And Now, The Charter of Demands—The Comedy Continues!

zeemax: if it appears i twisted facts, then rest assured that was not intentional and may reveal my ignorance on the Sajjad-Nawaz saga more than anything else. It would be a pleasure in fact to be able to point to a politician in Pakistan who has consistently demonstrated commitment to democratic values and human rights in Pakistan. I really dont think that has been always true for NS in the past - but more importantly, I dont think that is relevant today.

What is relevant today is that NS is calling for restoration of the CJ, which in turn means restoration of the rule of law. And as such, I am 100% behind NS on this issue. And I think BB needs to stop waffling, and maulvi fazloo needs to get a conscience for once in his life, and stop trying to please musharraf who seems incapable of seeing beyond his own bloated ego and with no concern for the fate of the nation.

Here is an article published today you might find useful to read, which also emphasizes the importance of making sure that this "rush to (fake) elections" by musharraf does not turn this freedom movement into a "Prague spring" (where the democracy movement was killed by the soviet dictators and the country had to wait another 20 years before it was freed).

Pakistan's Prague Spring Might Remain Just a Memory
Pakistan seems to be hurtling toward a hasty and flawed election on January 8th 2008, one called after the November 3rd 2007 second coup by President Pervez Musharraf that allowed him to dispense with the meddling Supreme Court, the hobbling Constitution of Pakistan, irritating broadcast media, and activist members of the legal profession that had led the opposition to his rule in Pakistan's Prague Spring of last March. ...Their earlier protests in March against the removal of the Chief Justice ushered in Pakistan's Prague Spring, a flash of the democratic impulse, eventually crushed by the power of the state. ...Today a compliant and stacked Supreme Court in Pakistan has sanctioned General Musharraf's self-confessed extra-constitutional moves under the Doctrine of Necessity that provided absolution for earlier autocratic regimes. Opponents of the regime, including the President of the Supreme Court Bar association, Aitzaz Ahsan, are under detention without charges. They may only be released if pressure from abroad mounts on the regime. Declarations of the imminent danger from internal and external enemies of the state are being used again to define a Pakistani-style "democracy". In Pakistan's first military dictatorship of the late1950s and 1960s, this was defined as democracy that was attuned to the "genius" of the people, or rather their lack of it.

Pakistan may be in danger. But that danger really resides in the failure of the State to trust its own people by allowing them to vent their feelings in public, associate in groups, speak freely, and exercise their right to choose their leaders without fraud or hindrance....
Now a foreshortened and politically-engineered election campaign will act as a fig leaf to show to the Western World, allowing the West to declare victory on the road to democracy and move on. The ones who will suffer most from this suffocating governmental control are the moderates who are not as well organized as the Islamic parties. That is the paradox behind the West's tacit support of the current situation in Pakistan. It militates against the very forces of moderation that might keep Pakistan from the hands of the extremists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shuja-nawaz/pakistans-prague-spring-_b_755 44.h tml

no discussion on this as my views are different. I would rather be an idealist and be excluded than worship puppets and their madaries.

ok u know more

ijaz_gul,

Ok, so the issue of Sajjad Ali Shah's removal is settled. Let's move on.

Imran Khan and J. Salik are not politicians at all. These are wild eyed idealists. And that doesn't go very far.

NS on the other hand, is a politician. I do not believe he showed any cards prematurely, but he did make an ill-advised (or perhaps not advised at all as per Shahbaz Sharif) blunder in removing musharraf in mid-flight and appointing someone who had no roots in the corps commanders. That was his downfall.

I believe this time around he has his finger correctly on the nation's pulse, and the benefit of introspection in 8 years of exile.

In post 73 pakistan, I have just seen two consistent politicians if you call them so. Salik and Imran. Rest... less aid the better.
I once wrote that NS would hold the cards. He has shown his hand prematurely.

... btw, the Quetta Bench was a 'full' bench. I.e. all the SC justices constituted it. Sajjad Ali Shah in the meantime was all alone in Islamabad Supreme Court building and reversing a constitutional provision, article 58-2(b), ... just like that .... he was that delusional.

suo moto urged by u know whom. Then they stutterd thinking that NS could still be maipulated..

#71 Posted by ijaz_gul,

Well I guess you have lots of 'information'.

For instance, would you like to reveal who was on the bench alongwith Sajjad Ali Shah when he reinstated article 58-2 (b)? Was Jahangiri there? Or even, who was the petitioner? Was there one?

