Moral Bankruptcy of Political Leadership in Pakistan

#92 Posted by masadi:


"..whether its democracy, you loll out your tongue in jubilation and whether its dictatorship you still loll out your tongue in jubilation, not knowing what will benefit and what will harm and ignorning all facts of the reality.."

I know a fair number of chowk interactors who fit the above description. So why are you singling out tahmed sahib?

I am simply amazed ... everyone seems to be against tahmed ... Indians, Pakistanis, ... Liberaloon, Funduloon!

But there must be something very good in him ... otherwise, he would just have been ignored.

Anyway, tahmed sahib ... I am with you (if it counts at all). You are a good man.

masadi #92 I told you to stick to one post, so I will ignore the rest as before and respond to this one.
You start by calling me a " miserable fcuk". Very good. I dont need to read the rest.

Now go back and write 5 more posts. echoboom will no doubt be very pleased and write another lengthy, abusive post. You can then both pat each other on the back.

GT #94 Greetings. And thanks for the vote of confidence. :-)

zeemax: I realize you find it impossible to believe that one can believe in democracy, and yet remain independant of any party affiliation. Rest assured there is no shortage of such people. Why do you think I should commit to voting for one party or another at this stage in Pakistan when it is not even clear how each party will behave in the critical months ahead with respect to the constitutional issues facing Pakistan?

GT "But there must be something very good in him ... otherwise, he would just have been ignored."

Illogical reasoning at its best.

The guy, tahmed is an enemy of humanity, he supports, without condition the US elite in any and every war they start, in any and every policy they adopt. When the Lebanese are being butchered aimlessly by Israel he supports it, when Iraq is being destroyed by the Americans, he supported it, he excuses US subversion of democracy in Pakistan and then sloganeers about democracy....This guy tempts me to abandon all civilty and.... nevermind.

#95 tahmed, don't try to cover up the fact that you were talking nonsense about the role of the military, in fact you were supporting things that inevitably lead to military dictatorship of the Pakistan or the Turkey variety. Get an education, maybe then you can read through the entire post.

zeemax: and btw, you seem to have decided to vote for some party. Let me ask you: Which party is it, and why are you so confident as to commit to voting for it at this early stage?

Tahmed writes "Why do you think I should commit to voting for one party or another at this stage in Pakistan when it is not even clear how each party will behave in the critical months ahead with respect to the constitutional issues facing Pakistan?"

More lies and banal slogans. Please explain to us what "Constitutional issues" you are talking about and how you would like them resolved. Just sloganeering about the constitution wont do

masadi: after piling this board with one abusive post addressed to me after another, making accusing me of everything you can think of including calling me an "enemy of humanity", you turn around and ask Please explain to us what "Constitutional issues" you are talking about and how you would like them resolved. ? as if all your earlier posts were for nothing!!

I am sorry. I cant stop you from abusing me, but I can refuse to engage in discussion with you. Have a nice day.

#101, of course you are going to evade, because you don't have a damn clue about what you sloganeer, not a clue. Just like your masters use the "democracy" slogan, you are using the "constitution" slogan to rally around the group your masters want as a stop gap arrangement. Go to hell fool, you think I am interested in discussing things with you? After over a year of discussions, I know how that sick mind of yours works. No need for any further discussions, but I will keep busting your posts so that the others on here can see through your hypocritical, US worshipping veil of contrived sincerity. Now run along...

-------

Here is an article I came across, nice history lesson for those who are saying that the military had nothing to do with the SC decision:

-------

Human Rights Activist Traces the History of a Judiciary Ignores Law in Favor of 'Necessity'


By Baseer Naveed

A retired senior judge recently told of an incident that reveals the contempt with which Pakistan's army holds the judiciary. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, who had served on the Supreme Court and had been Chief Justice of Sindh, told nationwide Geo TV on June 4 that when the Supreme Court judges went to take their oath of office under the new military government in 2000, they were presented with empty pieces of paper from which to read.

