Why is Iftikhar Chaudhry destroying Pakistan? – by Bilal Qureshi
Every objective analyst who follows Pakistan has come to the same conclusion – Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is becoming a serious threat not only to the country, but also to the entire democratic system that is already under tremendous stress. In fact, it is pretty much established that some behind the scene players in Pakistan are interested in seeing ‘favorable’ people take over the government and these forces are perhaps using the Chief Justice as a tool to achieve their nauseating objective.
As pointed out by Wajid Ali Syed, It is indeed a sad commentary on Pakistan that when an army chief is asked to leave, he refuses and instead launches a coup. When the chief justice is sacked for his alleged corruption, he refuses to accept the decision of the government that appointed him and instead comes out on the streets with thugs (dressed as lawyers) and only calms down when he gets his way. Where is the law of the land? Why can’t an elected Prime Minister or an elected President appoint or dismiss people based on the facts that are before them? Why is everything in Pakistan political? We talk about chaos in Taliban controled areas, but our own people are responsible for the current mess because they refuse to accept anything coming from others – everyone wants to get his way at every cost. Isn’t it pathetic? Yes, it is.
Looking at Pakistan’s political landscape, one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to know what is going on between Iftikhar Chaudhry, Ashfaq Kiyani, GEO TV and Nawaz/Shahbaz Sharif and regretfully, I also know that it is not good for the country. The current government, which was elected democratically, is the target of pro-Taliban hate mongers and unfortunately for Pakistan, these forces of darkness and mayhem have found an willing ally in Iftikhar Chaudhry. But, any effort to destabilize the government would be considered an act of war, disguised asl activism by the majority, especially in smaller provices. And it doesn’t matter who is pulling the strings behind the scene– it is time to break the vicious cycle of musical chair that has been going on thanks to successive, but unnecessary ‘interventions’ by generals in Pakistan for decades. Otherwise, Pakistan would continue to be considered a failed state, a corrupt state, and a state which is not capable of producing competent generals or judges.
The current tension in Pakistan between Zardari and judiciary is the direct result of unconstitutional judicial activism and aggression by Iftikhar Chaudhry. And, sadly, the chief justice seems to believe that once he carries out the illegal, unethical, and unconstitutional orders of his masked masters (of removing Zardari), he (he the chief justice) will continue to be important, and relevant, (his desire to be the president of Pakistan is the worst kept secret in the county) but little does he know the history of Pakistan’s political establishment’s ability to use and dispose important figures. But, we all live and learn and he too will regret his current actions, but then, it will be too late.
So, where does Pakistan go from here, especially if Zardari, who is the democratically elected president of Pakistan, is removed from Pakistan? Well, nothing earth shattering is going to happen instantly, but according to Pakistan watchers, the winds of tragedy that are currently blowing in Baluchistan will not only gain momentum, but they will also engulf Sindh and N.W.F.P. As it is, Canadian and other Western military planners believe that by 2016, Pakistan as we know it won’t be there. I hope and pray that these people are wrong. At the same time, I also hope and pray that military, mullah, media and judiciary in Pakistan would realize the catastrophic impact of their current strategy of demonizing Zardari and his allies, and by extension, creating an environment in which people prefer to have stability over democracy. The scare tactics currently used by the evil nexus in Pakistan to overthrow the government could also force people, especially in smaller provinces to realize that their future with Pakistan is nothing but humiliation and slavery. Once this notion got going in smaller provinces, it would be hard to un-prove it. Remember Bangladesh?
Source: Foreign Policy Blogs Network
All Judges are politicaly motivated, they are belong to the PML N, i was amazed when Khuwaja Asif Yesterday told in Duniya Tv’s In Camera Program that Justice saqib and Chief Justice High Court are the memebers of PML N, and in my own opinon Iftakhar Chudry is not Nutral Judge, he is now also Party and politicaly affiliated to PML N, he do not want to bear the PPP in GOvernmetn and trying to make hardles for the government. Supreme Court is going to be personal and only looking hig profile case against President Asif ALi Zardari,
I,m Asking about that why Chief Justice Of Pakistan who tell every where he sumble of justice, y not touching the Zafar Shah Case, why he calling the Judges in the Darkness, now people of Pakistan understand the game, only Nawaz leage lawyers and trying to make pressure on government.