Thanks :)

According to my information, the esablishment (GIK+ Agencies+Army) rigged elections and created 2/3rd majority fo NS so that they (establishment)have a clear run for 5 years with a well groomed PM controlled by them. In the backdrop was the intention to have an assembly complete five years without creating any crisis with the President and not having to rely on the politics of forging alliances that limit freedom.

Despite knowing that he owed his majority to the establishment, NS switched gears and began acting as the all powerful.

In the Sajjad Ali Shah episode, President Leghari wanted to give full support to the CJ because he felt that NS was moving towards an oligarcy. Finally the Army gave no support to the duo and both had to leave.

Yes CJ was removed by the Quetta Bench. It is well known that an ex justice Tarrar had moved around with loads of brief cases to Quetta.

As for Sajjad Ali Shah, he operated through a bench. Jehangiri was one of his judges.

Wajih, being the CJ of Sindh, took a professioal stance.

#46 Posted by SaimaShah on December 5, 2007 9:41:44 am


Why? Once again the answer lies in multinational corporations who support and supply to the Pakistan Army.


The MNCs gave you money to dance in the streets when a democratically elected government, however bad, was overthrown?

Did you have to wear their t-shirt.."Coke coup support party!! refreshing change in government"?

#56 Posted by tahmed32,

tahmed32 Saheb, you again twisted my post. Do you do it on purpose? When did I say NS removed Sajjad Ali Shah? I was arguing exactly the opposite that NS did NOT remove Sajjad Ali Shah, through manipulation of judges or any other means. It was the Quetta Bench of SC headed by Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui which removed Sajjad Ali Shah.

The back ground is that Sajjad Ali Shah had been placed as CJ by BB superseding a number of senior justices, since he was her man, and the rest of the judges resented that. This situation was further aggravated when Sajjad Ali Shah had taken to issuing verdicts all by himself, behind locked doors, without forming any benches to hear cases. The classic instance was when the Quetta bench was meeting to discuss his removal, Sajjad Ali Shah reversed the constitutional amendment regarding 58-2 (b) and reinstated the president's (Laghari) powers to dismiss parliament all by himself in a suo-moto action, so that NS could be removed if he himself was removed. Of-course Saeeduzzaman declared that action as malafide and void. Sajjad Ali Shah was involved with palace intrigues upto his neck.

Saeeduzzaman didn't grow grew wiser over the years to understand the importance of the rule of law. He understood all along during Sajjad Ali Shah's time that the SC was being involved in palace intrigues, and he wasn't willing to become part of it, nor did any of the Quetta bench. This is why he didn't take musharraf's oath.

Now please do not twist anything here. I think it is clear.

This article supports a view which is held largely by gov or is cronies. its hard for a pakistani on the receving end of the current equation, to call "dismissal of judges who support constitution" as having a system.

There is a battle of the Gov. A battle of PM ship, which is for the politicians. And another battle of the People of Pakistan - where they are trying to free political prisoners like aitzaz, restoration of judges, constitution, freedoms, human rights, and above all respect for the Pakistanis.

Real leaders will fight the war for the people's rights. Free and fair elections will automatically follow.

Mushy says that we cannot follow western notions of democracy in Pakistan because the people here are different. When he says that, pakstanis are a breed of apes or something, that he has somehow been able to controle.

#61, hamidumdum Sahib,
I can't repeat your french, because of an agreement with Chowk Staff about posting even reference material containing vulgarity.

Anyway, now that you are speaking French, can we assume that Urstruly made it to Wayne County?

#61 hamidm: You know you have a problem when..even masadi starts thinking you are having a nervous breakdown!!

So, it is now time to switch off the computer, lie down, take a deep breath and start imagine you are lying on a beach..no Chief Justice there talking about the Constitution (the nerve of that civilian!!)...now exhale and think..no bad journalists there asking for Geo to be allowed back (the rapscallions!!) ..now inhale..

See, ou are feeling better already.

Re: # 54 ursTruly,
You make a good point.

Re: # 53 Zeemax,
Justice(r) Wajihuddin also did not take oath under PCO-1. Did he also owe favors to NS?

The charge of SC storming during the NS administration is true; whether he, or Shahbaz, instigated it is the main question.
AFAIK, NS has since apologized for his govt's error in this matter. That needs to be taken into consideration.