد ہوتی ہے۔ ان تمام چیزوں میں مرکزی اور صوبائی حکومتوں کی کارکردگی کیاہے؟ عجیب بات ہے۔ حکومتیں اپنے فرائض ادا نہ کریں۔ ساری توجہ جوڑتوڑ پر مرکوز کئے رکھیں۔اس کے بعد یہ فرض کرلیاجائے کہ عسکری اقتدارکے خطرے کو روکنے کے لئے سیاسی پارٹیوں کی باہمی مفاہمت سے تمام تر قومی مفادات کا تحفظ ممکن ہوسکے گا۔ کس قدراحمقانہ مفروضہ ہے، جسے ایمان کا درجہ دے دیا گیا اور جس کی تبلیغ جاری ہے۔

واقعہ یہ ہے کہ اگر آج بھی مارشل لا کے راستے میں کوئی رکاوٹ ہے تو فعال طبقات، آزادعدالتیں، آزاد میڈیا اور شاید ان سب سے زیادہ عسکری قیادت کی ہوش مندی اور دانائی۔ یہ احساس کہ مارشل لا سے اتنے مسائل حل نہیں ہوتے، جتنے کہ پیدا ہوجاتے ہیں۔ سروے وگرنہ یہ کہتے ہیں کہ عام لوگوں کی اکثریت فوجی اقتدار کو قبول کرنے پر آماد ہ ہے۔ اگر کسی کو شبہ ہے تو وہ کسی بھی بڑے شہر کی کم آمدن والی آبادیوں اور شہروں کے گرد پھیلے دیہات میں جائے اور خلق خدا سے پوچھ لے۔ جنرل پرویز مشرف کے دورِ اقتدارکی تلخ یادیں ابھی تازہ ہیں۔ کس طرح اٹھارہ کروڑ انسانوں کی قوم کو ایک ٹیلی فون پر استعمار کی گود میں ڈال دیا گیا۔ آخری دنوں میں فوجی افسر کس طرح اپنی وردیاں چھپاتے پھرتے تھے۔ لال مسجد میں کیونکر خون کی ہولی کھیلی گئی اور اعلیٰ عدالتوں کے ساتھ کیا سلوک کیا گیا۔ پرلے درجے کے عاقبت نااندیش لوگ ہی ایسے میں مارشل لا کی آرزو کرسکتے ہیں ۔عام آدمی اکثر عاقبت نااندیش ہی ہوتا ہے کہ بھوک کفر تک لے جاتی ہے۔ پھر یہ کہ دہشت ردی کی جنگ اور مشرق وسطیٰ کے انقلاب نے آزادی کے ولولے کو کچھ اور مہمیز کردیا ہے۔ ایسے میں فوجی مداخلت کاہرگز کوئی اندیشہ نہیں۔ مہم جوئی خطرناک ہوگی اورعالمی طاقتیں بھی اسے گوارہ نہ کریں گی۔ سمندرپارپاکستانیوں کی عظیم اکثریت ایسے کسی بھی اقدام کو سختی سے مسترد کردے گی۔
بڑی سیاسی جماعتوں نے فوجی مداخلت کو مشکل تر بنا نے کے لئے ہرگز کوئی کام نہیں کیا۔ ان کی باہمی مفاہمت نہیں بلکہ دوسرے عوامل کی وجہ سے وہ رکی ہوئی ہے۔ اذیت کے یہ دن گزر جائیں گے۔ انشاء اللہ وہ رکی ہی رہے گی۔ اپنی حکمت عملیوں اور ترجیحات پر اگر وہ ٹھنڈے دل سے غور کریں تو اطمینان کی ہرگز کوئی وجہ وہ نہ پائیں گے۔ پٹوار وہی، پولیس گردی وہی، افلاس پہلے سے زیادہ، گرانی میں دن رات اضافہ… اپنی کارکردگی پر انہیں شرم آنی چاہئے مگر نہیں آتی۔ ملک کے بڑے بڑے لیڈر کاروبار میں مگن ہیں اور اس انداز سے کہ گھن آتی ہے۔ قومی معیشت بے پناہ امکانات کی حامل ہے لیکن رتی برابر توجہ بھی نہیں۔ کرپشن اگر ختم نہیں تو محدودکی جاسکتی ہے مگر مجال ہے کہ ایک ذرا سا اقدام بھی ہو۔ ملک کو فوجی اقتدار سے بچائے رکھنا بھی اہم ہے مگر کیا یہ واحد مسئلہ ہے ؟کیا یہ مسئلہ دوسری وجوہات سے پیدا نہیں ہوتا اور کیا ان وجوہات سے نمٹنے کی کبھی کوئی حقیقی کوشش بھی ہوئی؟

جس چیز کی سب سے زیادہ ضرورت ہے، وہی نایاب، النادر کالمعدوم! خود احتسابی!… سیاسی لیڈر اپنے گریبانوں میں نہیں جھانکتے۔ دوسروں کی آنکھوں کے تنکے تو وہ دیکھتے ہیں، اپنے شہتیر نظر نہیں آتے… افسوس، افسوس کہ کسی کی نظر اقبال #کی طرف نہیں جاتی:
دستِ قضا میں صورتِ شمشیر ہے وہ قوم
کرتی ہے ہر زماں جو اپنے عمل کا حساب

http://search.jang.com.pk/details.asp?nid=509237