WE THE PEOPLE OF SINDH NOT WANT PAKISTAN MORE, THIS LAND IS ONLY PUNJABIS, PAKISTAN START FORM PUNJAB AND END FROM PAUNJAB,
As to the issue of judges’ appointments itself, with due respect to the superior judiciary and all those who have embraced its ‘cause’ for their own reasons, the constitutional position is that the Chief Justice of Pakistan remains a consultee, albeit the most important consultee in this respect. If the view is accepted that his recommendations are binding on the appointing authority, the president, why then the provision that if the president does not accept a recommendee of the Chief Justice, he must reduce his reasons for the rejection to written form? Rejection of the Chief Justice’s advice is writ into our constitutional scheme by virtue of this provision. Second, what after all is the sin of the president or the government? It has been reported some days ago that the president had written to the Chief Justice of Pakistan to reconsider his advice to appoint Justice (retd) Ramday as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court, and elevate Justice Saqib Nisar to the Supreme Court rather than the most senior judge, the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Sharif. Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has not, at least as far as information is available, replied to this missive of the president. On the other hand, writs were being moved left right and centre and calls made for the Supreme Court to take suo motu notice of the alleged ‘delay’ in the appointment of judges according to the recommendations of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. The question can be posed whether the shortage of judges on the benches of the superior judiciary is a recent phenomenon? It has been reported and discussed for years within the context of the enormous backlog of cases that characterises our creaking judicial system. Admittedly, the judiciary has attempted of late to reform and speed up the anomaly of justice being denied because of interminable delays. But even the best minds in the judiciary must know that these Augean stables cannot be cleaned up overnight. Why then the hysteria about alleged ‘delays’ in judges’ appointments? And, ironically, when appointments are made in the light of the principles of seniority being foremost laid down in the Al-Jihad Trust verdict of the Supreme Court, such appointments are not only questioned, but suspended by the Supreme Court itself.
These debates need of course to be tackled rationally, calmly, and in consonance with the best interests of the country and democratic system. After the restoration of the superior judiciary last year, the executive, parliament and the judiciary, the three most important pillars of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers in the state, seem caught up in groping for and redefining the proper ambit of their powers without any encroachment on the other’s turf or clash of institutions. It is to be hoped that wiser counsel will prevail and the interests of the country and democracy kept uppermost when finding solutions to these increasingly vexed questions.
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\02\15\story_15-2-2010_pg3_1
Judicial History for your kind perusal: Judicial Jitters in Pakistan – A Historical Overview Hamid Hussain Defence Journal, June 2007 http://watandost.blogspot.com/2007/05/judicial-jitters-in-pakistan-scholarly.html
Juggling of Judges
‘That you may retain your self-respect, it is better to displease the people by doing what you know is right, than to temporarily please them by doing what you know is wrong’. William Boetcker
In every country, appointment of judges is sometimes a contentious process and government strives to install like minded judges. Same is true in case of Pakistan and every government has tried to appoint judges who are viewed in favorable light; however in the process legal limits have been stretched to the extreme. In June 1954, Ghulam Muhammad appointed justice Muhammad Munir as chief judge (the title was later changed to chief justice) of Supreme Court. Normally senior most judge is appointed to the post. At that time the senior most judge was Abu Saleh Muhammad Akram who was a Bengali. He gave a written note waiving his seniority rights. (46) In 1976, Prime Minister Zulfiqar A. Bhutto appointed justice Aslam Riaz Hussain who was number eight on seniority list as chief justice of Lahore high court. The senior most justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain who expected to be the chief justice never forgot that insult. Bhutto also extended the tenure of chief justice Muhammad Yaqub by enacting a constitutional amendment. The next senior justice Anwar ul Haq who was expected to succeed Yaqub felt aggrieved. In an ironic twist of fate, three years later justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain (now chief justice of Lahore high court) presided a bench of high court which sentenced Bhutto to death for ordering the assassination of a political opponent. Justice Anwarl ul Haq (now chief justice of Supreme Court) presided the bench of Supreme Court which upheld Bhutto’s death sentence. In 1994, when Benazir was considering Sajjad A. Shah for the post of chief justice, Benazir’s husband Asif Ali Zardari told Sajjad that government will nominate him on the condition that he sign on a written resignation without date to be used in case he decide otherwise. Justcie Sajjad A. Shah was smart enough to refuse to hand over the very sword to Benzair which could cut off his own head anytime.
