|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
secularism
debate Round
the negotiating table face "...
independence and impartiality of judiciary"
Take it or leave it Though a secular polity in Pakistan is almost impossible to imagine in the short run, it needn't be ruled out in the long term By Mahir Ali It is hardly surprising that arguments for a secular
polity in Pakistan invariably seek sustenance in Mohammed Ali Jinnah's August
11, 1947 statement to the newborn state's Constituent Assembly. It was, after
all, a fairly unequivocal articulation of the secular ideal: Jinnah envisaged
a nation in which matters of faith would bear no relation to the affairs of
state. However, the question whether this was an entirely coherent vision for a country freshly carved out on a confessional basis usually remains unasked. No one, after all, can seriously contend that religious affiliation had nothing to do with the quest for Pakistan. The argument that Jinnah's separatism was driven by a desire for a Muslim-majority country rather than an Islamic state is certainly not without merit. And he was by no means the only Indian political leader who failed to foresee the scale of bloodshed that accompanied partition. It ought to have been fairly obvious, though, that the politics of religious identity would unleash the passions of faith, and that such passions are easier to exploit than to control. Yet, although Pakistan never quite measured up to its founding father's ideal of a state guaranteeing equal rights for all citizens regardless of caste or creed (nor, for that matter, has discrimination been restricted to non-Muslims), for the next three decades it did not veer too sharply in the opposite direction either. Of course, little more than six months after he died, the same Constituent Assembly that had heard Jinnah wishing for a future in which "Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense … but in the political sense as citizens of the state", deemed it fit to endorse the Objectives Resolution, which contradicted this vision in several respects. Yet there was no headlong plunge into theocracy. Notwithstanding a series of political crises -- the most serious of which entailed a civil war, followed by a conflict with India that led to the creation of Bangladesh -- it would not have been too much of an exaggeration until the mid-1970s to describe Pakistan as at least a semi-secular society. The nation's first general elections in 1970 turned out to be a triumph for petit-bourgeois nationalism and pseudo-socialism: Islamism barely registered as a political force. Unfortunately, this trend could not be maintained through the first phase of representative rule. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whose complex personality combined a broadly modernistic outlook with feudal sensibilities, deemed it prudent to react to Islamist pressures by pandering to fundamentalism. Towards the end of his days in power, there was more than an element of desperation in such gestures. But they had begun several years earlier, notably with the decision to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims. But Bhutto wasn't by any means the only guilty party in this respect. Let's not forget that even his secular opponents -- such as Asghar Khan's Tehrik-i-Istiqlal and Sherbaz Mazari's National Democratic Party -- took to the streets under the umbrella of the Pakistan National Alliance, behind its Nizam-e-Mustafa banner. Bhutto's measures predictably failed to appease his foes and brought him no kudos among allies. And there were, no doubt, oppositionists who would have been happier sheltering under a less overtly obscurantist PNA umbrella. Both these trends proved beneficial to General Zia-ul-Haq after he usurped power, pre-empting a political agreement between the ruling PPP and the PNA, and found himself floundering. Whether his fundamentalist zeal sprang chiefly from political considerations or a deep-seated predilection for the least desirable aspects of his faith, there was initially some cause for hope that Zia's period in power would be relatively short-lived. Until that point, most Pakistani Muslims were broadly averse to the idea of being lectured on Islam, and coercion by the state in matters of faith was a generally unwelcome novelty. Zia's efforts in this regard tended to provoke a fair amount of private mockery and mirth, and chances are the military dictator would have found it much harder to cling on to power but for the events in Afghanistan. To which he latched on in much the same manner as a drowning man clings to a lifeline. The consequences of that fateful choice are still with us 30 years later. The Taliban are just one aspect of a legacy bequeathed by a combination of factors. Arguably a more insidious development in recent decades has been a striking growth in overt religiosity -- the spiritual equivalent of conspicuous consumption in the material sphere. No doubt the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the west's reaction have been instrumental in this respect. But the origins of this particular confrontation clearly go back to the 1980s. Although some of the Zia regime's more absurd innovations withered away in due course, those that made their way into the nation's statutes have proved much harder to obliterate. And the national mindset, too, has substantially altered. Whereas it was once taken for granted that political parties were generally secular unless they explicitly averred otherwise, these days it's almost the other way around. Be it through conviction or fear, hardly any major party would be inclined to declare itself firmly wedded to