Insaf’s all roads lead to Jati Umrah? – by Ahsan Abbas Shah


مُلک کی تمام بڑے قد کی دعویدار سیاسی پارٹیاں اپنے اِتحادی اور وفاق کی علامت پپلز پارٹی سے نوک جھونک میں مصروف ہیں۔وزیر اعلٰی پنجاب نے حال ہی میں اپنے ایک انٹرویو میں زرداری صاحب ک شخصیت کو بڑے بڑے چلینج دیئے ہیں۔ اپنی عادت کے مطابق شہادت کی اُنگلی کا زیادہ استعمال کرتے ہوئے شہباز شریف اپنی بات کو وزن دار کرنے کی بھرپور کوشش کرتے رہے ۔ استعفٰی کا مطالبہ اور پھر عدلیہ کے سامنےپیشی کی معصومانہ خواہش سُن کر مجھ سے رہا نہیں گیا۔

کیا یہ وہی شہباز شریف ہیں جو ابھی کُچھ عرصہ پہلے اِسی عدلیہ کو جھُوم جھُوم کر یہ نظم سُناتے تھے “ایسے دستور کو صُبح بے نُور کو ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ میں نہیں مانتا! میں نہیں جانتا!“۔ اِب اچانک ایسا کیا ہُوا کہ خادمِ اعلٰی پنجاب کی صُبح پُر نُور بھی ہوگئی ہے اور وہ اپنے انٹرویو میں کئی مرتبہ (رُول آف لاء) کی بات کرتے دکھائی دئیے۔ (رُول آف لاء) کا لفظ چھوٹے میاں نے مُسلسل استعمال کیا جس سے کم از کم اُنہیں قانون کا ایک لفظ تو یاد ہو گیا ہوگا۔ مُسلم لیگ نون (رُول آف لاء) کی بات کرتے ہوئے نجانے کیوں سپریم کورٹ پر حملے کو بھُول جاتی ہے۔ ایسی ہی کئی مثالیں اور میاں برادران کے خطابات میں جس طرح سے عدلیہ کو ماضی میں نشانہ بنایا جاتا رہا ہے اُس کے بر عکس اِنٹرویو میں چھوٹے میاں صاحب کایہ کہنا کہ زرداری صاحب اور میں دونوں استعفٰی دے کر عدالت سے اِنصاف لے کر دوبارہ آتے ہیں ہاتھ کنگن کو آرس ہی کیا ؟ پڑھے لکِھے اور سیاسی سُوجھ بُوجھ رکھنے والی عوام کے لیے حیران کُن ہیں۔

ججز کی بحالی کی تحریک کے ستون علی احمد کُرد اور دیگر کے بحالی کے بعد کے تاثرات بھی ہمیں میڈیا کی وساطت سے پتہ چلتے رہے ہیں اورآزاد عدلیہ اِس قدر آزاد ہو گئی ہے کہ سپریم کورٹ سے انصاف کے تمام راستے جاتی عُمرہ کو ہی جاتے نظر آتے ہیں۔

یہ اِنٹرویو اُس وقت دیا گیا جب کہ پپلز پارٹی کے شریک چیرمین آصف علی زرداری پنجاب کا دس روزہ تاریخی دورہ کرنے کا فیصلہ کر چُکے ہیں۔ شاید یہی وجہ ہے کہ چوہدری نثار نے اپنی تمام تر مُنافقانہ صلاحیتوں کو بُروئے کار لاتے ہوئے قومی اسمبلی کے اندر اور باہر نہ صرف زرداری صاحب پر کیچڑ اُچھالا بلکہ پپلز پارٹی کو موجودہ تمام تر حالات کا ذمہ دار ٹھہرایا۔ دلچسپ بات یہ تھی کہ چوہدری نثار نے حلقہ این اے ٥٥ میں پپلز پارٹی کا اُمیدوار نہ کھڑا کرنے پر اِسے زرداری صاحب کی سوچی سمجھی سازش قرار دیا۔ ڈر ہے کہ چوہدری نثار میثاقِ جمہوریت کو بھی کوئی سازش قرار نہ دے جائیں کہ جس میں ایک دوسرے کے مینڈیٹ والے حلقے میں مُتفقہ اُمیداور لانے کی شِق پر میری شہید لیڈر اور چوہدری نثارکے فرار لیڈر کے دستخط موجود ہیں۔ در حقیقت پپلز پارٹی پنجاب کا ہر کارکُن جانتا ہے کہ پنڈی کے لیاقت باغ میں بی بی شہید کی جائے شہادت پر آگ کس ملعون کے اَشارے پر لگائی گئی تھی۔