In Pakistan, executive has tried to use all legal loopholes to influence the outcome of a case. Justice A. R. Cornelius (he was the sole dissenter in the case which upheld Governor General’s decision to dismiss constituent assembly) stated that he was convinced that in 1955, ‘Ghulam Muhammad had pressured and influenced the other justices during the time the case was being argued before the court’. (47) Government sometimes shuffles the deck of justices sitting on the bench to make sure that it’s case prevails. The case of challenge of dismissal of constituent assembly by Maulvi Tamizuddin in 1955 is a good example. In 1955, The supreme court panel included chief justice Muhammad Munir and justices A. S. Akram, A. R. Cornelius, Khawaja Shahabuddin and Muhammad Sharif. Justice Sharif had worked under Munir at Lahore high court and was considered his protégé. Cornelius and Shahabudin were considered independent minded judges. The constitution of the bench showed that Munir and Sharif will accept Governor General’s argument while Cornelius and Shahabudin may not accept it. Akram was not a strong judge and may side with either group. Akram had already buckled when he waived his seniority in favor of Munir for the post of chief justice. This was considered a level ground for both parties. When the case moved through Sindh high court, Government assigned Shahabudin as acting Governor of East Bengal (This was unusual as in the absence of governor, normally the chief justice of the high court fills the post of acting Governor). He was replaced with S. A. Rehman who was considered to be in line with Munir’s thinking. (48) Now the odds were four to one in favor of government and this proved to be correct in the final judgment.
Benazir’s first stint as prime minister was short-circuited when president sacked her in August 1990. Petitions were filed against the president’s decision. On September 26, 1990, Peshawar high court set aside governor’s order and restored provincial assembly. Federal government got the judgment suspended via justice Usman Ali Shah of Supreme Court who happened to be in Peshawar. In Karachi, constitutional petitions challenging the president’s order were filed in the high court. Chief justice Sajjad A. Shah set up a five member bench headed by him to hear these petitions on September 24. Government had reservations about justice Sajjad A. Shah, who was on friendly terms with Benazir’s family. On September 19, he was made acting governor of Sindh when governor Mahmud Haroon went for a few days religious trip to Saudi Arabia. The trip normally lasts 3-4 days, however Haroon developed ear pain for which he had to stay longer. Justcie Saeeduzzaman Siddiqi was appointed acting chief justice and headed the bench which heard the petition and as expected unanimously dismissed it on October 18, 1990. (49) When the objective was achieved, real governor came back home and Sajjad A. Shah reverted to become chief justice of the high court and few days later kicked upstairs and appointed justice of Supreme Court.
On April 18, 1993, president dismissed Nawaz Sharif’s government. A constitutional petition came for Supreme Court hearing. Chief justice Nasim Hassan Shah and justice Muhammad Rafiq Tarar’s sympathetic views towards Nawaz Sharif were known. During the hearings, both judges would ask other judges about their views on the merits of the petition. The judgment was announced on May 26, 1993 and Nawaz Sharif government was restored. The judgment was ten to one and the sole dissenter justice was Sajjad A. Shah. In his dissenting note, he wrote that ‘seemingly it so appears that two Prime Ministers from Sindh were sacrificed at the altar of Article 58 (2) (b) of the Constitution but when the turn of the Prime Minister from Punjab came, the tables were turned’. (50) The ethnic factor was now quite visible even in the highest court of the land.
Musical Chairs for Judges
‘We go where our vision is’. Joseph Murphy
All incumbent governments whether civil or khaki have manipulated the timing of oath taking ceremony to tinker with seniority question. In 1985, justice Ajmal Mian was appointed acting chief justice of Baluchistan high court. Immediately after the ceremony, chief secretary Salim Abbas Jilani conveyed the message of governor and Martial Law Administrator Lt. General K. K. Afridi to him that the two newly nominated judges of high court should be administered oath on separate days. Governor wanted that oath should be administered to justice Munawwar Mirza one day before justice Mir Hazar Khan Khoso. (51) This would give seniority benefit to Mirza. The case of justice Abdul Hafeez Memon is a good example of how executive manipulates the system to get desired results. In December 1989, during Benazir’s first term as prime minister, Memon was elevated as acting justice of supreme court. Administration of oath for newly appointed judges of supreme court was tinkered with to give the favor of seniority to one judge (Memon). Memon was administered oath on December 12, 1989 while justices Ajmal Mian, Abdul Qadeer Chaudry and A. S. Salam on December 13 and justice Rustum Sidhwa on December 14, thus giving seniority advantage to Memon (52) After dismissal of Benazir government in 1990, justice Memon was reverted back to Sindh high court.