The higher court judges had been ordered on January 19 to take a new oath under a provisional constitutional order, some three months after General Pervez Musharraf had taken power and scrapped the constitution. According to Justice Zahid, when they were to take the oath the following day, the registrar gave the judges blank forms from which they were to recite. Egged on by Justice Irshad Hassan Khan, who then became chief justice, they took their oaths without seeing any text. Well, at least some of them did: Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman was not among them. Army personnel had surrounded his house while a colonel kept him in his chair, and out of the bench. It seems that the army was trying to spare him the indignity of the oath-taking pantomime.

The story would be funny were it told on a comedy program and not by a retired judge. Unfortunately, it only serves to remind us of how Pakistan's judiciary has debased itself over the last half-century. General Musharraf may have said in recent weeks that he is "nobody's poodle", but there is no question that the judiciary is his poodle--or that of whichever general happens to be in power at the time.

Whenever Pakistan's top judges have been faced with a critical decision on the constitution or military rule, they have gone to the door of General Headquarters in order to be told what to iterate in the Supreme Court. The iteration is the same, and its genesis was in a strange idea known as the "doctrine of necessity".


In 1954, just seven years after the creation of Pakistan, Governor General Ghulam Mohammad dissolved the first constitutional assembly and the government of Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin. The president of the assembly, Maulvi Tamizuddin, challenged him in the Sindh High Court and won: the dissolution was held to be illegal and unconstitutional.

On appeal to the Chief Court of Pakistan, which was later renamed the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Munir decided in favour of the governor general. The basis for his decision was the "doctrine of necessity": meaning that to preserve the country the constitution had to be abandoned.

From this point on, a so-called doctrine, rather than the constitution, national or international law, became the basis for every decision on the legitimacy of a military takeover. With one blow, Chief Justice Munir destroyed the foundations of constitutional rule in Pakistan. In one move, he opened wide the door for the army to walk into government any time it wanted.

It didn't take too long for that to happen: in 1958 General Ayub Khan imposed martial law, dissolved both assemblies of parliament and abrogated the 1956 Constitution. His coup was challenged in the Supreme Court, which held--wait for it--that it was legal, "in accordance with the doctrine of necessity." Thanks to this judgment, the general ruled for nearly 11 years, during which time all civil liberties were suspended.


In 1977 General Zia-ul-Haq dissolved parliament and abrogated the constitution, which had been unanimously approved by all political parties in 1973. Begum Nusrat Bhutto of the Pakistan Peoples Party, which had been in power, again went to the court for relief. Perhaps she should have known better. The chief justice toddled off to a briefing at headquarters before announcing the court's judgment in favour of, and in front of, General Zia. The decision, needless to say, was again based on the doctrine of necessity.

The military then enjoyed another 11 years of power uninterrupted by the courts. In 1979 it also used the Supreme Court to execute the former prime minister,
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The chief justice was again seen hanging around General Headquarters beforehand.

History and the court both repeated themselves in 2000, when Zafar Ali Shah challenged the constitutionality of the October 12 military coup of the year before. At the time that General Musharraf took power he appeared to have strong political backing. Still, when the chief justice was asked about the constitutionality of the coup, he said that any petition coming to the court would be decided on its merits.

One day before the Supreme Court was due to make its decision, off he went to headquarters for a briefing. (This is the same guy who goaded bemused fellow judges with their blank slips of paper on January 20 to "hurry up, take the oath [because] we have to save the country".) The following day the full bench judgment not only upheld the coup but went so far as to give General Musharraf unlimited power to amend the constitution as he pleased. Yes, you guessed it: the doctrine of necessity was pulled out and shook around one more time. Some in Pakistan's legal circles claim that this decision was literally written outside the court and handed to the judges to pronounce without even having had time to read it properly.

Pakistan's poodle judiciary has been taught and learnt its lessons well. On but a few occasions in the last half-century has the Supreme Court declined to use the doctrine of necessity, and even then the attendant circumstances have meant that its actions were meaningless. After General Ayub Khan was forced out of power by a mass movement in
March 1969 he handed over the reins to the Army Chief of Staff, General Yahya Khan. A petition was filed against the transfer of power.

