|
Musharraf Trial
The hottest topic of the day in the media is Musharraf's Trial. Pick up any daily or change any tv channel one is bound to find it there one way or the other. The latest is the FIR against him for detaining 60 judges along with their families illegally in their houses for more than five months. One wonders why none of the lordships "“ and who could know law better than them ?"“ lodge any habeas corpus petition against their such unlawful detention?! Anyway, legalities apart, there is a strong general perception amongst the masses "“ both literate as well as illiterate "“ that the trial owes its hype to either (one) vendetta and the politics of revenge, (two) for diverting the attention of the masses from their more pressing issues of poverty, inflation, unemployment, load shedding etc. and (three) a genuine desire for punishing a usurper to act as a deterrent for any future Bonaparte. If it is contrived for the first two reasons, then it is malafides and cannot be appreciated. However, if it the third alternative and the purpose is to strengthen the democracy and other democratic institutions, then it has the proper justification. Having said that, I cannot help think that will such a trial, if at all takes place, really thwart any future military intervention for all times to come?! I have my serious doubts about it. Wasn't Article 6 there at the time of Zia's takeover? As a matter of fact Article 6 was best commented upon by the then MNA Miangul Aurangzeb of Swat to ZAB that its inclusion in the constitution will not stop the military dictator from coming but might delay his departure after taking over. Has section 302 of the PPC pronouncing death sentence for the murderer stopped murders from taking place? I think the only way to stop the military intervention is Good Governance by the politicians. As long as the masses are satisfied no dictator can dare to take over. The mere fact that on every such takeover sweat meats are distributed not only by the common man in the street but also by some of the politicians and the political parties shows that there was something amiss among the persons, politicians and the party ruling the country. Why was the government of BB dismissed by her own party man Laghari? Why was NS government dismissed twice by GIK. Both Laghari and GIK were not military dictators. If the Generals, as most wrongly propagated by the interested, were keen to take over, why did Aslam Beg Mirza not take over on 17th August 1988 when there was nothing "“ literally nothing - to stop him? Why did Abdul Waheed Kakar not take over himself after giving marching orders both to GIK and MNS? Why did General Jahangir Karamat leave the office of the COAS so willingly, if he didn't want to? Could he not take over instead of leaving quietly? Why did Asif Nawaz Janjua not takeover in spite of his having not much love lost for the then PM? So, my dear Sirs, as long as the politicians deliver and behave no military dictator will think of taking over. But, if and when, things go awry, masses wronged, internal security endangered and/or God Forbid existence of Pakistan threatened the armed forces will move to safe guard the country against the Internal Threat.
Truly
Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
30, Werstridge-1
Rawalpindi 46000
Tel: (051) 546 3344
|