the secular ideal. This is partly a consequence of misrepresentations of the concept: far too many people have been led to believe that secularism is somehow the antithesis of religion. That is not the case. Large parts of the populations of India and the United States, for instance, are deeply religious; yet Indian secularism, albeit challenged every now and then, is not endangered, and the separation of church and state wisely instituted by America's founding fathers has also endured, notwithstanding the sizeable pockets of Christian fundamentalism across the length and breadth of the nation. In Pakistan, if the separation of church and state is barely an issue, the nexus between the military, the mosque and the madrassa has certainly provided cause for concern since the Zia era; before that, whatever its other flaws, the army too was a secular institution. To what extent the process whereby it acquired its Islamist zeal has been reversed in the past decade remains an open question. Given the prevailing circumstances, the evolution of a secular polity in Pakistan is almost impossible to imagine in the short run, although it needn't be ruled out in the long term. After all, if it isn't a secular state, Pakistan is hardly a theocracy either. As in various other respects -- the parallel judicial systems, the army's role in politics even when it isn't explicitly in power -- the nation is something of a hybrid. And although there is validity in the argument that secularism facilitates progress in various spheres, among today's primary concerns -- among them the dearth of jobs, basic necessities and a viable infrastructure, to say nothing of widespread violence and the institutional tussle in Islamabad -- the question of secularism can hardly be expected to capture the national imagination. Yet it's a debate worth sustaining. Unlikely as it may seem at the moment, there is at least a chance, however minuscule, that Pakistan will eventually emerge from its ordeal, recover from its largely self-inflicted wounds, and evolve into a nation comfortable in its own skin. It may then learn to appreciate Jinnah's concept of a Muslim-majority secular state -- or at least pluck up the confidence to unequivocally declare that he was wrong. This is the sixth article as a followup to our Special Report "Case for a secular Pakistan". All those who wish to contribute to this debate can send their submissions at tnslhr@gmail.com Following are links to the earlier articles: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2010-weekly/nos-29-08-2010/spr.htm http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2010-weekly/nos-19-09-2010/dia.htm http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2010-weekly/nos-26-09-2010/dia.htm http://jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2010-weekly/nos-03-10-2010/dia.htm#1 http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2010-weekly/nos-10-10-2010/dia.htm#1 http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2010-weekly/nos-17-10-2010/dia.htm#1
Enthusiasm of US authorities and media and denials by Taliban about peace talks are painting an unclear picture on the ground By Rahimullah Yusufzai Media hype is how one could best describe the growing
excitement about peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government.
The former are in complete denial and have been regularly rubbishing all
reports that their representatives are talking to the nominees of President
Hamid Karzai. Almost on a daily basis, the Taliban are issuing denials and the Western media in general and the one in America in particular is reporting that the Taliban have started talking to the government of President Hamid Karzai with the blessings of the US and Nato military authorities in Afghanistan. Surprisingly though, the Afghan government also isn't showing much enthusiasm about the event. In fact, the US authorities and media are far more enthusiastic about the talks and through them one is hearing that Taliban officials are being given safe passage by the Nato forces to Kabul to interact with the Afghan government. Top US media organisations even claimed that members of the Taliban's Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network were being airlifted by Nato helicopters and flown to Kabul for the talks. This was something unbelievable because any such exercise couldn't happen without the Pakistan government's willingness. Airlifting Afghan Taliban figures from Quetta, or driving them to the Pak-Afghan border in Balochistan and then flying them to Kabul in Nato helicopters would not only require Pakistan's permission but also expose the hollowness of its past claims that none of the top Taliban leaders were hiding on its territory and that the so-called Quetta Shura didn't exist. For Pakistan, this would mean a huge embarrassment and evidence that it may have been playing a double-game. For this reason alone one is inclined to believe that no Taliban leaders are being taken from Pakistan to Afghanistan for peace talks or that any real negotiations between the two sides have yet to begin. Names of the Taliban representatives who have agreed to the negotiations haven't been officially mentioned yet. The Taliban have been challenging the US and its allies to disclose their names as they believe that former Taliban or the fake ones could be involved in the talks. Unofficially though, two names have been mentioned in media reports and one of them is senior Taliban leader Mulla Abdul Kabir, who is head of the military operations in the four eastern provinces (Nangarhar, Laghman, Kunar and Nuristan). He was the governor of Nangarhar when the Taliban regime