During Benazir’s second term, she didn’t get along well with chief justice Nasim Hasan Shah because of latter’s sympathies with Nawaz Sharif. On April 14, 1994, the day Nasim H. Shah retired, a notification was issued about elevation of Memon as chief justice of Sindh high court and he was administered oath promptly. Government now found that he would be 62 years old which is the age for retirement from high court. Another notification was issued by which Memon was appointed judge of supreme court because the age of retirement for Supreme Court justice is 65 years and then sent to Sindh high court as acting chief justice. Chief justice of Lahore high court Justcie Mehboob Ahmad was appointed during Nawaz Sharif time. When Benazir came to office, a notification was issued to send justice Mehboob to Federal Shariat Court. Mehboob declined and stood retired. During Benazir’s first term, Qazi M. Jamil was appointed justice of Peshawar high court. He was sitting on the bench which heard the petition of Benazir’s dismissal in 1990 and dismissed it by a majority decision. Jamil wrote the dissenting note, therefore he was not trusted by Nawaz Sharif government and was not confirmed. During Benzair’s second term, Jamil was paid back by appointing him attorney general. In 1996, Supreme Court entertained a constitutional petition regarding appointment of judges. Government knew about the court’s judgment which laid down some rules about appointment of justices prior to its announcement. One day before the date of announcement of the judgment, government confirmed ten additional judges of Lahore high court and seven additional judges of Sindh high court prior to their due dates. Chief justices of both courts administered oaths on the same day and some judges were administered oaths early in the morning of the day of announcement of supreme court decision. (53) This was done to secure the position of justices which government favored and save some of them from coming under the clout due to Supreme Court’s decision.
Appointing judges as acting rather than permanent is another instrument used by government to influence judiciary. General Zia ul Haq used this instrument frequently to keep judiciary in its place and avoid any embarrassment through the courts. Benazir’s second stint as prime minister gives a glimpse of the abuse of this exercise. In April 1994, when Nasim Hasan Shah retired, Benazir government appointed justice Sad Saud Jan as acting chief justice. Jan was the senior most justice and expected to become permanent chief justice but Benazir was leery about him and was not sure whether he would accommodate government as desired. Sindh high court was functioning with a permanent chief justice Nasir Aslam Zahid who apparently did not get along well with provincial government. Justice Abdul Hafeez Memon was appointed as acting judge to Supreme Court by Benazir in her first term but was dropped when her government was dismissed in 1990. In the new game of chess, Memon was elevated to Supreme Court as permanent judge but after administration of oath sent to serve as acting chief justice of Sindh high court. The permanent chief justice of the court justice Nasir Aslam Zahid was sent to Federal Shariat Court, a wilderness area for judges. In 1995, permanent chief justice of Lahore high court Mian Mehboob Ahmad was sent to Federal Shariat Court (he declined and stood retired) while Supreme Court justice Muhammad Ilyas (who was nominated to Supreme court after his retirement from high court) was deputed acting chief justice of Lahore high court. In January 1995, when chief justice of Peshawar high court retired, government appointed justice Ibne Ali as acting chief justice. At one time, three of the four high court chief justices were acting rather than permanent.
In March 1996, Supreme Court issued judgment outlining some basic principles for the appointment of judges to higher courts. Government rather than implementing the recommendations decided to embark on the game of hide and seek. Justice Mamoon Kazi who was serving as ad hoc judge in Supreme Court was supposed to revert back to Sindh high court and justice Nasir Aslam Zahid to go back from Shariat Court to assume his previous post of chief justice of Sindh high court. Government instead elevated Zahid to Supreme Court and appointed Kazi as chief justice of Sindh high court without even informing chief justice Sajjad A. Shah. Governor of Sindh administered oath to justice Kazi. When Zahid came to Islamabad to be administered oath by chief justice, the furious chief justice refused to administer oath. This was an embarrassing situation. Two supreme justices (Ajmal Mian, Salim Akhtar) and justice Zahid himself pleaded with chief justice not to pick another fight with government and he relented. (54) Such ill thought and short sighted policies of government belittles its own image and creates fissures in the judiciary.