ججز کی بحالی کے لیے شروع لانگ مارچ کِس فون سے شروع ہوا اور کِس کے فون پر ختم کیا گیا ؟
تمام دِن ٹیلی کاسٹ ہونے والی جسٹس صاحب کی لائیو نشریات کے پیچھے کس کا سرمایہ لگا ہوا تھا؟
اور پھر گنتی کے چند فیصلوں کے بعد ہی عاصمہ جہانگیر، علی احمد کُرد و دیگر کے تاثرات کیوں تبدیل ہوگئے اور انہیں کیونکر احساس ہوا کہ عدلیہ نہ صرف آزاد ہوئی ہے بلکہ مادر پِدر آزاد ہوگئی ہے؟

یہ تمام حقیقتیں سوچتے ہوئے اگر شہباز شریف کا انٹرویو دوبارہ سُنو تو یقینا یہ دیوانے کا خواب لگے گا۔

تاریخ شاہد ہے کہ پپلز پارٹی نےکبھی اِداروں کی سالمیت اور حاکمیت کو اپنی سیاسی مصلحتوں کی بُنیاد بنا کر داؤ پر نہیں لگایا۔ ہمارے شہید لیڈروں نے مُلک کی تمام عدالتوں اور جیلوں کے چکر اِسی لیے کاٹے تاکہ ہماری سیاسی تربیت کر سکیں ۔بھٹو صاحب کے عدالتی قتل سے لے کر بینظیر شہید اور آصف زرداری پر بنائے گئے جھوٹے مقدمات پر ١١ سال تک قید کاٹنے اور ہزاروں کارکُنوں پر جھوٹے مقدمات کا قیام کے باوجود ہم نے کبھی کوئی نظم گا کر کسی اِدارے کو نشانہ بنانے کی کوشش نہیں کی نہ ہی کِسی نے دیورایں پھلانگ کر اِداروں پر قبضہ کی کوشش کی۔ اور اگر اب کسی کو مزید پرکھنے کا شوق بھی ہے تو اپنے حصے کی جیل پہلے کاٹ لیں تاکہ سعودی عرب کے پاک زمین پر اپنی مفروری کاٹنے کا کفارہ بھی ادا کر سکیں۔

سید احسن عباس شاہ


3 responses to “Insaf’s all roads lead to Jati Umrah? – by Ahsan Abbas Shah”

  1. Is the SC politically motivated? —Ijaz Hussain

    To determine whether or not the court is politically motivated, one needs to understand the meaning of this expression. If it signifies that a court’s judgment has political fallout when it deals with political or constitutional matters, then all such courts are politically motivated because their judgments more often than not have political implications

    The Zardari government accepts
    the NRO judgment. However, at the same time it is trying its best to paint the Supreme Court (SC) as being politically motivated. This is understandable because its leader, the co-chairman of the PPP and the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari, is under attack on corruption charges and it wants to protect him at all costs from accountability, particularly from the cases outside Pakistan. Hence, one may be justified to dismiss the government’s attack as being mala fide. However, the government is not the only one accusing the court of playing politics. There are others, especially independent and impartial observers, who have expressed similar views. For example, Asma Jahangir, the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has termed the court verdict as a “politicised judgment”. Similarly, Ali Ahmad Kurd, the former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the firebrand leader of the movement for the restoration of deposed judges has accused the court of acting upon the agenda of the forces that are working on the minus-one formula. Are these charges justified? And if not, how do we explain them?

    To determine whether or not the court is politically motivated, one needs to understand the meaning of this expression. If it signifies that a court’s judgment has political fallout when it deals with political or constitutional matters, then all such courts are politically motivated because their judgments more often than not have political implications. For example, one could contend that the present SC was politically motivated when it rendered the judgment in the recent appeal relating to the by-election in the NA-55 constituency because it has some sort of political fallout (in addition to bringing smiles on the face of “the son of Rawalpindi” Sheikh Rashid who before the judgment thought that he was being denied the right to get elected). We understand that when critics accuse the SC of being politically motivated, they are not making a charge of this kind.