collapsed in December 2001 following the US invasion of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was also reportedly in Nangarhar at the time and later fled to the forested mountain valley of Tora Bora sited in the same province before making his final escape never to be seen again. The name of Mulla Abdul Ghani Biradar, deputy leader of Taliban arrested from near Karachi in February this year, was also mentioned as someone who could be involved in the peace talks. Recent media reports said he had been released, but Taliban issued denials and Biradar's family insisted he hasn't reached home. The Pakistan government hasn't officially confirmed his release, though certain security officials were quoted as saying that he may have been freed. Despite Taliban denials, there are indications that Biradar is no longer under arrest. Biradar's capture had shocked the Taliban as he was their most active leader and apparently a link between their central shura, or council, and the military commanders. It was felt Pakistani authorities apprehended him on the basis of intelligence inputs from the US. His 18-year-old son was freed by Pakistani intelligence agents after being kept in custody for about 25 days. Biradar was reportedly held in Islamabad and the US intelligence agents were given access to him in presence of Pakistani officials. Pakistan had refused to hand over Biradar to the Afghan and the US governments. It is possible that Biradar was released by Pakistan with the blessings of the US to play a role in the Taliban peace talks with the Afghan government. At the time of his arrest, it was alleged that Pakistan apprehended him to stop him from negotiating with the Afghan authorities without taking Islamabad into confidence. Senior Taliban officials, however, maintained that Biradar wasn't holding talks with the Karzai government as Mulla Mohammad Omar and the Taliban central shura had made no decision to enter into peace negotiations with Kabul. They stressed that Biradar was loyal to Mulla Omar and would not even think of betraying him and his Taliban by undertaking talks with the Afghan government on his own. Mulla Kabir's case is different and there is no evidence that he was taking part in any peace talks with the Afghan government or anyone else. Certain media reports had hinted that he was the Taliban official who travelled to Kabul to hold talks with the Afghan government. It was reported that the US and Nato military commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, was referring to him without naming him when he claimed recently in a speech in London that his forces had given safe passage to a Taliban leader to visit Kabul for talking to the Afghan government. According to Taliban sources, Kabir was unaware that his name is being mentioned in media reports in context of the peace talks and was amused when told about it. He then decided to grant an interview to the Taliban website, Shahamat, to personally deny these reports and to declare that he was bound by Taliban shura decision not to enter into any negotiations until all foreign forces pulled out of Afghanistan. The still largely unclear picture that emerges from this confusing situation is that no real peace talks have taken place yet between the Mulla Omar-led Taliban shura and the Afghan government. What is happening is that the US and Nato are helping President Karzai and the newly-established High Council for Peace headed by former president Prof Burhanuddin Rabbani to reach out to individual Taliban field commanders and entice them to stop fighting in return for money, jobs and some positions in the government. A propaganda war has also been started as part of the strategy to create divisions in Taliban ranks and demoralize their fighters. It is part of the broader Obama administration strategy to reverse the Taliban momentum through tough new military operations in their strongholds and also by increasing drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas where the militants have found local support and safe havens. Pakistan is also being pushed to undertake military operations against the militants including the Haqqani Network in places like North Waziristan to support the US cause in the Af-Pak region. The US, in fact, isn't involved in the peace talks and it has placed conditions on the Afghan government that it needs to keep in view while pursuing the reintegration process with the armed opposition such as the Taliban and the Hezb-i-Islami party of former mujahideen leader Gulbaddin Hekmatyar. These conditions include not involving Mulla Omar and other UN-blacklisted Taliban and Hezb-i-Islami leaders in the peace talks, ensuring that the militants being offered reconciliation surrender their arms, accept Afghanistan's constitution and end all contacts with al-Qaeda. The role that the US wants Pakistan to play in this so-called peace process is to ensure that no entity pursued efforts that could create hurdles in the political reconciliation in Afghanistan. In the words of a US State Department official, the 'appropriate' and 'legitimate' role that Pakistan needs to play is to help in efforts to woo the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Karzai government and the Afghan Constitution in exchange for amnesty and a political role. It means Islamabad has to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, oversee that they are disarmed and prompt them to recognize the Afghan government and Constitution in return for general amnesty and an uncertain political role as part of the Karzai administration. It is a tall order that neither Taliban would accept nor Pakistan could deliver.