Two and a half years later, after the general had already been removed from power, the Supreme Court was so brave as to declare him a "usurper" rather than invoke its favorite doctrine. Then in 1993, after the president sacked the government, the court for once decided against the takeover. However, after the decision, the army chief intervened: the prime minister "resigned" and new elections were announced. The chief justice lost his job.

Since Chief Justice Munir sacrificed constitutional law for expediency, the judiciary of Pakistan has been forced into a role not as the arbiter of justice but as the defender of the armed forces. However illegal or unconstitutional its actions may be, under the doctrine of necessity the army can do no wrong. The doctrine can at any time be used to throw out an elected government and keep the constitution in abeyance.

Under these circumstances, the people of Pakistan can only ask, what is the point of an election or a constitution at all?

By subordinating itself to the military, Pakistan's judiciary long since passed over the threshold of reality and into a fantasy land. It is a land in which you can read other people's judgments as if they are your own. It is a land in which you can swear on a spotless piece of paper. It is a land in which you must wear a blank expression and carry around an empty mind. It is a land in which the law exists in a vacuum.

Perhaps we should feel sorry for Pakistan's judges for having lost their dignity to the country's generals. Perhaps they only have themselves to blame. The problem is that because of their failings, because of their misinterpretations, and because of their stupid doctrine, millions of others have lost far more: their lives, their homes, their hopes, their democracy, their human rights, their country. And it is for this that Pakistan's poodle judiciary must ultimately be held responsible.

Baseer Naveed is Senior Researcher for South Asia at Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Re: # 104

Actually conspiracy theory is the best way to absolve some one of his criminal activities.
Commit a crime and blame it on some one else.

There you go.

Conspiracy theory is the core argument of an Islamist to justify HIS OWN PERVERSIONS.

#103 Posted by masadi

masadi,

Baseer Naveed, in the article, argues that the judiciary WAS the military's poodle. You are claiming that the judiciary IS still the military's poodle and the military is Bush's poodle. Are you saying that the whole SC episode is a poodle dance and Baseer's article is some sort of a proof of your assertion?

[they were presented with empty pieces of paper from which to read.]

Any author who writes THAT is not worth reading.

"Tale of an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". [Shakespeare, Macbeth]

When you sit down to write a piece on politics, I suggest that you have something personal to add, something new to explore or a different slant on the subject. This, however, is the same yakkity-yak that you hear day-in and day-out. Benazir corrupt, Musharraf should go, our country sucks, blah blah. It's a rehash of the talking heads on TV and not a good one at that.

What I want from you (or any Tarzan out there who believes he is a political pundit) are the reason(s) why you think Pakistan is where it's at and how we can get to, where you think we ought to be. Of course, you run the risk of mass ridicule and charges of being a schmuck, but you will be a daring, original schmuck --and that's worth your trouble.

PS: I believe that Musharraf, with all his human failings, is doing God's work in Pakistan and he should continue as president-in-uniform for at least the next 5 years. The Chaudhry brothers can be replaced with a more suitable and coherent political 'front', in exchange for cushy minister portfolios. Benazir will probably get taken out by a suicide bomber and be replaced with a more dignified, urdu-speaking Aitezaz Ahsan.

Re: # 108

GT saheb,


Why I am against Islamists? Bhai saheb, I am a hindu. My head would be the first to go if these Islamists were to gain power.

Hey, do not put words in my mouth.

I said all Islamists are conspiracy theorists.

I did not assert the converse that

All conspiracy theorists are Islamists.

There is no need to ascribe illogical assertions of yours to me.

After reading the interacts on this board especially from Islamists like Masadi who are ready to

#107 Posted by laddu:

laddu ji,

I visited your profile page but could not get a clue as to why you are against these Islamists! What are they anyway? From your post they seem to be a set of perverse people who indulge in conspiracy theory/ies.

Ok, OK .... I get it. Oliver Stone is an Islamist .. whew! stooopid me.