    The expression “politically motivated” can also signify that political rather than strictly juridical considerations guide the court. This seems to be the thrust of Kurd’s criticism, who sees a nexus between the judgment (in Kurd’s opinion targeting Zardari) the court rendered in the month of December 2009 and the rumour that made the rounds in the country that the president would go in the same month. In other words, he appears to think that the court is working in cahoots with the establishment to get rid of Zardari. As far as Asma Jahangir is concerned, she also believes that the court’s judgment is political in character but she approaches the matter differently. She contends that the court’s judgment has violated the principle of the separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary by tilting in favour of the last. Besides, she maintains that the court by invoking Article 62 (f) of the Constitution, which the dictator Ziaul Haq got inserted in it, is treading a highly slippery slope as it can have dangerous political implications in addition to making the judiciary controversial.

    As to Kurd’s charge, we fail to discover any link between the fact that the court rendered the judgment in December and the grapevine that predicted the departure of Zardari in December. In the absence of any evidence, conspiracy theory rather than anything else seems to guide Kurd. We understand that he is not happy with the way the Chief Justice of Pakistan has handled judicial matters since his reinstatement. However, that does not give him a licence to make all manner of allegations. As to Asma’s charge that the court violated the principle of the separation of powers, she too fails to furnish much evidence. For example, it was alleged that the court had asked the government to change certain NAB officials. However, subsequently it came out that it was a mere suggestion and not a direction from the court. Similarly, the court did not ask the government to put anybody on the Exit Control List (ECL). The only exception was its direction for action against the former Attorney General of Pakistan but then that was justified because he was accused of having withdrawn the Swiss cases without authorisation.

    As to Asma’s charge that the court should not have invoked Article 62 (f) of the Constitution, we begin by examining the impugned clause. It prescribes that a member of parliament should be “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen”. This applies mutatis mutandis to the holder of the office of the President of Pakistan because he needs to have the same qualifications as a member of parliament. She opposes this clause on the ground that it is undemocratic as Zia got it inserted in the Constitution to keep members of parliament insecure. Besides, she believes that if parliamentarians are to be subjected to such exacting moral standards, then the scrutiny of judges should be higher still because, in her opinion, they are appointed strictly on the basis of their integrity and skills.

    It is true that the court should have avoided invoking the impugned clause because of its controversial character. However, if it did not do so, political parties including the PPP must take the blame for it because by not getting the “Islamic” clauses in Articles 62 and 63 that Zia introduced removed when they were in power following Zia’s exit, they have sent the message that it is a settled matter. Besides, it should not be forgotten that even in the absence of the impugned clause, the NRO is invalid on the Rosetta Stone of incompatibility with fundamental rights. Why did the court resort to it is a mystery that the detailed judgment may solve. Some critics have alleged that by invoking this clause the court has prepared the ground to disqualify Zardari as the President of Pakistan. They also apprehend that the court may invoke an even more pernicious clause contained in paragraph (d) of the same Article (which stipulates that a member of parliament should be “of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions”), for the same purpose as Zardari is universally known as Mr 10 percent.

    We conclude that the court may not be politically motivated as far as the present case is concerned. The test case whether or not it is so will however come when the court takes up the issue of Zardari’s disqualification for hearing. If it renders a judgment against him on the touchstone of clause (f) or (d) there could perhaps be justification to accuse it of being politically motivated. To avoid such an eventuality, political parties need to get their act together and get rid of the said ‘Islamic’ clauses. They must do it now when the Raza Rabbani committee is seized of the constitutional package. However, according to press reports they are not interested. If this is true, the message to the court will be that they favour their retention. In this backdrop, if the court invokes the impugned clauses to disqualify Zardari, would it be fair to hold it guilty of playing politics?

    The writer is an Adjunct Professor in the National Institute of Pakistan Studies at the Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com

    http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\01\13\story_13-1-2010_pg3_5

  2. Thank you, Sarah Khan, for putting up Ijaz Hussain’s excellent article here. I am amazed at the wide range of comments I have found at LUBP, which I had previously thought to be a tool for party political propaganda. Good luck to all honest and fearless PPP members.

  3. As if to prove that we are all in the same bathhouse (the Urdu word hamaam has a sharper resonance to it) there is the spectacle of My Lord the CJ proposing Justice Ramday — who after a distinguished career as a senior judge has just retired — as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court. Why can’t we let our stars have some mercy on us?

    My Lord Ramday has played his innings and a good innings at that. If all the world’s a stage — although, it has to be said, it’s getting a bit crowded — more important than one’s entry is the timing and manner of one’s exit. We are given to prolonging, often painfully, our departures, simply not knowing how to bow and take our leave. Justice Ramday should be allowed to leave with dignity and grace, concentrating on his memoirs and his garden. It will be the proper example to set. Ad hoc Judge Ramday just doesn’t sound right.

    Ayaz Amir
    http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=218736