to face "The bar must have an independent voice" -- Asma Jahangir, independent candidate By Farah Zia & Waqar Gillani It was the beginning of the week and less than ten days to
go for the Supreme Court Bar elections. We were expecting a long wait at Asma
Jahangir's makeshift campaign office on Lahore's Fane Road adjacent to the
Lahore High Court building. "She has gone down the road to meet some
lawyers," we were told. There was almost elation at the news being
flashed on television of the current bar president receiving a cheque from
the law minister. Fifteen minutes later, Asma Jahangir walks in and the
interview begins. The News on Sunday: If elected president, what sort of a change would you want to bring in the politics of the bar? Asma Jahangir: I see the change in three different strands. The first is that the bar must be politically aware but not politicised. It must have an independent voice, be objective and speak with reason. Only then will the voice of the bar be credible and have effect. I believe that we are beginning to lose that effect because what we are saying is only what is populist rather than what is the correct or principled thing to say. And it doesn't symbolise the actual thinking of the bar. The second strand is about the welfare of lawyers. I think emphasis should be given to senior citizens among lawyers and we need to make the initiatives taken more sustainable and give dignity to our senior lawyers. We would like to start a centre of excellence for the members of the Supreme Court bar where they can come, talk to their clients, have seminars, exchange ideas and have dialogue, give recommendations to the parliament etc. And finally I attach great importance to the process of decision-making. At the moment the bar decisions are taken only by a few members. I believe that in any institution, a larger consultation and consensus has to be developed before any leadership can take decisions. In other words arbitrary decisions in the bar must end. TNS: The bar election has been all about extending loyalty and support to the judiciary. Don't you think this division between the bench and the bar is more liberating than the so-called unity? AJ: When we started this movement, and I was a part of it from the very initial stages, we had decided that this movement is not for an individual; it is for an ideal which is about rule of law, constitutionalism and governance in the country. If our demand had only been about the restoration of judges, we would not have gone further and demanded that the dictator should abdicate. Our ideal remains but the instruments that we use to reach that ideal must change from time to time. At the time when a dictator throws out a chief justice and the entire judiciary is at peril, we take extreme measures, but I don't believe that we have to come out on the street just because there has been a rumour. First of all, there is no such thing as taking back a notification because there is a judgement in its favour. Secondly, a denotification if at all only meant the removal of three judges so that the rest of the judges were still there to make sure this did not go any further. TNS: So you are saying there is a need of unity in the bar only when the existence of judiciary is at stake? AJ: No, I say that we have unity in the bar on this issue. But there is a difference in that some think the objectives of the bench and the bar should be the same while others disagree. In my view their objectives can never be the same. We have always known that the bar also acts as a watchdog for the judiciary. This is part of the independence of the bar. TNS: What about the allegation that you are pro-governmen? AJ: See I don't belong to a political party and yet the vilification campaign is that I belong to a political party. When the whole issue of denotification came up, I did not have to consult any masters. And I took the obvious position that in case something like that happens we will stand by all the lawyers. Whereas Mr Ahmed Owais belongs to Tehrik-e-Insaaf and every time he has taken a position in the bar, the Tehrik-e-Insaaf members are out in the streets. I have said it clearly that there is absolutely no truth in the rumours that I am a government nominee. What you can say is that many of the lawyers belonging to PPP will vote for me and I hope they do as will others. TNS: Your election is also being seen as a test case for the contest between the political power centres in the country. AJ: I think this election is between those who stand with the establishment and myself who has been anti-establishment all along. This is an election for those who believe in an ideology of truth and justice against those who want to use the notion of justice to their own advantage. Mr Ahmed Owais who calls himself a product of the Lawyers Movement was never arrested even for a day when all of us were under house arrest or in jail. Leaders of the movement like Muneer A. Malik, Justice Tariq Mahmood and Ali Ahmed Kurd are all with me. They've given me letters of support and own me and I own them. My opponents are trying to switch the truth into falsehood. Take the example of police brutality on lawyers; now it's obvious who ordered it and how it happened. Or the allegation that Babar Awan has given me money for my election but today the president of the bar who belongs to the Hamid Khan Group stands before the whole world and takes money from the law minister whereas I have never met or spoken to the law minister ever since he became the law minister. TNS: How do you look at the confrontation between the executive and the judiciary? AJ: Yes there is a certain tension and I believe that at times the government has acted unwisely when it dragged its feet before they restored the judiciary. That was a time of great agony for all. But once the judiciary was restored fully, it