The road ahead is quite straight

This article was written last year in the wake of December 16 APS Tragedy to expose the Politicians' inaction. It's still relevant today on December 16, 2015.

The road ahead is quite straight

Beware of the politicians! They cannot think and act out of their politically blocked mentality! They are a victim of paradigms made of their own choice; that’s why they disdain rules, laws and the constitution, which require and bind them to act accordingly. They won’t break the paradigms, which ensure their short-term survival, and it’s seldom that they shift to newer paradigms of thinking and action in a broader perspective. Whenever that happens, that happens temporarily and perforce due to the force of the circumstances, like the one which the December 16 Peshawar massacre of the children generated, or under the pressure of the “Subjects,” “Awaam,” like the one which got Iftikhaar Muhammad Chaudhry former Chief Justice of Pakistan restored against the will of the whole “state” of Pakistan, which its politicians consider themselves to be the “Ashraaf” and “Haakim!” So the moment that pressure releases, they are the same politicians - Haakim and Ashraaf!

What are these paradigms of Paki politicians? First, see how they respond and react to such tragedies of unfathomable magnitude! Try to empathize the immense grief the Peshawar massacre caused: 132 is the number of those innocent souls death of whom has devastated hundreds of families, thousands of their relatives and friends, millions of their dreams, and shocked billions of human beings all over the globe! The unimaginable tragedy has jolted Pakistan’s “imagined enemies” also! And how the politicians, whether they are in the parliament or out of it, took it is more important, relevant and pertinent in the sense that it will show at the end of the day how the state of Pakistan is going to tackle the menace.

The first political paradigm comprises the narrative which includes:  condemnations, consolations, condolences, resolutions; and the likes. The second paradigm calls for meetings, conferences, APCs; and the likes. An APC of all the parliamentary parties we have already seen happening. Another highlight in this regard is the Pakistan Peoples Party’s demand to call for a joint session of the parliament. The third paradigm opts for constitution of commissions for inquiries, investigations; and the likes. There are various inquiries and investigations, announced and unannounced, already in the process. The fourth paradigm focuses on setting up commissions, committees for devising action plans. As a result of the above-mentioned APC, a parliamentary committee has been formed to devise a National Action Plan, which has already set up a Working Group. The political imagination never goes beyond these paradigms. Hence, it’s rarely seen that the action plans thus devised by such committees are put to work or put through. Nor are implemented any findings and recommendations of any inquiry commission or investigation committee thus formed.

Right from the beginning: Justice Munir Inquiry Report (1954), the only report the original text of which along with its official Urdu translation the then government made public, never put to any use; Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report, which inquired into the military debacle of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) never saw the light of the day nor were implemented any of its recommendations; Saleem Shahzad Inquiry Report, which inquired the mysterious murder of Saleem Shahzad, a renowned journalist, did not bear any fruit; and, Abbottabad Commission Report, which inquired into the circumstances under which Osama Bin Laden safely resided for years in Abbottabad, a military town, remains dumped in all respects. So that’s the fate of all the political paradigms!

As mentioned earlier the politicians seldom come to alter their paradigms, it amounts to saying that they won’t change them this time too, and though there is unprecedented outrage against the politicians as well as so-called powerful Generals of the army, the politicians won’t do anything worthwhile but such measures which help them water down the social and psychological heaviness that the Peshawar massacre of children has begotten. Most probably, they will drag the issue and allow time to lessen its intensity and finally bury it. Although executions of certain terrorists have started making headlines, whose dead bodies otherwise should have by now worn out in the graves, there is nothing substantial in the offing as the “measures and actions” the government is deliberating and taking now attest.

In contradistinction to it, what may be termed “cash politics” in point of fact takes no time to get launched; for instance, a number of power generation projects are in the pipeline, whereas no attention is being given to the real cause of the acute power shortage, i.e. mismanagement in the power sector. It is such opportunities that the Paki politicians are most interested in. In other words, it’s Cash Politics where the political paradigm of action may only be seen working actively. All other issues, whatever their magnitude and fatality, do not interest the Paki politicians.

In case, someone starts analyzing the present troubles, his findings will reveal that the miseries and killings the ordinary Pakistanis are undergoing today may be traced to such issues which were deliberately delayed and complicated by the politicians, and that they were never dealt with sternly and with determination. That list includes Terrorism, Extremism, Sectarianism, Non-Civilian Supremacy as the top most issues. The question staring us in the face is: Do the Pakistani constitution, rules and laws on the one hand, and the courts, police and other related institutions and agencies on the other are not competent enough to deal with these and like issues? The courts had already handed those terrorists death sentence whom the government is executing now! Also, if new legislation and new institutions were required in order to cope with these menaces, why it was not done in time promptly and efficiently! Why relaxing in political paradigms remained the way of the politicians? In conclusion, it may be said that the state of Pakistan has already got all that paraphernalia it requires to deal with these issues; do not give it turns and twists; leave your political paradigms; the road ahead is quite straight; have courage to tread it and focus on the Unity of Action, not on the Unity of the Nation, and Unity of the Politicians!