Conclusion:
‘Judge thyself with the judgment of sincerity, and thou will judge others with the judgment of charity’. John Mitchell Mason
Pakistan’s judicial history has seen its ups and downs. In the last sixty years, the independence and prestige of the judiciary has been gradually eroded. Current crisis is just another downward trend. Clearly the decision taken by General Mussharraf to sideline another chief justice has gone out of control. Chief justice Chaudry has emerged as a hero for confronting the arbitrary powers of the executive and army chief. Frustrations of people related to political, economic and security problems have found an avenue and many who would have cared less of what happens to the chief justice are using this opportunity to express these frustrations. Political parties who have their fare share in the present sorry state of the judiciary are now championing the cause of independence of judiciary. The issue is now not mere a simple legal or administrative one but has other complicating factors which are essentially political.
It is not clear at present what course government will take. There are only two options available for general Mussharraf: working by all means to shunt out chief justice or reconciliation by taking back the reference against him and allowing him to return as fully functional chief justice. Both options are marred with many complications both for general Mussharraf and the country. If Mussharraf decides to double his bets, he may add new charges of politicization of chief justice office by Chaudry and dig out some more dirt against him. All of us have a number of skeletons in our closets and intelligence agencies keep a register of those skeletons. New ‘sins’ of chief justice may be added to the formal charge sheet or simply leaked to the media to catch some ground and then government will try to get a favorable verdict from the full bench of the Supreme Court. If this approach is taken then government will have to work on judges on the bench using carrots and sticks. Carrots are plenty while the stick may include an old legal loophole to ask judges to take a fresh oath and government will use this opportunity to sideline undesirable judges on the bench. There is another door which is open for the government. When Iftikhar M. Chaudry was elevated to chief justice post, his appointment was challenged by justice Falak Sher of Supreme Court on grounds that Chaudry was not the senior most justice at the time of his appointment. That petition is still lying in the dark corners of the Supreme Court and government may decide to use it. There is a precedent of the removal of chief justice in this manner when in 1997, chief justice Sajjad A. Shah was removed after three years by his brother justices. However at that time, majority of justices of Supreme Court rebelled against their own chief justice. In current circumstances, although some justices have grievances against chief justice however in view of public mood not too many justices will be willing to follow that example. Justices of the Supreme Court are under tremendous pressure from various quarters. If the charges against chief justice are not serious, it is very likely that the Supreme Court bench may exonerate him creating a new challenge for general Mussharraf.
If Mussharraf withdraws the reference and allows the chief justice to assume his office without any penalty then it will significantly undermine the authority of general Mussharraf. In addition, chief justice has a long way to go before his retirement and he will be the unpredictable factor limiting room of maneuver for general Mussharraf. Mussharrf is not likely to follow this path and will not be comfortable leaving a ticking bomb at such a high place as chief justice of Supreme Court. A more likely outcome is a behind the scene deal where some face saving option is given to the chief justice and he is eased out of his current position. Later when the dust settles, he can be compensated in some way. An essential element of all these options is to prevent linkage of chief justice issue with other political and social issues and government will like to use all available means to prolong the process hoping that the protest fizzles out. If political violence gets out of control then as a last resort general Mussharraf may decide to wind up the whole civilian façade and restart from scratch. No matter how the current crisis ends, general Mussharraf will come out of it much bruised and weakened. The only real pressure on general Mussharraf can only come from the senior brass of the military. Even mild criticism or gentle prodding from this group will force general Mussharraf to rethink his strategy.
In the current crisis there is no winner and everybody including government, general Mussharraf, judiciary, chief justice Chaudry and lawyer community are all losers. The most damaging effect has been on society in general. General Mussharraf’s action was reckless and equally crude was the response of the lawyer community. The rowdy and uncivilized behavior of lawyers significantly lowered their prestige. Rival lawyers using abusive language and manhandling their opponents in front of cameras is a new low for this community. Some bar association leaders threaten to revoke membership of those lawyers who represent government in the case. One lawyer Malik Muhammad Qayyum has approached Supreme Court against the presidents of Lahore and Multan bar associations who had called Qayyum a traitor and threaten him with suspension of his membership. (55) Chief justice Chaudry won the respect of majority of population but he fell victim to his own compulsions and lost his composure. He has significantly undermined his own position by openly attending rallies organized by political parties. He looks more like a politician and it is unlikely that he can perform as an independent and neutral justice if he returns to Supreme Court. Reckless attitude of law enforcement agencies in dealing with the protesting lawyers gave another blow to the legal profession and state institutions. Seeing the pathetic state of state institutions including the judiciary, it is no surprise that common man will be more inclined to take his case to tribal council, political party apparatus or assertive clergy rather than approaching a court of law. The fragility of the state and its pillars has become quite obvious and general populace has lost any hope of redressing their grievances through these normal channels. In such an environment, the appeal of non-state actors and sub national forces whether religious, sectarian, ethnic or tribal increases dramatically. These forces will gain at the expense of the state authority and they are the only winners in present standoff. Current crisis removed another chip from the pillar of legitimacy of not only the rulers but also the state and its institutions and is another step towards fragmentation of the state and society.