should have risen above the experiences of the past. Judiciary should not only be impartial, it should also be seen to be impartial. I will give you an example; when you elect a certain person from a certain constituency, it may be because of the thana culture or biradri or his or her interpersonal skills, but when you appoint a judge, there are only two considerations -- integrity and capability. Once you become a judge you have to rise above all prejudices and act neutral. That is one of the reasons why I did not become a judge when I was asked to. Because I have very strong beliefs and there are certain legislations that I do not agree with which are either discriminatory towards women or disadvantaged people. But if you become a judge, you are a creature of the constitution and a slave of the legislation. TNS: Do you think it is the mandate of the bar to try to force the government to get the judgements implemented? AJ: The point is that whether you like a judgement or not, at the end of the day it has to be implemented. Now it is not the job of the lawyers to get the judgements implemented because there are several judgements that are not being implemented. For example, the missing people's case and many others. TNS: Are you satisfied with the campaign so far. What about all the mudslinging? AJ: The campaign has been very rewarding. I have had the experience of going to a number of bars in Pakistan, meeting my colleagues, interacting with them. Whether one wins or loses the election is immaterial. I am very grateful at the response, respect and affection that my colleagues gave me. It's been a hard campaign because I have to constantly remind myself that I am in this game because I want to promote certain principles and not fall into the temptation of bringing it to pits. Because you can lose an election and live with it, but once you lose your principles and integrity you can't live with it. As you can see there are lots of people, young lawyers, volunteers, Supreme Court lawyers, giving their time and effort to help me out. I don't have one solid group supporting me but individuals. I have been very upset about the vilification campaign but this was something that I expected; I wish I had expected something better from my colleagues. TNS: They say that former PCO judges have been running your campaign? AJ: For me all members of the bar are worthy of respect. I do not believe in hounding, stigmatising or indignifying anyone. We have all made our mistakes and if other people can be forgiven for their mistakes, I am sure those younger people who only followed the example of their older colleagues can be spared the vilification. Secondly, it is important for the press to know that not all judges that were ousted were PCO judges. Many of them were not. There were adhoc judges or they took oath under Chief Justice Dogar. But the very fact they have been stigmatised goes against my instinct of justice. Besides, my adversaries also went to all these people asking for votes. And some of them are voting for them. For me every vote is essential and every member of the bar is respectful. I am not here to moralise on what is a good vote and what is a bad vote. I don't believe in self-righteousness and especially when all of us live in glass-houses.
"... implementing the SC verdicts" -- Ahmed Owais, Professional Group candidate
By Waqar Gillani & Aoun Sahi Ahmed Owais, 60, Professional Group's candidate for the office of president of Supreme Court Bar Association, says he wants to maintain dignity and independence of legal fraternity. Sitting in his office at 1-Mozang Road attending dozens of phone calls and his supporters, he confidently says he will win the election. Following are the excerpts of his interview with The News
on Sunday. TNS: If elected president, what sort of a change would you want to bring in the politics of the bar? Or what is your manifesto in brief? Ahmed Owais: I will start from the basic stance which is -- struggle for rule of law which ultimately resulted into the restoration of judges. We think much is yet to be done in this direction. Until and unless there is a practical concept of rule of law in the country and executive is not subservient to the constitution and also Supreme Court is not respected fully, our struggle will continue. No institution should show reluctance in implementing the SC verdicts. On the professional side, for the community, we want to maintain dignity of the profession. We also aim to have a hostel for lawyers in Islamabad to facilitate them when they come to Islamabad for cases. We want fifty percent concession in PIA air fare. This concession has already been given to the military personnel. We also want a permanent bench of Supreme Court in all provincial capitals to avoid inconvenience of litigants. TNS: One of your campaign pamphlets reads that it is time for the lawyers' fraternity to stand by the Supreme Court for the implementation of its verdicts. Do you sincerely believe it is the lawyers' job to get the verdicts implemented? Aren't the lawyers supposed to be independent and maintain a distance from the judiciary so that when the judiciary transgresses its limits, they can criticise as well? Why this unconditional loyalty to the judiciary instead of being a watchdog? AO: Judiciary and legal fraternity are wheels of one chariot. They are together. They will have to work together. Also, in the two-year struggle for the independence of judiciary, the distances among judiciary, legal fraternity and people have ended. These distances were created when the judiciary started using "law of necessity" to support dictatorships etc. After the chief justice said "no" to a military dictator, people stood up and supported his stance. To implement the SC verdict is mandatory for all. How can the lawyers stay indifferent when the SC verdicts are not