- A generational undertaking to cultivate reform and method
Candid Corner
“Unless we maintain correctional institutions of such character that they create respect for law and government instead of breeding resentment and a desire for revenge, we are meeting lawlessness with stupidity and making a travesty of justice.”
Mary B. Harris
It has been quite a gory enactment– three days of grandiose drama surpassing all previous dramas through its various stages: conceptualisation, scripting, direction, sound play, acting and theatrics. In the end, the stage was left littered with bloodied and battered bodies and the audience wondering if there was still some breath left to keep the rot away!
One is at a loss trying to fathom the real purpose for staging all this. Was it the last hurrah on the part of the outgoing Chief Justice to establish who was in control, this after having failed to move multiple cases of far more significance forward? Was it a battle among bruised egos to tell the other to beware of the hands brandishing the book of law? Was it an artful play of moves to mitigate the blemishes of a past when the very same institution legitimised military takeovers in the country and shirked its cardinal duties in bringing so many other cases to their logical fruition? Or, was it a subtle combination of some or all these factors, leaving it just short of creating the ultimate mayhem?
The more one thinks of it, the more one realises its absurdity. Why, after all, was the need felt to make a conscious and public demonstration to belittle institutions and individuals alike? Granted that there was a lacuna in the rules and procedures governing the extension granted to the Chiefs of Services, but this could have been handled in a rational manner, without creating the ruckus that kept the country on tenterhooks for a good three days with the media and multiple other actors going hoarse with conspiracy theories: that there was a method to this madness, that some powerful institution was behind this drama. This was a sickly replication of what transpired during the sit-in staged by the bigot and his cohorts in Islamabad which was credited with far more importance and relevance than it deserved. Even then, the conspiracy theories ran galore predicting the fall of the government in days.
Let’s stop compromising. Let’s throw the muck out and develop a genuine wherewithal for credible governance. In the shifting sands of time, this is the minimum the state would need to begin its regenerative journey
What was Supreme Court up to?
It generates a horrible feeling to realise that, for all these years since its creation, extensions have been granted to numerous Chiefs of Services without having the requisite rules to go by, the last one as recent as July 2010 when Gen Ashfaque Pervaiz Kayani received a three-year extension from the PPP government. Never before did the apex court take note of it. A petition was moved this time against granting extension to Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa which, reportedly, kept rotting for months when, just three days before the tenure of the incumbent was to expire, the apex court sprang into action to take note of it, and what an incredible performance it put up!
The handling of the petition against General Bajwa’s appointment makes for a case riddled with confusion. Understandably, the alleged petition was withdrawn on the morning when the case first came up for hearing. The court rejected the petitioner’s request saying that “it invokes article 184 (3) of the Constitution and the subject matter of the petition involves a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights and, thus, the individual capacity of the petitioner pales into insignificance even if he decides not to pursue the present petition. The application attributed to the petitioner is, therefore, not entertained”.
But, when it was reported that the petition had been turned into a public interest notice by the court, it was quickly debunked. Under the circumstances, the conspiracy-mongers were given a vast space to weave their theories, and they did so with absolute abandon, distorting and defacing facts in the process, thus causing immense pain and consternation to the people.
What the court needed to do was to assist the Executive and, given that relevant rules did not exist for pursuing the objective at hand, advise it in finding a credible way to tackle the existent issue pending amendment in the relevant rules and procedures for granting extension to the Chiefs of Services. This could have been done, if allowed by law, by sending a simple note to the government, or summoning the Attorney-General. Why, then, was the need felt for staging this harrowing spectacle just three days before the retirement of the incumbent COAS? Was this an attempt to belittle the government, the COAS or the institution that he represents, the country and its people, or the rationale behind granting the extension itself? Whatever prompted it, the manner in which it was dealt with paints a poor picture of the institution that should lead by example and conduct. Having authored the concept of “doctrine of necessity” to legitimise usurpation of power in the country, here was another instance when the institution took a heavy battering and its credibility and stature as a key pillar of the state was compromised.
Another thought that rattles is that once the apex court had taken the plunge to putting the system right, no matter who the affected would be, why was it left hanging in there? This becomes even more relevant when the court had the option of doing so, thus setting a benchmark for the future which would have earned it respect. Is this the course that the court had in mind from the beginning, or did this occur because of subsequent advice from within the institution, from outside, or having gathered this from the strong reaction in the social media and the caustic comments that were showered on the working of the apex court and its judges from diverse platforms?
That prompts me to deal with another aspect of the matter– the way it was treated by the media and a large number of people who were invited 24/7, the so-called experts and analysts, to comment on the ongoing proceedings in the court of law. With scant understanding of the case itself, these people indulged excessively in fabricating fictional references and building their thesis on wobbly premises. In the process, anchors, if one may call them so, were driving themselves hoarse in enacting doomsday scenarios. That’s where their personal biases and prejudices came into play in preference to their ability to debate the case on its merit.
Reform is a need of the times, practically in all departments of the government, as also in the mindset with which issues pertaining to various facets are tackled. It is a time-consuming undertaking which is not going to be done in days or weeks. It takes generations to cultivate a substantive change of approach and method. Now that amendments are to be made in relevant laws and procedures for granting extension to the Chiefs of Services, it may be appropriate to undertake a comprehensive reappraisal of what the state has against what it needs to have.
Let’s stop compromising. Let’s throw the muck out and develop a genuine wherewithal for credible governance. In the shifting sands of time, this is the minimum the state would need to begin its regenerative journey.