‘Look not mournfully into the past. It comes not back again. Wisely improve the present. It is thine. Go forth to meet the shadowy future, without fear’. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Iftikhar Chaudhry was Musharraf’s appointee. Musharraf illegaly usurped power. All his actions were unconstitutional. Even Supreme Court cannot validate violation of Article 6 because Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is within the boundaries of constitution and it has no power to validate a coup.
Therefore, Iftikhar Chaudhry’s appointment needs to be declared void ab initio by a simple resolution of the National Assembly. Thisman who has always acted in concert with security agencies must be exposed. A first step would be to publish the list of all those journalists who have been on the take.
The axis of establishment, crony judges, and paid media persons must be first exposed to fight against the clandestine operation that is underway to take Pakistan back to 1977.
The question, “Why is Iftikhar Chaudhry destroying Pakistan?” is worryingly valid.
A short answer could be because he’s not a politician, so the CJP is making a mess of mixing politics, which he doesn’t know, with his so-called constitutionalism. But it still requires a deep analysis, so bear with me if I indulge:
We have seen army generals playing politics instead of performing their constitutional duty of obeying an elected …
read full post here:
http://criticalppp.com/archives/5846
An interesting comment by Bawa at pkpolitics:
بوٹوں کی قریب سے قریب تر ہوتی آوازیں
بالاخر آصف زارداری نہایت شاطرانہ انداز میں چالیں چلتے ہوئے توجہ این آر او کی منسوخی اور سوئس اکاونٹس سے ہٹانے سے عارضی طور پر ہی سہی لیکن کامیاب ہو چکے ہیں. سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے کے بعد وہ ایک کرپٹ سیاستداں کی بجائے سیاسی شہید بن کر ایوان صدر سے نکلنا چاہتے ہیں. سندھ کارڈ کی ناکامی کے بعد انھوں نے اپنی کرپشن سے توجہ ہٹانے کے لیے عدلیہ سے تصادم کی راہ اپنانے کا فیصلہ کیا. انکی چالوں کی کامیابی کا اندازہ اس سے لگایا جا سکتا ہے کہ انھوں نے نہ صرف عدلیہ کو بھڑکا کر لڑائی میں کھینچ لیا ہے بلکہ نواز شریف جو اب تک خاموش تھے انکو بھی بوکسنگ کی رنگ میں لے آئے ہیں. اب وہ دو محازوں پر لڑ کر شہید ہو کر گھر جانا چاہتے ہیں. وکلاء اور عوام دو حصوں میں تقسیم ہو چکے ہیں. وکلاء کا ایک اہم گروپ چیف جسٹس کے موقف کے ساتھ نہیں کھڑا ہے. یہ گروپ پی پی پی کے وکلاء کے علاوہ ہے. عوام بھی زرداری اور نواز شریف کے حامیوں میں بٹ چکی ہے جسکا مظاہرہ ملک میں ہونے والے مظاہروں سے نظر آ رہا ہے. یہ سلسلہ بڑھتا ہی جائے گا اور صورتحال خانہ جنگی تک پہنچ سکتی ہے. عدلیہ حکومت کے خلاف خم ٹھونک کر کھڑی ہو چکی ہے اور حکومت نے بھی ایک خطرناک کارڈ دکھا دیا ہے کہ ججوں کی بحالی کے آرڈرز کی ابھی پارلینمٹ نے اسکی منظوری نہیں دی ہے اور یہ آرڈرز واپس بھی لیے جا سکتے ہیں. سیاسی میدان میں نواز شریف کھل کر حکومت کے مقابل آ چکے ہیں. دونوں طرف سے لیڈروں کے پتلے جلانے اور فائرنگ کا سلسلہ شروع ہو چکا ہے. میدان جنگ وقت گزرنے کے ساتھ گرم سے گرم تر ہوتا جائے گا کیونکہ میڈیا کے کچھ گروپ دانستہ یا نادانستہ آگ پر پٹرول ڈالتے جا رہے ہیں جس سے آگ تیز سے تیز تر ہوتی جا رہی ہے.
wonderful points altogether, you just gained a logo reader. What could you recommend about your submit that you made some days in the past? Any sure?