implemented? If the executive does not implement verdicts, the court will lose its currency and people will lose confidence in courts. We will stand by the judiciary and judges till they decide cases honestly, independently and on the touchstone of constitution. And yes, we have a watchdog role. We are for rule of law. We are not for a specific CJ. We are not for a couple of judges. We are not for the Supreme Court judges. TNS: Do you think the bar is divided at the moment? AO: No. There is unity. Barring a few beneficiaries, the bar cannot be bought. Lawyers' loyalties are above doubt. Yes, there is question of expectations but, by and large, sanity is prevailing and lawyers have come to know that things cannot be changed overnight. There is no magic wand. TNS: If the bar is not divided, why do we see many leaders of the Lawyers' Movement opposing you? Also, are you being supported by Aitzaz Ahsan? If yes why doesn't he come out in the open and declare it? AO: If you talk about Justice (retd) Tariq Mahmood, he was defying the discipline already even during the movement. We did not want to play it up during the movement. He was not obeying the orders of the lawyers' action committee on holding a strike every Thursday. Ms Asma Jahangir was with the movement. But soon after Asif Zardari became president and he started deferring the restoration of judges, she supported his "minus one formula" of excluding Iftikhar Chaudhry. We take Iftikhar Chaudhry as a great leader whose "no" made this whole movement. Ms Asma was never sincere with the movement. When the NRO verdict came, Ms Asma hinted it as "judicial dictatorship". Everybody has a right to criticise the judgment, but you cannot criticise judges. Ali Ahmad Kurd says these are not the judges we supported. We should be mindful that our struggle is for independent judiciary. Things cannot be changed overnight. Aitzaz Ahsan is still with the movement. However, he is quiet in the campaign and, as I understand, he is not supporting me. TNS: There is a general impression among the people that the judiciary is acting against only one particularly party and there is no hearing of other cases like the case against the eligibility of Shahbaz Sharif, the case of Asghar Khan etc. AO: These are fabricated impressions by groups inwardly supporting the Zardari lobby. The Supreme Court started with its own accountability. NRO was also a pending issue. But sadly the December 16 verdict of SC is still not implemented. Every verdict has its own importance. The NRO case was tarnishing the image of Pakistan internationally. Since it was related to graft charges and the accused are holding important offices, including the Presidency, so this case has its own importance. TNS: You are a proponent of independence of judiciary but we know for a fact that the independent judiciary has kept certain judges dysfunctional both in the Supreme Court and high courts. Why do lawyers like yourself not pick up courage to talk about those judges? AO: As far as I know, the judges who are facing contempt of court are dysfunctional. Those include three to four high court judges. One judge in the Supreme Court has requested for this. TNS: One of your opponents has claimed that you are pro-establishment while Ms Asma Jahangir is pro-government. Is that a fair and correct assessment? AO: This assessment is totally unfair. It is an open secret that establishment is supporting the PPP's nominated candidate. Latif Khosa has extended open support to Asma. Law Minister Babar Awan ran her campaign. All the PCO judges are supporting Asma hoping they would be restored one day. Professional group headed by Hamid Khan is against the establishment. We are a supporter of independent judiciary, not establishment. How can the establishment support us when the SCBA executive members are contesting the 18thAmendment in the SC? TNS: People also say you are judiciary's candidate. AO: We are working for rule of law and independent judiciary. On this ground, certain elements are saying that I am judges' candidate. Professional Group has a commitment to the independence of judiciary. TNS: In a recent statement, you said that the executive order restoring judges was being withdrawn and PCO judges were being restored? How did you know it? AO: This is an open secret and there is evidence. Two to three days ago, in a current affairs programme on a television channel, it was said that the notification had been signed. This was a talk of the town that day. TNS: How would you analyse the recent violent behaviour of lawyers. As president, how would you restore sanity to the bar and rein in the erring lawyers? AO: We have repeatedly said that, by and large, there is no violence element in lawyers. The peaceful restoration movement is a clear example of it. A lawyers' convention was held in Alhamra Hall Lahore during the Lawyers' Movement by a former chief minister. Revenue officials were sitting wearing black coats. Every black coat is not a lawyer. In the recent incident in Lahore High Court, we want a fair probe and action against those who ordered torture on lawyers. TNS: Are you still a member of Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf? AO: Yes. I am a member of PTI, but not an active member. I am not a political activist. There is nothing bad in affiliation with a political party. TNS: Are the PML-N lawyers supporting you? AO: PML-N is supporting me. But let me make it clear that I have never gone to any political party. I go to the lawyer members. TNS: Finally, are you satisfied with your campaign. What about the allegations that your side has engaged in mudslinging, especially against Asma Jahangir? AO: I am every satisfied. For me, it is one-sided election. I have a professional standing of around 35 years and have been holding various important offices. I personally condemn mudslinging.