Note: This article was completed on December 20, 2014.

Military courts: a moral perspective

A person who is murdered, has he any rights? That question may seem strange. Let me add another dimension to it: What’s the spirit of law? Does it exist for the rights of the murderers to be protected? Or, it exists for the alive so that they enjoy their life safe and sound? Last year, in a seminar on the citizens’ fundamental rights when I made a comment that most of the NGOs are always ahead in safeguarding the rights of those who are accused of capital crimes but why they never turn up to defend the rights of those who are murdered, one activist really turned up to throw an angry question upon me: “What do you mean? The accused has no rights? And we defend murderers?” I said: “What I mean is that the one who was murdered he too had a right to his life, why was he deprived of that inalienable right? Who was supposed to protect that right of him?”

Here too, my contention is the same: What about the rights of those who are murdered, and that whether law has anything to do in the first place with the protection of their life? I presume who were murdered for a reason or for no reason at all the state was bound to protect all of them. My question those who have chosen the duty of defending the rights of the accused especially of capital crimes, why don’t they give a thought to the rights of those unfortunate ones who lose their lives? Partially in this sense, idea of the military courts makes sense.

Let’s try to delineate the issue as a solution for which the establishment of military courts is under discussion and which is one of the 20 points of the National Action Plan to tackle the menace of terrorism and extremism. In fact, the normal law is not able to take and complete its due course as is required: Delays, inefficiency on the part of the prosecution as well as the courts, fears and threats, complicity, etc. mar its performance. Both types of arguments for and against the military (speedy or special) courts are influencing the debate and public opinion in both directions. The military courts established by martial law regimes in the past are being used as a model to judge the proposed courts. That’s misplaced.

Leaving aside the both camps, I want to argue from the point of view of Law, and from the point of view of Morality. As for the first, so many others are also emphasizing that the measures which the 20 points envisage should have been taken quite earlier, since the day Pakistan came into being. That delay of about 68 years is more than criminal mainly on the part of the politicians who utilized the state for their Ashraafi interests and led it astray to what we witness happening today.

In principle, the first and foremost function of law is to protect all without any discrimination and make sure that no unlawful activity takes place, i.e. no such conflict brews which culminates in anyone’s murder. In Pakistan, however, the law has completely been negligent of this function of it; mostly because here the civil society and media took inspiration from the advanced world which has already achieved a peaceful lawful society and that’s why their point of focus is on ensuring the rights of the accused. Our society, on the contrary, is miserably a violent and unlawful society; that’s why in the first instance it requires its focus to stay on ensuring everyone’s right to life, property and liberty.

As for Morality, no debate in Pakistan, including the current one on military courts, has ever been mindful of it. It’s a non grata issue in the Paki intellectual, political, religious milieu. Let me remind that Law grows and flourishes in the soil of morality; in the absence of morality, no law can make any difference. Nonetheless, it’s Law which helps morality gain its lost dominion as it did in Europe. So in a lawless and devoid of morality Pakistan, we can start with establishing the rule of law, which with time will restore morality to its due status.

It needs not arguing that Law in an important sense is morals codified; in that it presents a moral view also. However when codified, Law takes its own course, be it moral or not. It is in this context that I want to introduce a moral problem, which the Peshawar massacre of children has brought to the fore in bold relief. No qualms about that: Let the Law take its course, which for innumerable reasons it has not taken; and it’s no time to inquire about its whys, while about 50, 000 innocent citizens have already become the victims of terrorism and extremism. The circumstances have put us face to face with a moral choice: Let the innocent citizens die at the hands of terrorists and extremists or take extraordinary measures to exterminate the murderers!

In the US, moral philosophers are employing empirical research and experiments to see how people respond to such moral dilemmas. One Problem of Trolleyology is being heatedly argued about; one variant of it is like this: Pull a signal lever and divert a trolley-car which otherwise is going to kill five persons tied to the track; but by diverting it to a side track you kill a person tied there. So what’s your choice? Most people want one should die, not five persons! In contradistinction to it, our choice is far too clear since on the one side are hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens and on the other “jet black” murderers! The only risk in setting up the military courts is the miscarriage of justice in some cases, the magnitude of which may only be measured after the legislation stands completed.

In a broader perspective, that would help shift the emphasis especially on the protection of everyone’s right to life; and though it requires a wider approach and a lot of other measures to succeed in the longer term, it may serve as the first step towards putting the state and society on a peaceful and lawful track.

Note: This article was completed on December 29, 2014, and was originally posted in January, 2015.