"... independence and impartiality of judiciary" Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, independent candidate By Waqar Gillani Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, 63, senior advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan, is quite happy with his campaign for the upcoming Supreme Court Bar Association elections. While sitting with a few friends under the famous banyan tree in the historic building of Lahore High Court, he says his friends are running the campaign very well. Ikram Chaudhry is among the three candidates running in the elections. Following are the excerpts of his interview with The News
on Sunday. TNS: What is your manifesto? Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry: The bar is captured by opportunist groups at the moment. I want to eliminate these groups by establishing an independent bar to serve the cause of constitution. I want to preserve the independence and impartiality of judiciary, and ultimately this is the cause of independent Pakistan. There is a three-point agenda -- independent bar, independent judiciary and welfare of legal fraternity. In the present scenario, I think this is a known fact that the other two candidates are more or less the government's candidates. One is being supported by the government and the other is being sponsored by the establishment. TNS: How active were you in the movement for the restoration of judges? MIC: I was on the forefront. On March 9 at 10 pm, I was in front of the Supreme Court building. This movement was aimed at saving an institution. If there is no judiciary, you cannot think of any democracy and people's right. Attack on judiciary by military dictator Pervez Musharraf was strangest incident in the history of this country. I did not appear in the court till the judiciary was restored. This activism of mine against dictators is not new. I remember when I, along with a bunch of other friends, used to take out torch-bearing rallies in the favour of Fatima Jinnah during the era of Field Marshal Ayub Khan. TNS: Do you think the bar is divided at this moment and cracks are appearing in the unity of lawyers? MIC: I think it is a tradition -- whether it is politics of the bar politics or of the country. The bar is not independent at the moment. It is divided between two opportunist groups which are trying to further their own interests. TNS: How do you see the tension between the bar and the government? MIC: I have always been expressive that ultimately the final judgment of the Supreme Court will be executed and this is what the law is. Whenever there is a judgment, today or tomorrow, ultimately it would have to be implemented. The tension on some appointments, like National Accountability Courts chairman etc, may continue, and it will not serve the cause of government at the end. TNS: SCBA elections this year are gaining extraordinary hype. Why is it so? MIC: Whenever an institution grows and gains greater significance, of course, people will be interested to get hold of it. The hype is there because of the revival of judicial independence and the chain of events taking place. But I am moving in a very comfortable and calm way. TNS: Do you think that parliament should have a role in the appointment of judges as defined in the 18th Amendment? MIC: I am one of the counsels who pleaded against this defined procedure. I represent Rawalpindi Bar Association. Executive's entry in judicial independence is not accepted. Judiciary in the United Kingdom was made independent after a long effort. With the addition of Article 175A in the Constitution, we have entered a domain where executive has been superimposed on judges and ultimately the independence of judges will be affected TNS: How do you respond to the mudslinging in the SCBA election campaign? MIC: Mudslinging and accusations in election will continue as, unfortunately, it is part of democracy in our society. We lack decency in the overall politics of Pakistan which also reflects on the bar politics. We sometime exceed the limits. Normally, this tempo is low in legal fraternity because it has to be very responsible. TNS: Are you satisfied with your campaign? MIC: I am a non-traditional person. This election, by the grace of Allah, is ours. My friends are everywhere in the bars and they are campaigning for me. People think that the competition is either between Ahmed Owais and me or Asma Jahangir and me. There is no other competition. |
|
